Google Earth Uncovers Secret UK Nuke Base

thefickler writes "Gone are the days when governments could easily hide top secret bases. These days it's a weekend pastime to see who can find top secret facilities using Google Earth. Now it's the UK government's turn to be outraged after a secret facility was revealed by a British tabloid. The facility is said to be located in Faslane on the River Clyde in Scotland. This nuclear base was previously blurred out by the request of the British Government. However, with the latest update provided via Google Earth, many of the blurred out locations were accidentally revealed." Update: 3/08 at 14:24 by SS: Multiple readers have pointed out that the issue here is not the location of the base — it's simply that details of buildings and objects within the base (such as the location of a pair of nuclear submarines) are accidentally visible after the UK government specifically requested they be blurred out.

Comments

"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[EWAdams]

Oooh... like that huge bottle-green and cream building with all the satellite dishes on top was invisible to the tens of thousands of commuters who pass by it on the railroad every day.

Everybody knows where these things are anyway. The newspapers are just having a slow day, so let's take another whack at technology/Google/the Internet.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[legirons]

Back when that building was used in the Bond film, HIGNFY reported: "MI6 were concerned the film might reveal the location of... one of London's most distinctive landmarks"

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Stuart Gibson]

Sorry, but the UK has never been that big on keeping their secret nuclear bunkers very secret: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mimram/122464288/

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[H3g3m0n]

You know Google probably have a vast amount of information about secret government facilities.

Countries, just tell this large American corporation all the things you don't want anyone to know about.

Not to mention all the webbased email accounts hosting in America, does anyone think that the FBI doesn't have a direct thunk to the Googleplex?

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tverbeek]

And according to the Sun, Google Earth "even reveals the longitude and latitude of ... Faslane, Scotland"! Without Google's help, terrorists would have needed access to an Ordnance Survey map of Argyll and pocket calculators to ascertain this esoteric information!

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Cally]

Apparently there's some sort of big round building in Cheltenham, too. (Yes, El Reg had this story a week ago.) Everyone knew about that one even when Ordnance Survey maps showed blank white space there; nowadays, it's shown on the local road signs. Hey, it looks like an old-fashioned mainframe tape-drive! To be fair, everyone knows where the MI6 HQ in Vauxhall is, but the MI5 building is less well-known, mainly because it looks no different than many other buildings in the area.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[JCWDenton]

Following your link I found they've posted pictures of their headquarters on their website http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/thames-house-image-gallery.html . You'd think any civilian taking pictures of the building would subsequently be subjected to a little chat with the law but there's no problem when they show it on their site in all it's glory from various angles...

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[cheesewire]

Apparently there's some sort of big round building in Cheltenham, too.

You mean GCHQ's doughnut?

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Skeptical1]

Don't shoot till you see the blur in their eyes !-) Target the blur! Aye Cappin!

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Z00L00K]

And who in their right mind thinks that a foreign nation doesn't already know the existence, location and layout of various bases around the world?

Some bribes or joint ventures later and information exceeding the information available at Google Earth is widespread.

Blurring a satellite or air photo today is just a giveaway since two different distributions never have the same blurring and that tells others that this is a site of interest.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Inda]

I drive past there regularly. You hear all sorts of stories about mobiles (cell phones) not working as you drive past, new house torn down because residents could view PC monitors through their windows, and general stories about stuff going bump in the night.

All absolute bollocks.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tomhudson]

What the gov't is pissed off about is that you can see 2 nuclear subs docked ... scroll up to the top of the bay, zoom in.

Sure, foreign governments probably already have assets on the ground keeping watch of the ebb and flow of traffic, but it's nice to have visible confirmation (you can confirm the date of the pictures by using shadows - every day, the shadows will be slightly different as the sun appears to trace a slightly different arc in the sky).

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Baron of Blue]

Come on, at least give the boys at the Kremlin the chance to earn their wages. Scroll up to the top indeed!

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[timeOday]

The only adversaries targeted or threatened by nuclear subs have their own satellite imagery.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[1u3hr]

Sure, foreign governments probably already have assets on the ground keeping watch of the ebb and flow of traffic

Any foreign government with an interest in this information HAS IT'S OWN SURVEILLANCE SATELLITES. They are not going to use Google, which can be months out of date, when they can get real time images. Even Iran has the capacity to launch these now. And anyone else can just pay a small fee to one of several commercial satellite surveillance services, not all of which are beholden to the UK government.

Of course, TFA talks about "terrorists" targeting the subs with rockets. Right. Could terrorists get that kind of weapon into the UK and close to a nuclear weapons installation? I find it hard to believe. But there is an infinite number of soft targets they could hit with greater hope of doing damage and less risk.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tverbeek]

OK, so now the terrorists know that on a particular day, probably several years ago (based on the age of the images of my neighborhood), there were two nuclear subs docked at Faslane. What exactly is the tactical value of this information?

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tomhudson]

The only adversaries targeted or threatened by nuclear subs have their own satellite imagery.

Really? Afghanistan has satellites? Where'd they get them from - in a box of Girl Guide Cookies?

UK nuclear subs are equipped with BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. And they HAVE been used by the UK Navy against Afghanistan ... and Kosovo

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tomhudson]

Not true.

UK nuclear subs have launched cruise missiles against both Kosovo and Afghanistan. If these countries have satellite surveillance, it's got to be one of the best-kept secrets in the world. Citizen, it is your duty to report this new Afghani satellite capability.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[legirons]

You know Google probably have a vast amount of information about secret government facilities.

not least because the people building them and working in them probably do google searches for each little thing that they're working on

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[fl1ckmasterflex]

What would be the relevant ads for them? :D

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[TheLink]

Well I suspect the NSA buys lots of Google Ads or something ;).

In theory Google could also do quite well in the financial markets using their info, since lots of people actually use Google to look up financial info.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's 2 more down just above the destroyers. Total of 4 subs. 10-4, oops.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[1u3hr]

By "havng an interest in the information" I meant "having the capacity to do something with it". Not just "wanting" to strike back. I haven't heard of any Taliban or Serbian expeditionary forces invading the UK.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[pbhj]

Of course, TFA talks about "terrorists" targeting the subs with rockets. Right. Could terrorists get that kind of weapon into the UK and close to a nuclear weapons installation?

They've got the weapons, they don't need to get them into the UK, there's a sea route past Arran, looks like there's a torpedoe net around the subs but I'm sure a shoulder mounted SAM would do enough damage to put them out of action for a while.

I think I'd have asked that the subs be duplicated a few hundred times around the coast line instead. Now that's a deterrent!

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[aggemam]

Could you name one such commercial surveillance services? Thanks!

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Cally]

The best Doughnut story I've heard was in the local rag recently (last year or two.) Apparently some contractors (plasterers, chippies, "allied building crafts") forgot the car-park pass on their van one morning. Rather than waste time explaining this at the gatehouse, filling in forms, et cetera ad nauseam, they decided to show a little initiative and cut through the tangled web of form-filling. They parked up in a nearby side street and attempted to /vault the fence/...

Cue a few dropped cups of coffee, wailing sirens, loosened safeties... that kinda thing ;)

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan is currently in no danger of a strategic nuclear attack, which is obviously the main reason countries which have them go to some lengths to make sure their nuclear sub fleet is concealed. Furthermore, Afghanistan has a friendly government, but a bunch of unruly tribesmen are making life miserable on everybody else. Pakistan, North Korea and potentially Iran are the few countries which may have to ever consider the possibility of a nuclear attack from the UK (depending on what they do, of course) which also don't have sophisticated satellite imaging programs.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[jc42]

And who in their right mind thinks that a foreign nation doesn't already know the existence, location and layout of various bases around the world?

It reminds me of the story (reported in various tech journals but not so much in the MSM) back in the 1970s about the US DoD funding a study by some university people of what could be learned about US military sites and activity from public sources like newspapers, libraries, etc. The story was that a couple of profs (i.e., their grad students) spent a year perusing such public information sources, wrote up their report, sent it in - and with a few days, it was classified Top Secret.

When I read that, I did wonder how many offers of employment the profs (and their grad students) got from various foreign governments. It seemed to me that it could become a viable career path for a small number of people. But I never read any followups.

Now I wonder how much you could learn by just googling for the information. And if you sent your summary report to the DoD, how quickly would it get classified?

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[hazem]

It reminds me of the story (reported in various tech journals but not so much in the MSM) back in the 1970s about the US DoD funding a study by some university people of what could be learned about US military sites and activity from public sources like newspapers, libraries, etc. ...
It seemed to me that it could become a viable career path for a small number of people. But I never read any followups.

You can, indeed, make a career of such activities:
https://www.cia.gov/careers/jobs/view-all-jobs/open-source-officer-foreign-media-analyst.html

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[kylegordon]

"you can see 2 nuclear subs docked" - well, yeah, of course you can. I could also see they were docked when I drove along the Cove peninsula on the other side of the water. You don't even need binoculars to see that they're in dock.

Slow news, move on...

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tomhudson]

By "havng an interest in the information" I meant "having the capacity to do something with it". Not just "wanting" to strike back. I haven't heard of any Taliban or Serbian expeditionary forces invading the UK.

Having an interest is more than just wanting the information so you can strike back. If they have 4 nuclear subs, and all 4 are docked, then you know that you don't have to worry about their submarine-launched cruise missiles for a certain period of time. Also, if they're in dock more often than in the past, it could indicate either a refitting program, which means lengthy trials afterwards (meaning - not a threat except in the direst of emergencies) or that the military stance has changed - both of which are valuable pieces of info, and which could be used by someone wanting to manipulate opinion among supporters, or for planning. "Look - the infidels resolve is crumbling! Allah has turned their mighty weapons in their hands!" - or, to western media - "The UK is no longer committed to the campaign against the Taliban - all their submarines, which were used to launch cruise missile attacks - are out of service for a lengthy refitting."

Propaganda is a weapon - ask Karl Rove and George Bush - they used it often enough against their own people, whether it was the "War on Terror - they have WMDs" or "We must shovel still more money to our friends - I meant bail out Wall Street - or the whole world economy will collapse!"

