alternet--2020-10-13--Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women crisis finally recognized in the halls of Congress

On Monday , Sept. 21 , days before Indigenous People 's Day and Domestic Violence Awareness Month , the House passed the Not Invisible Act and Savanna 's Act , sending the two bills addressing the Missing & Murdered Indigenous Women , Girls , and Two-Spirit people ( MMIWG2S ) crisis to the White House for Trump to sign into law .
Across the United States , over 5,700 Indigenous women were reported missing in 2016 alone , with only 116 of those cases logged into the Department of Justice 's ( DOJ ) missing persons database .
This statistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the MMIWG2S crisis and most data collection is conducted only by Indigenous communities and organizations .
Introduced by Reps. Deb Haaland , Pueblo of Laguna ( D-NM-1 ) , and Sharice Davids , Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin ( D-KS-3 ) , and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto ( D-NV ) , the Not Invisible Act would establish an advisory committee composed of lawmakers , law enforcement , tribal leaders , and survivors to monitor the MMIWG2S epidemic and make recommendations to the DOJ and Department of the Interior .
Additionally , the committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies investigating MMIWG2S cases .
This community-based and social service-based approach will hopefully lead to better protections for Indigenous community members across the country .
Named after the late Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind , a Spirit Lake tribe member who was murdered in Fargo , North Dakota , Savanna 's Act would ensure documentation of statistics around murder and disappeared rates , provide resources to tribal governments to better investigate MMIWG2S cases , and support investigation coordination between tribal , state , and federal government law enforcement agencies .
These two bipartisan pieces of legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and colonial violence against Native women , girls , and two-spirit people by both increasing data collection efforts and consulting tribal community leaders and survivors when determining solutions for state and local communities .
Daily Kos alongside Native-led groups including Seeding Sovereignty , Native Organizers Alliance , and NDN Collective have collected signatures from thousands of activists across the country urging Congress to pass both bills .
Seeding Sovereignty 's MMIW advisor Jordan Marie Daniel ( Kul Wicasa Lakota and Diné ) so aptly highlights that `` the number of Missing and Murdered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and relatives continues to increase , but there has been no concerted effort to accumulate statistics and other information around which to base policy and target resources on the federal level .
That work is currently happening with Native led organizations and advocates working with the families to fight for justice and visibility of this epidemic .
With Savannah 's Act , it is a simple and common-sense first step to address this long-standing issue impacting Native communities and collect the essential information needed to responsibly address this growing and painful trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we are to address this problem responsibly , we need to know about the size , scale , and depth of this reality… there is need for caution though – in the development of making these two pieces of legislation and the support by the Trump Administration through the creation of Operation Lady Justice – there was lack of involvement from MMIWG2S families and advocates for this federal taskforce .
It is absolutely critical moving forward , that we continue to be voices on those platforms and demand inclusion for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforced properly and respectfully that will hopefully result in no more deaths and disappearances of our relatives .
The future of Native people is at stake and we need informed policy and programs that include Native voices on these issues to eliminate this violence and to keep our relatives safe and not targets . ''
For far too long , Native communities have had to force law enforcement and non-Native elected officials to take this crisis seriously .
This marks an important step for Democrats and Republicans in ending erasure of Native women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives of the people whose land we occupy .

by Ntebo MokuenaforDaily Kos
On Monday, Sept. 21, days before Indigenous People's Day and Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the House passed the Not Invisible Act and Savanna's Act, sending the two bills addressing the Missing & Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two-Spirit people (MMIWG2S) crisis to the White House for Trump to sign into law.
Across the United States, over 5,700 Indigenous women were reported missing in 2016 alone, with only 116 of those cases logged into the Department of Justice's (DOJ) missing persons database. This statistic is just the tip of the iceberg of the MMIWG2S crisis and most data collection is conducted only by Indigenous communities and organizations.
Introduced by Reps. Deb Haaland, Pueblo of Laguna (D-NM-1), and Sharice Davids, Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin (D-KS-3), and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), the Not Invisible Act would establish an advisory committee composed of lawmakers, law enforcement, tribal leaders, and survivors to monitor the MMIWG2S epidemic and make recommendations to the DOJ and Department of the Interior.
Additionally, the committee would create best practices for law enforcement agencies investigating MMIWG2S cases. This community-based and social service-based approach will hopefully lead to better protections for Indigenous community members across the country.
Named after the late Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind, a Spirit Lake tribe member who was murdered in Fargo, North Dakota, Savanna's Act would ensure documentation of statistics around murder and disappeared rates, provide resources to tribal governments to better investigate MMIWG2S cases, and support investigation coordination between tribal, state, and federal government law enforcement agencies.
These two bipartisan pieces of legislation go hand in hand to address patriarchal and colonial violence against Native women, girls, and two-spirit people by both increasing data collection efforts and consulting tribal community leaders and survivors when determining solutions for state and local communities.
Daily Kos alongside Native-led groups including Seeding Sovereignty, Native Organizers Alliance, and NDN Collective have collected signatures from thousands of activists across the country urging Congress to pass both bills.
Seeding Sovereignty's MMIW advisor Jordan Marie Daniel (Kul Wicasa Lakota and Diné) so aptly highlights that "the number of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, children, Two Spirits, and relatives continues to increase, but there has been no concerted effort to accumulate statistics and other information around which to base policy and target resources on the federal level. That work is currently happening with Native led organizations and advocates working with the families to fight for justice and visibility of this epidemic. With Savannah's Act, it is a simple and common-sense first step to address this long-standing issue impacting Native communities and collect the essential information needed to responsibly address this growing and painful trend in, and around, Native country.
If we are to address this problem responsibly, we need to know about the size, scale, and depth of this reality… there is need for caution though – in the development of making these two pieces of legislation and the support by the Trump Administration through the creation of Operation Lady Justice – there was lack of involvement from MMIWG2S families and advocates for this federal taskforce. It is absolutely critical moving forward, that we continue to be voices on those platforms and demand inclusion for the families and advocates that these laws are enforced properly and respectfully that will hopefully result in no more deaths and disappearances of our relatives. The future of Native people is at stake and we need informed policy and programs that include Native voices on these issues to eliminate this violence and to keep our relatives safe and not targets."
For far too long, Native communities have had to force law enforcement and non-Native elected officials to take this crisis seriously. This marks an important step for Democrats and Republicans in ending erasure of Native women in politics and prioritizing the health and lives of the people whose land we occupy.


alternet--2020-10-13--Trump takes one more step toward becoming an autocrat — and it hardly makes a ripple

While the Republican Party , now stripped of everything but con men and fascist sycophants , drones on about What The Constitution Means To Them in virus-infected Senate hearings , they have closed their ears and pretended , to a person , not to notice Donald Trump going full authoritarian by flat-out demanding the arrest of his political enemies .
You know , on Twitter .
As one does .
The New York Times has taken notice , at least , providing an assortment of historians and past officials to warn in very polite terms that this is absolutely batshit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an authoritarian , and that we absolutely are going down a dangerous road .
No , it is not normal that Trump is getting visibly impatient with his allied attorney general , William Barr , for not producing the evidence necessary to prosecute his Democratic enemy .
No , it is not normal for ex-House Republican and lifelong cretin Mike Pompeo to use his State Department perch ( granted , it 's not like he 's using it for anything else ) to push out `` more '' Hillary Clinton emails in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is not present , in the Times ' report or many others , is any sense of true desperation that ( 1 ) the nation 's sitting president is calling for the arrest of his enemies , ( 2 ) the Republican Party is , collectively , either ignoring or embracing those calls , and ( 3 ) we are exactly that one inch from becoming an authoritarian regime .
The Times frames it as an act of corruption not even Richard Nixon followed through on , because it was so obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has crossed the line , we will make a note of it like we have all the others , but there 's no evidence of brakes being applied .
There are no Republican lawmakers piping up with a now that would be too much .
Republican Party leaders are instead playing both sides of that fence .
For now they are ignoring Trump 's newest act of overt corruption .
If Trump loses the election , they will say that it was all the ravings of a madman who is now gone—so the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and demands follow through , the same Republican leaders will ... enable it .
Let 's be honest here : The party openly endorsed Trump 's extortion of a foreign leader , something that also would have gotten a Nixon-level crook impeached back in the day .
Daddy Can Do Crimes is their new thing .
So if it happens , we will likely get the Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls of the party explaining that Democrats and government officials deserved arrest for their role in displeasing Dear Leader with evidence that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of foreign agents , and besides Trump 's newest acts are n't anything like true authoritarianism because Republicans are only arresting critics , not poisoning them or pushing them off balconies as is done in the more sophisticated versions .
