Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Nuke Bunker To Be Converted Into Data Fortress

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the canada-has-nukes? dept.

Data Storage 197

miller60 writes "A hosting firm has purchased a nuke-resistant bunker in Novia Scotia, and plans to convert it into a data fortress for financial firms. Bastionhost hopes to attract European financial firms wary of housing sensitive data in the US due to the USA Patriot Act. The facility is one of a series of 'Diefenbunkers' built during the tenure of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker to keep the Canadian government running in the event of a nuclear attack. While not all of these underground data bunker projects work out, a similar nuke-proof bunker in Stockholm, Sweden was recently converted into a stylish high-tech data lair for an ISP."

cancel ×

197 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp to be converted into GNAA troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26134921)

also: cmdrtaco is a homo

I remember our planning in DND (5, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26134935)

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.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (5, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135011)

Since when did Dungeons and Dragons have nuclear missles? Is that a 4th edition thing?

Re:I remember our planning in DND (2, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135189)

Department of National Defense, also goes by the French acronym.

At one point, after remuster, I was Chief Clerk for Pacific Region.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135459)

...whoosh...

Re:I remember our planning in DND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26136175)

Wow... ZERO sense of humour.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (2, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136287)

I failed my humour roll and used the Golden Croissant of St-Georges instead.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (3, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135207)

Since when did Dungeons and Dragons have nuclear missles? Is that a 4th edition thing?

Yeah, it's called otiluke's flaming nuclear hellball. But it can only be used by lawful evil.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135369)

Yeah, it's called otiluke's flaming nuclear hellball. But it can only be used by lawful evil.

It causes 250d20 damage to everything in the dungeon. No saving throws.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135243)

Since when did Dungeons and Dragons have nuclear missles? Is that a 4th edition thing?

DND is the Department of National Defense of Canada

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135519)

"Since when did Dungeons and Dragons have nuclear missles? Is that a 4th edition thing?"

We call it a magic missile. Present in DNDv2 and nerfed in v3, creating the present magic missile.

Casting magic missile meant wiping out the entire dungeon. Good times, good times.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135879)

Isn't that just a fireball? Back when I played, we used to refer to them as nukes.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136303)

Or a barrel full of delayed blast fireball gems. Heave, 1 2 3, boom.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26136399)

TSR had (and still has, I think) a sci-fi RPG called "Gamma World" - it's mentioned a few times in various (A)D&D books.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135065)

Well, the artist's rendition [datacenterknowledge.com] sure dosen't make it look very safe.

It looks as sturdy as Windows XP's default wallpaper, they might as well paint a big bullseye on it, its inhabitants should hope that the neighbor's kid dosen't own a BB gun or that the tree dosen't come crashing down on it, etc. etc.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135211)

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).

Re:I remember our planning in DND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135449)

Considering the main bunker is in Carp, Ontario, just a few miles from Ottawa, I call into question your post.

It's now a tourist attraction and for anyone visiting the region I highly recommend the tour.

http://www.diefenbunker.ca/

Re:I remember our planning in DND (3, Interesting)

Capn_Sternn (95384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135541)

Furthermore, there were more than just two bunkers, in fact there were seven. The one in Alberta was sold to a farmer, and was subsequently repurchased at a much higher price by the government when they realised that he was going to resell it to a chapter of the Hell Angels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diefenbunker

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135635)

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.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

Capn_Sternn (95384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135741)

"release information"? Get over yourself. The bunkers have been declassified for over a decade. Read the wikipedia article, for crying out loud.

There's no need to try and make it sound like you're "in the know". Anyone who has paid the $5 and taken the public tour could have called your posts into question, as you twice made the assertion that there were only two bunkers, and both were on the sea. Both assertions are false.

Do keep trying to make yourself sound interesting and important, though. Let me know how that works out for ya.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135929)

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.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (4, Insightful)

Capn_Sternn (95384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135993)

Seems to be you're trying to make yourself into something you're not: interesting.

The best way to not volunteer information would have been to never post in the first place, especially if you didn't want the inaccuracies in your posts pointed out.

Cheers

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136101)

I didn't post that they were turning it into a data store.