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tomhudson]

Afghanistan is currently in no danger of a strategic nuclear attack, which is obviously the main reason countries which have them go to some lengths to make sure their nuclear sub fleet is concealed

Wrong. The day you have to actually launch a strategic nuclear attack is the day that your nuclear submarine fleets' actual purpose - which is to be enough of a threat to retaliate in the event of such an attack (see Mutually Assured Destruction) - is over. The submarine fleet will have failed in its' primary goal, which is to be a credible enough threat to PREVENT a nuclear attack.

The nuclear submarine fleet's second purpose is to protect the rest of the naval fleet, allies, and shipping, both by being the "joker in the hole" against other forces, and against other subs.

The third purpose is, as I've mentioned elsewhere, to do stand-off attacks via cruise missiles, which they (UK submarines) HAVE launched against targets in Afghanistan.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Brianech]

Thats just a cover, keep scrolling up and you'll notice a whole field of crop circles!!!! Thats what was really supposed to be blurred out. If you think about it, a nuclear submarine dock is the perfect cover for an alien landing zone... Im getting images of the Men in Black all over again.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You'd think any civilian taking pictures of the building would subsequently be subjected to a little chat with the law...

I know this is orthogonal to your point, but FWIW, hassling people who take pictures in public is counter-productive. The result will be that people of any significant threat will just use hidden cameras and so will not be stopped. While regular, non-threat people, will be stopped and annoyed. No significant improvement in security, but plenty of effort wasted...

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Gabrill]

Yes. Yes they could. Terrorists are remarkably resourceful when they're on a suicide mission. This is a legitimate fear, but it's laughably ineffective at enforcing secrecy. Anyone with half a brain know that every site blurred by Google is worthy of terrorist attack. Therefor all the UK government is doing is composing a hotlist of good terrorist targets by blurring them.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[pla]

What the gov't is pissed off about is that you can see 2 nuclear subs docked ... scroll up to the top of the bay, zoom in.

Or just click here. You can zoom in more, but that gives a nice background to go with the subs in the center.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[jc42]

You can, indeed, make a career of such activities:
https://www.cia.gov/careers/jobs/view-all-jobs/open-source-officer-foreign-media-analyst.html

Heh. You missed the point of my suggestion. I was wondering whether one could make a living collecting public information about the US (and other) military, and selling it to other governments. Of course, you can do that for one government spy agency (and sometimes two ;-). But could you do it as an open, commercial operation, selling the information to all interested governments?

The fact that that earlier study resulted in the report being classified implies that in the US, if the researchers had tried selling it to other governments, they'd have been arrested and sent to a federal prison. The fact that the information was all from public data sources would be considered irrelevant; the summary was still classified and selling it to another government would be a criminal offense.

I'd bet that this sort of extreme illogic isn't anything at all unique to the US government.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[1u3hr]

Having an interest is more than just wanting the information so you can strike back. If they have 4 nuclear subs, and all 4 are docked,

Google won't tell you that. It can be MONTHS behind. You need real-time. And they'd NEVER all be docked at the same time, same place, that would be a huge security risk. If you believe a nuclear deterrent is needed at all, you can't just take it offline for maintenance.

And anyway, nuclear subs are primarily a mobile nuclear missile platform, designed to dodge a preemptive nuclear strike (from the USSR, and really no one now is a threat on that scale). There are plenty of surface ships much more capable of supporting a conventional attack.

Propaganda is a weapon - ask Karl Rove

If you want propaganda, you can just make shit up. Worked for Adolf (and Karl Rowe, for that matter). You don't blow potentially useful military intel on a press release.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[i_b_don]

You should read TFA... they're asking google to blur real life as well.

d

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[i_b_don]

As I understand it, it is illegal to perform surveillance on a US government building/office/site, etc. So probably despite the fact that you can drive by and see all these things in the open, actively reporting this information on a continuing basis to anybody would probably get you in legal hot water.

d

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[1u3hr]

SPOT.

Google "Commercial satellite imagery" for more.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[1u3hr]

The point is, nuclear subs are not a terror target. They're protected by the world's strongest security. An attack would probably fail to do any damage. If you had that firepower, and wanted to make a statement, you'd blow up the Houses of Parliament, or Buckingham Palace; not a military base out in the wilds of Scotland where news coverage will be restricted.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[aurispector]

Speaking of the Russians, if you look at Murmansk on the map you can pick out the carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov. It's visible right across from Mishukovo.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[rtb61]

The worst part is a whole bunch of governments who don't have access to long range nuclear bombers, ICBMs, aircraft carriers and satelities can now target those facilities with, 'er', what exactly ;D.

Perhaps the military wants to reserve the right to gouge the eyes out of any civilian who accidentally sees the facility when they go past on public roads or waterways. Damn, could you image what would have happened in the google street view vehicle had driven down that public road http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulport (I suppose this link would be considered naughty too) across the loch from the base.

Yeah, we all know the truth, it as all about keeping secrets from the general public, about keeping citizen protesters at bay and, about not reminding the local community that should something fuck up at the base, every man, woman, child, kitten and puppy in the community and the surrounding district for hundreds of square kilometres will be wiped out along with the base and all of it's obscene nuclear weapons.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tomhudson]

It doesn't matter if the data is months behind - its usefulness in this case is to confirm what ground-based assets have already told you. If they told you that, at that date, 2 subs were there, and you now know there were 4, you have some housecleaning to do. If, on the other hand, they were accurate with their intel, you have one more data point in terms of their reliability.

In this game, NO information is useless in the right hands.

here are plenty of surface ships much more capable of supporting a conventional attack.

And as I pointed out (with links elsewhere in this thread), the UK has already used their nuclear subs to launch cruise missle attacks against targets in Afghanistan. Please don't confuse "primary purpose" with "only purpose." Subs make a better launch platform than surface ships - you can move them into the area without alerting your target, you have to send a sub in to support the surface fleet anyway, and your target hopefully won't be able to positively identify just who is launching the attack, so they don't know who to attack in return. You could even do false flag attacks, allowing some "duds" to fall into their hands implicating a 3rd party, since they have no surface sightings to put the lie to it ...

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Baron of Blue]

I don't think they hold with the Temporal Accords....

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[DiveX]

It is interesting and at least a sad commentary how there is such a disproportionate concern. Here some military site is shown in the open and people complain, even though (as another pointed out) a rail line and highway run right along the fence line. As a conspiracy theory, anyone have a guess what secret, strange flash can be seen in the middle of the base (@ 56 3'16.70"N 4 49'5.95"W)? Look at the elevation, there are plenty of surrounding hills from which people can take pictures, such as at least two on the Panoramio layer on Google Earth; http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1100160 or http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1100421

This was covered just last week on the Oogle Earth site [http://www.ogleearth.com/2009/03/sun_stupidity_w.html] There is a small, old dam in rural south Carolina that is quite obviously to have intentionally been pixelated [35 1'13.34"N 81 0'27.92"W], though there are plenty of user photos that show the thing and one can even use the new GE 5 feature to see old pics that clearly provide details.

As others pointed out, the only folks with an extreme interest in such a place and the means to do anything of note would already have their own eyes in the sky that can gather much more detailed data. More security theater, IMHO.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[SnowZero]

It doesn't matter if the data is months behind - its usefulness in this case is to confirm what ground-based assets have already told you. If they told you that, at that date,

Except that you often don't know the date, since the maps are a patchwork of satellite imagery. If you check the maps (or other people's comments), you'll see that these subs are visible from public roads. If you can get pictures of something on the ground, old satellite imagery doesn't really add much information.

And as I pointed out (with links elsewhere in this thread), the UK has already used their nuclear subs to launch cruise missle attacks against targets in Afghanistan. Please don't confuse "primary purpose" with "only purpose." ... Subs make a better launch platform than surface ships - you can move them into the area without alerting your target,

This is really grasping for straws. Afghanistan is 400 miles from the nearest ocean, and US planes can already fly around that country, so you could just drop a bomb on something. Cruise missiles also aren't that helpful against recent Taliban/etc activity; They now know they need to be completely hidden or always moving. Static bases outside of cities went away in 2001.

You could even do false flag attacks, allowing some "duds" to fall into their hands implicating a 3rd party, since they have no surface sightings to put the lie to it

Wasn't that a James Bond movie plot? NATO cruise missiles are pretty distinctive, and the launch systems are very incompatible. If you were going to modify something to shoot Chinese or Russian missiles, it'd be a hell of a lot easier to do it with a surface ship, where much of the stuff is bolted on in a modular style. Subs by necessity are highly compact, integrated, and relatively inflexible as a result.

Now, before you come up with a new claim, please answer this: If the UK government cared about hostile people seeing these subs, why didn't they build a roof over the dock, or put up walls blocking the view from publicly accessible roads? If you aren't afraid of nations that can afford satellites, buy imagery, or from nations that can get a spy to drive down a public road, then clearly you don't value protecting something all that much.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[ScrewMaster]

And who in their right mind thinks that a foreign nation doesn't already know the existence, location and layout of various bases around the world?

Well, that big Chinese base that came to light last year was apparently something of an unpleasant surprise. Point is, you never know what the enemy knows, and in any event you never let him have something for free.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[tomhudson]

Except that you often don't know the date

You can get the exact date from the shadows - every day the sun passes through a slightly different arc, and the shadows are slightly different than they were the day before or will be the day after. As I said, it provides validation of other intel sources, to the day and time.

subs make a better launch platform than surface ships - you can move them into the asrea without alerting your target,

This is really grasping for straws. Afghanistan is 400 miles from the nearest ocean

... it's not grasping at straws when it's what the UK did - launched cruise missiles from nuclear subs into targets in Afghanistan. Can't ignore the facts ...

If you were going to modify something to shoot Chinese or Russian missiles, it'd be a hell of a lot easier to do it with a surface ship

... except that surface ships can be visually ID'd - no false flag opportunity ...

