Air Force asks Congress to protect nuclear launch sites from wind turbines

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: ABC News/AP

November 7, 2023, 8:00 AM


WASHINGTON -- The Air Force's vast fields of underground nuclear missile silos are rarely disturbed by more than the occasional wandering cow or floating spy balloon. But the service is now asking Congress to help with another unexpected danger: towering wind turbines, which are growing in number and size and are edging closer to the sites each year.

The silos share space on vast private farmlands with the turbines. Whereas the nuclear launch sites are almost undetectable — just small, rectangular plots of land marked only by antennae, a chain-link fence and a flat 110,000-ton (100,000-metric tonne) concrete silo blast door — the turbines are hundreds of feet high, with long, sweeping blades that have parts so large and long they dwarf the 18-wheeler flatbed trucks that transport them to new sites.

As nearby populations have grown, so have energy needs, and so have the number and size of the turbines. It's a boon for farmers and landowners, who can lease space on their lands to support both the military needs and wind power companies. But the growth is making it dangerous for military helicopter crews. When an alarm triggers at a site, the UH-1 Huey crews fly in low and fast, often with security teams on board.

“When you think about a wind turbine, and even fields of wind turbines, they’ll stretch for miles,” said Staff Sgt. Chase Rose, a UH-1 Huey flight engineer at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. “They’re monstrous, and then you have gigantic blades spinning on them as well. Not only is that a physical obstacle, but those turbines, they create the hazards like turbulence as well. That can be really dangerous for us to fly into. So it’s a very complex situation, when you have to deal with those.” So the Air Force is asking Congress to pass legislation to create a 2-nautical-mile buffer zone around each site.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/air-force-asks-congress-protect-nuclear-launch-sites-104685988

[getagrip_already]

1. good luck in the house.....

They will want to let russian and chinese inspectors on site to verify the need to restrict wind turbines.

[TheBlackAdder]

26. Gee, where's a nuke site? Just look for 4 mile diameter areas that is void of windmills.

[brewens]

27. Yeah. If anything, you put fake windmills right by the silos. n/t

[getagrip_already]

28. They did put fake farm houses and other distractions up....

So why not.....

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

35. Our ground based icbm locations aren't secret

They have been known for decades now. Our ballistic missiles subs, that's an entirely different story. Their locations when underway is a closely guarded secret typically.

[zuul]

2. Great. If Prisoner #P01135809 hears about this he will never shut up.

He already has a weird obsession with offshore turbines and 'windmill cancer.'

[underpants]

3. No kidding

[Bengus81]

4. Yep...and most never knew that Limbaugh lived near a wind generator

[SeattleVet]

13. Limbaugh *was* a wind generator!

[highplainsdem]

5. LOL! My first thought, too.

[ShazzieB]

22. He has a weird obsession with ALL wind turbines.

He was going on and on around wind turbines in farmers' fields long before he started in on the offshore ones. Slobby has had a hate boner for wind turbines of all kinds for years!

[localroger]

6. This isn't really a big ask

The AF traditionally hasn't asked for a lot of land when siting a missile base, and there are normal land uses going on surprisingly close to a lot of them. A 2 mile buffer for each site doesn't add up to a lot of land in the big scheme of things and it makes sense that the AF probably wasn't thinking of skyscraper sized structures being sited within falling distance of their silos. This basically amounts to an easement which is unlikely to have much effect on anybody.

[RainCaster]

11. It's a big ask if Uncle Sam isn't renting that land

It's only fair for the government to pay rent on all that land that they want restricted.

[localroger]

30. That's generally how easements work

The silo itself is usually on private land being leased from the owner. The owners will probably get a notice adding a reasonable market rate to exempt the exclusionary area for this single purpose. This is a very common type of land use agreement and while the landowners won't have the option of saying no, as with eminent domain they should receive fair market compensation for their trouble.

[Magoo48]

7. Obviously, on that final day, it is of the utmost importance that every

Earthender missile get off safely to its ultimate destination. Yahooooooooo!

