Yuku free message boards

I understand that the current plan is to continue incremental upgrades to Minuteman III and keep it in service through 2040.

Initially, Peacekeeper was to be withdrawn under START II, in exchange for the USSR withdrawing its heavy-throw-weight SS-18s. While START II never technically went into force, the US had a policy of acting as though the treaty was in force.

Now that START II has been superseded by the Moscow Treaty, which only limits warhead numbers, economics plays a major role. It costs less to maintain a single missile type, so it makes sense to get rid of either Minuteman or Peacekeeper. And maintaining only 50 Peacekeepers would certainly be cheaper than 500 Minutemans. Those 50 Peacekeepers could carry about as many warhead as the 500 single-warhead Minutemans, but the resulting force would be awfully fragile. Peacekeeper is deployed in a single site with all 50 missiles together while Minuteman has 500 missiles in multiple locations. A single site with 50 silos would potentially be vulnerable to a preemptive counterforce attack. Also, a MIRVed missile can only deliver its warheads within a fairly limited footprint, limiting Peacekeeper to 50 sets of fairly closely spaced targets. Retaining Minuteman gives a larger force with more survivability and flexibility.