Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Take a look inside the Finnish bunkers capable of withstanding a nuclear attack


Grim Reaper 6
 Share

Recommended Posts

HELSINKI, Finland — Blast proof, gas proof and offering protection from radiation and toxic chemicals — Finland takes its network of underground bunkers seriously. Located about 60 feet underground, this civil shelter in Helsinki can hold up to 6,000 people. Defying expectations of a dark, damp cave; it's bright, clean and warm, complete with soccer pitch, children's playground, cafeteria and car park. 

Speaking to CNBC from inside a bunker, Tomi Rask, a preparedness teacher at Helsinki City Rescue Department, said that all types of weapons had been taken into account when designing the shelters.

"Blast proofing, gas proofing, radiation and toxic chemicals," he said.

These bunkers also have to be able to be converted and ready for use as defense shelters within 72 hours.

"We need to make room for people that are coming into the shelters and that means that some structures, some objects need to be taken away," he added

"But it's not that we need to [fully] empty the shelter before we can take persons in because in sheltering time, you'll need to have some form of equipment," he added, explaining that a car, for example, can provide some private space to a family. These civil shelters "might be the one thing that we could give to NATO," Rask added.

Take a look inside the Finnish bunkers capable of withstanding a nuclear attack (msn.com)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With neighbors like Russia, I can see why they went to such lengths to prepare.

Much respect for Scandanavia in general and Finland specifically.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I.... want to live there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

 

These bunkers also have to be able to be converted and ready for use as defense shelters within 72 hours.

 

Do they think they will have 3 days advanced notice?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

HELSINKI, Finland — Blast proof, gas proof and offering protection from radiation and toxic chemicals — Finland takes its network of underground bunkers seriously. Located about 60 feet underground, this civil shelter in Helsinki can hold up to 6,000 people. Defying expectations of a dark, damp cave; it's bright, clean and warm, complete with soccer pitch, children's playground, cafeteria and car park. 

Speaking to CNBC from inside a bunker, Tomi Rask, a preparedness teacher at Helsinki City Rescue Department, said that all types of weapons had been taken into account when designing the shelters.

"Blast proofing, gas proofing, radiation and toxic chemicals," he said.

These bunkers also have to be able to be converted and ready for use as defense shelters within 72 hours.

"We need to make room for people that are coming into the shelters and that means that some structures, some objects need to be taken away," he added

"But it's not that we need to [fully] empty the shelter before we can take persons in because in sheltering time, you'll need to have some form of equipment," he added, explaining that a car, for example, can provide some private space to a family. These civil shelters "might be the one thing that we could give to NATO," Rask added.

Take a look inside the Finnish bunkers capable of withstanding a nuclear attack (msn.com)

60 feet down wont survive a ground nuke of a megaton, the crater is bigger than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

60 feet down wont survive a ground nuke of a megaton, the crater is bigger than that.

Where are you getting this information cause you have shown before you know little about how nuclear weapons work. 

A 1 megaton nuke detonated at ground level would create a crator about 60.9 meters deep, that is assuming it's only dealing with dirt.  Given that the nuclear bunker will have walls and ceiling meters thick of reinforced concrete the bunker would easily survive a ground detonation which a nuclear weapon would almost certainly never be ground detonated anyway.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I.... want to live there.

If you can convince them you are a refugee desiring asylum, you might be able to get that done :)   

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Where are you getting this information cause you have shown before you know little about how nuclear weapons work. 

A 1 megaton nuke detonated at ground level would create a crator about 60.9 meters deep, that is assuming it's only dealing with dirt.  Given that the nuclear bunker will have walls and ceiling meters thick of reinforced concrete the bunker would easily survive a ground detonation which a nuclear weapon would almost certainly never be ground detonated anyway.

Yep... if you just HAVE to nuke your next-door neighbor, it's generally best not to irradiate your own territory for years to come as part of the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, and then said:

Yep... if you just HAVE to nuke your next-door neighbor, it's generally best not to irradiate your own territory for years to come as part of the plan.