Now, before you come up with a new claim, please answer this: If the UK government cared about hostile people seeing these subs, why didn't they build a roof over the dock, or put up walls blocking the view from publicly accessible roads? If you aren't afraid of nations that can afford satellites, buy imagery, or from nations that can get a spy to drive down a public road, then clearly you don't value protecting something all that much.

Turn it on its' head - If they didn't care about them being visible in satellite images, why are they so concerned about wanting them to be blurred?

It's the UK that is demanding the images be blurred, not me. Go ask them what they're so worried about. Maybe they see the same "verification of intel sources" opportunities that I mentioned? Or perhaps you can come up with a better reason to explain their actions?

They want the pictures blurred. I've given some reasons why they might want this, as well as some facts about previous uses of the subs against Afghanistan ... which you conveniently poh-poohed instead of addressing; and you still haven't offered any alternative reason to explain their actions. And this all still ignores the bullshit claim earlier in this thread (which I shot down earlier) about how every country that the UK has to worry about already has satellite intel.

So, since you don't like any of MY explanations, what explanation do YOU propose to why the UK wants these pictures blurred?

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[ps2os2]

Chuckle I love stories like that. I served in Germany back in the early 70's. Our base was 50 percent computer and 50 paper shufflers. We regularly had Soviet Vehicles camped right by the gate trying to eves drop on what as going on inside our base. We also had a nuclear base down the road a bit. AFAIK we never talked with the base although from time to time you would see the personal in the PX. We supposedly handled top secret information from time to time and I had to get a TS clearance to look problems that contained classified top secret data. Once I was looking through a problem I saw the number of tanks at each base in Germany. I did travel quite a bit and was always observing military items along the autobahn. I dug back into my memory and I came up with the number of tanks at this one base and guess what I counted the same exact number that were parked along side the autobahn. I chuckled and told an officer about the numbers. I do not think anything came out of it as a month later I was riding along in the same area and the numbers had not changed.
We were a HQ with a few outposts scattered over Germany and England. One time I had to play army overnight and the captain was given a list of places he had to call to get situation reports. An officer at the other end of the phone gave a report that indicated they were under nuclear attack no matter what the captain did he could not get him to change his status. I drove the captain to the General's house and he had to come back with us. I have not heard more choice words coming out of General's mouth before or after. I ran into the captain a few months later and the person on the other end of the phone was literally transfered to the Aleutians the next week.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[SnowZero]

You can get the exact date from the shadows - every day the sun passes through a slightly different arc, and the shadows are slightly different than they were the day before or will be the day after. As I said, it provides validation of other intel sources, to the day and time.

Only if you know the exact height of the building casting the shadow:
    Observable variables: length and angle of shadow
    Unknown variables: height of object, time of day, time of year
Even if you hire an analyst to figure it out from looking at enough objects of known geometry, you still won't know which year it came from, unless you get some people on the ground to look at other objects nearby. In that case, they could go take pictures of the subs. Also, a reconnaissance analyst costs more than someone with a plane ticket and a cell phone camera, and gives you poorer information in this case.

... it's not grasping at straws when it's what the UK did - launched cruise missiles from nuclear subs into targets in Afghanistan. Can't ignore the facts ...

I'm not ignoring them, I was just pointing out that they are not relevant here. Right now, over Afghanistan, there are airplanes on patrol with bombs and missiles. There's no need for a sub to fire a much more expensive cruise missile when you could just drop a regular GPS bomb on something. Also to reach Afghanistan from the ocean, you'd need to fire a missile over Pakistan or Iran anyway; Why tick off an already hostile nation when there's no need?

... except that surface ships can be visually ID'd - no false flag opportunity ...

In recent history, the US and UK are pretty much the only nations to attack other nations that are not one of their immediate neighbors. So, the UK would not stand much to gain from this, unless it was trying to get the US involved in a war (recently it's been the other way around). The Russians or Chinese might gain something from a false flag attack, but the risk and cost of getting caught is too much for a large nation. Terrorist organizations could gain a lot from a false flag attack, since they wouldn't be expected, and have no nation to strike back at. However, terrorists don't have submarines with cruise missiles.

If they didn't care about them being visible in satellite images, why are they so concerned about wanting them to be blurred?

Clearly they aren't that concerned, otherwise they would have demanded and gotten action from google; The images are still visible on google maps. It's easy for a lazy bureaucrat to "demand" the images be blurred; that just means he is "doing his job", overreacting when the overall privacy is swiss cheese anyway. If they really cared, then it wouldn't be visible to well-funded adversaries, but the bureaucrat will still do his job anyway, as though it's the most important thing in the world.

And this all still ignores the bullshit claim earlier in this thread (which I shot down earlier) about how every country that the UK has to worry about already has satellite intel. So, since you don't like any of MY explanations, what explanation do YOU propose to why the UK wants these pictures blurred?

The best reason I could come up with is worries about terrorists using the imagery to plan some sort of attack on the base. Obviously attacking a military base is a suicide mission, but some nations can get people willing to do it anyway. Such a scenario is quite far-fetched (yes I know of the attacks in Mumbai, but those were soft targets). This then comes back to my point before; It's someone's job to "hide" this info, and they'll still do it even if it is kind of pointless, because it is their job. That doesn't mean the rest of the UK government cares that much, because the information protected seems to be worth less than adding some large roofs and walls.

So, someone in the government is annoyed, but not enough to get the imagery blurred on a weekend, and the Sun is drumming up extra controversy for all it is worth. Same as always.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[jabithew]

I heard a really good story about this, though it may be apocryphal.

Back in the day, Ordinance Survey maps used to be blanked out with fields or other inconspicuous things on top of military installations. Apparently the Soviet ambassador and his entourage were found walking around next to an army base. Their excuse when challenged was "Well, we wanted to have a picnic in the countryside, so we looked at the map and found this big open space..."

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[legirons]

What the gov't is pissed off about is that you can see 2 nuclear subs docked ... scroll up to the top of the bay, zoom in.

Are those the decommissioned ones?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/HMNB_Clyde#Swiftsure_class_SSNs

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, that's nothing! In Sweden we can be even more retarded - there's a tiny village on an island and on more than one occasion newspapers have referred to it as "Musko, which is best known for its top secret military base". The village has less than 1000 inhabitants so I guess you have to say something for which it's known when you write about it...

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[sunking2]

Errr....yes they do. It's called Google Earth.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[bemenaker]

Ooooh Oooohh, I bet they tie the subs up at the pier. Like I needed a damn photo to figure that one out.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[hesaigo999ca]

I think they were worried more about the terrorist cells that are waiting for such an opportunity for a target such as this, as all the other nations, would never jeopardize their relations, over attacking 2 lowly subs...that could start WW3, but a small cell could in fact try such a lame
assault and then start a "guess who dunn it" type media event.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[ultranova]

Turn it on its' head - If they didn't care about them being visible in satellite images, why are they so concerned about wanting them to be blurred?

That is an excellent question: why is the UK demanding that Google blurs its satellite images, yet does nothing to block the view for actual spy satellites? As I see it, the the possible answers are either security theater, bureuecratic inefficiency in getting the roof built, or some "security conscious" manager making the demands on his own. Of course it could also be any combination of these.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[mpe]

Having an interest is more than just wanting the information so you can strike back. If they have 4 nuclear subs, and all 4 are docked, then you know that you don't have to worry about their submarine-launched cruise missiles for a certain period of time.

In which case it might make more sense to alter the image so that it appears that at least 5 are docked at all times :)

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[mpe]

Now, before you come up with a new claim, please answer this: If the UK government cared about hostile people seeing these subs, why didn't they build a roof over the dock, or put up walls blocking the view from publicly accessible roads? If you aren't afraid of nations that can afford satellites, buy imagery, or from nations that can get a spy to drive down a public road, then clearly you don't value protecting something all that much.

Train tickets, boats and even aircraft are a lot more easily obtainable than satellites. The Google image shows plenty of water traffic on the lake.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[bandmassa]

The GOOD thing about Google Maps and Google Earth is this very thing. Governments can't as easily keep secrets. Governments, especially democratic governments, pollute their democracy by keeping secrets.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[sumdumass]

I purpose a massive marketing campaign of inflatable ships and sea monsters to combat this threat.

When the Google satellites pass over, Inflate 200 nuclear subs staging for docking, a lockness stile sea monster or two chained in the middle of the harbor, a couple of dozen people walking on water, and perhaps some other WTF things.

Misinformation is the worse information to have.

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Anonymous Coward]

And there seems to be a big ammunition depot over the water, behind the forest...

Re:"Also revealed are MI6's London offices"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is NOT ILLEGAL to do such things to any federal building becouse they are PUBLIC PROPERTY payd with public tax money. Constitution is the law, not some security goons words.
So if some security goon is coming to tell you not to picture or film lets say the federal reserve (read private bank) building he is commiting crime against the constitution, becouse there is NO LAW that you cant film federal buildings.

I used google search

[celardore]

I came up with a secret nuclear bunker, too. link

Re:I used google search

[Anonymous Coward]

I came up with a secret nuclear bunker, too.

link

Did you follow this sign to find it?

Re:I used google search

[Huff]

Brilliant tourist attraction, If anyone is in the area then I can well recommend a visit!

N

Re:I used google search

[senorpoco]

I have been, it is an interesting day out. The duck and cover video while underground is a bit unnerving however.

Blurred out by request

[Baron_Yam]

Doesn't that just mean that a whole chain of people at Google now know the location is sensitive and could turn around and pass on that information?

If they ask to have it Photoshopped into non-existence then you know you've got really hot property!

Re:Blurred out by request

[qbzzt]

Doesn't that just mean that a whole chain of people at Google now know the location is sensitive and could turn around and pass on that information?

Not if the government is smart enough to request enough blurs, with some of them being duds.

Besides, it's really hard to hide the existence of a facility in a densely populated area such as South England. The best you can hope for is to hide some of the internal details.

Re:Blurred out by request

[impaledsunset]

I guess it wasn't that secret after all... Anyone with access to the original pictures could discover the base, and as you mention the people at Google were given at least a huge hint that it is lying there.

