Luxury nuclear bunkers in Kansas


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/01/31/luxury-nuclear-bunkers-in-kans.html


#2

It seems foolhardy to use a facility that you KNOW has been on Soviet nuclear target lists. Did all those warhead get reassigned? Who knows how difficult it is to change the targets for old missiles. And when you have so many warheads that you don’t know what to do with 'em “Yuri, might as well target those old silos, they might be trying to hide something important in there,” makes as much sense as “Let’s stir up the rubble of Cleveland for a third time, just to be sure.”


#3

I’m curious to see if there’s any market for this. I mean, if you’re going to be interested in getting a bunker against the coming apocalypse, aren’t you going to harbour paranoid suspicion of other people (why else stockpile guns and ammo?). So how likely are they going to be interested in a condo-style bunker that includes strangers as neighbours?

ETA: or I guess it could just be a sort of dialed to eleven gated community for rich whites who are really, really super scared of black people.


#4

This guy’s going all in on his Wool larp.


#5

this is for the 1% to escape from the uprising that will occur.


#6

So…we fake an alert and then drop a ton of concrete over the exits?


#7

Cut their comms and cameras, place a small gamma source near external radiation detectors, and they will happily just stay in there.


#8

Make sure that a wireless signal jammer is part of that.


#9

It is all a part of making the missile silo great again.


#10

Wireless signal won’t cut through that much heavily reinforced concrete.


#11

Good luck if you actually need it…


#12

He’s not the first guy with this idea, unless maybe he’s the same guy as the last guy. The last guy couldn’t raise a fraction of the capital he needed. Damn you, capitalists! How am I supposed to save you if you won’t buy my harebrained scheme?


#13

I like the belt and suspenders approach.


#14

Why don’t potential buyers of these bunkers donate that $1.5 million to people and organizations that just might prevent a nuclear war?


#15

and the Chinese drywall.


#16

Living in a hole is the new luxury.


#17

What’s wrong with living in a hole? You surface dwellers are elitist jerks…


#18

Most likely, the majority of inhabitants won’t even make it to their bunkers in time, or be let in by the service staff (who will want to take care of their own families in a disaster and probably live a lot closer). Even if they do make it in, these are known hardened (and improved!) military facilities – do you think for an instant that the government won’t just nationalize these ready-made command bunkers in time of need and kick out the civilians? Because historically, if the excrement hits the fan so hard that hardened military bunkers are needed, the government just takes what it needs, no matter how rich the current occupant. And what’s the end-game here? Emerge from the bunker after supplies run out (probably a lot sooner than anticipated) and make nice to the neighbors, who probably will have a community set up and not particularly favorably viewing the idle rich demanding privileges in a scarcity situation. I would bet most who buy into this would imagine that the peasants will hail their emergence and declare the troglodytes royalty ala the ancien regime, but I suspect the reality would more either slave labor, convenient protein, or ostracization and exile if they’re feeling nice.


#19

all set


#20

These (unrenovated silos) were going for a song years ago, and the Kochs have pretty much ensured the demise of any competing ruling class in Kansas. I’m really not sure who’d want to come live near asshole neighbors like them.