What are thermobaric weapons, and why is Russia unafraid to use them?

On the early morning of 28 February 2022, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, announced that Russia had employed the use of "vacuum bombs", killing over seventy soldiers.[1] Resultantly, the Ukrainian army base in the north-eastern town of Okhtyrka was gutted by the intense blasting.[2] True to the news, U.S. news portals reported the entry of Russian TOS-1 rocket launchers capable of launching thirty rockets armed with thermobaric warheads two days prior to the explosion.[3] Ideally, vacuum bombs, also known as thermobaric weapons, have been defined as the most prominent- non-nuclear bomb; however, there exists a massive lunge in the destructive power Vs a weapon of mass destruction. Putin's war in Ukraine is many things but not- hollow threats; nuclear signalling is a key part of the Russian military doctrine.[4] Although, the Russian options in war today are limited and costly. As more Western powers and NATO sharply protest against Putin's televised war call, the Russian strategic options and weaponry hit deprivation and ethicality snags[5]- calling for alternatives much like the thermobaric weapons.

What are Thermobaric weapons?

Derived from the Greek argot, meaning heat and pressure- thermobaric weapons are also known as fuel-air explosives and aerosol bombs that have been popularized as "vacuum bombs", owing to the partial vacuum created by them. These weapons do not travel the much taken conventional ammunition path. Instead, they are congested with high-pressure explosives. In the 1960s, the U.S. founded fuel-air explosives against the Vietnamese forces; ever since, they have massively gentrified nature and damage these weapons cause. Today, both the U.S. and Russian giants have obtained powerful thermobaric bombs in their military arsenals. The Russians call it the Aviation thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) has been nicknamed the "Father of all Bombs," while the Americans GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast is conveniently known as the "Mother of all Bombs" (MOAB), both of which may be the most powerful non-nuclear bombs in the world.

In the parlance of security studies, vacuum bombs are conveniently called so because of their aptness to suck in the oxygen from surroundings to effect powerful explosions at heavy pressure waves. In the past thermobaric weapons have been employed in Chechnya (the 1990s), with paralyzing consequences.[6] The Human Rights Watch, along with several non-governmental organizations, have actively condemned the operation of such weapons since then. Similar wreckages were launched in 2016 by the Syrian government forces and their Russian partners in Aleppo.[7] And again in 2017, as the U.S. forces plied thermobaric in Afghanistan to wilfully demolish tunnel complexes and caves. From here on, the vacuum weapons found their new nickname- bunker busters.[8]

In a nutshell, thermobaric weapons are a subclass of volumetric weapons, a family consisting of both thermo and fuel explosives.[9] They contain powdered metals, such as aluminium, magnesium or organic materials. Traditionally they comprise two separate explosive charges with a single fuel container.[10] When a gravimetric weapon is dropped, the initial charge detonates to diffuse fuel particles. Following this, the second charge ignites the fuel particles and oxygen in the air, generating a blast wave of kinematic pressure and heat, which holds the capacity to rumble a partial vacuum in an enclosed area.[11] Given their widely uncontained nature, these vacuum bombs are a humanitarian incubus. Originally, these weapons were not formulated to be used in urban settings; vacuum bombs can be particularly lethal for cramped buildings and dense populations. It is impossible for one to survive the attack. If by chance, one does not perish immediately, they are surely prone to internal fissures resulting in gradual death. If by great luck the victim survived internal ruptures, your unfriendly vacuum bomb will make sure they suck the air from the lungs leaving the victim conscious as they suffocate to death. While raging reports over the Russian vehicle-borne thermobaric rockets have been flocking the security circles, Ukrainian Forces have also taken to shoulder-launched weapon systems as their defence.[12] Historically speaking, explosives of such nature have been mostly used by terrorists and guerrilla groups, as seen in the Beirut bombing in Lebanon (1983), the World Trade Centre bombings (1993) and the Bali bombings (2002).

At Least The Threat is non-Nuclear

Russia reported the largest thermobaric weapons test in 2007, which yielded forty-four tons, while the U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons, stationed in Europe at their lowest yield of three-hundred tons. To draw greater comparisons, U.S. strategic nuclear weapons have diverse yields from over fifty thousand to 1.2 megatons.[13] Thus, systematically, thermobaric weapons are not playing in the same league as nuclear weapons.

