Decision on Minuteman to shape US nuclear policy for decades
For 50 years the Minuteman missile has been armed and ready, day and night, for nuclear war on a moment’s notice
May 11, 2021, 9:10 PM
6 min read
Adm. Charles Richard, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, speaks during a briefing at the Pentagon in Washington, Thursday, April 22, 2021. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
WASHINGTON -- For 50 years the Minuteman missile has been armed and ready, day and night, for nuclear war on a moment's notice. It has never been launched into combat from its underground silo, but this year it became the prime target in a wider political battle over the condition and cost of the nation's nuclear arsenal.
Minuteman was not intended to last half a century, so it's overdue to be replaced or refurbished. Some see this as a moment to push for scrapping it altogether, abandoning one leg of the traditional nuclear “triad” — weapons that can be launched from land, sea and air. Most in Congress favor keeping the land-based leg by replacing Minuteman with a new missile; President Joe Biden's position is not yet clear.
The outcome of the fight likely will steer nuclear policy and strategy for decades to come. It could influence how U.S. allies in Europe and Asia view the reliability of America's nuclear “umbrella” — the security net that has allowed most of them to forgo developing nuclear weapons of their own. Some argue that it could make the difference between war and peace in an era of rising Chinese military power.
Navy Adm. Charles Richard, who as head of U.S. Strategic Command is in charge of nuclear warfighting plans, says Minuteman is so old that Air Force technicians have had to perform magic to keep it fully functional while coping with severely limited spares for components such as missile launch switches.
“I'm afraid there's a point where they won't be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat and the system won't work,” he told a House hearing April 21. Asked later by a reporter if he meant Minuteman had become unreliable, Richard said it's safe and dependable for now but with “no more margin” for delay in replacing it.
Stephen Schwartz, a nonresident senior fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, says Richard's statements are reminiscent of alarming claims made during the Cold War about needing new weapons.
“Time and again, officials have warned us ‘the sky is falling,’ and it is never true,” Schwartz said. "Congress should critically examine the historical record and apply some healthy skepticism to such testimony.”
Richard applauds a bipartisan push in Congress to preserve and modernize the entire nuclear arsenal at a cost, depending on how you define it, of more than $1 trillion. Opponents include a former defense secretary, William Perry, who has become an outspoken critic of Minuteman. The Pentagon's current leader, Lloyd Austin, has been publicly noncommittal on Minuteman but favors preserving the nuclear triad.
The consensus in Congress is that age is eroding the three main pillars of U.S. nuclear strength — long-range bomber aircraft like the 1960s-era B-52, submarines armed with Trident ballistic missiles, and the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. Relatively few oppose building new-generation bombers and submarines. The most contentious debate is over whether, when and how to replace Minuteman.
Arguments over Minuteman boil down to this: Given its age and the nuclear challenges posed by Russia and China, should it be phased out in favor of a new-generation ICBM? Or should it be refurbished at lesser cost, to be replaced later? Or should it be phased out, period, with no replacement?
The debate reveals a longstanding American divide. On one side is the view that ICBMs are indispensable to the strategy for deterring any adversary from attempting a nuclear attack upon the United States or its allies. A key piece of the argument is that ICBMs in their 400 underground silos in five Great Plains states act as a “warhead sink,” or sponge, to absorb the first blow in a nuclear war; the argument is that an attacker would need to expend so many weapons destroying these silos that he would see little chance of winning and thus would be deterred from attacking in the first place.
