The new Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, has made a strong case for transferring the responsibility of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from the Air Force to the Army. In his inaugural message to airmen, he emphasized the Air Force’s core mission: “At our core, we fly and fix aircraft.” This statement reflects a long-standing issue regarding the alignment of the ICBM mission with the service’s primary focus.
Historically, ICBMs were placed under the Air Force during the early days of the space age when missile technology and aircraft operations were closely linked. However, as the defense landscape has changed, the current state of the ICBM program raises concerns. The modernization efforts are reportedly over budget by 81 percent, contributing to a decline in the credibility of the United States’ nuclear deterrent. With the ICBM program at a pivotal point, there is a pressing need for a strategic reassessment.
Rationale for the Transfer
There are compelling reasons why the ICBM mission may be better suited for the Army. First, the ICBM operations do not align with the Air Force’s identity. The service is currently focused on restoring its airpower capabilities, operating with the smallest and oldest fleet in its history. The ICBM role seems increasingly peripheral in this context.
Second, the career progression for missile operators, known as missileers, has become disconnected from the broader Air Force mission. Training and operational experiences in ICBM roles do not readily translate to airborne missions, which may limit future leadership opportunities. This has resulted in morale issues and a shrinking workforce within the missileer career field, problems that have persisted for decades.
The third point of contention is logistical. The Air Force maintains a fleet of utility helicopters to transport crews to silo locations, adding unnecessary complexity to its operations. With financial constraints and a reduced force structure, such expenditures appear misaligned with operational priorities. The Army, already managing the nation’s other land-based missile systems, is better positioned to take over the ICBM mission.
Benefits of a Strategic Realignment
Transferring ICBM responsibilities to the Army would allow for a more efficient approach to nuclear deterrence. The Army has established capabilities in long-range fires and operates other silo-based systems, such as ground-based interceptors located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. By centralizing these operations, the Army could enhance its existing skill sets while relieving the Air Force to focus on its fundamental airpower mission.
This transition may face resistance within the Air Force, primarily due to concerns over prestige and budget implications associated with the ICBM mission. Yet, given the Air Force’s current challenges, a reallocation of responsibilities could prove beneficial. Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, advocates for this clean transfer, emphasizing the importance of maintaining nuclear safety and assurance throughout the process.
In conclusion, the moment for this significant shift appears ripe. As modernization plans for the ICBM program evolve, Congress and the administration are encouraged to consider this strategic realignment. By transferring the ICBM mission to the Army, the United States could ensure a more focused approach to nuclear deterrence while addressing the pressing challenges facing both the Air Force and the Army.