As discussed above, the usage and composition of vacuum weapons is not new but has only been revamped over the years. Assessing the usage of thermobaric in the Russian-Ukraine war, Dr Marcus Hellyer, a strategic analyst, has partially ruled out the element of "panic" over vacuum bombs in comparison to a full-fledged nuclear bombing, stating that thermobaric are only effective for a "specific purpose". They may not be helpful in blowing up a tank but can prove to be life-threatening against a complex of buildings.[14] He expects to see more of thermobaric given the blatant use by the Russians. Ordinarily, any security analyst would recommend the employment of alternative non-nuclear intimidation tactic as an ideal case over a slip into the nuclear domain. However, one should not be quick to dilute the devastating consequences of thermobaric weapons, which is usually passed off as a substitute to breach hardened military targets. The massive explosion designed to go around physical structures envisioned to expand the reach of their destruction goes beyond physical ruination. Firstly, a strong argument found in traditional nuclear explosives is- instantaneous localized blasts, which often rely on kinetic energy and propel shrapnel. In contrast, thermobaric weapons hold longer and more unremitting blasts based on two abundantly cheap elements- heat and pressure. Hence the effects of thermobaric bombs are synthesized in enclosed spaces, making them highly precarious in civilian areas. The tall claim about fuel-air explosives akin to low-yield[15] nuclear weapons is possibly derived from an article authored by a Russian scientist post the official test in 2007.[16] Moreover, Russia's struggle with urban warfare thus far might justify its reported liberal engagement with thermobaric means. Secondly, a far better comparison for thermobaric is to combustible munitions, barrel bombs and cluster munitions. Surprisingly there is a legal safeguard to thermobaric weapons as they may be prohibited under the Convention on Certain Convention weapons, provided they fall under Protocol III: Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, but they are not distinctively listed. Furthermore, since the United States keeps them in its military inventory, it is unlikely that they will be explicitly listed or that there will be a treaty banning their use.[17] Under the present circumstances, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has flung open an active investigation into budding war crimes in Ukraine, which will hope for the best and expect the worst use of thermobaric weapons by the Russians.

Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to be stretching beyond the limits of conventional warfare to break Ukrainian spirits. In doing so, thermobaric with their limited utility against military targets; are proving to be indiscriminate attacks meaning they lack clear distinctions between the military and civilians. While global policy-makers scrutinize Russia's televised nuclear threats, a more noxiously destructive weapon awaits to cause unimaginable loss of life as thermobaric munitions.

Endnotes

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-vacuum-bomb-ukraine-invasion/

[2] https://t.me/Zhyvytskyy/547

[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-01/ukraine-ambassador-us-russia-used-vacuum-bomb-cluster-munitions/100870638

[4] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/russian-nuclear-threat/

[5] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/a-strategy-for-deterring-russian-de-escalation-strikes/

[6] https://www.hrw.org/news/2000/02/01/chechnya-conflict-use-vacuum-bombs-russian-forces

[7] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/russia-assad-bombing-aleppo-syria/

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab-mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan.html

[9] https://www.popsci.com/thermobaric-bombs-and-other-nightmare-weapons-syrian-civil-war/

[10] https://www.nap.edu/read/10918/chapter/5

[11] https://www.vice.com/en/article/zm7nwe/a-new-kind-of-bomb-is-being-used-in-syria-and-its-a-humanitarian-nightmare

[12] https://www.jpost.com/tags/ukraine-crisis

[13] https://www.globalzero.org/updates/low-yield-nuclear-weapons-explained-a-surefire-way-to-fuel-the-arms-race/

[14] https://www.theguardian.com/world/ukraine

[15] https://patents.google.com/patent/US7754036

[16] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-bomb/russia-tests-superstrength-bomb-military-says-idUSL1155952320070912

[17] https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-unoda-site/pages/templates/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/PROTOCOL%2BIII.pdf

Pic Courtesy-Alfred Kenneally at unsplash.com

(The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)