Slashdot Mirror


America's Secret Underground Ice Fortresses

Hugh Pickens writes "With the advent of long-range bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles in the 1950s, it was inevitable that military attention would be drawn to remote but strategic arctic regions. Now Defense Tech reports on Project Iceworm — America's secret cold war plan to build a network of underground missile bases under the Greenland ice cap capable of launching 'Iceman' ICBM missiles at Russia. The first base, 'Camp Century,' built 800 miles from the North Pole, contained 21 steel-arch covered trenches; the longest of which was 1,100-feet long, 26-feet wide and 26-feet high. The massive base, constructed to house 200 troops, was officially built to conduct scientific research. But the real reason was apparently to test out the feasibility of burying nuclear missiles below the ice, since Greenland is so much closer to Russia than the ICBM fields located in the continental U.S. If fully implemented, the project would cover an area of 52,000 square miles with clusters of missile launch centers spaced four miles apart. New tunnels were to be dug every year, so that after 5 years there would be thousands of firing positions, among which the several hundred missiles could be rotated. Camp Century was powered by a portable nuclear power plant designated PM-2A, the first of the U.S. Army's portable reactors to actually produce power, and was rated at two megawatts of electrical power, also supplying steam to operate the well that provided water for the troops. The Army team assembled the prefabricated reactor in 77 days, and just nine hours after fuel elements containing forty-three pounds of enriched Uranium-235 were inserted into the reactor, electricity was produced. Maintaining the tunnels at Camp Century required time-consuming and laborious trimming and removal of more than 120 tons of snow and ice each month. The camp, begun in 1959, was abandoned for good in 1966 and it is anticipated that the Greenland icecap, in constant motion, will completely destroy all the tunnels over the course of the coming years."

134 comments

  1. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    *Very* cool.

  2. Truth, fiction, stranger than by Bookwyrm · · Score: 4, Funny

    I must admit, the first thought that came to my mind when reading this is, this sounds like a great setting for some spy thriller or such. I mean, an abandoned military base with launch silos, its own nuclear power, and slowly being destroyed by encroaching ice?

    The perfect location to have the mastermind's base located in. At the end, the heroes have to race out of the base as it is finally being destroyed by the ice.

    1. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by Lluc · · Score: 2

      Maybe we can combine this with the preposterous scenes from The Day After Tomorrow where a wave of cold air chases the main characters down a hallway, freezing those who can't keep up! :)

    2. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From TFA: "Related Stories Yes, Moses flew to Japan on a spaceship and died there."

      Strange indeed...

    3. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by dargaud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having done construction work in polar regions, I can't imagine how much money and energy must have gone into that thing. Cool, yes, but how much useful, peaceful scientific research could have been conducted there for the same budget ?!? Compare to now where instead instead of wasting it on useless and scary bombs, we waste it on useless and scary traders. Hmmm.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    4. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by Zot+Quixote · · Score: 0

      Actually, the visuals don't just invoke Empire. Really the original 'The Thing' from the 1950s (based on the John Campbell short story from the 40s) has a shot that looks much like the first one. And I suppose Aliens vs. Predators used a setting that wasn't such a far cry from this as well.

    5. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by johnb10001 · · Score: 1

      Looks like something out of the movies Ice Station Zebra or The Thing.

    6. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      I must admit, the first thought that came to my mind when reading this is, this sounds like a great setting for some spy thriller or such. I mean, an abandoned military base with launch silos, its own nuclear power, and slowly being destroyed by encroaching ice?

      The perfect location to have the mastermind's base located in. At the end, the heroes have to race out of the base as it is finally being destroyed by the ice.

      Sounds thrilling... "We have just 5 to 7 years to get out of these tunnels before the glacier shifts and destroys them! Oh no! I tripped! I won't make it! Go on without me!"

      You are going to need to add radioactive mutant soldiers and the threat of direct nuclear attack into the mix before you get off the ground with that idea.

    7. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      What, are you Doctor Evil's henchman, with a steam roller barreling down on you?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    8. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      When you're the man in charge, scary is not useless.

    9. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can defeat cold air by burning books in an old fireplace that has been sealed up for 70 years.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have just 5 to 7 years to get out of these tunnels before the glacier shifts and destroys them!

      Unless, of course, you have arrived at the end of that seven year period and the ice is only a few micrometres away from buckling the walls. Not so much fun now, eh?

    11. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alistair Mclean: Ice Station Zebra.

    12. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the mystery/horror PC game, "Penumbra", the main character was exploring something like this, though it didn't have missiles. In the game, the base had been created by the British military.

    13. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

      Actually it is a reference to the movie In the Loop where the name of the informant for the intelligence gets changed from Iceman to Debussy. "You think that's his real name? Iceman? To Mr. and Mrs. Man, a son... Ice?"

    14. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by cyn1c77 · · Score: 0

      Having done construction work in polar regions, I can't imagine how much money and energy must have gone into that thing. Cool, yes, but how much useful, peaceful scientific research could have been conducted there for the same budget ?!? Compare to now where instead instead of wasting it on useless and scary bombs, we waste it on useless and scary traders. Hmmm.

      A more contemporary question is how much peaceful scientific research could have been conducted in the US for the cost of military operations in Afganistan and Iraq.

      My car could be driving itself by now...

    15. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by dargaud · · Score: 1

      A more contemporary question is how much peaceful scientific research could have been conducted in the US for the cost of military operations in Afganistan and Iraq.

      My car could be driving itself by now...

