Biden Planning Blitz-Nuclear Attack On The Kremlin

According to Newsweek magazine on November 3rd (“Nuclear Bomb Map Shows Impact if Biden’s New Weapon Dropped on Russia”):

A nuclear bomb being developed by the Biden administration could wreak havoc in Moscow, according to a simulation analyzed by Newsweek.

The creation of a new U.S. bomb, a variation of the B61 gravity bomb developed in the 1960s during the Cold War, was announced by the Department of Defense (DoD) last week [27 October 2023: “‘The B61-13 will strengthen deterrence of adversaries and assurance of allies and partners by providing the President with additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets’ [i.e, Moscow], the release states, while adding that the bomb would ‘include the modern safety, security, and accuracy features’ of the B61-12, an Obama-era variant’.”]. A news release by the Pentagon said that the B61-13 is intended to “strengthen deterrence of adversaries and assurance of allies” by providing President Joe Biden “with additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets.”

While the Pentagon has not yet revealed exactly how powerful the bomb will be, officials said it would be capable of an explosive yield similar to an older model, the B61-7. That nuclear bomb had a maximum yield equivalent to 360 kilotons of TNT, roughly 24 times the explosive power of the 15-kiloton bomb that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II.

A visual representation was created using Nukemap, an online tool created by historian of science and nuclear technology Alex Wellerstein. It shows that a B61-13 bomb exploding over Moscow at an estimated maximum yield of 360 kilotons of TNT would cause significant devastation and kill more than 300,000 people.

Anything within roughly a half-mile radius from the bomb’s detonation site would be vaporized by a fireball, while heavy damage would demolish buildings and likely kill everyone else within a mile.

Anyone within about 2 miles from the detonation site would suffer levels of radiation exposure so high that they would be dead within a month, while 15 percent of survivors would die of cancer later in life.

Some 2 miles out from the point of the bomb’s explosion, buildings would collapse, chances of a fire starting would be high, fatalities would be widespread and injuries “universal,” according to Nukemap.

An attack like that couldn’t succeed unless it will be done on a blitz-basis, giving The Kremlin less than 30 minutes advance knowledge that the warhead is heading its way and thus to respond to it. That could then decapitate the opponent before the opponent could even know that the attack had even been launched. And it might succeed even if Russia’s automated, or “dead hand”, second-strike nuclear system, activates in response to the annihilation of Russia’s central command (The Kremlin), because such an automated system, by its very nature, is impossible to field-test, and America would therefore be relying on pure luck in order to become maybe in control over the entire world after that blitz-invasion, or else the U.S. too would become (and perhaps even more so) decimated as a result of that second-strike working. In any case, the release of (use of) all of either nation’s nuclear stockpile, would, the scientific studies since 2007 have made clear, produce a “nuclear winter” that would starve to death half of the entire world’s population within just two years; and, so, winning a nuclear war between the two superpowers is, in fact, only a stupid fantasy. (But it is an extremely profitable one for the owners of America’s ‘defense’ firms such as Lockheed Martin — which is why the U.S. Government pursues it, since doing this is profoundly harmful to the general population.)

Currently, the U.S. Government, all alone, spends on its military, annually, around $1.5 trillion, in fact, around half of the entire world’s military expenditures, and the amount would be considerably higher if the entirety of its NATO military alliance against Russia would be included in the sum. So: in terms purely of military expenditures, the U.S. alone expends annually around 17 times as much as Russia does on that. And, yet, its amount keeps increasing — and the non-military portion of the U.S. Government’s annually-authorized-by-Congress expenditures keeps being level or even reduced every year, in order to make that military growth possible — because America’s billionaires are so heavily reliant upon the nation’s military expenditures, and because they control the federal Government. (And that’s why America’s sovereign debt has recently soared to $33 trillion, from half that in 2013, while its GDP has increased only 65% since 2013; and it’s why American life-expectancy peaked in 2014 and has declined 2.8 years from 78.9 years in 2014, down to 76.1 years in 2021 — the world’s worst performance during the latest 7 years. The priorities of the American public certainly aren’t the priorities of the American Government. It’s actually a dictatorship — now only a fake self-declared ‘democracy’.)

