Associated Press February 5, 2006
Need for ICBMs is a matter of debate
By Mary Clare Jalonick
WASHINGTON - High Plains lawmakers are wary of any reduction in the nuclear missile force that makes its home there, but some defense experts say the United States is right to continue drawing down the weapons.
"You have a lot of room for maneuvering here," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "The numbers we built up in the Cold War reflected the dynamic of the Cold War, and not any plausible military need."
The Pentagon on Friday announced that it would reduce the nuclear missile force - 500 intercontinental ballistic missiles scattered through Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota - by 10 percent. That could lead to the loss of hundreds of jobs wherever the missiles are cut, most likely in Montana.
Lawmakers that represent the states have argued that the missiles are needed, saying that nuclear threats still loom large around the world. But O'Hanlon and others argue that the United States is not losing any of its military clout by stepping back from the massive buildups that characterized the Cold war.
Taking 50 missiles out of the stockpile "certainly won't affect our nuclear force posture," said Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "It's a continuation of a policy that has been in effect for some time."
Indeed, the United States has rid itself of many of the nuclear weapons it once possessed, including the massive Peacekeeper missiles, each of which carried 10 warheads. The High Plains were once the heart of the nation's most important defense strategy, home to the nuclear missiles because of its relative proximity to Russia.
But when the last Peacekeeper was pulled out of the ground at Wyoming's F.E. Warren Air Force Base last year, few people noticed.
"If ever there was an unnecessary weapon after the Cold War, it's nuclear weapons," said Christopher Hellman, a defense budget and policy analyst at the Washington-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "We have nuclear capability to burn. This is a situation where the broader policy issues are more important than the job loss."
O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution, says that the United States probably does not need 500 missiles when it could achieve total destruction with just a few dozen.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., argues that the United States must be wary of North Korea and Iran as they try to build up their own nuclear stockpiles. Other lawmakers look at China and other countries.
The state's other senator, Republican Conrad Burns, has said there will be a fight in Congress over the issue.
But Baucus acknowledges that it will be difficult to fight the change.
"It's going to be a very steep climb keeping the 50," he said.
Warren Wenz, an attorney who lobbies for Malmstrom, had a similar reaction.
"If we can get by with 450, then we need to accept it and move forward," he said. "But it's a concern because we are a single mission base. If the missiles go away, the base goes away, and that's about 35 percent of our economy."
Both senators, along with Montana Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, have said they will work to find additional missions for the base.
John Pike, military analyst and founder of Washington-based think tank GlobalSecurity.org, supports reducing the stockpile but says the country "will be in the ICBM business for a long time."
"(The bases) would have reasons to be concerned about what it's going to be like 25 or 50 years from now, but they are not going to shut down any time soon," he said.
© Copyright 2006, Associated Press
