The development of the Minuteman Missiles was a part of USA’s epochs long campaign against the Soviet Union and enhance its national security. The decision to house these intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) in South Dakota and its neighboring states was essentially made with a combination of geographical and practical considerations in mind. First and foremost, these areas were in striking vicinity of the Soviet Union. Secondly, especially in South Dakota’s case, the existence of a pre-established base made deployment easy. Lastly, South Dakota and its neighboring states were deep in the hinterland of USA, making the possibility of an assault from the sea by the Soviet Union close to impossible. These factors made South Dakota and its proximate states ideal for making contributions towards what Dwight Eisenhower called the “Military-industrial complex.” Furthermore, the development of the Minuteman sites brought preeminent economic development to South Dakota. As development progressed, deposits in banks like First National and American National increased substantively. In addition, a local newspaper, “Rapid City Daily Journal,” stated that “Minuteman Promises Economic Lift,” and it was surmised that the project would bring in $ 60 million in construction contracts alone. In summation, the development of the Minutemen project created jobs, employed local contractors, and, as aforementioned, led to an increase in contracts. In contrast, in other parts of the country, there was a certain level of recoil by the US citizens, e.g., work stoppages were often observed. Although the military didn’t face the same level of recoil it faced in the other states in South Dakota, it did, however, receive some backlash, primarily when it came to land acquisition from local landowners (Heefner).
The military acquired the land either through direct purchase or, on certain atypical occasions, through the right of eminent domain. In South Dakota, landowners complained that the missiles were deliberately placed in the middle of the fields, in the most valuable grazing land, rather than in the corners of the field. In” Dismantling South Dakota’s Cold War” by Gretchen Heefner, Gene S. William stated that his father argued about the missile being “put right in the middle of our field up north here,” to which the Air Force replied that he and his family were being unpatriotic. In response to the military’s treatment, the Minuteman Area Landowners Association was formed. This association, at that particular moment in time, didn’t do much to help the landowners; it did, however, play somewhat of an integral role in the politics of the region three decades later when the mothballing of the Minuteman missiles was announced (largely due to the START negotiations). When the decommissioning or the deactivation of the missiles was announced, both military personnel and local civilians initially responded favorably. However, matters became obscure when the announcement of how the missiles would be disposed of was disseminated (it was decided that the cheapest and the most efficient way of getting rid of the sites was through underground explosions). This raised several questions and concerns among the residents about, e.g. how the environment (mainly the water table) will be affected, how the land will be disposed of, and who will own the land once the missiles are disposed of. Moreover, later it was also proposed that some of the silos could be preserved to retain some of the Minuteman’s legacy. This led to a collaboration between the National Park Service and the Air Force. Later, as a result of their collaboration, LCF Delta I and LF Delta 9 were deemed excellent candidates. Eventually, the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site was created, and Delta-09 was preserved (Heefner). In my opinion, the choice of housing the Minuteman Missiles in South Dakota was a great example of what Dwight Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” as the development of the sites showed the economic and environmental impact of the military investments of the Cold War, it showed how concerns of national security can propel economic growth and can affect local communities and can also lead to fears of historical preservation.
I think a silo was preserved as a national historic site with the National Park Service to shape the historical narratives surrounding the arms race between the Soviet Union and the USA. It was preserved to reinforce how vital developing intercontinental ballistic missiles were for the USA to win the arms race, making people ignore the fact that they were creating weapons of mass destruction capable of taking the lives of millions of people.
Will Wright 