The Air Force has named Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado and Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana as possible homes for microreactors, a move framed as strengthening on base energy resilience for critical missions.
This step signals a broader shift toward domestic, on site power that can support high stakes operations even when the grid is stressed.
Laurel Falls, an Air Force spokesperson, said the final decision will depend on the environmental and licensing processes.
The bases were named “preferred locations” for on base microreactors as part of the “Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program.”
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
These words matter because they reflect a deliberate choice to test a technology that could redefine how bases stay online under pressure.
The term “microreactors” refers to a class of very small nuclear reactors being developed that are compact enough to be transported by truck, railway, or aircraft, according to the Energy Department.
These units can produce up to 50 megawatts of energy, but typically generate less than 20, and they are designed to operate for up to ten years, perhaps longer. The practical appeal is straightforward: reliable power closer to where it is used, which reduces exposure to external disruptions.
The two bases were selected as potential hosts “due to their utility infrastructure, land availability and critical mission requirements,” the Air Force release says.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
Buckley is the headquarters of Space Delta 4, which provides missile warning to the United States and its allies, while Malmstrom houses the 341st Missile Wing, responsible for ongoing alert status for Minuteman III missiles.
These assignments underline the strategic case for hardening energy supply at points of high national interest.
If all goes as planned, Buckley and Malmstrom could have microreactors by 2030.
The effort sits alongside a broader push to demonstrate and deploy small reactors at bases across the force, but it remains separate from the microreactor pilot program already underway at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
The Alaska pilot is focused on showing the technology’s potential benefits in a controlled setting, with the aim of informing decisions about wider deployment.
In recent years the military has shown increased appetite for small nuclear power as a way to reduce dependence on the civilian grid and cut exposure to cyber and physical threats.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May directing the War Department to have an Army regulated nuclear reactor operating on a domestic base by September 30, 2028. In the order, Trump wrote that the computer infrastructure for artificial intelligence and other resources at military bases requires “reliable, high-density power sources that cannot be disrupted by external threats or grid failures.” The emphasis is clear: power security is national security.
The Army announced in October that it plans to install small nuclear reactors at nine bases as part of a service-wide effort dubbed Project Janus.
The name, drawn from the two faced Roman god, captures the delicate balance between beginnings and endings in a changing strategic landscape. Coincidentally, Janus is also the alias of a villain in a famous film about electromagnetic pulses targeting electronics, underscoring why the Army believes in planning for worst case scenarios.
In February, an Air Force C-17 transported a microreactor without its fuel from March Air Reserve Base in California to Hill Air Force Base in Utah.
From there, the reactor was moved to the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab to be tested and evaluated. The exercise demonstrated progress in moving the technology from concept to potential fielding, a development many defense watchers have awaited.
Supporters argue these microreactors will strengthen resilience for critical infrastructure, missile warning systems, and other essential functions.
They contend the approach is prudent for maintaining readiness in a world where energy reliability is increasingly a national security issue. At the same time, policymakers and military leaders are moving with resolve, guided by a commander in chief who has made energy independence a defining aim of national policy.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth has signaled a practical approach to moving from study to deployment, insisting safety and oversight remain rigorous while keeping the program on a fast track. The aim is a disciplined but accelerated path to fielding units that could keep bases powered through severe weather, cyber attacks, or supply interruptions.
The discussion centers on keeping critical operations online, protecting personnel, and preserving strategic options when the grid falters. The drive is simple: secure energy for defense, reinforce readiness, and deter adversaries by demonstrating self sufficiency in the face of uncertainty.
The decision on Buckley and Malmstrom will come after the environmental reviews, licensing steps, and a careful cost-benefit analysis that keeps American security front and center.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
We have had nuclear reactors on our ships since the first carrier in 1960, the USS Enterprise now retired. If these reactors can be produced to power many additional ships and submarines, why have they never been considered for use in our domestic energy grid? They are now being considered to power these AI sites, which I consider AI to be the most dangerous thing to come along in my lifetime. It is past time for the bureaucratic element to get off their hands and release the restrictions that prevent it.