China and India’s Deadly Clash: Why You Should Be Worried Disengagement efforts have failed, and at a moment when relations between China and India - both nuclear armed states - are already tense. by Ian Hall

Sometime on Monday, an Indian army patrol skirmished with Chinese troops in the Galwan River Valley, high in the Himalayas.

According to reports, no guns were involved, but the fight left at least 20 Indian soldiers dead from injuries caused by stones, makeshift clubs, and falls down the steep cliffs of the valley.

Although standoffs and even fistfights between Chinese and Indian troops have been relatively common in recent years, there have been no deaths on the disputed border for decades.

Such confrontations are usually defused by talks between commanders on the ground, leading to choreographed disengagements.

In this case, it appears those processes have failed, and at a moment when relations between China and India - both nuclear armed states - are already tense.

Origins of the dispute

When India gained its independence in 1947, it inherited unsettled frontiers with several neighbours.

That situation was exacerbated by Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s decision to seize control of Tibet - which up to that point had been a buffer state - three years later.

More than a decade of failed negotiations to agree a border followed, to the frustration of all. Then, in October 1962, in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Mao ordered a sudden attack on Indian forces.

China decisively won this short “pedagogic war” - designed to teach New Delhi a lesson. It gained ground from India, but then withdrew its forces, bringing them back close to their starting positions.

Since then, a “Line of Actual Control” (LAC) has, in effect, constituted the frontier.

Several more fruitless rounds of talks to settle an official border have taken place. And there have been several military standoffs, including one in 1975 that left four Indian soldiers dead.

Mounting tensions and the threat of war

The Galwan River Valley incident is by far the worst to occur on the LAC for some time. It also comes against a backdrop of several years of deteriorating relations between China and India, dating from the rise to power of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Since 2013, New Delhi has reported a series of incursions by Chinese troops into what it regards at its territory.

The visits of both Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in May 2013, and Xi in September 2014, were overshadowed by such incidents.

And in mid-2017, there was a ten-week standoff between Chinese and Indian troops in Bhutan, in a disputed area called Doklam (or Donglang).

During that crisis, Beijing openly warned that if New Delhi did not pull back, it might go to war.

Disagreement over other issues

At the same time, China and India have quarrelled and competed over a number of other issues.

New Delhi has emerged as a vocal critic of Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and has tried to dissuade other states in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region from signing on to BRI projects.

India has complained about China’s trade practices, pointing to a growing trade deficit with its northern neighbour, as well as Beijing’s alleged attempts to influence the policies of smaller states such as Nepal.

Meanwhile, India has strengthened security ties with the United States, Japan and Australia among others - to Beijing’s obvious irritation.

The biggest test yet

There can be little doubt that what just happened in the Galwan River Valley constitutes the biggest test yet faced by Narendra Modi’s government.

India’s prime minister has long been portrayed as a “strongman”. This image has been burnished by retaliatory strikes against Pakistani targets for cross border terrorism in 2016 and 2019, as well as by his government’s apparent resilience during the Doklam crisis.

Indian public opinion is already angry with China over COVID-19 and in the wake of the deaths on the LAC, some media outlets, as well as opposition politicians, are calling for retaliation.

Modi’s options are, however, constrained.

If he backs down, or even concedes the area around Galwan River Valley that some think Chinese soldiers are now occupying, he could face a political backlash from Indian voters.

If he orders some kind of military response, he risks a wider war. There have been persistent reports of troop build-ups right along the 3,500 kilometre frontier with China.

There is no guarantee a limited action would not escalate into something bigger, nor that India’s friends and partners, including the US, would support such a move.

All eyes now on China

Much depends on what Beijing hopes to gain.

If Xi is simply seeking to humiliate India for perceived transgressions - and warn it off deepening ties with its security partners - he may now order his troops to pull back, having made his point.

But if he wants to redraw the border and send a message to others - in Taiwan, Japan, Southeast Asia, or elsewhere - that China is determined to take what it claims - then deescalating the situation will be very difficult for New Delhi.