Someone else did.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135493)

What is wrong with Diesel subs? they are excellent for coastal defense. Much quieter running on battery than any nuke boat. I wouldn't want to cross the ocean in one though.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135653)

Just hug the coast.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135897)

And get picked up by all the underwater listening stations?

I know of at least a couple on the BC coast, but I won't say where they are, as the drug smugglers don't need that knowledge. They've been known to damage them in the past.

I must say I'm rather impressed by the secrets the Forces have been able to maintain. There is a lot of stuff that isn't public knowledge.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136085)

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.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135917)

why not just stay on the coast and shoot air to water missles or something

Re:I remember our planning in DND (2, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136021)

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.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136137)

That's the honeypot and you fell for it, thus proving its effectiveness.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (4, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135317)

I'm just amazed that they thought someone would bother nuking Canada. The only people I can think of who would bother are Boston Bruins fans but they would just hit Montreal.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135619)

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.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136125)

I'm just amazed that they thought someone would bother nuking Canada. The only people I can think of who would bother are Boston Bruins fans but they would just hit Montreal.

And, even the Bruins fans will recall the Christmas trees we've been sending down for the last 90 years in gratitude for help after the Halifax Explosion. [wikipedia.org] . There's actually a fairly strong bond between Atlantic Canada and the New England states -- a lot of Empire Loyalists left that area to come to Canada after the Civil war. Some of my ancestors included.

But, on a more serious note, Halifax is a sheltered, deep harbour with a Navy base and an air base. Growing up there during the last bits of the cold war, we were all aware of the fact that we were on the list. It was kind of a depressing fact when we were kids and there was more saber rattling. :(

Cheers

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136725)

I actually saw the tree being carried on a flatbed to Boston this year. It had a police escort and a banner on it saying "From the people of Nova Scotia".

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136209)

It's not so much that we were worried about people nuking Canada. We were worried about Russia trying to nuke the States and shorting on the distance.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135597)

So the two bunkers were a total waste of time..

Not a waste of time, for in addition to being nuke-proof, they were also designed to be Newfie-proof!

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135669)

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 ...

Re:I remember our planning in DND (2, Insightful)

greedom (1431073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135641)

It's human nature to survive. Hell it's the nature of all living things. Even if you know it's futile you'll do anything to get even just a few more hours of life even if that life was miserable after a nuclear fallout.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135901)

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.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

piltdownman84 (853358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135919)

The Bunker locations make very sense sense at all. CFS Carp is the only one anywhere close to the government, and even its still 32KM from the parliament in Ottawa. In the event of a ICBM attack, I doubt they could get their in time. The doomsday clock was set to between 7 and 12 minutes during that time.

Looking to where I live, the bunker in BC is in the illogical location of Nanaimo. The government and the entire Canadian fleet is in Victoria (100km away), and the financial centre is in Vancouver (50km of water away). Nanaimo just seems like a very illogical location.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136059)

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.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136161)

'... would destroy all urban centers beyond useful measure.'

So, it's not all bad, then.

Re:I remember our planning in DND (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136261)

um, yeah, but the resulting nuclear winter would kill most plant and animal life.

It's Nova Scotia (5, Informative)

barberousse (1432239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26134953)

Not Novia Scotia.

Re:It's Nova Scotia (1)

whtmarker (1060730) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135133)

mod parent up 1

Re:It's Nova Scotia (1)

asn (4418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135505)

please correct summary.

Re:It's Nova Scotia (2, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136501)

I thought it was Nouvelle Ecosse ...

Then why Canada? (3, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 5 years ago | (#26134963)

If they are worried about the USA Patriot Act, then why Cananda?

I recently returned from Mexico to the US and there was some policy they stated saying if you are a US or Canadian citizen, you don't have to fill out an I-94. Ok, I didn't know they were the same country?

Re:Then why Canada? (2, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135057)

My thoughts exactly. Doesn't that just mean the NSA then intercepts data via the traditional satellites, listening posts, and cable taps? After all, one of their original mandates is collecting foreign intelligence. They don't need the Patriot Act for that...it's their jobs.

Re:Then why Canada? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136545)

Most people still don't realize the vast majority of communications satellites are actually made in Canada.

