Ohio Congressional members say pick Ravenna for future missile defense system

In a rare show of bipartisan support, 17 Congress members from Ohio are urging that Ravenna become the site of a new military missile defense system.

In a letter to Vice Admiral James D. Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the signers state: “Ohioans stand ready to support the defense of our nation and look forward to this potential opportunity to strengthen the regional economy.”

The letter, dated Tuesday, was signed by Democratic representative Tim Ryan, whose 13th Congressional District includes the Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center, one of three sites being considered for a potential East Coast Missile Defense System.

Other signers are Republican Sen. Rob Portman and Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown; Republican Representatives Steve Stivers, Dave Joyce, Pat Tiberi, Bill Johnson, Brad Wenstrup, Warren Davidson, Jim Renacci, Jim Jordan, Bob Gibbs, Bob Latta and Steve Chabot; and Democratic Representatives Marcy Kaptur, Marcia Fudge and Joyce Beatty.

Missile Defense Systems are used to intercept ballistic missiles. The defense missiles are housed in steel-and-concrete silos and are intended to be deployed to destroy enemy missiles in space before reaching U.S. targets. They do not contain any explosives. They use a solid fuel propellant.

They are about 55 feet long, about 4 feet in diameter and weigh about 25 tons a piece. Each costs about $50 million.

Currently, there are two Missile Defense System locations in California and Alaska.

In 2013, facing growing threats from North Korea to Iran, Congress told MDA to conduct environmental impact studies and select a “preferred site” should another system need to be built closer to the East Coast.

The MDA has narrowed their choices to Ravenna, Fort Drum in New York and Fort Custer Training Center in Michigan. The three installations are all that remain of 457 sites that were in the running.

The potential eastern Portage County site was the former Ravenna Arsenal, used by the Army during World War II to manufacture bombs and projectiles and employing 18,000 people at its peak.

The property became an Ohio Army National Guard training site in 1971 and currently is used to prepare troops for deployments and routine exercises.

The Ohio delegation argued that Camp Ravenna is close to Akron and Youngstown transportation networks, making it easier for the flow of military and construction traffic the project would bring.

“It is estimated that the $3.6 billion project could help support 2,300 jobs in the region during construction and directly employ up to 850 people full-time once the system is operational,” the letter stated. “This represents a significant investment in a region of our state that is continuing to recover economically.”

In May, military representatives held a public meeting in Ravenna to present the draft of its environmental study.

While some wetlands and streams would need to be relocated and construction would have to be timed so as not to interfere with a threatened species of bat, there were no impacts significant enough to rule out the Northeast Ohio location.

Officials have said they will reveal their preferred site by the end of the year.

Not everyone is a fan of the idea.

During the spring presentation in Ravenna, members of Concerned Citizens Ohio passed out letters of objection to anyone who wanted to sign their name and mail it in.

Among the arguments: The Pentagon has stated it doesn’t need, nor can it afford a third site; the existing missile defense technology is flawed, with recent tests failing to intercept their targets half the time; and other Congress members have supported using the money instead for improving technology to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has also argued against such efforts, saying the missile defense system is flawed and “may actually undermine national security by impeding deep cuts in nuclear weapons, complicating important international relationships, and engendering a false sense of security among policy makers,” according to their website.

Northeast Ohio members of that national group have written letters in opposition.

This article first appeared on Ohio.com's website on August 25, 2016.