      You'd have the software to drive it, yes, but not the oil... :P

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    16. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Having done construction work in polar regions, I can't imagine how much money and energy must have gone into that thing. Cool, yes, but how much useful, peaceful scientific research could have been conducted there for the same budget ?!? Compare to now where instead instead of wasting it on useless and scary bombs, we waste it on useless and scary traders. Hmmm.

      For useful science, what if we sent the scary and useless traders to the ice base and nuked them from orbit, just to be sure.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    17. Re:Truth, fiction, stranger than by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Hey, there are penguins there ! (and colleagues of mine for that matter)

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  3. Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream? by bacon.frankfurter · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

  4. Misleading Summary...As Usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "...The camp, begun in 1959, was abandoned for good in 1966 and it is anticipated that the Greenland icecap, in constant motion, will completely destroy all the tunnels over the course of the coming years."

    From TFA: "Camp Century was abandoned for good in 1966. The Greenland icecap, in constant motion, would completely destroy all the tunnels over the course of several years."

    I.e. the tunnels would be destroyed over the next several years following 1966. Which was over 40 years ago. These tunnels are gone. TFA even pretty much says as much: "Today, it is likely that most of Camp Century has been reclaimed by the ice."

    1. Re:Misleading Summary...As Usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that Hugh Pickens is a power-poster, and the editors like samzenpus just scan his submission feed for things to publish... much tidier that way, not having to deal with regular unwashed Slashdot users and their submissions.

  5. Inconceivable by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Funny

    friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed, in Greenland? - Vizzini

    I understand Fezzik so much better now.

  6. Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    While it scores virtually infinite cartoon-supervillain points(seriously, a massive, ever-expanding labarynthine nuclear-powered ice fortress?), I have to imagine that the cost/benefit got a lot less exciting once the more prosaic 'lots of nuclear submarines sneaking around, also we can use them to attack ships, in a pinch,' strategy became viable.

    Incidentally, for anybody who likes our dread overlord Cthulhu, and wishes to be eaten first, this sounds like something ripped straight from A Colder War...

    1. Re:Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it scores virtually infinite cartoon-supervillain points(seriously, a massive, ever-expanding labarynthine nuclear-powered ice fortress?), I have to imagine that the cost/benefit got a lot less exciting once the more prosaic 'lots of nuclear submarines sneaking around, also we can use them to attack ships, in a pinch,' strategy became viable.

      Incidentally, for anybody who likes our dread overlord Cthulhu, and wishes to be eaten first, this sounds like something ripped straight from A Colder War...

      Seems to me like even with the advent of missile subs those tunnels could still have served as a hideout for World Leaders (tm) from our side of the political spectrum if the worst had happened...

      Just to show off what a pedant nitpicking jerk I can be, I'd like to comment that using a missile sub to attack other ships is like the mother of all no-no's of missile sub handling; you want those hugely valuable babies to stay as hidden as possible, no matter what may come.

    2. Re:Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Using them in some sort of Das Boot "man the torpedoes!" role does seem counterproductive(if they even have the hardware for it...); but I have to imagine that carrying a few tactical nuclear missiles of modest range and yield would give you the ability to really fuck up a carrier group's day in relative safety.

    3. Re:Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      While it scores virtually infinite cartoon-supervillain points(seriously, a massive, ever-expanding labarynthine nuclear-powered ice fortress?), I have to imagine that the cost/benefit got a lot less exciting once the more prosaic 'lots of nuclear submarines sneaking around, also we can use them to attack ships, in a pinch,' strategy became viable.

      SSBN's were half the solution, land based ICBM's with the range to reach the USSR from CONUS was the other.

    4. Re:Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Most of the boomers switched to a mostly-non-nuclear cruise missile payload a while back, just so we could get some use out of them. Not sure whether those missiles had any anti-ship capabilities.

      I wonder what the boomers are up to htese days, as the march of time has made launching cruise missiles from hiding on the first night of the war a lot less useful than in the days of the First Gulf War.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      1/3 the solution. Bombers are the third leg of the nuclear triad.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    6. Re:Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yes, bombers are the third leg of the triad. But we weren't discussing the triad.

    7. Re:Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      [quote]Seems to me like even with the advent of missile subs those tunnels could still have served as a hideout for World Leaders (tm) from our side of the political spectrum if the worst had happened...[/quote]

      Not if you RTFA. The camp was abandoned because they had to trim and remove 120 tons of ice a month to maintain the tunnels because of the ice sheets movement. The tunnels themselves also weren't nearly deep enough to shield from "nearby" nuclear explosions or conventional bombings, which would be inevitable as its location was no secret.

      Facilities like Raven Rock were far more secure and easier to maintain, not to mention reachable before the bombs fell.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock,_Pennsylvania

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    8. Re:Killed by miniaturization, I assume? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Stross's stuff is fun when he isn't rehashing his fantasies re female cops.

  7. vicitim of soviet h-bombs by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

    The camp, begun in 1959, was abandoned for good in 1966

    Its a victim of soviet h-bomb development. The planning phase was "more or less" before decent soviet h-bombs (around 1960-ish) so everything was too close together, and/or proper spacing in a h-bomb era would make it unscalable. It would have worked pretty well as designed in a pre-h-bomb environment.

    Before someone gets all excited about the timelines, a rather large military project like h-bomb deployment is not done like software, where you begin distribution as soon as a beta version complies... I'm well aware they did a tech demonstrator in the early 50s and had a reasonable device for testing by the Very late 50s... But it wasn't clear that this base would be pointless until the 60s, when it was cancelled.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:vicitim of soviet h-bombs by Formalin · · Score: 1

      The military burns money on outdated stuff all the time.