And Sean Hannity will nod his enormous head until it is in danger of coming loose , and Tucker Carlson will explain to his audience why something called the `` Proud Boys '' are now the police force that America always needed but was too cowardly to have .
We have established , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are allowed to commit corrupt acts in service to the party .
We have established , from lawmaker silence , that Republican leaders are allowed to demand the arrest of enemies on purely fictitious charges .
There 's not a lot of ground left between that and following through , so everyone from the Times to Republican senators are quietly hoping the election solves the problem without anyone to pipe up too loudly .
That 's our best-case scenario : Trump will be turned out by a margin too large to allow for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend the rest of their careers lying their asses off about how much and why they supported his corruption .
But the fascist agenda will remain , because the party built that .
Fox News built that .
It 's not going away .

While the Republican Party, now stripped of everything but con men and fascist sycophants, drones on about What The Constitution Means To Them in virus-infected Senate hearings, they have closed their ears and pretended, to a person, not to notice Donald Trump going full authoritarian by flat-out demanding the arrest of his political enemies. You know, on Twitter. As one does.
The New York Times has taken notice, at least, providing an assortment of historians and past officials to warn in very polite terms that this is absolutely batshit crazy, that Trump is absolutely performing as an authoritarian, and that we absolutely are going down a dangerous road. No, it is not normal that Trump is getting visibly impatient with his allied attorney general, William Barr, for not producing the evidence necessary to prosecute his Democratic enemy. No, it is not normal for ex-House Republican and lifelong cretin Mike Pompeo to use his State Department perch (granted, it's not like he's using it for anything else) to push out "more" Hillary Clinton emails in the three weeks before the election.
(That Trump still considers "Hillary Clinton emails" to be an election-bending move, as an aside, is beside the point. Yes, he's an idiot. Yes, he's hopelessly obsessed with his own pet grievances, and is reliant on the whole rest of his party to be obsessed with those same grievances, and on conservative media to make them obsessed again whenever it's becoming clear that the base is getting bored.)
What is not present, in the Times' report or many others, is any sense of true desperation that (1) the nation's sitting president is calling for the arrest of his enemies, (2) the Republican Party is, collectively, either ignoring or embracing those calls, and (3) we are exactly that one inch from becoming an authoritarian regime. The Times frames it as an act of corruption not even Richard Nixon followed through on, because it was so obviously crooked. Now that the new crook has crossed the line, we will make a note of it like we have all the others, but there's no evidence of brakes being applied. There are no Republican lawmakers piping up with a now that would be too much.
Republican Party leaders are instead playing both sides of that fence. For now they are ignoring Trump's newest act of overt corruption. If Trump loses the election, they will say that it was all the ravings of a madman who is now gone—so the problem is solved. If Trump wins and demands follow through, the same Republican leaders will ... enable it. Let's be honest here: The party openly endorsed Trump's extortion of a foreign leader, something that also would have gotten a Nixon-level crook impeached back in the day. Daddy Can Do Crimes is their new thing.
So if it happens, we will likely get the Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls of the party explaining that Democrats and government officials deserved arrest for their role in displeasing Dear Leader with evidence that his team was playing footsie with a host of foreign agents, and besides Trump's newest acts aren't anything like true authoritarianism because Republicans are only arresting critics, not poisoning them or pushing them off balconies as is done in the more sophisticated versions. And Sean Hannity will nod his enormous head until it is in danger of coming loose, and Tucker Carlson will explain to his audience why something called the "Proud Boys" are now the police force that America always needed but was too cowardly to have.
We have established, from the Senate, that Republican leaders are allowed to commit corrupt acts in service to the party. We have established, from lawmaker silence, that Republican leaders are allowed to demand the arrest of enemies on purely fictitious charges. There's not a lot of ground left between that and following through, so everyone from the Times to Republican senators are quietly hoping the election solves the problem without anyone to pipe up too loudly.
That's our best-case scenario: Trump will be turned out by a margin too large to allow for fuckery, and Every Last Republican will spend the rest of their careers lying their asses off about how much and why they supported his corruption. But the fascist agenda will remain, because the party built that. Fox News built that. It's not going away.


alternet--2020-10-13--Trump-appointed judge smacks down the president's campaign in Pennsylvania ballot fight

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Convention 's efforts to steal the election in Pennsylvania were handed a setback on Saturday by a Trump-appointed judge .
The Trump campaign and RNC were trying to block Pennsylvania from having ballot drop boxes , force signature matches between voter registration records and ballots , and pave the way for bringing in an army of nonresident `` poll watchers '' to intimidate voters .
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Ranjan was n't having it .
`` While Plaintiffs may not need to prove actual voter fraud , they must at least prove that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They have n't met that burden .
At most , they have pieced together a sequence of uncertain assumptions , '' he wrote in a 138-page opinion .
Fabulously , Ranjan cited Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his decision , so if the Trump campaign and RNC appeal this up to the Supreme Court , Kavanaugh will have to contend with his past self .
Not that that 's usually a problem for partisan Republicans .
Pennsylvania is n't the only state where Republicans have had a court loss on efforts to rig the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case requires the Court to separate fact from fiction , '' U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen wrote in dismissing a Republican challenge to mail voting in Montana .
`` Central to some of the Plaintiffs ' claims is the contention that the upcoming election , both nationally and in Montana , will fall prey to widespread voter fraud .
The evidence suggests , however , that this allegation , specifically in Montana , is a fiction . ''
That September 30 decision followed another federal district judge dismissing a lawsuit against Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter to be sent a mail ballot .
State by state , it 's clear that Republicans just want to make it harder to vote during a pandemic .
Of course the Trump Supreme Court may yet hand Republicans the means to suppress votes .
But district judges have had some very strong opinions—to overturn all of them , the court 's conservatives will have to drop any act of being above partisanship , in ways that will make it easier for Democrats to make the case for reforming or expanding the court @ @ @ @

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Convention's efforts to steal the election in Pennsylvania were handed a setback on Saturday by a Trump-appointed judge. The Trump campaign and RNC were trying to block Pennsylvania from having ballot drop boxes, force signature matches between voter registration records and ballots, and pave the way for bringing in an army of nonresident "poll watchers" to intimidate voters.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Ranjan wasn't having it. "While Plaintiffs may not need to prove actual voter fraud, they must at least prove that such fraud is 'certainly impending.' They haven't met that burden. At most, they have pieced together a sequence of uncertain assumptions," he wrote in a 138-page opinion.
Fabulously, Ranjan cited Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his decision, so if the Trump campaign and RNC appeal this up to the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh will have to contend with his past self. Not that that's usually a problem for partisan Republicans.
Pennsylvania isn't the only state where Republicans have had a court loss on efforts to rig the elections.
"In many respects, this case requires the Court to separate fact from fiction," U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen wrote in dismissing a Republican challenge to mail voting in Montana. "Central to some of the Plaintiffs' claims is the contention that the upcoming election, both nationally and in Montana, will fall prey to widespread voter fraud. The evidence suggests, however, that this allegation, specifically in Montana, is a fiction."
That September 30 decision followed another federal district judge dismissing a lawsuit against Nevada's new law calling for every registered voter to be sent a mail ballot.
State by state, it's clear that Republicans just want to make it harder to vote during a pandemic.
Of course the Trump Supreme Court may yet hand Republicans the means to suppress votes. But district judges have had some very strong opinions—to overturn all of them, the court's conservatives will have to drop any act of being above partisanship, in ways that will make it easier for Democrats to make the case for reforming or expanding the court in the future.


alternet--2020-10-13--The US is playing a dangerous game of nuclear chicken

On August 21st , six nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers , representing approximately one-seventh of the war-ready U.S. B-52H bomber fleet , flew from their home base in North Dakota to Fairford Air Base in England for several weeks of intensive operations over Europe .
Although the actual weapons load of those giant bombers was kept secret , each of them is capable of carrying eight AGM-86B nuclear-armed , air-launched cruise missiles ( ALCMs ) in its bomb bay .
Those six planes , in other words , could have been carrying 48 city-busting thermonuclear warheads .
( The B-52H can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but none were visible on this occasion . )
With such a load alone , in other words , those six planes possessed the capacity to incinerate much of western Russia , including Moscow and St. Petersburg .
The B-52 Stratofortress is no ordinary warplane .
First flown in 1952 , it was designed with a single purpose in mind : to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean and drop dozens of nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union .
