news

How threatening is a B-52, anyway? They were made in 1955. In one operation lasting 11 days in 1972, North Vietnam shot down 15 of them; 34 according to North Vietnam. And then the B-52 was only 17 years old. Now it’s 70 years old.

Yes, the B-52 can carry nukes, but so can the stealth F-35. In fact, the F-35 can carry the B61-12 which has 50 kiloton yield — substantially more than the combined yield of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima (15 kiloton) and Nagasaki (25 kiloton).

That's not exactly correct. If B-52s are ever going to be deployed against Iran, they will not be entering Iranian airspace. They'll be lobbing long range cruise missiles at Iran from outside of Iranian airspace (similar to Russian Tu-95M bombers against Ukraine), including those with conventional or electromagnetic/microwave warheads in the CHAMP missile. In the extremely unlikely event that the B-52s would deploy nuclear weapons, these would also be standoff cruise missiles. AGM-158B JASSM-ER cruise missiles (conventional or electromagnetic warheads) have a range of over 600 miles/1000km. AGM-86B cruise missiles (nuclear armed) have a range of over 1 500mi/2 400km. B-52s won't be getting close to Iranian airspace. The challenge to Iran would be shooting down the cruise missiles, not the B-52 itself. B-52s won't be carpet bombing Vietnam as they did over half a century ago. Warfare has changed. Bombers like the B-52 or Tu-95 are relegated to the role of "cruise missile trucks" against an opponent with air defence systems.

The B61 is a gravity bomb, the F-35s or B-2 Spirit stealth aircraft carrying them would have to penetrate deeply into Iranian airspace to carry out the these missions. It's a completely different threat profile to the B-52. A stealth aircraft penetrating deeply into Iranian airspace versus an aircraft lobbing cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. B61 yield can also be dialled down to as low as 0.3 kilotons. It's these lower yield options that make nuclear war more likely, not the higher yield settings.

In the extremely unlikely event that a nuclear first strike is launched against Iran, it would come from the submarine vector, in the form of Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) like the Trident-II D5. No one knows where the submarines are, they could launch from literally anywhere on the earth's oceans, including right next to Iran itself. It's different to bombers or aircraft parked in Saudi Arabia or Diego Garcia. Iran would get minutes of warning, if that, from their over the horizon early warning radars, provided that they're not suppressed or destroyed simultaneously. The velocity at the start of re-entry into the earth's atmosphere for a Trident MIRV is Mach 24, 24 times the speed of sound, and each Trident missile has 12 MIRVs. There is no intercepting that. This makes it a very inviting option for a nuclear first strike, compared to lobbing cruise missiles or entering Iranian airspace with stealth aircraft.

Building on that, the point Klippstien was making is that the Trident-II SLBMs have access to a new tactical nuclear warhead, one that did not exist previously. Previously the lowest yield warhead available to the Trident-II was the W-76 Mod 1, at 90 kilotons yeild each. This meant that a tactical use of this weapon was not possible, the yeild was too high. So tactical nuclear strikes were limited to cruise missiles and gravity bombs. Now there's a new warhead for the Trident-II, the W-76 Mod 2, with a yield as low as 5 kilotons each. Again, each Trident-II SLBM can be armed with 12 of these warheads simultaneously. The 45 times lower yield per warhead makes the option of using this vector for a nuclear attack much more palatable to generals and politicians. It's a new tactical nuclear vector that was only fully incorporated under Biden's administration, in the new warplans, and not available previously. Now the Trident-II SLBM can be used tactically, with all the advantages the MIRV capable SLBM vector has over cruise missiles and gravity bombs. Where Klippstien goes wrong is assuming that Biden or Trump makes a difference here, this is the evolution of warfare and US government policy. If any politician is to blame it's probably Obama for pushing for the modernisation of the US tactical nuclear arsenal.

Don't get me wrong I still think that Klippstien is being extremely sensationalist and that a nuclear strike on Iran is extremely unlikely, and trying to act as if Trump is some unique actor here is an incorrect conclusion. But it's important to get the facts right on exactly what kind of threat Iran faces, and why tactical nuclear strikes are seen as more palatable due to the development of new low yield weapons from new attack vectors. The new weapons are a significant military development.

Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but when Carrol calls his substack the "Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof", and gets the objective truths and proofs wrong, I feel the need to correct it.