200 New B-21 Raider Bombers Could All Fail Thanks to a 1957 Tanker the U.S. Air Force Is Still Using was originally published on Global Security Review.

Iranian ship seized by US Marines has China links was originally published on Global Security Review.

Iranian official says US ‘maximalist’ demands stall face-to-face talks

 SUZAN FRASER|AP News

ANTALYA, Turkey (AP) — Iran is not yet ready to hold a new round of face-to-face talks with U.S. officials, a senior Iranian official said Saturday, citing Washington’s refusal to abandon “maximalist” demands on key issues.

In an interview with The Associated Press on the margins of a diplomacy forum in Turkey, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh also said his country will not hand over its enriched uranium to the United States, rejecting claims made by U.S. President Donald Trump.

“I can tell you that no enriched material is going to be shipped to United States,” Khatibzadeh said. “This is non-starter and I can assure you that while we are ready to address any concerns that we do have, we’re not going to accept things that are nonstarters.”

Iranian official says US ‘maximalist’ demands stall face-to-face talks was originally published on Global Security Review.

With no end in sight to their deployment, National Guard troops roam Washington

Gary Fields – Associated Press – 

The cherry blossoms draw more than a million visitors to Washington’s Tidal Basin annually. This year was no different, except some strolling the area between the Lincoln Memorial and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial were dressed in camouflage and armed.

Eight months after President Trump declared a crime emergency in the nation’s capital and called up the National Guard, more than 2,500 troops remain, in a deployment that has grown increasingly routine, with no clear end in sight.

Deployments to other cities have ended or been paused by courts in California and Illinois, while more limited operations are ongoing in cities including New Orleans. But in Washington, guard members still walk city streets and patrol metro stations, tourist attractions, neighborhoods and parks.

Even with pivotal elections looming this year, that lingering presence is barely mentioned in city council meetings or by candidates running for mayor and Congress – perhaps reflecting both competing priorities and a sense that local officials have little power to stop it. Unless the courts step in, the guard will remain at least through the end of the year, if not longer.

“Taxpayers are paying more than a million dollars a day to have them walk around,” said Phil Mendelson, chairman of the District of Columbia Council, in an emailed response to questions.

And, he said, “the presence of armed soldiers on American streets is not a good look.”

With no end in sight to their deployment, National Guard troops roam Washington was originally published on Global Security Review.

5GW includes information dominance and manipulation, social engineering, economic coercion, cyber sabotage, and hybrid influence operations. It thrives on ambiguity, exploiting vulnerabilities without traditional combat. In 5GW, the lines between war and peace are blurred. No declarations, no clear enemies, just a relentless assault on stability. The goal is not to conquer land or destroy armies, but to cripple a nation’s spirit, economy, and infrastructure from within.

One of the most potent asymmetric tools of 5GW is economic manipulation. Palau, a serene archipelago of over 500 islands, were untouched by war until 2017. Palau dared to reject Beijing’s “One China Policy.” This move sent shockwaves through its fragile economy in the form of economic strangulation. In a masterstroke of economic coercion, China’s state-backed tour operators erased Palau from the Web.

Travel agencies stopped selling trips. Online searches yielded no results. Palau’s tourism industry, which accounted for 45 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), collapsed. Hotels emptied, airlines shut down, and the once-thriving economy suffocated.

This was not an anomaly, but a pattern. In 2016, South Korea agreed to facilitate the American THAAD missile defense system. China retaliated not with weapons but with economic muscle. Mysterious “fire and safety” violations suddenly appeared in South Korean businesses across China. A nine-month ban on Chinese tourism cost Seoul $6.5 billion. Retail giants like Lotte crumbled, thousands lost jobs, and yet, no war was declared.

The more interconnected the world economy becomes, the more vulnerable nations are to economic blackmail. Even Venezuela, despite its fiery anti-American rhetoric, was bound to the US economy. In 2018, despite Washington branding Nicolás Maduro a dictator and Caracas calling the US a “white supremacist regime,” the two nations still had $24 billion in trade, a quarter of Venezuela’s GDP.

Yet, when Washington imposed sweeping financial sanctions, Venezuela’s economy shrunk by 35 percent in a single year. After all, the United States does not just impose sanctions; it controls the very financial system that runs the world. The US dollar is the bloodline of global trade, and those who defy it find themselves cut off from international markets, unable to access capital or even conduct basic transactions. However, economic warfare breeds resistance.

Russia and China saw the writing on the wall. Between 2017 and 2020, Moscow slashed its holdings of US Treasury securities from $105 billion to just $3.8 billion and shifted towards China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), sidestepping American financial hegemony.

The true commanding heights of global dominance lie at the intersection of technology, finance, and unchecked ambition. China is not just selling 5G networks, it is embedding itself into the nervous system of global communication. On the other hand, the US does not just dominate finance, it controls the SWIFT banking system, ensuring economic warfare is just a sanction away. Similarly, corporations do not just innovate, they monopolize, influence, and quietly dictate policy behind closed doors.

“Surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood.” A battle cry? Indeed. Not from a general on the battlefield, but from Ren Zhengfei, the founder of Huawei, a company waging a war not just against competitors but against entire nations. Britain’s telecom networks are suspected to have Chinese backdoors.

Information is now what oil was in the 1970s, a critical commodity to be controlled. Today, data is the new crude, and the battle to monopolize its flow has already begun. Quantum computing, AI, and machine learning are the new oil rigs, and the nations that dominate these technologies will dictate the future. Unlike oil, information is easily stolen, manipulated, or even weaponized in ways no physical resource ever could.

The first lethal autonomous drone strike in Libya, recorded in March 2020, was a grim reminder of what is to come. A suicide drone, powered by AI, needed no human command—just a target. Fire and forget was the name of the game. Imagine the next phase: terrorist organizations deploying AI-powered swarms, able to strike with precision, invulnerability, and zero risk to human operatives. They would not negotiate, would not retreat, and would prove hard to stop.  

In a world where biological warfare is outlawed, the selective control of food, aid, and healthcare has replaced mass destruction with slow, calculated suffocation. Nations can now deny access to the very essentials of life to break their adversaries in a siege without walls and a war without battlefields. Over 40 percent of the world’s population faces water scarcity, and by 2030, drought could displace 700 million people. The Turkish-backed militias that had control over the Alouk water station in Syria in 2020 was a stark reminder—when resources are weaponized, suffering becomes policy.

Interestingly, the battle of perception is gaining momentum more than ever. In an era of clickbait headlines and disinformation campaigns, lies travel faster than truth. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that false news spreads 70 percent faster than real news. From the Soviet KGB planting the rumor in the 1980s that the US government created AIDS to modern deepfake propaganda, deception is the new artillery.

Even culture is not immune. Hollywood exported American ideals, Bollywood spread Indian influence, and K-pop turned South Korea into a global powerhouse. For instance, the Cold War was not just won by missiles, it was won when a West German band sang “Wind of Change,” which then became the anthem of the Berlin Wall’s collapse.

If hunger, water, and financial systems hare already weaponized, the next battlefield is clear—space and the seabed. Subsea communication cables are responsible for carrying 97 percent of global data traffic and are the arteries of the modern economy. They enable over $10 trillion in financial transactions every single day. Yet, these vital lifelines remain shockingly unprotected and are vulnerable to sabotage, espionage, and strategic disruption. A targeted attack on just a handful of these cables could cripple stock markets, paralyze banking systems, and sever military command structures—all without a single warship being deployed.

Meanwhile, the race for space dominance is accelerating. From $63.66 billion in 2024 to an estimated $74.4 billion by 2028, the global military satellite market is growing, fueled by the realization that power no longer lies in boots on the ground, but in eyes in the sky. Satellites provide precision-strike capabilities, secure communication, and real-time battlefield intelligence. The Pentagon warns that the US is already vulnerable, with China and Russia developing anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons.

In this realm, one can say that modern states wage wars without battlefields, where the goal is not to destroy but to subdue—crippling economies, infiltrating cyber networks, and manipulating narratives without a single shot fired. What is never openly begun is rarely officially ended. In 5th-generation warfare, silence is a weapon, perception is the battlefield, and survival means accepting that war never truly ends.

Syeda Fizzah Shuja is a Research Associate at Pakistan Navy War College and an Mphil scholar in Peace and Counter Terrorism. Her work focuses on hybrid warfare and maritime terrorism. She can be contacted at fizzasyed2k@gmail.com.

The 5GW Playbook: Silent Wars and Invisible Battlefields was originally published on Global Security Review.

Standoff warfare is characterized by the use of long-range weapon systems, such as cruise missiles, drones, and precision-guided munitions, to engage targets from a safe distance. This approach leverages advanced surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting technologies to identify and strike enemy assets without direct engagement.

Advantages of Standoff Warfare

One of the primary advantages of standoff warfare is the significant reduction in the risk to military personnel. By operating from a distance, forces are less exposed to direct enemy fire and ambushes, leading to fewer casualties and increased morale. By keeping forces out of the immediate reach of the enemy, standoff warfare helps preserve valuable military assets. This approach ensures that high-value equipment and personnel are available for prolonged engagements and future conflicts.

Modern long-range weapons are highly accurate, allowing for precision strikes on strategic targets. This capability enhances operational efficiency by focusing on high-value targets and minimizing collateral damage, which is crucial in maintaining public support and adhering to international laws of warfare.

The ability to strike from a distance can have a significant psychological impact on the enemy. The constant threat of unexpected precision attack can demoralize opposing forces and disrupt their operational planning and execution.

Standoff warfare allows for rapid deployment and response to emerging threats. With assets positioned at a safe distance, commanders can quickly adapt to changing battlefield conditions and execute strikes without the need for extensive mobilization.

Disadvantages of Standoff Warfare

Standoff warfare relies heavily on advanced technologies for surveillance, targeting, and weapon delivery. This dependence can be a vulnerability if these systems are disrupted by electronic warfare, cyberattacks, or other countermeasures.

