Save The ICBMs!

Montana's two senators are calling on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to ensure that the 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles based in their state will not be subjected to budget cuts.

In a Dec. 7 letter to Panetta, Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jon Tester (D-MT) call for the ICBMs at Malmstrom Air Force Base -- which houses 150 out of the 450-missile ICBM fleet -- to be left intact. The senators wrote in response to a Nov. 14 missive Panetta sent to Congress that outlined the significant cuts that would take place if the bipartisan "supercommittee" failed to agree on trimming billions of dollars from the government budget. One of the victims would be the nation's ICBM fleet.

In their letter this week, the senators write:

We believe eliminating the ICBM wing would be disastrous for national security and fail to deliver significant budget savings over the next ten years. We hope to work with you to make the cuts required by our nation's financial constraints without jeopardizing national security or gutting critical national assets such as the ICBM force and we urge you to include robust funding for the ICBM wing in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget.

We appreciate the fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense in the coming years, but ICBM reductions are not a smart way to achieve budget savings. ICBMs are by far the most cost-efficient leg of the nuclear triad. The ICBM fleet provides a critical deterrent because of its considerable survivability. Unlike an attack on the submarine or bomber leg of the triad, an enemy would be required to strike deep within the continental United States in order effectively eliminate ICBM strike capability. Such a visible, highly dispersed force creates a powerful disincentive for any adversary while also providing clear reassurance to our allies, many of whom have chosen not to pursue their own nuclear arsenal because of the security provided by America's nuclear umbrella.

Also, the ICBM force is in the final stages of a decade-long modernization effort. It will be extremely cost effective to maintain the Minuteman III fleet through 2030 as is now planned. It is doubtful that the Department could achieve $8 billion in savings -- as estimated in your November 14th letter -- by eliminating the ICBM force. The large costs associated with closing down large installations, such as environmental remediation and other costs associated with dismantling nuclear infrastructure, would likely offset most potential savings.

In a statement accompanying the letter, Baucus and Tester said:

"Cutting Malmstrom's ICBM force is a no-go in my book, and I'll keep fighting to make sure we keep our ICBMs," Baucus said. "We must make smart budget cuts to get our fiscal house in order, but cutting our ICBM force would jeopardize our national security, and wouldn't make a scratch on the surface of our national deficit. I'll keep pushing on Secretary Panetta and the Department of Defense to include funding for our ICBMs in the 2013 budget."

"Malmstrom's ICBMs are part of our nation's most powerful and cost-efficient nuclear deterrent. If the Defense Department is serious about identifying meaningful ways to save taxpayer dollars, it needs to look at our decades-old overseas bases we no longer need," said Tester, who is spearheading an effort in the Senate to close obsolete overseas bases. "This nation needs real solutions to get our deficit under control, but eliminating a cost-efficient military asset that keeps our nation safe isn't the way to go."