U.S. President Joe Biden

Starting in 2006 under George W. Bush, America has been planning “Nuclear Primacy” — the ability to win a nuclear war against Russia — as its replacement for the prior nuclear meta-strategy that had been employed by both sides, which was called “Mutually Assured Destruction” or “M.A.D” for short (which Russia has continued to apply, and for which purpose its “dead-hand” system has been designed — it’s purely a second-strike system).

Consequently, American strategy is to get its nuclear missiles and its stealth bombers close enough so as to be able to annihilate Moscow within 7 minutes (if, say, from Finland), or even just 5 minutes (from only Ukraine), (and for which reason the U.S. Government, in February 2014, overthrew Ukraine’s democatically elected Government and replaced it with a rabidly Russia-hating one. Russia reluctantly ended up responding to that eight years later, on 24 February 2022, by invading Ukraine, so as to eliminate the possibility that American missiles will be positioned only 5 minutes away (i.e., in Ukraine).

America is geographically positioned so that the only way that Russia could even conceivably position its missiles within a 5-minute striking-distance from Washington DC would be via its offshore-U.S. submarines. A knowledgeable observer said a few years ago, that “they are no more of a threat than stationary land based missile silos” (none of which are near to Washington). However, by now, that situation might have changed, so that Russia could do to the U.S. what the U.S. has been trying (at least since 2006) to do to Russia. The only way that that could happen is by a truly stealth Russian submarine. Whereas America’s biggest danger to Russia could only be by way of land, Russia’s biggest danger to America could only be by way of sea. If America continues to aim for “Nuclear Primacy”, then Russia might ultimately do the same, but via submarine. Far better for both sides would be for them to negotiate together, so that neither side can even possibly do that to the other. Either both sides will adhere to the M.A.D. meta-strategy, or else both sides will be wasting enormous sums of money trying not to. Only M.A.D. is sane. “Nuclear Primacy” is insane (but it has clearly been, and is now, the nuclear policy of Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden). Its goal is to achieve a blitz-nuclear attack annihilating the opponent’s central command too fast for it to be able to respond.

The B61-13 bomb is designed to be carried aboard what will be America’s first-ever totally new 21st Century bomber, the stealth B-21 Raider, which is in development but is expected by the Government to “be available for combat use in the ‘mid-2020s’.” So: if Biden wins a second term and uses this bomb in his planned blitz-nuclear attack upon The Kremlin, then it would probably be by means of a B-21 Raider plane dropping the B61-13 bomb onto The Kremlin. Otherwise, a U.S. missile fired from the nearest NATO member nation (perhaps Finland) would likely be used. (In either case, the U.S. would first have to be able to overcome the world’s best defensive military systems such as the S-500 anti-aircraft missile system. America’s Presidents and Congress-members would need to be insane to think they’ll be able successfully to pull off such a thing — but the owners of such firms as Lockheed Martin insist that they keep trying, so that the owners can keep profiting; and successful politicians in today’s America are merely those people’s — not the public’s — agents. The Government serves them well.)