The development, procurement, and maintenance of long-range weapon systems and associated technologies are expensive. The financial burden of sustaining a standoff warfare capability can strain defense budgets and divert resources from other critical areas.

Standoff warfare is most effective against concentrated, high-value targets. When facing adversaries employing dispersed, decentralized tactics, the efficiency of long-range strikes diminishes, necessitating alternative approaches.

Accurate intelligence and targeting data are crucial for successful standoff operations. The reliance on real-time, high-fidelity information can be a limitation if there are gaps in intelligence or if adversaries employ deception and concealment strategies.

The use of long-range strikes can be perceived as highly provocative and potentially escalatory in a conflict. Adversaries may respond with retaliatory measures, leading to a cycle of escalation that can spiral out of control.

China

China’s military modernization and expansion pose a significant challenge to American and allied forces in the Indo-Pacific region. China’s development of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities, including long-range missiles, sophisticated air defenses, and naval assets, necessitates a robust standoff strategy.

Standoff warfare allows the US and its allies to engage Chinese assets from a distance, mitigating the risk posed by China’s A2/AD systems. The ability to strike from afar can disrupt Chinese operations, degrade critical infrastructure, and maintain freedom of navigation in contested areas.

China’s advancements in electronic warfare, cyber capabilities, and counter-space operations could undermine the effectiveness of standoff warfare. Additionally, the vast expanse of the Indo-Pacific region presents logistical challenges for sustaining long-range operations.

Russia

Russia’s military doctrine emphasizes hybrid warfare, combining conventional and unconventional tactics. Its integrated air defense systems, long-range missile capabilities, and electronic warfare proficiency make it a formidable adversary.

Standoff warfare enables NATO forces to counter Russian aggression by targeting key military installations, command-and-control centers, and logistical hubs from a safe distance. Precision strikes can degrade Russia’s offensive capabilities and hinder its operational tempo.

Russia’s integrated air defenses and advanced electronic warfare capabilities pose significant challenges to standoff operations. The risk of miscalculation and escalation is also high, given the proximity of NATO forces to Russian borders and the potential for rapid conflict escalation.

Iran

Iran’s strategic posture relies on asymmetric tactics, including the use of proxy forces, ballistic missiles, and naval assets in the Persian Gulf. Its ability to disrupt critical waterways and target regional adversaries necessitates a nuanced approach.

Standoff warfare allows the US and its allies to target Iranian missile launch sites, naval assets, and command structures with minimal risk to their forces. This approach can help deter Iranian aggression and protect vital shipping lanes in the region.

Iran’s use of underground facilities, mobile missile launchers, and dispersed assets presents challenges for effective targeting. Additionally, the potential for retaliatory actions against regional allies and American interests necessitates careful consideration of the broader geopolitical implications.

Conclusion

Standoff warfare continues to offer significant advantages in terms of force protection, precision, and operational flexibility. However, its effectiveness is contingent on technological superiority, accurate intelligence, and the ability to adapt to evolving threats. Against adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran, standoff warfare provides a valuable tool for countering their respective military capabilities. Nonetheless, it must be integrated into a comprehensive strategy that addresses the unique challenges posed by each adversary and mitigates the risks of escalation and technological vulnerabilities. As hypersonic, low-observable, and other advancing technologies continue to develop, they will force the need for rapid evolutions of military doctrines which will need to consider the role of standoff warfare as a critical component of modern defense strategies.

Joshua Thibert is a Contributing Senior Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS) with nearly 30 years of comprehensive expertise, his background encompasses roles as a former counterintelligence special agent within the Department of Defense and as a practitioner in compliance, security, and risk management in the private sector. His extensive academic and practitioner experience spans strategic intelligence, multiple domains within defense and strategic studies, and critical infrastructure protection.

Striking from Afar: The Strategic Edge of Standoff Warfare was originally published on Global Security Review.

Those European intelligence agencies tasked with countering malicious cyber actors are simply unprepared for the fight they face. Disinformation campaigns waged by the Chinese, North Koreans, and Russians are also plaguing Europe. When Russia first began such efforts to shape election outcomes about a decade ago, their rather low-cost efforts were successful enough to encourage further disinformation efforts.

French efforts to sound the alarm about disinformation in Europe and Africa were largely unheeded and is now bearing fruit for China and Russia as several African nations are turning against the West and toward these autocracies. The cyber four of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, through their security institutions, targeted the UK and French institutions, financial markets, and security infrastructure at home and their prestige abroad.

In response to the exponential growth of cyberattacks, in April 2023, new regulations were passed in France to secure the computer networks of state institutions. The French government also recognized the importance of international security cooperation in combating cyber terrorism.

When the French rail network was vandalized in July 2024 the French Interior Minister warned of the possible involvement of foreign cyber warriors. Saboteurs had already carried out attacks against fiber-optic cables and other infrastructure. For months, French intelligence was on its heels as consecutive attacks on the country’s critical infrastructure occurred. Russian and other European nationals were arrested for varying destabilization attacks. French intelligence and police also launched an operation to find cyber sleeper cells.