I wouldn't call anything secret is a whole bunch of people with no connection to the base in question that have the information to find it. Sure, with more eyes looking something hidden might become easily uncovered, I guess that's part of the reason they requested the blurring, but once they made that hint, the millions of eyes are no longer necessary.

This means that the location wasn't hidden well enough from people that must not know where it is, Google just 'uncovered' it to the rest of us. Not a big deal.

Re:Blurred out by request

[CarpetShark]

Doesn't that just mean that a whole chain of people at Google now know the location is sensitive and could turn around and pass on that information?

Perhaps, but Google also know the enforcement people's browsing habits, so no enforcement will be done.

Re:Blurred out by request

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a troll? Do we not have ample supporting evidence to support this statement? I know most /.ers view Big Brother as some kind of secular messiah, but the fact is if you want something to take twice as long and cost twice as much and to be 10x a pain in the ass, get the government involved. See: every human endeavor.

Re:Blurred out by request

[FTWinston]

Honestly, it has never been secret. Its massive, and you can often see the subs sailing up and down the clyde. Besides, if I was looking for somewhere secret, and it was a choice between the big crappy warehouse on the clyde patrolled constantly by guard dogs to keep the hippies from the permanent protest camp from climbing in, or the Mysterious Blur ... the blur would win every time.

Re:Blurred out by request

[staaarship]

Besides, it's really hard to hide the existence of a facility in a densely populated area such as South England. The best you can hope for is to hide some of the internal details.

Details like the base being in Scotland, not the South of England?

If only there was some kind of map that showed exactly where it was...

Re:Blurred out by request

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that just mean that a whole chain of people at Google now know the location is sensitive

More likely they found out who Google bought the images from and told that company to blur out the area. Google probably just updated to the most updated high resolution images, and maybe nobody at Google even noticed the area was blured.

Re:Blurred out by request

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively...
1. Take aerial photo including subs
2. Edit photo to show subs with more launch tubes and big spoilers.
3. Give to google.
4. Discretely inform The Sun that the 'subs' are visible on google.
5. (Profit)

CH

What about the enemies?

[GreatBunzinni]

Do the enemy nations also blur their secret bases at the request of the british government?

Re:What about the enemies?

[poena.dare]

Most nations can't afford the 18,558,720 pixel wide brush required.

Re:What about the enemies?

[Arancaytar]

Exactly. I'm not sure when exactly Google's commercially available, unclassified satellite maps became any kind of threat compared to actual spy photography.

At least with the "soft targets" argument some days back, you could argue that terrorists don't have access to a well-equipped intelligence apparatus and rely on commercial maps. (The argument is still expertly defeated by Schneier's explanation how we cannot cripple our infrastructure in favor of security, though.)

With top-secret nuclear bases, on the other hand, if you worry about a low-budget Al-Quaeda cell using Google Earth, then you should probably build a fence or hire some guards or something.

Re:What about the enemies?

[tyldis]

But they can afford to pay my employer a few dollars to get their own picture of the site.

We aqcuire and sell satellite imagery of the location of your choice. If the weather is nice enough you can expect an image within hours of ordering.

We are also downlinking most of the imagery used by Google...
These things are availible commercially for anyone and for any purpose.

Re:What about the enemies?

[geonik]

At one dollar per pixel, it will cost them almost 19M$!

Re:What about the enemies?

[Anonymous Coward]

With top-secret nuclear bases, on the other hand, if you worry about a low-budget Al-Quaeda cell using Google Earth, then you should probably build a fence or hire some guards or something.

I'd think adding an awning would be sufficient. Hell, in Indiana Jones 3(?) the Nazi sub was docked inside a hangar, presumably for coverage from aerial recon. Are we really dumber than the movie villain Nazi's?

Re:What about the enemies?

[toddestan]

And that's downright cheap when it comes to government spending!

I NEVER KNEW IT WAS THERE!

[ed]

Now all the mystery of the road signs, American Service personnel, people mentioning it in the media and the submarines sailing up and down the Clyde is solved.

WHO KNEW!!!!!

Re:I NEVER KNEW IT WAS THERE!

[couchslug]

"the submarines sailing up and down the Clyde"

That certainly shoots down the "very large manatees" cover story.

Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

SPOILER ALERT: Faslane is not a "secret" facility. It's the level and quality of imagery that's the problem. Good old /. editing at its finest, I had to actually check for a second that it wasn't actually another kdawson...in any case this "news" is at least a week old.

Re:Bad summary

[Pax681]

yeah man, every man and his dog, cat,fleas on the dog and cat KNOW about Faslane. if terrorists want to know the way in all they have to do is ASK the anti nuclear protesters that have been camped there on and off you YEARS!. no news at all

The actual article in The Sun

[while(true)]

The actual article: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2284752.ece

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[legirons]

As usual, El Reg has useful commentary

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great, the sun is really known for high quality reporting. Damned tabloid.

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[thetoadwarrior]

Was this the article between the one about the chavy kids getting pregnant and the one about immigrants destroying Britain?

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[RiotingPacifist]

Nnah, it was in the princes Diana memorial edition.

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[tverbeek]

And in a related news article, The Sun reports that Google Earth's new ocean-floor imagery reveals the location of the lost city of Atlantis on the ocean floor west of the Canary Islands. A photo of Patrick Duffy is used as an illustration, and a reaction commentary by none other than Plato accompanies the story. You can't make shit like this up... because The Sun does it for you.

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[MooUK]

You have to love the complete misunderstanding of Google's explanation of blank areas. Google says "The lines are where the boat scanned, the gaps are where it didn't". The Sun says "Google can't explain the gaps".

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[tverbeek]

...and Transport for London says "Mind the gaps."

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[VagaStorm]

Got to love how their top banner is switching between some dying "star", a screaming wane rooney, an article about assassinated troops and some hotie in her lingerie....

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[Plunky]

for a moment there, I thought there was breaking news of a supernova visible in the skies above!

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[pbhj]

a reaction commentary by none other than Plato accompanies the story. You can't make shit like this up... because The Sun does it for you.

Maybe Atlantis was a republic?

Wonder what Pluto thought of that?

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just read Plato's account of its destruction to find out what he thought of it.

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[pbhj]

for Pluto read Poseidon, mea culpa:

"Plat-doh!"
President of Atlantis speaks out ...

Re:The actual article in The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't people only buy "The Sun" for page 3 anyway? I'm sure nobody actually reads the articles. Oh, wait, do I have that backwards? Yeah that's it, people only buy it for the articles. Sorry, move along.

Public secrets

[onion2k]

The places the government publicise that they want to keep secret aren't actually secret at all. They're a façade. Then there's the somewhat secret stuff that the government denies exists. The real secret stuff is the stuff the government never mentions.

Never heard the government mention their lunar base with telescopes that can see through the roofs of buildings and spy on you on the toilet? That's pretty much proof they've got one, but it's a secret!

Re:Public secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm yeah, that's some good secret-keeping going on there buddy

Re:Public secrets

[AHuxley]

Never heard the Russian mention their sewage plant with borescopes that can see through the floors of buildings and spy on you on the toilet?

Re:Public secrets

[Trailwalker]

The real secret at Faslane is the "public road."

It is a secret runway used by the Royal Airforce to launch unmanned drones equipped with CCTVs. This allows Her Majesty's government to cover the few areas that have not yet had permanent CCTV cameras installed.

The Faslane nuclear submarine facility is used for cover.

so secret they have their own public website!

[julian67]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faslane "Her Majesty's Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde is one of three UK operating bases for the Royal Navy (the others being HMNB Devonport and HMNB Portsmouth). It is the service's headquarters in Scotland and is best known as the home of the United Kingdom's Trident-armed nuclear submarine force." This place has been notorious/famous for decades. Whoever wrote this "news" story is a fucking idiot and recycling on /. is fucking dumb too. Some of the other "top secret" places featured in the story feature regularly in documentaries, fiction, news reports and so on. Some of them are so secret that they have their own public website complete with pictures and a contact us button :-) http://www.sis.gov.uk/output/sis-home-welcome.html Well done Timothy, well up to your usual standard (rubbish).

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[Swampash]

Whoever wrote this "news" story is a fucking idiot and recycling on /. is fucking dumb too.

Two words: kdawson

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[gEvil (beta)]

Two words: kdawson

I'm not sure which one makes you look like more of an idiot--the fact that "kdawson" isn't two words, or the fact that the story was posted by timothy.

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the service's headquarters in Scotland and is best known as the home of the United Kingdom's Trident-armed nuclear submarine force."

Isn't that more kind of the United States' Trident-flawed subhuman force?

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[Alcoholist]

Not only do they have a nicely put together public website, you can learn all about their secret ways in Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese! For defectors maybe...?

Oddly enough, no option for French.

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[Velska1]

Whoever wrote this "news" story is a f#@**ng idiot...

If you think for a moment about people, who read the Sun as a source of news, it becomes obvious, that the whoever is certainly meeting expectations... very low, that is...

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[Ihmhi]

Maybe he meant two syllables?

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[Anonymous Coward]

And by two he meant three, right?

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[Nick Ives]

I know several people who read The Sun, none of them treat it as a source of news. The only reason The Sun survives is because of it has the best football coverage (apparently, I only really care about F1).

Re:so secret they have their own public website!

[Anonymous Coward]

I *knew* it was silent!

Under cover.

[Bazman]

Ooh, like the Russians never knew there was a submarine base at Faslane before...

Since Sputnik went up, governments have known that secret locations wouldn't be secret for long. And if the Russians can photograph it, they can sell the photos to terrorists. Google will get them sometime after.

If governments want to do stuff in secret they know they have to do it undercover. There's a big covered dock right next to the two obvious submarines on the Faslane google maps imagery. That's where the secret stuff happens. Until we get Google Thermal Imagery Earth, of course.

Anyone know what the circular mounds are to the north of the base?

Re:Under cover.

[denzacar]

Anyone know what the circular mounds are to the north of the base?

