Canadian Nuke Bunker To Be Converted Into Data Fortress

miller60 writes "A hosting firm has purchased a nuke-resistant bunker in Novia Scotia, and plans to convert it into a data fortress for financial firms. Bastionhost hopes to attract European financial firms wary of housing sensitive data in the US due to the USA Patriot Act. The facility is one of a series of 'Diefenbunkers' built during the tenure of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker to keep the Canadian government running in the event of a nuclear attack. While not all of these underground data bunker projects work out, a similar nuke-proof bunker in Stockholm, Sweden was recently converted into a stylish high-tech data lair for an ISP."

Comments

I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

Basically, when we ran the numbers for nuclear war beyond a single missile, we realized the resulting nuclear winter would result in all Canadian forces and almost all of the population dying within months, and stopped wasting time on nuclear weapons, as the cost for security was higher than the deliverables of conventional weapons which were not subject to the constraints.

Basically, being in Vancouver BC at the time, you knew you had at least 10 nukes coming down, and even if intercepted, the EMP blast would take out all commercial systems and the radiation and fire storms would destroy all urban centers beyond useful measure.

So the two bunkers were a total waste of time, only there so the politicos could say they had a plan, and served no useful part, from any of our strategic war games planning.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[suso]

Since when did Dungeons and Dragons have nuclear missles? Is that a 4th edition thing?

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Ethanol-fueled]

Well, the artist's rendition sure dosen't make it look very safe.

It looks as sturdy as Windows XP's default wallpaper, they might as well paint a big bullseye on it, its inhabitants should hope that the neighbor's kid dosen't own a BB gun or that the tree dosen't come crashing down on it, etc. etc.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

Department of National Defense, also goes by the French acronym.

At one point, after remuster, I was Chief Clerk for Pacific Region.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[girlintraining]

Since when did Dungeons and Dragons have nuclear missles? Is that a 4th edition thing?

Yeah, it's called otiluke's flaming nuclear hellball. But it can only be used by lawful evil.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

It wasn't supposed to be safe - we couldn't make it safe per se - the best choice was to make it remote and hope nothing hit directly.

The major problem was supply and access, which is why the two bunkers were on the sea - as we figured the leaders could be rescued by boat or one of our two diesel subs (no, that is NOT a misprint).

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did Dungeons and Dragons have nuclear missles? Is that a 4th edition thing?

DND is the Department of National Defense of Canada

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm just amazed that they thought someone would bother nuking Canada. The only people I can think of who would bother are Boston Bruins fans but they would just hit Montreal.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's called otiluke's flaming nuclear hellball. But it can only be used by lawful evil.

It causes 250d20 damage to everything in the dungeon. No saving throws.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the main bunker is in Carp, Ontario, just a few miles from Ottawa, I call into question your post.

It's now a tourist attraction and for anyone visiting the region I highly recommend the tour.

http://www.diefenbunker.ca/

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Godji]

...whoosh...

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong with Diesel subs? they are excellent for coastal defense. Much quieter running on battery than any nuke boat. I wouldn't want to cross the ocean in one though.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Daimanta]

"Since when did Dungeons and Dragons have nuclear missles? Is that a 4th edition thing?"

We call it a magic missile. Present in DNDv2 and nerfed in v3, creating the present magic missile.

Casting magic missile meant wiping out the entire dungeon. Good times, good times.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Capn_Sternn]

Furthermore, there were more than just two bunkers, in fact there were seven. The one in Alberta was sold to a farmer, and was subsequently repurchased at a much higher price by the government when they realised that he was going to resell it to a chapter of the Hell Angels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diefenbunker

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

So the two bunkers were a total waste of time..

Not a waste of time, for in addition to being nuke-proof, they were also designed to be Newfie-proof!

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

The higher risk factor was from intercepted nukes, actually. But any port city gets an automatic set of nukes - one for port, one for military repair, one for major city, one for transportation hub, by the time you add it up it's crispy critter time.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

So you admit there isn't just one bunker.

I only talked about the ones that I were sure were public knowledge, as it's not my job to release information, if you get my drift.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[greedom]

It's human nature to survive. Hell it's the nature of all living things. Even if you know it's futile you'll do anything to get even just a few more hours of life even if that life was miserable after a nuclear fallout.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

Just hug the coast.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

But if we're making jokes about them, and they're on the show This Hour Has 22 Minutes (from Newfoundland), than we've already admitted they aren't Newfie-proof ...

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Capn_Sternn]

"release information"? Get over yourself. The bunkers have been declassified for over a decade. Read the wikipedia article, for crying out loud.

There's no need to try and make it sound like you're "in the know". Anyone who has paid the $5 and taken the public tour could have called your posts into question, as you twice made the assertion that there were only two bunkers, and both were on the sea. Both assertions are false.

Do keep trying to make yourself sound interesting and important, though. Let me know how that works out for ya.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Isn't that just a fireball? Back when I played, we used to refer to them as nukes.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[MarkRose]

And get picked up by all the underwater listening stations?

I know of at least a couple on the BC coast, but I won't say where they are, as the drug smugglers don't need that knowledge. They've been known to damage them in the past.

I must say I'm rather impressed by the secrets the Forces have been able to maintain. There is a lot of stuff that isn't public knowledge.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

true - but it would have sucked up to half our military budget in Canada to do anything useful or have an active nuclear component, so we chose to make a few bunkers to let the politicos think they had a chance, instead.

a wise choice, actually.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[nicolas.kassis]

why not just stay on the coast and shoot air to water missles or something

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[piltdownman84]

The Bunker locations make very sense sense at all. CFS Carp is the only one anywhere close to the government, and even its still 32KM from the parliament in Ottawa. In the event of a ICBM attack, I doubt they could get their in time. The doomsday clock was set to between 7 and 12 minutes during that time.

Looking to where I live, the bunker in BC is in the illogical location of Nanaimo. The government and the entire Canadian fleet is in Victoria (100km away), and the financial centre is in Vancouver (50km of water away). Nanaimo just seems like a very illogical location.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

Unlike you, I live in the USA now, and I have not been closely following this issue. It's been a few decades since I was on active status.

I'm just saying what I know, not what you may have surmised, and I'm trying not to volunteer information that I don't know is common knowledge at this time.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Capn_Sternn]

Seems to be you're trying to make yourself into something you're not: interesting.

