Results 1 to 77 of 77

Thread: Nuclear missiles aimed at Edmonton?

  1. #1

    Default Nuclear missiles aimed at Edmonton?

    A reliable friend tells me that Edmonton was the only Canadian city targeted by Russian missiles during the Cold War because of our strategic oil / pipeline connections to the US.

    Can anyone confirm or elaborate on this information ... and tell me where I could access this document?

  2. #2
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,180

    Default

    i have heard the same thing through "hear-say"
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  3. #3
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenn View Post
    A reliable friend tells me that Edmonton was the only Canadian city targeted by Russian missiles during the Cold War because of our strategic oil / pipeline connections to the US.

    Can anyone confirm or elaborate on this information ... and tell me where I could access this document?
    kenn,
    i can neither confirm or deny but if you want someone to ask (on or off the record), i would start with brigadier-general skidmore at the edmonton garrison who may have some nato contacts he could pass on if he can't provide the answer directly.
    ken
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ya i heard that too but i cant remember where or when.

  5. #5
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    At the height of the cold war the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear warheads, enough to destroy the planet many times over. I am sure Edmonton was targeted but I would expect every sizable city in the country was as well. I doubt very much that we were the only ones.

  6. #6
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    All major cities in Canada would have been targeted. When you have 20,000 plus warheads you could target every city many times over.

  7. #7
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,415

    Default

    Wait...the Soviet Union could find us on a map, but our own national media can't?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    At the height of the cold war the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear warheads, enough to destroy the planet many times over. I am sure Edmonton was targeted but I would expect every sizable city in the country was as well. I doubt very much that we were the only ones.
    That would be my guess as well in the event of "all-out" war, but if a limited strike had been planned or indeed occured, I would imagine the big E would have been very strategically "different" than, say, Ottawa. I can't imagine how serious the threat of either all-out or limited really were, but I think it's not far fetched at all to suppose that more Soviet generals thought more about Edmonton than perhaps any other city in Canada.

    The greater strategy employed against Japan, for example, was to starve the country of oil (by stopping to sell it to them first, and then by re-taking Indonesia second, and at which point defeat was nearly a formality) but the power structure of the society (police, commerce, education, most of the government) was mostly untouched and remains in place to this day.
    Last edited by JayBee; 03-04-2008 at 10:30 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocket252 View Post
    All major cities in Canada would have been targeted. When you have 20,000 plus warheads you could target every city many times over.
    I am not so sure about that. Maybe as a backup plan all cities were targeted (a sort of retribution thing, although I doubt it), but my understanding is that Cold War plans were not about eliminating the most people possible, but rather, about destroying the military targets, and civilian control with a view to "winning" the war. This might fit in with targeting Edmonton - the pipeline thing, etc. (no doubt Cold Lake was targeted with more missiles though). Lets not forget, communism was an ideology - communists actually believed their system was better, and that the ultimate goal was to convert us to that ideology, a shared utopia where everyone works for the state rather than themselves, rather than to destroy us in the most horrific manner possible.

    I think the thinking might have been "lets destroy the evil capitalist leaders and their military who are abusing the subjected working classes in Canada. Then, the communist parties we have continued to support, can unite the people to rebuild Canada after the war."
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-04-2008 at 11:09 AM.

  10. #10
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,853
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I think we should clarify here.

    Edmonton, like all major Canadian cities, was a target for the Soviets.

    However, Edmonton was the FIRST STRIKE city. There is a difference. While yes, the Soviets could blow up the earth many times over, they did have some brains to want to have areas that they could actually, I don't know, take over and use.

    So, Edmonton was to be obilterated due to Namao, Cold Lake, YEG, YXD, CZVL, you know, all the airfields. Add the oil pipeline hub and the distribution network, and by removing these assets, they crippled NORAD. Calgary and many other cities were not as strategic. They would have been a second wave city should the conventional arms battle that followed the first strike not work out.

    MAD - it had its logic.
    Last edited by RichardS; 03-04-2008 at 11:22 AM.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  11. #11
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Yeah, don't forget Edmonton's a huge jumping off point for the North, where a ton of early warning systems were located back in the days of intercontinental bombing runs (DEW line and such).

    But it's largely pointless. The missiles could be retargeted in a matter of a few minutes.

  12. #12
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    I think we should clarify here.

    Edmonton, like all major Canadian cities, was a target for the Soviets.