Not just that but air bursts maximize the damage - energy is able to spread out over a significantly larger area rather than being absorbed by things like hills that would otherwise potentially be in the way etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, and then said:

Yep... if you just HAVE to nuke your next-door neighbor, it's generally best not to irradiate your own territory for years to come as part of the plan.

Besides from just creating massive amounts of fallout there is the simple issue that detonating nuclear weapons at or below ground level just isnt effective.  The various Project Plowshare that was done show how ground level/below ground level nuclear detonations reduce the destructive potential of nuclear weapons.

The main issue that a lot of people seem to forget is that nuclear explosions are radically different than chemical explosions which are conventional explosives.  

For those that dont know chemical explosions work by taking normally a solid, but it can be a liquid, and turning it into a gas near instantaneously.  The gas initially will just be in the same volume as the solid or liquid it came from but will want to be in an insanely larger volume and thus creates insanely high pressures until everything reaches equilibrium.  Nuclear weapons on the other hand just produce an insane amount of heat which causes whatever is around it to expand and create the pressure.

The problem with ground level and especially underground nuclear detonations is that unlike air which expands massively with increased temperatures dirt and rock dont really expand when heated.  What happens is the material closest gets vaporized which as a gas will than expand with increaded temperature or just melts which doesnt help much.  The energy required to vaporize dirt, rock, sand, ect is really high and waste a lot of energy of the nuclear detonation.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, quiXilver said:

With neighbors like Russia, I can see why they went to such lengths to prepare.

It makes perfect to sense to me also, any Nation that is near a belligerent Nation like the Russian Federation should go to great lengths to prepare themselves even if they are not a conflict of any kind!:yes:

8 hours ago, quiXilver said:

Much respect for Scandanavia in general and Finland specifically.

I am certainly with you there, while most of these Nations are not known for they military might because of their location in Europe they must be prepared at all times. While the Ukraine is not a Scandinavian country the Ukrainians as a whole have shown the world how a smaller, less well equipped, and Very Very Largely out numbered Nation can not only resist but also push that foreign the invader. Back in many fronts.

Manwon

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

60 feet down wont survive a ground nuke of a megaton, the crater is bigger than that.

I don’t understand your thought process here at all, first consider the following, tactical Nuclear Weapons are given that name for a reason and tactical doesn’t mean killing civilians in survival bunkers’.:no:

First of all when it comes Nuclear Bursts during a conflict or invasion today, the purpose isn’t designed to kill innocent civilians that are a survival bunker which is what this threads about. So why would they use Nuclear Weapons to intentionally destroy survival bunker designed for civilian survival?:unsure:

Take for instance the Ukrainian invasion if Nuclear Weapons are used there ( presently I doubt it will occur ) the weapons used would battlefield tactical nuclear weapons. In the instance of tactical weapons the yield is dial able in most cases, with yields from approximately  1 kiloton or less (equivalent to a thousand tonnes of the explosive TNT) - the larger tactical that dial-able up to a maximum of 100 kilotons.

Today the largest Tactical Nuclear Weapon (Known, to my knowledge from  2019) is the B83 which has a yield of 1.2 Megaton the tactical nuke is found in the arsenal of the United States and again to my knowledge no other Nuclear power has a Tactical Nuclear Weapon that is more than 100 Kilotons.

So Cookie Monster read the comments below from the threads in the OP,  this information along with the other information I provided above makes it very clear your comments above that I, responses to are totally inaccurate!