The best way to not volunteer information would have been to never post in the first place, especially if you didn't want the inaccuracies in your posts pointed out.

Cheers

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

don't work. missile defense (for a brief part I worked in Boeing Military side) is pretty much a waste of time and money.

interception of long range missiles is not a solution.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

Nanaimo is where our leadership training facilities are, and port subs have access. I did junior and senior leadership training there.

To you it's illogical.

To us it makes perfect sense, in that it's a sheltered bay with sea access, sub access, and likely to survive the nuking of Victoria and Vancouver with minimal risk factors.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

We're talking sea rescue for military and civilian leadership AFTER a nuclear exchange, by which time many listening stations would have been fried out by EMP effects.

Made perfect sense.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

I didn't post that they were turning it into a data store.

Someone else did.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[gstoddart]

I'm just amazed that they thought someone would bother nuking Canada. The only people I can think of who would bother are Boston Bruins fans but they would just hit Montreal.

And, even the Bruins fans will recall the Christmas trees we've been sending down for the last 90 years in gratitude for help after the Halifax Explosion.. There's actually a fairly strong bond between Atlantic Canada and the New England states -- a lot of Empire Loyalists left that area to come to Canada after the Civil war. Some of my ancestors included.

But, on a more serious note, Halifax is a sheltered, deep harbour with a Navy base and an air base. Growing up there during the last bits of the cold war, we were all aware of the fact that we were on the list. It was kind of a depressing fact when we were kids and there was more saber rattling. :(

Cheers

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[camperdave]

That's the honeypot and you fell for it, thus proving its effectiveness.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Mikkeles]

'... would destroy all urban centers beyond useful measure.'

So, it's not all bad, then.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... ZERO sense of humour.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[camperdave]

It's not so much that we were worried about people nuking Canada. We were worried about Russia trying to nuke the States and shorting on the distance.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

um, yeah, but the resulting nuclear winter would kill most plant and animal life.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

I failed my humour roll and used the Golden Croissant of St-Georges instead.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Zerth]

Or a barrel full of delayed blast fireball gems. Heave, 1 2 3, boom.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

TSR had (and still has, I think) a sci-fi RPG called "Gamma World" - it's mentioned a few times in various (A)D&D books.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Hoi Polloi]

I actually saw the tree being carried on a flatbed to Boston this year. It had a police escort and a banner on it saying "From the people of Nova Scotia".

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Trails]

That's because they were in fact socio political experiments. For example one of the bunkers had a single faulty water chip, whereas another bunker had an excess of water chips, but no GECK.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

Halifax != Montreal, as you well know!
We like Halifax. Montreal, not so much (St. Catherine Street excepted). OT, and it's actually kind of sad, but most Bostonians have no clue about the significance of the Halifax tree. I find myself explaining the meaning of it to many, many people every year. My parents were both from Nova Scotia and I take great pride in my heritage.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the Cold War. Who wasn't on "the list"? I figured either a nuke for a city, port, naval shipbuilder, or nuclear plant would kill me instantly or cause me to die a slow painful death. I was a kid, and I didn't worry about it because there was nothing I could do about it.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[DerekLyons]

Basically, when we ran the numbers for nuclear war beyond a single missile, we realized the resulting nuclear winter would result in all Canadian forces and almost all of the population dying within months, and stopped wasting time on nuclear weapons

An interesting claim since the Canadians stopped 'wasting time' on nuclear weapons in the 60's, and nuclear winter wasn't even discussed as a theory until the 1980's, and since it takes far more than one missile to instigate nuclear winter...
 
 

Basically, being in Vancouver BC at the time, you knew you had at least 10 nukes coming down, and even if intercepted, the EMP blast would take out all commercial systems and the radiation and fire storms would destroy all urban centers beyond useful measure.

As they say, what 'everyone knows' is usually false.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, when we ran the numbers for nuclear war beyond a single missile, we realized the resulting nuclear winter would result in all Canadian forces and almost all of the population dying within months...

Basically, being in Vancouver BC at the time...

I think your conclusion was biased. ;)

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Xaoswolf]

Wait...

Who would be bombing canada? And 10 nukes? Really? I can see perhaps one, but not 10...

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[CodeBuster]

Carl Sagan, in a televised debate with William F Buckley Jr following a showing of the 1983 television movie The Day After , discussed the concept of nuclear winter and compared the arms race to "two sworn enemies standing waist-deep in gasoline, one with three matches and the other with five". In fact, the only really sensible response to the whole affair was to live near a primary target so that one would be spared the horror of survival (i.e. instant and relatively painless death). It is interesting to note that many people in the public perceive the Cold War as being behind us when in fact, many of the weapons systems that menaced mankind during those years were never taken off line and remain operational to this day.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Jardine]

a lot of Empire Loyalists left that area to come to Canada after the Civil war. Some of my ancestors included.

Were they hiding in the time between the Revolutionary war and the Civil war?

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Xaoswolf]

Maybe they added the Nuclear Winter Fireball that got taken out of Hackmaster.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[eln]

The funny thing about the cold war, especially during the big arms buildup era in the 80s, was that just about everywhere you went was a target. I lived in 4 different cities in 4 different states growing up, and everywhere I went people would name a nearby military base/government installation/testing ground/other strategic target and say "at least if they start dropping the bombs we'll just be vaporized". The sad part is, with the number of nuclear weapons that were in play at the time, every one of them was probably right.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

let me do the math for you - one for port, one for military repair capability at port, one for HQ (it's next to Jericho Park), one for rail hub, one for universities, one for pop center over 100,000, and you add it up and it's 10.

next time think before critiquing.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

Yes. Ten.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

We actually had the highest survival probabilities - both in BC and in Newfoundland.

BC due to mountains and shielding, plus fresh water locked in glaciers, and Newfoundland due to the ocean.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

About half of the weapons systems we were concerned about are still in operational status.

The amusing thing is many of them rely on vacuum tubes and suchlike for their circuitry, although this makes them more resistant to EMP pulses.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[DerekLyons]

I did think before critiquing, after all I've only been study nuclear warfare issues for nearly thirty years.

