It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Safe Can A Bunker/Shelter Be ?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Ok, you or your government spend thousands of dollars or euros to build the strongest underground bunker/shelter possible. You or they find the "best" place in the mountains, escavate deep underground in solid rock, use the best materials and make it energy and food self-suficient for a couple years.

Then we (mankind/earth) are hit by a major asteroid or meteor shower that can very well fall in th same place this bunker was built or by a major tectonic movement followed by some super volcanoe eruptions and a nuclear catastrophe, or we are invaded by an agressive alien civilization with a technology capable of blowing mountains away, etc.... Can a bunker (even the top ones) protect us/people from this ? ....I don`t believe so.

Now imagine this bunker can protect mankind against not so destructive threats, for a certain period of time. How would life underground be for thousands of people that are not accustomed to this kind of living ? ...imagine the massive depression there would be, due to so many reasons, the social tumults, etc...

hmmm, I know that our survival instinct would make us fight for a place in such a bunker/shelter in case of a major disaster but I`m not 100% sure this would be the best solution at all.
edit on 5-9-2011 by AQ6666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by AQ6666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by AQ6666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Not very safe in case of Earthquakes, the bunkers are a distraction. The elites are escaping the planet, and leaving us on it.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Wow...
Ofcourse if the bunker is the epicenter of the supervolcano, etc. it won't survive.
Also, if it is the epicenter, the government did a bad job.
A bunker is supposed to protect from normal EQs and nuclear weapons, supervolcanoes or asteroids strikes are too uncommon to be considered.
Very few materials can withstand the force of such disasters, like the solid iron core, maybe.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Not very safe in case of Earthquakes, the bunkers are a distraction. The elites are escaping the planet, and leaving us on it.


What you have stated above...I have been thinking for a while.....I think there is another city...elsewhere...on another planet....already built...where they can go.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
If something THAT major were to happen, i don't know if i'd WANT to survive! The aftermath would be utterly depressing and more severe than the event that caused it. But having a bunker for normal EQ's would be fine since the outcome shouldn't be too drastic. IMO i wouldn't bother with bunkers and safehouses, it is what it is and will be what it must.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 


Would not it be an under water city ? This is the only way I see a hidden city could be in my opinion.



Thruthseek3r



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Not very safe in case of Earthquakes, the bunkers are a distraction. The elites are escaping the planet, and leaving us on it.


This is clearly the most logical explanation for the situation at hand.

Take me to the mothership.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Not very safe in case of Earthquakes, the bunkers are a distraction. The elites are escaping the planet, and leaving us on it.


What you have stated above...I have been thinking for a while.....I think there is another city...elsewhere...on another planet....already built...where they can go.


I don`t believe in this. I think it`s possible they (the elites) may already have spacecrafts that would allow them to run and hide from such catastrophes in outer space but only temporarily until it would be safer to return. If not possible to return, they would be "condemned" to the same destination as all the other people.
edit on 5-9-2011 by AQ6666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQ6666
Ok, you or your government spend thousands of dollars or euros to build the strongest underground bunker/shelter possible.

Thousands you say..
Welcome to the 21st century, time traveller..anyhow, lets pretend that says millions, or even billions.
Or..are we looking for just a really good helmet?

(jest)


You or they find the "best" place in the mountains, escavate deep underground in solid rock, use the best materials and make it energy and food self-suficient for a couple years.

There are places on earth that are relatively safe no matter what if you dig deep enough. Hell, the atmosphere only acts like 13 feet of concrete between us and the horrors of space, so every 13 feet you dig, its like putting a whole new atmosphere between you and any falling rocks or whatnot.

So you find a quiet and sound place, dig a mile down and create a vast chamber that can house millions.