      Here, starting in the late 50's, they made a line of pulse radars across Canada, roughly 100-200mi north of the US border (somewhat further north in the east, though). Some stations weren't even operational until they were already obsolete (mid 60's, obsoleted by Soviet ICBMs). There was a fair bit of US funding, but Canada paid some and did most of the manning.

      The best part is... They kept manning some of them until the fall of the Soviet Union, despite being outdated by the time of construction, and completely useless by the 70's. (Not to mention the much more capable DEW line had come online decades before then, too).

      I remember hearing a story from one of the guys that worked at a station through the 70's. He was an electronics technician and was maintaining the radar units - replacing vacuum tubes, and the like (I did mention this stuff was obsolete, right?). Some of the military-procured replacement tubes were imported from the USSR - the same USSR that the radars were allegedly protecting the US from. (Not protecting Canada, of course. The pinetree line was too far south to give much of a warning for most Canadian cities).

      Pretty comical stuff, if you don't think about how much it cost... when you do, it's just sad.

  8. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or a bunch of rebels. ;)

  9. Hoth Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I saw a documentary on this, with ice tunnels, mobile reactors and power generators, secret ice bases... Oh yes, the Empire Strikes Back

    But I didn't know the U.S.S.R. had giant four-legged robot death-machines.

    1. Re:Hoth Base by netwarerip · · Score: 2

      But I didn't know the U.S.S.R. had giant four-legged robot death-machines.

      No, they stopped at 3-legged female weightlifters.

  10. Interesting editing of the text from the article by tilante · · Score: 4, Informative
    The blurb given here ends with "was abandoned for good in 1966 and it is anticipated that the Greenland icecap, in constant motion, will completely destroy all the tunnels over the course of the coming years" -- which makes it sound as if the tunnels still exist right now. The original article's text, though, says, "Camp Century was abandoned for good in 1966. The Greenland icecap, in constant motion, would completely destroy all the tunnels over the course of several years."

    It then goes on in the next paragraph to talk about an expedition that went to look at the camp in 1969, and found that the camp was already extremely damaged, and notes that "Today, it is likely that most of Camp Century has been reclaimed by the ice."

    I have to wonder if the submitter consciously altered this to make it sound as if it's still in good shape right now, thinking that a camp that someone could possibly occupy and use would generate more interest than one that's likely an unsalvageable mess now.

  11. NSA knows who reads Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America's Secret Underground Ice Fortresses

    Thanks to Slashdot it's no longer a secret. You people are really starting to annoy the government. Yet another excuse to allow more H-1B Visa applications to be approved.

  12. Wow, this generation sucks. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you're saying that we could once build an entire nuclear powerplant in 77 days and get it running within 9 hours... in an ice cave, in Greenland? If the people who did that could see us now, they'd insult our manhoods.

    1. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See what they could achieve with a decent, honest haircut?

    2. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually only takes 77 days to build a modern nuclear facility, the reast of the time is just spent filling out regulatory and safety paperwork.

    3. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that we could once build an entire nuclear powerplant in 77 days

      Ummm, no. They put together a prefabricated, small nuclear powerplant in 77 days.

      You could at least read the summary.

    4. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Beriaru · · Score: 3

      It also says that after getting it running, the necessity of better shielding was discovered. Oh, and do not forget that the reactor discharged its radioactive liquid waste (47,078 gallons in total for 33 months) directly into the icecap. One has to wonder why they discontinued that type of portable reactors *rollseyes*.

    5. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      tell that to areva.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor#Olkiluoto_3_.28Areva.27s_first_plant.29

      granted, it seems they hadn't actually designed the whole thing ready and apparently still haven't...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by alphred · · Score: 1

      uh, well perhaps they discontinued it because it destroyed their manhood?

    7. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and by the late 1960's the USA was a toxic waste dump like china is today because people would build and screw the local communities. in the 1980's there was a smog haze over NYC that's not there today due to all the enviromental laws and advances in the last 40 years

    8. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See what they could achieve with a decent, honest haircut?

      Modern hippies wear decent clothing and have honest haircuts today, they eventually got tired of getting laughed at. However they still go mostly on emotion and good intentions, and not so much on logic and results.

    9. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Tony Stark was able to build this [his generator] in a cave! With a box of scraps!"

    10. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine what they could've done in a cave... with a box of scraps.

    11. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by c0lo · · Score: 0

      The only worthy sons America ever produced are the ones who cursed her name and bit her tit. I just made that up, but hey. Fuck nationalism, fuck toys, fuck tools.

      Sorry, but they are called sex toys and fuck machines.

      Now, my question: I don't know much of nationalism as a fetish but, being listed together with the rest and the context of tit-biting, I sense it's equally pornographic - i.e. indecent and capable of high excitation leading to orgasm in those with predispositions to it; am I right?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    12. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by RazorSharp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You completely miss Dr. Spork's point. He's talking about the ability to put the plan into action, not the quality of the plan. This may have been a bad plan, especially in hindsight, but their ability to execute it with efficiency should be applauded. That was also the same generation that brought us the U.S. highway system and put a man on the moon.

      Today we can't even build a train - even if funding were approved it would probably take decades to bring a modern transportation system to the U.S. because of all the red tape. It doesn't matter if we have the resources to do great things if we don't even try to do them, if we have a system which misdirects the resources, or if the vast majority, such as yourself, preaches apathy.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    13. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying the technological prowess and innovation of previous generations was superior to now? Why are you ignoring today's miracles of science and engineering such as: World of Warcraft, 4chan, DRM, ubiquitous CCTV cameras, Facebook, phones that spy on you etc. Plenty to be proud of!

