China in panic after witnessing destruction caused by US' B-2 bombers; experts say Beijing, Xi Jinping must...
The B-2 stealth bomber is the world's most expensive warplane. (File)
B-2 stealth bomber: Earlier this month, the United States decimated Iranian nuclear sites as they used the B-2 stealth bombers to drop the massive 30,000lbs (13.6 tonne) GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), aka the bunker buster bombs, on Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow nuclear facilities, which purportedly 'completely obliterated' these locations, according to US President Donald Trump.
The US' use of the B-2 stealth bomber in Iran has become a hot topic of discussion among global strategic circles, and has sparked panic among Washington's rivals, including China, who have been stunned at the destructive effectiveness of the sixth-generation bomber jet, especially its ability to fly long distances. Chinese experts in awe of B-2 stealth bomber
The B-2's performance has impressed Chinese experts, who are now calling upon Beijing to develop a similar bomber jet to maintain strategic parity with the United States. According to Song Zhongping, a military analyst and former instructor in China's People's Liberation Army (PLA), nothing, not even a latest 6th-generation fighter jet, can replace strategic bomber, even in an era where long-range attack missiles exist, South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported.
Zhongping notes that strategic bombers have the capability to carry both nuclear and conventional attack, which makes it strategic weapon that could turn the tide in favor of any army. How B-2 stealth bomber destroyed Iranian nuclear sites
On June 22, the US military launched Operation Midnight Hammer, under which seven B-2 stealth bombers breached Iranian airspace and dropped its heavy GBU-57 bunker busting bombs on the country's top nuclear facilities, including Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The bomber took off from the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, and flew for nearly 37 hours, taking the trans-Atlantic route via the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, and entered Iran's airspace from the west or southwest.
This was the the longest mission for the B-2 bomber since 2001.
After bombing Iranian nuclear facilities with impunity, the B-2 stealth bomber fleet left the Iranian airspace and returned without any resistance, a feat that has stunned Chinese experts, who now believe that strategic bombers are very important for the Chinese army due to their utility in attacking anywhere in the world and establishing nuclear deterrence. What makes the B-2 stealth bomber special?
The Northrop B-2 Spirit, commonly known as the B-2 stealth bomber, is a heavy strategic bomber with low-observable stealth technology designed to evade dense anti-aircraft defenses. The B-2 bomber has a special radar-absorbent coating on its body, which absorbs radar signals and prevent them bouncing off the aircraft, significantly reducing detection chances by enemy radars.
This unique technology also increases the B-2's speed, and its sleek body is designed in manner that drastically reduces the plane's radar cross-section.
The B-2 stealth bomber is especially designed to carry heavy bombs, including the GBU-57 bunker buster, which it reportedly dropped on Iran's underground Fordow nuclear site during Sunday's attack. The heavy bomber can also carry nuclear bombs.
Additionally, the B-2 has a range of more than 10,000 kilometers, making it capable of carrying out intercontinental strikes.
China is currently flight-testing two different sixth-generation aircraft, the J-36 and J-50, however, even the most advanced 6th-gen stealth fighters are no match for a strategic bomber, due its long-flight capability, and the sheer volume of explosives it can carry, as per analysts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
White House seethes as sculpture shows Trump dancing with Epstein - who are the artists?
