Prime Base Location-Reprise

[tsofian]

One of the basic premises of Prime Base is that it needs to be in the middle of no place. How about this instead: The base is someplace that is nearly certain to be nuked, but just a little bit. The idea is that the base will be kept secret after the war because it will be in a dead zone. Now that means the post war recording stuff will need to be far off and still somewhat connected.

It frees up a lot of terrain for the base. You just need to make sure there are no targets that would best be serviced with either a REALLY big nuke, or one that is designed to burrow.

Terry

[dragoon500ly]

Only problem I see, is the underground construction of Prime. That's going to attract attention from the KGB/GRU just as a matter of curiosity, placing near a possible nuke target would make it highly likely that they would task a recon sat...just to make sure that the evil Americans are not building something new to attack the peace-loving Soviets...

This simply means that a very convincing cover story will be needed.

[gamerguy]

Stick it under something deep and abandoned already. Have the project buy the old mine and 'explore' further developments. Present 'salted' core samples to prove to the outside world its viability and go from there.

I don't know diddly about mining so what would constitute an already deep mine. But, your post got me thinking about piggy-backing under an existing hard area. How about all that deep nickle in the Sudbury area? Even if the USSR decides to dig and immediately refine some using project plowshareski I assume that is a very deep and probably hard target to penetrate. Just thinking out loud.

[tsofian]

If the Project digs its big hole in the 1960s and 1970s the KGB will be hard pressed to find it or at least to determine its purpose and target it. They don't have a lot of intel and also will be hard pressed to sort through the simply HUGE number of AEC sites that dotted the landscape during that period. The DOE Legacy Management Office https://energy.gov/lm/sites has a long list of AEC sites that existed during the period. For example the Mound site in Miamisburg, Ohio had a large underground building http://www.mound.com/~gmgreg/pdfs/ne...l-building.pdf. There were also a number of shelters and other underground structures constructed by FEMA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presid...gency_Facility. This only lists the PEF around DC, but doesn't state much about other facilities that must be scattered across the country. http://www.coldwar-c4i.net/PEF/presi..._network_2.pdf

That doesn't even include all the other underground projects that existed during that time.

The issue for the Soviets would be how many warheads do they have versus how many targets would need to be serviced. If the site didn't look like a great target they might run out of warheads before they get that far down the list. The lack of activity around the site and the continuing lack of any other intel might just push the site down more and more.

Terry

[ArmySGT.]

I am more inclined to move Prime Base to something more central to the U.S.

If it is the National level HQ and needs to be far (relatively) from nuclear attack

Eastern Montana, Western Wyoming, Northern Colorado, Northern New Mexico, Eastern Oklahoma, and Western Missouri seem to be better situated than Northern Nevada.

Easier to splice one self into the existing AT&T and Defense Switched Network post attack.

[tsofian]

Western Missouri will still get hit. Even if the missile fields get deactivated Kansas City will get nuked and Whiteman air force base being a bomber base will still take several nukes. Kansas City has a DOE weapons facility. Additionally K. C. is strangely flush in government agencies. It is the Region VII headquarters for just about every major Federal agency (EPA and such).

Rumor has it that KC is a designated backup to DC if the capital should have an issue.

Terry

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I am more inclined to move Prime Base to something more central to the U.S.

If it is the National level HQ and needs to be far (relatively) from nuclear attack

Eastern Montana, Western Wyoming, Northern Colorado, Northern New Mexico, Eastern Oklahoma, and Western Missouri seem to be better situated than Northern Nevada.

Easier to splice one self into the existing AT&T and Defense Switched Network post attack.

So we would have badges, bikers, breeders, children of the night, frozen chosen, inquisitors,slavers, just to name a few.... Hmmmm, possibilities!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by tsofian

Western Missouri will still get hit. Even if the missile fields get deactivated Kansas City will get nuked and Whiteman air force base being a bomber base will still take several nukes. Kansas City has a DOE weapons facility. Additionally K. C. is strangely flush in government agencies. It is the Region VII headquarters for just about every major Federal agency (EPA and such).

Rumor has it that KC is a designated backup to DC if the capital should have an issue.