    However, Edmonton was the FIRST STRIKE city. There is a difference. While yes, the Soviets could blow up the earth many times over, they did have some brains to want to have areas that they could actually, I don't know, take over and use.

    So, Edmonton was to be obliterated due to Namao, Cold Lake, YEG, YXD, CZVL, you know, all the airfields. Add the oil pipeline hub and the distribution network, and by removing these assets, they crippled NORAD. Calgary and many other cities were not as strategic. They would have been a second wave city should the conventional arms battle that followed the first strike not work out.

    MAD - it had its logic.
    Richard's right. We also should remember that Edmonton (Namao) was a major US Air Force Strategic Air Command base until well into the 1960's. B52's, B47's and other US aircraft were based here, along with refuelling aircraft and some jet fighters. [In the cold-war movie "Strategic Air Command", James Stewart mentions stopping at Edmonton for something (I don't remember what exactly).]

    So that, along with the other reasons mentioned, made Edmonton a first-strike target for the Soviets.
    Almost always open to debate...

  13. #13
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    I think we should clarify here.

    Edmonton, like all major Canadian cities, was a target for the Soviets.

    However, Edmonton was the FIRST STRIKE city. There is a difference. While yes, the Soviets could blow up the earth many times over, they did have some brains to want to have areas that they could actually, I don't know, take over and use.

    So, Edmonton was to be obliterated due to Namao, Cold Lake, YEG, YXD, CZVL, you know, all the airfields. Add the oil pipeline hub and the distribution network, and by removing these assets, they crippled NORAD. Calgary and many other cities were not as strategic. They would have been a second wave city should the conventional arms battle that followed the first strike not work out.

    MAD - it had its logic.
    Richard's right. We also should remember that Edmonton (Namao) was a major US Air Force Strategic Air Command base until well into the 1960's. B52's, B47's and other US aircraft were based here, along with refuelling aircraft and some jet fighters. [In the cold-war movie "Strategic Air Command", James Stewart mentions stopping at Edmonton for something (I don't remember what exactly).]

    So that, along with the other reasons mentioned, made Edmonton a first-strike target for the Soviets.
    and i seem to recall that until we built a building in the middle of it, we had the longest paved runway on the continent - one that was until then an actual alternate shuttle landing site for nasa.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #14
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    ^ You're right, Ken. The Namao runway was almost 12,000 feet long. And I do believe it was an alternative shuttle landing site.
    Almost always open to debate...

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    and i seem to recall that until we built a building in the middle of it, we had the longest paved runway on the continent - one that was until then an actual alternate shuttle landing site for nasa.
    I believe the buildings put up were done to be easily removed if the long runway were ever needed again in a hurry. So the rumours go. I could be totally out to lunch...well, actually that's pretty much a given, rofl.
    Last edited by MylesC; 04-04-2008 at 06:45 PM.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  16. #16
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,853
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC View Post

    I believe the buildings put up were done to be easily removed if the long runway were ever needed again in a hurry. So the rumours go. I could be totally out to lunch...well, actually that's pretty much a given, rofl.
    No, it can be rebuilt rather quickly if need arises.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink View Post
    ^ You're right, Ken. The Namao runway was almost 12,000 feet long. And I do believe it was an alternative shuttle landing site.
    IIRC, it is more like 14,000'
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  17. #17

    Default

    Missiles are a always pointed towards strategic targets. It wouldn't surprise me if Taiwan had missiles pointed towards China's Yangtzee River Dam.

  18. #18
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC View Post

    I believe the buildings put up were done to be easily removed if the long runway were ever needed again in a hurry. So the rumours go. I could be totally out to lunch...well, actually that's pretty much a given, rofl.
    No, it can be rebuilt rather quickly if need arises.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink View Post
    ^ You're right, Ken. The Namao runway was almost 12,000 feet long. And I do believe it was an alternative shuttle landing site.
    IIRC, it is more like 14,000'
    I think you're right.
    Almost always open to debate...

  19. #19
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,977

    Default

    Hmmm, if the U. S. Interstate Highways were built for defence, perhaps Edmonton could offer this as an argument for more highway funding.

    I was told that Sherwood Park and Strathcona County would not be affected by a nuclear attack, given that it's separate from Edmonton.

  20. #20
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I was told that Sherwood Park and Strathcona County would not be affected by a nuclear attack, given that it's separate from Edmonton.
    HAHA, Sherwood Park and Fort Saskatchewan would be the first to go... with all their refineries etc.

