Is there anyway that I, as the average guy, can build a bunker that can take a direct hit from a nuke?
>>28286702
HA
HAHA HA
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
>>28286702
Are you an average guy with an infinite amount of money and/or resources? Yes. Not that guy which I just said about infinite stuff? No.
Short answer, no.
You can easily source tinfoil, though.
>>28286702
Start diggin'...
I spoke to an engineer and he said I'd need to dig a hole 100 feet deep before laying the foundations.
He says at that depth the thickness of the concrete won't matter as much, about 1 foot thick ferroconcrete should do.
He says building a structure that can survive is easy, it's getting the humans inside to survive (ventilation, overpressure, ect).
Direct hit? Fuck no.
Nearby? Possibly.
Depends on how much money you want to put into it, how deep you can go, the topography of your area, and plenty of other shit I'm sure it's beyond me.
If you're legitimately interested, I'd say you could start with some old 50s-60s films about making a fallout shelter. Naturally, they won't stand up to an actual blast, but it'd be a good place to start.
Find the deepest hole you can.
Hope it's deep enough.
Hope you can get out when it over.
>>28286778
Remember, depth is relative. You could dig into the side of a ridge line and be 100 feet deep after digging forward 50 feet. Make that tunnel zig zag and you've got that mostly covered too.
>>28286702
Easy OP.
Find an abandoned mine that is of suitable depth, and spend some resources exploring it. Then build accommodations at the bottom of it.
>>28286702
Is your face OK
>>28286778
fuck no
NORAD is under 4,000 feet of solid granite that is Cheyenne Mountain, and it is well known to be susceptible to a direct hit.
>>28286702
Do you really want to?
>>28286702
No
you would have to build it so deep you risk being trapped underground since the tunnel connecting would be wipped away/
be rich like that one swedish guy who banked in on the poker hype and buy an old abandoned bunker in the middle of nowhere.
>>28286802
were you dropped on your head as a child?
>>28286858
I read in that in the 1990s Mount Yamantau was considered capable of withstanding repeated hits one After another.
I know Kosvinsky Mountain facility was specifically designed by the Russians to resist US earth penetrating weapons and that's only under 1000 feet of granite.
Non nuclear bunker busters can still penetrate 200 feet of earth, so depth is definitely key.
>>28286702
No.
>>28287184
Glad to have you back old friend.
lol you can't even build a bunker to survive a direct hit from a conventional bomb
>>28287087
Cheyenne Mountain was built to withstand nuclear war but, iirc, they knew even at the time of construction that it wouldn't survive a direct hit. the Soviets didn't have the technology to drop an icbm onto it directly back in the 1960's. I'm pretty sure the technology for a direct hit is available now, has been for a couple of decades, and it is not considered nuke proof any longer. in fact many of the intended operations have been moved off site because of it. for the most part the mountain has been repurposed for other operations.
>>28287329
>the mountain has been repurposed for other operations
>>28286702
its might be outdated but its a reference
>>28286858
IIRC, the complex is IN the mountain, not built under it. Yamantau, for what is known about it, which is VERY little, is under a quartz-granite mountain.
>>28287359
it's pretty much under it, there is 4000' of mountain above it
>>28287184
What does one have to do to survive a direct 5 megaton blast?
>>28287444
You just won't unless you have virtually unlimited resources and live in it full time anyway
>>28286702
Well that depends OP, most city's wont allow you to dig a large hole for the bunker. If you live in the boonies you wouldn't even need a bunker that costly.
>>28287444
Direct to the facility? Nothing.
You would have to bury it under enough material to get protection from the blast effects as well as seismic shocks. That's pretty deep.
Beyond the capacity of a single citizen to construct.
>>28287545
What about a smaller yeild in the 800kt range?
The more I think about it the more I suspect you're better off going somewhere remote away from probable targets and building a small bunker maybe a few feet underground.
>>28287444
>put head between legs
>softly blow air into asshole
this soothes the man
>>28287545
Muh nigga
I love seeing you around on here
Best tripfag
>>28287329
>>28287349
"Deep space telemetry"
>>28288187
>The more I think about it the more I suspect you're better off going somewhere remote away from probable targets and building a small bunker maybe a few feet underground.
Gee, ya think so?
Why do you think you're so important that someone would launch a nuke specifically at you?
>>28290205
Found Putins secret Trap/Tranny fap folder.
>>28290205
he knows the Colonels secret recipe
>>28290205
FOX News
>>28290205
EdwardSnowden.jar
>>28290231
kek
>>28286702
Well, let's start at the beginning. You needn't worry about a direct hit anymore. The old conventional wisdom was that everyone lives close to SOME potential target, so it's best to prepare for a strike near you. Soviet targeting was crappy, so they compensated by having higher yield warheads.