Terry

Prime Base in it's current location is under the fallout patterns for Sierra Army Depot, Fallon Naval Air Station, Reno NV, Carson NV, and Sacramento California. Not really in an ideal location right now.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

So we would have badges, bikers, breeders, children of the night, frozen chosen, inquisitors,slavers, just to name a few.... Hmmmm, possibilities!

AT&T sold off some of the old comm bunkers, enter Morrow Comm!









































&

[tsofian]

A) There is no "ideal location"

B) This doesn't actually seem to be a big deal to me. Fallout isn't a big deal to Prime Base while it button upped. Being in the fall out pattern might well be a great thing. It keeps folks away and after 3-5 years most of the radioactivity will be greatly reduced.

The Seven Ten rule will have a lot to say about that
The Seven Ten Rule[edit]
The danger of radiation from fallout also decreases with time, as radioactivity decays exponentially with time, such that for each factor of seven increase in time, the radiation is reduced by a factor of ten. For example, after 7 hours, the average dose rate is reduced by a factor of ten; after 49 hours, it is reduced by a further factor of ten (to 1/100th); after two weeks the radiation from the fallout will have reduced by a factor of 1000 compared the initial level; and after 14 weeks the average dose rate will have reduced to 1/10,000th of the initial level.[23]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Prime Base in it's current location is under the fallout patterns for Sierra Army Depot, Fallon Naval Air Station, Reno NV, Carson NV, and Sacramento California. Not really in an ideal location right now.

[tsofian]

A) There is no "ideal location"

B) This doesn't actually seem to be a big deal to me. Fallout isn't a big deal to Prime Base while it button upped. Being in the fall out pattern might well be a great thing. It keeps folks away and after 3-5 years most of the radioactivity will be greatly reduced.

The Seven Ten rule will have a lot to say about that
The Seven Ten Rule[edit]
The danger of radiation from fallout also decreases with time, as radioactivity decays exponentially with time, such that for each factor of seven increase in time, the radiation is reduced by a factor of ten. For example, after 7 hours, the average dose rate is reduced by a factor of ten; after 49 hours, it is reduced by a further factor of ten (to 1/100th); after two weeks the radiation from the fallout will have reduced by a factor of 1000 compared the initial level; and after 14 weeks the average dose rate will have reduced to 1/10,000th of the initial level.[23]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Prime Base in it's current location is under the fallout patterns for Sierra Army Depot, Fallon Naval Air Station, Reno NV, Carson NV, and Sacramento California. Not really in an ideal location right now.

[.45cultist]

For a Missouri Prime Base could be hidden by reclaiming one or more of the old coal strip pits. Perhaps by making one part under an underground storage rental, one a resort for fishing and hunting, not sure about the third. A couple have been turned into deep lakes, but other wise become brush filled scars.

[dragoon500ly]

With a Missouri location, Prime is now located within striking distance of the Kentucky Free State.

On the other hand, placing Prime in Utah or Wyoming might be a better alternative.

[tsofian]

I looked at mines in Missouri and the issue is high ground water. The best solution would be the lead mines, they have huge chambers that would allow for large buildings. The fact that most of the pit mines filled with water and all the underground ones did shows just how bad an issue this would be. It would require Prime base to be completely watertight, well forever.

http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/lrp/surfac...ace-mining.htm

http://www.bonneterremine.com/

https://mostateparks.com/park/missou...-historic-site

Originally Posted by .45cultist

For a Missouri Prime Base could be hidden by reclaiming one or more of the old coal strip pits. Perhaps by making one part under an underground storage rental, one a resort for fishing and hunting, not sure about the third. A couple have been turned into deep lakes, but other wise become brush filled scars.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by tsofian

I looked at mines in Missouri and the issue is high ground water. The best solution would be the lead mines, they have huge chambers that would allow for large buildings. The fact that most of the pit mines filled with water and all the underground ones did shows just how bad an issue this would be. It would require Prime base to be completely watertight, well forever.

http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/lrp/surfac...ace-mining.htm

http://www.bonneterremine.com/

https://mostateparks.com/park/missou...-historic-site

Then it forces the site westward or northwestward.