What I didn't do is confuse sophomoric handwaving and fear mongering with actual thought and knowledge.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

nice. are you in the Canadian Military? ...

thought so.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[bitrex]

Unfortunately, one would have to be pretty darn close to ground zero to get that kind of instant death. The human body can be remarkably resilient to blast overpressure, and only a very small area would be subject to enough radiant flux to actually vaporize a person. A more likely scenario for anyone inside the radius of 5-10 psi overpressure but farther out than a mile or two from ground zero would be death from blood loss due to flying debris, or serious burns, or being trapped and asphyxiated by fires starting in collapsed structures. None of these people would survive for any extended period of time, but their deaths would certainly not be instant or painless.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Golddess]

Just because they understand it was a joke, that doesn't mean they can't still post what DND actually stands for in this context (although I suppose it would have helped for them to mention they knew it was a joke).

I for one am grateful that they posted what it stood for, for I would not have known otherwise.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

plutonium dragon, young: 1000d6 damage. (ancient is actually weaker, due to the radioactive decay)

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were, you would know that it's the Department of National Defence.... not Defense, you American spy.

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[gstoddart]

Were they hiding in the time between the Revolutionary war and the Civil war?

Doh!! My bad. Yes, of course, Revolutionary not Civil war.

Thanks for the correction. :-P

Cheers

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[WillAffleckUW]

hard to keep the dialects straight

Re:I remember our planning in DND

[floorpirate]

There's probably a still-secret pneumatic tube system running straight from Parliament, 24 Sussex, and the other major political buildings, all the way to the Diefenbunker in Carp ;)

It's Nova Scotia

[barberousse]

Not Novia Scotia.

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[whtmarker]

mod parent up 1

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[asn]

please correct summary.

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[WillAffleckUW]

I thought it was Nouvelle Ecosse ...

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[YttriumOxide]

I find it a little interesting that it's called "Nouvelle Écosse" in French, but "Nova Scotia" in English... why not "New Scotland"?

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess they liked their Latin names back in ol' scotland. As a biligual country the french refer to it in a translation to French. Besides, New Scotland sounds so boring and so close to New England...and it kinda makes you think of supernovas which are pretty cool

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[RealGrouchy]

I think the new name is a very novial idea!

- RG>

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[Anonymous Coward]

If you _really_ want to be pedantic, you might say the true (read: original) French name is Acadie..

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[WillAffleckUW]

It's Latin.

Just like most state mottos.

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[YttriumOxide]

Yes... I am well aware of the origin of the name. What I was musing over was the interesting fact that it's named quite "plainly" in French, but in English we use a non-English name for it. This doesn't happen in most places - even very multilingual places like Confoederatio Helvetica (itself a Latin name, but better known as "Switzerland" in English) people just use the "plain" name in whatever language they're speaking.

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[WillAffleckUW]

That's because another province has another name that also means the same thing.

And it borders Maine.

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was New Scotland!!

Re:It's Nova Scotia

[rs79]

I thought Novia made phones and the Scotia was the white one with the blue stripes.

Then why Canada?

[suso]

If they are worried about the USA Patriot Act, then why Cananda?

I recently returned from Mexico to the US and there was some policy they stated saying if you are a US or Canadian citizen, you don't have to fill out an I-94. Ok, I didn't know they were the same country?

Re:Then why Canada?

[ducomputergeek]

My thoughts exactly. Doesn't that just mean the NSA then intercepts data via the traditional satellites, listening posts, and cable taps? After all, one of their original mandates is collecting foreign intelligence. They don't need the Patriot Act for that...it's their jobs.

Re:Then why Canada?

[JCSoRocks]

The real question is what is Canada doing with nuclear bunkers? Like anyone's going to bother bombing them. :P

Re:Then why Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are worried about the USA Patriot Act, then why Cananda?

Because Canada isn't the US and has strict privacy laws?

Fact is the Canadian research network Canarie carries huge amounts of Asian and European research traffic because of the fears some have of the US Patriot Act.

Re:Then why Canada?

[idontgno]

You're assuming that the Russkies are good shots.

Hell, I worked for the U.S. Air Force, and I wouldn't assume WE were good shots.

If you're living on an extended patch of ground between two nuclear adversaries, you'd have to be pretty cavalier about living to not have some kind of protection against "short rounds".

Re:Then why Canada?

[WillAffleckUW]

Most people still don't realize the vast majority of communications satellites are actually made in Canada.

Re:Then why Canada?

[WillAffleckUW]

To not waste money on having an active nuclear programme, we had to provide the political top leadership a face-saving way of thinking they could save themselves, hence the bunkers.

In all scenarios, our command structure would have fried, only mountain units would have been functional, and survival for more than a few months in Canada itself would have been highly unlikely.

Re:Then why Canada?

[Nos.]

The US can require whatever it wants for people coming into the country, and they can decide on those requirements based on the citizenship if they desire.

However, housing data in Canada is a completely different story. As an IT person in Canada, I can tell you this. Whenever we outsource something that may put data in the vendors hands, its now a requirement that the data stay in Canada, specifically because of the Patriot Act. Sure, there's issues with in-transit data passing through other jurisdictions, but that's a necessary risk that can be dealt with via encryption. Raids by government officials with laws to back them up are not necessary risks, at least not for us in Canada.

Re:Then why Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Encryption;
2. US No Longer the World's Internet Hub

Re:Then why Canada?

[mewsenews]

Canadians crossing the border into the United States are almost always covered by alternate legislation than the Rest of The World. Since I was a child the only identification a Canadian needed was a birth certificate. Since 9/11 the Americans have been trying to require passports for land crossings but it keeps being pushed back, although it is required for air travel by Canadians into the USA now.

I didn't know they were the same country?

No, just good friends.

Re:Then why Canada?

[MarkRose]

The real question is what is Canada doing with nuclear bunkers? Like anyone's going to bother bombing them. :P

You're catching on. These buildings actually have a different primary purpose. They're designed like bunkers so no one could devine their real reason for existence: they're some of the few places in Canada where one can seek refuge from Céline Dion.

Re:Then why Canada?

[boudie2]

The only reason we'd be bombed is because we're friends with the United States. Sometime friendship can carry a heavy price.

Re:Then why Canada?

[JCSoRocks]

Awesome. How are you not +5 funny? Lazy mods...

Re:Then why Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Site examples or it's not true

Re:Then why Canada?

[MarkRose]

I only posted that an hour ago, that's why.