I could probably tell you that those are the Top Secret military pancake storage facilities, but then you would have to be blurred out on google maps too.

Re:Under cover.

[legirons]

Anyone know what the circular mounds are to the north of the base?

Fuel store? (c.f. these)

Re:Under cover.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know what the circular mounds are to the north of the base?

I could ask Tom Clancy, but I lost his e-mail address. They're probably the garbage disposal areas.

Re:Under cover.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know what the circular mounds are to the north of the base?

Yes but I can't tell you.

Re:Under cover.

[wwwillem]

And if the Russians can photograph it, they can sell the photos to terrorists. Google will get them sometime after.

Which reminds me of the TerraServer sat images, that IIRC were bought by Microsoft from the Russians (after the wall came down). Makes sense, good pictures of the US you buy from the ruskies and for high quality pictures of Moskou you go to the CIA.

Re:Under cover.

[frehe]

Anyone know what the circular mounds are to the north of the base?

They're probably underground fuel tanks.

Re:Under cover.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably fuel storage tanks for the non-nukes berthed farther south.

Re:Under cover.

[TGLR]

Haha good one. Wow the power of google...

Re:Under cover.

[DerekLyons]

If governments want to do stuff in secret they know they have to do it undercover. There's a big covered dock right next to the two obvious submarines on the Faslane google maps imagery. That's where the secret stuff happens.

Yeah, really secret stuff - like handling missiles and whatnot out of the rain. (Which a) isn't classified and b) in the US practically bragged about.) Google "Explosive Handling Wharf" and you'll see extensive photographic coverage of the US equivalent.
 
 

Anyone know what the circular mounds are to the north of the base?

Probably fuel tanks from when the RN used Faslane for surface ships as well as conventional submarines. The Brits have a positive mania for burying them, and there are none of the normal hallmarks of bunkers or other 'normally buried' structures.
 
Which point out why various governments want this stuff blurred - they aren't bothered by Russia seeing it, because they have birds of their own. They're scared shitless of individuals like myself who actually know what they are looking at or can make reasonable guesses based on other information. If I can do it, so can terrorists.

OK, where to begin.

[Samschnooks]

Some of the other locations revealed are MI6â(TM)s London offices, Britainâ(TM)s nuclear crisis HQ and the SAS training facility. Apparently the UK Government is worried that terrorists could potentially launch missile attacks to those target areas with the exact coordinates readily available on the Internet.

So, the UK Government is actually saying, "Oops! You got us! That's exactly what they are! As matter of act, those buildings are exactly what you think they are and then some! What what! Cheers!"

Could these buildings be not very important and the UK gov is making them seem more important to distract everyone from the real targets? I don't see anything that makes that facility ultra secure like you'd expect for someplace that is that sensitive. Look how close it is to the highway (A814)? Here in the States, there'd be a HUGE driveway or access road so that someone couldn't just park at the side and lob a mortar shell over or what have you.

A tabloid said this? A PRINTED tabloid that will do anything to increase circulation; especially in this economy?!?

I could go on but I'm sick of typing.

Re:OK, where to begin.

[AHuxley]

I really do think the Uk security forces learned from 1985 Newry mortar attack.
The UK would protect anyone with real skills in the 'safe' part of a structure.
Anyone or anything else can be replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Newry_mortar_attack

Re:OK, where to begin.

[u38cg]

No, Faslane really is a nuclear base. You can tell because you get the Nth degree when you visit, unlike any other UK base where a plausible excuse and some form of ID gets you in. But don't ask about the one over the hill, which *also* stores nukes and you hear very little about ;)

Re:OK, where to begin.

[TransientAlias]

No, In the US they surround the perimeter of important bases with military housing, so if anyone lobs anything over the wall, it just takes out the families of servicemen who can't afford to live off base because of the paltry salary they are paid.

found this one the other day

[Adult film producer]

I thought google used low-flying planes to grab images but this must be way up there, satellites ??

air canada!

Re:found this one the other day

[repvik]

That plane is flying kinda low, innit? If you zoom out about half-way, you see the transition between aerial photos and satellite photos.

WTF? Hidden?

[Lars T.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNB_Clyde Everybody already knew where the base is, there are public roads surrounding it, the Wikipedia article even as an aerial photo of it. So unless they are worried that terrorists start using GPS guided "smart" weaponry (but of course conventionally armed, because for nuclear they knew enough already) instead of just flying a plane packed with explosives into it, why the hell are they outraged exactly?

Re:WTF? Hidden?

[Bananenrepublik]

why the hell are they outraged exactly?

Because RNAD Coulton (which is about 4 miles west of the linked site) is hidden under a cloud, I guess. Damned publicity whores, wanted their whole base on google maps but only got half of it exposed.

Re:WTF? Hidden?

[Anonymous Coward]

why the hell are they outraged exactly?

LMAO - you obviously are not familiar with the Super Soaraway Sun (motto: Phwoar!) style of "journalism"; I can only assume you don't live in the UK.

Re:WTF? Hidden?

[legirons]

For more info, read the 4-part series on secret bases:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan-turnbull/secret.htm

It's not secret (see Wikipedia)

[Jamamala]

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

HMNB Clyde is home to the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent.

Well since big brother can be watching us...

[3seas]

.....so can us little brothers be watching big brother... No double standards here.

Of the 6 plus billion people on this planet, it is some fraction of 1% that messes things up for the rest of us.
Its about time we start watching them..

Re:Well since big brother can be watching us...

[jelizondo]

.....so can us little brothers be watching big brother... No double standards here.

Of the 6 plus billion people on this planet, it is some fraction of 1% that messes things up for the rest of us.
Its about time we start watching them..

It's about time we start whacking them.

There ya go, fixed that for ya!

Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[Antique Geekmeister]

Good aerial photos of potential military targets are extremely useful to missile guidance systems. Even if you use a non-visual guidance system, the high resolution photos are excellent for locating a base very precisely and adjusting inertial guidance systems. And the same issues apply to potential civilian protest or enemy sabotage at nuclear facilities: good quality aerial photos are very useful for plotting the location of the nuclear materials, access routes, security facilities, places to hide, and escape routes.

During the 1970's and 1980's one of the largest purchasers of US satellite photographs was the People's Republic of China. I wonder why?

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[OldCrasher]

The only people left that haven't a clue about what goes on in dockyards at Faslane are the British Taxpayers. Everyone else has spies there and photographs the place as needed.

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[Antique Geekmeister]

And there's a big difference between 'knows what goes on there' and 'color photos with 1 meter resolution of the whole base'. That's enough to pick out doorways, barracks, guardstations, and fuel storage.

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't the Brits have an equivalent to Wal-mart? In Kings Bay and Bangor (locations of US missile sub bases) if you want to know ship schedules or news you go there and listen around for a while. You can get the quarterly schedule for the entire local sub force in an afternoon's worth of eavesdropping.

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[maxume]

I bet it is because the U.S. had the best photos of China.

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[Inda]

Equivalent? We actually have Walmarts in all their American glory. They are currently called Asda Walmart as they bought Asda some years back but I expect that'll disappear as the years go on.

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[Antique Geekmeister]

Perhaps so, but that wasn't what I discussed years back with the person who managed the sales of the photos. That person referred specifically to pictures of the US.

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[maxume]

"Some guy told you"? Cripes.

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[Antique Geekmeister]

Well, he was handling the sales orders for NASA at the time, which was the primary source for such images at the time, so I took his claim seriously. But that's obviously FOAF for you. I'll see if I can find a better reference for you. (Web searching isn't a big help, too many positive hits.)

Re:Missile guidances systems like clear pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

And a terrorist who could create panic and kill 100s with a relatively small bomb at a bus or rail station would waste resources trying to hit a military base why exactly? To blow up a nuclear sub and spread radioactive material everywhere? To steal nuclear material? Are the subs even likely to be in the same place weeks later and not guarded 24/7? Let me guess there is an Islamic James Bond out there armed with an iPhone and backpack full of home made explosives who needs a detailed floor plan to find his way in. I swear people like you think computer games are real.

The only people who would find 'color photos with 1 meter resolution of the whole base' useful already have there own satellite/aircraft imagery at a much higher resolution. And as long as our once proud nation keeps sucking US cock, paying the wages of French farmers and buying Chinese built electronics we really only have to worry about the Russians.

Also from US military

[Anonymous Coward]

There are better pictures courtesy of the US military
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/~cannon/medports/Faslane/HMNB_picture.html

Re:Also from US military

[pbhj]

But those photos don't show barracks or nuclear subs, nor does it have metre accurate geographical coordinates for programming your missiles with.

About as un-secret as could possibly be

[gsslay]

The submitter is clueless. The 'British tabloid' is a scandal rag not above inventing a controversy. Everyone knows where Faslane is. Everyone knows what is there. Do you think no-one has wondered where all the nuclear subs dock? Where do you think the Russian missiles spent 50 years targeting during the cold war, (and may even still do)?

Re:About as un-secret as could possibly be

[Dynedain]

No kidding, the US nuke subs dock in San Diego harbor and you can see the damn things from every building in downtown. Not to mention there's a national park (old lighthouse) on the cliffs directly above them.

If you want the things to be a secret from the skies, COVER THEM UP.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel really really bad for you if you consider that "giant".

If you seriously need to "blur" a hidden place

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you seriously fail at making a hidden place.

A hidden place, a truly hidden place, would be so hidden it is in the public eye and nobody would even realize it.

Or, of course, underground.

every piece of this story is wrong

[petes_PoV]

Faslane has been known and talked about for decades. It was "made famous" when the british navy started getting Trident missiles for it's nuclear submarines - the BBC among others regualrly reported on the protests at "... the Faslane nuclear base ..."

Even when you get up there, it's presence is announced by the miles of razor-wire and notices telling people to keep out.

This is a second rate piece of sensationalist reporting, by people who do know better, but have such a low regard for their readers, that they think we're all stupid.

As it is, the UK has a far more effective way of concealing it's bases from Google Earth - why do you think it's cloudy for 99% of the time?