  21. #21
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,977

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I was told that Sherwood Park and Strathcona County would not be affected by a nuclear attack, given that it's separate from Edmonton.
    HAHA, Sherwood Park and Fort Saskatchewan would be the first to go... with all their refineries etc.
    Darn, I though Sherwood Park wanted nothing to do with Edmonton.

  22. #22
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Calgary alta
    Posts
    50

    Default Edmonton a target.

    I spent 4 years in air cadets back in 65-69. I was in 504 sqn . This was at the height of the cold war. I remember many evenings spent discussing this very subject. Edmonton was definitely on the hit list. Figure in Nameo, the muni the seat of government, the jumping off point for the oil industry, major oilfield suppliers, the oil refineries. It all added up to a major target. We actually spent evenings discussing where would be the best ground zero. We felt that to do max damage that the bomb would be detonated right over 101 st X Jasper Ave. Back in those days many people felt the bomb would most likely be delivered via aircraft.In addition if the USSR were to launch a missile strike and the U.S were to counter with defensive strike of its own Guess where those missiles would meet? You got it right over Edmonton. In addition during the Vietnam war Northwest Industries held a contract to repair American aircraft. Northwest was located right by NAIT.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidnorwoodink View Post
    ^ You're right, Ken. The Namao runway was almost 12,000 feet long. And I do believe it was an alternative shuttle landing site.
    After hearing this myth from several sources I researched this topic a few years back and never did find any NASA approved website stating that the Namao strip was an actually an alternate. It was a capbable yes but not listed as one of there alternatives.
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...ty/sts-els.htm

    Prove me wrong with a different link?

  24. #24

    Default

    ^Isn't it a bit late to be asking for references? He made that post almost two and a half years ago.
    "A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." - Frank Lloyd Wright

  25. #25

    Default

    I bet he's been looking online for evidence for the last two and a half years and just found it today.

  26. #26
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    During the Cold War, Edmonton would definitely not have been the only target in Canada - the Soviets likely had pretty much every major Canadian city and provincial capital from Victoria to St. John's on its target list - I've even seen a nuclear attack scenario for Charlottetown, PEI. The same goes for most, if not all, major Canadian Armed Forces bases across the country. Not just major air bases like Cold Lake and Namao, but also civilian airports like YEG, YYC, and YVR.

    In a worst-case scenario, Metro Edmonton would likely have had at least six to seven nuclear warheads aimed at it. This is taking into account all these military bases/installations, major oil and chemical refining areas, YEG and YXD (dunno about this - runways at the Muni are wayyy too short for B-52s!) and Edmonton being the provincial capital - as targets. This would make the Edmonton area probably the hardest hit area in Western Canada. Warhead yields in an attack on Metro Edmonton would have ranged anywhere from 200 kilotons to about 1 megaton.

    It's not just ICBMs to worry about, but also SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile(s)). SLBMs can strike targets within a much shorter time frame than ICBMs simply because a sub can be positioned a lot closer to a target. If launched within several hundred kms of the West Coast, Soviet SLBM warheads could reach targets in Alberta in as little as under six minutes - even before Soviet ICBM warheads were halfway across the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic if both types were launched at the same time.
    Is there hope for Edmonton? Yes!!! The Oilers? Wait and see.

  27. #27
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    E=town
    Posts
    182

    Default

    I want to point out there are not enough, nor have there ever been enough nukes to literally destroy the world. Might kill all life on it, that might be one thing but we have been hit by meteorites that were well into the megaton range and we are still in one piece. I do not think a nuke could do enough damage to the ground to ever actually cause any significant damage to the integrity of the earth.

  28. #28
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Yes, Edmonton is a target. It should be. Of course. Um, you mean you really think the Nato clique is the only one that has the moral right to kill babies with fire during the night? Grow up, already. If you want peace, don't look for enemies. We have manufactured every single enemy we've ever had. And then we're suprised they point nukes at us.

    PS. In the nineteen eighties there was at least one time, right about 27 years ago coming up in a month, that the nukes almost flew. Right now the chance of that happening are very, very low. But... every time our filthy slime of a PM makes another posturing political play at the enemy and its semi-fictional incursions, that risk only goes up. Just an iota up. But still. Congratulations.

    ---- And one more thing. "It should be" above means not that I welcome it -- I spent quite enough time between the sixties and the eighties worrying about what was then entirely too possible EVER to forget it -- but that in a situation where "our side" continues to have its "strategic enemies" it is only reasonable the strategic enemies target strategic assets here. Refineries, government centres, that sort of thing. It would be un-natural otherwise. And if you have a problem with that, look first at our nauseating ability as a society to create strategic enemies in the first place.
    Last edited by abaka; 06-09-2010 at 09:13 PM. Reason: Added final rant.