Re:Then why Canada?

[ceoyoyo]

Communication satellites don't really have "sites." More like "orbits."

Re:Then why Canada?

[ceoyoyo]

If you send your data over the air (cable, whatever) encrypted, then you've got a chance. Nobody really knows how good a chance, but a chance.

If your data ends up on a server in the US, which decrypts it for some reason, then that server can be physically accessed and your data is definitely compromised. If it's in Canada, the server is off limits.

Re:Then why Canada?

[ceoyoyo]

Customs and immigration between the US and Canada is a bit special because so many Canadians live so close to the US border. There are even towns that straddle the border.

We are definitely NOT the same country though.

Re:Then why Canada?

[vux984]

If you're living on an extended patch of ground between two nuclear adversaries, you'd have to be pretty cavalier about living to not have some kind of protection against "short rounds".

The real issue is that several Canadian targets were of strategic significance in a US/USSR war. Winnipeg, Manitoba for example is several times more populous than any city in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, or Minnesota*. Winnipeg has the largest international airport by far in the area. The closest alternative would be Minneapolis/St Paul 700km to the SE -- which would also be a target.

If you were the USSR bombing military and civilian you'd have to be a complete moron to leave Winnipeg standing? 50 miles north of the US border, with an airfield capable of supporting the big planes?

Several other Canadian sites had similar strategic significance by being comparatively large cities with lots of facilities (such as airfields, shipyards, rail hubs, etc) in strategic 'northern' positions.

There were also other likely Canadian targets like major hydroelectric dams, etc.

* Note: Minnesota's Mineapolis/St Paul metro area is considerably larger than Winnipeg. But that's the only exception - and as noted it would also be a target; plus its 700km to the SE, on the far eastern edge of the block of 5 states mentioned.

Re:Then why Canada?

[aqk]

What are "site examples"?

  Could you cite some?

Re:Then why Canada?

[aqk]

Don't know how many times you have driven, bicycled or jogged into the US in the past year, but you most likely needed a passport.
If you have some secret method of avoiding this requirement, let me know.
I need a passport. But they did relax it a couple of times several months ago when I initially forgot it.
  Not any more.
I live just north of the 45th parallel, and as such, visit the US frequently.

And (sigh) my passport is up for renewal in January. Damn. Another 100$ !

  .
  -
 

Re:Then why Canada?

[Shadyman]

Two words: NEXUS Card. It makes border crossings quick and painless.

Random on-topic fact of the day, an estimated 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border.

Re:Then why Canada?

[aqk]

Thanx. Much appreciated.

I've heard of this "magical" card, but in my wisdom, only asked the US Homeland Security armed guard.
Of course he ain't never heard of such stuff...

I'm scared somehow, that if I DO buy this $50 card, the homeland security guys will gather round, and...
  "Hey, Billie-Bob! Come'n see this weird card this Canadian has!"
"OK, now, son.. No more foolin' around. Whars yer passport?"

Will look into it anyhow. Thanx again.

.

Re:Then why Canada?

[shutdown -p now]

I recall reading somewhere that, should a full-fledged nuke exchange between the USA and Russia ever occur, Canada would get the short end of the stick anyway, because all the missiles that are going to be intercepted by both sides will be shot down above Canada. This isn't a nuclear explosion, of course, but dusting by several tonnes of strongly radioactive materials isn't much better in the long term.

Re:Then why Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm ... Yeah - wtf? I thought Boeing makes a fair number of them - and they're clearly not doing that in Canada.

Like there's Telesat, but they just got sold (well most of it at least) to Loral - which is just part of L3 - so in the end - American. But sure, they manufacture Telesat's satellites in Ottawa.

"Vast majority" - maybe a considerable number - surely an economy with 10x the population, and I don't know - 10000x times the spending on national defence - would manage to dent the comm-sat industry.

Please don't be one of the many "Canada is the bestest at everything!" types ... it gets tiring and makes us look like a bunch of jackasses.

Re:Then why Canada?

[WillAffleckUW]

just do a numeric count - you have to realize a lot of the lifts from the EU, China, and Japan are mostly Canuck sats.

Re:Then why Canada?

[FailedTheTuringTest]

I call bullshit. A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that Telesat is the only Canadian satellite company (and it's nearly 2/3 owned by Loral, an American company). Telesat's Wikipedia page indicates that it operates 12 satellites. By way of comparison, Motorola built 66 Iridium satellites in the USA, just as an example of one project. I do not believe that "the vast majority of communications satellites are actually made in Canada".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communication_satellite_companies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telesat

Re:Then why Canada?

[WillAffleckUW]

try reading the business pages sometimes.

perhaps I should have said commercial long-term systems.

Re:Then why Canada?

[FailedTheTuringTest]

I do read the business pages fairly often, but I'm afraid I don't recall any details of reporting on Canadian communications satellites. I turned to Wikipedia but I know Wikipedia is not always complete or up to date so am happy to be corrected. Can you remind us of the names of the Canadian companies that are making the vast majority of communications satellites or commercial long-term systems?

Barbarians at the gate!

[squoozer]

I hope they realize that no amount of thick doors and walls or even burying the whole thing underground is going to stop 99.99999% of the attacks on this place, assuming of course that they actually intend to connect it to the Internet. While this is pretty cool I can't really see the point in it. The facility won't be easy to fit cooling, power and connectivity too and because it's underground there is a significant and on going risk of flooding. I would have thought a purpose built above ground facility with soild 5m razor wire topped walls and lots of hungry dogs would have been better.

Re:Barbarians at the gate!

[Hal_Porter]

If you have razor wire and dogs you can fortify most any basement server room.

Re:Barbarians at the gate!

[NervousWreck]

They probably plan on keeping it offline. At least if they have any sense. maybe they think the advertising value of an underground bunker beats the costs of cooling and waterproofing. Doesn't make sense from that perspective but who said it had to. I'm going with razorwire.

Re:Barbarians at the gate!

[ChrisA90278]

But this bunker was built to house a government. It has power, backup power and a backup for the backup power and all kinds of good redundant data connectivity. I've not seen this bunker but the few I've seen are designed to be very robust with multiple backups for everything and then if all else fails there are water, food, tools, parts and equipment stored in closets distributed throughout the facility. Don't assume it's a hole in the ground with just bare concrete walls

Re:Barbarians at the gate!