The Olympics began as thousands of police and military personnel were operating across the country in an effort to prevent future terror attacks of any kind. If the cyberattacks on France prior to the Olympics are an indicator of a looming threat, France has its work cut out for it.

Cyber threats are more than just hackers exploiting the internet. On July 26, 2024, terrorists damaged lineside communication cables on three of the most important ligne a vitesse radiating from Paris. These attacks disabled signal technology at key junctions including in LGV Nord at Croisilles—connecting Paris with Lille. Eurostar rail networks were also disrupted ahead of the Olympics. Thus, damage to communication networks can take a physical form.

China is now engaged in open hybrid warfare against the West—more broadly. Policymakers, parliamentarians, and intelligence officials in the UK and France sometimes advocate for reforms to address these challenges, but little happens. The lack of cyber expertise within European intelligence agencies leads to numerous domestic security challenges. The French government, for example, was exasperated with the sabotage campaign that took place.

France accused Russia of cyberattacks during the election earlier this year—all to disrupt the country’s democracy. Authorities asserted that the Russian Federal Security Service was behind sustained attempts against the French institutions.

The UK took measures in response to cyber threats from China, demonstrating a proactive stance, but British efforts are not widely understood and accepted. Recent cyberattacks on the UK’s National Health Service and the Ministry of Defense highlight significant challenges faced by the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in countering hybrid warfare tactics from state actors like China and Russia.

These attacks illustrated vulnerabilities in the UK’s cybersecurity infrastructure and raised concerns about the effectiveness of GCHQ’s strategies in mitigating threats posed by advanced persistent threat (APT) groups.

In July 2024, cyberattacks on the NHS disrupted critical healthcare services, compromised patient data, and operational capabilities. Attacks on Ministry of Defense infrastructure jeopardized national security by leaking sensitive information and undermined military readiness.

The presence of foreign spies within UK state institutions suggests these networks have successfully penetrated high-security environments, posing substantial risks to national security. The presence of a strong Russian security and intelligence infrastructure in Eastern Europe, and its reluctance to accept Western security-sector reforms is a threat to internal and external security for the region.

In Eastern Europe, reshaping intelligence and police services is part of the consolidation of democracy. In the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, intelligence agencies are experiencing a cultural hangover from a bygone era. In these countries, the process of bringing intelligence services into a Western way of operating is progressing slowly.

The war in Ukraine is also leaving a deep impact. European intelligence service strategies, operations, and collection processes in and outside their sphere of influence. They never realized how to introduce the reforms required to prevent Russian success. The Danish, for example, produced the PET Report, which uncovered espionage networks in Denmark. The PET Report has noted several cases that illustrated how a number of foreign states were actively carrying out intelligence activities against Denmark using cyber and other means.

In short, Europe is facing a challenging future when it comes to the malicious cyber activities of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. European intelligence services are unprepared for the adversary they face. The challenge is growing. The time is now for Europe to respond.

Musa Khan Jalalzai is an author, journalist, and member of Research Institute for European and American Studies, Director of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analysis Centre London, and Fellow of Islamic Theology of Counter Terrorism. The views expressed are his own.

The European Union’s Cyber War Challenge was originally published on Global Security Review.

The bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission’s report suggests that Russia and China’s large-scale nuclear programs pose “qualitatively new threats of opportunistic aggression” and raise the risk of future “cooperative two-theater aggression.” In their report and testimony, commission members clarify that written Russian strategy and doctrine envision limited first use of theater nuclear weapons to deter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), coerce war termination on favorable terms, and suggest larger-scale employment of theater nuclear weapons to defeat NATO in war, if a loss is likely.

And yet Russian emphasis on new nuclear weapons hardly ends here. Russia’s walkout from the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) reopens possibilities for it to test nuclear weapons. Indeed Putin warned that he is prepared to resume nuclear testing.

Stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus likewise adds to the threat of nuclear war in Europe. Russia also seeks to build nuclear power plants in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. These could become a basis for nuclear material exports back to Russia or other countries.

Chinese imports of nuclear materials from Russia hit a record high in 2022, stimulating widespread fears that Moscow is making it easier for China to produce weapons-grade uranium for its missiles. Moscow has also backtracked on its 2013 insistence that China must take part in any future arms control negotiations because China still refuses to do so. As Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov said in 2013, “We cannot endlessly negotiate with the United States the reduction and limitation of nuclear arms while some other countries are strengthening their nuclear and missile capabilities…. Making nuclear disarmament a multilateral process is becoming a necessity.”

However, Russia evidently cannot now insist on Chinese participation despite the Chinese nuclear threat to Russia. Thus, Rybakov now reiterates the official view that Chinese nuclear weapons do not threaten Russia even though several independent analysts argue to the contrary. Similarly, Russia’s newfound amity with North Korea is stimulating anxiety that Pyongynag’s natural demand for a quid pro quo for the one million artillery shells it gave Russia will lead Putin to support North Korea’s missile, nuclear, and space programs. It is already known that Moscow promised to help Pyongyang build satellites and followed through on that pledge recently—regarding its most recent launch. Other observers maintain that it would not be excessively difficult for Russia to provide North Korea with nuclear assistance.