    14. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by camperdave · · Score: 2

      It also says that after getting it running, the necessity of better shielding was discovered. Oh, and do not forget that the reactor discharged its radioactive liquid waste (47,078 gallons in total for 33 months) directly into the icecap. One has to wonder why they discontinued that type of portable reactors *rollseyes*.

      Um... Greenland is sovereign territory of Denmark. Did the US get permission from the Danes to install this base? Are they going to pay for the cleanup of the waste?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by deblau · · Score: 1

      That was Cold War mentality. When you go to sleep every night fearing that you might not wake up the next day because of a Soviet nuke, suddenly money and manpower are no object.

      Times are thankfully a bit different now.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    16. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I anticipated that kind of response and chose to ignore it before you even made it :P

    17. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by perpenso · · Score: 1

      and by the late 1960's the USA was a toxic waste dump like china is today because people would build and screw the local communities.

      BS. During that era and before, my grandfather worked at an industrial site with various nasty products that had to be properly captured, stored and removed. They did so conscientiously, before the 60s and the modern environmentalist movement. Besides being the law, there are also practical little details like the workers *and managers* of the plant knowing damn well that they could contaminate the local well water the town pumped into all their homes, the water that they and their families drank. Have their been tragic cases of pollution, yes, but they are the exception not the rule. Keep in mind that the companies and managers that do the "right thing" never make it to the nightly news.

    18. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You completely miss Dr. Spork's point. He's talking about the ability to put the plan into action, not the quality of the plan.

      So being able to put any old bullshit plan into action is manly? That goes for a "point"? Meanwhile, I'm deemed a troll haha.. IOW correct ^^

      This may have been a bad plan, especially in hindsight, but their ability to execute it with efficiency should be applauded.

      I could not disagree more. But in the spirit of peace, I'm not gonna invoke the Nazis on this. Even though they're kinda screaming for it.

    19. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

      Its the hippie types (including modern incarnations who have better clothes and haircuts) that use emotion rather than logic that get laughed at and have their manhood questioned

      Yeah, that's not using emotion at all.

      since the 1960s when they appeared

      That's the thing, mindless drones have existed for EONS, and they've never been worth shit, indidividually or in total. They're also dumb pussies, generally, as demonstrated here. Logic, my ass. Clowns.

      Face it. Going around and doing stuff other people tell you to do doesn't require a spine worth talking about -- rather realizing how fucking stupid the whole undertaking is, and how cynically you're being used, would.

      "Using" emotion on topic of logic because, you know, I can afford it.

    20. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by c0lo · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I anticipated that kind of response and chose to ignore it before you even made it :P

      Thanks. On this account, I'll be able now to sleep well tonight.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    21. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by eyenot · · Score: 1

      What's more impressive is that it could be dismantled in time without a huge incident. According to a recent /. story, most owners of nuclear plants in America never stopped to save up enough money to dismantle their reactors when those reactors reach the end of their lifetime.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    22. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that we could once build an entire nuclear powerplant in 77 days and get it running within 9 hours...

      No, it months to build the modules that made up the powerplant - the 77 days figure is for connecting the modules once they were built, assembled, tested, disassembled, and then shipped to Camp Century.
       
      As far as getting it running in 9 hours... well, the exact times are classified but lets just say that submarine crews would have a pretty good shot at that record.

    23. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      >BS

      Uh, the Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleavland, OH, caught fire in the 1950s and - famously - in 1969.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River#Environmental_concerns

      I won't even mention the smog in Los Angeles, which was unimaginable by the late '60s. LA still has smog, but it's nothing like it was 40+ years ago, thanks to strict environmental regulations.

      Tragic cases of pollution weren't the exception - in much of the country, they were the rule.

    24. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that we could once build an entire nuclear powerplant in 77 days and get it running within 9 hours... in an ice cave, in Greenland? If the people who did that could see us now, they'd insult our manhoods.

      That's true. On the other hand, let them behold the power that the regulators and bureaucrats have achieved in the last 50 years and they would despair.

      - - -
      Killing Owls to Save Owls
      Environmentalists against the Environment

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    25. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by perpenso · · Score: 1

      >BS

      Uh, the Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleavland, OH, caught fire in the 1950s and - famously - in 1969.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River#Environmental_concerns

      I won't even mention the smog in Los Angeles, which was unimaginable by the late '60s. LA still has smog, but it's nothing like it was 40+ years ago, thanks to strict environmental regulations.

      Tragic cases of pollution weren't the exception - in much of the country, they were the rule.

      I think you are mixing up high profile with common. While there were certainly some industrial sites that intentionally polluted I do not think that was the norm back then. Cuyahoga is so famous because it was the exception, not a normal occurrence. Again, the guys who did things the right way don't get mentioned in newspapers or books.

      As for LA smog. My understanding is that the smog is not so much of an industrial issue but mostly a personal automobile issue. A tragedy of the commons sort of situation where millions of individual people with cars add their little bit of pollution that accumulated and hovered over LA.

    26. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by lgw · · Score: 2

      Why would anyone clean it up? Do you know what happens to radioactive waste if you ignore it long enough? It stops being radioactive. There's very little in "radioactive waste" that's still dangerous after 40 years - just a few long-half-life isotopes that are dangerous if concentrated because they can enter the food chain (and embedded in the permafrost of a glacier is a fine place for them). Nothing that would hurt you just to walk near to.

      Th only real problem with disposal of radioactive waste form a reactor is where to the "hot" waste (e.g, the actual spent fuel) for the first 5 years or so (when normal storage contianers will simply fail) so that it doesn't run into the local water table. Many reactors these days solve that problem by just leaving the spent fuel where it is for a few years, but on a glacier it just doesn't come up.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... Greenland is sovereign territory of Denmark. Did the US get permission from the Danes to install this base?