[m50d]

While this is pretty cool I can't really see the point in it. The facility won't be easy to fit cooling, power and connectivity too and because it's underground there is a significant and on going risk of flooding.

You're forgetting that these things may well have already been dealt with. It was designed to withstand a nuclear war - and to provide a working military command center during one. It will certainly have a serious power supply and an even more serious ventilation system; connectivity may well be a problem, but it's likely to have at least a few lines in and out, which should mean tunnels have already been dug; with luck it may be as simple as threading fibre optics through them.

I would have thought a purpose built above ground facility with soild 5m razor wire topped walls and lots of hungry dogs would have been better.

Sure it would be. It'd also be a lot more expensive - those sorts of facilities are useful to all sorts of organizations. No-one would be considering housing a data center in an underground bunker like this if they had to build it themselves - but they don't. The military has many that it can't really use, and they'll do well to get any money selling them, because really there's very little such a facility can be used for. So the price is low, and that makes it worthwhile.

Re:Barbarians at the gate!

[camperdave]

Um... Good redundant data connectivity as of the Diefenbaker era: ie two 300 baud modems.

Re:Barbarians at the gate!

[WillAffleckUW]

This was a face-saving measure, to help our political top leadership think they had a rabbit hole, and not waste half the Canadian Defense Budget on owning and operating nuclear missiles and defenses in the first place.

Far cheaper too.

Security through obscurity for the most part - not worth wasting a nuke on.

Re:Barbarians at the gate!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stringing new cable would seem to be a rather trival upgrade compared to the cost of replicating the other features the GP mentioned.

Re:Barbarians at the gate!

[WillAffleckUW]

Back then 300 baud was fast and 120 baud was good for commercial use.

I remember when 1200 baud came out.

what

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that seriously say "Novia" Scotia?

If we could post images in comments, there'd be a picture of Picard with his face in his hand here.

Re:what

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Srsly. I'm in yer bunkr, mispeling yer wurds.

Re:what

[blind biker]

Srsly. I'm in yer bunkr, mispeling yer wurds.

Canadain Nuke Bunker Lolcat.

Is this how /. memes begin?

a bit spendy?

[girlintraining]

I propose a different plan: Encrypt and decentralize. It's cheaper, you can put your servers most anywhere, and they'll survive anything short of global thermonuclear warfare. But of course, if that does happen... Chances are good you won't care. At least, not for long. It's great to have datacenters that can survive a nuclear fallout, but machines surviving has never been the problem... it's the people that generally don't make it. And good luck running your business without them.

Re:a bit spendy?

[steveo777]

True that. Unless your business is actual information for after the nuclear holocaust. Say, storing up books, archives, schematics of all human knowledge. Who cares about bank accounts and what not, if civilization wiped out tons of people, you'd need information to rebuild. And, since your business stores information that is timeless data, then you'll actually have customers left over. On the other hand if you're just holding sales records and strategies for some demographic, well that info is useless because 95% of that demo is dead and the rest likely don't need whatever you were selling anyway.

Thebunker.net data center in UK

[billstewart]

A decade or so ago, thebunker.net bought a UK nuclear bunker to set up a data center. It had good connectivity to power grids, generators, and cheap cooling because it was underground. It also sounded cool, and they were able to sell to lots of London banks concerned about natural disasters and civil disturbances. They were able to get it relatively cheaply, and the savings in cooling costs were really valuable financially during years when other data centers were having trouble making money; I think they've acquired a second bunker by now.

Re:Thebunker.net data center in UK

[dargaud]

Why was the cooling cheap ? I'd expect cooling to be the major problem with bunker data havens. You need to evacuate the heat to the surface.

Re:Thebunker.net data center in UK

[MarkRose]

Because you can dump that heat into the surrounding ground. Think geothermal energy reversed. The only time you can't do that is when the ground is too unstable for piping (which would mean it's a bad place for a bunker anyway), or when the ground is permafrost.

Re:Thebunker.net data center in UK

[dargaud]

1. Heat conduction of the ground is pretty poor.
2. Heat will build up very quickly
3. The ground is already pretty warm as it is (it's the average temperature of the place some meters underground, and only increases the deeper you go). Meaning if you want to dump excess heat in the Texas underground, you'll need additional heat exchangers, meaning even less efficiency.
4. Geothermy works because there are physical fluxes: hot water flowing through porous ground, lava flow nearby (Iceland).

I'm completely surprised that some people get it to work. I'd love to see a temperature curve of the surrounding ground. Personally I've had the opposite problems, getting servers to run in places that are too cold...

Re:Thebunker.net data center in UK

[shutdown -p now]

UK? As in, the country where you're required to disclose your private encryption keys to the law enforcement agencies when requested, or face imprisonment?

Wow, that's a great choice for a secure data center...

Re:Thebunker.net data center in UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of cheap cooling because it is underground, why not just have regular building with cheap cooling because it uses the underground (eg. geothermal cooling??)

Most people heard of geothermal heating and people that actually HAVE IT know that it is an excellent air-conditioner (much more efficient than air-air systems). Heck, easier to cool than heat using geothermal.

Bond movie

[Anonymous Coward]

The one in Stockholm looks like a great set for a bond movie

Patriot Act?

[stimuli_ii]

I hope they realize that a significant amount of Internet traffic goes through the States. I doubt they could 100% guarantee protection from the Patriot Act.

Re:Patriot Act?

[TheRaven64]

Anything going over the public Internet should be encrypted anyway, unless you want it to be public. They are worried about interception near the endpoints.

Canadian Goverment continue to work?

[Anonymous Coward]

HA! They can't even work OUTSIDE a nuclear bunker. Not like they ever needed it.

Good for data warehousing

[nizo]

Plus, extra good when the hungry mobs with pitchforks and torches start looking for people to blame for the current financial situation.

Re:Good for data warehousing

[JCSoRocks]

Even better in the event of a zombie apocalypse! Just make sure you've got a zombie plan. You can't just assume that you'll be able to keep them out. If one gets in, you've got to be ready.

Novia Scotia???

[courteaudotbiz]

"A hosting firm has purchased a nuke-resistant bunker in Novia Scotia..."

Not supposed to be NOVA Scotia?

Re:Novia Scotia???

[koalapeck]

The worst part is that TFA even has it spelled correctly, only Slashdot chose to ruin it.