Security through obscurity..

[LingNoi]

They should really tell you where these places are considering how much they fuck up. The last place I'd want to live is next to a damn nuclear bunker.

Why do we need nukes anyway? How does it possibly help in any terrorist situation? What a completely waste of money.

Re:Security through obscurity..

[Baron of Blue]

Nuclear weapons were designed when the threats were a little more impressive than a militant band running through caves. The Japanese Empire and the Soviet Union, for example. And a nuclear bunker would actually be a very nice place to live next to, considering it is built to save lives in case of a nuclear strike, and is far more interesting an address than most of suburbia.

Murdoch anti-google agenda?

[Bazman]

Conspiracy theory anyone? Microsoft Virtual Earth has better and more recent imagery than Google Earth - there's some obvious new earthworks. No mention of MS Virtual Earth in The Sun. What's the Fox/MS relationship?

Flash New Update

[wmduncan]

In related news, it is reported that the Wall Street Journal leaked that the Allied have broken the Nazi Ultra code.

Re:Flash New Update

[frehe]

Nazi Ultra

Hmmm... is that some new SI prefix?

The ministry of defence links to a better map...

[Lorens]

Go to www.mod.uk (British Ministry of Defence), search for HMNB Clyde, find the official web site of HMNB Clyde http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3157, click on "Location", then on "View map on multimap.com", change to aerial view, move some 1500 yards north to the submarine docks, zoom in . . . much better resolution than google maps. OK so there weren't any submarines there that day, doubtlessly GoogleSats try to fly overhead only when the subs are there? Shoddy sensationalist tabloid reporting at a shoddy sensationalist tabloid, now that's news for you.

We are Google. We own all your base.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are Google. We own all your base.

Apparently

[BazilBBrush]

All your base are belong to google...

Rubbish story

[thetoadwarrior]

That story is just about right for the Sun. Everyone can find Faslane but more importantly, there isn't enough detail to find a way to sneak onto the base, avoiding security and better information can probably be bought from the black market which terrorists will know about.

Not so secret.

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally being blurred on google maps implies a secret facility. If you are going to do that then you may as well highlight the damn things.

Google Takeover

[mc1138]

With as much information as google already has, and will have each and everyday, what's to say that they couldn't just slowly and quietly start to take over?

Re:Google Takeover

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think they haven't?

On a more serious note, who do you think google actually is?

haha talk about FUD

[Is0m0rph]

Now the terrorists will know the long/lat of the base and can launch accurate mortar attacks! How are these terrorists going to get close to this base to launch mortar attacks? I'm assuming the base is protected. I bet everyone in the area terrorists included knew the base was there by, oh I don't know, watching those tons of warships parked there coming in and out port?

Did the UK gove have permission?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the UK government and military have permission from the British subjects to place nuclear submarines there? Looking at the map zooming out makes it obvious that a nuclear accident or an attack against the subs could have quite an impact on the environment and population.

Re:Did the UK gove have permission?

[Don_dumb]

If you read about the history of Faslane (and I have) it was decided to put the base there because it was away from a built up area (much more so than the other naval bases during the war) but wasn't too far away from a large population that could work there.

The UK government had to negotiate more with dockyards in the area rather than the local populace.

Plus I can't think of a place where a nuclear accident wouldn't have an impact on the population

Re:Did the UK gove have permission?

[meringuoid]

Plus I can't think of a place where a nuclear accident wouldn't have an impact on the population

There's a couple of places I could name where the radioactivity might do the gene pool a favour.

Re:Did the UK gove have permission?

[Don_dumb]

Good point - The gene pool could do with some bleach

Google Maps link

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone's interested, here's a Google Maps link.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=faslane,+scotland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.555061,79.101563&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=14

All I did was type in "Faslane, Scotland" and it took me directly to the base, as if it wasn't any big secret. *shrug*

been past it in a speed boat, it looks sinister

[AndyGasman]

I've been past it in a speed boat, it looks pretty sinister, v big place. They have floating docks that they use to load the nukes into the subs. You can get a wildlife tour from Dunoon, we saw more porpoises that submarines, great trip.

I didn't take up the popular CND pastime of super-glue-ing my hands to the road outside though.

Id recommend the book, Fortress Scotland, by Malcolm Spaven, it has lots of details on cold-war Scotland. It has a fir amount to info on Faslane, including why it was built there and how much it probably cost. The book is a bit dated now, being published in 1983, but its interesting how much has changed since the cold war ended.

What right do they have to be angry?

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

The UK government can afford to spend billions maintaining and staffing a nuclear submarine fleet but they can't afford to buy a fucking roof for the dock?

Do they ask the Chinese and Russian spy satellite operators to blur the images before they pass them on to their superiors too?

You think the submarines are still there?

[Joce640k]

Google earth data is usually very old. Last I heard, nuclear submarines tend to move around.

Re:You think the submarines are still there?

[FTWinston]

Fastlane's where the UK's fleet lives. Its where they all come back to dock at - its our only nuclear sub base, afaik.

There's a permanent protest camp just outside it.
This is about an article from the Sun ... so by definition, its a non-story.

Re:You think the submarines are still there?

[Plunky]

Fastlane's where the UK's fleet lives. Its where they all come back to dock at - its our only nuclear sub base, afaik.

There are often nuclear subs at Plymouth too though I don't know if it is a permanent base or just a refit facility. In fact there is some controversy in the local newspaper this week as a reactor from HMS Vanguard is being cut up for disposal in the dockyard.

Blurred out on the map ==

[Junior J. Junior III]

All your base are belong to Gauss?

You can't really hide big things :)

[jopsen]

Doesn't that just mean that a whole chain of people at Google now know the location is sensitive and could turn around and pass on that information?

Don't you think the workers who built the place knows where it is, or did they bury them when they were done building it?

It's not like you can easily hide big things when thousands of people are involved in building and maintaining them... Perhaps it's just better to let it be a public secret...

Re:You can't really hide big things :)

[JWSmythe]

    Building a facility, and knowing what will be inside it are two completely different things.

    "You're here to build an office building, a big warehouse, and a large dock"

    Big deal. It could be moving plastic dog turds from China, or ... well ... a base for storing nukes and docking nuclear submarines. :)

    If the folks requesting the work to be done did their job right, the cover story will adequately explain the facility.

Re:You can't really hide big things :)

[bhtooefr]

Of course you can.

"I think," said Ford in a tone of voice which Arthur by now recognized as one which presaged something utterly unintelligible, "that there's an SEP over there."

He pointed. Curiously enough, the direction he pointed in was not the one in which he was looking. Arthur looked in the one direction, which was towards the sight-screens, and in the other which was at the field of play. He nodded, he shrugged. He shrugged again.

"A what?" he said.

"An SEP."

"An S ...?"

"... EP."

"And what's that?"

"Somebody Else's Problem."

"Ah, good," said Arthur and relaxed. He had no idea what all that was about, but at least it seemed to be over. It wasn't. ...

"An SEP," [Ford] said, "is something that we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. That's what SEP means. Somebody Else's Problem. The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye."

The second strangest thing about the ship was watching the Somebody Else's Problem field at work. They could now clearly see the ship for what it was simply because they knew it was there. It was quite apparent, however, that nobody else could. This wasn't because it was actually invisible or anything hyper-impossible like that. The technology involved in making anything invisible is so infinitely complex that nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand million, nine hundred and ninety-nine million, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine times out of a billion it is much simpler and more effective just to take the thing away and do without it. The ultra-famous sciento-magician Effrafax of Wug once bet his life that, given a year, he could render the great megamountain Magramal entirely invisible.

Having spent most of the year jiggling around with immense LuxO-Valves and Refracto-Nullifiers and Spectrum-Bypass-O-Matics, he realized, with nine hours to go, that he wasn't going to make it.

So, he and his friends, and his friends' friends, and his friends' friends' friends, and his friends' friends' friends' friends, and some rather less good friends of theirs who happened to own a major stellar trucking company, put in what now is widely recognized as being the hardest night's work in history, and, sure enough, on the following day, Magramal was no longer visible. Effrafax lost his bet -- and therefore his life -- simply because some pedantic adjudicating official noticed (a) that when walking around the area that Magramal ought to be he didn't trip over or break his nose on anything, and (B) a suspicious-looking extra moon.

The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and what's more can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people's natural disposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain. If Effrafax had painted the mountain pink and erected a cheap and simple Somebody Else's Problem field on it, then people would have walked past the mountain, round it, even over it, and simply never have noticed that the thing was there.

well known

[slvrshwr]

Faslane is a well-known naval nuclear facility (hence the 'peace camp' photolink just south of the facility on the map), they assemble nuclear subs there I believe... (hence the picture of the sub also on the map). Maybe its not so well known to the English...

If anyone was really interested in the layout...

[LunarEffect]

wouldn't they take a picknick near Rosneath Road with a pair of binoculars? I mean...if I look at googlemaps and see a blurred out area, it kinda sparks my interest far more than if I see a line that might resemble a submarine.

Secret nuclear base...

[Chris Mattern]

...ah, you mean this one?

If they submerge the submarines...

[Baron of Blue]

they can hide them without having to move them an inch (except downwards, that is). Bring them up only for repairs and embarking/disembarking, and only inside a closed structure. Does anyone see why they don't do that all the time, given the risk of aerial or satellite photography?

Re:If they submerge the submarines...

[jo_ham]

Because the water isn't deep enough to hide a fully submerged sub close to the shore that could surface inside a special base or structure.

It's not James Bond - secret lairs with perfect terrain for your plans are not easy to come by.

It's no secret that the base is the home base for the nuclear deterrent, and it is no surprise that subs will occasionally be berthed there. The real secrets about the subs is not where they make their home, but when they are in the oceans when they're not in Scotland.

Re:If they submerge the submarines...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes. I hadn't thought of the depth issue. Thanks.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a few cheap dud subs (skeleton crew, no weapons, least equipment) that look exactly the same, so no one knows which is which?