Some models were later modified to deliver tons of conventional bombs on targets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the remaining B-52s are still largely configured for intercontinental nuclear strikes .
With only 44 of them now thought to be in active service at any time , those six dispatched to the edge of Russian territory represented a significant commitment of American nuclear war-making capability .
What in god 's name were they doing there ?
According to American officials , they were intended to demonstrate this country 's ability to project overwhelming power anywhere on the planet at any time and so remind our NATO allies of Washington 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to quickly respond and assure allies and partners rests upon the fact that we are able to deploy our B-52s at a moment 's notice , '' commented General Jeff Harrigian , commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe .
`` Their presence here helps build trust with our NATO allies ... and affords us new opportunities to train together through a variety of scenarios . ''
While Harrigian did n't spell out just what scenarios he had in mind , the bombers ' European operations suggest that their role involved brandishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an increasingly hostile stance toward Russia .
During their sojourn in Europe , for example , two of them flew over the Baltic Sea close to Kaliningrad , a Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania that houses several key military installations .
That September 25th foray coincided with a U.S. troop buildup in Lithuania about 65 miles from election-embattled Belarus , a Russian neighbor .
Since August 9th , when strongman Alexander Lukashenko declared victory in a presidential election widely considered fraudulent by his people and much of the international community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country might intervene there if the situation `` gets out of control , '' while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has implicitly warned of U.S. intervention if Russia interferes .
`` We stand by our long-term commitment to support Belarus ' sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the aspiration of the Belarusian people to choose their leader and to choose their own path , free from external intervention , '' he insisted on August 20th .
The flight of those B-52s near Belarus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as adding a nuclear dimension to Pompeo 's threat .
In another bomber deployment with no less worrisome implications , on September 4th , three B-52s , accompanied by Ukrainian fighter planes , flew over the Black Sea near the coast of Russian-held Crimea .
Like other B-52 sorties near its airspace , that foray prompted the rapid scrambling of Russian interceptor aircraft , which often fly threateningly close to American planes .
At a moment when tensions were mounting between the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebel areas in the eastern part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those bombers off Crimea was widely viewed as yet another nuclear-tinged threat to Moscow .
As Hans Kristensen , director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists ( FAS ) , tweeted , `` Extraordinary decision to send a nuclear bomber so close to contested and tense areas .
This is a real in-your-face statement . ''
And provocative as they were , those were hardly the only forays by U.S. nuclear bombers in recent months .
B-52s also ventured near Russian air space in the Arctic and within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile other B-52s , as well as nuclear-capable B-1 and B-2 bombers , have flown similar missions near Chinese positions in the South China Sea and the waters around the disputed island of Taiwan .
Never since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 have so many U.S. nuclear bombers been engaged in `` show-of-force '' operations of this sort .
States have long engaged in military operations to intimidate other powers .
Once upon a distant time , this would have been called `` gunboat diplomacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the instruments of choice for such missions .
The arrival of nuclear arms made such operations far more dangerous .
This did n't , however , stop the U.S. from using weaponry of this sort as tools of intimidation throughout the Cold War .
In time , however , even nuclear strategists began condemning acts of `` nuclear coercion , '' arguing that such weaponry was inappropriate for any purpose other than `` deterrence '' -- that is , using the threat of `` massive retaliation '' to prevent another country from attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posture eventually became Washington 's official policy , even if the temptation to employ nukes as political cudgels never entirely disappeared from its strategic thinking .
At a more hopeful time , President Barack Obama sought to downsize this country 's nuclear arsenal and prevent the use of such weapons for anything beyond deterrence ( although his administration also commenced an expensive `` modernization '' of that arsenal ) .
In his widely applauded Nobel Peace Prize speech of April 5 , 2009 , Obama swore to `` put an end to Cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy . ''
Unfortunately , Donald Trump has sought to move the dial in the opposite direction , including increasing the use of nukes as coercive instruments .
The president 's deep desire to bolster the role of nuclear weapons in national security was first spelled out in his administration 's Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018 .
In addition to calling for the accelerated modernization of the nuclear arsenal , it also endorsed the use of such weapons to demonstrate American `` resolve '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go to the nuclear brink over political differences .
A large and diverse arsenal was desirable , the document noted , to `` demonstrate resolve through the positioning of forces , messaging , and flexible response options . ''
Nuclear bombers were said to be especially useful for such a purpose : `` Flights abroad , '' it stated , `` display U.S. capabilities and resolve , providing effective signaling for deterrence and assurance , including in times of tension . ''
Ever since , the Trump administration has been deploying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , B-1s , and B-2s with increasing frequency to `` display U.S. capabilities and resolve , '' particularly with respect to Russia and China .
The supersonic B-1B Lancer , developed in the 1970s , was originally meant to replace the B-52 as the nation 's premier long-range nuclear bomber .
After the Cold War ended , however , it was converted to carry conventional munitions and is no longer officially designated as a nuclear delivery system -- though it could be reconfigured for this purpose at any time .
The B-2 Spirit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the first U.S. bomber built with `` stealth '' capabilities ( meant to avoid detection by enemy radar systems ) and is configured to carry both nuclear and conventional weaponry .
For the past year or so , those two planes plus the long-lived B-52 have been used on an almost weekly basis as the radioactive `` stick '' of U.S. diplomacy around the world .
Nuclear Forays in the Arctic and the Russian Far East When flying to Europe in August , those six B-52s from North Dakota 's Minot Air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Greenland ( which President Trump had unsuccessfully offered to purchase in 2019 ) .
They finally descended over the Barents Sea within easy missile-firing range of Russia 's vast naval complex at Murmansk , the home for most of its ballistic missile submarines .
For Hans Kristensen of FAS , that was another obvious and `` pointed message at Russia . ''
Strategically speaking , Washington had largely ignored the Arctic until a combination of factors -- global warming , accelerated oil and gas drilling in the region , and increased Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing interest .
As global temperatures have risen , the Arctic ice cap has been melting at an ever-faster pace , allowing energy firms to exploit the region 's extensive hydrocarbon resources .
This , in turn , has led to feverish efforts by the region 's littoral states , led by Russia , to lay claim to such resources and build up their military capabilities there .
In light of these developments , the Trump administration , led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , has called for an expansion of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a speech delivered at the Arctic Council in Rovaniemi , Finland , in May 2019 , Pompeo warned of Russia 's growing military stance in the region and pledged a strong American response to it .
`` Under President Trump , '' he declared .
`` We are fortifying America 's security and diplomatic presence in the area . ''
In line with this , the Pentagon has deployed U.S. warships to the Arctic on a regular basis , while engaging in ever more elaborate military exercises there .
These have included Cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Norway 's far north within a few hundred miles of those key Russian bases at Murmansk .
For the most part , however , the administration has relied on nuclear-bomber forays to demonstrate its opposition to an increasing Russian role there .
In November 2019 , for example , three B-52s , accompanied by Norwegian F-16 fighter jets , approached the Russian naval complex at Murmansk , a move meant to demonstrate the Pentagon 's capacity to launch nuclear-armed missiles at one of that country 's most critical military installations .
If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near Norway 's far north , the Pentagon has not neglected Russia 's far eastern territory , home of its Pacific Fleet , either .
In an unusually brazen maneuver , this May a B-1B bomber flew over the Sea of Okhotsk , an offshoot of the Pacific Ocean surrounded by Russian territory on three sides ( Siberia to the north , Sakhalin Island to the west , and the Kamchatka Peninsula to the east ) .
As if to add insult to injury , the Air Force dispatched two B-52H bombers over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another first for an aircraft of that type .
Needless to say , incursions in such a militarily sensitive area led to the rapid scrambling of Russian fighter aircraft .
A similar , equally provocative pattern can be observed in the East and South China Seas .
Even as President Trump has sought , largely unsuccessfully , to negotiate a trade deal with Beijing , his administration has become increasingly antagonistic towards the Chinese leadership .
On July 23rd , Secretary of State Pompeo delivered a particularly hostile speech in the presidential library @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who first reopened relations with communist China .
Pompeo called on American allies to suspend normal relations with Beijing and , like Washington , treat it as a hostile power , much the way the Soviet Union was viewed during the Cold War .
While administration rhetoric amped up , the Department of Defense has been bolstering its capacity to engage and defeat Beijing in any future conflict .
In its 2018 National Defense Strategy , as the U.S. military 's `` forever wars '' dragged on , the Pentagon suddenly labeled China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American security .
More recently , it singled out China alone as the overarching menace to American national security .