      Did they get permission to build a base that "[...] was officially built to conduct scientific research"?
      Probably... I mean, why won't they?

      Oh, you mean the nuclear power plant and nuclear weapons?
      Well, Denmark doesn't want either of those, so they didn't get official permission.

      Are they going to pay for the cleanup of the waste?

      They paid to bury it underground. Isn't that enough?

    28. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I recall the LA-related joke from my younger years: "UCLA when the smog lifts." You're right, it was a real thing. (Although sibling is also correct; if this was more universal, then there'd likely have been additional jokes about other locations whose names lend themselves to wordplay.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    29. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

      You completely miss Dr. Spork's point. He's talking about the ability to put the plan into action, not the quality of the plan.

      So being able to put any old bullshit plan into action is manly? That goes for a "point"? Meanwhile, I'm deemed a troll haha.. IOW correct ^^

      This may have been a bad plan, especially in hindsight, but their ability to execute it with efficiency should be applauded.

      I could not disagree more. But in the spirit of peace, I'm not gonna invoke the Nazis on this. Even though they're kinda screaming for it.

      I give kudos where kudos are due - just because the you can compare something to the Nazis (I'm assuming you meant the efficient construction of large scale projects) doesn't mean that it's necessarily evil. Let's follow that logic: The Nazis ate food. The Nazis are evil. Therefore eating food is evil. The fallacy is obvious. Being able to invoke a Nazi comparison doesn't prove your point. If the Nazis Germany did something right there's no reason not to acknowledge it just because of its association with all the horrible things that happened during that time.

      Accomplishment through hard work is manly. Whether I'm chopping wood, building a barn, or shooting a deer with an arrow. You can accomplish a bullshit plan with manliness, you can accomplish a great plan with manliness. Without manliness nothing is accomplished. Political correctness be damned.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    30. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Your grandpa's either a liar or senile. I grew up two miles south of the Sauget, IL Monsanto plant. Even in the summer when it was 95 degrees (and no car AC back then, most folks' homes didn't even have AC) you had to roll the wondows up when driving past because the aire would burn your eyes and lungs. There were 100,000 55 gallon drums of highly toxic waste buried half mile away on the bank of the Mississippi. Dead Creek, which went past it and Cerro Copper, often caught fire.

      By 1975 there was no odor at all, and the creek stopped catching fire.

      Who's your grandpa, Ron Paul? He couldn't be more wrong. Tell him another geezer set you straight about his damned neocon lies.

    31. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Your grandpa's either a liar or senile.

      Or maybe I grew up in the same town and know what is happening there. The town has been testing the wells for decades, no contamination. The local plant was operated properly, as I expect most are.

      I grew up two miles south of the Sauget, IL Monsanto plant. Even in the summer when it was 95 degrees (and no car AC back then, most folks' homes didn't even have AC) you had to roll the wondows up when driving past because the aire would burn your eyes and lungs. There were 100,000 55 gallon drums of highly toxic waste buried half mile away on the bank of the Mississippi. Dead Creek, which went past it and Cerro Copper, often caught fire.

      I agree these tragic situations exist. I just question suggestions that such are the norm. Monsanto is one company, there are tens of thousands of others, many mostly small and more local. Most of them are deeply integrated into the community. The kids and grandkids of the managers at the plant my grandfather worked at went to the same schools I did, drank the same tap water I did, etc. Monsanto is not a representative company, they are the exception in many ways.

      By 1975 there was no odor at all, and the creek stopped catching fire. Who's your grandpa, Ron Paul? He couldn't be more wrong. Tell him another geezer set you straight about his damned neocon lies.

      He's a blue collar lifelong democrat. All the idiotic assumptions that you are making are just making you look foolish.

    32. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by towermac · · Score: 1

      "... I agree these tragic situations exist. I just question suggestions that such are the norm. Monsanto is one company, ... Monsanto is not a representative company..."

      Ok, stop with the political correctness: Monsanto has always been evil as shit.

      Does anyone dispute that?

    33. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by perpenso · · Score: 1

      "... I agree these tragic situations exist. I just question suggestions that such are the norm. Monsanto is one company, ... Monsanto is not a representative company..." Ok, stop with the political correctness: Monsanto has always been evil as shit. Does anyone dispute that?

      You seem to need to re-read some posts. No one is defending Monsanto. What is actually under dispute is whether severe and intentional pollution of the environment is the norm for a company.

    34. Re:Wow, this generation sucks. by Tore+S+B · · Score: 1
      We still can, but by now we've realized that this is a bad idea. Quote TFA:

      During the reactors operational life, a total of 47,078 gallons of radioactive liquid waste was discharged into the icecap.

      --
      toresbe
  13. io9 links... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we stop linking to io9 in the stories ? I'm sure there are other websites talking about this, and io9 is just a pain in the *** to load and requires javascript to display the contents of an article.

  14. copy/paste replacing reposts, these days? by burne · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pity it's a copy/paste-job from another site, and at least a year and a half old: http://gombessa.tripod.com/scienceleadstheway/id9.html

  15. Re:cool by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    It could be smugglers. There are so many uncharted settlements.

  16. Re:cool by Beriaru · · Score: 3, Interesting

    During the reactors operational life, a total of 47,078 gallons of radioactive liquid waste was discharged into the icecap.

    Not so cool.

  17. I always wondered why it was called the Cold War by cheesecake23 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Project Iceworm - America's secret cold war plan to build a network of underground missile bases under the Greenland ice cap

    Now I know.