Faslane

[Canazza]

I live in Glasgow, I've passed by Faslane on many a weekend drive, it's on the scenic route between Glasgow and the Highlands, with some excellent views over Loch Gare and an excellent pub in Arochar at the end (IE, it's the one all the tourists take)

Faslane's location is not secret, infact, until recently, they had an infestation of protesting hippies not far from it.

The only thing Secret about faslane is it's layout, and any submarines that may have surfaced in it's dock at the time the photo was taken. That is what's causing a kerfuffle. It's a general...

what I want to know is, what the fuck is this?

Re:Faslane

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, wtf is this?

Re:Faslane

[Kalriath]

That's a lake.

Re:Faslane

[DanJ_UK]

It hasn't been a secret for as long as I can remember. In fact it used to be one of the things I'd enjoy looking out for on the drive to Lochgilphead to visit my Aunt and Uncle.

The easy solution.

[kdcttg]

From the article: "One told The Sun: 'A strike on our nuclear capability would cause untold devastation. Terrorists could have a field day, knowing exactly where to aim strikes to cause the maximum devastation.' "

The easy solution, get rid of the nuclear weapons.

From TFA

[fyrewulff]

""If people are really determined to target these sites they can find these images and there is nothing we can do to stop them." - MOD spokesman

In short, "people can get their hands on these images without Google"

They should slap a Coke logo over it...

[ebydav]

and at least make some ad revenue.

So, if all the sensitive stuff is blurred out...

[Kevin108]

Can't terrorists just blow up the blurs?

photoshop doesnt run well on linux

[Anonymous Coward]

so google left the pictures untouched

blame adobe
blame microsoft

like civilians dont have cameras in cellphones

[Anonymous Coward]

and like there's no black market for crucial data out there.
if thy wish, rogue nations can get enough of secret data by infiltration and a chain of smugglers. there are other means of getting this data into wrong hands and the wrong hands are always willing to work harder for the few bucks
It's all known to everyone.
What is big or new here?

if it were really secret, it would be beyond all this.
It would probably be under a poultry farm under the countryside or near a coral reef with lots of rock or in the forest with dense foliage around and so on.

and you also need to protect yourselves from your citizens who are angry at you. simply calling their religion cruel and running wars on false grounds is not exactly helping the security.

You complain about the symptom while ignoring the cause, the infection, the treatment and the patient too.

This is not national security, this is perfect idiocracy.
Or it is to prove to an alien civilization that humans are an "evolved race" of gullible idiots, by and large.

OMFG! ROCKET SILOS!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are those? Just north from the subs.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=56.073377,-4.818749&spn=0.008898,0.019312&t=h&z=16

Re:OMFG! ROCKET SILOS!

[SmitherIsGod]

Fuel depots.

re: Google Earth Uncovers Secret UK Nuke Base

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang it, I thought this said secret "nude" base.

nah, the real danger is harry potter

[Anonymous Coward]

Some British Muslim kid is going to use google earth and sit on his brand new magic broom and whooooooooooosh!
Britain is under attack by the witches of Al Qaeda!!

Look Ma, I can zoom straight into the pic and booom!
I got a nuke sub! I got a nuke sub!

THAT'S the real danger, i tell ya!

BFD

[PPH]

Its a nuclear sub base. Most of the time the subs will be out at sea, invisible to Google Earth.

breaking !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

nuclear submarine in dock A ..... four years ago :p

come ON! .... Google earth isn`t realtime you know!.

now you know why locating your garden and then going outside to wave doesn`t work, sorry to spoil it for you.

Nothing special

[UnknowingFool]

During most of the cold war, you would think that the superpowers would be cognizant of satellite spying. These days, there's ever more satellites out there so governments should take necessary safeguards. There were stories about how the Soviet missile sites were easily detectable on by satellite photos.

First of all, a nuclear missile is expensive. You probably want high security around it. According to Soviet protocols, three layers of fencing are standard. Also to get the missile to the site, it has to be a delicate operation. You can't haul them over rocky and uneven terrain. Unlike the West, the Soviets didn't build roads to everywhere, only where they were necessary. Also the missile launchers were loaded onto trucks that required a wide turning radius.

So American intelligence found 1) a paved road to the middle to nowhere, 2) wide turning radii in the road, and 3) three layers of fencing at the endpoint of the road, they found a missile site.

Re:Nothing special

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hardly as though the Soviets tried to hide their bases, either. One of the basic features of the SALT agreements was satellite observation to ensure compliance.

There was even an abortive plan to build silo complexes in the US with six or so silos for each missile. The idea was that once a day the silos would be opened at a prearranged time, so that the Soviet satellites could confirm the number of missiles, after which the silos would close and the missile would be moved underground to a random silo.

The plan was scrapped, as I recall, for reasons of expense.

The notion that nuclear bases are highly guarded secrets is just absurd. All the players knew where they were. To quote Zap Brannigan, "In the game of chess you can never let your opponent see your pieces."

Re:Nothing special

[UnknowingFool]

Negotiations of the SALT I treaty did not start until 1969 and didn't end until 1972. The Soviet like the Americans did not want the other side to know where their sites were in the 1950s and 60s. After it became apparent after the 1960s that the Americans knew where their sites were and both sides could easily destroy the other, such secrecy was less importnant.

The notion that nuclear bases are highly guarded secrets is just absurd. All the players knew where they were. To quote Zap Brannigan, "In the game of chess you can never let your opponent see your pieces."

In the 1950s and 60s the whole strategies depended on destroying the other sides sites as well as deploying your own. Strategic bombers, subs, etc were all part of this plan. But by the 1960s, military hardware and advances in missiles made this strategy useless as both sides knew there was little it could do against the other missiles in time to prevent them from launching.

Re:Nothing special

[SuiteSisterMary]

It's a different world, nowadays. You're not worried about T-80s streaming across the Fulda Gap, you're not worried about Bears and Backfires taking out your strategic assets, you're worried about four assholes, willing to die for the cause, silently slipping up to your boat in a zodiac and sticking something boomy onto your stuff.

Google censorship of Washington reduced.

[Animats]

There's been progress. At one time, Google blurred the roof of the White House. That was just silly, and that stopped some time ago. The entire U.S. Naval Observatory area in Washington was blurred while Cheney lived there, but it's not blurred as much now. In fact, there's even a marker for "One Observatory Circle". There remains some blurring, though, and it ends just outside Observatory Circle.

The big change is that StreetView is now available for the Washington area.

Submarines move occasionally.....

[LVSlushdat]

Geez.. if you look at the imagery date in GE, it's March 13, 2003!!! Last time I heard, submarines move around a bit.. especially over 6 flippin' years!!
 

Stimulus bill

[WindBourne]

China has built a "secret sub base" that they are trying to use to hide their subs and counts (they currently PRODUCE 2-4 new nukes subs each year; that means that they have a factory for these spitting them; at this time, China is though to have 12 new nuke subs from the last 5 years). The one nice thing about that base is that it is underground entrance and is basically a grotto. I am thinking that the west needs to spend some money on doing similar things. It may sounds like a lot of money, but countries that want to dominate the west will simply do a perl harbor on all the nicely mapped out bases. OTH, if underground entrances and we know what subs are in the area, then we can keep quiet when and where our subs are.

Re:Stimulus bill

[True Grit]

The one nice thing about that base is that it is underground entrance and is basically a grotto. I am thinking that the west needs to spend some money on doing similar things.

Why? We're talking about ICBM submarines, whose entire reason for existence is to go out to sea, stay deep and undetected, and be prepared to launch within minutes of getting the go-codes. In the US Navy these nuke subs have 2 different crews, so when one comes in at the end of their tour, the sub is restocked, maintenance is done, and its quickly sent back to sea with the other crew. US Navy nuke subs spend most of their service lifetime at sea where they are invulnerable to attack, and this is what makes them so valuable as a nuclear deterent. A nuke sub in port is useless, which is why only a fraction of them are ever in port at the same time.

will simply do a perl harbor on all the nicely mapped out bases

A "pearl harbor attack" is NOT POSSIBLE anymore, we'd see their incoming nukes and launch our own before theirs got to their targets. As one poster above suggested, try googling "Mutual Assured Destruction". It is this MAD policy which prevents a "nuclear pearl harbor", and is also the reason why there is no point in trying "to defend" against a nuclear attack (even NORAD's HQ, buried inside a mountain, is still believed by some experts to be vulnerable to a "direct hit"), the whole point of MAD is so that no one launches to begin with, because if anyone does, WE ALL LOSE.

Re:Stimulus bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? We're talking about ICBM submarines, whose entire reason for existence is to go out to sea, stay deep and undetected, and be prepared to launch within minutes of getting the go-codes. In the US Navy these nuke subs have 2 different crews, so when one comes in at the end of their tour, the sub is restocked, maintenance is done, and its quickly sent back to sea with the other crew. US Navy nuke subs spend most of their service lifetime at sea where they are invulnerable to attack, and this is what makes them so valuable as a nuclear deterent. A nuke sub in port is useless, which is why only a fraction of them are ever in port at the same time.
There are 2 types of subs; Sea attacks designed to hit ships (in American jargon attack subs) and Land Attack (boomers that launch ICBM). ALL SUBS ARE VULNERABLE IF THE ENEMY KNOWS WHERE THEY ARE. That is why UK was trying to do a QUIET SUB BASE. Now, that it is known, the "enemy" can see not only secrets of the sub (i.e. the props, towed arrays, etc), but can also look in to the base and see how many ships are there. If you have 30 ships and 20 are in base, that is a great time to hit it (called perl harbor). OTH, if the sats can not see it, then only spies or QUIET subs can figure that out. China has their base IN A GROTTO which hides it from sats. The only way to track the subs is to park a sub off the entrance and monitor. Guess who is figuring out how to do underwater monitoring. BTW, subs take about a week to turn. Pretty long time.

