Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Ah, the great American pastime isn’t baseball anymore, it’s the relentless tilling of land to plant… nuclear missiles! That’s right, land-based ballistic missiles. Because nothing says ‘Home of the brave’ like giant metallic phallic symbols of doom buried across our amber waves of grain.
So, we’re here again, revisiting another discussion about our dear old creaky land-based nuclear arsenal, the Minuteman III, which has been quietly aging like a fine wine—if that wine was capable of annihilating civilization. These old-timers have been around since the Cold War, loitering in their expensive silos like they own the place.
Now, I’m no military expert, but even I can tell you that it’s maybe, just maybe, time to rethink our nuclear strategy when the main argument in favor of keeping these ancient armageddons-in-waiting is, essentially, ‘Hey, they’ve always been there.’ That’s not a strategy, folks, that’s your grandpa refusing to throw away his collection of expired canned beans!
The Minuteman III missiles are so old that they’re practically begging for a senior discount at Denny’s. It’s been suggested by folks in suits and spectacles that maybe, just maybe, plowing billions into maintaining this aging horde isn’t the best use of our pocket change. I mean, with what we spend on these things, we could probably fix a bridge or two, maybe even educate a few kids.
But here’s the kicker – we’re planning on replacing them! Yes, because nothing solves a problem like throwing heaps of money at another, shinier problem. Enter the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD, because we love acronyms almost as much as we love spending money we don’t have. This new missile system is the Millennial of missiles—sleeker, more tech-savvy, and probably struggling with existential dread.
Now, advocates for these land-based nukes argue they’re vital to our national security. They’re the bedrock of our nuclear ‘triad’: bombers, subs, and missiles. An impressive collection, sure—if you’re trying to scare a foreign exchange student. But let’s be clear, our security isn’t just about having more boom-booms than the other guy; it’s about ensuring those boom-booms don’t end up making the last thing we hear a loud bang followed by eternal silence.
And then there’s the argument of deterrence. The ultimate cosmic joke: We need our missiles because they have their missiles! If everyone’s walking around with sledgehammers, no one wants to be the first to throw a punch. But does this deterrence theory really stand up, or is it just us continuing to play the most dangerous game of chicken?
What’s truly amusing, in a dark, existential way, is our ongoing affection for overkill. Do we need enough nukes to blow up the world several times over? Who are we trying to impress? Mars?
Let’s not forget the sheer environmental and human cost of maintaining these relics of a bygone fear. From the potential for catastrophic accidents to the everyday pollution of our land and water—not to mention the occasional scandalous behavior by those in charge of these weapons—it seems like the risks are as high as the maintenance bill.
In an age where we can barely secure our internet browsers against teenagers in their basements, maybe it’s time to admit that basing huge portions of our national defense on old-school Cold War tactics might not be our best bet. Maybe, just maybe, we should start thinking outside the silo.
Rename it the Ground-Based Financial Detriment, or GBFD, because that’s what it’s going to be: a giant hole in which we bury our money. A money pit that gives back absolutely nothing tangible but more worries.
In the end, maybe it’s time we rethink not just our land-based nukes, but our entire approach to defense. Less about sabre-rattling and more about, oh I don’t know, actually preparing for the challenges of the future? Because last I checked, you can’t nuke climate change or a global pandemic.
So, let’s toast to the future—a future where maybe, just maybe, our biggest defense isn’t what’s buried underground, but what we build above it.
Source: Congressman: U.S. Land-Based Nuclear Weapons Need a Rethink | Opinion
