Kenneth Glad
Across the remote plains of the northern United States, hundreds of underground missile silos remain active decades after the Cold War. Built as part of America’s nuclear deterrent, the facilities were designed to guarantee retaliation if the country were ever attacked.
Today, rising geopolitical tensions are pushing Cold War installations back into the spotlight, as analysts again examine how geography could shape risks in a potential global conflict.
Newsweek previously reported that U.S. missile fields across the northern plains could become priority targets in a nuclear exchange. Large portions of the country’s land-based nuclear arsenal are located in states such as Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota.
The missile network is part of the Minuteman III system, which consists of roughly 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles spread across hardened underground silos. Many of them sit near bases such as Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.
Strategies from the Cold War
Cold War military planners deliberately placed the missiles across thousands of miles of farmland and prairie. The goal was simple: dispersal made it far more difficult for an adversary to eliminate the entire force in a single strike.
That geography has always been part of the strategy.
The land-based missiles form one element of the U.S. nuclear triad, which also includes submarine-launched weapons and long-range strategic bombers. Together, the system is intended to preserve a retaliatory capability even after an attack.
Because fixed silos cannot move, however, military strategists have long assumed they would be among the first targets in a nuclear confrontation.
Growing fears of wider war
Those strategic concerns are resurfacing as global tensions continue to escalate. Newsner previously reported that more than 1,000 people were believed to have been killed in fighting linked to the escalating conflict in the Middle East as of early March, raising fears of broader regional instability.
Recent polling suggests the public is increasingly uneasy about the possibility of global conflict. A YouGov survey conducted across the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain found that between 41 percent and 55 percent of respondents believe another world war could break out within the next five to ten years.
In the United States, roughly 45 percent of respondents said they believe such a conflict is possible within that timeframe. Between 68 percent and 76 percent of those surveyed also said they expect nuclear weapons would likely be used if a global war occurred.
Leaders sound warnings
Political leaders have acknowledged the risks as well. During an interview with Time, President Donald Trump said retaliation on U.S. soil is a possibility and warned that war inevitably brings casualties.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told the BBC he believes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could represent the beginning of a wider conflict.
“I believe that Putin has already started it [WW3],” Zelensky said. “The question is how much territory he will be able to seize and how to stop him.”
Despite discussions about regions that might face greater risk, security specialists caution that the destructive reach of modern nuclear arsenals means no place would be entirely safe in a large-scale war.
Sources: Newsner, Newsweek, BBC,