Re:Then why Canada? (2, Funny)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135417)

The real question is what is Canada doing with nuclear bunkers? Like anyone's going to bother bombing them. :P

Re:Then why Canada? (3, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135833)

You're assuming that the Russkies are good shots.

Hell, I worked for the U.S. Air Force, and I wouldn't assume WE were good shots.

If you're living on an extended patch of ground between two nuclear adversaries, you'd have to be pretty cavalier about living to not have some kind of protection against "short rounds".

Re:Then why Canada? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136549)

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.

Re:Then why Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135779)


If they are worried about the USA Patriot Act, then why Cananda?

Because Canada isn't the US and has strict privacy laws?

Fact is the Canadian research network Canarie carries huge amounts of Asian and European research traffic because of the fears some have of the US Patriot Act.

Re:Then why Canada? (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136673)

The US can require whatever it wants for people coming into the country, and they can decide on those requirements based on the citizenship if they desire.

However, housing data in Canada is a completely different story. As an IT person in Canada, I can tell you this. Whenever we outsource something that may put data in the vendors hands, its now a requirement that the data stay in Canada, specifically because of the Patriot Act. Sure, there's issues with in-transit data passing through other jurisdictions, but that's a necessary risk that can be dealt with via encryption. Raids by government officials with laws to back them up are not necessary risks, at least not for us in Canada.

Barbarians at the gate! (4, Insightful)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135027)

I hope they realize that no amount of thick doors and walls or even burying the whole thing underground is going to stop 99.99999% of the attacks on this place, assuming of course that they actually intend to connect it to the Internet. While this is pretty cool I can't really see the point in it. The facility won't be easy to fit cooling, power and connectivity too and because it's underground there is a significant and on going risk of flooding. I would have thought a purpose built above ground facility with soild 5m razor wire topped walls and lots of hungry dogs would have been better.

Re:Barbarians at the gate! (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135093)

If you have razor wire and dogs you can fortify most any basement server room.

Re:Barbarians at the gate! (1)

NervousWreck (1399445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135315)

They probably plan on keeping it offline. At least if they have any sense. maybe they think the advertising value of an underground bunker beats the costs of cooling and waterproofing. Doesn't make sense from that perspective but who said it had to. I'm going with razorwire.

Re:Barbarians at the gate! (2, Insightful)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135985)

But this bunker was built to house a government. It has power, backup power and a backup for the backup power and all kinds of good redundant data connectivity. I've not seen this bunker but the few I've seen are designed to be very robust with multiple backups for everything and then if all else fails there are water, food, tools, parts and equipment stored in closets distributed throughout the facility. Don't assume it's a hole in the ground with just bare concrete walls

Re:Barbarians at the gate! (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136291)

Um... Good redundant data connectivity as of the Diefenbaker era: ie two 300 baud modems.

Re:Barbarians at the gate! (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136211)

While this is pretty cool I can't really see the point in it. The facility won't be easy to fit cooling, power and connectivity too and because it's underground there is a significant and on going risk of flooding.

You're forgetting that these things may well have already been dealt with. It was designed to withstand a nuclear war - and to provide a working military command center during one. It will certainly have a serious power supply and an even more serious ventilation system; connectivity may well be a problem, but it's likely to have at least a few lines in and out, which should mean tunnels have already been dug; with luck it may be as simple as threading fibre optics through them.

I would have thought a purpose built above ground facility with soild 5m razor wire topped walls and lots of hungry dogs would have been better.

Sure it would be. It'd also be a lot more expensive - those sorts of facilities are useful to all sorts of organizations. No-one would be considering housing a data center in an underground bunker like this if they had to build it themselves - but they don't. The military has many that it can't really use, and they'll do well to get any money selling them, because really there's very little such a facility can be used for. So the price is low, and that makes it worthwhile.

Re:Barbarians at the gate! (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136569)

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.

what (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135033)

Does that seriously say "Novia" Scotia?

If we could post images in comments, there'd be a picture of Picard with his face in his hand here.

Re:what (5, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135263)

Srsly. I'm in yer bunkr, mispeling yer wurds.

a bit spendy? (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135041)

I propose a different plan: Encrypt and decentralize. It's cheaper, you can put your servers most anywhere, and they'll survive anything short of global thermonuclear warfare. But of course, if that does happen... Chances are good you won't care. At least, not for long. It's great to have datacenters that can survive a nuclear fallout, but machines surviving has never been the problem... it's the people that generally don't make it. And good luck running your business without them.

Everything but forgetting who has the key (1)

professorguy (1108737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136149)

They'll survive anything short of global thermonuclear warfare.

.

They'll survive anything short of someone misplacing the key. Keeping the key in a central repository or distributing pieces of it makes it vulnerable to destruction. And decentralizing the key (give everyone a copy) makes the system less secure.

I guess you need a partition that allows N people to each have a unique piece of the key, but only x pieces are required to reconstruct the whole. If x << N AND x > 1, you might have a shot.

Thebunker.net data center in UK (4, Interesting)

billstewart (78916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135073)

A decade or so ago, thebunker.net bought a UK nuclear bunker to set up a data center. It had good connectivity to power grids, generators, and cheap cooling because it was underground. It also sounded cool, and they were able to sell to lots of London banks concerned about natural disasters and civil disturbances. They were able to get it relatively cheaply, and the savings in cooling costs were really valuable financially during years when other data centers were having trouble making money; I think they've acquired a second bunker by now.

Bond movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135075)

The one in Stockholm looks like a great set for a bond movie

Patriot Act? (2, Interesting)

stimuli_ii (1266556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135155)

I hope they realize that a significant amount of Internet traffic goes through the States. I doubt they could 100% guarantee protection from the Patriot Act.

Re:Patriot Act? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135639)

Anything going over the public Internet should be encrypted anyway, unless you want it to be public. They are worried about interception near the endpoints.

Canadian Goverment continue to work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135173)

HA! They can't even work OUTSIDE a nuclear bunker. Not like they ever needed it.

Good for data warehousing (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135251)

Plus, extra good when the hungry mobs with pitchforks and torches start looking for people to blame for the current financial situation.

Re:Good for data warehousing (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135453)

Even better in the event of a zombie apocalypse! Just make sure you've got a zombie plan. You can't just assume that you'll be able to keep them out. If one gets in, you've got to be ready.

Novia Scotia??? (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135301)

"A hosting firm has purchased a nuke-resistant bunker in Novia Scotia..."

Not supposed to be NOVA Scotia?

Re:Novia Scotia??? (1)

koalapeck (1137045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136781)

The worst part is that TFA even has it spelled correctly, only Slashdot chose to ruin it.

Info Bunker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135323)

There is already one in the US, it is near Boone, IA

http://infobunker.com/

Re:Info Bunker (1)

Swervin (836962) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135555)

Exactly, old news. I've been to the Infobunker before. Pretty neat place, good security too. It used to be a communications facility.

from the canada-has-nukes? dept...? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135337)

Ok, not trying to be overly critical here, but the bunker was intended to protect people from nukes, not to store nukes. What's with the canada-has-nukes business?

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...? (2, Informative)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135465)

You're right, Canada does not possess any weapons of mass destruction [wikipedia.org] ... We're just good friends with our neighbors who possess a shitload of nukes.

Always good to have a nuclear bunker if your neighbor even has a slight chance to be part of a nuclear conflict.

Reading the link posted in this comment, I just learned that a secret Canada-US agreement has been signed in my city, Quebec.

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136617)

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.

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135485)

So tag it:

!nukes

Re:from the canada-has-nukes? dept...? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136187)

Ok, not trying to be overly critical here, but the bunker was intended to protect people from nukes, not to store nukes. What's with the canada-has-nukes business?

Well, we have one of the few nuclear reactors which is used to make medical isotopes for the world supply. We also have some nuclear power plants.

But, you're right. We don't have those kinds of weapons, and don't want them. Our military has largely had peace-keeping and aid missions for the last few decades.

Cheers

Bunker at Debert and Great Village (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135365)

Cool, I live about 10 miles from this bunker. also, there is another smaller bunker in Great Village, about 5 miles from my house, which was the NATO communications center and was connected to the bunker in Debert by underground cable. There are still a lot of radio towers at the Great Village site and I believe the military still operates it for something.
    When I was a kid we used to drive our dirtbikes into the enclosure and on top of the bunker until someone would come out, jump in a military van and chase us down the dirt road and through the corn fields. Great fun for 13 year olds, LOL.
    Maybe something like this in the area would jumpstart our internet connectivity around here, it sucks.