`` In this era of great-power competition , '' Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared this September , `` the Department of Defense has prioritized China , then Russia , as our top strategic competitors . ''
The Pentagon 's efforts have largely been focused on the South China Sea , where China has established a network of small military installations on artificial islands created by dredging sand from the sea-bottom near some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
American leaders have never accepted the legitimacy of this island-building project and have repeatedly called upon Beijing to dismantle the bases .
Such efforts have , however , largely fallen on deaf ears and it 's now evident that the Pentagon is considering military means to eliminate the island threat .
In early July , the U.S. Navy conducted its most elaborate maneuvers to date in those waters , deploying two aircraft carriers there -- the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan -- plus an escort fleet of cruisers , destroyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two carriers launched hundreds of combat planes in simulated attacks on military bases on the islands the Chinese had essentially built .
At the same time , paratroopers from the Army 's 25th Infantry Division were flown from their home base in Alaska to the Pacific island of Guam in what was clearly meant as a simulated air assault on a ( presumably Chinese ) military installation .
And just to make sure the leadership in Beijing understood that , in any actual encounter with U.S. forces , Chinese resistance would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deemed necessary , the Pentagon also flew a B-52 bomber over those carriers as they engaged in their provocative maneuvers .
And that was hardly the first visit of a nuclear bomber to the South China Sea .
The Pentagon has , in fact , been deploying such planes there on a regular basis since the beginning of 2020 .
In April , for example , the Air Force dispatched two B-1B Lancers on a 32-hour round-trip from their home at Ellsworth Air Force Base , North Dakota , to that sea and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to project power even in the midst of the pandemic President Trump likes to call `` the Chinese plague . ''
Meanwhile , tensions have grown over the status of the island of Taiwan , which China views as a breakaway part of the country .
Beijing has been pressuring its leaders to foreswear any moves toward independence , while the Trump administration tacitly endorses just such a future by doing the previously unimaginable -- notably , by sending high-level officials , Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar among them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promising deliveries of increasingly sophisticated weapons .
Meanwhile , the Pentagon has upped its military presence in that part of the Pacific , too .
The Navy has repeatedly dispatched missile-armed destroyers on `` freedom of navigation '' missions through the Taiwan Strait , while other U.S. warships have conducted elaborate military exercises in nearby waters .
Needless to say , such provocative steps have alarmed Beijing , which has responded by increasing the incursions of its military aircraft into airspace claimed by Taiwan .
To make sure that Beijing fully appreciates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resist any attempt to seize Taiwan by force , the Pentagon has accompanied its other military moves around the island with -- you guessed it -- flights of B-52 bombers .
And where will all this end ?
As the U.S. sends nuclear-capable bombers on increasingly provocative flights ever closer to Russian and Chinese territory , the danger of an accident or mishap is bound to grow .
Sooner or later , a fighter plane from one of those countries is going to get too close to an American bomber and a deadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen if a nuclear bomber , armed with advanced missiles and electronics ( even conceivably nuclear weapons ) , is in some fashion downed ?
Count on one thing : in Donald Trump 's America the calls for devastating retaliation will be intense and a major conflagration can not be ruled out .
Bluntly put , dispatching nuclear-capable B-52s on simulated bombing runs against Chinese and Russian military installations is simply nuts .
Yes , it must scare the bejesus out of Chinese and Russian officials , but it will also prompt them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American diplomats while further bolstering their own military power and defenses .
Eventually , we will all find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and insecure world with the risk of Armageddon lurking just around the corner.On August 21st , six nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers , representing approximately one-seventh of the war-ready U.S. B-52H bomber fleet , flew from their home base in North Dakota to Fairford Air Base in England for several weeks of intensive operations over Europe .
Although the actual weapons load of those giant bombers was kept secret , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight AGM-86B nuclear-armed , air-launched cruise missiles ( ALCMs ) in its bomb bay .
Those six planes , in other words , could have been carrying 48 city-busting thermonuclear warheads .
( The B-52H can also carry 12 ALCMs on external pylons , but none were visible on this occasion . )
With such a load alone , in other words , those six planes possessed the capacity to incinerate much of western Russia , including Moscow and St. Petersburg .
The B-52 Stratofortress is no ordinary warplane .
First flown in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single purpose in mind : to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean and drop dozens of nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union .
Some models were later modified to deliver tons of conventional bombs on targets in North Vietnam and other hostile states , but the remaining B-52s are still largely configured for intercontinental nuclear strikes .
With only 44 of them now thought to be in active service at any time , those six dispatched to the edge of Russian territory represented a significant commitment of American nuclear war-making capability .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ?
According to American officials , they were intended to demonstrate this country 's ability to project overwhelming power anywhere on the planet at any time and so remind our NATO allies of Washington 's commitment to their defense .
`` Our ability to quickly respond and assure allies and partners rests upon the fact that we are able to deploy our B-52s at a moment 's notice , '' commented General Jeff Harrigian , commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe .
`` Their presence here helps build trust with our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities to train together through a variety of scenarios . ''
While Harrigian did n't spell out just what scenarios he had in mind , the bombers ' European operations suggest that their role involved brandishing a nuclear `` stick '' in support of an increasingly hostile stance toward Russia .
During their sojourn in Europe , for example , two of them flew over the Baltic Sea close to Kaliningrad , a Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania that houses several key military installations .
That September 25th foray coincided with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 65 miles from election-embattled Belarus , a Russian neighbor .
Since August 9th , when strongman Alexander Lukashenko declared victory in a presidential election widely considered fraudulent by his people and much of the international community , Belarus has experienced recurring anti-government protests .
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country might intervene there if the situation `` gets out of control , '' while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has implicitly warned of U.S. intervention if Russia interferes .
`` We stand by our long-term commitment to support Belarus ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aspiration of the Belarusian people to choose their leader and to choose their own path , free from external intervention , '' he insisted on August 20th .
The flight of those B-52s near Belarus can , then , be reasonably interpreted as adding a nuclear dimension to Pompeo 's threat .
In another bomber deployment with no less worrisome implications , on September 4th , three B-52s , accompanied by Ukrainian fighter planes , flew over the Black Sea near the coast of Russian-held Crimea .
Like other B-52 sorties near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapid scrambling of Russian interceptor aircraft , which often fly threateningly close to American planes .
At a moment when tensions were mounting between the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebel areas in the eastern part of the country , the deployment of those bombers off Crimea was widely viewed as yet another nuclear-tinged threat to Moscow .
As Hans Kristensen , director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists ( FAS ) , tweeted , `` Extraordinary decision to send a nuclear bomber so close to contested and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-your-face statement . ''
And provocative as they were , those were hardly the only forays by U.S. nuclear bombers in recent months .
B-52s also ventured near Russian air space in the Arctic and within range of Russian forces in Syria .
Meanwhile other B-52s , as well as nuclear-capable B-1 and B-2 bombers , have flown similar missions near Chinese positions in the South China Sea and the waters around the disputed island of Taiwan .
Never since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaged in `` show-of-force '' operations of this sort .
States have long engaged in military operations to intimidate other powers .
Once upon a distant time , this would have been called `` gunboat diplomacy '' and naval vessels would have been the instruments of choice for such missions .
The arrival of nuclear arms made such operations far more dangerous .
This did n't , however , stop the U.S. from using weaponry of this sort as tools of intimidation throughout the Cold War .
In time , however , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear coercion , '' arguing that such weaponry was inappropriate for any purpose other than `` deterrence '' -- that is , using the threat of `` massive retaliation '' to prevent another country from attacking you .
In fact , a deterrence-only posture eventually became Washington 's official policy , even if the temptation to employ nukes as political cudgels never entirely disappeared from its strategic thinking .
At a more hopeful time , President Barack Obama sought to downsize this country 's nuclear arsenal and prevent the use of such weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration also commenced an expensive `` modernization '' of that arsenal ) .
In his widely applauded Nobel Peace Prize speech of April 5 , 2009 , Obama swore to `` put an end to Cold War thinking '' and `` reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy . ''
Unfortunately , Donald Trump has sought to move the dial in the opposite direction , including increasing the use of nukes as coercive instruments .
The president 's deep desire to bolster the role of nuclear weapons in national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration 's Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018 .
In addition to calling for the accelerated modernization of the nuclear arsenal , it also endorsed the use of such weapons to demonstrate American `` resolve '' -- in other words , a willingness to go to the nuclear brink over political differences .
