The Associated Press recently did a story about the United States Air Force recycling the equipment and other items from the 564th Missile Squadron at Malmstrom AFB (MAFB) in Montana.

It was a sweet human-interest story served up with cost saving numbers, and they even let the readers know that the beds and refrigerators will be reused.

I did not read anywhere in the story if anyone thought the United States was safer today than we were in 2006.

A little history:
You may remember that MAFB deactivated 50 missiles in mid 2007.  Ironically, in late 2006 Montana lost its clout in the U.S. Senate on defense and military committees.

Malmstrom also reportedly lost 457 military jobs with those 50 missiles.  Losing jobs in a community can never be a reason to keep a base open, but I am sure someone in the community knows just exactly how much economic impact those 457 jobs will have on the Great Falls area.

Different Angles:
There are several different ways of thinking about the DoD getting rid of 50 missiles.  One angle was that the 50 missiles at MAFB were from the newer squadron and it took different training and maintenance for their upkeep and it will save money.  This angle seemed to sell in the local community as hardly anyone complained.

I wonder if they used the same calculations for this as they did for the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC)?  In one article, it was estimated that it has taken 28,000 labor hours to decommission the missile sites.  Yes, 28,000.

Many BRAC locations are still costing taxpayers money for environmental cleanup, etc., years after the place they BRAC’d was closed.

The other angle (and the one that I agree with) is that the world is more dangerous than ever before, and it’s always good to have missiles as a deterrent – something President Ronald Reagan promoted successfully.

The Future:
Sadly I look for more missile sites to be deactivated – even a whole base under the current administration and with the anti-defense leadership in the House and Senate.  They are spending our money like never before and they will have to cut some programs to keep us from going bankrupt.  That something could easily be land-based missiles.

So it’s probably a slippery slope in that it was easy to take 50 from Malmstrom, so why not serve up Malmstrom on a platter to the Russians?  If the United States can do without these 50 missiles and save $3 million in operating costs each year, why can’t we do without the other 150?

Here we are in 2010, and the world is still a very dangerous place.  That danger is not just confined to terrorists taking over or blowing up planes, but to countries that are deploying their own missiles with nukes.