  18. The Popular Mechanics cover artists planned this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I loved those magazines. Basically, each cover had something from a James Bond movie on the cover that would never be built.

  19. Cover? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    "project would cover an area of 52,000 square miles"

    Hardly, since the bases were supposed to be spread apart by 4 miles or so. Perhaps the total would be spread out over 52,000 square miles, but surely it wouldn't actually cover anything like 52,000 square miles.

    1. Re:Cover? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      "Thousands of launch points, hundreds of missiles."

      It would take about 3000 equally spaced launch points to cover that area. Ambitious, sure. Cheaper than the Normandy invasion? Definitely.

  20. Re:cool by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    I'd have to think it has more of a "Fortress of Solitude" vibe to it.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  21. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just don't exit hyperspace too close to the system. If you did, you'd be as clumsy as you are stupid.

  22. Secret Scouting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was so secret that they sponsored a contest with the Boy Scouts to spend "summer camp" under the ice. One scout from the U.S. and one from Denmark (Greenland is Danish).
    gombessa.tripod.com/scienceleadstheway/id9.html

  23. They were still in use in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider"

    Which was in 2003.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong and wrong.

      The Siberia shots from Lara Croft: Tomb Raider were done in Iceland (outdoor shots) and at Pinewood Studios in England (interior sound stages), not Greenland.

      And that movie came out in 2001, not 2003.

    2. Re:No by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      woosh?

      woosh woosh woosh?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh?

      woosh woosh woosh?

      It is necessary for one to have made a funny joke in order to legitimately invoke "woosh." In this particular case, I suppose you could invoke "thunk," as your "joke" metaphorically slammed into the ground beneath the replying AC's feet.

  24. Very similar to South Pole Station by decsnake · · Score: 1

    Camp Century appears to have been very similar to the original South Pole Station built in 1956-1957 for the IGY by the US Navy, minus the nuclear reactor and the plan for the Dr. Strangelove missile complex.

    The Navy did install a small nuclear reactor at McMurdo Station, which leaked, requiring a large chunk of the hill that it was located on to be excavated and hauled away for disposal.

    1. Re:Very similar to South Pole Station by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The Navy did install a small nuclear reactor at McMurdo Station, which leaked, requiring a large chunk of the hill that it was located on to be excavated and hauled away for disposal.

      O.K. so, McMurdo is prime real-estate, and the disposal site is....?

      If you asked the anglerfish, they would have preferred you make the Penguins grow little glowing balls on stalks, instead.

  25. I wonder... by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

    Would the US government need to go to an ATM machine and input a PIN number in order to withdraw money to pay for its ICBM missiles?

  26. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't think Riddick would enjoy having his budget cut.

  27. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Considering that the current USA government budget is so broken that you could cut EVERY PENNY of military spending, AND ALL OTHER forms of discretionary spending, and there would STILL be a large budget deficit ...

    I appreciate the need to keep military spending to reasonable levels. But budgets aren't balanced by cuts to one area alone, and the USA's is no exception. Every government spent dollar needs to be on the table, regardless of prior obligation.

  28. Nukes in Greenland? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    So... Denmark was cool with that?

    1. Re:Nukes in Greenland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Denmark was cool with that?

      No.

      At least not officially.

    2. Re:Nukes in Greenland? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Late 1950s... Denmark was about as politically relevant to the U.S. as the Netherlands were to Hitler.

    3. Re:Nukes in Greenland? by towermac · · Score: 1

      Of course they were. This is something, that costs them basically nothing, to contribute to the NATO alliance, that they were a part of.

      The question was this: How many Danes survive if both Copenhagen and Reykjavik are nuked? By comparison; how many Americans survive if New York and a dozen other cities are nuked? The answer is: Lots.

      They wanted in on the NATO alliance, at least as badly as we wanted them.
      We took advantage of their vulnerability; but that doesn't make their vulnerability any less real.

      We even let their star Boy Scout spend a couple of summers there. (I wonder if they worked the shit out of him?)

    4. Re:Nukes in Greenland? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      How many Danes survive if (...) Reykjavik (is) nuked?

      All the ones not in Iceland, I'd assume.

    5. Re:Nukes in Greenland? by Formalin · · Score: 1

      The people weren't. The government was complicit with the US plans though.

      Greenland (via Denmark) has been a nuclear free zone since the 50's.

      When a nuke-loaded B-52 crashed at Thule AFB (Greenland) in the late 60's, there was a shit-storm. The US said it was a one time diversion, etc...

      In the 90's the truth came out about the above crash, about how armed B52's were there regularly, there were warhead stocks there, etc, and there was a pretty big shitstorm about it.

      wiki

  29. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce off a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

  30. Or just better missle technology by erice · · Score: 4, Informative

    The camp, begun in 1959, was abandoned for good in 1966

    Its a victim of soviet h-bomb development. The planning phase was "more or less" before decent soviet h-bombs (around 1960-ish) so everything was too close together, and/or proper spacing in a h-bomb era would make it unscalable. It would have worked pretty well as designed in a pre-h-bomb environment.

    It was common in the 50's for multiple competing solutions to be implemented in parallel before exhaustively studying whether any of them would work. No one was sure that ICBM's would really work so they also started work on supersonic bombers, nuclear powered cruise missiles, and, apparently a plan to put shorter range missiles closer to the enemy.

    By 1960, Titan I was available with enough range to be launched from anywhere in the continental US. They made the case for a Greenland missile base less compelling, though presumably the IRBM's in Greenland could have been launched quicker. Starting in 1963, the Titan II could be launched immediately from the silos, eliminating the 15 minute pause at the surface for fueling. Building a ice base in Greenland must have seemed like a great deal of effort for no military purpose.