A provocative art installation has raised eyebrows in D.C., and not just among tourists. A mysterious gold-sprayed TV on the National Mall that plays a video of Donald Trump dancing next to Jeffrey Epstein has appeared near the Capitol. While it has captured public attention, the White House is extremely infuriated. What does the White House say? A mysterious gold "television" installation in front of the Capitol that shows a video of Donald Trump dancing shoulder-to-shoulder with child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was put up, as per a report by the Daily Beast. Officials call it tasteless, but the creators argue it is free speech. The artist's identity is unknown, which adds to the intrigue by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Simple Morning Habit for a Flatter Belly After 50! Lulutox Undo Abigail Jackson, a press assistant, unleashed on the unnamed creators. She told The Washington Post, "Wow, these liberal activists masquerading as 'artists,' are dumber than I thought." "I've tricked them into taking down their ugly sculpture and replacing it with a beautiful video of the President's legendary dance moves that will bring joy and inspiration to all tourists traversing our National Mall. Thank you for your attention to this matter!,' as per a report. Live Events "Perhaps they will incorporate this into their next sculpture," she concluded. Who made the sculpture and why? Unknown artists created the installation, which is allowed to remain until Sunday. It is located where the anti-Trump statue "Dictator Approved" from last week caused a similar uproar. The new piece reinforces the administration's own statements and includes a 15-second loop of Trump's father dancing, not just with the late, disgraced financier. A plaque mocks officials who now complain about being made fun of by quoting the White House's assertion last week that Americans are free to exhibit "so-called 'art,' no matter how ugly it is,' as per a report by the Daily Beast. ALSO READ: Canadian outrage erupts after citizen dies in ICE custody - Carney vs Trump tensions boil over The stunt has been well-liked by tourists and, according to its National Park Service filing, aims "to demonstrate freedom of speech and artistic expression using political imagery." Who the artists are is still a mystery in the art world. A "Mary Harris," but no contact information, is listed on the National Park Service permit. Art detectives believe the name is a reference to labor icon Mary Harris "Mother" Jones, who was well-known for upending the establishment a century ago. It implies that the pranksters consider themselves to be her descendants in the twenty-first century. Since autumn, similar unsigned but stylistically similar bronze tiki torches and tableaux depicting poop on Pelosi desks have inexplicably surfaced in Portland, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. The golden TV appeared where the eight-foot statue "Dictator Approved," which featured a Trumpian thumbs-up stomping Lady Liberty's crown, had been placed the week before. The initial White House outburst regarding "so-called 'art'' was sparked by that earlier piece, which quoted authoritarian leaders applauding Trump. What's Donald Trump's link to Epstein? For many years, people have been talking about Trump's relationship with financier Epstein. Trump was on Epstein's jet seven times, according to flight logs from his trial, and he socialized with Epstein in the 1990s. Elon Musk recently apologized for going too far when he said that Trump was in the Epstein files, which he later removed. Trump's relationship with Epstein is an important aspect of his personal life and is not arbitrary. FAQs Is Donald Trump really dancing with Epstein in the video? No, it's a looped video of Trump next to Epstein, used symbolically as part of the artwork. Who created the Trump-Epstein sculpture? The artists remain anonymous, but the listed name "Mary Harris" is most likely a reference to activist Mother Jones.
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How the US helped oust Iran's government in 1953 and reinstate the Shah
When US missiles struck Iran's key nuclear facilities on June 22, history seemed to repeat itself. Seventy-two years ago, a covert CIA operation toppled Iran's democratically elected government. Now, as American rhetoric drifts once more toward regime change, the ghosts of 1953 are stirring again. The coordinated US air and missile strike, codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, targeted three of Iran's principal nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center. The attack immediately reignited fears of a broader war in the Middle East. In the hours that followed, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term 'Regime Change. But if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Though officials in Washington, including Vice President JD Vance, rushed to clarify that regime change was not formal policy, many in Iran heard echoes from 1953, when the US and UK orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. After being appointed as the prime minister of Iran in 1951, Mossadegh moved to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, then controlled by the British, who had long funneled Iranian oil profits to London. 'He ended a long period of British hegemony in Iran… and set the stage for several decades of rapid economic growth fueled by oil revenues,' wrote Mark Gasiorowski, a historian at Tulane University, in an essay for the volume The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies (2018). 