Here again, there is a parallel precedent. Recently, Putin, in conversation with General Zhang Youxia, vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, stated that building on existing plans, Putin advocated closer cooperation in space with China, “including high-orbit assets, and new prospective types of weapons that will ensure strategic stability (i.e. likely nuclear weapons) of both Russia and the People’s Republic of China.”

Beyond these actions undermining nonproliferation, in general, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in particular, Russo-Iranian military cooperation is reportedly unprecedented, growing in scope, and comprises ballistic missile cooperation. There is also little doubt that Iran is coming closer to actually possessing a nuclear weapon.  

Indeed, Russia told the United Nations (UN) that it no longer needs to obey UN restrictions on giving Iran missile technology since Resolution 2231 (2015) recently expired.  And, at the same time, Iran is actively soliciting Russian help with its nuclear program.  Providing such help would, like all of the aforementioned activities, either break the spirit or even the letter of the NPT. In invading Ukraine, Moscow actually violated the NPT, which openly commits signatories not to invade non-nuclear states.

All of these Russian moves undermine nonproliferation and the NPT. And this list does not include the almost nightly wild nuclear threats to be heard daily on Russian TV and even among supposed experts. Certainly, experience repeatedly shows that the UN is unlikely to do more than inform and provide reports on the process.

Moscow and her friends are dismantling the structures of nuclear security. China, Iran, and North Korea are apparently intent on destroying the “guardrails” of international security, in general, and against nuclear use, in particular—all to obtain a free hand in realizing their imperial and aggressive dreams. This trend not only puts smaller states at increased risk, but it obligates the US and its nuclear allies to invest more in new and improved nuclear weapons. This is needed to restore deterrence that only justifies these aggressors’ paranoia, which drives them to nuclear weapons in the first place.

As the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States recommended, the US needs to update and renovate its nuclear arsenal to make it more fit for service in regard to today’s and tomorrow’s threats. This means technological renovation, more precision, greater flexibility, and very likely additional nuclear weapons. Yet at the same time America and her allies, in both Europe, Asia, and the Middle East need a conventional buildup as well to preserve deterrence at lower levels in both Europe and Asia so neither Russia nor China can start a conventional war in the expectation that it can use nuclear blackmail, as in the Ukraine, to deter NATO from defending vital interests.

Likewise, the United States and her allies abroad must also update and modernize conventional forces to deter either by punishment or deny lower-level threats that could also escalate—the Houthi threat to Red Sea shipping—in the belief that the organizers of these threats could control escalation and that the US is afraid to widen existing conflicts. Thus, as noted above, in the nuclear sphere too many states lost their reason and are tempting fate. Consequently, judgment in nuclear and other security areas is left to states who, as the record shows, are all too willing to behave as brutish beasts. Therefore, they must be stopped sooner than later.

Stephen Blank, PhD, is a Senior Consultant at the American Foreign Policy Council and a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies.

Proliferation’s Rising Threat was originally published on Global Security Review.

These challenges suggest two questions. First, does the announcement that the United States will field a new B61-13 nuclear gravity bomb address the perceived weakening of extended deterrence credibility? Second, does the B61-13’s development also effectively signal deterrence credibility to adversaries like Russia and China?

Will the B61-13 Repair US Nuclear Deterrence and Assurances?

The Department of Defense is embarking on a significant endeavor: the development of the B61-13, a modern variant of the B61 nuclear gravity bomb. The project awaits approval from Congress, driven by the imperative to bolster deterrence against potential adversaries while equipping the president with a versatile set of options to address targets formerly assigned to the B83 megaton class nuclear gravity bomb, but at less than half the expected yield.

The foundation of this ambitious project lies in the insights gleaned from the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review. The document sheds light on the expansion and modernization of Russian and Chinese nuclear forces, prompting a recalibration of US nuclear strategy. The cornerstone of this recalibration is a balanced approach that includes investments in deterrence capabilities while concurrently emphasizing a commitment to pursuing arms control measures.

The B61-13’s ability to enhance deterrence across several crucial dimensions is central to its development. Foremost among these is the bomb’s ability to broaden the spectrum of potential targets the United States can strike with the weapon. Its ability to address harder and larger-area military targets poses a formidable challenge to potential adversaries, pushing them to consider an extended array of possible objectives.

This expansion of target sets introduces an element of unpredictability into the calculations of would-be aggressors, thus, aspirationally at least, reinforcing deterrence. The B61-13’s development appears a small step in the return to a nuclear policy based on “calculated ambiguity.” Such a policy may have played an important role in explaining why the Cold War never turned hot.

Moreover, the B61-13 assumes the role of safeguarding the credibility of the United States’ nuclear deterrent by demonstrating American ability to design and field new weapons. Effective deterrence hinges on the perception that a nation possesses the determination and the means to respond effectively to various threats. By elevating its nuclear capabilities, including the development of the B61-13, the United States reinforces the credibility of its response options. Such enhancements discourage potential adversaries from testing the resolve of a nation armed with a potent and adaptable nuclear arsenal.

