Russian leader has invested in top-secret reinforced bunkers across Moscow say expert

[Ulmita]

Is Putin planning for nuclear war? Russian leader has invested in top-secret reinforced bunkers across Moscow say experts


Russian leader Vladimir Putin has invested in top-secret reinforced bunkers across Moscow, according to reports.
It has been claimed the Russian hardman has invested heavily in the structures around the capital city in the event of war with the West.
In reports that first emerged last month Russia began building 'dozens' of underground bunkers across the country several years ago, according to US officials.



Russian leader Vladimir Putin has invested in top-secret reinforced bunkers across Moscow, according to reports

'Russia is getting ready for a big war which they assume will go nuclear, with them launching the first attacks,' Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon nuclear policy official told the Washington Free Beacon. 'We are not serious about preparing for a big war, much less a nuclear war.'
Few details about the new nuclear bunkers have been released, but Russian state-run media says they are being built in Moscow as part of a new national security strategy.

Russia has also constructed a large-scale bunker near Mount Yamantau in the Urals.The relationship between the West and Russia has soured in recent years since the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing conflict in Syria.Tensions have also been raised at NATO drills in the Baltic states in eastern Europe.



It has been claimed the Russian hardman has invested heavily in the structures around the capital city (pictured) in the event of war with the West


In reports that first emerged last month Russia began building 'dozens' of underground bunkers across the country several years ago, according to US officials A US-led exercise in June involved around 6,000 troops, 50 ships, 60 aircraft and one submarine.

Earlier this year reports emerged of Russia preparing to test a nuclear missile which is so advanced it could get past NATO defences and decimate a large slice of Europe within seconds of launching.The RS-28 Sarmat missile, dubbed Satan 2, has a top speed of seven kilometres (4.3 miles) per second and has been designed to outfox anti-missile shield systems.


The Sarmat missile could deliver a warhead of 40 megatons - 2,000 times as powerful as the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.Zvezda reported the missile could destroy an area the size of France or Texas.
The Sarmat missile could deliver a warhead of 40 megatons - 2,000 times as powerful as the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 (pictured)



It is expected to have a range of 10,000 km (6,213 miles), which would allow Moscow to attack London and other European cities as well as reaching cities on America's west and east coasts.

Dr Loren Thompson, a top defence expert from the US think-tank Lexington Institute, told The National Interest: 'The possibility of nuclear war between America and Russia not only still exists, but is probably growing.

'And the place where it is most likely to begin is in a future military confrontation over three small Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.'History may one day record that the greatest strategic blunder in history was the failure of U.S. leaders to take the possibility of nuclear war between America and Russia seriously once the Cold War ended.'

Putin said Russia is beefing up nuclear arsenal last year

Link to article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-experts.html

Link to WFB article: http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...command-posts/

Here we go again... Another round of fear-mongering or Putin is getting ready for the possibility of Clinton getting elected (note the irony )?
Russia never stopped building bunkers even after the collapse of the SU. Why all this fuzz suddenly?

[Forgettable]

Not so top-secret, are they?

[Ulmita]

Not so top-secret, are they?

Well by top secret they mean they are not announcing the work. US spy satellites for sure know most of them. But what good is it, if their biggest bunker is under 3000 feet of mountain?

My question is not why of if they are building them, but why announce it now? They have never stopped building bunkers even when they were bankrupted after the SU collapse. Why are these news all of the sudden?

[Traveler Voltin]

not surprised.
Putin has been pushing things for years now.

[Kuntantee]

Ulmita's wet dream is thermonuclear warfare. I bet you probably jerked off to this article. Too much Fallout!

[Independent voter]

Well by top secret they mean they are not announcing the work. US spy satellites for sure know most of them. But what good is it, if their biggest bunker is under 3000 feet of mountain?

My question is not why of if they are building them, but why announce it now? They have never stopped building bunkers even when they were bankrupted after the SU collapse. Why are these news all of the sudden?

Putin would have a bunker from the 1960's I would think, same one Stalin, Brezhnev Khruchev and all the others used.

These new bunkers must be for the Russian Oligarchs and their families.

[Ulmita]

No i only jerk when i see the pic of Atatürk
Also, you are completely missing the reason i am posting this.

[ABEEnr2]

Link to article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-experts.html

Link to WFB article: http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...command-posts/

Here we go again... Another round of fear-mongering or Putin is getting ready for the possibility of Clinton getting elected (note the irony )?
Russia never stopped building bunkers even after the collapse of the SU. Why all this fuzz suddenly?

