Slashdot Log In
Nuke-Proof Bunker Turns Out Not Waterproof
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:50 AM
from the maybe-send-it-to-cuba dept.
from the maybe-send-it-to-cuba dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The AP reports on the opening of a vault in Tulsa, OK which was designed to withstand a nuclear attack by the Russians. 50 years ago they put a Plymouth Belvedere in the vault to preserve it so that we could get a good look at it in the (for that time) magical year of 2007. Unfortunately it turns out that the vault wasn't even waterproof. The once beautiful car is now a literal rust bucket."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
But was the in the specs? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But was the in the specs? (Score:5, Funny)
On a positive note the Nuke shelters weren't needed or lots of people would have drowned.
Parent
And the best part is... (Score:5, Funny)
From the award letter:
CONGRATULATIONS! You have won this 1957 Plymouth Belvedere, stored in a time capsule 50 years ago! (See picture)
Please make arrangements to have the vehicle moved off of city property as soon as possible or we will have to start fining you $50/day.
Parent
The right way to write a Russian Reversal (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Duck and Cover (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Duck and Cover (Score:5, Informative)
Nowadays we can laugh about it but consider that people might laugh in 30 years about what we think now.
Parent
Re:Duck and Cover (Score:5, Insightful)
And most importantly of all, it helped traumatize the public, keeping them in the palms of exploitive politicians.
Parent
Re:Duck and Cover (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Duck and Cover (Score:5, Insightful)
What's REALLY interesting is why we, in the West, abandoned civil defense. With the wholesale adoption of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory, it was considered a DOWNSIDE to be able to save one's population - so civil defense, missile defense, air defense, and shelters all vanished from the budget. The theory being that you want everyone to be as vulnerable as possible - because otherwise the cost of launching a nuclear strike may seem low enough to make a nuclear war palatable. It amazes me to this day that the US persuaded its allies to buy into that theory. Yes, nuclear war sucks - but it seems that maximizing the damage it would do to you in the name of avoiding one is rather shortsighted. That's especially true in the post-cold war multipolar world. It's hard to say 'MAD works' when suddenly you are trying to deter anyone capable of building a nuclear device - which overall, really isn't that hard to do.
Parent
Re:Duck and Cover (Score:4, Interesting)
There are broadly three ways to look at it (from a military/strategic point of view, since all this really does is support the political/diplomatic arena anyway); not mutually exclusive:
- Rely on deterrence. It might be existential deterrence (that is, "we have nukes - they deter"), or it might include a genuine willingness to use the weapons if a certain line is crossed. If it isn't obvious that you will use them at a certain point, the deterrent loses credibility - and your influence is whittled down by a thousand papercuts (see below). Some deterrence theorists have stated that a nuclear-armed neighborhood is a polite neighborhood, although the jury is still out on that (certainly Israel, India and Pakistan have had no shortage of wars since becoming nuclear powers).
- Rely on might. In this case, you want to have a really effective nuclear force, the strongest defenses you can afford, and a doctrine that makes it obvious that you will escalate to the nuclear option if you need to.
- Rely on arms control. Basically attempt to keep the lid on the nuclear can of worms as much as possible, and try to agree upon arms levels with other countries. The only problem here is that it's really easy to agree arms control with countries you weren't really going to fight anyway, and rather hard to agree with countries with whom you are genuinely likely to have a shooting war.
I remember talking to some of Bush Senior's administration while I was in college, talking about their discussions of the nuclear option in Gulf War 1. A large part of the government wanted to rule it out altogether, regardless of chemical-biological threats. A committee did actually draft a strategy for using tactical nukes in the initial attack, but it was ruled out very fast - not because of long-term problems (a small tac-nuke isn't much worse for the environment than an FAE), but because it would have taken far too many tactical nukes to really make much difference militarily! In the end, the decision was made to formally "not rule anything out" if Hussein used chemical/biological weapons; a decision to not have a policy. Discussions were ongoing, but an answer was never forthcoming to "will we even consider using nukes?" - let alone "how badly do they have to hit us before we'll consider it?" I'm told that similar discussions occurred for various other small-medium regional contingencies over the years.
On the other hand, we've built up the word about deterrence so strongly (including the nuclear armed neighborhood statement!) that world leaders who might be invaded are all scrambling to get nuclear weapons. Even if they don't plan to use them (who knows?), it's a fair gamble that the big powers will be less willing to invade if it means a nuclear attack.
