If you’ve ever taken a road trip through the wide-open plains of Montana or the quiet stretches of North Dakota, it might seem like nothing much is going on. But beneath those peaceful fields lie some of the most important—and most dangerous—pieces of land in the country. Hidden underground are hundreds of missile silos, each one part of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. For those who live nearby, that means knowing they’re not merely neighbors to fields and prairie—they’re sitting atop potential targets.
The federal government is now spending billions of dollars modernizing these weapons, upgrading the old Minuteman III missiles with a new system called Sentinel. Officials say the upgrade is vital to keeping the nation safe, particularly in a world where dangers are changing. The Air Force refers to these ground-based missiles as the most responsive component of America’s nuclear shield, capable of being launched within minutes, and perpetually on standby since the late 1950s. The Sentinel project is not insignificant; it involves massive construction work, thousands of laborers, and significant alterations to the landscape of America’s nuclear core.
But this modernization does not come with just a price tag—it also has serious health and environmental risks. A research team led by Sébastien Phillippe at Princeton found that if these missile fields were ever attacked, the fallout could be devastating. One to two million people could die from radiation exposure, and depending on the weather, up to 300 million could be at risk across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Even the government’s environmental report concedes the Sentinel program could have significant short- and long-term impacts on public health, safety, and the environment.
For residents in the vicinity of the nation’s missile fields—such as those dotting the landscape of Montana—the psychic burden is difficult to convey. It’s an uneasy thought—that your hometown is essentially designed to take the hit. And that becomes clearer with time. It tints how individuals think about their future, their children, and the lives they build.
And then there’s the sheer expense. By the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, the U.S. alone will spend nearly $1 trillion over the decade merely to sustain and modernize its nuclear arsenal. The Sentinel missile system to replace the aging Minuteman III was initially projected to cost $62 billion, but that estimate has already more than doubled. And the costs keep going up. Critics argue that those billions could be better spent fixing things that people need desperately: low-cost medicine, better schools, safer streets, and potable water to drink. Groups like Physicians for Social Responsibility have pointed out that a tiny fraction of the nuclear budget would radically enhance everyday life without a loss of national security.
Proponents of the modernization program tend to rely on the premise of deterrence—the notion that possessing strong weapons holds prospective adversaries at bay. But this reasoning is not foolproof by any means. Scholars such as Ward Wilson and Scott Sagan have long challenged whether nuclear weapons prevent war or safeguard human rights. Rather, they contend, we’ve created an extremely vulnerable system. A single error—either a system breakdown or a faulty signal reading—might trigger a catastrophe.
Folks living adjacent to such missile bases aren’t simply a part of an argument over policy—they’re actual families, neighbors, workers, and students. They bear the weight of America’s nuclear policy daily. As the country moves forward with new weapons and infrastructure, the people most affected deserve a seat at the table. This conversation isn’t just about national defense—it’s about what kind of world we’re creating, and who pays the price for it. When we discuss expenses, we must go beyond the spreadsheets and ask: what are we giving up, and who are we requiring to live with the costs?
Related