 

“”Located about 60 feet underground, this civil shelter in Helsinki can hold up to 6,000 people. Defying expectations of a dark, damp cave; it's bright, clean and warm, complete with soccer pitch, children's playground, cafeteria and car park. There are 5,500 similar bunkers across the city, creating a vast network of underground facilities that have been built since the 1980s””

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I don’t understand your thought process here at all, first consider the following, tactical Nuclear Weapons are given that name for a reason and tactical doesn’t mean killing civilians in survival bunkers’.:no:

First of all when it comes Nuclear Bursts during a conflict or invasion today, the purpose isn’t designed to kill innocent civilians that are a survival bunker which is what this threads about. So why would they use Nuclear Weapons to intentionally destroy survival bunker designed for civilian survival?:unsure:

Take for instance the Ukrainian invasion if Nuclear Weapons are used there ( presently I doubt it will occur ) the weapons used would battlefield tactical nuclear weapons. In the instance of tactical weapons the yield is dial able in most cases, with yields from approximately  1 kiloton or less (equivalent to a thousand tonnes of the explosive TNT) - the larger tactical that dial-able up to a maximum of 100 kilotons.

Today the largest Tactical Nuclear Weapon (Known, to my knowledge from  2019) is the B83 which has a yield of 1.2 Megaton the tactical nuke is only in the arsenal of the United States and again to my knowledge no other Nuclear power has a tactical that is more than 100 Kilotons.

So Cookie Monster read the comments below from the threads in the OP,  this information along with the other information I provided above makes it very clear your comments above that I, responses to are totally inaccurate!

 

“”Located about 60 feet underground, this civil shelter in Helsinki can hold up to 6,000 people. Defying expectations of a dark, damp cave; it's bright, clean and warm, complete with soccer pitch, children's playground, cafeteria and car park. There are 5,500 similar bunkers across the city, creating a vast network of underground facilities that have been built since the 1980s””

If a nuclear power wants to hit a city or military base (not a battle group on the field) then why would they use a tactical nuke? We arent Japanese in wooden board and sheet metal homes in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. A 100 kiloton warhead is not going to wipe out one of our cities built of rebar brick, or reinforced concrete. You dont seem to realise what tactical nukes are used for. On the topic of building materials the USA should be very worried with its obsession of building homes out of wood.

The UK did scenario analysis on likely targets (on itself, not Finland) in a nuclear exchange with Russia. Such analysis are available on the internet for all to see pre and after cold war. They are well publicised in the UK media, do a search of UK nuclear targets, and you will get plenty of hits.

None of the targets have tactical nukes marked against them, they are ICBMs and SLBMs. I have a major military base near me (20km away) expected to take a 6 megaton SLBM which is the maximum yield warhead Russia can currently put on a SLBM. That would very likely kill me. London is expected to take multiple Satan`s which can carry a maximum yield of 18 megatons or multiple lower yield MIRVs. Satan-2 which they have recently come out with can carry up to a single 100 megaton warhead.

Just for your information BAE Systems makes nuclear bunkers here and to at least stand a chance of surviving a 1 megaton ground detonation your bunker has to be at least a kilometre away. And thats an actual bunker, not an underground fallout shelter. The sense of invincibility and naivety here is odd. People thinking 60 feet of dirt and a couple of metres of reinforced concrete on a civilian fallout shelter is going to stop a 1 megaton warhead detonated in its vicinity cracks me up. Its a megaton, its the same as 1 million tons of TNT.

I dont know where the BS some of you believe in comes from LMAO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

American Experience . Race for the Superbomb . Nuclear Blast Mapper | PBS

I quote `A 1 megaton hydrogen bomb, hypothetically detonated on the earth's surface, has about 80 times the blast power of that 1945 explosion` and `At the centre lies a crater 200 feet deep and 1000 feet in diameter. The rim of this crater is 1,000 feet wide and is composed of highly radioactive soil and debris. Nothing recognizable remains within about 3,200 feet (0.6 miles) from the centre, except, perhaps, the remains of some buildings' foundations. At 1.7 miles, only some of the strongest buildings -- those made of reinforced, poured concrete -- are still standing. Ninety-eight percent of the population in this area are dead.`

Just so you know, Russia will not be using megaton warheads, they dont make them that low for hitting cities and military bases unless they are going to plaster a site in MIRVs.