One day, there will be a small nuclear war with modern weapons. When the dust settles, and we discover that it was nothing like Armageddon, the can will be off the nuclear can of worms forever - and we'll be stuck having to come up with policies that rely on capability and actions, rather than an abstract, unprovable and arguably purely philosophical notion of deterrence.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you are too close--well, it makes finding your remains a bit easier.
What did they expect ... (Score:5, Funny)
It could have been worse - it could have been a 197o's Ford, in which case all that would have been left would have been the tires and a lump of iron oxide.
Re:What did they expect ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What did they expect ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They should have taken a clue from Planet of the Apes and used a Volkswagon Beetle.
1976 Ford Granada. 4 years from show-room to scrap yard, at 60,000 miles. Front end literally fell apart after 2 years, and the power steering managed to disconnect from the steering wheel - fortunately while parking. Also developed the infamous "Ford transmission that wouldn't stay in Park" around the 50,000 mile mark, the undersized Uniroyal tires that wore out prematurely, etc.
If any manufacturer today put out a POS like that, they'd be forced to make multiple recalls, and then they'd go belly-up. If it weren't for the current low interest rates and the home equity ATM buying spree, both Ford and GM would have gone bankrupt by now.
As it is, Toyota has taken the #1 spot worldwide [webwombat.com.au]
Parent
Re:What did they expect ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Hey, they never claimed it was! (Score:5, Funny)
See how good it works!
Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! (Score:5, Informative)
It was built to shelter people against radiation, not water.
The article is quite misleading. The "survive a nuclear attack" thing was just a boast about how strong the vault was. It wasn't a fallout shelter, it was a vault designed to hold a car for 50 years. On that level it failed miserably.
It looks to me like whoever designed the vault didn't think about water, or at least had little idea about underground vaults. Looking at this picture:
http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=38
doesn't make this vault look terribly waterproof.
Parent
Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Hey, they never claimed it was! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Similar screw-up... (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, the Cold War systems were decommissioned about a decade ago. In the early 1990's the louvers needed painting, so they were removed from building, shipped to someplace (rumor said Texas), painted and then reinstalled. A couple of years later they were removed for good.
Blue Ray.... err, Peter (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure what the point of it was anyway; 16 years isn't that long unless you're like 6 years old when it's being dug up- seems pretty contrived and pointless to me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Our primary school were involved in a time-capsule project in the late 1970's. The capsule was built into the foundations of a brand new concrete council office block which was expected to last over 50 years. Thirty years later they are planning to demolish the "eyesore building" due to condensation problems with the concrete.
Cunning bastards (Score:5, Funny)
Archiving is hard (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the moral of this story is that archiving anything, even if it seems durable, is hard. Now, how confident do you feel about those backup tapes that are in the closet down the hall? How much moisture is getting to them just from the humidity in the air?
Re:Archiving is hard (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
nuclear and chemical waste management (Score:5, Interesting)
Waterproof? (Score:5, Informative)
Dan East
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
- RG>
I live in Tulsa (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I live in Tulsa (Score:4, Funny)
Yea, you really got them this time!
Parent
Re:I live in Tulsa and lived there then (Score:4, Interesting)
The car was buried in a spirit of celebration of Oklahoma's 50th anniversary of statehood, but I think in many people's minds, they thought it might be the only thing that survived the unavoidable nuclear attack. (What a legacy, eh?)
As far as the bunker not being very good protection against a nuke, we school kiddies of the time were being taught to duck under our desks and cover our necks when we saw the flash of a nuclear explosion. If THAT was good enough... just imagine how cool a concrete-covered bunker was.
Parent
not literal (Score:5, Insightful)
The damage was done in 1972 (Score:4, Informative)
The really sad part... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The really sad part... (Score:4, Informative)
"is that they put the gasoline in there because they thought the world would be so advanced in the 21st century that we would've moved way beyond that. :P"
We HAVE moved far away from 50's-grade gasoline. No lead, and no more needing to change your fuel filter every 6,000-10,000 miles because there are way fewer contaminants.
You wouldn't want to stick that old gunk in todays cars, even if it did have a higher octane rating. You *might* go fast, but you won't go far.