A large and diverse arsenal was desirable , the document noted , to `` demonstrate resolve through the positioning of forces , messaging , and flexible response options . ''
Nuclear bombers were said to be especially useful for such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' it stated , `` display U.S. capabilities and resolve , providing effective signaling for deterrence and assurance , including in times of tension . ''
Ever since , the Trump administration has been deploying the country 's nuclear bomber fleet of B-52s , B-1s , and B-2s with increasing frequency to `` display U.S. capabilities and resolve , '' particularly with respect to Russia and China .
The supersonic B-1B Lancer , developed in the 1970s , was originally meant to replace the B-52 as the nation 's premier long-range nuclear bomber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , it was converted to carry conventional munitions and is no longer officially designated as a nuclear delivery system -- though it could be reconfigured for this purpose at any time .
The B-2 Spirit , with its distinctive flying-wing design , was the first U.S. bomber built with `` stealth '' capabilities ( meant to avoid detection by enemy radar systems ) and is configured to carry both nuclear and conventional weaponry .
For the past year or so , those two planes plus the long-lived B-52 have been used on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` stick '' of U.S. diplomacy around the world .
Nuclear Forays in the Arctic and the Russian Far East When flying to Europe in August , those six B-52s from North Dakota 's Minot Air Force Base took a roundabout route north of Greenland ( which President Trump had unsuccessfully offered to purchase in 2019 ) .
They finally descended over the Barents Sea within easy missile-firing range of Russia 's vast naval complex at Murmansk , the home for most of its ballistic missile submarines .
For Hans Kristensen of FAS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed message at Russia . ''
Strategically speaking , Washington had largely ignored the Arctic until a combination of factors -- global warming , accelerated oil and gas drilling in the region , and increased Russian and Chinese military activities there -- sparked growing interest .
As global temperatures have risen , the Arctic ice cap has been melting at an ever-faster pace , allowing energy firms to exploit the region 's extensive hydrocarbon resources .
This , in turn , has led to feverish efforts by the region 's littoral states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to such resources and build up their military capabilities there .
In light of these developments , the Trump administration , led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , has called for an expansion of this country 's Arctic military forces .
In a speech delivered at the Arctic Council in Rovaniemi , Finland , in May 2019 , Pompeo warned of Russia 's growing military stance in the region and pledged a strong American response to it .
`` Under President Trump , '' he declared .
`` We are fortifying America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area . ''
In line with this , the Pentagon has deployed U.S. warships to the Arctic on a regular basis , while engaging in ever more elaborate military exercises there .
These have included Cold Response 2020 , conducted this spring in Norway 's far north within a few hundred miles of those key Russian bases at Murmansk .
For the most part , however , the administration has relied on nuclear-bomber forays to demonstrate its opposition to an increasing Russian role there .
In November 2019 , for example , three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jets , approached the Russian naval complex at Murmansk , a move meant to demonstrate the Pentagon 's capacity to launch nuclear-armed missiles at one of that country 's most critical military installations .
If the majority of such nuclear forays have occurred near Norway 's far north , the Pentagon has not neglected Russia 's far eastern territory , home of its Pacific Fleet , either .
In an unusually brazen maneuver , this May a B-1B bomber flew over the Sea of Okhotsk , an offshoot of the Pacific Ocean surrounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Siberia to the north , Sakhalin Island to the west , and the Kamchatka Peninsula to the east ) .
As if to add insult to injury , the Air Force dispatched two B-52H bombers over the Sea of Okhotsk in June -- another first for an aircraft of that type .
Needless to say , incursions in such a militarily sensitive area led to the rapid scrambling of Russian fighter aircraft .
A similar , equally provocative pattern can be observed in the East and South China Seas .
Even as President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to negotiate a trade deal with Beijing , his administration has become increasingly antagonistic towards the Chinese leadership .
On July 23rd , Secretary of State Pompeo delivered a particularly hostile speech in the presidential library of Richard Nixon , the very commander-in-chief who first reopened relations with communist China .
Pompeo called on American allies to suspend normal relations with Beijing and , like Washington , treat it as a hostile power , much the way the Soviet Union was viewed during the Cold War .
While administration rhetoric amped up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its capacity to engage and defeat Beijing in any future conflict .
In its 2018 National Defense Strategy , as the U.S. military 's `` forever wars '' dragged on , the Pentagon suddenly labeled China and Russia the two greatest threats to American security .
More recently , it singled out China alone as the overarching menace to American national security .
`` In this era of great-power competition , '' Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared this September , `` the Department of Defense has prioritized China , then Russia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Pentagon 's efforts have largely been focused on the South China Sea , where China has established a network of small military installations on artificial islands created by dredging sand from the sea-bottom near some of the reefs and atolls it claims .
American leaders have never accepted the legitimacy of this island-building project and have repeatedly called upon Beijing to dismantle the bases .
Such efforts have , however , largely fallen on deaf ears and it 's now evident that the Pentagon is considering military means to eliminate the island @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Navy conducted its most elaborate maneuvers to date in those waters , deploying two aircraft carriers there -- the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan -- plus an escort fleet of cruisers , destroyers , and submarines .
While there , the two carriers launched hundreds of combat planes in simulated attacks on military bases on the islands the Chinese had essentially built .
At the same time , paratroopers from the Army 's 25th Infantry Division were flown from their home base in Alaska to the Pacific island of Guam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simulated air assault on a ( presumably Chinese ) military installation .
And just to make sure the leadership in Beijing understood that , in any actual encounter with U.S. forces , Chinese resistance would be countered by the maximum level of force deemed necessary , the Pentagon also flew a B-52 bomber over those carriers as they engaged in their provocative maneuvers .
And that was hardly the first visit of a nuclear bomber to the South China Sea .
The Pentagon has , in fact , been deploying such planes there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2020 .
In April , for example , the Air Force dispatched two B-1B Lancers on a 32-hour round-trip from their home at Ellsworth Air Force Base , North Dakota , to that sea and back as a demonstration of its ability to project power even in the midst of the pandemic President Trump likes to call `` the Chinese plague . ''
Meanwhile , tensions have grown over the status of the island of Taiwan , which China views as a breakaway part of the country .
Beijing has been pressuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence , while the Trump administration tacitly endorses just such a future by doing the previously unimaginable -- notably , by sending high-level officials , Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar among them , on visits to the island and by promising deliveries of increasingly sophisticated weapons .
Meanwhile , the Pentagon has upped its military presence in that part of the Pacific , too .
The Navy has repeatedly dispatched missile-armed destroyers on `` freedom of navigation '' missions through the Taiwan Strait , while other U.S. warships have conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Needless to say , such provocative steps have alarmed Beijing , which has responded by increasing the incursions of its military aircraft into airspace claimed by Taiwan .
To make sure that Beijing fully appreciates the depth of American `` resolve '' to resist any attempt to seize Taiwan by force , the Pentagon has accompanied its other military moves around the island with -- you guessed it -- flights of B-52 bombers .
And where will all this end ?
As the U.S. sends nuclear-capable bombers on increasingly provocative flights ever closer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger of an accident or mishap is bound to grow .
Sooner or later , a fighter plane from one of those countries is going to get too close to an American bomber and a deadly incident will occur .
And what will happen if a nuclear bomber , armed with advanced missiles and electronics ( even conceivably nuclear weapons ) , is in some fashion downed ?
Count on one thing : in Donald Trump 's America the calls for devastating retaliation will be intense and a major conflagration can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear-capable B-52s on simulated bombing runs against Chinese and Russian military installations is simply nuts .
Yes , it must scare the bejesus out of Chinese and Russian officials , but it will also prompt them to distrust any future peaceful overtures from American diplomats while further bolstering their own military power and defenses .
Eventually , we will all find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and insecure world with the risk of Armageddon lurking just around the corner .
Michael T. Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Massachusetts .
His newest book , The Race for What 's Left : The Global Scramble for the World 's Last Resources , has just recently been published .
His other books include : Rising Powers , Shrinking Planet : The New Geopolitics of Energy and Blood and Oil : The Dangers and Consequences of America 's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum .
A documentary version of Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation .

On August 21st, six nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers, representing approximately one-seventh of the war-ready U.S. B-52H bomber fleet, flew from their home base in North Dakota to Fairford Air Base in England for several weeks of intensive operations over Europe. Although the actual weapons load of those giant bombers was kept secret, each of them is capable of carrying eight AGM-86B nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) in its bomb bay. Those six planes, in other words, could have been carrying 48 city-busting thermonuclear warheads. (The B-52H can also carry 12 ALCMs on external pylons, but none were visible on this occasion.) With such a load alone, in other words, those six planes possessed the capacity to incinerate much of western Russia, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The B-52 Stratofortress is no ordinary warplane. First flown in 1952, it was designed with a single purpose in mind: to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean and drop dozens of nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Some models were later modified to deliver tons of conventional bombs on targets in North Vietnam and other hostile states, but the remaining B-52s are still largely configured for intercontinental nuclear strikes. With only 44 of them now thought to be in active service at any time, those six dispatched to the edge of Russian territory represented a significant commitment of American nuclear war-making capability.
