Delta-9: A Cold War Corpse

The Minutemen Missiles in South Dakota during the Cold War were implemented to bolster the U.S.’s arsenal in the case of nuclear war. As Gretchen Heefner explains in the article Missiles and Memory: Dismantling South Dakota’s Cold War, “Far to the north and well inland, [South Dakota and its neighbors] were in striking distance of the Soviet Union, yet impossible to reach via an ocean assault” (Heefner). These missiles in South Dakota are an example of the Cold War economy because of their cause and effect on local people. As construction began on the missiles in August of 1961, local papers such as the Rapid City Daily Journal reflected on the economic boost that would follow, including “$60 million in construction contracts along” (Heefner). Minutemen Missiles were also a source of saving for the Air Force, of which Heefner writes, “construction of the Minuteman sites was far cheaper given the prefabricated silos and massive redundancy…These were important cost savings because despite the fact that defense spending had been ramped up thanks to Sputnik and the feared “missile gap,” military planners remained wary of spending cuts, program elimination, and interagency competition” (Heefner). The missiles in SD seemed like a win-win situation—the government expanded its attack power on a cost-efficient budget while rural communities were given a sense of patriotic duty as well as the money military personnel brought with them. In line with government behavior displayed in the past two weeks’ readings, problems surrounding land and property ownership arose due to the pre-selected site process. The government did not consider how landowners felt about these missiles taking up good land. In Gene S. Williams’ father’s case, the Air Force planned to construct a missile in the middle of their wheat field. Whereas Williams’ father offered to donate a different piece of land for free, “the Air Force refused to budge and suggested that the family was being unpatriotic…Williams’s land was instead seized by eminent domain” (Heefner). As many of us know, land in the Midwest is coveted—worth more than money. Major problems arose for this reason when the missiles would eventually be deconstructed thirty years later.

In the 1990s when the missiles were set to be dismantled by TNT, groups such as the Minuteman Area Landowners Association (MALA) pushed back in defense of the water tables. Further, the MALA argued that the land should be offered for sale or returned to the original landowners. While neither happened, the MALA’s efforts were admirable nonetheless, forcing the Air Force to consider interests other than its own. Along with the deconstruction of the missiles came an economic dagger. No longer was the Air Force providing benefits and expense savings to the locals. LCF workers weren’t obligated to live in these rural areas, either. This drain of money and people hurt rural communities. Winning the Cold War meant taking and spending on behalf of the federal government and the military, usually at the expense of the common man (ranchers/farmers/landowners). Those in power were seizing resources for the greater good and for the country, which is why Eisenhower warned of these expansive resources falling into the wrong hands. 

The National Park Service is motivated by preservation, whether that be of natural resources or history. I find it fitting that the Air Force turned over Delta-9 to the NPS, that was a good choice on their behalf. As Heefner mentions, commemorating the efforts of the people during the Cold War is a difficult task without actual warfare or casualties. By preserving Delta-9, the chapter of history in which locals lived among massively powerful missiles and thankless workers monitored them is not going to be forgotten or erased. The missile is as close as we can get to a battlefield or monument to let people maintain a feeling of connectedness to their local history that fits into a larger Cold War narrative.