Collapse Responses

[ATOMonkey]

How long? 40'? I'm not positive, but I think you can get a galvalum coated 10' diamter 40' culvert for right around $2k. A galvalum culvert is going to last at least 10 times longer than a painted steel shipping container.

Now consider 10' diamter gives you 78.5 cubic feet/foot of length, and a standard container give 76. So roughly the same volume/length. But the culvert is already prepared to be buried, and will last a lot longer.


I hope you forgot to use your purple there. Can we really trust the "tax-payers" with confidential information? The taxpayers pay for all of our DOD/National Defense stuff, does that mean we should share all the secrets with them so our enemies can get their hands on that info as well?

You can get 60' containers.

I'd rather have a D shaped bridge culvert.

If the government derives power from the people, can the government ever be more powerful than the people?

I have no problem with proprietary technology. As a matter of fact, we already have patent and copy right laws that cover that, and I fully support them.

Troop movement and identities of informants should be kept secret as well. However, we should know where are troops have been and what they've been doing. Future and current ops can and should be kept under lock and key.

I don't believe in making a class of people more important than another either. If the government knows about it, so should I.

After all, the people have the responsibility to elect Repersentatives and Senators, and how can they do that responsibly if they are not fully informed?

Without complete transparency you run the risk of converting from a Republic to an Autocracy.

 

[CountryBoy19]

I'd rather have a D shaped bridge culvert.

Can you expand on your reasoning? Did you watch the video I posted?

Not only will a D-culvert be more expensive, but it will have less volume as well.

If the government ...snip

So you think the only thing that should be protected is future troop movements?

What about secret technologies? Those shouldn't be protected from prying eyes?

I'm not really here to discuss politics. I'm talking about national security. longbow didn't say who/what/where the shelter is to be used. I think we're on two different pages. You're assuming it is to be used for political reasons (protect gov officials) so we should all be allowed to know about it and I'm assuming that it could be a matter of national security and allowing the information to get out could put a dent in our armour.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Without complete transparency you run the risk of converting from a Republic to an Autocracy.

We're not a Republic anymore. We're a Corporatocracy.

I'm not kidding or trying to be humorous.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Can you expand on your reasoning? Did you watch the video I posted?

Not only will a D-culvert be more expensive, but it will have less volume as well.



So you think the only thing that should be protected is future troop movements?

What about secret technologies? Those shouldn't be protected from prying eyes?

I'm not really here to discuss politics. I'm talking about national security. longbow didn't say who/what/where the shelter is to be used. I think we're on two different pages. You're assuming it is to be used for political reasons (protect gov officials) so we should all be allowed to know about it and I'm assuming that it could be a matter of national security and allowing the information to get out could put a dent in our armour.

Secret tech, also known as patented, trade marked, copy righted, trade secret, etc. is already protected, and is owned in part by private industry. So, we're good to go there. Any espionage would be done at the industry where it was invented, not in the bunker where you're trying to hide it. It would also most likely be an inside job.

Secrets don't make a country strong or safe. If there's a secret bunker somewhere, that doesn't make us any better off. Especially if something bad happens. In fact, it will most certainly be the opposite.

In fact, I can't think of one thing that if revealed would make us vulnerable as a nation.

The Security of this Nation lies at the feet of the electorate, not in a secret bunker. We have more to worry about from the mundane than the exotic.

 

[ATOMonkey]

We're not a Republic anymore. We're a Corporatocracy.

I'm not kidding or trying to be humorous.

I know you're not, and I totally agree.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The government so pervades our lives anymore that's it's difficult to discuss anything without making it political.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Secret tech, also known as patented, trade marked, copy righted, trade secret, etc. is already protected, and is owned in part by private industry. So, we're good to go there. Any espionage would be done at the industry where it was invented, not in the bunker where you're trying to hide it. It would also most likely be an inside job.

Do you really feel that things are safe and protected by patents? Technology is like the internet, once something gets out there, it's out. Do you really think that if China or North Korea gets ahold of secret information about DoD that they cannot exploit that information and gain an advantage that they previously didn't hold? Do you think China or NK gives a **** about a US patent on powerful military technology? What do we do if they violate US patent laws? Sue them in "the World Court"?

They don't care what we think or say, that is the whole premise of being an enemy. They spite us, and they would love to get ahold of our secrets and exploit them. If our secrets won't offer any protection to us (as you say) then the DoD as a whole cannot protect either. So do you advocate just dropping the whole military? Leave ourselves unprotected? Why do you think we went into Iraq and ended the "war" in months? Our technology was so superior to theirs that we dominated them. If they had the same technology as us we wouldn't have dominated the fight like we did. The only reason we're still over there is that "they" don't care if they blow up innocent people and we do. If we didn't care we would have wiped them all out a long time ago. It's very hard to fight a war when your enemy cowardly hides behind innocent people.

Secrets don't make a country strong or safe.

Secrets by themselves may not make us safe, but the technologies that those secrets safeguard do make us safe. I don't think that can be refuted at all.

If there's a secret bunker somewhere, that doesn't make us any better off.

Really? How can you be so sure of that? You don't even know what is in the bunker so how do you know if it makes us safer or not?

In fact, I can't think of one thing that if revealed would make us vulnerable as a nation.

Good thing you don't work in DoD then. I'm sorry but you really don't have a clue at all about some of the technologies the US has, and how much it benefits us to keep those technologies out of the hands of our enemies. If you did, you wouldn't feel that way.

On to the bunker thing. You don't have a single clue what it is used for so how can you say that it would be ok to reveal that information? On one hand you're claiming that there is no reason that it needs to be secretive but on the other you and I both know that you don't know a single thing about this bunker other than the fact that it exists. That would be like me saying "we're all going to die when asteroid XXYYZZ hits us" when if fact, all I know is that it exists. I don't know anything at all about it, so how would I know if it will kill us if/when it impacts earth, or if it's even in our galaxy, let along if its going to impact earth.

ETA, do you hold any type of security clearance? I'm guessing no from your thought processes... if you don't hold a clearance then you obviously don't even know what technology we have, so how can you be so sure of what you say?

I do hold a clearance, and I do know some of the technologies we have, and I can say for certain that if some of those secrets were to get out, they would certainly be exploited and they could potentially cause certain doom to the US (depending on what secrets they were and how well they were exploited).

 

[car53]

good read

 

[jeremy]

Most would think that way... but when you look at a true bunker made for living, I like the round shape much better. It is much more economical on "floor space". I'll try to find the video I'm thinking of that shows why.

ETA, found the video. This a very good video to watch, but the pertinent part starts at 7 minute mark. Pay attention to how you can store stuff under the floor, the bunks are to the side (taking up the curved areas on the side, and the lighting can be placed up in the highest part of the curve so as to waste very little volume near the ceiling compared to a box-shaped shelter.

I have spent a fair amount of time having lived in both Culverts and Containers...
I will take a Container over the Culvert any day of the week...

It is far easier to make a Container a living and usable space than it is a Culvert. I would also bet with a little creativity you would end up with far more usable space in the Container...

 

[nate1865]

By the way, it isn't "our" money. It ceases being our money when it is taxed and becomes government money.