Concerns won't be of earthquakes, volcanos, etc...it will be, over time, the basics. Quality of air, power for the ultraviolet lights (you will need to farm if your planning on an extended stay).
Also things like garbage disposal, sewage, etc...would suck to survive only to be wiped out by dissentary or cholera.
Longer concerns would be things like soil composition, general breakdown of equiptment without any resources for repair, etc...so, a couple years would be a walk in the park, but lets say there is a total global nuclear event that destroys the top for 20 thousand years and you literally must become mole people...two extremely different methods of building a sustainable subterranian civilization. a extended (20k years) stay would do best creating smaller antichambers and just keep digging bubbles and connections, like a martian colony on earth...less people per bubble, and the ability to collapse tunnels should any segment have disaster (plague, tap into a magma chamber, etc)

And frankly, the only ones that would have trouble adapting to the change from surface dwellers to dwarves would be the first generation. Anyone born in the cave world would simply see it as the norm...hell, they would probably be scared of going outside in the open air with no protection overhead...so yeah, the first generation would be the ones with psychological issues.

Frankly, we should already all be living in large underground hubs and using the surface area for simple outings, farming, resources, vacations, etc...and otherwise leave it untouched and natural...would be less maintenance overall, and no worries if a hurricane or tsunami is heading your way.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack
The elites are escaping the planet, and leaving us on it.


No we're not.

This is the only planet we have. But if we need to eliminate you lot to ensure its survival, so be it


(never known a species so determined to commit suicide!)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
There is no safe place for the mortal souls in this universe.

All will be revealed.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Heartisblack
The elites are escaping the planet, and leaving us on it.


No we're not.

This is the only planet we have. But if we need to eliminate you lot to ensure its survival, so be it


(never known a species so determined to commit suicide!)


Think about it, they have everybody focused on the bunkers. You can't tell me with unlimited funds that you can't have space shuttles or some way out. It's just common sense.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Heartisblack
The elites are escaping the planet, and leaving us on it.


No we're not.

This is the only planet we have. But if we need to eliminate you lot to ensure its survival, so be it


(never known a species so determined to commit suicide!)


Think about it, they have everybody focused on the bunkers. You can't tell me with unlimited funds that you can't have space shuttles or some way out. It's just common sense.


Consider the wide array of issues involved
First off, nobody has unlimited funds...some may seem like it, but eventually missing vast amounts of wealth is noticed
Then you got the issue of technology. So you were able to build a few hundred secret shuttles here and there...now what...pop into orbit and...what? go to mars? Not the most hospitable planet..nor any other planet really.
So head over to alpha centuri and hope for the best...whats that, only 4 light years away? no problem..so lets say you invented a craft that can go 1/4th the speed of light, you will be there in 16 years, whoot.
But thats still 16 years in the weightless vacuum of space with no giant farmlands to raise crops, no viable means of replacing water, etc. recycling goes a long way, but the amount of water, food, and such you would need to take to support even a dozen people for 16 years would be staggering.

Then we can consider things like micro-meteors flying around and punching holes in the craft as you zip along, a marble sized rock hitting you at sublight speeds would turn your shuttle into swiss cheese real quick...which means we would need also some sort of futuristic star trek style shields, etc...I do fully accept that "they" have wild tech available that the public is unaware of, but there are limits. I reckon 50 years ahead, not 300.

No, the "elites", unless they have a stargate in their pocket, live in the same biodome we do and will tough it out here like the rest of us.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
If your bunker gets HAARPed,it becomes a microwave oven.I like how you asked about the quality of life in such a place.I also believe it would be hyper-ungood.I can imagine how being locked up together would cause most people who can afford bunkers to go insane,but if they banish US from such a spot,I hope they do.BAHGOOFUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
but lets say there is a total global nuclear event that destroys the top for 20 thousand years and you literally must become mole people...two extremely different methods of building a sustainable subterranian civilization. a extended (20k years) stay would do best creating smaller antichambers and just keep digging bubbles and connections, like a martian colony on earth...less people per bubble, and the ability to collapse tunnels should any segment have disaster (plague, tap into a magma chamber, etc)


I don't see a point in worrying about a War that destroys earth for so long. Nobody lives that long and the people in the bunker die and i doubt they're in the mood to produce children stuck miles down in the earth while the planet is completely destroyed. It would be pretty disgusting to create children in such an environment and we aren't as stupid as animals and just jump on each other because our instincts say so.
So it's only important to plan for a maximum of say 100 years. Everything after that just isn't important.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
And frankly, the only ones that would have trouble adapting to the change from surface dwellers to dwarves would be the first generation. Anyone born in the cave world would simply see it as the norm...hell, they would probably be scared of going outside in the open air with no protection overhead...so yeah, the first generation would be the ones with psychological issues.