Why Keeping American Soldiers in Germany Is the Right Decision Leaving would be a mistake. by Luke Coffey

President Donald Trump announced this week that he plans to reduce the number of U.S. soldiers in Germany by 9,500—roughly 28% of the force currently stationed in the country.

Trump has long and rightfully complained about Germany’s lack of defense spending and cited this as a major reason behind his decision.

Even with Germany’s pathetic levels of defense investment, removing these troops now would denigrate the significant efforts the Trump administration has made in bolstering collective defense in Europe, while ultimately undercutting transatlantic security moving forward.

So far during his first term, Trump has enhanced and increased the U.S. military presence in Europe. There are now more permanently based U.S. troops in Europe, more pre-positioned stockpiles, more U.S. troops forward-deployed in places like Poland, more patrols in the Black Sea, more U.S. forces rotating to Europe, and more training exercises than under the Obama administration.

Even with the Trump administration’s cuts to European Deterrence Initiative funding in fiscal years 2020 and 2021, spending for this initiative is still considerably higher than it was during the previous administration.

In addition to boosting the U.S. military presence in Europe, the Trump administration has had success in moving North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies toward spending more on defense.

As a result, NATO defense spending continues to trend upward. As stated in NATO’s recent annual report, “2019 marked the fifth consecutive year of growth in defense spending for European allies and Canada, with an increase in real terms of 4.6% from 2018 to 2019.” 

Trump has a legitimate gripe when it comes to Germany. It only spends 1.3% of gross domestic product on defense—well below the NATO standard of 2%.

In the past few years, the German military has had to train with broomsticks instead of rifles and civilian cars instead of tanks. At one point, it had only four Eurofighter jets ready for operations. (Yes, you read that correctly, four planes—not four squadrons!)

This is woefully pitiful considering Germany is Europe’s largest economy.

However, as miserable as Germany’s defense spending is, this is still no justification for removing U.S. troops.

The commonly held belief that U.S. forces are in Europe to protect European allies at the expense of the American taxpayer is wrong. U.S. troops are in Europe first and foremost for U.S. national security interests.

Of course, the presence of U.S. forces in Europe contributes to the collective defense of U.S. allies on the Continent, but this is a consequence of, not the reason for, maintaining a robust presence.

Do not look at Europe. Look around it.

From the Arctic to the Levant, from the Maghreb to the Caucasus, Europe is at one of the most important crossroads of the world. This region also has some of the world’s most vital shipping lanes, energy resources, and trade chokepoints.

Most of these regions have long histories of instability, and a potential for future instability that could directly affect the security interests and economic well-being of the United States and its allies.

U.S. bases in Europe provide American leaders with flexibility, resilience, and options in a dangerous, multipolar world. The huge garrisons of American service personnel in Europe are no longer the fortresses of the Cold War, but the forward-operating bases of the 21st century. The U.S. needs to have the tools available to react to events in America’s interests.

The Department of Defense’s new National Defense Strategy places a very high premium on having sufficient forward-stationed forces in place for both deterrence and warfighting.

Some of America’s oldest and closest allies are in Europe. The U.S. shares with this region a strong commitment to the rule of law, human rights, free markets, and democracy. Many of these ideas, the foundations on which America was built, were brought over by the millions of immigrants from Europe in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

During the course of the 20th century, millions of Americans have fought, and many have died, for a free and secure Europe.

A stable, secure, and economically viable Europe is in America’s direct economic interest. For more than 70 years, NATO’s and the U.S. military’s presence in Europe have contributed to European stability, which has economically benefited both Europeans and Americans.

The economies of Europe, along with the United States, account for approximately half of the global economy. The U.S. and Europe are each other’s principal trading partners. The U.S. and Europe are each other’s top source of foreign direct investment. All of this brings untold benefits to the U.S. economy and, by extension, the American worker.

Russia is trying to undo this stability, and threatens NATO members and U.S. interests in the region.