What in god's name were they doing there? According to American officials, they were intended to demonstrate this country's ability to project overwhelming power anywhere on the planet at any time and so remind our NATO allies of Washington's commitment to their defense. "Our ability to quickly respond and assure allies and partners rests upon the fact that we are able to deploy our B-52s at a moment's notice," commented General Jeff Harrigian, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe. "Their presence here helps build trust with our NATO allies... and affords us new opportunities to train together through a variety of scenarios."
While Harrigian didn't spell out just what scenarios he had in mind, the bombers' European operations suggest that their role involved brandishing a nuclear "stick" in support of an increasingly hostile stance toward Russia. During their sojourn in Europe, for example, two of them flew over the Baltic Sea close to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania that houses several key military installations. That September 25th foray coincided with a U.S. troop buildup in Lithuania about 65 miles from election-embattled Belarus, a Russian neighbor.
Since August 9th, when strongman Alexander Lukashenko declared victory in a presidential election widely considered fraudulent by his people and much of the international community, Belarus has experienced recurring anti-government protests. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country might intervene there if the situation "gets out of control," while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has implicitly warned of U.S. intervention if Russia interferes. "We stand by our long-term commitment to support Belarus' sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the aspiration of the Belarusian people to choose their leader and to choose their own path, free from external intervention," he insisted on August 20th. The flight of those B-52s near Belarus can, then, be reasonably interpreted as adding a nuclear dimension to Pompeo's threat.
In another bomber deployment with no less worrisome implications, on September 4th, three B-52s, accompanied by Ukrainian fighter planes, flew over the Black Sea near the coast of Russian-held Crimea. Like other B-52 sorties near its airspace, that foray prompted the rapid scrambling of Russian interceptor aircraft, which often fly threateningly close to American planes.
At a moment when tensions were mounting between the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebel areas in the eastern part of the country, the deployment of those bombers off Crimea was widely viewed as yet another nuclear-tinged threat to Moscow. As Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), tweeted, "Extraordinary decision to send a nuclear bomber so close to contested and tense areas. This is a real in-your-face statement."
And provocative as they were, those were hardly the only forays by U.S. nuclear bombers in recent months. B-52s also ventured near Russian air space in the Arctic and within range of Russian forces in Syria. Meanwhile other B-52s, as well as nuclear-capable B-1 and B-2 bombers, have flown similar missions near Chinese positions in the South China Sea and the waters around the disputed island of Taiwan. Never since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 have so many U.S. nuclear bombers been engaged in "show-of-force" operations of this sort.
"Demonstrating Resolve" and Coercing Adversaries
States have long engaged in military operations to intimidate other powers. Once upon a distant time, this would have been called "gunboat diplomacy" and naval vessels would have been the instruments of choice for such missions. The arrival of nuclear arms made such operations far more dangerous. This didn't, however, stop the U.S. from using weaponry of this sort as tools of intimidation throughout the Cold War. In time, however, even nuclear strategists began condemning acts of "nuclear coercion," arguing that such weaponry was inappropriate for any purpose other than "deterrence" -- that is, using the threat of "massive retaliation" to prevent another country from attacking you. In fact, a deterrence-only posture eventually became Washington's official policy, even if the temptation to employ nukes as political cudgels never entirely disappeared from its strategic thinking.
At a more hopeful time, President Barack Obama sought to downsize this country's nuclear arsenal and prevent the use of such weapons for anything beyond deterrence (although his administration also commenced an expensive "modernization" of that arsenal). In his widely applauded Nobel Peace Prize speech of April 5, 2009, Obama swore to "put an end to Cold War thinking" and "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy." Unfortunately, Donald Trump has sought to move the dial in the opposite direction, including increasing the use of nukes as coercive instruments.
The president's deep desire to bolster the role of nuclear weapons in national security was first spelled out in his administration's Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018. In addition to calling for the accelerated modernization of the nuclear arsenal, it also endorsed the use of such weapons to demonstrate American "resolve" -- in other words, a willingness to go to the nuclear brink over political differences. A large and diverse arsenal was desirable, the document noted, to "demonstrate resolve through the positioning of forces, messaging, and flexible response options." Nuclear bombers were said to be especially useful for such a purpose: "Flights abroad," it stated, "display U.S. capabilities and resolve, providing effective signaling for deterrence and assurance, including in times of tension."
Ever since, the Trump administration has been deploying the country's nuclear bomber fleet of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s with increasing frequency to "display U.S. capabilities and resolve," particularly with respect to Russia and China.
The supersonic B-1B Lancer, developed in the 1970s, was originally meant to replace the B-52 as the nation's premier long-range nuclear bomber. After the Cold War ended, however, it was converted to carry conventional munitions and is no longer officially designated as a nuclear delivery system -- though it could be reconfigured for this purpose at any time. The B-2 Spirit, with its distinctive flying-wing design, was the first U.S. bomber built with "stealth" capabilities (meant to avoid detection by enemy radar systems) and is configured to carry both nuclear and conventional weaponry. For the past year or so, those two planes plus the long-lived B-52 have been used on an almost weekly basis as the radioactive "stick" of U.S. diplomacy around the world.
Nuclear Forays in the Arctic and the Russian Far East
When flying to Europe in August, those six B-52s from North Dakota's Minot Air Force Base took a roundabout route north of Greenland (which President Trump had unsuccessfully offered to purchase in 2019). They finally descended over the Barents Sea within easy missile-firing range of Russia's vast naval complex at Murmansk, the home for most of its ballistic missile submarines. For Hans Kristensen of FAS, that was another obvious and "pointed message at Russia."
Strategically speaking, Washington had largely ignored the Arctic until a combination of factors -- global warming, accelerated oil and gas drilling in the region, and increased Russian and Chinese military activities there -- sparked growing interest. As global temperatures have risen, the Arctic ice cap has been melting at an ever-faster pace, allowing energy firms to exploit the region's extensive hydrocarbon resources. This, in turn, has led to feverish efforts by the region's littoral states, led by Russia, to lay claim to such resources and build up their military capabilities there.
In light of these developments, the Trump administration, led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has called for an expansion of this country's Arctic military forces. In a speech delivered at the Arctic Council in Rovaniemi, Finland, in May 2019, Pompeo warned of Russia's growing military stance in the region and pledged a strong American response to it. "Under President Trump," he declared. "We are fortifying America's security and diplomatic presence in the area."
In line with this, the Pentagon has deployed U.S. warships to the Arctic on a regular basis, while engaging in ever more elaborate military exercises there. These have included Cold Response 2020, conducted this spring in Norway's far north within a few hundred miles of those key Russian bases at Murmansk. For the most part, however, the administration has relied on nuclear-bomber forays to demonstrate its opposition to an increasing Russian role there. In November 2019, for example, three B-52s, accompanied by Norwegian F-16 fighter jets, approached the Russian naval complex at Murmansk, a move meant to demonstrate the Pentagon's capacity to launch nuclear-armed missiles at one of that country's most critical military installations.
If the majority of such nuclear forays have occurred near Norway's far north, the Pentagon has not neglected Russia's far eastern territory, home of its Pacific Fleet, either. In an unusually brazen maneuver, this May a B-1B bomber flew over the Sea of Okhotsk, an offshoot of the Pacific Ocean surrounded by Russian territory on three sides (Siberia to the north, Sakhalin Island to the west, and the Kamchatka Peninsula to the east).
As if to add insult to injury, the Air Force dispatched two B-52H bombers over the Sea of Okhotsk in June -- another first for an aircraft of that type. Needless to say, incursions in such a militarily sensitive area led to the rapid scrambling of Russian fighter aircraft.
The South China Sea and Taiwan
A similar, equally provocative pattern can be observed in the East and South China Seas. Even as President Trump has sought, largely unsuccessfully, to negotiate a trade deal with Beijing, his administration has become increasingly antagonistic towards the Chinese leadership. On July 23rd, Secretary of State Pompeo delivered a particularly hostile speech in the presidential library of Richard Nixon, the very commander-in-chief who first reopened relations with communist China. Pompeo called on American allies to suspend normal relations with Beijing and, like Washington, treat it as a hostile power, much the way the Soviet Union was viewed during the Cold War.
