3 ms·

> No building in the world, not even Cheyenne mountain can survive being in a nuclear fireball or even close to one. Reference? I thought those were built spec

> No building in the world, not even Cheyenne mountain can survive being in a nuclear fireball or even close to one. Reference? I thought those were built specifically for inhabitants to survive even an overhead blast. Edit: My parent comment is not aimed at specifics of detonation, but rather the poor quality of instruction. The focus should not be immediately surviving the blast. If you're caught unaware, survival becomes a matter of luck rather than hurried preparedness. Its more to do with "what" and "how to" after the event. Those are way too crucial. For god's sake, even WikiHow has a better and far more detailed page on this topic: https://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Nuclear-Attack https://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Nuclear-Attack If history has taught anything, black rain a few hours after Hiroshima killed many more thousands in the coming years.

survirtual 4y ago
Although it would not be difficult to locate a reference, I will back up what the post you’re replying to said. Before the concern of nuclear fallout, some thought to use nukes as “mountain movers”. Think about that. How many mountains have humans been able to make? But we have a device that can largely obliterate one. Bunkers are all about surviving indirect blasts and protecting from radiation exposure. If you have a deep enough underground bunker, you largely protect yourself from a “direct blast,” but if a weapon burrowed anywhere near your bunker and detonated it’s good night. You’d also need nation-scale resources to build a bunker deep enough, and have air, water, vapor barriers, etc.
- srvmshr 4y ago
  > Although it would not be difficult to locate a reference, I will back up what the post you’re replying to said. Operation Plowshare. It was largely a failure in objectives. > a weapon burrowed anywhere near your bunker and detonated it’s good night What are the mathematical chances someone will burrow a sufficiently powerful nuclear device near a Cheyenne mountain type bunker without getting noticed by security, maintaining all the electrical supplies and fusing quietly over months/years, and at the apocalyptic moment manage to detonate it with VVIPs holed in? I bet the same chances as carrying it inside and detonating it.
idontwantthis 4y ago
Wikipedia confirms it’s designed to survive a 30MT blast 1km away. It was designed when missiles were inaccurate and expensive so the warheads were huge and unlikely to hit it directly. Now most of NORAD is at another, completely unsheltered facility because missiles are so accurate that no protection matters. Cheyenne exists mainly for lesser threats than general nuclear exchanges.
- srvmshr 4y ago
  30MT 1 KM away is probably similar to ~5MT directly overhead by back of the envelope calculation. Sufficiently secure still I would say. None of the published warheads specs are 30MT & even 5MT would be the combined strength of few MIRVs. And note that most warheads are airbursts not ground penetration type. That can make a lot of difference
  - idontwantthis 4y ago
    The point is that it's an immobile target with known protections, and missiles are accurate enough to hit it directly as many times as necessary. I'm sure it's specifically targeted by sufficient weapons to destroy it. It could survive a lot, but not enough. And, like I said, the proof is that it doesn't actually handle much of NORAD anymore. NORAD is mostly above ground because any immobile target is hopelessly vulnerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_Space_Force_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_Space_Force_Base This is where NORAD is based now. Also, I read the article wrong, it's 30MT at 2km away.
    - srvmshr 4y ago
      The move to Peterson AFB was not a security measure, but a cost saving measure by the USAF & GAO. Lot of concerns were posted about the same by few Congressman. https://armedservices.house.gov/2008/7/skelton-and-hunter-express-concerns-over-norad-move https://armedservices.house.gov/2008/7/skelton-and-hunter-ex... Plus, THAAD is meant to speed up ABM capabilities over time. Going by experience following this area, one of the reasons why you don't hear much about it is probably because USAF is pretty serious to keep the specifics under cover as long as possible.

survirtual 4y ago

Although it would not be difficult to locate a reference, I will back up what the post you’re replying to said. Before the concern of nuclear fallout, some thought to use nukes as “mountain movers”. Think about that. How many mountains have humans been able to make? But we have a device that can largely obliterate one. Bunkers are all about surviving indirect blasts and protecting from radiation exposure. If you have a deep enough underground bunker, you largely protect yourself from a “direct blast,” but if a weapon burrowed anywhere near your bunker and detonated it’s good night. You’d also need nation-scale resources to build a bunker deep enough, and have air, water, vapor barriers, etc.

srvmshr 4y ago
> Although it would not be difficult to locate a reference, I will back up what the post you’re replying to said. Operation Plowshare. It was largely a failure in objectives. > a weapon burrowed anywhere near your bunker and detonated it’s good night What are the mathematical chances someone will burrow a sufficiently powerful nuclear device near a Cheyenne mountain type bunker without getting noticed by security, maintaining all the electrical supplies and fusing quietly over months/years, and at the apocalyptic moment manage to detonate it with VVIPs holed in? I bet the same chances as carrying it inside and detonating it.

idontwantthis 4y ago

Wikipedia confirms it’s designed to survive a 30MT blast 1km away. It was designed when missiles were inaccurate and expensive so the warheads were huge and unlikely to hit it directly. Now most of NORAD is at another, completely unsheltered facility because missiles are so accurate that no protection matters. Cheyenne exists mainly for lesser threats than general nuclear exchanges.

srvmshr 4y ago
30MT 1 KM away is probably similar to ~5MT directly overhead by back of the envelope calculation. Sufficiently secure still I would say. None of the published warheads specs are 30MT & even 5MT would be the combined strength of few MIRVs. And note that most warheads are airbursts not ground penetration type. That can make a lot of difference
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  The point is that it's an immobile target with known protections, and missiles are accurate enough to hit it directly as many times as necessary. I'm sure it's specifically targeted by sufficient weapons to destroy it. It could survive a lot, but not enough. And, like I said, the proof is that it doesn't actually handle much of NORAD anymore. NORAD is mostly above ground because any immobile target is hopelessly vulnerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_Space_Force_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_Space_Force_Base This is where NORAD is based now. Also, I read the article wrong, it's 30MT at 2km away.
  - srvmshr 4y ago
    The move to Peterson AFB was not a security measure, but a cost saving measure by the USAF & GAO. Lot of concerns were posted about the same by few Congressman. https://armedservices.house.gov/2008/7/skelton-and-hunter-express-concerns-over-norad-move https://armedservices.house.gov/2008/7/skelton-and-hunter-ex... Plus, THAAD is meant to speed up ABM capabilities over time. Going by experience following this area, one of the reasons why you don't hear much about it is probably because USAF is pretty serious to keep the specifics under cover as long as possible.