Info Bunker

[Anonymous Coward]

There is already one in the US, it is near Boone, IA

http://infobunker.com/

Re:Info Bunker

[Swervin]

Exactly, old news. I've been to the Infobunker before. Pretty neat place, good security too. It used to be a communications facility.

from the canada-has-nukes? dept...?

[clone53421]

Ok, not trying to be overly critical here, but the bunker was intended to protect people from nukes, not to store nukes. What's with the canada-has-nukes business?

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...?

[courteaudotbiz]

You're right, Canada does not possess any weapons of mass destruction... We're just good friends with our neighbors who possess a shitload of nukes.

Always good to have a nuclear bunker if your neighbor even has a slight chance to be part of a nuclear conflict.

Reading the link posted in this comment, I just learned that a secret Canada-US agreement has been signed in my city, Quebec.

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...?

[Aladrin]

So tag it:

!nukes

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...?

[gstoddart]

Ok, not trying to be overly critical here, but the bunker was intended to protect people from nukes, not to store nukes. What's with the canada-has-nukes business?

Well, we have one of the few nuclear reactors which is used to make medical isotopes for the world supply. We also have some nuclear power plants.

But, you're right. We don't have those kinds of weapons, and don't want them. Our military has largely had peace-keeping and aid missions for the last few decades.

Cheers

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...?

[WillAffleckUW]

Canada specifically built these to avoid spending money on actually HAVING nukes.

It was to give the political leadership cover and the false hope they could survive a large nuclear exchange between the USSR and the USA that would result in the ending of all organized life in Canada.

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...?

[MarkRose]

I beg to differ! We have airborne water tankers for putting out forest fires. Just fill them up with the slime from Hamilton Harbour, and they'll kill anything!

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...?

[clone53421]

Yes, but I'm just wondering why it's from the "canada-has-nukes?" department. Having a nuclear bunker doesn't imply that you have nukes.

Bunker at Debert and Great Village

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, I live about 10 miles from this bunker. also, there is another smaller bunker in Great Village, about 5 miles from my house, which was the NATO communications center and was connected to the bunker in Debert by underground cable. There are still a lot of radio towers at the Great Village site and I believe the military still operates it for something.
    When I was a kid we used to drive our dirtbikes into the enclosure and on top of the bunker until someone would come out, jump in a military van and chase us down the dirt road and through the corn fields. Great fun for 13 year olds, LOL.
    Maybe something like this in the area would jumpstart our internet connectivity around here, it sucks.

The last fallout shelter I was in..

[tsstahl]

The last fallout shelter I was in succumbed to water. We had to stand on top of the bunker to call in fire considered to be danger close.

are we as safe as our data

[yowlanku]

one day we all shall be dead, and all our data will still be safe.

Re:are we as safe as our data

[geomobile]

one day we all shall be dead, and all our data will still be safe.

Which is true anyway. At least for a lot of our data, independently of if we put some of it in bunkers or not.

Nukes-shmukes

[Godji]

Meh, who needs protection from nukes anyway? As long as all the data is safe, the Slashdot crowd will never notice the world has ended, unless they hit Google.

Re:Nukes-shmukes

[shutdown -p now]

You mean, Google doesn't have its own nuclear bunker?

Die Hard?

[Uchiha]

Isn't this exactly what happened in Die Hard? Firesale?

Bahnhof in Sweden already did this

[mikael_j]

Swedish ISP Bahnhof already did this. Still cool though...

/Mikael

Re:Bahnhof in Sweden already did this

[m50d]

My university has a plan of potentially buying an old nuclear bunker and making it the backup data center. There're a few concerns about being able to get enough cabling in though.

Re:Bahnhof in Sweden already did this

[kv9]

Swedish ISP Bahnhof already did this. Still cool though...

perhaps they should have linked that in the blurb...

I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months

[Phrogman]

when I was in the Reserves (Communications) I worked down in one of these facilities in Penhold Alberta. Bank vault style doors, a complete hospital, TV studio, a massive number of Government offices etc (If there is a nuclear war going on, why exactly do we need offices for the Unemployment Department?), all built under many feet of steel and concrete buried 30 ft underground and standing on massive springs to reduce shock. They were pretty impressive. They are several stories tall inside and no doubt about as secure a facility as you could ever want to store your servers in :)

Re:I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months

[Mikkeles]

'(If there is a nuclear war going on, why exactly do we need offices for the Unemployment Department?)'

Who is going to be employed following a nuclear war?

Re:I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months

[Phrogman]

Whoosh. That was rather my point. I noticed the Unemployment office had its own rooms in the bunker and wondered why they bothered :P

Re:I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months

[Mikkeles]

Whoosh right back:)

Since they will be unemployed, they will make use of unemployment insurance!

Re:I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months

[Phrogman]

Since the vast majority will be dead or dying, the national infrastructure will be destroyed and quite likely beyond repair and there will be NO economy to speak of, I think applying for unemployment insurance will be moot. Finding food and shelter might be applicable but by and large the largest activity the majority of the population will be engaged in is dying from radiation exposure or starvation. Don't forget something like 90% of our population in Canada lives within 200 miles of the US-Canadian border. The typical NA city has no more than 3 days worth of food inside city limits most of the time. When the US gets nuked back to the Stone Age, most of us go with them, even if we weren't directly targeted. Whats left won't be in any position to argue they deserve UI benefits :P

Sounds a lot like....

[mbreitba]

The infobunker - http://www.infobunker.com/ I've actually visited the facility, and it's pretty impressive. Those cold-war guys really took things an extra step. Overall, a little more than what I need for my hosting needs, but if someone needed security, those facilities definately provide the needed protection.

Re:Sounds a lot like....

[WillAffleckUW]

You should see the Swiss underground defense facilities - they make these look like kids toys.

Everything but forgetting who has the key

[professorguy]

They'll survive anything short of global thermonuclear warfare.

.

They'll survive anything short of someone misplacing the key. Keeping the key in a central repository or distributing pieces of it makes it vulnerable to destruction. And decentralizing the key (give everyone a copy) makes the system less secure.

I guess you need a partition that allows N people to each have a unique piece of the key, but only x pieces are required to reconstruct the whole. If x << N AND x > 1, you might have a shot.