In 2014, Russia used military force to change borders in Europe for the first time since 1945 when it invaded Ukraine. As the 2017 National Security Strategy states, “Russia seeks to restore its great power status and establish spheres of influence near its borders,” and that it is “the most significant existential threat to the United States.”

While there have been some media reports that more U.S. troops might be sent to Poland, this does not fill the massive hole created by removing almost 10,000 U.S. soldiers permanently based in Germany. Instead of it being an “either-or” situation, the U.S. should increase its soldiers in Poland while maintaining troop numbers in Germany.

The U.S. military presence in Europe deters American adversaries, strengthens allies, and protects U.S. interests.

Whether preparing U.S. and allied troops and deploying them to regional crisis, or responding to a humanitarian incident in the region, history has shown that the U.S. can more quickly and effectively project power and react to the unexpected using its forward-based military capabilities in Europe.

Reducing this capability will only make America weaker on the world stage. America’s economic and security interests require a stable Europe, and it is the U.S. military presence in Europe that helps to maintain European stability. The U.S. should maintain, or even increase, the number of forces it has in Europe. Congress should endeavor to block any attempt to remove forces from Europe.

America's Cold War Endgame Plans Called For Nuking Both Russia And China U.S. nuclear war plans called for the destruction of the Soviet Union and China as “viable societies.” by Michael Peck

Pentagon war plans already included the destruction of cities as a way to destroy the urban and industrial backbone. “This should result in greater population casualties in that a larger portion of the urban population may be placed at risk.”

“Bomb them back into the Stone Age,” ex-Air Force general Curtis LeMay is reported to have once urged as a way to defeat North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

But it turns out that had global nuclear war erupted during the early 1960s, it would have been the Russians and Chinese who would have reverted to living like the Flintstones.

U.S. nuclear war plans called for the destruction of the Soviet Union and China as “viable societies,” according to documents revealed by the non-profit National Security Archive.

The document in question pertains to the Single Integrated Operational Plan, or SIOP, which governs the numerous war plans and their associated options that govern how America would fight a nuclear war. In June 1964, senior military leaders (including Air Force Chief of Staff LeMay) were sent a staff review of the current SIOP.

The report included questions and answers regarding the various nuclear targeting options. These ranged from attacks on enemy nuclear and conventional forces while minimizing collateral damage to enemy cities, to attacking cities as well as military forces on purpose. This latter option would have been "in order to destroy the will and ability of the Sino-Soviet Bloc to wage war, remove the enemy from the category of a major industrial power, and assure a post-war balance of power favorable to the United States."

“Should these options give more stress to population as the main target?” asked one question.

The answer was that Pentagon war plans already included the destruction of cities as a way to destroy the urban and industrial backbone. “This should result in greater population casualties in that a larger portion of the urban population may be placed at risk.”

In another Pentagon analysis “on the effect of placing greater emphasis on the attack of urban/industrial targets in order to destroy the USSR and China as viable societies, it was indicated that the achievement of a 30 per cent fatality level (i.e., 212.7 million people) in the total population (709 million people) of China would necessitate an exorbitant weight of effort.”

This was because of China’s rural society at the time. “Thus, the attack of a large number of place names [towns] would destroy only a small fraction of the total population of China. The rate of return for a [nuclear] weapon expended diminishes after accounting for the 30 top priority cities.”

Note that while annihilating one-third of China’s population was deemed uneconomical, the U.S. military took it for granted that the Soviet Union and China would be destroyed as viable societies.

Interestingly, Russia and China would be reduced to the level of Conan the Barbarian—but not Albania. “Should there be capability to withhold all attacks in Albania, Bulgaria and Romania?” asks the document.

The answer was that “the capability should exist to withhold attacks against Soviet satellites (either individually or collectively).” Other documents state that potential nuclear targets included the Sino-Soviet bloc—but not Yugoslavia.

