MINUTEMAN ICBM MISSILE AND MISSION 1962 THIOKOL CORPORATE FILM 53564

“Minutemen Missile And Mission” is a circa 1962 color film, produced by the Thiokol Chemical Corporation and adapted for US Air Force use, that serves as “the story of the Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile to date.” (The LGM-30 Minuteman entered service in 1962, tasked with the deterrence role and threatening Soviet cities with a counterattack if the US was attacked.) The film opens with a scripted scene featuring NBC correspondent Chet Huntley (mark 02:00) speaking with an officer about how America faces the possibility of nuclear attack and how he wants to get the word out about the country’s deterrent power by giving Huntley “the inside story.” Huntley explains the missile in great detail as scenes of its use are shown, and at mark 04:40 explains how small, rocket-propelled and liquid-propelled engines were already in use by the Air Force, but large solid-propelled engines were necessary for an ICBM (mark 06:00). There are scenes of scientists working on the propellant and Air Force personnel working on the tactical aspect of the missile. The economic aspects of the system are examined at mark 07:30. Near mark 08:00, Huntley returns to explain how a Minutemen missiles’ primary mission is as a retaliatory weapon, “a counterforce capable of permanent readiness and instantaneous attack in the event of attack,” with an animation of that scenario beginning at mark 08:24 followed by an explanation of how Thiokol designed the rocket’s engine. There are scenes of the rocket under construction as Huntley reviews the various steps and at mark 12:35 looks at the exhaustive tests conducted.
The LGM-30 Minuteman is a U.S. land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in service with the Air Force Global Strike Command. As of 2016, the LGM-30G Minuteman III version is the only land-based ICBM in service in the United States. Development of the Minuteman began in the mid-1950s as the outgrowth of basic research into solid fuel rocket motors which indicated an ICBM based on solids was possible. Such a missile could stand ready for extended periods of time with little maintenance, and then launch on command. In comparison, existing U.S. missile designs using liquid fuels required a lengthy fueling process immediately before launch, which left them open to the possibility of surprise attack. This potential for immediate launch gave the missile its name; like the Revolutionary War's Minutemen, the Minuteman was designed to be launched on a moment's notice.
Minuteman entered service in 1962 as a weapon tasked primarily with the deterrence role, threatening Soviet cities with a counterattack if the U.S. was attacked. However, with the development of the U.S. Navy's Polaris which addressed the same role, the Air Force began to modify Minuteman into a weapon with much greater accuracy with the specific intent of allowing it to attack hardened military targets, including Soviet missile silos. The Minuteman-II entered service in 1965 with a host of upgrades to improve its accuracy and survivability in the face of an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system the Soviets were known to be developing. Minuteman-III followed in 1970, using three smaller warheads instead of one large one, which made it very difficult to attack by an anti-ballistic missile system which would have to hit all three widely separated warheads to be effective. Minuteman-III was the first multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) ICBM to be deployed. Each missile can carry up to three nuclear warheads, which have a yield in the range of 300 to 500 kilotons.
Peaking at 1,000 missiles in the 1970s, the current U.S. force consists of 450 Minuteman-III missiles in missile silos around Malmstrom AFB, Montana; Minot AFB, North Dakota; and F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. By February 2018 this will be reduced to 400 armed missiles, with 50 unarmed missiles in reserve, and four non-deployed test launchers to comply with the New START treaty.The Air Force plans to keep the missile in service until at least 2030. It is one component of the U.S. nuclear triad-the other two parts of the triad being the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), and nuclear weapons carried by long-range strategic bombers.
We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com

[@jmarler2010]

Thanks for posting this. I need to show it to my dad. He started his career working at Thiokol in Utah back in the 60's and he was working on these systems.

[@ignaciomenendez8672]

The book ‘Ace in the Hole’, by Roy Neal, tells the story starting from the concept, by a Captain in USAF, presented to the Pentagon, and accepted for development in a matter or a day or so. (I don’t remember the name of this great strategic thinker )

[@balazstorok9265]

Those detailed descriptions are amazing. One of my favs on yt. Very, very well done.

[@PeriscopeFilm]

Thanks. We are always looking for volunteers to describe more -- let us know if you are interested as we have hundreds of films that await description!

[@balazstorok9265]

I wish I could but but my English is so poor, that it would be more work to correct it, than write the descriptions yourself. And many times you have more information in the description, than in the clip, its so professional, I can't even get close to it. You have all my respect, but - I'm afraid - I can not give you more.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Minute person now.. Lol Dr Strangelove said there was a missle gap.

[@ScrotusXL]

Wow, didn’t realise they had already thought up the concept of the MX!, that’s forward thinking!

[@BigDaddy-yp4mi]

Indeed! START was Russia's way of staving of bankruptcy and a way to buy time to hopefully steal technology and stay relevant. That country was nothing more than shiny paint on a rusting hulk of an outdated, nearly unusable piece of shit. But, not ENTIRELY unusable, unfortunately.