[LudwigPastorius]

10. It may be mad, but mutually assured destruction has kept us all alive for...

almost 65 years now.

Personally, I don't doubt that a bloodthirsty fool like Putin (or a deluded cult leader like Kim Jong Un) would strike the United States with nuclear weapons if we unilaterally disarmed.

[TomSlick]

8. It seems to me that any effort to restrict the lawful use of property near silos

would be a taking by the government. The land owners should be compensated for loss of value to the property.

[GregariousGroundhog]

9. This isn't taking by the government

It's no different than New York or Chicago stating property developers cannot build a 100 story skyscraper in the flight path to LaGuardia or O'Hare International Airports.

[oldsoftie]

15. There are all kinds of rules already governing. land use.

I seriously doubt this would ever be ruled as a "taking"

[Chainfire]

12. Yea, well everyone wants to control land that they don't own.

If the AF needs space, free of windmills, buy it and shut up.

[EX500rider]

14. Geez, anybody proof read these? Really, 110,000 ton door?! lol

and a flat 110,000-ton (100,000-metric tonne) concrete silo blast door

Silo "doors", really more hatches are around 110 tons.
100,000 tons are what aircraft carriers weigh

[Blues Heron]

16. This has to be from the Onion

I suggest they invest in some jeeps to get there low and fast. Problem solved. Better yet, ditch the nukes.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

17. The distances are too far for a ground vehicle

The missile field at Malmstrom covers about 14,000 square miles. And nukes aren't going anywhere until we develop something more powerful, like antimatter bombs or something.

[Blues Heron]

20. They need to train pilots to fly above the windmills then drop straight down on the nukes - good training for war

It seems pathetic that the miltary cant dodge a couple of windpower turbines. That is truly sad.

[yagotme]

29. Nighttime might be a problem, even with night vision.

Not like the blades aren't moving.

[LudwigPastorius]

18. A Chinook cruises at about 120 miles-per-hour faster than...

the top speed of a jeep.

But, maybe alacrity isn’t a consideration in the event of nuclear war.

[EX500rider]

21. These are for fast reaction forces in the event of a break in/breach attempt

Best to keep the nukes safe

[Blues Heron]

23. with zillions of nukes available they can shoot them from anywhere. These are just for show.

Do we not have submarines? Come on this is a huge pathetic whine from the military, certainly not a good look that they cant figure out how not to hit a windmill. That is just straight up lame.

[EX500rider]

19. Yes, the world would be so much safer if only Russia, China & N Korea had nukes..

Said no one ever

[Blues Heron]

24. just get rid of those farm field nukes, use the stealth ones on subs. Boom - problem solved.

[EX500rider]

25. Triad is safer, too many targets

If we could be sure subs will always remain undetectable maybe but I bet the subs cost a lot more over their life time and the number needed to reach parity with Russia would be $$$$$

United States currently operates 405 ICBMs in three USAF bases.
At 20 ICBMs per sub that's 20 more subs min, but really more as only about a 1/3 would be at sea at any one time so 60 subs @ $3 billion each + missiles + crew + port facilities

[Martin68]

31. Missiles launch vertically, so I don't understand how a turbine is an obstacle to a missile.

As for turbulence, would it be enough to affect an ICBM at launch?

[BumRushDaShow]

32. I don't think the issue was the missile operation

but for aircraft like helicopters, getting to the bases near the missiles.

I.e., at the very bottom of the OP article is this -

However, she said, “the encroaching turbines limit safe helicopter transit and nuclear security operations."

[Martin68]

33. Thanks, I missed that. Still, I assume they could take precautions like flying at a higher altitude. How far does this

turbulence extend to a dangerous degree beyond the turbines?

[BumRushDaShow]

34. For turbines near Air Force bases

it's not a matter of altitude but a matter of actually being able to take off and land air craft. So there might be an issue where the proliferation and/or operation of the turbines are slowly encroaching on flight paths near those base air fields (which is why the request for a "buffer zone" where turbines would not be erected).