The Pentagon is scrapping its most powerful thermonuclear bomb, the B83. The bomb, created in the 1970s, is now useless
With modern air defences no bomber would have time to reach its target. But having parted with the B83, the US immediately promised to fast-track the transfer of another, more modern nuclear bomb to Europe – the B61. Does the Pentagon with this move want to scare Russia or reassure Europe?
The US command has decided to decommission its most powerful thermonuclear warhead, the B83-1, according to a National Defence Strategy released by the Pentagon on Friday. This free-falling – or gravity-defying – bomb is designed to hit “hard-to-reach and deeply buried” targets. In return, the strategy says, other “existing capabilities” will be used in the meantime, but actually the Pentagon plans to develop a new capability to hit such difficult targets.
The first B83 was developed in the 1970s and entered service in 1983. Now the modification of the B83-1 decided to withdraw because of the growing “limitations of its capacity” and the rising cost of maintenance, RIA Novosti reported. A total of 650 such bombs have been produced. For now, the B83 remains one of the main types of nuclear weapons of the US Air Force.
Plans to dispose of the B83-1 by the National Nuclear Security Administration in the U.S. Department of Energy announced six years ago. So the Strategy essentially confirmed the decision made back then. The B83-1 has a yield of up to 1.2 megatons. For comparison, the power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about a hundred times less – about 15 and 25 kilotons, respectively.
The B83-1 bomb is not very promising simply because there is no bomber capable of entering the range of modern air defenses, Vasily Kashin, director of the Center for Integrated European and International Studies (CIEIS) at the Higher School of Economics explains to VZGLYAD newspaper.
“Only three types of American strategic bombers – Rockwell B-1 Lancer, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress and Northrop B-2 Spirit – can act as carriers of this bomb. But it is difficult to imagine the use of the bomb by such strategic bombers in modern air defenses, as it has no guidance system and requires the pilot to enter the enemy’s air defense zone,” Kashin pointed out. At the same time, those American aircraft that still have a chance to break through modern air defenses, can not carry the B83-1, the expert adds. Therefore, this bomb is not needed in today’s realities.
“The Americans have specialised non-nuclear bombs to hit protected targets.
In addition, the US may have weapons with great penetrating power. For example, hypersonic weapons can penetrate into a protected object. Russia has used a dagger on at least one occasion in Ukraine to hit an underground weapons storage facility. It is quite possible that in the US these tasks, which were performed by the B83, will be assigned to a specialized hypersonic nuclear warhead,” the interlocutor suggested.
Parting with the dream of a cruise missile
From the text of the strategy also follows that the U.S. generals decided to abandon plans to create a nuclear cruise missile sea-based. The plans to build it were considered superfluous. The strategy stresses that they are “no longer needed” because of a number of other nuclear weapons that Washington has and is developing.
The Pentagon’s decision did not cause a sensation as Joe Biden’s administration the other day had already announced the abandonment of the missile. However, TASS notes, it remains unclear how Congress will react to the Pentagon’s decision, especially after the November 8 elections, when it will presumably be taken over by the Republican Party. A number of military leaders, including Chief of Staff Mark Milley, have previously called for the missile to be developed. And Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin has expressed confidence that rejection of the missile will not be perceived in Moscow as a sign of weakness in Washington. Russia understands the scale of the US nuclear arsenal, Austin hopes.
Kashin points out that building a nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile is not difficult, but the problem is the changing fire-control systems and design of the submarines themselves, built in the years when previous versions of such missiles were already being decommissioned. Modern submarines cannot properly store such missiles, so it is easier to focus on developing different types of hypersonic weapons.
“When a new type of nuclear warhead appears on a submarine, it requires significant organizational measures and some modernization of the submarine, a research and development competition even before the new missiles are put into production, even though it would seem to be a return to the weapons that the US had recently,” explained the CIEIS director.
In this sense, Lloyd Austin is right; the decision to abandon two nuclear weapons at once – both the gravity bomb and the cruise missile – should not be considered a sign of weakness on the part of the Pentagon, Kashin stresses: “These measures are merely aimed at cost efficiency.
US to move new bombs closer to Russia
A day earlier it became known that the Pentagon decided to accelerate the placement at NATO bases in Europe of another model of nuclear bombs, the modernized, less powerful B61-12. As Politico writes with reference to diplomatic documents, the delivery of the first batch was scheduled for spring, but the deadline was moved to December. The announcement was made by US officials to NATO allies during a meeting in Brussels this month.
The announcement at the meeting was made days before the North Atlantic Alliance launched the Stand Down Noon nuclear exercise. These two-week manoeuvres, involving 70 aircraft, end next Sunday. In response, recall, Russia last Wednesday held its “Thunder” exercise, which Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu called a simulation of “a massive nuclear strike by strategic offensive forces in response to a nuclear strike by the enemy.” As VZGLYAD earlier reported, the B61 family bombs deployed in Europe and stored at storage bases in the US are the last US tactical nuclear weapons, the rest have been eliminated.
Pentagon spokesman Patrick Ryder said in this regard, “The modernisation of US B61 nuclear weapons has been underway for many years and we plan to replace the old weapons with an upgraded B61-12. This move is part of a long-planned programme. It has nothing to do with current events in Ukraine.”
“I assume this is more of a message to NATO than to Moscow. There is already a B61 in Europe. Russia knows that. They are excellent shells.
The new ones will be better, but there is not much difference. It’s probably a way of reassuring allies who feel threatened by Russia,” said Tom Collina, policy director of the Ploughshares Fund, a public foundation that supports initiatives to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
The B61 is a family of nuclear bombs developed back in the early 1960s. A dozen versions have been developed over the decades, but most are now obsolete. The B61-12 programme cost $10 billion, and it was managed by the same US Department of Energy. Plans are underway to replace earlier versions of the bomb, which are stored at air bases in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Turkey.
The Guardian previously argued that it was unnecessary to upgrade the bomb at all, and US authorities agreed to the upgrade as a result of lobbying by the laboratories responsible for improving the nuclear arsenal.
“The possible shortening of the timeline for replacing the B61 nuclear bombs with the B61-12 is dictated by the geopolitical environment. Unfortunately, we are still witnessing escalation of the conflict in Ukraine and aggravation of relations with the West,” retired Major General Pavel Zolotarev, deputy director of the US and Canada Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and head of the Military Reform Support Foundation, told the VZGLYAD newspaper earlier.
According to the interlocutor, the new modification of the bomb differs seriously from its predecessor. “The main difference is that it has a greater ability to regulate the power of the charge. In addition, the projectile is fitted with a tail fin, which makes the bomb more controllable and accurate. So it rather increases the overall level of security, as strange as that may sound,” he reasoned.
“The other thing is that the weapons will be deployed in Europe. And we have always insisted that they should be removed from there altogether. The US kept it even after 1991, when the decision was made to eliminate such weapons in Europe. Then they had to listen to the opinion of the Europeans who asked to keep it for ‘more peace of mind,'” the expert recalled.
The very fact that there are nuclear weapons in Europe, whether they are old or new modifications, is worrying for us, the interlocutor admits. “At the same time, I don’t think Russia should react in any way to Washington’s actions. Increasing the number of tactical nuclear weapons or relocating them closer to NATO’s borders is not militarily feasible because it would make our arsenal more vulnerable,” Zolotarev concluded.
Alyona Zadorozhnaya, Rafael Fakhrutdinov, Vzglyad