    1. Re:Or just better missle technology by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Did somebody say Project Pluto?

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

  31. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PUN INTENDED

  32. Re:cool by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

    It was for your own good. After all, we all know that Radiation is good for you.

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  33. Ice Station Zebra by PPH · · Score: 0

    Stuck North of the Arctic Circle for a night that lasts 6 months with Rock Hudson. No thanks.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  34. Re:cool by IcyNeko · · Score: 2

    Perhaps there's a chair which powers a millenia old weapons platform. Better call MacGuyver to control it.

  35. Anyone ever notice... by Quantus347 · · Score: 1

    http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55167/earth_lights_lrg.jpg

    Anyone ever notice the really bright spot on the norther coast of Alaska? The big swath north of Anchorage, out by Prudhoe Bay...

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  36. Butter kills more people than guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    In the USA, butter kills more people than guns.

    Typical annual deaths from heart disease and diabetes: 665,000

    Typical annual deaths from guns: 30,000 (Includes justifiable homicide, murder, suicide, accidents)

    You know what that means: SAVE AMERICA! BAN BUTTER NOW!

    1. Re:Butter kills more people than guns. by sunspot42 · · Score: 2

      Butter doesn't cause diabetes. And any link to heart disease is dubious at best.

    2. Re:Butter kills more people than guns. by dudpixel · · Score: 2

      Exactly!

      People have "saturated fat = heart disease" and also "saturated fat raises cholesterol" and "cholesterol is bad" burned into their brains so much that the growing research showing the opposite just isn't getting through.

      There are many studies that try to prove any of the above but none can show causation, and even trying to show correlation is difficult if you include all known data.

      The problem is that Ancel Keys started it off in the 1950's by carefully selecting results which supported his hypothesis, that fat (lipids) causes heart disease. Had he used all the data he had available, he wouldn't have been able to draw any such conclusion. He made headlines, and the rest is history. Very few studies have since been done on this, and no one has been able to prove anything (again, unless you carefully pick out only the results that support your theory).

      Point 1: saturated fat does not cause cholesterol to increase. cholesterol is made by the body, you dont get it from food. In fact, most people who follow the atkins diet (I dont) dont have raised cholesterol levels.
      Point 2: cholesterol is vital for life, and performs a healing role within your system.
      Point 3: cholesterol is increased when more things in your body need repairing (eg. lesions in artery walls, caused by free radicals).
      Point 4: a build up of free radicals causes higher production of cholesterol (to repair your cells) - and it is this build up that can cause blockages (this is a vague explanation).
      Point 5: these free radicals typically come from carbs (in particular, refined carbs like sugar and white flour).

      So what do we know now?

      * Saturated fat is good for you (and aids in weight loss) - it doesn't raise your blood sugar level, meaning you dont produce insulin, meaning you dont store unused calories as fat.
      * fat keeps you feeling fuller for longer, and provides more energy per gram than protein or carbs (though protein is vital for health too).
      * your body can use fat for energy (muscles, brain etc) and can convert protein into glucose for the parts that need glucose (mostly the brain).
      * carbs are really only needed for intensive exercise or sport, when your body needs to burn up energy fast.
      * cholesterol is good for you (but more is not always better, neither is it better to have less) - its more important to limit sugars and other processed foods, than to think you can limit your cholesterol. the benefit from cholesterol-reducing drugs does not come from the cholesterol reduction. it comes from the anti-inflammatory properties (heart disease is caused by inflammation).

      So no, nature isn't trying to kill you, nor is it making you fat.
      eat real food, not processed food, and you probably wont need to worry about counting calories, and if you only eat natural whole food, you'll lose weight regardless of how much you eat. this is why obesity is only a recent problem.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    3. Re:Butter kills more people than guns. by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      if you only eat natural whole food, you'll lose weight regardless of how much you eat.

      Are you suggesting that no matter how much 'natural whole food' someone eats they still won't be consuming more calories than then are burning? You can talk all you like about the supposed qualities and effects of fats and carbohydrates and protein but at the end of the day the only way anyone loses weight is by eating fewer calories than they burn.

    4. Re:Butter kills more people than guns. by dudpixel · · Score: 2

      Even if that were true (and it probably is only true at the molecular level), how would you know how many calories you burn, and how do you know how many calories your body actually takes in? you can measure what goes in your mouth - but do you know what your body does with it? is the metabolic process 100% efficient? no - if it was, you wouldn't poo or wee. so how much do you burn when you exercise? well, that differs from person to person too. so how can you measure calories in vs calories out? its impossible - and if its impossible, its irrelevant.

      The calorie theory you mentioned claims that you need to burn an additional 3500 calories in order to lose 1 pound (~0.5kg).

      I weigh myself every morning.

      I put on 1kg overnight once - do you really think I managed to consume 7000 calories EXTRA in 1 day? without knowing?

      I also have lost 0.5kg 2 days in a row (1kg total) on several occasions - all without exercising. I eat ~2000 calories a day. sometimes more sometimes less.

      I know people who have lost over 2-3 kg in a week without exercising and without a change in the number of calories consumed.

      None of that supports the idea that exercise = weight loss or that just eating more on its own makes you fat.

      What about the fact that sometimes my weight stays EXACTLY the same for a whole week or more, despite my calorie intake going up or down quite dramatically during the week?

      If you cant get your head around it, here's how it works:

      * The body regulates its own weight. If you feed it junk, that regulation cant keep up, and you'll put on weight. carbs provide quick energy - if you mix carbs and fats, your body will use the carbs for energy and store the fat (remember, it can only store fat if you eat carbs - otherwise there's no insulin and no fat is stored - you do produce some glucose and hence insulin from protein, but only as much as you actually need. with carbs you get whatever is in the food).

      * What you put in your mouth doesn't necessarily get "used". If you eat proper food, your body will discard what it doesn't need. That really messes up your calories in vs calories out calculations now doesn't it. We dont have a way to measure that - making it a useless equation.

      * A lot of it has to do with your metabolism. Your metabolism needs fuel to work. So if you eat less and try to do more, you'll fail. your body just gets hungry and tired, and slows down your metabolism so that you dont lose any more of your stored energy (fat). it does this to protect you - because if you kept going you could faint or even die from starvation in extreme cases.

      * If you eat less and try to do more, your body slows down. you'll feel hungry - that's your body telling you to eat more because it needs more fuel. your body isn't trying to kill you - its actually trying to stop you from starving to death.

      * if you eat more than you need, your body may do either of 2 things. If you're eating refined carbs (sugars, white bread) your body cant cope with the massive spike in energy, so the feeling of fullness arrives too late and you'll overeat. then there's flow on effects from the spike in blood sugar and then the over-production of insulin etc.

      an example is fruit vs fruit juice. if you eat fruit - it has all the nutrients to tell your body how to process it. but if you have processed fruit juice - your body thinks you've eaten 20 items of fruit and starts pumping insulin around your body to deal with the big spike in blood sugar (yes most fruit is high in sugar - fructose). if you think the amount of insulin produced always matches the amount of blood sugar, you'd be wrong. its not that accurate - and that's why sugar often fools the body's mechanisms and results in over or under-production of insulin. the blood sugar rollercoaster wears the body out too, making it too tired to work properly.

      if you're eating fats, then your body's "full" mechanism works as intended - its really difficult to overeat when you eat mostly fats and protein (and salads) b

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    5. Re:Butter kills more people than guns. by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      for the record, I started the harcombe diet last year and for a while I increased my calorie intake slightly and still lost weight.
      I was losing 1-2kg a week consistently for about 2 months - all while eating around 2000 calories a day.

      I'm a lot more flexible with what I eat now (because I'm well in my healthy weight range) and my weight has stayed very constant. 6 months later I have still kept it off, and I dont starve myself (and I dont get hungry).

      Dont eat less, eat well. its as simple as that.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  37. Re:Interesting editing of the text from the articl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps we can get some of the hippies to move over and Occupy Greenland.

  38. alright geeeeee /. by eyenot · · Score: 1

    I would be the tenth person or so, if I pointed out that the summary author basically wrote "the tunnels will disappear in the coming years" while the article reads along the lines of "the tunnels disappeared in the years immediately following their creation".

    But that's not what's important.

    What's important, is that if the ice had NOT reclaimed the tunnels, they would still BE there.

    Or, wait, that's actually not important. Well... there's radioactive ice, that's pretty cool.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  39. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Womp rats, etc. etc.

  40. Moon Base by watermark · · Score: 1

    Now we have time to build our secret moon base. Yesterday you would have told me we didn't have secret missile silos under Greenland.

  41. Re:cool by Luckyo · · Score: 2

    With half life on the most radiactive isotopes being few seconds to a few years, it's not really all that radioactive anymore. That's the good thing about radioactive waste - it destroys itself over time.

  42. Re:I always wondered why it was called the Cold Wa by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    And knowing is half the battle!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  43. Re:cool by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    During the reactors operational life, a total of 47,078 gallons of radioactive liquid waste was discharged into the icecap.

    Not so cool.

    One would almost think that becquerels and years are much more important here than gallons.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  44. Re:cool by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    The fortress of solitude? I thought Superman was supposed to be the good guy?

  45. Why is it that.... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    "During the reactors operational life, a total of 47,078 gallons of radioactive liquid waste was discharged into the icecap."

    Why is it that tax-payer money and radioactive/toxic waste always seem to be dumped in the same place?

  46. After the ass kickin u got here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ur got put 2 sleep - U got "knocked out", troll-> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2773441&cid=39620303 , and you're also caught red-handed admitting to trolling others, off-topic and all. You're pitiful.

  47. My father worked on this base for 3 years by randall_burns · · Score: 1

    The time frame is a little off I. I was born in Feb. 1959-and he had been working there for 18 months when i was born-and stuff had been going on there a while. My father was a pipefitting foreman for Peter Kiewit and sons-one of the civilian construction/maintenance contractors.

    I've met several other people that were there. I think there was more than one nuclear plant(i.e. they had some redundancy).

    The security around this all was pretty serious. The construction workers often had know idea what they were working on-or the layout of the facility. I would be VERY careful about assuming the "whole story" has been told here. Some of the facilities I've heard about were more elaborate than one would anticipate for a 200 man military base-or simply an ICBM base.

    If folks are seriously interested-and have questions, I can try to forward them.

    1. Re:My father worked on this base for 3 years by Magada · · Score: 1

      Any radars? SOSUS?

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  48. History gets to be written by the winners by peppepz · · Score: 2

    The USA almost started the Third World War when the Soviet were silently planting missiles in Cuba, and the western media universally depicted the Soviet as evil rogues for doing that, yet it's now evident that the USA had been doing the same thing for decades.

  49. Or so *they* would have you believe... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Just let me adjust my tinfoil hat to match the current satellite position.

    They may have closed the "scientific research" facility, that just means that it is now fully operational battle station!

    ITS A TRAP!

  50. Miskatonic University by madhi19 · · Score: 1

    One need to wonder if this crazy idea came out of the Miskatonic University! lolll