U.S. Stations Nuclear-Capable Bombers Near Iran Amid Heightened Tensions

[Social Media]

 

In a significant show of military might, the United States appears to have stationed nuclear-capable bombers at an air base in Qatar, a move aimed at deterring Iran amid ongoing regional tensions. Satellite images shared by Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, show six B-52H Stratofortress bombers at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The images, provided by California-based Planet Labs and posted by Kristensen on X (formerly Twitter), indicate that at least five of the six bombers have the capability to carry nuclear weapons, though they are not currently equipped with them.

All six USAF B-52 bombers at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Great image from today via our friends at @planet pic.twitter.com/qu8dmbgAgn

— Hans Kristensen (@nukestrat) November 5, 2024

 

While Newsweek has not independently verified these images, the increase in U.S. military presence in the region comes amid escalating hostilities between Israel and Iran. Both countries engaged in reciprocal strikes last month, fueling concerns of a broader conflict. In response, Tehran issued a statement that it would arm itself “to the extent necessary” to protect its interests. The Pentagon formally announced the deployment of the bombers on November 1, indicating that the long-range aircraft would be utilized to safeguard U.S. forces and citizens in the Middle East, support U.S. ally Israel, and help manage tensions through "deterrence and diplomacy."

 

The B-52H Stratofortress is one of the two types of American bombers capable of deploying nuclear weapons. The U.S. Air Force operates a fleet of 76 Stratofortress bombers, 46 of which are configured to carry the AGM-86B nuclear air-launched cruise missile, boasting a range of over 1,500 miles. In addition to the B-52H, the U.S. possesses a fleet of 19 B-2 Spirit bombers, which can deploy nuclear gravity bombs. Together, these nuclear-capable aircraft form a critical part of the U.S. nuclear triad, a three-pronged strategy that includes land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers.

 

 

In January, CNN reported that the U.S. had extended its agreement with Qatar to continue operations at Al Udeid Air Base, the largest American military installation in the Middle East, for another ten years. Located southwest of Doha, the base plays a pivotal role in the U.S. military’s global strategic flexibility. The Pentagon underscored that the U.S. can rapidly deploy forces worldwide to address “evolving national security threats” and issued a warning to Iran and its allies, cautioning against any potential attacks on American personnel or interests in the region.

 

Based on a report by Newsweek 2024-11-11

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Leaving aside the implications of accelerating the rush to WW3, one wonders how the Qataris feel about being made a target? One suspects they may not be happy, especially when Saudi and Iran have been improving their relationship recently. In the event of a full blown war, it seems they may not be able to count on Saudi to help them.

[thaipo7]

I am glad they told the Billionaire Hamas leaders whole up in Qatar to leave.  Qatar is playing both ends with us.  Taking millions to keep the air base for the US and spending billions in our universities to keep them as hotbeds for Hamas and Palestine.

[candide]

10 minutes ago, thaipo7 said:

I am glad they told the Billionaire Hamas leaders whole up in Qatar to leave.  Qatar is playing both ends with us.  Taking millions to keep the air base for the US and spending billions in our universities to keep them as hotbeds for Hamas and Palestine.

You could also mention Saudi Arabia, which has been financing the expansion of Salafism/Wahhabism, known for breeding most of the Islamic terrorism in Western countries and Africa.

[NativeBob]

What does make a bomber "nuclear-capable"? Take Enola Gay - was it "capable" or not? And maybe that was a reason why they dropped nuke on civilian city, not a military base?

 

Stratofortress is as an old flying sausage turboprop easy to intercept with almost anything. 

... and B-2. What is? Avia-vintage fair?

[novacova]

12 hours ago, Social Media said:

The images, provided by California-based Planet Labs and posted by Kristensen on X (formerly Twitter), indicate that at least five of the six bombers have the capability to carry nuclear weapons, though they are not currently equipped with them.

Yeah so what. Anything capable of carrying nuclear weapons is just that, capable and in no way does it mean they’re armed with nuclear weapons. Load a nuke on a b747 and it’s nuclear capable.

[transam]

10 minutes ago, NativeBob said:

What does make a bomber "nuclear-capable"? Take Enola Gay - was it "capable" or not? And maybe that was a reason why they dropped nuke on civilian city, not a military base?

 

Stratofortress is as an old flying sausage turboprop easy to intercept with almost anything. 

... and B-2. What is? Avia-vintage fair?

Your first para, what are you trying to say...........🙄

 

The B52 Strat has just been fitted with the latest engines. The Russians still have propeller bombers.. 

I would suggest the B52 has its own protection and is covered by others depending on the job at hand......

