Talking Tough & Carrying a Radioactive Stick
October 15, 2020
Never since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991
have so many U.S. nuclear bombers been engaged in "show-of-force" operations
of this sort, writes Michael Klare.
B-52 Stratofortress bomber sits on the flightline at Andersen Air Force
Base, Guam in 2019. (U.S. Air Force, Christopher Quail)
By Michael T. Klare
TomDispatch.com
On Aug. 21, six nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers, representing
approximately one-seventh of the war-ready U.S. B-52H bomber fleet, flew
from their home base in North Dakota to Fairford Air Base in England for
several weeks of intensive operations over Europe.
Although the actual weapons load of those giant bombers was kept secret,
each of them is capable of carrying eight AGM-86B nuclear-armed,
air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) in its bomb bay. Those six planes, in
other words, could have been carrying 48 city-busting thermonuclear
warheads. (The B-52H can also carry 12 ALCMs on external pylons, but none
were visible on this occasion.) With such a load alone, in other words,
those six planes possessed the capacity to incinerate much of western
Russia, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The B-52 Stratofortress is no ordinary warplane. First flown in 1952, it was
designed with a single purpose in mind: to cross the Atlantic or Pacific
Ocean and drop dozens of nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Some models were
later modified to deliver tons of conventional bombs on targets in North
Vietnam and other hostile states, but the remaining B-52s are still largely
configured for intercontinental nuclear strikes. With only 44 of them now
thought to be in active service at any time, those six dispatched to the
edge of Russian territory represented a significant commitment of American
nuclear war-making capability.
What in god's name were they doing there? According to American officials,
they were intended to demonstrate this country's ability to project
overwhelming power anywhere on the planet at any time and so remind our NATO
allies of Washington's commitment to their defense. "Our ability to quickly
respond and assure allies and partners rests upon the fact that we are able
to deploy our B-52s at a moment's notice," commented General Jeff Harrigian,
commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe. "Their presence here helps build
trust with our NATO allies. and affords us new opportunities to train
together through a variety of scenarios."
General Jeffrey L. Harrigian at Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany, May 1,
2019. (CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
While Harrigian didn't spell out just what scenarios he had in mind, the
bombers' European operations suggest that their role involved brandishing a
nuclear "stick" in support of an increasingly hostile stance toward Russia.
During their sojourn in Europe, for example, two of them flew over the
Baltic Sea close to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland
and Lithuania that houses several key military installations. That Sept. 25
foray coincided with a U.S. troop buildup in Lithuania about 65 miles from
election-embattled Belarus, a Russian neighbor.
Since Aug. 9, when strongman Alexander Lukashenko declared victory in a
presidential election widely considered fraudulent by his people and much of
the international community, Belarus has experienced recurring
anti-government protests.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country might intervene
there if the situation "gets out of control," while Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo has implicitly warned of U.S. intervention if Russia interferes. "We
stand by our long-term commitment to support Belarus' sovereignty and
territorial integrity as well as the aspiration of the Belarusian people to
choose their leader and to choose their own path, free from external
intervention," he insisted on Aug, 20. The flight of those B-52s near
Belarus can, then, be reasonably interpreted as adding a nuclear dimension
to Pompeo's threat.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko facing U.S. Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo during meeting in Minsk, Feb. 1, 2020. (State Department, Ron
Przysucha)
In another bomber deployment with no less worrisome implications, on Sept.
4, three B-52s, accompanied by Ukrainian fighter planes, flew over the Black
Sea near the coast of Russian-held Crimea. Like other B-52 sorties near its
airspace, that foray prompted the rapid scrambling of Russian interceptor
aircraft, which often fly threateningly close to American planes.
At a moment when tensions were mounting between the U.S.-backed Ukrainian
government and Russian-backed rebel areas in the eastern part of the
country, the deployment of those bombers off Crimea was widely viewed as yet
another nuclear-tinged threat to Moscow. As Hans Kristensen, director of the
Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS),
tweeted, "Extraordinary decision to send a nuclear bomber so close to
contested and tense areas. This is a real in-your-face statement."
And provocative as they were, those were hardly the only forays by U.S.
nuclear bombers in recent months. B-52s also ventured near Russian air space
in the Arctic and within range of Russian forces in Syria. Meanwhile other
B-52s, as well as nuclear-capable B-1 and B-2 bombers, have flown similar
missions near Chinese positions in the South China Sea and the waters around
the disputed island of Taiwan. Never since the Cold War ended with the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 have so many U.S. nuclear bombers been
engaged in "show-of-force" operations of this sort.
'Demonstrating Resolve' & Coercing Adversaries
States have long engaged in military operations to intimidate other powers.
Once upon a distant time, this would have been called "gunboat diplomacy"
and naval vessels would have been the instruments of choice for such
missions.