Nowadays, nobody has enough nukes except America for a legit counterforce capability. Nor do you really need one, because wiping out an enemy's to 20 major cities is more than enough. The new danger isn't TEOTWAWKI, it's a limited exchange between two nuclear powers. Still bad, but not necessarily the end of civilization.
Moreover, you have to be realistic about the scenario. Under what circumstances will you have enough warning that you can count on being in your shelter when a strike occurs?
That rules out shelters as a defense against terrorist strikes; even after a strike you'll be bugging out to an evacuation area, not holing up in a shelter.
IMO your best defense against a nuclear strike-- by national or non-national actors-- is not living within 30 miles of a major strategic target. That's much easier to swing than during the Cold War. Then just make sure you have a fallout shelter and you're fine.
These days, a bomb shelter probably makes more sense in case of a pandemic or civil insurrection, in which case secrecy is your best defense. If while you're at it you want to be able to handle a bomb going off a few miles away, then why not? A 100 psi shelter is way more than enough. Or, play it smart and go for less bombproofness and more covertness, more supplies for post-disaster recovery, and better protection from EMP.
Realistically, I think the smart play in disaster preparedness is to move away from single-scenario planning.
There's nothing funnier than a survivalist who focused all his energy on one kind of disaster and then dies because he's caught by another.
>>28286728
What if I'm a big guy with infinite money and resources?
As an engineer I see this a couple of ways. If you lived in north america you could simply walk outside and you have the best bomb shelter available for strikes in Australia. You have the entirety of the earth between you and the bomb site as well as nearly limitless stocks from local farmers. If the blast was big enough to throw fallout into the wind cells that brought it around the planet to you, you'd be semi fucked.
The goal should be to have the most protection from all directions.
Just move to New Zealand.
>>28286702
Either become God or don't bother trying.
>>28291063
>Under what circumstances will you have enough warning that you can count on being in your shelter when a strike occurs?
Which is much worse now in this day of rarely talked about Mach 5 stealth nuclear cruise missiles coming out of subs.
Just wing it and go very slowly.
>>28287349
you should'nt have postet that, Anon.
>>28292291
We're talking about bunkers, not anal
>>28286858
Norad also needs to survive EMP and be entirely self-sustained, possibly through multiple nukes and weeks/months post-detonation
>>28292243
I like to think I stay on top of the news (what little there is of it) when it comes to our hypersonic tech development but making it nuclear (and the fact it's probably already in service) is scarier than any skinwalker to me
>>28286769
This
Dig hard and dig fast, when the nuke comes you won't even notice it and you'll just keep digging
In the battle between warhead and armor, warhead always wins.
Meaning, as soon as you design something that is bombproof, someone will quickly come along and design something to defeat it. Technologically speaking, it is a lot easier to design something that penetrates armor, bunkers, etc than it is to design the armor that can stand up to such assaults.
>>28287084
>Dig into side of hill.
>Hill is now on top of you.
Nigger, were YOU dropped on your head as a child?
Remember to build an entrance that can be sealed off with drawbridges and has plenty of minecart traps and spinning steel discs.
Buy a school desk and just duck under it when the time comes.
>>28293253
Oh you forgot.
>and cover.
Who need a damn bunker?
>>28286702
>a direct hit
lolno
if you had a substantial amount of money and some decent skill, you could build one that would fair alright to a non direct hit.
>>28286702
I think you could, but it would probably take the majority of your lifetime to accomplish
You can do most anything with enough time and effort
>>28287349
I have the same thought every fucking time.
>>28292243
Even the best case scenario is dicey. An ICBM gives you about 20 min warning. If the government decides to make an announcement at all (iffy), that'll probably give you 10 min left at best. Most people wouldn't be able to get to their shelter that fast even with no traffic. Whereas you're much more likely to spend the last ten minutes of your life stuck in the worst traffic jam in history.
Google snowmageddon. A couple years ago, Atlanta got hit by a surprise snowstorm. Everyone left work at once, and while the roads were still fine the volume of traffic resulted in gridlock. Some people were stuck in traffic for more than 24 hours.
Then remember that cruise missile warning times are much worse, and terrorist strikes will come completely out of the blue. Even if you work at home you probably won't make it to your shelter in time.
Your bomb shelter is really about three things: protecting your supplies from the strike, being a fallout shelter, and a place to hole up to hide from follow-up attacks/secondary effects/civil disorder.
IMO a good strategy is to know lots of people with bomb shelters so you can set up in one whose owner is killed in the initial attack.
>>28293059
>>28287084
You guys could just call each other wrong and explain why. It would make more sense.
>>28292602
Get out of here Sky Seer.
>>28292701
Isn't there some federal structure in Lakewood under the entire city basically. wouldn't surprise me if norad had a tunnel all the way to DIA