Parent
In Cuba... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to see a nuclear bunker done right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting story: There was an "emergency egress" hatch in the capsule that led to the surface through a corrugated pipe. There were only a few problems: The hatch door weighed over 200 pounds and dropped down from the ceiling, ensuring the first one out would probably be the last one out. And the government was afraid the Russkies knew where the egress points were on the surface, so the government poured a parking lot over it. Only problem was they failed to tell the launch controllers that their "emergency egress" system led to the underside of a parking lot. This was all top-secret stuff, never came to light until after the sites were decommissioned and dismantled.
Hope despite cold war fears (Score:4, Insightful)
Most revisionist historians often reflect on the fear that Americans had of being obliterated in the 1950s from a nuclear catastrophe. For a midwestern American city in 1957 to have a contest to determine how many would be living there in 50 years and especially predict the winning guesser (or closest of kin) would be alive in 50 demonstrates there was hope for a future.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
rj
Re:What indicates it isn't waterproof? (Score:5, Funny)
This little gem is why your boss doesn't pay you to think.
-----
Übergeek Necktie T-Shirt [prostoner.com]
Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't be the only one that finds classic/vintage cars beautiful. And I can't be the only one who thinks recent car designs are insipid.
Call me sacrilegious, but I was never (and still amn't) a big fan of 50s "Americana" style cars. Tail fins- overdecorative and contrived space-age kitsch. Too much chrome. Too reliant on their association with "rock-n'-roll and diners" nostalgia for their appeal.
Even though it was only 25 to 30 years old when I was growing up in the 80s, that whole 50s/early-60s style looked ancient and as cheesy as hell.
You're free to disagree with that, but it kind of annoys me that everyone is assumed to love that s
Re:old cars (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll stick up for the recent cars.
Especially in the '50s and '60s, design was only about form; huge sacrifices in function were made to have those pretty shapes. For me, a simple and functional design is much more honest and appealing. When I see '50s and '60s cars, I just see an enormous waste of space and weight, that doesn't contribute to performance, comfort, safety, economy, or any other part of the function of a car. I have the same reaction to those cars that I have to PC cases with fins and lights on them.
For me, some of the best designs ever are on very ordinary cars; they are those that allowed unusual innovations in function. The '86-'89 Honda Accord; the original Chrysler minivans; the current Prius (not for anything having to do with its propulsion, but for its packaging); the Volvo 145 wagon and its numerous descendants (through to the 740 and 960/V90 wagons); the first Scion xB, and, for an example from the '50s, the Mini.
And even from a purely aesthetic perspective, I find simpler better. Some of the prettiest cars for me are the '93 Mazda MX-6; the '92 Acura Legend; the current Audi A6 and A8 (especially the S8); both the original Infiniti G35 and new G37 coupes; and of course the 2000-era Volkswagens (the previous generation of Golfs, Jettas, and Passats). I'll be in the market for a new car in about a year and a half; if nothing changes, I'll probably buy a G37.
Parent
Re:old cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude - you're not the only one. In fact, there are millions like you around the world. There are car collector clubs, shows, magazines, books, damn near entire TOWNS dedicated to the preservation and appreciation of older cars. Some of these cars sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars (even millions) depending on rarity and condition. You can't seriously be unaware of this. It's one of the most common hobbies out there. Shit, in ANY North American city at this time of year, you're bound to see one drive by every few minutes if you open your eyes.
Are we here at Slashdot actually this unaware of what goes on in the "real world", that not only can someone ask this with a straight face, but it's "Insightful"?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Was it a vaccum chamber? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Your first problem is that you believe that there actually was a cold war.
Tell it, brother! And that "holocaust" never happened, either! And together, we'll expose that pack of lies that these so-called "world wars" happened, as well!
Parent
Re:I bet the Russians feel stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Once money does not matter anymore all that matters is the satisfaction of having done a good job and created a perfect product as well as the non monetary recognition from your peers of having done a good job.
The flaw in your logic is the assumption that most people care about doing a good job. The vast majority of people choose to maximize the pleasure in their lives, generally through leisure. You seriously think the garbage man cares about doing the best job he can? Or the bookkeeper? Or the assembly line worker? Hell no. Most people just want to get through the day with as little effort as possible so they can make it to the weekend when they can go fishing. Once money doesn't matter anymore and there is little penalty for mediocrity, why would someone care about his *job*, which is the least fun part of their life?
Of course, I'm not even addressing the lack of incentives for innovation.
Parent
Re:Vaults? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:How times have changed... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent