Love to have a several km square bunker that make NORAD Command look under-protected in limestone under the water table and then leave it unmaintained for 30 years with no ill effects.
(Seriously, it's probably a couple of reinforced bomb shelters and some unreinforced service tunnels.
There are a lot of reinforced interconnected bomb shelters, intended for workers and people living in nearby areas. It is really massive system designed to hold 50k people.
I've heard this, and I've also heard (supposedly via an ex-worker, though who the fuck knows anymore) that this is an exaggeration, that it was designed for 10k not 50k as reported, and they're minimally interconnected if at all.
Additionally, a temporary bomb shelter, even the well made Soviet ones, is not a defensive fortress. It's designed to keep civilians alive for a week or two until the worst fallout settles.
All you've gotta do is find the vents and gunk up the scrubbers (which is, admittedly, arguably chemical warfare, though you'd probably have trouble claiming wood or petrol fire smoke is banned by the Hague conventions.)
What I want to see at this point is primary evidence, because I find the idea they have a better than Cheyenne-Mountain-grade nuclear defensive structure here as pictured to be moderately unlikely.
A six stories deep tunnel system next to the sea?
yeah designed againt airraids .. not "Barbaras Pool" ...
Love to have a several km square bunker that make NORAD Command look under-protected in limestone under the water table and then leave it unmaintained for 30 years with no ill effects.
(Seriously, it's probably a couple of reinforced bomb shelters and some unreinforced service tunnels.
There are a lot of reinforced interconnected bomb shelters, intended for workers and people living in nearby areas. It is really massive system designed to hold 50k people.
I've heard this, and I've also heard (supposedly via an ex-worker, though who the fuck knows anymore) that this is an exaggeration, that it was designed for 10k not 50k as reported, and they're minimally interconnected if at all.
Additionally, a temporary bomb shelter, even the well made Soviet ones, is not a defensive fortress. It's designed to keep civilians alive for a week or two until the worst fallout settles. All you've gotta do is find the vents and gunk up the scrubbers (which is, admittedly, arguably chemical warfare, though you'd probably have trouble claiming wood or petrol fire smoke is banned by the Hague conventions.)
What I want to see at this point is primary evidence, because I find the idea they have a better than Cheyenne-Mountain-grade nuclear defensive structure here as pictured to be moderately unlikely.