The arrival of nuclear arms made such operations far more dangerous. This
didn't, however, stop the U.S. from using weaponry of this sort as tools of
intimidation throughout the Cold War. In time, however, even nuclear
strategists began condemning acts of "nuclear coercion," arguing that such
weaponry was inappropriate for any purpose other than "deterrence" - that
is, using the threat of "massive retaliation" to prevent another country
from attacking you. In fact, a deterrence-only posture eventually became
Washington's official policy, even if the temptation to employ nukes as
political cudgels never entirely disappeared from its strategic thinking.
At a more hopeful time, President Barack Obama sought to downsize this
country's nuclear arsenal and prevent the use of such weapons for anything
beyond deterrence (although his administration also commenced an expensive
"modernization" of that arsenal). In his widely applauded Nobel Peace Prize
speech of April 5, 2009, Obama swore to "put an end to Cold War thinking"
and "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy."
Unfortunately, Donald Trump has sought to move the dial in the opposite
direction, including increasing the use of nukes as coercive instruments.
Please Contribute to Consortium News'
25th Anniversary Fall Fund Drive
The president's deep desire to bolster the role of nuclear weapons in
national security was first spelled out in his administration's Nuclear
Posture Review of February 2018. In addition to calling for the accelerated
modernization of the nuclear arsenal, it also endorsed the use of such
weapons to demonstrate American "resolve" - in other words, a willingness to
go to the nuclear brink over political differences.
A large and diverse arsenal was desirable, the document noted, to
"demonstrate resolve through the positioning of forces, messaging, and
flexible response options." Nuclear bombers were said to be especially
useful for such a purpose: "Flights abroad," it stated, "display U.S.
capabilities and resolve, providing effective signaling for deterrence and
assurance, including in times of tension."
Ever since, the Trump administration has been deploying the country's
nuclear bomber fleet of B-52s, B-1s and B-2s with increasing frequency to
"display U.S. capabilities and resolve," particularly with respect to Russia
and China.
The supersonic B-1B Lancer, developed in the 1970s, was originally meant to
replace the B-52 as the nation's premier long-range nuclear bomber. After
the Cold War ended, however, it was converted to carry conventional
munitions and is no longer officially designated as a nuclear delivery
system - though it could be reconfigured for this purpose at any time.
The B-2 Spirit, with its distinctive flying-wing design, was the first U.S.
bomber built with "stealth" capabilities (meant to avoid detection by enemy
radar systems) and is configured to carry both nuclear and conventional
weaponry. For the past year or so, those two planes plus the long-lived B-52
have been used on an almost weekly basis as the radioactive "stick" of U.S.
diplomacy around the world.
Nuclear Forays in Arctic & Russian Far East
When flying to Europe in August, those six B-52s from North Dakota's Minot
Air Force Base took a roundabout route north of Greenland (which Trump had
unsuccessfully offered to purchase in 2019). They finally descended over the
Barents Sea within easy missile-firing range of Russia's vast naval complex
at at Murmansk, the home for most of its ballistic missile submarines. For
Hans Kristensen of FAS, that was another obvious and "pointed message at
Russia."
Severomorska, a closed town in Murmansk, Russia, that serves as the main
administrative base of the Russian Northern Fleet. (CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia
Commons)
Strategically speaking, Washington had largely ignored the Arctic until a
combination of factors - global warming, accelerated oil and gas drilling in
the region, and increased Russian and Chinese military activities there
-sparked growing interest. As global temperatures have risen, the Arctic ice
cap has been melting at an ever-faster pace, allowing energy firms to
exploit the region's extensive hydrocarbon resources. This, in turn, has led
to feverish efforts by the region's littoral states, led by Russia, to lay
claim to such resources and build up their military capabilities there.
In light of these developments, the Trump administration, led by Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, has called for an expansion of this country's Arctic
military forces. In a speech delivered at the Arctic Council in Rovaniemi,
Finland, in May 2019, Pompeo warned of Russia's growing military stance in
the region and pledged a strong American response to it. "Under President
Trump," he declared. "We are fortifying America's security and diplomatic
presence in the area."
In line with this, the Pentagon has deployed U.S. warships to the Arctic on
a regular basis, while engaging in ever more elaborate military exercises
there. These have included Cold Response 2020, conducted this spring in
Norway's far north within a few hundred miles of those key Russian bases at
Murmansk.
Ships of Russia's Northern Fleet. (Mil.ru, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
For the most part, however, the administration has relied on nuclear-bomber
forays to demonstrate its opposition to an increasing Russian role there. In
November 2019, for example, three B-52s, accompanied by Norwegian F-16
fighter jets, approached the Russian naval complex at Murmansk, a move meant
to demonstrate the Pentagon's capacity to launch nuclear-armed missiles at
one of that country's most critical military installations.
If the majority of such nuclear forays have occurred near Norway's far
north, the Pentagon has not neglected Russia's far eastern territory, home
of its Pacific Fleet, either. In an unusually brazen maneuver, this May a
B-1B bomber flew over the Sea of Okhotsk, an offshoot of the Pacific Ocean
surrounded by Russian territory on three sides (Siberia to the north,
Sakhalin Island to the west, and the Kamchatka Peninsula to the east).