User Friendly did this in 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

They had the cartoon ISP techs work in an old silo.

Bunkers no longer needed.

[LoyalOpposition]

Actually, this is in response to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's act of shutting down Parliament. If the government isn't working, then bunkers aren't needed to keep it working, eh?

-Loyal

Re:Bunkers no longer needed.

[MarkRose]

So he had Parliament prorogued two weeks early for the holidays. Whoop-dee-do.

Test It Before Buying It

[Doc Ruby]

I used to work in a converted "nuke-proof" bunker right outside Toronto that Northern Telecom operated as a datacenter. Buried underground and under thousands of tons of concrete. Through a series of Get Smart type security/airlocks. Down the hatch, among the servers, I used to feel more secure than anywhere else I'd ever been.

Until my pager went off.

There's no way that bunker was "nuke proof", if puny radio signals for a pager could get through. And no, they didn't have a repeater or anything - in fact, when I asked if my pager would work down there, they laughed, and told me no, but I'd have to leave mine topside if I had one (or a cell phone, though those weren't common yet) because there wasn't supposed to be any equipment operating in that range down there (even just receiving), as part of the "shielding protocol".

Clearly, the prohibition of them was just a way to hide the fact that they'd work, showing the bunker was "leaky". And then, to prove it, I brought my cellphone down there to use whenever I wanted, despite their protocols.

Re:Test It Before Buying It

[TechwoIf]

I bet they worked due to all the steel reflecting the radio singles to where you was. While VHF will not work, UHF and higher frequencies are used by construction companies due to the fact they work in steel structures.

Re:Test It Before Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you referring to the building on the Nortel Campus in Brampton off West dr? I literally had no idea that very bland looking building(albeit windowless) was actually an underground datacentre. And to think, I drove by that building almost everyday for 10yrs and had no idea a bunker was down the street from my house. I wonder what Rogers is doing with it now :)

Re:Test It Before Buying It

[Doc Ruby]

I don't think so. And even if it did, the high intensity RF from a nuke blast would travel those routes, whatever they were, and fry you. If not you, then all the equipment you were counting on to survive. Like the datacenter in there.

Re:Test It Before Buying It

[realisticradical]

Really? My cell phone doesn't work in the basement of my house. Was this some sort of magic super cell phone? And where do I buy one?

Re:Test It Before Buying It

[Anonymous Coward]

Radiowaves have this nasty habit of going everywhere where they're not supposed to. Having worked with EMC rooms, my guess is that the pager frequencies (possibly around 400MHz) got through open or badly sealed doors, unsealed ventilation shafts or just simply piggybacking on power or networking cables. Yes it can happen.

I suppose that to be EMP safe the whole bunker would have to be sealed with metal-on-metal contacts and any copper lines would have to have massive RF/surge filters installed. Somehow I think that a telecomms company cares fairly little about making some "adjustments" to a former nuclear bunker, thus making it less tight with RF/EMP in mind. Beware of marketing claims...

Technically speaking the sensitivity of your pager is much better than of your cellphone. A pager can work in surprisingly bad signal conditions. All it does is receive a slow datarate stream which is far easier to receive error free compared to encoded speech.

Also keep in mind that RF radiation is not the same thing as gamma rays. RF energy can bounce along corridors (especially ones with metal walls) or piggyback on copper cables. Gamma rays will not go around a corner if you don't count bremsstrahlung or scattering ;). Nuclear bunkers usually have over-pressure systems installed so minor leaks aren't a problem since contaminated air isn't getting in. A simple vault door and a slight overpressure will keep the radioactive dust away and a bend in the tunnel takes care of the direct rays. Ten meters of solid rock in itself is ample protection from fallout radiation. Leakage of RF power is a whole different issue.

Re:Test It Before Buying It

[owlstead]

Loosing my mod points here, but was the nuke-proof building still nuke-proof after retrofitting it to be a data center? Lots of cables and stuff going out of the bunker won't do it much good I suppose.

Re:Test It Before Buying It

[Doc Ruby]

It was a nuke bunker for telecom equipment since it was originally built by NorTel, and was supposed to have remained such. But I think it never was.

Who was going to ask for their money back under the warranty if they found out the hard way that they were sold a lemon?

Hitchhikers explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh no, not again..."

- pot of petunias

deac in latvia had this for some time already

[richlv]

while i'd expect them to mention this themselves, hosting provider and isp deac in latvia has been using ex-ussr bomb bunker for quite some time.
http://www.deac.lv/?object_id=1083.
it is said to be 9m above sea level and 12m under the ground.

Seriously?

[DarthVain]

My first though as a Canadian was "We have a nuke-resistant bunker?"

My second thought as a Nova Scotian was "WTF? Pass me a Keiths!"

Seriously though, how bizarre. Kinda surprised that we had any (outside of the women packed mine shafts of Carlton U. Everyone knows its not a real university anyway).

Though I suppose if I were going to waste a nuke on Canada I would probably hit Vancouver and Halifax (and maybe Ottawa because of the dirty politicians, and perhaps Toronto, well just because its Toronto, smug bastards...) due to the ports and the possibility the USA using them.

So the bunker is probably in Halifax.

Then again I already have a nuke-resistant bunker in Nova Scotia. Its called my parents place who I will be visiting for Christmas in Kentville. No one in there right mind is going to hit Kentville.

Alternative punchline would be any house in Sask. except maybe Moosejaw (Air force base with jets and everything!).

That said, I think its cool that they are turning it into an IT data center. Fun times.

Re:Seriously?

[Neon Aardvark]

Canada is and was in NATO, so probably would have gotten thoroughly nuked in the event of US/Soviet all out war.

Plus, I'd wager the Soviets viewed it as de facto a part of the US (no offense).

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bunker is in Debert, actually. It used to be part of a museum, and a friend of mine gave tours there. I really wish I had gone before all this. Just don't let an American company have the bunker, that's all I ask. (No offense Americans!)

Re:Seriously?

[boudie2]

As a fellow Nova Scotian, I believe the bunker is in Debert, just outside of Truro. I'm surprised they haven't already turned it into a call centre, as you can't throw a rock in this province without hitting one. Have my name in right now for a job doing tech support for Comcast. I'm preparing by practicing my "Have you tried unplugging your modem and plugging it back in?"

Re:Seriously?