Sounds like you spent too much time playing Fallout


And i don't think the Fallout Fantasy is possible. Living underneath in some huge facilities with hundreds or thousands of people? Yeah, that sounds about fun, especially if you hate 50 guys and still have to live near them.
Bunkers, especially huge bunkers would be pure anarchy and chaos



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
I don't see a point in worrying about a War that destroys earth for so long.

Oh hell, earth has been uninhabitable for far longer stretches than a few thousand years now and then. human species has been around for at least 30k years in some form, and life in general for billions. during such times, we have gone through pole shifts, ice ages, catastrophe after catastrophe, and eventually the all clear is sounded


Nobody lives that long and the people in the bunker die and i doubt they're in the mood to produce children stuck miles down in the earth while the planet is completely destroyed.

You...really don't understand people and boredom, do you.
The peeps down below will be looking for entertainment and fun. And since a trip to the beach is out of the question, what do you think one of the biggest recreational activities between adults will be once survival is no longer a struggle...yep. I actually think the initial population boom would be problematic and would need to control such uncontrolled breeding. Perhaps mandatory birth control considering your not going to stop people doing their thing...and you don't want to either, the connection is a perfect way to keep the population entertained and happy for free.


It would be pretty disgusting to create children in such an environment and we aren't as stupid as animals and just jump on each other because our instincts say so.

One can make the argument about poor people breeding in poor areas, yet look at these places...its booming with newborns far more than perfect areas..
Why? because the act of procreation is a really good way to relieve stress and worry for a few moments.
Such an environment encourages breeding anotherwards. Might be a biological survival trait (breed more in times of trouble so that some will come out of it). its in our dna and will be very active during such times.


So it's only important to plan for a maximum of say 100 years. Everything after that just isn't important.

Some people believe that way today about surface dwelling
I call those people traitors to humanity. the people 100 years ago also thought that way, hense our issues today.


Sounds like you spent too much time playing Fallout


Fun note, games (like fallout) are actually designed with consultation by psychologists and such. Video games (some) do actually teach you stuff, be it psychology, history, etc (no, fallout does not teach you history..just to be clear. heh) But actually, this is a pretty well known psychosis nicknamed cabin fever. Actually, you can see the real effects of this by watching a documentry of long term prisoners. Especially max security prisons where they only see daylight at best an hour a week


And i don't think the Fallout Fantasy is possible. Living underneath in some huge facilities with hundreds or thousands of people? Yeah, that sounds about fun, especially if you hate 50 guys and still have to live near them.

Sounds like a nightmare personally, but survival is survival.
As far as living underground, etc...erm...this is actually normal. There are -plenty- of cities already around the world that have vast undergrounds. the only thing missing is to close access off to the top and voila.
And again I point back to the prison example
Not sure what your objecting to actually...yes, I get it, you don't like the idea...and who does? point is, its about survival of the race, not being grumpy that your beachfront condo just got nuked. Adjustments would have to be made to ensure the survival of the species, and no, nobody would be forced to enter into the subterranian survival plan...frankly, it would be a lottery and anyone over 25 years of age better be a specialist in their field to even be considered for the ark.


Bunkers, especially huge bunkers would be pure anarchy and chaos

One more pointout of the prison system
A few guards can control a mass amount of people...and thats with the people that resoundingly hate the guards/system and would gladly rebel in a second...a underground survival hub would be much, much easier to control, because not only do you have any official authority, but your neighbor also is ready to defend the place and rule of law...so, no..I don't see chaos ensuing once the ground rules are set. The only issues that may arise is if the resource renewal was shortsighted (aka, thinking only 100 years verses indefinate)..then yes, eventually revolution would happen to change things.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Maybe some people could live for years inside a bunker. I`d rather die !

This would be a kind of "Big Brother Show" house, with lots of people from all ages but you could not go outside if and when you wish. Not being able to see and feel the sun, the rain, the sea, etc. Not knowing about family and friends that weren`t "lucky" enough to join you in the shelter...... I`m sure most would get insane, desperate, depressive and violent.
edit on 5-9-2011 by AQ6666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by AQ6666 because: (no reason given)







 
3

log in

join