While administration rhetoric amped up, the Department of Defense has been bolstering its capacity to engage and defeat Beijing in any future conflict. In its 2018 National Defense Strategy, as the U.S. military's "forever wars" dragged on, the Pentagon suddenly labeled China and Russia the two greatest threats to American security. More recently, it singled out China alone as the overarching menace to American national security. "In this era of great-power competition," Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared this September, "the Department of Defense has prioritized China, then Russia, as our top strategic competitors."
The Pentagon's efforts have largely been focused on the South China Sea, where China has established a network of small military installations on artificial islands created by dredging sand from the sea-bottom near some of the reefs and atolls it claims. American leaders have never accepted the legitimacy of this island-building project and have repeatedly called upon Beijing to dismantle the bases. Such efforts have, however, largely fallen on deaf ears and it's now evident that the Pentagon is considering military means to eliminate the island threat.
In early July, the U.S. Navy conducted its most elaborate maneuvers to date in those waters, deploying two aircraft carriers there -- the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan -- plus an escort fleet of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. While there, the two carriers launched hundreds of combat planes in simulated attacks on military bases on the islands the Chinese had essentially built.
At the same time, paratroopers from the Army's 25th Infantry Division were flown from their home base in Alaska to the Pacific island of Guam in what was clearly meant as a simulated air assault on a (presumably Chinese) military installation. And just to make sure the leadership in Beijing understood that, in any actual encounter with U.S. forces, Chinese resistance would be countered by the maximum level of force deemed necessary, the Pentagon also flew a B-52 bomber over those carriers as they engaged in their provocative maneuvers.
And that was hardly the first visit of a nuclear bomber to the South China Sea. The Pentagon has, in fact, been deploying such planes there on a regular basis since the beginning of 2020. In April, for example, the Air Force dispatched two B-1B Lancers on a 32-hour round-trip from their home at Ellsworth Air Force Base, North Dakota, to that sea and back as a demonstration of its ability to project power even in the midst of the pandemic President Trump likes to call "the Chinese plague."
Meanwhile, tensions have grown over the status of the island of Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway part of the country. Beijing has been pressuring its leaders to foreswear any moves toward independence, while the Trump administration tacitly endorses just such a future by doing the previously unimaginable -- notably, by sending high-level officials, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar among them, on visits to the island and by promising deliveries of increasingly sophisticated weapons. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has upped its military presence in that part of the Pacific, too. The Navy has repeatedly dispatched missile-armed destroyers on "freedom of navigation" missions through the Taiwan Strait, while other U.S. warships have conducted elaborate military exercises in nearby waters.
Needless to say, such provocative steps have alarmed Beijing, which has responded by increasing the incursions of its military aircraft into airspace claimed by Taiwan. To make sure that Beijing fully appreciates the depth of American "resolve" to resist any attempt to seize Taiwan by force, the Pentagon has accompanied its other military moves around the island with -- you guessed it -- flights of B-52 bombers.
Playing with Fire
And where will all this end? As the U.S. sends nuclear-capable bombers on increasingly provocative flights ever closer to Russian and Chinese territory, the danger of an accident or mishap is bound to grow. Sooner or later, a fighter plane from one of those countries is going to get too close to an American bomber and a deadly incident will occur. And what will happen if a nuclear bomber, armed with advanced missiles and electronics (even conceivably nuclear weapons), is in some fashion downed? Count on one thing: in Donald Trump's America the calls for devastating retaliation will be intense and a major conflagration cannot be ruled out.
Bluntly put, dispatching nuclear-capable B-52s on simulated bombing runs against Chinese and Russian military installations is simply nuts. Yes, it must scare the bejesus out of Chinese and Russian officials, but it will also prompt them to distrust any future peaceful overtures from American diplomats while further bolstering their own military power and defenses. Eventually, we will all find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and insecure world with the risk of Armageddon lurking just around the corner.On August 21st, six nuclear-capable B-52H Stratofortress bombers, representing approximately one-seventh of the war-ready U.S. B-52H bomber fleet, flew from their home base in North Dakota to Fairford Air Base in England for several weeks of intensive operations over Europe. Although the actual weapons load of those giant bombers was kept secret, each of them is capable of carrying eight AGM-86B nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) in its bomb bay. Those six planes, in other words, could have been carrying 48 city-busting thermonuclear warheads. (The B-52H can also carry 12 ALCMs on external pylons, but none were visible on this occasion.) With such a load alone, in other words, those six planes possessed the capacity to incinerate much of western Russia, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The B-52 Stratofortress is no ordinary warplane. First flown in 1952, it was designed with a single purpose in mind: to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean and drop dozens of nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Some models were later modified to deliver tons of conventional bombs on targets in North Vietnam and other hostile states, but the remaining B-52s are still largely configured for intercontinental nuclear strikes. With only 44 of them now thought to be in active service at any time, those six dispatched to the edge of Russian territory represented a significant commitment of American nuclear war-making capability.
What in god's name were they doing there? According to American officials, they were intended to demonstrate this country's ability to project overwhelming power anywhere on the planet at any time and so remind our NATO allies of Washington's commitment to their defense. "Our ability to quickly respond and assure allies and partners rests upon the fact that we are able to deploy our B-52s at a moment's notice," commented General Jeff Harrigian, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe. "Their presence here helps build trust with our NATO allies... and affords us new opportunities to train together through a variety of scenarios."
While Harrigian didn't spell out just what scenarios he had in mind, the bombers' European operations suggest that their role involved brandishing a nuclear "stick" in support of an increasingly hostile stance toward Russia. During their sojourn in Europe, for example, two of them flew over the Baltic Sea close to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania that houses several key military installations. That September 25th foray coincided with a U.S. troop buildup in Lithuania about 65 miles from election-embattled Belarus, a Russian neighbor.
Since August 9th, when strongman Alexander Lukashenko declared victory in a presidential election widely considered fraudulent by his people and much of the international community, Belarus has experienced recurring anti-government protests. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country might intervene there if the situation "gets out of control," while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has implicitly warned of U.S. intervention if Russia interferes. "We stand by our long-term commitment to support Belarus' sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the aspiration of the Belarusian people to choose their leader and to choose their own path, free from external intervention," he insisted on August 20th. The flight of those B-52s near Belarus can, then, be reasonably interpreted as adding a nuclear dimension to Pompeo's threat.
In another bomber deployment with no less worrisome implications, on September 4th, three B-52s, accompanied by Ukrainian fighter planes, flew over the Black Sea near the coast of Russian-held Crimea. Like other B-52 sorties near its airspace, that foray prompted the rapid scrambling of Russian interceptor aircraft, which often fly threateningly close to American planes.
At a moment when tensions were mounting between the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebel areas in the eastern part of the country, the deployment of those bombers off Crimea was widely viewed as yet another nuclear-tinged threat to Moscow. As Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), tweeted, "Extraordinary decision to send a nuclear bomber so close to contested and tense areas. This is a real in-your-face statement."
And provocative as they were, those were hardly the only forays by U.S. nuclear bombers in recent months. B-52s also ventured near Russian air space in the Arctic and within range of Russian forces in Syria. Meanwhile other B-52s, as well as nuclear-capable B-1 and B-2 bombers, have flown similar missions near Chinese positions in the South China Sea and the waters around the disputed island of Taiwan. Never since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 have so many U.S. nuclear bombers been engaged in "show-of-force" operations of this sort.
"Demonstrating Resolve" and Coercing Adversaries
States have long engaged in military operations to intimidate other powers. Once upon a distant time, this would have been called "gunboat diplomacy" and naval vessels would have been the instruments of choice for such missions. The arrival of nuclear arms made such operations far more dangerous. This didn't, however, stop the U.S. from using weaponry of this sort as tools of intimidation throughout the Cold War. In time, however, even nuclear strategists began condemning acts of "nuclear coercion," arguing that such weaponry was inappropriate for any purpose other than "deterrence" -- that is, using the threat of "massive retaliation" to prevent another country from attacking you. In fact, a deterrence-only posture eventually became Washington's official policy, even if the temptation to employ nukes as political cudgels never entirely disappeared from its strategic thinking.
At a more hopeful time, President Barack Obama sought to downsize this country's nuclear arsenal and prevent the use of such weapons for anything beyond deterrence (although his administration also commenced an expensive "modernization" of that arsenal). In his widely applauded Nobel Peace Prize speech of April 5, 2009, Obama swore to "put an end to Cold War thinking" and "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy." Unfortunately, Donald Trump has sought to move the dial in the opposite direction, including increasing the use of nukes as coercive instruments.
