During his farewell address in January of 1961, President Eisenhower said the following regarding the “immense military establishment” and “large arms industry” that was beginning to characterize America:
“We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
It is in this speech that President Eisenhower first coined the term “military-industrial complex” to describe the state of the economy during the Cold War. Eisenhower reiterates that although military involvement and spending is vital for national security, it is important that the American people recognize the magnitude of this development and ensure that power is kept in check. This statement can be seen as a warning to the nation that the ever-expanding defence industry and its very close ties to the government could lead to (1) excessive defence spending, (2) misplaced power, and (3) a shift in national priorities away from the needs of civilians and towards defence and war. The Minutemen Missiles in South Dakota illustrate all three of these categories.
The Minutemen Missiles were an investment, costing just over $75.7 million. While this is less costly than the Titan sites, it illustrates the US government’s willingness to spend large—sometimes excessive—amounts on defence and security (Heefner). In South Dakota, the spending was largely justified because of the economic opportunities it brought to an area that otherwise had “little organic job creation” (Heefner). As the Minutemen project created jobs in construction, maintenance, and security, aspects of the local economy became dependent on military spending. This makes defence contractors (companies like Boeing, for example) even more powerful because of how involved they are in government and the economy—exactly what President Eisenhower was warning against. This perpetuates a never-ending cycle of military spending, and less regard for the lives of nearby civilians. Similar to how the Nevada Testing Site was selected, the government selected Western South Dakota to house the Minutemen Missiles because of its “maximum strategic efficacy” and with little regard to the needs of locals. In fact, any locals that voiced reluctance to the placement of the Minutemen Missiles was labeled “unpatriotic” (Heefner).
The Cold War looked different from other wars in history—it was rooted in technology, and there were no “fallen soldiers” that war memorials are typically based on. But, as Heefner illustrates, there was still sacrifice (for example, from those that worked the “invisible, thankless jobs” at the Minutemen site)—it just took on a different form. She writes: “Cold war sacrifice has a different meaning—a sacrifice of patience and vigilance; the tedium of waiting and watching. It was also a sacrifice of space and security, as ranchers were asked to cede title to their property and communities were asked to shelter nuclear weapons.” The heroes of the Minutemen Missiles project are not just those working in the government, but also the ranchers who sacrificed their land and the civilians who lived alongside the missiles. It is important that we honor these individuals. While the silo may not look like much from I-90, it is a historical monument that invites people to ponder deep questions and reflect on the stories of those that worked with the project and lived around it. As people look down into the silo at the missile, it can also serve as a sobering reminder of the magnitude of destructive power that was largely kept away from the public eye. As Heefner says, “Monuments are markers of the sacrifices made by others to make the present possible and a reminder that sacrifice may need to be made again.”
Outside source: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
Will Wright 
I agree that the Cold War looks different from other wars, and therefore, the memorial looks different as well. I like how you pointed out that while the silo may not look like much from the interstate it allows people to wonder about the destructive power of the missiles that were kept away from the public. I really appreciated how you started out with information about Eisenhower’s farewell address and the military-industrial complex. I think setting up the context before getting into the article was a really helpful way to explain the points you made in your post about how the Minutemen Missiles connect to the Cold War economy.
LikeLike
Carly,
I love how thoughtfully and critically you analyzed this reading. In your response to the first question, you say, “This perpetuates a never-ending cycle of military spending.” This was such a good way to phrase the military funding depedancy that had been created by the government towards the American people. Military funds were invested in creating missile containment areas on owned land throughout the state and they only way to amend the governments mistake was to further throw military spending at the issue. It is almost as if helping to aid in missile removal would take way from the government being the reason for such long-lasting damage.
I also enjoyed your response to the second question. While the silo is a reminder to a distant memory, the prominence of its existence still holds strong. It’s a reminder of South Dakotans sacrifice, as you said, but is also another reminder of how destructive this cultural of secrecy truely was, and continues to be, in this country’s history.
Thank you for your post!
LikeLike