Now some people here need to do their research before claiming other people dont know anything about nuclear weapons.

Edited by Cookie Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

`At the centre lies a crater 200 feet deep

You do know that 200 feet is approximately 60.9 meters, of which the bunkers you are claiming wouldnt survive are 60 meters down and then another couple of meters of reinforced concrete before it penetrates the bunker.

If anyone needs to do actual research, along with reading comprehension its you.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Just so you know, Russia will not be using megaton warheads, they dont make them that low for hitting cities and military bases unless they are going to plaster a site in MIRVs.

Do you know the blast radius of a 1MT nuke? It's not insignificant... I don't know why they would need to plaster a site with MIRVs using warheads with yields of 1MT. 

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

You do know that 200 feet is approximately 60.9 meters, of which the bunkers you are claiming wouldnt survive are 60 meters down and then another couple of meters of reinforced concrete before it penetrates the bunker.

If anyone needs to do actual research, along with reading comprehension its you.

Are you trolling or what? 60 feet has suddenly become 60.9 metres LMAO.

And just for extra giggles if you click the OP article and read it through then its not a nuclear bunker, its a fallout shelter LMAO.

And just for extra extra giggles the bunker doesnt need to be in the crater either, even outside the crater it has the shock wave energy in the ground to hold out against. Thats why with 1 megaton your BAE bunker as to be at least a kilometre away LMAO.

Edited by Cookie Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Do you know the blast radius of a 1MT nuke? It's not insignificant...

If you need to know that click the last link of mine, it contains the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Do you know the blast radius of a 1MT nuke? It's not insignificant... I don't know why they would need to plaster a site with MIRVs using warheads with yields of 1MT. 

Okay, you edited to say what you mean, a 2MT nuke doesnt destroy 2 x the area of a 1MT.

Its not linear scaling. So if you spread say 10 MIRVs over a city area instead of one warhead of the cumulative yield you do more damage.

Edited by Cookie Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Okay, you edited to say what you mean, a 2MT nuke doesnt destroy 2 x the area of a 1MT.

I never said that, and that's not what I "meant".

My point was that a 1MT nuke would be overkill for most cities, so I don't see them using MIRVs with 1MT warheads attached, scattering over a city, unless the goal is to kill absolutely everybody.

15 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Its not linear scaling.

I never said that it was...

Quote

So if you spread say 10 MIRVs over a city area you do more damage.

Yes, but that would be dumb as **** as it would be diminishing returns after like two or three, at most. Besides, you'd only really need one well-placed nuke for explosive/thermal/radiation damage and the EMP would take care of the rest, frying the grid and any electronics over a significant area (unless your sh!t is enclosed in a faraday cage).

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Are you trolling or what? 60 feet has suddenly become 60.9 metres LMAO.

And just for extra giggles if you click the OP article and read it through then its not a nuclear bunker, its a fallout shelter.

I can admit I was skimming and mistook feet for meters, it happens.

If you would of done more research like you want other people to do you would if came across the fact that the bunker mentioned isnt 60 feet underground, at 60 feet underground is where the entrance starts which than goes even deeper into the bedrock before the actual nuclear bunker begins.  Evan than that is just one bunker out of hundreds, other ones start at 50 meters down.  It seems the depths of these bunkers range from starting 20 meters to 80 meters underground.  These bunkers are built into granite which I suspect you dont know just how hard putting a crater into granite along with reinforced concrete is, its significantly harder than creating a 200 foot crater in dirt or sand.

These bunkers were designed to survive a nuclear war.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I can admit I was skimming and mistook feet for meters, it happens.

