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."

39 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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 ?
    3. 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
    4. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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."

  4. 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.

  5. 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...

  6. 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
  7. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or a bunch of rebels. ;)

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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*.

    2. 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.
    3. 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

    4. 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."
    5. 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!
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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."
  10. 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

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

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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. Nukes in Greenland? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    So... Denmark was cool with that?

    1. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. Re:cool by IcyNeko · · Score: 2

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

  20. 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 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.