The B61-13 bombs will be built in place of B61-12 bombs that were previously scheduled. The B61-13 will have a 360 kiloton yield, which is equivalent to 17 Nagasaki bombs, or to 24 Hiroshima bombs. The B61-12 has only a 50 kiloton yield — one-seventh as big. Presumably, Biden wants the much larger bomb in order to increase the likelihood that despite the uncontrollability of where a dropped bomb will exactly hit (missiles thus can be far more accurate than bombs that are dropped), the bomb’s being seven times as powerful will nonetheless destroy the intended target (Putin, etc.). A previous gravity bomb with a similar yield was described by saying “The large yield could destroy facilities buried 750 feet (250 meters) underground.” (The depth of the offices and bunkers below the Kremlin is believed to reach to no lower than 200 meters.) Among the details regarding the B61-13 that are kept “Top Secret” are its price-tag — possibly in order to hide how much more expensive than the B61-12 and its predecessors the 360-kiloton B61-13 bomb will be. Unlike the weaker B61-12, which certainly can’t penetrate deep underground to the allegedly 50-to-200-meter-deep “Metro-2” secret underground network of tunnels and offices that are below the visible Kremlin, some people allege that a 360-kiloton bomb might be able to destroy to a depth of 50 or more meters. However, regarding the “bunker-buster” B61-11, which was 10% bigger-kilotonnage even than the model 13 will be but was insufficiently “safe” in storage, the G.W. Bush Administration in 2001 found that the B61-11 “does not provide a high probability of defeat of these important targets.” The reason for this judgment was probably that a field-test of that bomb in March 1998 had shown that “the penetration depth was around 18 feet (6 meters).” So: even the B61-13 bomb might fail, even if it hits the target exactly. And, then, all hell would break lose from Russia upon the U.S. and all of its allies. Biden’s efforts to pull off the biggest war-crime in history, and to do it with total impunity (i.e., to ‘win’), continue nonetheless.

The U.S. already has, ever since 1997, in service, a stealth bomber, the B-2 Spirit, and it can carry even bigger payloads, up to 1.2 megatons (nearly four times larger than 360 kt.), but that plane is far too slow (not even Mach 1, the speed of sound) to qualify for doing a blitz-attack; so, that is why the B-21 Raider was commissioned by Obama in 2011. A blitz-attack bomber needs to be extremely fast, preferably at least five times the speed of sound (“Mach 5”) or “hypersonic”. (Russia’s fastest bomber, the Tu-160, is Mach 2, which likewise wouldn’t be suitable for a blitz-attack against America’s central command. But Putin hasn’t yet been planning any blitz-attack against Washington. The Tu-160 is fast enough for his purposes. It’s not even stealth; so, it would be useless for a blitz-attack against Washington. Russia still adheres to the M.A.D. meta-strategy. They’re the world’s leader in hypersonic missiles but have never shown any indication of having abandoned the M.A.D. meta-strategy. Their strategic thinking has always been based upon it — to avoid WW III instead of to win it.)

Anyway, there would be no winners from what Biden is doing. Everyone would end up losing — perhaps from “nuclear winter”, if not from anything else.

Though the news-media and other commentators have described what was at issue in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis as having been how close (only 100 miles) Cuba was to the U.S. border (Florida), that wasn’t the real issue; the real issue, then, as it is now for Russia regarding Ukraine (and to a lesser extent Finland), is how close it is to the opponent’s central command, its capital city. The ultimate geostrategic danger is the possibility of decapitating the opponent. But the public aren’t being told this. In a democracy they need to be told the truth, so that they can vote on the basis of reality.

Hitler tried to conquer the world, and what did it gain him? For some reason, his American successors have been copying his effort. They apparently think that they would do a better job of it, with their operation barbarossa II, than Hitler did, with his Operation Barbarossa (I: Hitler’s original, of Barbarossa).

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  1. European Observer

    “Hitler tried to conquer the world”
    Nonsense. He wanted to expand Germany to include present-day Austria, and Czechia, most of present-day Poland and Slovakia, and part of present-day Belarus and Ukraine – murdering a large part of the populations of those areas. He also wanted to overthrow the Soviet Union’s government. But it’s clear from what he wrote, his reported discussions, and the nature of the military forces he built up that he had no intention of expanding overseas, or even into western Europe. (He occupied countries along the Atlantic coast only in order to made it difficult for the Brits to get at Germany – peace terms on offer, which Churchill blocked from being discussed, included a complete withdrawal from those countries.)

  2. Eric Zuesse

    You obviously didn’t read his Second Book (1928) (nor much else from Hitler).

Leave a Reply