The B61-13’s provision of tailored response options is critical to note, and a testament to its flexibility. This empowers the president to select a response that is appropriate and proportionate to specific threats, serving as a deterrent by signaling to potential aggressors that the United States can deliver a precise and calibrated response, discouraging reckless actions.

Additionally, the B61-13 improves assurance with allies and partners, underscoring the United States’ unwavering commitment to collective defense. Its inclusion among the array of nuclear capabilities reinforces the assurance that the United States will stand by its allies. Keith Payne of the National Institute for Public Policy wrote, “It is imperative for US and allied security, and for the assurance of US allies, that the United States be capable of deterring and defending against this eccentric rogue power.” This assurance factor discourages potential adversaries from targeting U.S. allies, as they acknowledge the presence of a robust and flexible nuclear deterrent designed to support collective defense efforts. Will the B61-13 announcement alleviate concerns from our allies in the Pacific?

Finally, the B61-13 plays a crucial role in advancing strategic stability. By upholding a credible and adaptable nuclear deterrent, the United States contributes to an environment characterized by predictability and reduced risk of miscalculation or inadvertent escalation in times of crisis. The assurance of a stable and predictable American response fosters strategic stability, discouraging actions that could precipitate conflict or escalation.

The B61-13 should strengthen deterrence by broadening target coverage, preserving deterrence credibility, offering tailored response options, assuring allies, and promoting strategic stability. These interconnected elements collectively enhance the United States’ capacity to deter potential threats and promote international security in an ever-evolving geopolitical landscape.

Will the B61-13 Repair US Nuclear Deterrence and Assurances? was originally published on Global Security Review.

The article’s opening line sets the articles tone, “The world is entering a dangerous nuclear arms race unlike anything since the first atomic bomb, but it does not have to end in catastrophe.” The problem with this assertion is twofold.

First, the one example of nuclear arms racing we saw, which took place between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War, was likely responsible for the fact that the two great power never fought World War III. Rather than sparking conflict, the arms race deterred it.

Second, what is happening today is in no way comparable to the Cold War arms race, which saw global nuclear arms climb to a total of 63,632 fielded weapons in 1985. According to the Washington Post, the Russians field 1,588 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons and 1,912 tactical nuclear weapons. The Chinese number is less well known but the Department of Defense’s Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China (2023) estimates the People’s Liberation Army fields about 500 nuclear weapons and will field about 1,500 by 2035. The same Washington Post article suggests the United States fields 1,644 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons and 200 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe—with no plans for growing the size of the American arsenal.

This about a 90 percent reduction in the number of fielded nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War. For example, the United States removed more than 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons from Europe between 1991 and 1993.

This means that the number of deployed strategic and tactical nuclear weapons for the three major powers sits at about 5,050 weapons. If you include the arsenals of India, Pakistan, North Korea, France, and the United Kingdom, the number rises to about 6,000 operationally deployed nuclear weapons.

It is hard to compare what is taking place today with what occurred during the Cold War. For an arms race to take place, there must be participants. The Biden administration has made it very clear; the United States will not increase the size of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Russia has the capacity to expand its arsenal rapidly. China is doing just that. The United States is sitting in the stands and watching its adversaries.

The editorial board then laments the lack of arms control agreements to prevent adversaries, the Chinese in particular, from growing the size of arsenal. If the editorial board shares the view of many within the arms control community, then they too incorrectly assume that all arms control agreements are inherently good and stabilizing. In reality, arms control agreements are only good when they advance the United States’ national interest, which is not synonymous with their very existence.

When you take into account Russian violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention, the Vienna Document, Treaty of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, Opens Skies, Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, and likely violation of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the at all costs desire for arms control with Russia is too often a bad deal for the United States that sees the nation constrain its military capability while the Russian buy time to overcome military weakness.

In short, arms control for arms control sake is neither an inherent American interest, nor is it inherently stabilizing.

The editorial board also places great hope in recent meetings between the United States and China in which arms control was discussed. What the editorial board’s article fails to reveal is that the November talks were an utter failure in which the Chinese made it clear that no arms control agreement is possible.

Finally, there is a mistaken and unsubstantiated belief that more nuclear weapons is inherently destabilizing. This idea is not born out by the historical record. A careful reading of Cold War history makes it clear that the large Soviet and American nuclear arsenals of the era caused leaders in both the United States and Soviet Union to exercise great caution, avoid provocative actions, and demonstrate restraint in the face of uncertainty.

It is not strength that is provocative but weakness. If the United States seeks to ensure nuclear weapons are never used, it should meet the threat head on and follow the recommendations of the bi-partisan Strategic Posture Commission Report. Authoritarians respect strength. It is time the United States shifts from blind optimism to just that.

Adam Lowther is the Vice President for Research and co-founder of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies, and Curtis McGiffin in the Vice President for Education and co-founder of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies.

The Faux Nuclear Arms Race that Isn’t was originally published on Global Security Review.