A "pearl harbor attack" is NOT POSSIBLE anymore, we'd see their incoming nukes and launch our own before theirs got to their targets. As one poster above suggested, try googling "Mutual Assured Destruction". It is this MAD policy which prevents a "nuclear pearl harbor", and is also the reason why there is no point in trying "to defend" against a nuclear attack (even NORAD's HQ, buried inside a mountain, is still believed by some experts to be vulnerable to a "direct hit"), the whole point of MAD is so that no one launches to begin with, because if anyone does, WE ALL LOSE. Amazing. You don't say. MAD huh? Gee, a guy that use to duck under a desk as a student while his father flew a fat man on a b-47 towards USSR never would have know about that. Thank.
Here is a clue. MAD only works under two conditions.

1. Neither side has the ability to stop the nukes from coming in. If they have the ability to detect them AND stop them before they come in, then MAD does not work.
2. BOTH leadership do not want a war.

Both USSR and USA had MAD because we agreed to not use ABM systems. In addition, both sides had spies on each other. BUT they were looking at capabilities of each system as well as new systems. China has their spy trying to figure out how to replicate our systems. They are showing a strong interest in how our defense system works, not our offense system. USSR was far more interested in our offense, as we were in theirs. The defense was not as much an issue. China, like N. Korea, claims that their system is for defense, but they are pushing offense far more.

Finally, during the cold war, our subs were fairly easy to detect off each others shores. NOW, china is striving for quiet subs, and "borrowing" tech from Russia, USA, Britain, and France. If they are able to get a sub quieter than what our monitors pick up, then they could park one between france and england, one off japan and then several around the USA, and we would each have under 1-2 minutes to respond. Our system is good. Not that good.

BTW, History shows that when a country has turmil inside, then the leadership will want to channel it to the ourside world. That is what Hitler and Stalin did. In addition, once a leadership like that feels that they can take on another, they will attempt it.

Re:Stimulus bill

[cdrguru]

Two problems with your nice posting....

(a) Nobody is really prepared to "launch on warning" any longer. The concept was active in the 50s and 60s but has since fallen out of favor. It would clearly lead to a disaster and everyone in the West knows it, which is why nobody is running their military that way any more. So, until there is actually a first strike, nothing is getting launched. At that point if the first strike is overwhelming, we in the US are counting on a sub-launched reprisal.

(b) MAD only works if the opponent fears destruction of their cities and way of life. Most of the current crop of realistic opponents for the US don't think this way. So MAD doesn't work. If, in order to achieve their goals it was necessary to sacrifice 80% of their population that is a decision they could make. Western governments, including the former USSR, don't think this way so MAD was a realistic deterrent. Not any longer.

I don't see any problem with the leaders of North Korea or Iran deciding that 80% of their population had to be sacrificed. I think that is a decision they could easily make. So MAD doesn't work for them at all.

Re:Stimulus bill

[mbkennel]

"I don't see any problem with the leaders of North Korea or Iran deciding that 80% of their population had to be sacrificed. I think that is a decision they could easily make. So MAD doesn't work for them at all."

North Korea's leaders might be happy with sacrificing 80% of its population, but only if they got to choose, as they usually do on such matters.

Fallout patterns might not be so agreeable.

Re:Stimulus bill

[True Grit]

(a) Nobody is really prepared to "launch on warning" any longer.

Officially, neither side has ever said they would or wouldn't "launch on warning", but true, this strategy did become harder to achieve with the advent of nuke subs. It would all depend on where the incoming ICBMs are coming from, and how many there are. Note however that this doesn't conflict with the MAD doctrine, its merely one of the options available (the other being second strike) to *implement* the MAD doctrine (see the Theory section in the link). See below about my assumption of what the OP was thinking of.

So, until there is actually a first strike, nothing is getting launched.

Well, like I said, that would depend on the nature of the first strike. We've never ruled it out. NORAD is still fully operational, both our and Russia's nuclear forces remain at a relatively high readiness, and there is still a military officer with a very special briefcase following POTUS around at all times...

(b) MAD only works if the opponent fears destruction of their cities and way of life. Most of the current crop of realistic opponents for the US don't think this way. So MAD doesn't work.

That *might* be true, but the examples you give of North Korea and Iran are also incapable, at the moment, of reaching either the US or UK with ICBMs, as they don't have any (yet). Iran doesn't yet even have nukes. The OP refered to an attack on well-mapped "bases", implying to me a large scale attack on multiple targets in the US/UK, and right now there is still only one "realistic opponent" that can do that: Russia. And yes, given the recent behavior of that country, I fear they are still a realistic opponent (or they certainly still consider *us* an opponent).

As for N. Korea and Iran, I'm not actually convinced even they would commit suicide this way. N. Korea against S. Korea, *maybe*. Iran against Isreal, *maybe*. But against the US? Its going to take them a LONG time for them to develop a large enough fleet of ICBMs to even make such a suicide "worthwhile" anyway.

I suspect those 2 countries, especially Iran, of just wanting nukes to strengthen their geo-political position in their regions and with their neighbors. N. Korea wants nukes so they can bully S. Korea & Japan, and Iran has *long* wanted nukes (predating the rise of the Islamic Fundies there) because of who their neighbors are. Check a map of that region and note who borders Iran to the north and east and you'll see what I mean. :)

Wikipedia?

[GNUThomson]

Wikipedia supports terrorists,too? Damn.

beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. It's in beta. These things happen.

Sooo....

[Anonymous Coward]

So, lets see, the British Govt is upset because they wanted to "hide" it... from... the guy who is drinking a beer while googling for "stuff".

Meanwhile, foreign governments have their own satellites, certainly not "restricted at the request of the British" that can see, probably even better, exactly where the nukes are.

Nah, not worried about a foreign country with armed/trained special-ops crews that might actually be able to inconvenience a nuke base.. its the guy who drives a used Hyundai and checks google earth, and who might attack a high-security military base with a 9mm pistol and a maltov-cocktail thats the real threat....

From the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apparently the UK Government is worried that terrorists could potentially launch missile attacks to those target areas with the exact coordinates readily available on the Internet. "

If anyone thinks that 'terrorists' will attack nuclear bases with missiles they are insane.

The objective of a terrorist is to publicize their cause and bring pressure to bear on governments by attacking *easy* targets. They want to convince the population to try to change their governments actions through fear.

They are not trying to reduce a countries nuclear capability or take on it's army.

A nuclear base is not an easy target!
Nor is it one likely to make the population turn against it's own government.

Missile Silos

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you can clearly see the missile silos!

They are the cylinder looking things to the north in the picture covered by a thin layer of grass!

Street View?

[thewils]

Man you should check out the "Street View" of the base, too! ;)

Re:Also from US military - the annotated version

[Anonymous Coward]

which is where the Wikipedia photo came from.

But keep reading! The navy has helpful maps of all the facilities and buildings, the location of the 'polaris wharf', maps of all the anchorages etc. etc. Far more useful than a photo:

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/~cannon/medports/Faslane/

A couple means 2 not 4 as seen

[Anonymous Coward]

There are not 2 subs at the base when the picture was taken but rather 4 subs from my count. :)

Where is DHS Atomic Terror Warning RED

[Anonymous Coward]

WoW!

DHS, our Nazi Securer of Precious Bodily Fluids had not issued TERROR ALERT RED!!!!!

What is up with DHS?

Where is El Magnifique Presedente Generale Exeluanse Kartoff-Jerkoff, pumpinng his "man-thang" on live CNN?

Where is the National Guard killing thousands, millions, of terrorists (i.e. non-caucasians) at the national airports, the city streets, in high schools?

Where is the TSA being their "Best of the Best" at spotting terrorists grandmothers, paper-clips (ah those things are deadly), and the ... terrorists thoughts ... of the "terrorist passangers" ... who they see every day and night ... at all the airport restrooms ... in the stalls ... they communicate by tapping on the floor ... its code ... like the Congressman?

Where is Condi Rice "Condi-Thang" jumping on her oak desk, and inserting "man-thang" surrogate into her "woman-thang" for CNN.

God! What has happened? Were are we? Who are these people? Are these people human? Where's my rifle?

base

[ELCouz]

All your base are belong to us :)

PRC thanks honorable fool

[algoa456]

The Peoples Democratic Republic of China thanks you - glory to the revolution. Signed Jiang Zemin

solemmegithtisstraight....

[TransientAlias]

The UK is complaining about being in the panopticon??? I want to warn you all!!! Just in case you didn't notice... every person around you has a camera, there is a camera in every shop, many street corners, pretty much every public space... I realize most people know this, but I geuss we have to warn the governments... they invented the thing and they themselves have now come under its inspection. I think it is a good move towards a more open government, and, one would hope, a decline in "security theatre" and an increase in actual security where it is warranted.

well .....

[the_wesman]

that's life in the faslane

get it?

Google Earth Link

[InsurrctionConsltant]

A Google Earth .kmz file linking to the location is here.

The Real Secret

[Toad-san]

Mate, those aren't crop circles. They're the REAL secret: the biggest tank farm in the UK! HUGE oil tanks, partially underground, camouflaged with turf ... but now we'll have to shoot you. Because now the UK taxpayers will realize that you don't need huge petroleum tanks when you have nuclear submarines, and it's actually the UK's emergency oil storage facility ... and there'll be Minis lined up for bloody miles.

Toad

Duck and cover!

[chord.wav]

BRITAIN'S nuclear defence HQ could be under threat from terrorists using Google Earth.

Duh, it is a very well known fact that Google Earth is the prefered terrorist tool and the biggest threat to the fortified, militar, nuclear defense HQ of one of the most powerful nations in the world... Where's the news here?

build an overhang our something

[xycadium]

If they're so concerned about keeping them hidden, then why didn't they build a building around that port area so the subs would not be visible from the air. It looks like they've already built something similar right next to it (white building).

Do it Right!

[pugugly]

So my question is simple - which hyperencephalic genius here can do the important work of creating a simple open-source system that automatically scans Google Earth for blurred images - {G}.

Should be opensource, deployable as a distributed system that automatically marks the imagery for everyone, and preferably have a built in algorithm for reversing the blurring like they do on every crime show ever whelped - {G}.

Pug