This Drone Could Make the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship Even Better The U.S. Navy is taking drone operations from its Littoral Combat Ship to a new level of security, automation, precision and combat effectiveness by strengthening the technical systems used for its helicopter-like, deck-launched drone called the Fire Scout. by Kris Osborn

The U.S. Navy is taking drone operations from its Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to a new level of security, automation, precision and combat effectiveness by strengthening the technical systems used for its helicopter-like, deck-launched drone called the Fire Scout. 

The service is primarily hardening the networks which enable the vertical-take-off drone to operate more safely from the back of an LCS, and perform its reconnaissance missions with less risk of being “jammed” or derailed. The network and flight-path hardening, includes both cybersecurity upgrades and technical adjustments to the drone, focused on improving what’s called Imaged Based Navigation for Vertical Take-off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Shipboard Landing program. 

Improved levels of flight automation, coupled with networked hardening, enable the drone to land more autonomously on the back of an LCS and better withstand windy, turbulent maritime conditions. Instead of needing every movement coordinated by humans performing command and control, ship operators can simply observe and supervise the glide slope, flight path and secure take-off-and-landing of the drone. Even in rough seas, on board sensors, increasingly fortified by AI-enabled systems, can account for a number of otherwise disparate data streams simultaneously. This ensures a safer landing and naturally greatly strengthens mission effectiveness. 

The LCS’ Fire Scout drone is an indispensable part of the ship’s surface, countermine and anti-submarine warfare missions; it is equipped with advanced mine-hunting sensors, aerial surface scanners and target-locating EO/IR cameras. The networking is intended to expand not just to ship command and control but other nodes involved in maritime warfare scenarios such as other surface ships, aircraft or even small unmanned surface vehicles. 

The Navy is increasingly working on connecting unmanned surface, air and undersea nodes in real-time, therefore improving automation and hardening networks can help enable coordinate attack and give advanced algorithms greater changes for success. The work with Northrop Grumman’s Fire Scout, also supported through a Navy contract with a small Massachusetts firm called Scientific Systems, is geared toward the broader service goal of increasing warzone autonomy and unmanned systems development. 

The Fire Scout has been both deploying and conducting training missions on board Navy Littoral Combat Ships for several years. The Navy is also integrating a new maritime search radar to its larger Fire Scout variant—the MQ-8C—in order to extend its ISR capacity and provide better targeting support to nearby offensive operations. The existing electro-optical and infrared cameras on the Fire Scout have a range of six-to-ten miles, whereas the new maritime radar can find targets at ranges out to 80 nautical miles, service officials explained.

The Fire Scout is also now operating with an advanced mine-hunting sensor, designed for combat and surveillance missions in littoral waters, called the Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis, or COBRA.

Given that the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship is engineered to use its shallow draft, speed and maneuverability to conduct combat operations in littoral waters near enemy coastlines, having an improved technological capacity to find and detect enemy mines and submarines near the surface expands its mission envelope and provides needed protection for offensive ship operations.

The 31-foot long Fire Scout can fly at airspeeds up to 110 knots and reach altitudes of 20,000 feet; the aircraft weighs 3,150 pounds at its maximum take-off weight and is powered by one Rolls-Royce heavy fuel turboshaft engine, Navy officials said. The Fire Scout has an electro-optical/ infrared sensor called Bright Star 2, which has laser range-finding and laser designation, Navy developers said. The MQ-8B Fire Scout can stay up on a mission for up to five hours and also uses Automatic Identification System, or AIS, technology to help locate and identify ships.

Why America's B61 Nuclear Bomb Lives On It is being upgraded under a life extension program. by Kris Osborn

The Air Force is working with Boeing to sustain and improve an advanced variant of the B61 air-dropped nuclear bomb, engineered to give pilots much-expanded attack options with which to hold potential adversaries at risk from the air. The Air Force just awarded Boeing a continued development deal for the weapon

In recent years, The Air Force has been test-dropping the upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb which improves accuracy, integrates various attack options into a single bomb and changes the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

The B61-12 adds substantial new levels of precision targeting and consolidates several different kinds of attack options into a single weapon. Instead of needing separate variants of the weapon for different functions, the B61-12 by itself allows for earth-penetrating attacks, low-yield strikes, high-yield attacks, above surface detonation and bunker-buster options.