[@donwert]

Fascinating that NBC News permitted Chet Huntley to appear in a promotional film for Thiokol. Ethics rules in effect nowadays for all the networks would prohibit this kind of thing.

[@OriginalOutdoorplayer]

This is an Air Force program where 5 large aerospace entities all had a specific role. Thiokol had a relatively minor one in that they only supplied the first stage motor. I would have called it a PR film for the AF.

[@lukestrawwalker]

LOL:) This is from back when the major media news was actually journalism with integrity and not just a mouthpiece for the agenda of the elitists as it is today. They may have "ethics rules" today but they certainly have no ethics-- why I don't watch the mainstream media anymore. ZERO credibility or integrity. Just yellow dog "journalism" and drum beating for the agenda. Later! OL J R :)

[@jamesanderton344]

NBC was a pro Republican network.

[@justforever96]

Yes, they aren't allowed to make it obvious any more....

[@ShinVega]

Love the idea of mobile ICBM launchers inside hi-cube boxcars & air launches via C-141B starlifter!!

[@mikefister5810]

I want some of that solid propellant please I need enough for a Winnebago to reach orbit

[@OutSideTheBoxFormat]

Do you have a brother named Mark.

[@densealloy]

With the implications of E=mc² it was inevitable someone, somewhere was going develop nuclear weapons and once pandora's box was open, M.A.D. was the only way to keep everyone in check. It, hopefully, tapped into the natural instinct to stay alive, was the only logical way to try and to ensure nuclear weapons never to be used again. Fingers crossed 🤞its not perfect but its all we have.

[@oceanhome2023]

Damn those B52s had Smokey and thirsty engines back then

[@donwert]

Also, it was a Thiokol solid fuel booster whose "O" ring failure led to the Challenger disaster.

[@balazstorok9265]

donwert no pain no game. otherwise, the cold weather, you know

[@donwert]

True...the investigation showed Thiokol was reluctant to give a "go" and NASA applied a lot of pressure. Too bad they didn't resist it.

*Morton-Thiokol

[@workingshlub8861]

they guy at thiokol that said do not launch died a few years ago...all for public relations.

[@scottfirman]

Cold tempratures and NASA's arrogance cost them the Shuttle. They were warned that morning it was way too cold to launch the shuttle and the fact those o- rings couldnt hold up under those early morning tempratures yet ignored the phone call made that very morning that the guarentee that o- ring might fail was high. Yet NASA ignored the warning and destroyed the shuttle and killed its crew by taking short cuts, rushing launches and disreguarding safety procedures.

[@publicmail2]

The manned space program was developed in parallel with this.

[@julion89]

Willy Wonka and the missile factory

[@Soacwiththaface]

🇺🇲🗽⚖

[@justforever96]

Kind of makes one wonder whether these things would have actually worked any better than the Falcons they compared them to so proudly of they actually had every tried to use them? They thought the Falcons worked great too, until they actually tried them in combat (i know, that's not entirely the missiles fault... But they didn't work in any case). Neither did Sparrow, it was pretty abysmal. I suppose they would have worked _enough_ anyway. And since the main reason for existence was to be a plausible threat, i guess you can say they worked. Just would they really have functioned, or would 75% of them blown up, totally failed to launch, run wildly off course? They say the Sparrow, etc, was effected by incorrect maintenance, at we sure the crews actually took care of these any better?

[@ronjon7942]

Please don't drop that hat :)

[@ronjon7942]

Edit - glad we weren't forced to drop that hat.

[@JL-dance]

nuclear missiles and peace don't really go together...

[@OriginalOutdoorplayer]

and without them, the cold war would not have been cold.

[@katrinaanon1038]

yo boi jonx Note that World Wars were fought every 20 to 40 years before nukes. Let us hope it stays that way, but we maybe headed into a time where Iran and NROK may be able to operate as proxies for Russian and China. Could these states attack the US and insulate Russia and China from involvement? Still these are nothing to love, and we have to hope our adversaries love themselves too much to ever use them.

[@katrinaanon1038]

Brandon Bennetzen Actually we are fighting WWIII just no nukes are flying.

[@ivanmorton4510]

They are truly destructive weapons which deter mad men , peacekeepers fact

[@BigDaddy-yp4mi]

People WISH ICBM's weren't needed for peace.....as long as you have greed, anger, evil, or someone who thinks they can take what they want with no repercussions, to keep peace, you need a bigger bully who HOPEFULLY has good motives deep down, despite his screw-ups from time to time. It's not a binary choice. To quote South Park, "There are dicks, assholes, and pussies." Should really look it up and see why a trinary classification is more realistic than a binary one that only lists 'war-like' & 'peace-loving' as it's only 2 options. Not realistic in the least, and never has been even a single time in history.