If you would of done more research like you want other people to do you would if came across the fact that the bunker mentioned isnt 60 feet underground, at 60 feet underground is where the entrance starts which than goes even deeper into the bedrock before the actual nuclear bunker begins.  Evan than that is just one bunker out of hundreds, other ones start at 50 meters down.  It seems the depths of these bunkers range from starting 20 meters to 80 meters underground.  These bunkers are built into granite which I suspect you dont know just how hard putting a crater into granite along with reinforced concrete is, its significantly harder than creating a 200 foot crater in dirt or sand.

These bunkers were designed to survive a nuclear war.

I seem to remember you dismissing my post as factually incorrect, and stating I knew nothing about nuclear weapons. Now you try to turn it around as my fault you dont know what you`re talking about. You stated I was wrong, so how about you post some factual evidence next time you do that to show why?

Oh go on then, you tempted me, you can start with the link showing its in granite and while the entrance is only 60 feet underground the rest of the complex is much deeper lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I never said that, and that's not what I "meant".

My point was that a 1MT nuke would be overkill for most cities, so I don't see them using MIRVs with 1MT warheads attached, scattering over a city, unless the goal is to kill absolutely everybody.

I never said that it was...

Yes, but that would be dumb as **** as it would be diminishing returns after like two or three, at most. Besides, you'd only really need one well-placed nuke for explosive/thermal/radiation damage and the EMP would take care of the rest, frying the grid and any electronics over a significant area (unless your sh!t is enclosed in a faraday cage).

The 2MT was not from you but me starting my explanation. Your original reply was:

`Do you know the blast radius of a 1MT nuke? It's not insignificant... I don't know why they would need to plaster a site with MIRVs using warheads with yields of 1MT.`

So I simply stated why they would use multiple MIRVs on a city. If they are going for a large town or small city then MIRVs probably are a waste. But if they are going for a large city then MIRVs makes sense. The blast radius of a single megaton warhead is not going to destroy all buildings, the radius of the destructive circle is only 1.7 miles - American Experience . Race for the Superbomb . Nuclear Blast Mapper | PBS

Now hit it with multiple MIRVs instead, all adding up to a megaton and it destroys more area because the destructive yield of a warhead does not scale linearly. MIRVs allow for more destruction for their cumulative yield than one big one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The 2MT was not from you but me starting my explanation. Your original reply was:

`Do you know the blast radius of a 1MT nuke? It's not insignificant... I don't know why they would need to plaster a site with MIRVs using warheads with yields of 1MT.`

So I simply stated why they would use multiple MIRVs on a city. If they are going for a large town or small city then MIRVs probably are a waste. But if they are going for a large city then MIRVs makes sense. The blast radius of a single megaton warhead is not going to destroy all buildings, the radius of the destructive circle is only 1.7 miles - American Experience . Race for the Superbomb . Nuclear Blast Mapper | PBS

Now hit it with multiple MIRVs instead, all adding up to a megaton and it destroys more area because the destructive yield of a warhead does not scale linearly. MIRVs allow for more destruction for their cumulative yield than one big one.

You're making the assumption that these detonations would be surface-level, not detonated at altitude. Your link specifically mentions surface blasts.

To maximize the effect it would likely not be detonated at surface level, as surrounding structures and terrain can absorb the energy from the blast and reduce the level of destruction. This is why I said that one well-placed 1MT nuke would be overkill for most cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

You're making the assumption that these detonations would be surface-level, not detonated at altitude. Your link specifically mentions surface blasts.

To maximize the effect it would likely not be detonated at surface level, as surrounding structures and terrain can absorb the energy from the blast and reduce the level of destruction. This is why I said that one well-placed 1MT nuke would be overkill for most cities.

Ground detonations do more damage to buildings over a smaller area, and produce large fallout particles.

Airbursts do less damage to buildings but over a wider area, start a large firestorm, and produce small fallout particles.

It all depends on the effect they want to go for, and we shouldn`t make assumptions as to what will be used. It depends if they want to annihilate or have something left to conquer, and if the city has a lot of below surface structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.