(Norman Einstein, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)
As if to add insult to injury, the Air Force dispatched two B-52H bombers
over the Sea of Okhotsk in June - another first for an aircraft of that
type. Needless to say, incursions in such a militarily sensitive area led to
the rapid scrambling of Russian fighter aircraft.
The South China Sea & Taiwan
A similar, equally provocative pattern can be observed in the East and South
China Seas. Even as Trump has sought, largely unsuccessfully, to negotiate a
trade deal with Beijing, his administration has become increasingly
antagonistic towards the Chinese leadership. On July 23, Pompeo delivered a
particularly hostile speech in the presidential library of Richard Nixon,
the very commander-in-chief who first reopened relations with communist
China. Pompeo called on American allies to suspend normal relations with
Beijing and, like Washington, treat it as a hostile power, much the way the
Soviet Union was viewed during the Cold War.
While administration rhetoric amped up, the Department of Defense has been
bolstering its capacity to engage and defeat Beijing in any future conflict.
In its 2018 National Defense Strategy, as the U.S. military's "forever wars"
dragged on, the Pentagon suddenly labeled China and Russia the two greatest
threats to American security. More recently, it singled out China alone as
the overarching menace to American national security. "In this era of
great-power competition," Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared this
September, "the Department of Defense has prioritized China, then Russia, as
our top strategic competitors."
The Pentagon's efforts have largely been focused on the South China Sea,
where China has established a network of small military installations on
artificial islands created by dredging sand from the sea-bottom near some of
the reefs and atolls it claims. American leaders have never accepted the
legitimacy of this island-building project and have repeatedly called upon
Beijing to dismantle the bases. Such efforts have, however, largely fallen
on deaf ears and it's now evident that the Pentagon is considering military
means to eliminate the island threat.
Sailors prepare the landing area of USS Ronald Reagan in the Philippine Sea,
Sept. 4, 2020. (U.S. Navy, Erica Bechard)
In early July, the U.S. Navy conducted its most elaborate maneuvers to date
in those waters, deploying two aircraft carriers there - the USS Nimitz and
the USS Ronald Reagan - plus an escort fleet of cruisers, destroyers, and
submarines. While there, the two carriers launched hundreds of combat planes
in simulated attacks on military bases on the islands the Chinese had
essentially built.
At the same time, paratroopers from the Army's 25th Infantry Division were
flown from their home base in Alaska to the Pacific island of Guam in what
was clearly meant as a simulated air assault on a (presumably Chinese)
military installation. And just to make sure the leadership in Beijing
understood that, in any actual encounter with U.S. forces, Chinese
resistance would be countered by the maximum level of force deemed
necessary, the Pentagon also flew a B-52 bomber over those carriers as they
engaged in their provocative maneuvers.
And that was hardly the first visit of a nuclear bomber to the South China
Sea. The Pentagon has, in fact, been deploying such planes there on a
regular basis since the beginning of 2020. In April, for example, the Air
Force dispatched two B-1B Lancers on a 32-hour round-trip from their home at
Ellsworth Air Force Base, North Dakota, to that sea and back as a
demonstration of its ability to project power even in the midst of the
pandemic President Trump likes to call "the Chinese plague."
Meanwhile, tensions have grown over the status of the island of Taiwan,
which China views as a breakaway part of the country. Beijing has been
pressuring its leaders to foreswear any moves toward independence, while the
Trump administration tacitly endorses just such a future by doing the
previously unimaginable - notably, by sending high-level officials,
Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar among them, on visits to
the island and by promising deliveries of increasingly sophisticated
weapons.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has upped its military presence in that part of the
Pacific, too. The Navy has repeatedly dispatched missile-armed destroyers on
"freedom of navigation" missions through the Taiwan Strait, while other U.S.
warships have conducted elaborate military exercises in nearby waters.
Needless to say, such provocative steps have alarmed Beijing, which has
responded by increasing the incursions of its military aircraft into
airspace claimed by Taiwan. To make sure that Beijing fully appreciates the
depth of American "resolve" to resist any attempt to seize Taiwan by force,
the Pentagon has accompanied its other military moves around the island with
- you guessed it - flights of B-52 bombers.
Playing with Fire
And where will all this end? As the U.S. sends nuclear-capable bombers on
increasingly provocative flights ever closer to Russian and Chinese
territory, the danger of an accident or mishap is bound to grow. Sooner or
later, a fighter plane from one of those countries is going to get too close
to an American bomber and a deadly incident will occur. And what will happen
if a nuclear bomber, armed with advanced missiles and electronics (even
conceivably nuclear weapons), is in some fashion downed? Count on one thing:
in Trump's America the calls for devastating retaliation will be intense and
a major conflagration cannot be ruled out.
Bluntly put, dispatching nuclear-capable B-52s on simulated bombing runs
against Chinese and Russian military installations is simply nuts. Yes, it
must scare the bejesus out of Chinese and Russian officials, but it will
also prompt them to distrust any future peaceful overtures from American
diplomats while further bolstering their own military power and defenses.
Eventually, we will all find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and
insecure world with the risk of Armageddon lurking just around the corner.
