3 ms·
I think throwing the "$100 billion over 50 years" number around is somewhat misleading without comparing to the cost of keeping Minuteman III alive for another
by Rebelgecko 6y ago
I think throwing the "$100 billion over 50 years" number around is somewhat misleading without comparing to the cost of keeping Minuteman III alive for another 50 years.
Most of that cost is gonna be maintenance/sustainment/operations, which we're paying already for with the current squadrons. And it's possible (although I wouldn't count on it) that a new system would be more maintainable than the existing one. For example if keeping Minuteman III alive would've required the US to spend a billion dollars to build a new 5.5" floppy drive factory, that would give GBSD an opportunity to recoup some of the R&D costs
- jacques_chester 6y agoOne of the arguments made is that land-based missiles should be retired entirely, because they are less effective and strategically riskier than submarines and bombers. Such a retirement would make the extension of Minuteman III moot.