Mosshadow wrote:
Would it be more effective to build a nuclear command bunker under a lake to provide protection from a nuclear blast? For example if the U.S decided to build a Cheyenne Mountain equivalent underneath one of the Great Lakes (Avg depth ~100m) or Crater Lake(Avg depth ~350m) with a layer of rock above, how hard would it be to build and would the water provide good protection against nuclear effects?
I would think that the layer of water would provide complete protection from a direct strike since the surface of the water would be vaporized but the shockwave would have little effect on the structures underneath the lake and unlike Cheyenne Mountain the water would just flow back into place afterwards allowing for protection against multiple strikes.
Not that it wasn't looked at mind you:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0803366
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0724677
https://warisboring.com/the-navy-s-secret-undersea-lair/
The water wasn't enough protection so they were still going to put the site in the rock under the seafloor. Why? Because unlike Cheyenne Mountain Nuclear depth bombs work really, really well by creating immense pressure waves IN the water. Sure an airburst will be absorbed but you can penetrate the surface of the water easier than you can solid rock and once there the detonation will generate an overwhelming pressure spike that will collapse your bunker. Further, and this is an issue for NORAD as well, you don't really have to hit the 'bunker' itself but just take out the ancillary sites with which it communicates and relays information and instructions. Or slag the entrance and any possible backups and let the crew die in place.
The hard lines can be buried but there are only so many since you have to dig such deep tunnels from the bunker to any access or egress point. And they have to be fairly 'close' to allow easy access and security. (Don't forget the US managed to keep quite close tabs on the Soviet military by simply tapping their undersea 'secure' cable networks, which is why we quickly moved away from using them ourselves) Couple that with the amount of ship traffic and possible access routes for weapons delivery, (literally dumping a couple of containers with multi-megaton bombs in them set for remote access or a timer if you already plan to attack over the side 'accidently' during a storm and you pretty much have at least a 'combat' kill on the bunker. "Combat kill" means rendered ineffective or incapable of fulfilling the designed and intended combat role during war)
There are advantages to such a site but a lot of drawbacks as well. Despite the initial concepts claims of it being 'stealthy' and cheap it would in fact be neither which is why the idea that the government has built hundreds of them doesn't get much traction outside of the CT crowd. The cost to maintain and support is higher as well.
Would it be more 'effective'? Probably not for the amount of work and money needed. Cheyenne Mountain was done from the outside with plenty of access to equipment, personnel and materials where as an underwater/underground bunker would have a much more limited access capability. Good in some ways as the reports point out but less so when that's also the way you have to get all your needed equipment and things in and out both during construction and during operation.
Plausible, yes but it would take some different and possibly sharper motivations to accomplish.
"Mobile" is actually worse as it cuts heavily into your bandwidth for communications and even if you have the suggested 'multiple-comm-nodes' to jack into the plain fact is they are going to bottleneck moving on-shore. And again the chances your enemy can 'tap' them is going to be greater the more access points you have.
Randy[/quote][/quote]