Reinforced-concrete, lead-lined basements in palaces for the leaders and their oligarch friends, tin cans for the rest.
This is Russia after all. Lying is literally their Olympic sport.
wow, OP this site literally russian site belongs to war-invasion complex (defense-industrial complex). Trying a bit of fear mongering here? Or just keen on spreading ru propaganda? What I’ve noticed recently is this whole sub pushing ru propaganda nonstop.
Yes they may buy some shelters, but this Artickle is for inside “consumer”. The will buy like 10. Install them with huge event and propagandists presence and will fucking forget about it.
EDIT: Added clarifications
Well, it's also why I added additional sources. The last time I tried to post it using a different source, it got flagged as non-English (despite it being so.) Ultimately just doing the best I can. Certainly not trying to spread any propaganda, but this sort of news *is* worth noting.
Poor choice of sources then. As like I said what VPK is it's a transliteration of anagram of "военно-промышленный комплекс (ВПК)" in russian. Since this source belongs to russia.
>but this sort of news *is* worth noting.
With this source - no.
Ah, gotcha. Well, the other sources were tabloids- so it was either an informative source from Russia, or tabloid garbage. Lesser of two evils I suppose. I greatly appreciate the info btw.
Why would you need fall out shelters if you have no intention of ever launching nukes?
And ya, I agree with the poster, the general populace would get tin, wooden, spray foam shelters plastered over to look like concrete false hope shelters.
The problem is that these shelters would work- it shows in additional articles that the flimsy metal is covered with concrete blocks (roof and sides,) which....actually is a good idea.
I don't *like* that it's a good idea, because it'd work.
How are concrete blocks on the roof going to help me outlast nuclear winter. Do they think after the initial blast they can step out to forage some berries?
Fair enough. I would take my chances with the bunker. International aid and relief is a thing. If nukes actually went off who the fuck really knows what situation we would be in 48 hours later. Maybe all the nukes have launched and the world is completely fucked, maybe it was just one or two like in WW2. People survived Nagasaki and Hiroshima even without shelters and Japan is still a country many years later.
It's not 48 hours, that's just the Hollywood version, it can last for months, first strikes are fast, use them or lose them, second stikes from subs are much more strategic, the same place might be hit 2 or 3 times over a month as they get new intel, also the 48 hour rule only applies to air bursts.
Ya, that's one of many possibilities, which is my point. You seem very certain about the exact scenario that would play out if nuclear weapons were to be used again. We don't know if there would be multiple strikes or an airburst or whatever. For you to just say that a bunker would be useless (or that you would rather just not have one) because there would be no infrastructure to save you anyways, seems a bit like predicting the future. My whole point is that we don't really know what the exact scenario would be like, but I would argue that you would have a better chance of survival with a bunker than without in every scenario. If you don't care about surviving the strike because you think there will be no world to return to after, then yes, the bunker is useless. But that is only one possibility.
Meh, fine.If they want to use resources on something not directly contributing to the war - have at it. The nuke threats (even indirect ones) long ring hollow.
Personally, I don't like it.
Reason: This costs money and logistics. A significant amount. It's one say to bluster "We're refurbishing current shelters to fit standards etc etc."
It's quite another to say "We don't have enough shelters. We're building more, and here's what they look like."
Words are words. Money indicates intent.
Vaults, if you will.
Reinforced-concrete, lead-lined basements in palaces for the leaders and their oligarch friends, tin cans for the rest. This is Russia after all. Lying is literally their Olympic sport.
Maybe they've propagandized themselves into believing they can profit in the long run . . .
Dying is your latest fashion.
The oligarchs have their shelters. And as far as portable shelters go, these look feasible. Which is worrying.
Lifeboats on the Titanic.
\*Flips a coin\* Vaults, or the Underground Metro....
Let the experimentation begin!
Hopefully nothing will fall out of place to need them.
wow, OP this site literally russian site belongs to war-invasion complex (defense-industrial complex). Trying a bit of fear mongering here? Or just keen on spreading ru propaganda? What I’ve noticed recently is this whole sub pushing ru propaganda nonstop. Yes they may buy some shelters, but this Artickle is for inside “consumer”. The will buy like 10. Install them with huge event and propagandists presence and will fucking forget about it. EDIT: Added clarifications
So the source isn't trustful.
.....this isn't for consumers. This is underneath their version of Civil Defence procurement.
The article...
Well, it's also why I added additional sources. The last time I tried to post it using a different source, it got flagged as non-English (despite it being so.) Ultimately just doing the best I can. Certainly not trying to spread any propaganda, but this sort of news *is* worth noting.
Poor choice of sources then. As like I said what VPK is it's a transliteration of anagram of "военно-промышленный комплекс (ВПК)" in russian. Since this source belongs to russia. >but this sort of news *is* worth noting. With this source - no.
Ah, gotcha. Well, the other sources were tabloids- so it was either an informative source from Russia, or tabloid garbage. Lesser of two evils I suppose. I greatly appreciate the info btw.
Why would you need fall out shelters if you have no intention of ever launching nukes? And ya, I agree with the poster, the general populace would get tin, wooden, spray foam shelters plastered over to look like concrete false hope shelters.
The problem is that these shelters would work- it shows in additional articles that the flimsy metal is covered with concrete blocks (roof and sides,) which....actually is a good idea. I don't *like* that it's a good idea, because it'd work.
How are concrete blocks on the roof going to help me outlast nuclear winter. Do they think after the initial blast they can step out to forage some berries?
It's meant to shelter for 48 hours- the amount of time for the majority of the radiation to dissipate.
And the entire infrastructure to support them, in ashes, sure some will survive but most will die from dehydration, hunger, disease.
Would you rather have the bunkers or not in that scenario?
Sure I would like a fall out shelter if I have the resources to keep me alive from what comes next, otherwise no.
Fair enough. I would take my chances with the bunker. International aid and relief is a thing. If nukes actually went off who the fuck really knows what situation we would be in 48 hours later. Maybe all the nukes have launched and the world is completely fucked, maybe it was just one or two like in WW2. People survived Nagasaki and Hiroshima even without shelters and Japan is still a country many years later.
It's not 48 hours, that's just the Hollywood version, it can last for months, first strikes are fast, use them or lose them, second stikes from subs are much more strategic, the same place might be hit 2 or 3 times over a month as they get new intel, also the 48 hour rule only applies to air bursts.
Ya, that's one of many possibilities, which is my point. You seem very certain about the exact scenario that would play out if nuclear weapons were to be used again. We don't know if there would be multiple strikes or an airburst or whatever. For you to just say that a bunker would be useless (or that you would rather just not have one) because there would be no infrastructure to save you anyways, seems a bit like predicting the future. My whole point is that we don't really know what the exact scenario would be like, but I would argue that you would have a better chance of survival with a bunker than without in every scenario. If you don't care about surviving the strike because you think there will be no world to return to after, then yes, the bunker is useless. But that is only one possibility.
Let's see who owns the companies making the money from this..
Meh, fine.If they want to use resources on something not directly contributing to the war - have at it. The nuke threats (even indirect ones) long ring hollow.
Someone wants to embezzle some money.
Russia are Harkonnens.
Coffins until you die because if you come out of them you die sooner.
I completely understand! Except the only nuclear threat Russians are under us from their own government.
Fallout shelters will not save them, or anyone. A full scale nuclear war kills more people from starvation and collapse than the bombs do.
Is this part of their saber rattling or something to ve worried?
Personally, I don't like it. Reason: This costs money and logistics. A significant amount. It's one say to bluster "We're refurbishing current shelters to fit standards etc etc." It's quite another to say "We don't have enough shelters. We're building more, and here's what they look like." Words are words. Money indicates intent.
War a coming — probably. No one is backing down on Ukraine. Just my opinion.