Continuity of Government

Historical analysis of U.S. bunker programs, airborne command posts, comparison to North Korean bunker strategy

While the United States historically transitioned from fixed bunkers to airborne command posts to leverage its secure airspace against mass nuclear threats, North Korea’s lack of air superiority forces its leadership into deep subterranean fortifications to ensure regime survival. This strategic divergence highlights a chilling disparity in modern survival plans, as commenters suggest that political elites and billionaires continue to expand secret underground networks while leaving the general public vulnerable. Ultimately, these preparations raise both practical and moral questions about where command planes would eventually land and whether a military would even choose to defend a government that has effectively abandoned its citizenry to a nuclear inferno.

View on HN · Topics

Sure, but there must always be a fear that the military and public would not want to die in a nuclear inferno to defend national sovereignty. And may tolerate a coupe instead. Which then reduces the madness and the deterrent effect. The extra step the Dprk have taken is to try and build bunkers so that the regime could survive the destruction of the country. A step further into madness that goes beyond what western countries have been willing to accept.

View on HN · Topics

The US built a lot of bunkers like this back in the 1950's.

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

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

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

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

With the rise of solid fuel ICBM and then MIRV leading to the truly massive number of warheads pointed at the US, the US switched to airplanes for the most important continuity of government issues, figuring that the skies 30,000 above the US will largely be secure (presuming the plane is appropriately EMP shielded) due to the many US geographic advantages, and so it is the best place to ride out the initial attack and then take stock, get to somewhere safe, and figure out what to do from there.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury

But the North Koreans can have no illusion that the skies above their country will be safe: there are several major enemy airbases a few minutes from their border, their entire airspace is routinely surveilled and powers hostile to them have made large investments in stealthy air superiority fighters, so the air is not a safe place for the DPRK continuity of government plans. The DPRK does have trains but I would not consider those safe in the event of a major war, since rails are difficult to keep secret.

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

So bunkers are the best they can do, given their circumstances.

View on HN · Topics

Where will the planes land?

View on HN · Topics

Those interstate highways are starting to look pretty good as the fuel guage drops

View on HN · Topics

Aren't there bunkers near dc for that reason though?

View on HN · Topics

According to some deep dives into the budget figures for the East Wing Ballroom .. there are new bunkers going in as we type .. and likely being networked underground.

View on HN · Topics

Feels like our politicians and MIC higher ups are preparing themselves for nuclear war but not building the rest of us any bunkers

View on HN · Topics

Why would anyone build bunkers for cattle?

View on HN · Topics

It's felt like that for more than half a century: https://youtu.be/zZct-itCwPE

View on HN · Topics

Not to mention the bunkers being built by various Silicon Valley billionaires, who by rights should be considered appendages of the U.S. state.

Summarizer