The latest version of the B61 thermonuclear gravity bomb, which has origins as far back as the 1960s, is engineered as a low-to-medium yield strategic and tactical nuclear weapon, according to nuclearweaponsarchive.org, which also states the weapon has a “two-stage” radiation implosion design.

Air Force officials describe this, in part, by referring to the upgraded B61-12 as having an “All Up Round.”

The B61 Mod 12 is engineered with a special “Tail Subassembly” to give the bomb increased accuracy, giving a new level of precision targeting using Inertial Navigation Systems, according to information from the Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists.

Right now, the B-2 carries only B61-7 (10-360 kt), B61-11(400 kt, earth-penetrator), and B83-1 (high-yield bunker-buster). The B61-12 covers all of those missions. The evidence that the B61-12 can penetrate below the surface has significant implications for the types of targets that can be held at risk with the bomb.

By bringing an “earth-penetrating” component, the B61-12 vastly increases the target scope or envelope of attack. It can enable more narrowly targeted or pinpointed strikes at high-value targets underground—without causing anywhere near the same level of devastation above ground or across a wider area.

The testing and integration of the B61-12 is one piece of a massive, fleet-wide B-2 upgrade designed to sustain the bomber into coming years, until large numbers of the emerging B-21 Raider are available. A range of technical modifications are also intended to prepare the 1980s-era bomber for very sophisticated, high-end modern threats.

The B-2 is getting improved digital weapons integration, new computer processing power reported to be 1,000-times faster than existing systems and next-generation sensors designed to help the aircraft avoid enemy air defenses. One of the effort’s key modifications is designed to improve what’s called the bomber’s Defensive Management System, a technology designed to help the B-2 recognize and elude enemy air defenses, using various antennas, receivers and display processors.

The Air Force is also integrating the B61 Mod 12 nuclear weapon into the F-35A this year as part of a long-range plan to deploy a nuclear-armed, dual-capable F-35 able to give commanders a wider envelope of precision nuclear attack options.

The Block 4 F-35 will fully emerge in the next decade and contains more than 50 technical adjustments to the aircraft designed as software and hardware builds. These will be added in six-month increments between April 2019 to October 2024, Air Force officials explained.

Here’s a Better Look at America's Secret “Ninja Missile” Instead of an explosive charge, the missile uses several pop-out blades to chop up targets and prevent civilian casualties. by Caleb Larson

The Hellfire missile was originally developed in the 1980s as an anti-tank missile, though its role has been expanded for a variety of missions thanks to the missile’s high precision. It is currently in service with a number of countries including the United States, and is most often used with the Predator or Reaper drones for operations in crowded urban environments.

The missile is particularly well suited to urban operations. Though the missile’s overall weight is around 100 pounds, or about 45 kilograms, its warhead makes up only a fifth of the missile’s weight. Smaller, more controlled explosions are absolutely crucial in these environments where civilian casualties can seriously undermine long-term mission success. But one of the Hellfire variants doesn’t have an explosive warhead—and is just as deadly.

AGM-114 R9X Hellfire

In a video posted to social media, several recovered AGM-114 R9X Hellfire missiles were seen after they had been fired. In the video, the spent missile parts can be seen along with markings on them, including the R9X designation. Though fragmentary, the missile pieces appear to be parts of missile bodies, as well as a centrally located hub where the missile’s long, deadly blades attach to. Red spheres can also be seen inside the missile body that are likely responsible for acceleration. Another photo on Twitter gives a better look at the missile’s blade hub and part of a twisted blade.

These missiles are seldom used. They lack an explosive warhead, and instead of blowing up, they use several pop-out blades to take out targets kinetically—hence the ninja nickname. The missile is designed to reduce civilian casualties, especially in dense urban environments. Thus far the missile seems to have been favored against individuals in cars, and is said to have the ability to target individual seats preventing other passengers from being killed.

