The new B61-13 is aimed at strengthening "deterrence of adversaries" and providing the US president with "additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets," as per the US Department of Defense's fact sheet. The move is pending congressional authorization and appropriation.
Hailing the plans to create the B61-13, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama and GOP Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi – both ranking members of congressional Armed Services Committees – stressed that the bomb in question will provide US commanders in Europe and the Asia-Pacific "with more flexibility against these target sets."
One should bear in mind that the "adversaries" in question are Russia and China, says Joe Siracusa, political scientist and dean of Global Futures, Curtin University.
"The redacted American national security statement which they handed to Congress, they said that there are two threats to America are China and Russia," Siracusa told Sputnik.
However, the DC establishment's idea that Russia and China pose a "unique nuclear threat" to the US is baloney and in fact serves as a pretext for more military spending by Washington, per the political scientist.
"There is a kind of craziness in Washington that demands to spend more and more money," Siracusa said. "I mean, the American military establishment, as you well know, spends 10 times more than anybody else who makes military hardware. And so America has these huge weapons systems, and they're always sort of inventing some new reason. So you get all these guys who are 35 to 45 writing nuclear posture reports and say, you know, ‘We got crazy rising, great power tension, and we have Russia and we have them and we have China who will combine together to take on the United States.’"
Even though no one really wants to use nuclear arms, the US military industrial complex is pushing for further militarization, thus creating new escalation risks, according to Sputnik's interlocutor.
“It is to blackmail the United States," Siracusa said. "No one wants to use nuclear weapons. They want the fruits of war. They don't want war itself. So you got all these people talking about things that aren't really true. But, you know, we have people in Washington, which is the military industrial complex. They're interested in new weapons, replacement weapons, and they'll take any argument that comes down the road. This would be a big, big contract for somebody. And, of course, America is always preparing for war so it doesn't have to go to war. That's the story. But the thing is, since the 1950s, America has been a wartime economy. You know, America prepares for war all the time. Sometimes it has war and sometimes it doesn't. But the American economy is primed to develop weapons systems. And this is just the latest warning to come down the road."
What are B61-13 Bombs and Why Do They Trigger Controversy?
Per the Pentagon, the B61-13 will replace some of the B61-7s in the US stockpile: the new gravity bomb will have a yield similar to that of the B61-7, at the same time boasting "the modern safety, security, and accuracy features of the B61-12." The maximum yield of the B61-7 is 360 kilotons, which is far higher than the B61-12’s 50 kiloton blast.
"The gravity bomb is very simply a tactical nuclear weapon," said Siracusa. "And now the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 14,000 tons of TNT. So you get the impression now it's a big bomb."
The term "gravity" means that these bombs are dropped from a plane. Reportedly, the B61-13 will be carried by two US bombers: the B-2 and the B-21.
The political scientist believes that the US' recent push for modernizing its nuclear stockpiles looks nothing short of sinister.
"What are these bombs used for? Well, they're used to smash through the mountains in North Korea where they have nuclear weapons tests. They could smash through the underground network they have in Tehran. I don't know. Do you live in Moscow? Okay. Well, I just saw 'From Russia with love' my favorite James Bond movie. And I was looking at the Red Square and this this gravity bomb was dropped down in Red Square or down would produce a hole about a half a kilometer. These bombs are designed to penetrate the earth. Now, you got all the bombs in the world, you know, like they're doing the F-16s in Gaza right now. They're not doing much damage. You mean they can't get to the tunnels. They just do surface damage."
Another problem with tactical nuclear arms is that they have not been regulated by international arms control agreements as strictly as strategic nuclear bombs, according to the expert.
"The interesting thing here is that tactical nuclear weapons have never been counted in any arms control treaty, whether it was the 'test ban treaty' or the 'Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968'. Nobody has ever bothered to count tactical nuclear weapons because they're not considered strategic. See, all the nuclear non-proliferation treaties that were in place a couple of years ago reflected strategic nuclear arsenals measured in millions of tons of TNT. So these are bombs you can use. These are the kind of bombs that George H.W. Bush took out of Europe at the end of the Cold War, and that were replaced there in recent years. These are the nuclear weapons that NATO's states have to contemplate having on their soil," the political scientist concluded.