Alternatively, credible deterrence may be more readily achieved through the threat of low-yield nuclear weapons actively dispersed throughout the Asia-Pacific. Specifically, it is achieved through the threat of nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM-N) deployed aboard American submarines. However, the risk of nuclear escalation and the undisclosed conditions under which Xi Jinping could use force need to be factored into American deterrence posture. These conditions likely include any attempts to introduce nuclear weapons into the Taiwan issue and any American security guarantees for the self-governing island.

Preparedness is not a well-covered concept in academic literature and is therefore not as well understood by most civilian strategic thinkers. It is chiefly a military concept for thinking about force generation and deployment. Preparedness is the sustainable capacity to apply capabilities to accomplish government-directed tasks over time. It is composed of readiness and sustainability. Readiness is the ability of a capability to be applied to a specific activity within a nominated time frame for a specified period of time to achieve a desired effect. Sustainability is the ability of a force to maintain the necessary level of combat power for the duration required to achieve its objectives.

There is a fundamental difference between conventional and nuclear preparedness. Conventional forces for theater missions need significant time for mobilization and deployment to signal intent. In contrast, nuclear-armed forces are always “on,” that is deterrence of some form is already operational and credibly signalling intent. Nuclear deterrence provides an operational level of capability (O-LOC) that is readily useable and presents the immediate threat of devastating damage, as opposed to unready conventional deterrence.

Conventional deterrence has significant inadequacies, as Richard K. Betts kindly points out. First, success in conventional operations is likely to be overestimated due to uncertainty in the balance of forces, political constraints, and conditions of engagement. Second, an extreme imbalance of forces is critical to successful outcomes of the initial phase. Third, the deterrence factor of military capabilities depends on political factors, namely the motives and beliefs of the adversary. Fourth, extremely high confidence in conventional options is required to provide the same level of deterrence as the threat of nuclear retaliation. Finally, conventional deterrence raises the risk of escalation to nuclear war. The United States’ Asia-Pacific deterrence posture must factor these shortfalls of conventional deterrence, especially when further undermined by the momentous logistical challenges associated with operating in a vast Asia-Pacific maritime environment.

During the Cold War, nuclear weapons were integral to American and allied preparedness. Credible and reliable deterrence in the Cold War can be attributed to McNamara’s resilient, flexible, and survivable American forces. Continuous nuclear modernization programs throughout the Cold War generated large numbers of strategic platforms and weapons that enabled adaptability in American force development and plans. The Cold War also highlighted the importance of a viable industrial infrastructure that is required to produce strategic forces and provide deterrence, assurance, dissuasion, and damage limitation.

As the Cold War competition ended, the US and Russia gradually decreased their sizeable and diverse nuclear arsenals. From 1987 to 2005, arms control treaties played a central role in reducing nuclear arsenals. Many in the West believed that nuclear deterrence was a thing of the past.

However, this decline in the American arsenal presents a problem today. There is a renaissance in geopolitical competition 101, and the US now faces two nuclear-armed peers—China and Russia. Although, China’s growing military challenge to regional stability was obvious for some time, it is only in the past few years that the US acknowledged China as a peer competitor. In addition to Russia threatening the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, China is diversifying and increasing its nuclear arsenal, presumably in an attempt to gain parity with the US and undermine overall American deterrence and extended deterrence capabilities. It was American nuclear preparedness that helped keep the Cold War cold.

Russia and China are substantially increasing their nuclear preparedness. The US and its allies must acknowledge this reality and adjust, with credible options, their nuclear preparedness. This is especially true in relation to the concept of extended deterrence in the Asia-Pacific, which never got nearly enough attention as Europe did during the Cold War.

However, there is a lack of credible confirmation that the US still views nuclear weapons as a central pillar of deterrence and strategic ambiguity, especially in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, there is quite the opposite with the introduction of “integrated deterrence” in 2022. This concept (which is really just a buzzword) of integrated deterrence actually minimizes the role of nuclear weapons in American grand strategy. The concept has negative implications for preparedness posture settings in the Asia-Pacific that are necessary to deter and defeat PRC aggression against Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

This compares to Western Europe during the Cold War, which was never satisfied with purely conventional deterrence and wanted American nuclear weapons to provide immediate, reliable, and credible deterrence. The US and its allies must consider the sheer logistical difficulties of conventional deterrence in a maritime environment as vast as the Asia-Pacific. Logistical challenges for conventional deterrence over significant and contested distances, including tasks to guarantee prompt replenishment of disabled combat ships, establish defensive perimeters for fleet support and ensure the safety of fleet replenishment oilers and dry-cargo/ammunition supply ships. Furthermore, significant budget constraints since 2013, coupled with longer-term financial and industrial base uncertainty, raise significant questions about the future of the US Navy’s long-term ability to project power and maintain sea-control (as opposed to sea-denial) in the Asia-Pacific region.

Europe was, and remains, one single geostrategic entity connected by land. Thus, collective deterrence was relatively easy. Whereas, in the Asia-Pacific, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Taiwan are significantly more dispersed and separated by long sea-lines-of-communication, with neutral and non-aligned states dotted between them. American forces will need to move significant numbers of vessels, aircraft, troops, supplies, and munitions across these vastly dispersed and contested distances.