Other photos and video posted to Twitter appear to show a car hit by at least one R9X missiles. Unlike usual missile strikes, this car is not burned, but looks like it’s been on a giant chopping block. The front windshield, roof, and seats are sliced through and what appears to be one of the missile’s blades can be seen on the ground next to the vehicle.

The secretive missile, likely carried by a drone, is reported to be used exclusively by the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States’ Joint Special Operations Command.

Postscript

Despite the dearth of concrete knowledge publicly available on the R9X missile, its aftermath is unmistakable. Use of the R9X is increasing—and keeping it a secret in the future will be next to impossible. Stay tuned for more info on this so-called ninja missile.

Why the U.S. Army's New Precision-Strike Missile Such a Big Deal It will replacing one of the military's aging missiles. by Kris Osborn

The U.S. Army has fired test-shot number three for its fast-emerging Precision-Strike Missile, a new surface-to-surface weapon intended to destroy targets with precision accuracy from ranges as far as 500km.

The shot, which took place earlier this year at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona, moved the development of the weapon into a new phase as a next-generation method of pinpointing targets from safer stand-off ranges. The new PrSM is, among other things, intended to replace and improve upon the existing Army Tactical Missile System land-fired missile. 

The test shot, senior Army leaders described, laid the foundation for the Army’s ultimate goal for the new system. 

“The current missiles can go about 350km and this will go beyond 500km eventually. We are almost doubling the range with existing launchers so we are not having to invest in new launchers. We can now put two missiles in the launcher as opposed to what we can do now which is one,” Gen. John Murray, Commander, Army Futures Command, told TNI in an interview. 

Murray described the Lockheed-built weapon as the Army’s post INF solution, meaning the service’s need to engineer medium-range missiles in response to Russia’s violation of the well-known previous treaty limiting testing and development of those kinds of weapons. Medium range land-fired missiles enable Russia to hold NATO countries in Europe at risk, given that they operate at ranges of 500km or more. The Army’s new land missile able to travel those distances is, quite simply, intended to “out range” the enemy, as Army weapons developers explain it. An ability to hold an approaching force at risk, while being at lower risk of an enemy strike of counterattack.

The U.S. Army was among the first-ever to deploy land-fired precision weaponry such as the GPS-guided Excalibur precision 155m artillery round and the longer-range Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, or GMLRS. These weapons, which were first used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2006 through 2009 timeframe, ushered in the advent of a new kind of weapon engineered to give Commanders more attack options and pinpoint enemy targets with great precision from long distances. In fact, among other things, GMLRS successfully destroyed Taliban targets in Afghanistan

While precision fires of this kind would, quite naturally, be useful in full-scale mechanized force-on-force combat—they proved worthwhile in counterinsurgency attacks as Taliban and Iraqi insurgents deliberately blended in with innocent civilians among local populations. As a result, precision attacks became necessary, even vital, to U.S. combat success. Such a phenomenon is of course equally applicable to major warfare scenarios, given the increase in global urbanization and the need for armored forces to advance through and occupy cities. Therefore, something that is both longer range, and precision-guided, brings commanders newer, more advanced attack options. 

As for the PrSM guidance, it uses GPS and inertial measurement unit technology, however it would certainly not be surprising if the Army were looking at both hardening its guidance networks and also exploring non-GPS, less-jammable targeting technologies. 

Since the initial combat debut of these weapons, however, the fast pace of global technological change and weapons proliferation has fostered a circumstance wherein the U.S. is no longer among the few combat forces to have these kinds of weapons. As a result, the U.S. Army sees a clear need to substantially advance offensive ground-attack technology.

Here's Why You Really Don't Want to Live Near an Oil or Gas Well A California study found that pregnant women living near active high-production oil and gas wells have an elevated chance of having low birth-weight babies. by Rachel Morello-Frosch, Joan A. Casey, Kathy Tran and Lara Cushing

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

In a California study, we found that pregnant women living near active high-production oil and gas wells have an elevated chance of having low birth-weight babies. This finding adds to a growing body of research on potential public health impacts from oil and gas operations.