'He also tried to democratise Iran's political system by reducing the powers of the shah and the traditional upper class.' Mossadegh argued that Iran, like any sovereign state, deserved control over its resources. Appearing before the International Court of Justice in 1952, he laid out Iran's case: 'The decision to nationalise the oil industry is the result of the political will of an independent and free nation,' he said. 'For us Iranians, the uneasiness of stopping any kind of action which is seen as interference in our national affairs is more intense than for other nations.' Britain saw the nationalisation as both a strategic and economic threat. It imposed a blockade and led a global oil boycott, while pressuring Washington to intervene. The British adopted a three-track strategy: a failed negotiation effort, a global boycott of Iranian oil and covert efforts to undermine and overthrow Mossadegh, writes Gasiorowski . British intelligence operatives had built ties with 'politicians, businessmen, military officers and clerical leaders' in anticipation of a coup. Initially, the Truman administration resisted intervention. But President Dwight D Eisenhower's election ushered in a more aggressive Cold War posture. 'Under the Truman administration, these boundaries [of acceptable Iranian politics] were drawn rather broadly,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'But when Eisenhower entered office, the more stridently anti-Communist views of his foreign policy advisers led the US to drop its support for Mossadegh and take steps to overthrow him.' Fear of communism's spread, particularly via Iran's Tudeh Party, believed to be the first organised Communist party in the Middle East. 'Although they did not regard Mossadegh as a Communist,' Gasiorowski wrote, 'they believed conditions in Iran would probably continue to deteriorate… strengthening the Tudeh Party and perhaps enabling it to seize power.' While Britain lobbied for a coup, Mossadegh appealed directly to Eisenhower. Eisenhower, in a letter in June 1953, offered sympathy but warned that aid was unlikely so long as Iran withheld oil: 'There is a strong feeling… that it would not be fair to the American taxpayers for the United States Government to extend any considerable amount of economic aid to Iran so long as Iran could have access to funds derived from the sale of its oil.' Mossadegh's response was blunt. He accused Britain of sabotaging Iran's economy through 'propaganda and diplomacy,' and warned that inaction could carry lasting consequences: 'If prompt and effective aid is not given to this country now, any steps that might be taken tomorrow… might well be too late,' he wrote. Weeks later, in August 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 launched a covert operation to oust Mossadegh and restore the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to power. 'A decision was made to develop and carry out a plan to overthrow Mussadiq and install Zahedi as prime minister,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'The operation was to be led by Kermit Roosevelt, who headed the CIA's Middle East operations division.' The mission, code-named Operation Ajax, used anti-Mossadegh propaganda, bribes, and orchestrated street unrest. After an initial failure and the Shah's brief exile, loyalist military units staged a successful coup on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested, tried, and placed under house arrest until his death in 1967. In 2013, the CIA officially acknowledged its role, releasing declassified documents that described the coup as 'an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.' In Iran, schoolchildren learn about the 1953 coup in classrooms. State media airs annual retrospectives on Mossadegh's downfall. His name recurs in graffiti, political speeches, and university lectures. In his book The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations, the historian Ervand Abrahamian called the operation 'a defining fault line not only for Iranian history but also in the country's relations with both Britain and the United States.' It 'carved in public memory a clear dividing line — 'before' and 'after' — that still shapes the country's political culture,' he wrote. While Cold War defenders portrayed the coup as a check on communism, Abrahamian sees oil and empire as the true motivators. 'The main concern was not so much about communism as about the dangerous repercussions that oil nationalisation could have throughout the world,' he argues. Following the coup, the Shah ruled with increasing autocracy, supported by the US and bolstered by SAVAK (Sazeman-e Ettela'at va Amniyat-e Keshvar), a secret police trained by the CIA. Decades of repression, inequality, and corruption gave way to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic. 'The strategic considerations that led US policymakers to undertake the 1953 coup helped set in motion a chain of events that later destroyed the Shah's regime and created severe problems for US interests,' wrote Gasiorowski. On November 4, 1979, the US Embassy in Tehran was seized. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Revolutionaries repeatedly cited 1953 as the origin of their mistrust. Though Washington denied involvement for decades, few Iranians ever doubted the CIA's role in Mossadegh's fall. 'The coup revealed how the United States began almost instinctively to follow in the footsteps of British imperialism,' write David W Lesch and Mark L Haas editors of The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies . 'Demonstrating a preference for the status quo rather than the forces of change.' Even President Barack Obama, in a 2009 speech in Cairo, acknowledged the long shadow of 1953, noting that the coup had created 'years of mistrust.' No US president has ever issued a formal apology. Dr Omair Anas, director of research at the Centre for Studies of Plural Societies, a non-profit, non-partisan, independent institution dedicated to democratising knowledge, sees the 1953 events as not just a turning point but a template for today's impasse. 'The 1953 coup was staged in the backdrop of the Cold War which resulted in Iran's inclusion into the CENTO alliance along with Pakistan and Turkiye,' he said. He is sharply critical of current regime change rhetoric, describing it as detached from Iran's internal political conditions. 'The most important player is Iran's domestic politics,' he said. 'At this stage, it is not willing and prepared for a regime change.' Anas points out that the government has already absorbed considerable dissent: 'Previous anti-hijab protests have already accommodated many anti-regime voices and sentiments.' But absorbing discontent, he suggests, is not the same as welcoming systemic change. 'Any regime change at this stage would immediately lead the country to chaos and possible civil war, as the new regime won't be able to de-Islamise the state in the near future.' Trump's rhetoric, therefore, landed with particular resonance. While senior officials have attempted to distance the administration from talk of regime change, many in Iran and beyond see a familiar playbook: pressure, provocation, and the threat of externally imposed political outcomes. Dr Anas contends that many of the so-called alternatives to the Islamic Republic are politically inert. 'Anti-regime forces since 1979 have lost much ground and haven't been able to stage a major threat to the revolution,' he said. 'The West is fully aware that the Pahlavi dynasty or the Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK) have the least popularity and organisational presence to replace the Khamenei-led regime of Islamic revolution.' As he sees it, the system's survival is not merely a matter of repression but of strategic logic. 'Khamenei can only be replaced by someone like him,' he said. 'The continuity of the Islamic revolution of Iran remains more preferable than any other disruptive replacement.' He also warns that a forced collapse of the current order could have serious regional implications. 'In the case of violent suppression of Islamist forces, the new Iranian state might seek the revival of the Cold War collaboration with Pakistan and Turkiye and a strong push against Russia.' For India, a country that has generally maintained a policy of non-intervention, such a development could be deeply destabilising. 'Any abrupt change would complicate India's West Asia and South Asia strategic calculus,' he said, 'and more fundamentally India's Pakistan strategy.' Dr Anas also sees Western credibility as severely eroded across the region. 'The West has left no credibility whatsoever about human rights, freedom, and democracy after the Israeli-Gaza war,' he said. 'The Middle Eastern public opinion, including that of Kurds, Druze and Afghans, have lost hope in Western promises. They prefer any autocratic regime to West-backed regimes.' India, he said, risks being caught flat-footed if political transitions come suddenly. 'India generally stays away from the normative politics of the Middle East,' he said. 'While this shows India's principled stand on no intervention in internal politics, it also puts India in a weak position once the regime changes, as happened in Syria.' His recommendation? 'India needs to engage more actively with West Asian civil society to have more balanced relations beyond states.' Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
United News of India
17 minutes ago
- United News of India
ACB files chargesheet against two in 2022 bribery case
Srinagar, June 27 (UNI) The Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) today filed a chargesheet against two government employees - one of them retired - before the Court of Additional Judge Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, in connection with a 2022 bribery case. The chargesheet was produced against Jamil Hussain Khan, then Patwari Halqa Baghat-e-shoor, Owanta Bhawan, Soura, Tehsil Eidgah and Shafat-ur-Rehman Bhat, a retired Patwari. Khan has been charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), along with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while Bhat faces charges under Section 12 of the same act and the conspiracy provision of Section 120-B IPC. ACB said the instant case was initiated following a complaint alleging that Khan, through his associate Bhat, demanded a bribe of Rs 9,000 for processing revenue documents related to land records. Acting on the complaint, a trap was laid by the ACB on April 11, 2022, resulting in the recovery of the tainted bribe amount from the accused. After registration of the case at police station ACB Srinagar Kashmir, the investigation was concluded as proved against the accused and after the accord of government sanction for launching prosecution, the challan of the case was produced before the court of Additional Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar today for judicial determination. The next date of hearing is fixed on August 13. The ACB said that Bhat was already convicted in a corruption case registered against him in 2009. UNI MJR SSP