There is also the difficulty of concentrating large numbers of strike aircraft at locations other than on aircraft carriers. Whereas, penetrating long-range stealth bombers may offer an advantage because of their range, they may not be sufficient to perform all warfighting and deterrence tasks.

A lack of diverse permanent bases on allied soil greatly increases the demands and stress on an aerial fleet and the logistics involved in keeping American forces adequately supplied. It also makes for significantly longer transit times for ships and submarines to and from distant resupply points. Submarines and many surface combatants are currently unable to replenish their missile magazines without sailing back to the United States. Indeed, it is only now that American planners are starting to think very seriously about the logistics and operational issues of extended deterrence in Asia, which were never given much attention because American seapower in this region was never contested.

As the earlier discussion illustrates, significant logistical challenges associated with conventional deterrence in a maritime environment as vast as the Asia-Pacific call into question reliance on conventional systems to deter aggression at different rungs of the escalation ladder. Low-yield nuclear weapons, such as the SLCM-N, are the most likely solution to the deterrence credibility challenge. An American—and allied—deterrence posture that poses the problem of nuclear escalation in the Asia-Pacific is likely to credibly deter Chinese nuclear escalation. Absent such an effort, China may see the opportunity President Xi is looking for.

Christine M. Leah is a fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Natalie Treloar is at Alpha-India Consultancy. They are based in Australia. The views presented here are their own.

Nuclear Weapons and Military Preparedness in the Asia-Pacific was originally published on Global Security Review.

Russia has substantially increased its presence in Black Sea since its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Under Russian administration, Crimea plays host to Bastion and Bal coastal defense systems that both employ anti-ship missiles. Conceivably, the Bastion system can reach the Black Sea straits as well as Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Turkish ports.

Russia has also deployed S-400 air defense systems to the peninsula with the capability to target strategic bombers, ballistic, and cruise missiles as well as surface targets. The S-400 system is further enhanced by the Pantsyr S1 anti-aircraft missile and gun system which was provided to the Crimean air defense forces.

Through these measures, Russia has established an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) zone over the Black Sea. The establishment of this A2/AD zone means Russia has the capability to block NATO access to the Black Sea. Granted, NATO's presence in the Black Sea is limited, but the threat remains nevertheless.

Russia's moves in the Black Sea threaten Ukraine's national security.

While NATO's interests aren't directly threatened by Russian actions in the Black Sea, Ukraine's are. Russian military deployments in the Black Sea region act as a deterrent to other Western forces who might consider assisting Ukraine militarily. Moscow's control over the Black Sea and the Crimean Peninsula has also resulted in Russian control over the disputed Sea of Azov.

Prior to the Crimean annexation, Ukraine and Russia shared sovereignty over the sea. However, in the wake of the annexation, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that not only was Sevastopol perpetually a part of Russia, but Crimea as well as the Sea of Azov were inherently Russian, as well.

In the case of the Sea of Azov, Russia's actions speak louder than words. Earlier in 2018, Russia completed construction a bridge over the Kerch Strait, explicitly setting it at a height which prevented any Ukrainian commercial ships from transiting the Strait. In doing so, it has threatened the viability of Ukraine's ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk. Furthermore, Russian officials have illegally boarded Ukrainian ships, essentially preventing Ukrainian usage of the Sea of Azov.

These illegal actions act are parts of a psychological operation to convince the Ukrainian people that Russia has a right to act with impunity in its "near-abroad." In other words, Russia is attempting to persuade Ukraine that NATO and the greater West lack the will to intervene on Ukraine's behalf, despite political rhetoric to the contrary.

Russia finally gets what it wants.

In addition to impeding Ukraine's political shift to the West, Russian objectives in the region include obtaining and maintaining access to and control over a warm water port. The A2/AD zone means that Russia has open access to the Balkans and the Mediterranean Sea. Access to a warm water port has been an objective that has been a cornerstone of Russian foreign policy since the days of Gregory Potemkin, an advisor to Catherine the Great.

Potemkin advocated for Russian southward expansion through the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the northern Middle East. With control over the Black Sea, Russia has the capacity to embark on a significant naval buildup. This buildup would give a much-needed boost to Russia's stagnating economy.

Access and control over the Black Sea also gives Russia a springboard from which to project power into the Middle East, the Balkans, and the greater-Mediterranean. Given Russia’s involvement in the Syrian war, this ability to project power could have measurable implications for that conflict.

Russia has also been conducting a soft power offensive in countries like Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia, and looks to be maintaining its partnership with Armenia. Russia is also taking steps to improve regional tensions, calling for an end to the Syrian war and agreeing to a resolution to the dispute over the legal status of the Caspian Sea.

The consequences of a delayed or minimal response to Russia's increasing control over the Black Sea could be substantial. The Black Sea is but one example of Russia's slow-but-steady consolidation of power and influence across the Eurasian landmass. If the United States and its fellow NATO allies fail to act, it may be too late to reverse shifting power dynamics in a region of major strategic value.

Russia is Consolidating its Control Over the Black Sea was originally published on Global Security Review.