[rs79]

"Though I suppose if I were going to waste a nuke on Canada I would probably hit Vancouver and Halifax (and maybe Ottawa because of the dirty politicians, and perhaps Toronto, well just because its Toronto, smug bastards...)"

Karma is a bitch. They won't be so smug when they loose a zero off the end of their house value and paycheck.

I used to live there, but moved far enough away to be safe but close enough to watch it burn.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bunker is nowhere near Halifax. My future in-law used to work this bunker. I've been there, and my fiancee has been inside. It looks very depressing on the outside and she has confirmed its just as depressing on the outside. At this time just about anyone

Also, if you were Nuking Canada you would probably hit North Bay First, and as a result would probably not need to hit ottawa. North Bay hosts NORAD2.

Halifax is pointless to bomb unless you are interested in disabling a harbour, which isn't as busy as it used to be.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bunker is in the small community of Debert, Nova Scotia, locally famous for its small airport and a Tim Hortons just off the Trans Canada highway. Well, okay, it isn't the least bit famous :-) But the bunker is pretty well known.

South America

[cenc]

I run a biz in South America, so I keep a mirror server in a data center in North America and my office in Southern Chile. Mostly for fear that someone will do something dumb and cut a cable in Central America, but also just for long-term security.

If you want true protection, distribute out to as many places in the World as possible. No one is going to Nuke the Patagonia for example.

sure, they can survive a nuclear blast ...

[constantnormal]

but how about a serious DDoS attack?

Re:sure, they can survive a nuclear blast ...

[WillAffleckUW]

but how about a serious DDoS attack?

It would have to be bilingual or in one of the native languages of the territories.

And filled out in triplicate.

Realistic?

[PhotoGuy]

While underground bunkers always fascinate the "urban explorer" side of me, this project seems a bit off target.

First of all, one needs to analyze the risk of damage from attack or other distaster, to that of a competent data center in the U.S..

I was would say the risk of damage to a typical U.S. data center is pretty darn low. Duplicate your stuff between two different highly secure, highly networked data centers in two different cities. If the status of the U.S. infrastructure happens to be that both cities are attacked or disabled to the point that both data centers are down, I would say we're all quite screwed, and have more important things to worry about, such as fallout and nuclear winter.

An obsolete military facility outside of Truro isn't likely to help you that much. I grew up in Truro; nice town, but fairly small, and not likely to have the multiple redundant high speed backbones that you'd get from a Fastservers.net or such.

Also, I think the protection the U.S. military would provide for its cities would far outweigh the capabilities of protecting Truro. (On the other hand, there's the "why would anyone bother bombing Truro" factor; but the same applies to any data center in a remote area of the U.S.)

(On the other hand, if the U.S.'s Internet infrastructure were brought completely down, Nova Scotia does have some direct links to Europe, I believe, which might be spared.)

If integrity of your data is the key factor of importance, that can be solved with redundancy (2x, 3x, or more replication between disparate sites; rsync or database replication to the rescue). If uptime during disaster is your key factor, connectivity to Truro is likely not going to shine as compared to that of towns near major Internet hubs in the U.S..

And if I had to decide between my data being housed in a 45 year old obsolete bunker, or a modern built-from-scratch-for-the-purpose data center, I'd lean towards the latter. Risk from dampness, flooding, and such are all real concerns. (Truro is basically a big basin, which is very prone to flooding; these guys are on the outskirts, so maybe that's not a direct threat.)

A more mundane problem I think they'll have, is that U.S. institutions are highly unlikely to store their critical business data, especially financial data, in another country (they may not even be permitted to do so by law, in some circumstances). Canada's laws, and it's relationship to the U.S. and laws between the countries, hardly parallels Switzerland's banking policies; I think is a false comparison.

The web site of the company seems to indicate it's more of a corporate-oriented startup with a whack of directors and advisors, a few management, a marketing pitch based upon these bunkers, and very few (if any) people with their feet on the ground doing real work.

I wish them well, but beyond the "cool!" factor of old military bunkers, I don't see much of substance. I could be wrong.

Re:Realistic?

[Jerry Rivers]

According to the article, this start up is less interested in U.S. business than it is in Canadian and Euro business, with companies which, for whatever reason, can't or won't use U.S. data centers. So they are apparently unconcerned that "that U.S. institutions are highly unlikely to store their critical business data, especially financial data, in another country"

This seems like a far more reasonable, though smaller scale, approach that may work well for them.

Re:from the canada-has-WMD in Hamilton

[WillAffleckUW]

That's biochem warfare, not nuclear warfare. While part of the NBC protocol, it's not the same thing.

It's worse.

how secure is it really?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, yea it's cool, and if it gets nuked then your data survives, but what about when the police come knocking with a warrant in hand? what do you think they are going to do? Are they gonna shut the doors and seal the place shut to protect your website or are they going to just let them come in and take whatever they want to keep themselves from getting thrown in jail? think about that!

spent some time there myself...

[big_paul76]

It's a pretty cool location, really. Back when I was an air cadet, we'd occasionally end up staying in this particular bunker for a weekend, as the Debert airfield right next door was pretty much ideal for glider pilot training. (3 runways in a triangle, so you never had much of a crosswind to worry about, good grass strips on both sides of the runways, so we'd stack gliders on the runways waiting to take off, land towplanes on the left strip and land gliders on the right strip)

Interesting thing about sleeping in a bunker like this - waking up in the morning is one of the most disorienting things you'll ever experience. Everything about the environment, temperature, atmospheric pressure, lighting, humidity, etc, are all controlled at constant values, so your body's internal clock has zero reference points to go on. You wake up and you can't tell if you've been asleep for one hour or for ten.

didnt we have (or still have) US nukes in canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall the americans had nukes up here, is that still true today? Those are nice big "nuke us!" targets right there heh

Re:I remember our planing in DND

[aqk]

DND is the Department of National Defense of Canada

Oh.
OK, thanx.

What is it that they do?

-
.

Phooey! America needs only ONE bunker.

[aqk]

A pox on your Novoya Scottia deifiebunkers.

The American one is magnificent!
And it's called the Archibunker!

  -

Ignorant Americans at it again....

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn you Americans, can't you have some respect for other countries? When you can't be bothered to spell "Nova Scotia" properly, it says you don't give a shit, or are ignorant. Either way, fuck you.