The president's deep desire to bolster the role of nuclear weapons in national security was first spelled out in his administration's Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018. In addition to calling for the accelerated modernization of the nuclear arsenal, it also endorsed the use of such weapons to demonstrate American "resolve" -- in other words, a willingness to go to the nuclear brink over political differences. A large and diverse arsenal was desirable, the document noted, to "demonstrate resolve through the positioning of forces, messaging, and flexible response options." Nuclear bombers were said to be especially useful for such a purpose: "Flights abroad," it stated, "display U.S. capabilities and resolve, providing effective signaling for deterrence and assurance, including in times of tension."
Ever since, the Trump administration has been deploying the country's nuclear bomber fleet of B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s with increasing frequency to "display U.S. capabilities and resolve," particularly with respect to Russia and China.
The supersonic B-1B Lancer, developed in the 1970s, was originally meant to replace the B-52 as the nation's premier long-range nuclear bomber. After the Cold War ended, however, it was converted to carry conventional munitions and is no longer officially designated as a nuclear delivery system -- though it could be reconfigured for this purpose at any time. The B-2 Spirit, with its distinctive flying-wing design, was the first U.S. bomber built with "stealth" capabilities (meant to avoid detection by enemy radar systems) and is configured to carry both nuclear and conventional weaponry. For the past year or so, those two planes plus the long-lived B-52 have been used on an almost weekly basis as the radioactive "stick" of U.S. diplomacy around the world.
Nuclear Forays in the Arctic and the Russian Far East
When flying to Europe in August, those six B-52s from North Dakota's Minot Air Force Base took a roundabout route north of Greenland (which President Trump had unsuccessfully offered to purchase in 2019). They finally descended over the Barents Sea within easy missile-firing range of Russia's vast naval complex at Murmansk, the home for most of its ballistic missile submarines. For Hans Kristensen of FAS, that was another obvious and "pointed message at Russia."
Strategically speaking, Washington had largely ignored the Arctic until a combination of factors -- global warming, accelerated oil and gas drilling in the region, and increased Russian and Chinese military activities there -- sparked growing interest. As global temperatures have risen, the Arctic ice cap has been melting at an ever-faster pace, allowing energy firms to exploit the region's extensive hydrocarbon resources. This, in turn, has led to feverish efforts by the region's littoral states, led by Russia, to lay claim to such resources and build up their military capabilities there.
In light of these developments, the Trump administration, led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has called for an expansion of this country's Arctic military forces. In a speech delivered at the Arctic Council in Rovaniemi, Finland, in May 2019, Pompeo warned of Russia's growing military stance in the region and pledged a strong American response to it. "Under President Trump," he declared. "We are fortifying America's security and diplomatic presence in the area."
In line with this, the Pentagon has deployed U.S. warships to the Arctic on a regular basis, while engaging in ever more elaborate military exercises there. These have included Cold Response 2020, conducted this spring in Norway's far north within a few hundred miles of those key Russian bases at Murmansk. For the most part, however, the administration has relied on nuclear-bomber forays to demonstrate its opposition to an increasing Russian role there. In November 2019, for example, three B-52s, accompanied by Norwegian F-16 fighter jets, approached the Russian naval complex at Murmansk, a move meant to demonstrate the Pentagon's capacity to launch nuclear-armed missiles at one of that country's most critical military installations.
If the majority of such nuclear forays have occurred near Norway's far north, the Pentagon has not neglected Russia's far eastern territory, home of its Pacific Fleet, either. In an unusually brazen maneuver, this May a B-1B bomber flew over the Sea of Okhotsk, an offshoot of the Pacific Ocean surrounded by Russian territory on three sides (Siberia to the north, Sakhalin Island to the west, and the Kamchatka Peninsula to the east).
As if to add insult to injury, the Air Force dispatched two B-52H bombers over the Sea of Okhotsk in June -- another first for an aircraft of that type. Needless to say, incursions in such a militarily sensitive area led to the rapid scrambling of Russian fighter aircraft.
The South China Sea and Taiwan
A similar, equally provocative pattern can be observed in the East and South China Seas. Even as President Trump has sought, largely unsuccessfully, to negotiate a trade deal with Beijing, his administration has become increasingly antagonistic towards the Chinese leadership. On July 23rd, Secretary of State Pompeo delivered a particularly hostile speech in the presidential library of Richard Nixon, the very commander-in-chief who first reopened relations with communist China. Pompeo called on American allies to suspend normal relations with Beijing and, like Washington, treat it as a hostile power, much the way the Soviet Union was viewed during the Cold War.
While administration rhetoric amped up, the Department of Defense has been bolstering its capacity to engage and defeat Beijing in any future conflict. In its 2018 National Defense Strategy, as the U.S. military's "forever wars" dragged on, the Pentagon suddenly labeled China and Russia the two greatest threats to American security. More recently, it singled out China alone as the overarching menace to American national security. "In this era of great-power competition," Secretary of Defense Mark Esper declared this September, "the Department of Defense has prioritized China, then Russia, as our top strategic competitors."
The Pentagon's efforts have largely been focused on the South China Sea, where China has established a network of small military installations on artificial islands created by dredging sand from the sea-bottom near some of the reefs and atolls it claims. American leaders have never accepted the legitimacy of this island-building project and have repeatedly called upon Beijing to dismantle the bases. Such efforts have, however, largely fallen on deaf ears and it's now evident that the Pentagon is considering military means to eliminate the island threat.
In early July, the U.S. Navy conducted its most elaborate maneuvers to date in those waters, deploying two aircraft carriers there -- the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan -- plus an escort fleet of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. While there, the two carriers launched hundreds of combat planes in simulated attacks on military bases on the islands the Chinese had essentially built.
At the same time, paratroopers from the Army's 25th Infantry Division were flown from their home base in Alaska to the Pacific island of Guam in what was clearly meant as a simulated air assault on a (presumably Chinese) military installation. And just to make sure the leadership in Beijing understood that, in any actual encounter with U.S. forces, Chinese resistance would be countered by the maximum level of force deemed necessary, the Pentagon also flew a B-52 bomber over those carriers as they engaged in their provocative maneuvers.
And that was hardly the first visit of a nuclear bomber to the South China Sea. The Pentagon has, in fact, been deploying such planes there on a regular basis since the beginning of 2020. In April, for example, the Air Force dispatched two B-1B Lancers on a 32-hour round-trip from their home at Ellsworth Air Force Base, North Dakota, to that sea and back as a demonstration of its ability to project power even in the midst of the pandemic President Trump likes to call "the Chinese plague."
Meanwhile, tensions have grown over the status of the island of Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway part of the country. Beijing has been pressuring its leaders to foreswear any moves toward independence, while the Trump administration tacitly endorses just such a future by doing the previously unimaginable -- notably, by sending high-level officials, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar among them, on visits to the island and by promising deliveries of increasingly sophisticated weapons. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has upped its military presence in that part of the Pacific, too. The Navy has repeatedly dispatched missile-armed destroyers on "freedom of navigation" missions through the Taiwan Strait, while other U.S. warships have conducted elaborate military exercises in nearby waters.
Needless to say, such provocative steps have alarmed Beijing, which has responded by increasing the incursions of its military aircraft into airspace claimed by Taiwan. To make sure that Beijing fully appreciates the depth of American "resolve" to resist any attempt to seize Taiwan by force, the Pentagon has accompanied its other military moves around the island with -- you guessed it -- flights of B-52 bombers.
Playing with Fire
And where will all this end? As the U.S. sends nuclear-capable bombers on increasingly provocative flights ever closer to Russian and Chinese territory, the danger of an accident or mishap is bound to grow. Sooner or later, a fighter plane from one of those countries is going to get too close to an American bomber and a deadly incident will occur. And what will happen if a nuclear bomber, armed with advanced missiles and electronics (even conceivably nuclear weapons), is in some fashion downed? Count on one thing: in Donald Trump's America the calls for devastating retaliation will be intense and a major conflagration cannot be ruled out.
Bluntly put, dispatching nuclear-capable B-52s on simulated bombing runs against Chinese and Russian military installations is simply nuts. Yes, it must scare the bejesus out of Chinese and Russian officials, but it will also prompt them to distrust any future peaceful overtures from American diplomats while further bolstering their own military power and defenses. Eventually, we will all find ourselves in an ever more dangerous and insecure world with the risk of Armageddon lurking just around the corner.
Michael T. Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. His newest book, The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources, has just recently been published. His other books include: Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy and Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum. A documentary version of Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation.