Posted on 10/21/2009 10:51:53 AM PDT by markomalley
Malmstom Air Force Base says it has completed the full deactivation of 50 missile launch facilities for Malmstrom Air Force Base's 564th Missile Squadron after two years of work.
A maintenance group put in more than 29,000 hours to remove all the major equipment and components from the 50 launch facilities, or silos, as well as the five missile alert facilities that controlled them.
Top military officials determined in early 2006 that it was no longer strategically necessary to keep 500 intercontinental ballistic missiles on alert nationwide.
The Air Force chose to deactivate the 564th, which lay northwest of Great Falls between Shelby and Dutton.
Malmstrom's other three missile squadrons remain in operation. Each squadron has 50 ICBMs.
See this Great Falls Tribune article which has more details...
I couldn’t think of a better time in American History in which to decrease our defensive capability, you know with the world being so safe and stuff. /sarc (I can’t believe we even have to put the sarc tag on posts anymore. I left my flame suit at home).
Obama and his socialists ilk are setting us up for a sunday punch. With empty silos, and the majority of our nuclear deterrant on a couple of subs (most in port or in KirklandAFB/NellisAFB/WhitmanAFB/BarksdaleAFB)...its now possible to neutralize our 2nd strike ability with as little as a dozen nukes.
I smell Peace Prize!!!!! - not.
Wow, I live 90 miles South of Malmstrom and feel so much safer now /sarc
Strategically these sites were useless. Fixed launch facilities have been rendered obsolete by advances in technology.
Are you sure? I can't believe an ICBM would be strategically useless in any form (except disassembled form), even as a dart to aim at a palace or something.
ICBM’s are not defensive weapons. Besides, as has been stated, fixed sites are obsolete.
What you are implying is using the booster for a non-nuclear preemptive weapon. Yes it would be effective. No, launching it from an existing and well known location for nuclear missiles is not smart. That would cause nuclear nations to possibly detect the launch, know it is from a location that has nuclear missiles, and launch on us in a defensive reaction. Better to move the missiles to a known non-nuclear location and declare them to all nuclear capable nations as non-nuclear weapons.
its now possible to neutralize our 2nd strike ability with as little as a dozen nukes.
Let’s hope that we won’t need these missile launch tubes in the future.Once their gone,their gone for good.This is occurring as our Russian friends are building ever larger,more capable I.C.B.M’s.
These sites wre originally designed for Minuteman II and built by Sylvaina (the light bulb folks) ISO Boeing. After the 150 Grand forks, ND sites (also Deuce)were inactivated in 1998 the cost of maintaining, let alone uprgrading to current REACT, CDB, etc, became prohibitive.
That said: Goodbye Deuce! I spent some good times and some terrifying times with you!
Check out my “about” page as I have a link to my Youtube account with a news interview I gave in a Deuce capsule at Grand Forks (shut down and destroyed a long time ago) back in 1988. You can see much of the equipment and how small the capsule is, yet the Boeing capsules (Deuce was built by Sylvania) are much smaller and less hardened.
MMII/CDB. Cable/Radio, Master/Slave. The Cadillac of ICBM Weapon Systems.
This was initiated under Rumsfeld. The odd squad had a different launch control system than the other three squadrons which was a maintenance and training problem for many years. The squadron was deactivated in 2008. One of the senators who tried to keep it from happening was none other than Maxie Pad Baucus.
Our submarine launched Tridents are our best weapons,
being that they are in unknown locations and ready to strike
on command.
Silos have served their purpose, but are obsolete today.
If we can develop a deep penetrator, our adversaries can as well.
Let’s hope that we won’t need these missile launch tubes in the future.Once their gone,their gone for good.This is occurring as our Russian friends are building ever larger,more capable I.C.B.M’s.
“on command”
Yeah, like BO will actually give the command if it is required...
I remember that interview. I was a Looking Glass Ops controller/airborne keyturner at the time. I started my AF career as a crewmember at that other frozen North Dakota base, Minot.
Of course I’m not implying that. I’m just saying that we are giving more backbone to our enemies by constantly tearing down and destroying. Go ahead and decommission ICBMs, that’s fine, just don’t let that lead the news about our military. The leading news should be that we just invented a weapon that kills more efficiently, not that we are tearing down our military prowess.
SKYBIRD, SKYBIRD; DO NOT ANSWER
For Alert Force, For Alert Force, KLAXON; KLAXON; KLAXON....
MESSAGE FOLLOWS ……………..
VZAZHSWMZVFAVEEN5LFDDOF56FE
END OF MESSAGE……….
END TRANSMISSION
so you are awaiting a nuclear war within in the next days?
As a former DOE/NNSA/OST Agent...we are always protecting against a nuclear "incident".
come on to be serious it´s “only” 50 missiles.
50 MIRV'd missles are approx 300+ warheads depending on payload and missile flight status IAW SIOP. A significant portion of our first strike, hard target platforms.
Do you really think that china or russia will nuke you right now out of sudden only because they now have the chance that maybe now 2% of their population could survive the retaliation instead of the normal 1% (or whatever) when all nukes are operational?
No...but inviting targets may eventually become one.
I love having a nuclear deterrant. It has kept the peace, and I for one, don't trust the Russians or Chinese, especially since I helped them dismantle and store their multi-MT warheads off of their SS-18s many moons ago.
WhynotMinot? Frozen Hell when I was there for a DOE course.
Other's ICBM's will be obsolete in 10 years, no later because of our laser weapon capability,
Jorge Arbolito did this with Rummy back in 2006. It has nothing at all to do with Zero.
No...but inviting targets may eventually become one.
I love having a nuclear deterrant. It has kept the peace, and I for one, don’t trust the Russians or Chinese, especially since I helped them dismantle and store their multi-MT warheads off of their SS-18s many moons ago.
LOL...we missed that chance 12 SEP 01. We could have coordinated with the Russians to take out the Middle East, ridding the world of nuclear weapons and the BONUS of stopping global warming through a nuclear winter ;)
That is the very essence of deterrents. Place in the mind of any possible aggressor the doubt for the outcome of any use of force against US national interests..
And did I mention, to place any aggressors interests at risk.
Seems to me that these are two contradictory statements...
A defensive weapon that is "fixed" implies nothing about it is very mobile for striking at an attacking force...The missiles in these "fixed" silos are not "fixed". They are, therefore, offensive weapons and will have been launched well before any "first" strike arrives...
QED...
Dismantling them is idiotic.
Absolutely right. These Minuteman missles helped win the cold war.
I was there in 1962 and helped activate them as ordered by President JFK 47 years ago this month. It is stll the 341st Strategic Missle Wing at Malmstrom.
Following “logic” like yours would have gotten us nuked a long time ago, so I’m glad we stayed away from the “You’re insane! No one would dare attack us!” mindset when it came to strategic deterrence.
The whole idea of a nuclear shield is that the weapons are so awesomely powerful, so terrible and so devastating that any potential attacker fears complete obliteration should they be foolish enough to initiate hostilities. Dismantling them is idiotic.
Nuclear strategy as posed on the latest SIOP composes three areas. Counter-force; actions against military targets (other ICBMs); Counter-value; actions against civilian populations (the will to wage war); and counter-power; against vital infrastructure.
Depending on which is deemed the more critical by the NCA all three can and do cause problems for any possible aggressor.
I guess I can talk about this now. Left Malmstrom in 1974. During my time there I doubt half the missles could have gotten out of the ground. Of course our technology was rather primative then as compared to today. Use to have to go out and place sandbags on the silos due to flooding.
Folks remember the Cuban Missle Crisis but not many know of 1972. I was called to duty at Malmstrom at 2am. Russia was threatening use of nukes in the Middle East. Base was on red alert. All we needed was the OK from the President. At the time we were told to keep our mouths shut or face Courts-martial.
Always found it a bit ironic working on the missles that were pointed at our own cities (in event we were over taken by the enemy). Of course the government will deny this.
Anyway, don’t think they can do much to me now. Getting too old and just don’t give a damn.
If you had to be called in you weren’t on alert.
Yep. A use ‘em or lose ‘em problem.
I think the best land-based system is underground railroad for out West.
50 Minuteman III missiles is 150 warheads.
IMHO of the triad (land, sea, air) the least effective is land and the most effective is sea (submarines). Stealth bombers and cruise missiles are far more effective than train mounted launchers.
Or perhaps it is 10 nukes and 25 EMP devices and 15 threat tube sterilizers.
It would be a completely underground closed circuit railroad system with hardened launch points. You would have a thousand or more launch points with 200 or 250 mini-trains each carrying an ICBM. The points would be spread out enough so no more than one could be destroyed by a warhead. The mini-trains would shuttle back and forth and there would be no exterior way to know which station had a train at any given time. Therefore the enemy would have to expend at least a thousand warheads to ensure of no land-based counterstrike. An ABM system protecting the area would complicate the problem of taking out all the mini-trains.
This is not my own idea but the original plan for the basing of the MX missile.
No leg of the triad is sufficient in itself. I wouldn’t trust just a few subs carrying 24 missiles each to China’s increasingly deep blue navy.
“15 threat tube sterilizers.”
LOL. Is that the euphemism for a silo buster?
I was an active duty missileer when that deployment scenario was considered and rejected by the Air Force. Russia also considered it and also rejected it. There seems to be an additional deterrent to not knowing if the retaliation is 40 minutes away or 5 minutes away. Makes your opponents planning much more difficult.
That scenario is significantly more sturdy than having all our missiles sitting tight in hardened silos while the NCA is formulating a decision.
“15 threat tube sterilizers.”
LOL. Is that the euphemism for a silo buster?
No. It is a tactic in nuclear warfare. Threat tubes are the air/space areas from which nuclear armed missiles must pass to threaten the US.
Kind of like a super ABM.
Wow.
You live in Helena?
“Fixed launch facilities have been rendered obsolete by advances in technology.”
What advances?
EMP affects missiles also. As does pop-corn and nuclear detonations..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.