We analyzed the birth records of nearly 3 million babies born to people living within 6.2 miles (10 kilometers) of at least one oil or gas well in California’s Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, South Central Coast and South Coast regions – the state’s oil production epicenters – between 2006 and 2015.

Our analysis found that in rural areas, pregnant women who lived within 0.62 miles (1 kilometer) of the highest-producing wells were 40% more likely to have low birth-weight babies compared to pregnant women living farther away from wells or near inactive wells only. We also found that rural women living near the highest-producing wells were 20% more likely to have babies who were small for their gestational age, which is an indication of reduced fetal growth.

Among full-term births, babies born to rural women living within 0.62 miles of a well were 1.3 ounces (36 grams) smaller, on average, than those of their counterparts. This decrease in birth weight may seem minor from an individual clinical perspective, but such a downward shift at the population level can have significant implications for overall neonatal and infant health.

Finally, in urban areas, we found that pregnant women living close to high-production wells had a 4% higher risk of having a small-for-gestational-age baby.

Overall, these patterns persisted even after we took into account known risk factors for poor birth outcomes, such as maternal age, educational attainment, access to prenatal care, race/ethnicity, neighborhood-level socioeconomic status and other sources of air pollution.

Why it matters

Oil and gas production has been a major U.S. industry for over a century. Today the United States is the largest petroleum producer in the world. Over the past several decades, new extraction technologies such as hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) have significantly increased the scale of production in states including Pennsylvania, Colorado and Texas.

Potential local impacts of oil and gas development include air, water and soil pollution, and excessive nighttime light and noise from well pad construction, truck traffic, drilling, pumps, gas flaring and other processes.

Studies in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma have found that living near active oil and gas wells may put pregnant women at higher risk of having low birth-weight babies, premature births and babies that are small for their gestational age.

California’s unique oil and gas infrastructure dates back to the early 1900s. As of 2017, the state was one of the top five producers of crude oil in the country, although production levels are declining.

Oil and gas production in California occurs in both rural and urban settings. Operators primarily use conventional drilling and enhancement methods and, to a much lesser degree, hydraulic fracturing.

A 2017 study estimated that 2.1 million Californians live within one mile of an actively producing oil and gas well. But until now, no epidemiological studies had examined potential health risks in California.

What still isn’t known

There may be factors that we could not account for in our analysis that may enhance the vulnerability of rural pregnant women to adverse health effects of oil and gas development. Such factors could include chemical exposures related to maternal occupation, housing quality or dependence upon untreated groundwater sources for drinking water.

A 2019 Colorado study observed similar rural/urban differences, with an increased likelihood of babies being born with congenital heart defects among women living near high production oil and gas wells in rural, but not urban, areas.

What’s next

Our study adds to mounting evidence of a link between living near actively producing oil and gas wells and adverse birth outcomes. Another California study in the San Joaquin Valley, released shortly after ours, found elevated risks of spontaneous preterm birth among women living closer to producing oil and gas wells.

While the number of studies on oil and gas is increasing, it remains unclear what aspects of oil and gas development pose potential harm to human health. Several hazards associated with intensive oil production, including air toxics, water pollutants, noise and excessive lighting, may each affect health differently. Better understanding of these different exposures and pathways would inform regulation and help prioritize pollution monitoring, emissions reduction requirements and exposure reduction strategies.

As Californians debate whether their state should expand oil and gas production, including issuing new drilling permits, results from health studies such as ours can inform current efforts to establish buffer zones between active well sites and the places where people – particularly vulnerable populations – live, go to school and play.

In our view, future studies should better characterize specific health threats posed by oil and gas production. Most importantly, we believe that research and regulatory efforts need to more fully engage people who live in fence-line communities near oil and gas production facilities, and to collaboratively identify and implement effective exposure reduction strategies that protect vulnerable groups.