The last fallout shelter I was in.. (1)

tsstahl (812393) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135367)

The last fallout shelter I was in succumbed to water. We had to stand on top of the bunker to call in fire considered to be danger close.

are we as safe as our data (1)

yowlanku (1169499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135405)

one day we all shall be dead, and all our data will still be safe.

Re:are we as safe as our data (1)

geomobile (1312099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135675)

one day we all shall be dead, and all our data will still be safe.

Which is true anyway. At least for a lot of our data, independently of if we put some of it in bunkers or not.

Nukes-shmukes (3, Funny)

Godji (957148) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135433)

Meh, who needs protection from nukes anyway? As long as all the data is safe, the Slashdot crowd will never notice the world has ended, unless they hit Google.

Die Hard? (1)

Uchiha (811374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135445)

Isn't this exactly what happened in Die Hard? Firesale?

frost p1st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26135475)

variations on the of programming See. The number OS. Now BSdI is Megs of ram runs

Bahnhof in Sweden already did this (4, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135655)

Swedish ISP Bahnhof [bahnhof.se] already did this [bahnhof.se] . Still cool though...

/Mikael

Re:Bahnhof in Sweden already did this (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136119)

My university has a plan of potentially buying an old nuclear bunker and making it the backup data center. There're a few concerns about being able to get enough cabling in though.

I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months (4, Interesting)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26135827)

when I was in the Reserves (Communications) I worked down in one of these facilities in Penhold Alberta. Bank vault style doors, a complete hospital, TV studio, a massive number of Government offices etc (If there is a nuclear war going on, why exactly do we need offices for the Unemployment Department?), all built under many feet of steel and concrete buried 30 ft underground and standing on massive springs to reduce shock. They were pretty impressive. They are several stories tall inside and no doubt about as secure a facility as you could ever want to store your servers in :)

Re:I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136259)

'(If there is a nuclear war going on, why exactly do we need offices for the Unemployment Department?)'

Who is going to be employed following a nuclear war?

Re:I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136477)

Whoosh. That was rather my point. I noticed the Unemployment office had its own rooms in the bunker and wondered why they bothered :P

Re:I worked in one of these bunkers for 6 months (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136795)

Whoosh right back:)

Since they will be unemployed, they will make use of unemployment insurance!

Sounds a lot like.... (1)

mbreitba (662883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136117)

The infobunker - http://www.infobunker.com/ [infobunker.com] I've actually visited the facility, and it's pretty impressive. Those cold-war guys really took things an extra step. Overall, a little more than what I need for my hosting needs, but if someone needed security, those facilities definately provide the needed protection.

Re:Sounds a lot like.... (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136629)

You should see the Swiss underground defense facilities - they make these look like kids toys.

User Friendly did this in 2001 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26136169)

They had the cartoon ISP techs work in an old silo.

Bunkers no longer needed. (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136319)

Actually, this is in response to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's act of shutting down Parliament. If the government isn't working, then bunkers aren't needed to keep it working, eh?

-Loyal

Test It Before Buying It (5, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26136715)

I used to work in a converted "nuke-proof" bunker right outside Toronto that Northern Telecom operated as a datacenter. Buried underground and under thousands of tons of concrete. Through a series of Get Smart type security/airlocks. Down the hatch, among the servers, I used to feel more secure than anywhere else I'd ever been.

Until my pager went off.

There's no way that bunker was "nuke proof", if puny radio signals for a pager could get through. And no, they didn't have a repeater or anything - in fact, when I asked if my pager would work down there, they laughed, and told me no, but I'd have to leave mine topside if I had one (or a cell phone, though those weren't common yet) because there wasn't supposed to be any equipment operating in that range down there (even just receiving), as part of the "shielding protocol".

Clearly, the prohibition of them was just a way to hide the fact that they'd work, showing the bunker was "leaky". And then, to prove it, I brought my cellphone down there to use whenever I wanted, despite their protocols.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?