Propaganda bro

[Dsc]

He would be nuts not to. The global economy is on the brink of collapse. Nations and the global bankers are hording physical gold. Globalism is failing, but not without fallout. The world's elites are building bunkers and redoubts. At the end of the day Russia will defend Russian still with nukes. We see puppets like Hillary the warmonger "we came we saw we killed him" the nation destroyer possibly coming to power.

Beans, bullion, bandages, and bullets. I've got mine.

[Deleted]

Sorry, but this sounds like a load of cock.

[Belize]

They're not top secret if we know about them...

[Kuntantee]

No i only jerk when i see the pic of Atatürk
Also, you are completely missing the reason i am posting this.

I didn't think you are a gay. Well, your own preferences, not my business.

[Shalcker]

It's not like bunkers are super-hard to build. And it is quite obvious that we consider major war real possibility in near future (decade or two).

But 'Russia is getting ready for a big war which they assume will go nuclear, with them launching the first attacks' is bullshit.

Certainly rockets will fly if they will be last option remaining, but it'll take a lot to get there.

[Azadina]

Easy way to make them waste money on those: target the bunkers. Makes it obsolete to even consider using, if enemy targets it, should war come.

[Sunseeker]

If you're going to fund public projects you might as well add fuel to the fire.

[I Push Buttons]

I would have assumed they already had nuclear bunkers? We do...

[dextersmith]

Not so top-secret, are they?

You beat me to it!

[Orange Joe]

Snip

And? We have the same in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Easy way to make them waste money on those: target the bunkers. Makes it obsolete to even consider using, if enemy targets it, should war come.

The idea behind a bunker is that even if they target them they cannot be destroyed.

[Yvaelle]

Building them in Moscow doesn't make sense.

I mean, think about it - if it really came to the point where you need fancy new nuclear bunkers to survive a nuclear war, Moscow is going to be pretty high on the list of direct targets.

A direct hit on Moscow means one of a couple things:
1) Bunkers aren't usually designed to survive a direct hit
2) A direct hit from a modern nuke means like... centuries of fatal radioactivity in the area, are you going to live in that bunker for millennia?

Even if I thought this were true (I don't), I would still think it was a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -

The idea behind a bunker is that even if they target them they cannot be destroyed.

If the intent were to bunker-bust, setting a nuke to hit the ground would cause so much destructive force in the earth that bunkers in a broad area, even the fanciest ones, would be wrecked. Basically nothing we can construct can survive an actual direct hit.

Now, in a nuclear scenario - nukes wouldn't actually be designed to hit the ground, but rather to explode over cities - to raid destruction from above and maximize the bloom-damage. So if a nuke blew up in the air above Moscow, maybe, maybe the bunkers would survive the explosion (but not the radioactivity above them if they ever wanted to leave the bunker). If a nuke actually hit the ground though, basically no bunker would survive.

There are exceptions of course, some military bases (ex. Cheyenne mountain in the US) are built underneath mountains. The bunker itself can't survive a direct hit any better than any other bunker, but because it's shielded by a mountain, solid rock mountains are effective shields versus nukes.

[Orange Joe]

If the intent were to bunker-bust, setting a nuke to hit the ground would cause so much destructive force in the earth that bunkers in a broad area, even the fanciest ones, would be wrecked. Basically nothing we can construct can survive an actual direct hit.

Now, in a nuclear scenario - nukes wouldn't actually be designed to hit the ground, but rather to explode over cities - to raid destruction from above and maximize the bloom-damage. So if a nuke blew up in the air above Moscow, maybe, maybe the bunkers would survive the explosion (but not the radioactivity above them if they ever wanted to leave the bunker). If a nuke actually hit the ground though, basically no bunker would survive.

There are exceptions of course, some military bases (ex. Cheyenne mountain in the US) are built underneath mountains. The bunker itself can't survive a direct hit any better than any other bunker, but because it's shielded by a mountain, solid rock mountains are effective shields versus nukes.

This is why the best ones are built under mountains, or deep deep underground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex

The bunker is built to deflect a 30 megatonnuclear explosion as close as 2 kilometres (1.2 mi).^[14] Within a mountain tunnel are sets of 25-ton blast doors and another for the civil engineering department. The doors were built so that they can always be opened if needed. Should a nuclear blast hit the building, they are designed to withstand a blast wave. There is a network of blast valves with unique filters to capture air-borne chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear contaminants.^[13]

LOL didn't read all your post, and I missed the end :P