[dinsdale]

23 minutes ago, NativeBob said:

What does make a bomber "nuclear-capable"? Take Enola Gay - was it "capable" or not? And maybe that was a reason why they dropped nuke on civilian city, not a military base?

 

Stratofortress is as an old flying sausage turboprop easy to intercept with almost anything. 

... and B-2. What is? Avia-vintage fair?

This is the B52. Not turbo prop.

This is the Tupolev TU95 which is a turbo prop.

 

[NativeBob]

20 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

This is the B52. Not turbo prop.

 

 

Thanks, my bad. That changes everything! 

[dinsdale]

1 minute ago, NativeBob said:

Thanks, my bad. That changes everything! 

Both planes are very capable delivery platforms.

[NativeBob]

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Both planes are very capable delivery platforms.

Amazing that they still are doing just fine. Huge and yet very versatile. 

[transam]

9 minutes ago, NativeBob said:

Thanks, my bad. That changes everything! 

Turbofan.............🙂

[Dcheech]

The US has nuclear capable planes, & likely real nukes, at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. B52's based there  can deliver AGM - 101 LRSO, or AGM 86 ALCM cruise missiles from hundreds of miles offshore, which could strike targets anywhere in Iran.  This has been the case for decades, as Iran certainly knows.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, NativeBob said:

What does make a bomber "nuclear-capable"? Take Enola Gay - was it "capable" or not? And maybe that was a reason why they dropped nuke on civilian city, not a military base?

 

Stratofortress is as an old flying sausage turboprop easy to intercept with almost anything. 

... and B-2. What is? Avia-vintage fair?

LOL. You could try hanging a nuke under an F 35's wing, but it might have a problem leaving the ground.

 

I thought you were confusing Flying Fortress with Stratofortress, but of course turbo props did not exist in WW2.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 11/11/2024 at 10:04 AM, Dcheech said:

The US has nuclear capable planes, & likely real nukes, at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. B52's based there  can deliver AGM - 101 LRSO, or AGM 86 ALCM cruise missiles from hundreds of miles offshore, which could strike targets anywhere in Iran.  This has been the case for decades, as Iran certainly knows.

Yes, but the US might end up removing all their combat jets from Diego Garcia. Britain owns Diego Garcia, and the Americans have got a lease there. But the lease might end early. China might pay money and take over the remainder of the lease.

But anyway, Diego Garcia might become irrelevant. The Americans surely can fire nukes from their navy vessels. These navy vessels can sail into the Persian Gulf, near Iran's coast.
As long as the Americans don't send soldiers ( ground forces ) into Iran, they will likely be okay. Sending ground forces to Iran will be even more dangerous and disastrous than America sending soldiers to Iraq, back in 2003.

It's been two decades, but the memory of the catastrophic invasion of Iraq is still there.

[Dcheech]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Yes, but the US might end up removing all their combat jets from Diego Garcia. Britain owns Diego Garcia, and the Americans have got a lease there. But the lease might end early. China might pay money and take over the remainder of the lease.

But anyway, Diego Garcia might become irrelevant. The Americans surely can fire nukes from their navy vessels. These navy vessels can sail into the Persian Gulf, near Iran's coast.
As long as the Americans don't send soldiers ( ground forces ) into Iran, they will likely be okay. Sending ground forces to Iran will be even more dangerous and disastrous than America sending soldiers to Iraq, back in 2003.

It's been two decades, but the memory of the catastrophic invasion of Iraq is still there.

Those B52's in Qatar may be "nuclear capable" but that would be the last thing they would be carrying on country visits. Saying that however gets Newsweek clicks which is likely what they are aiming for. The US could indeed use navy vessels or submarines or b52'a on Diego for nukes, but all that is known and known for decades.

BTW, while Newsweek's article may be three quarters BS for clicks, even they do not mention anything about ground troops. No idea why you are mentioning them either, unless you have some super secret information.  OTOH, I would expect the new US President to invade the US west coast or Puerto Rico before Iran.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

As long as the Americans don't send soldiers ( ground forces ) into Iran, they will likely be okay. Sending ground forces to Iran will be even more dangerous and disastrous than America sending soldiers to Iraq, back in 2003.

It's not possible to win a war simply by bombing, unless you support nuking the entire country, and every country on the planet would be somewhat upset if the US did that to Iran.

 

I agree 100% that American boots in Iran would be a disaster for America, and I doubt that any US allies would be foolish enough to join in, even the UK.

Hasn't worked very well in Iraq, has it!

[Dcheech]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hasn't worked very well in Iraq, has it!

That's what happens when you have Republicans in charge. Fun to watch the right wingers doing the Trump dance now. Only to remember the same effers doing it with jr Bush, on his Iraqi adventure trip. The moral of the story.

Never Trust a Republican.