let me do the math for you - one for port, one for military repair capability at port, one for HQ (it's next to Jericho Park), one for rail hub, one for universities, one for pop center over 100,000, and you add it up and it's 10.
Canada specifically built these to avoid spending money on actually HAVING nukes.
It was to give the political leadership cover and the false hope they could survive a large nuclear exchange between the USSR and the USA that would result in the ending of all organized life in Canada.
This was a face-saving measure, to help our political top leadership think they had a rabbit hole, and not waste half the Canadian Defense Budget on owning and operating nuclear missiles and defenses in the first place.
Far cheaper too.
Security through obscurity for the most part - not worth wasting a nuke on.
To not waste money on having an active nuclear programme, we had to provide the political top leadership a face-saving way of thinking they could save themselves, hence the bunkers.
In all scenarios, our command structure would have fried, only mountain units would have been functional, and survival for more than a few months in Canada itself would have been highly unlikely.
We're talking sea rescue for military and civilian leadership AFTER a nuclear exchange, by which time many listening stations would have been fried out by EMP effects.
Nanaimo is where our leadership training facilities are, and port subs have access. I did junior and senior leadership training there.
To you it's illogical.
To us it makes perfect sense, in that it's a sheltered bay with sea access, sub access, and likely to survive the nuking of Victoria and Vancouver with minimal risk factors.
Unlike you, I live in the USA now, and I have not been closely following this issue. It's been a few decades since I was on active status.
I'm just saying what I know, not what you may have surmised, and I'm trying not to volunteer information that I don't know is common knowledge at this time.
true - but it would have sucked up to half our military budget in Canada to do anything useful or have an active nuclear component, so we chose to make a few bunkers to let the politicos think they had a chance, instead.
But if we're making jokes about them, and they're on the show This Hour Has 22 Minutes (from Newfoundland), than we've already admitted they aren't Newfie-proof...
The higher risk factor was from intercepted nukes, actually. But any port city gets an automatic set of nukes - one for port, one for military repair, one for major city, one for transportation hub, by the time you add it up it's crispy critter time.
It wasn't supposed to be safe - we couldn't make it safe per se - the best choice was to make it remote and hope nothing hit directly.
The major problem was supply and access, which is why the two bunkers were on the sea - as we figured the leaders could be rescued by boat or one of our two diesel subs (no, that is NOT a misprint).
Basically, when we ran the numbers for nuclear war beyond a single missile, we realized the resulting nuclear winter would result in all Canadian forces and almost all of the population dying within months, and stopped wasting time on nuclear weapons, as the cost for security was higher than the deliverables of conventional weapons which were not subject to the constraints.
Basically, being in Vancouver BC at the time, you knew you had at least 10 nukes coming down, and even if intercepted, the EMP blast would take out all commercial systems and the radiation and fire storms would destroy all urban centers beyond useful measure.
So the two bunkers were a total waste of time, only there so the politicos could say they had a plan, and served no useful part, from any of our strategic war games planning.
Slashdot Mirror
let me do the math for you - one for port, one for military repair capability at port, one for HQ (it's next to Jericho Park), one for rail hub, one for universities, one for pop center over 100,000, and you add it up and it's 10.
next time think before critiquing.
It's Latin.
Just like most state mottos.
You should see the Swiss underground defense facilities - they make these look like kids toys.
Canada specifically built these to avoid spending money on actually HAVING nukes.
It was to give the political leadership cover and the false hope they could survive a large nuclear exchange between the USSR and the USA that would result in the ending of all organized life in Canada.
This was a face-saving measure, to help our political top leadership think they had a rabbit hole, and not waste half the Canadian Defense Budget on owning and operating nuclear missiles and defenses in the first place.
Far cheaper too.
Security through obscurity for the most part - not worth wasting a nuke on.
To not waste money on having an active nuclear programme, we had to provide the political top leadership a face-saving way of thinking they could save themselves, hence the bunkers.
In all scenarios, our command structure would have fried, only mountain units would have been functional, and survival for more than a few months in Canada itself would have been highly unlikely.
Most people still don't realize the vast majority of communications satellites are actually made in Canada.
I thought it was Nouvelle Ecosse ...
I failed my humour roll and used the Golden Croissant of St-Georges instead.
um, yeah, but the resulting nuclear winter would kill most plant and animal life.
I didn't post that they were turning it into a data store.
Someone else did.
We're talking sea rescue for military and civilian leadership AFTER a nuclear exchange, by which time many listening stations would have been fried out by EMP effects.
Made perfect sense.
Nanaimo is where our leadership training facilities are, and port subs have access. I did junior and senior leadership training there.
To you it's illogical.
To us it makes perfect sense, in that it's a sheltered bay with sea access, sub access, and likely to survive the nuking of Victoria and Vancouver with minimal risk factors.
don't work. missile defense (for a brief part I worked in Boeing Military side) is pretty much a waste of time and money.
interception of long range missiles is not a solution.
Unlike you, I live in the USA now, and I have not been closely following this issue. It's been a few decades since I was on active status.
I'm just saying what I know, not what you may have surmised, and I'm trying not to volunteer information that I don't know is common knowledge at this time.
true - but it would have sucked up to half our military budget in Canada to do anything useful or have an active nuclear component, so we chose to make a few bunkers to let the politicos think they had a chance, instead.
a wise choice, actually.
But if we're making jokes about them, and they're on the show This Hour Has 22 Minutes (from Newfoundland), than we've already admitted they aren't Newfie-proof ...
Just hug the coast.
So you admit there isn't just one bunker.
I only talked about the ones that I were sure were public knowledge, as it's not my job to release information, if you get my drift.
The higher risk factor was from intercepted nukes, actually. But any port city gets an automatic set of nukes - one for port, one for military repair, one for major city, one for transportation hub, by the time you add it up it's crispy critter time.
It wasn't supposed to be safe - we couldn't make it safe per se - the best choice was to make it remote and hope nothing hit directly.
The major problem was supply and access, which is why the two bunkers were on the sea - as we figured the leaders could be rescued by boat or one of our two diesel subs (no, that is NOT a misprint).
Department of National Defense, also goes by the French acronym.
At one point, after remuster, I was Chief Clerk for Pacific Region.
Basically, when we ran the numbers for nuclear war beyond a single missile, we realized the resulting nuclear winter would result in all Canadian forces and almost all of the population dying within months, and stopped wasting time on nuclear weapons, as the cost for security was higher than the deliverables of conventional weapons which were not subject to the constraints.
Basically, being in Vancouver BC at the time, you knew you had at least 10 nukes coming down, and even if intercepted, the EMP blast would take out all commercial systems and the radiation and fire storms would destroy all urban centers beyond useful measure.
So the two bunkers were a total waste of time, only there so the politicos could say they had a plan, and served no useful part, from any of our strategic war games planning.
You could realize I stated, as any good scientist would, that it is a theory with a number of studies that back it up.
In science you don't get "proof" - you get repeatable results that map to a preponderance of the cases and show a difference from the controls.
I stand by my empirically-backed statements.
You could read what I wrote.