Considered western Nebraska?
Especially around Chaldron, just south of the Pine Ridge Reservation, rolling hill country, lightly populated, outside fall out patterns. Seems like an decent location for a base.

[tsofian]

There are so deep mines out west that are much drier than those in Missouri. There are some likely candidates near Provo

[Matt W]

Mount Shasta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_Mount_Shasta

Where better place to hide an underground city than in a location that's had legends of underground cities for a century?

Mount Shasta is a "potentially active" volcano but probably won't erupt for a couple of hundred years. Bruce will be able to tell you when...

[tsofian]

Not sure a volcano is a good place to dig a really big hole. The area is also very far from a lot of things.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by tsofian

Not sure a volcano is a good place to dig a really big hole. The area is also very far from a lot of things.

Also not a good place to be when nukes are flying. The odds of a nuke triggering a volcanic eruption are probably low but they aren't zero, either.

[mmartin798]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Also not a good place to be when nukes are flying. The odds of a nuke triggering a volcanic eruption are probably low but they aren't zero, either.

The processes for a volcanic eruption are such that, unless it was already really close to erupting on its own, even a surface detonation would not trigger an eruption. If you were to drill down and do a subterranean detonation of the nuke, unless it was ready to erupt on its own, the worst you are likely to get is some released gas.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by tsofian

Not sure a volcano is a good place to dig a really big hole.

Tell that to about half of the Bond-esqe villians

Next you will be telling me that sharks with lasers on their heads are a bad idea.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by kato13

Tell that to about half of the Bond-esqe villians

Next you will be telling me that sharks with lasers on their heads are a bad idea.

Sharks with lasers on their heads are so '90s, now teams of trained dolphins equipped with anti-matter warheads...

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by mmartin798

The processes for a volcanic eruption are such that, unless it was already really close to erupting on its own, even a surface detonation would not trigger an eruption. If you were to drill down and do a subterranean detonation of the nuke, unless it was ready to erupt on its own, the worst you are likely to get is some released gas.

Does that hold true even in the case of full-scale nuclear war? There were recently articles online indicating concerns that kT-class underground detonations in North Korea could trigger volcanic eruptions on the Korean-Chinese border. If 10kT can do that underground I am not so sure that a 2MT surface explosion, combined with multiple other detonations in the region, could not destabilize things even more. And setting up near a volcano just seems unnecessarily risky - when I do risk analysis for military designs, very-low probability / catastrophic consequence are still things we try at all costs to avoid.

[mmartin798]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Does that hold true even in the case of full-scale nuclear war? There were recently articles online indicating concerns that kT-class underground detonations in North Korea could trigger volcanic eruptions on the Korean-Chinese border. If 10kT can do that underground I am not so sure that a 2MT surface explosion, combined with multiple other detonations in the region, could not destabilize things even more.

I would point to this article and its citations for a better picture of the possibility of North Korean nuclear tests triggering an eruption at Mt. Paektu:

http://www.38north.org/2017/05/fpabian050917/

I can give you an oversimplified thought experiment that illustrates the reasons you need a volcano on the verge of erupting to have a nuke trigger it. Assume we have two 2-liter bottles of soda, one freshly bottled and one that is almost flat. The liquid in both bottles represents the magma for the volcano. If we shake both vigorously and detonate the nuke by tear the cap off of them, what happens to the magma? In both cases, the dissolved gasses expand the volume of the magma. But the fresh one, which we can imagine dropping it and it popping on its own, does violently spew it's magma all over the place. The flat one give a good hiss, but no much more.

Like I said, grossly oversimplified, but still representative. The crust is thick and heavy, nuclear explosions are largely distributed and smallish on a planetary scale. Subterranean detonations only clear a chimney several hundred meters deep. A caldera is several km below the surface. The nuke can't cause a volcano to erupt. Trigger an eruption when and eruption is eminent, sure. But an known extinct volcano won't erupt.

[cosmicfish]

All right, fears assuaged. Drill away!

I think this casts a dark shadow on Final Watch, however...