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,505

    Default

    if nuclear missile attacks Edmonton, it is likely that st albert and sherwood park will be wiped out.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  30. #30
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Hmm. I recall hearing about this from a teacher in Junior High. At the time I just kind of assumed it was true, because a teacher had said it, but after a while it just started to sound like the kind of urban legend that a city likes to tell about itself in order to feel more important.

    I guess it does make a certain amount of sense. But if the Russians were gonna bomb Alberta to disrupt oil supplies, would the city of Edmonton per se really be the most logical target? I'm not aware of how much drilling actually takes place within Edmonton itself. Does all the oil leaving Alberta for the US converge at some point in the city?

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,396

    Default

    On a lighter note perhaps they were aimed at the Eskimos... the only long bombs in that game certainly didn't come from us.

    While I've heard this, it sounds like an urban legend, if you are going to target your enemies infrastructure you'd certainly pick multiple targets, fuel supply is certainly one of them, military targets are other.

  32. #32
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    The Soviet nuclear arsenal even today after decades of reductions is still around 3,000 warheads. At it's peak it was over 40,000. Those were anywhere from massive multi-megaton warheads to small single digit kiloton artillery shells. Even using the 3,000 warheads they have today, most of which are "strategic" (big) and not "tactical" (small), and just dividing by the rough population of NATO of around 600 million (that's a very rough guess), that's a strategic nuke for every 200,000 citizens.

    Of course Edmonton was a target in the past and would likely be in any large nuclear launch. However I'm pretty sure that one of the arms reductions treaties required that all strategic missiles and the like would not have pre-determined targets input in to their guidance systems going forward. It might only take a couple minutes, if that, to update the target lists, so it's fairly irrelevant, but technically it would mean Edmonton is likely not currently targeted by nuclear weapons.

  33. #33
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Well, Wikileaks has released an American document listing Canadian sites which the Yanks consider to be of vital importance to their security. We can probably extrapolate that if the Russians had contingency plans to nuke Edmonton, there would be something in or around Edmonton on the American list.

    Looking at the list, I don't see the words "Edmonton" or even "Alberta" appearing once. I do, however, see...

    "Enbridge Pipeline.
    Alliance Pipeline: natural gas transmission from Canada.
    Maritime and Northeast Pipeline: natural gas transmission from Canada.
    Transcanada Gas: natural gas transmission from Canada."

    I'm guessing that three of these(not the "Maritime" one obviously) might have some connection with Alberta(isn't Enbridge headquartered in Calgary?) Still, I'm not sure if this makes much of a case for Edmonton being the ONLY Canadian city targetted during the Cold War.

    Again, this is assuming that the American list of assets would have a lot of overlap with the Russian list of targets.

    The list

    Article

  34. #34

    Default

    Just stumbled on this thread

    Overoceans

    Today's list is likely not going to be the same as during the Cold War, different threats different priorities.

    Edmonton would not have been the only nuclear target during the cold war, but it would have been one.

    Typical targeting strategies are going to focus on centres of command/control/military centres/production centres.

    Edmonton as a centre of oil/chemical production would be a logical choice to hobble the western forces and CFB Namao was a major Air Force base with strategic capability.

    So yes in the Cold War Edmonton would have been a target, but not the only one.

    Tom

  35. #35
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    It is thought that Russia had about 39,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war. In 2007, there were about 4000 ICBM's (about 12,000 during Cold War). I would suspect that most major cities in north america would have been a target.
    I thought Edmonton was a "major" target because of it's location being a refueling stop, or take-off point, for American long range bombers

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US..._1949-2002.png

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper View Post
    It is thought that Russia had about 39,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war. In 2007, there were about 4000 ICBM's (about 12,000 during Cold War). I would suspect that most major cities in north america would have been a target.
    I thought Edmonton was a "major" target because of it's location being a refueling stop, or take-off point, for American long range bombers

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US..._1949-2002.png
    There were several reasons for Edmonton being a target.

    As I said above...Military strategy and tactics dictate the priority targets based on the objectives. During the Cold War all the reasons above were valid for Edmonton being a viable target.

    Tom

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Had occasion to chat with some fellows from the U.S. Atomic Energy Agency some *cough/mumble* years back. Only the Soviets know for sure but it was their assesment that Edmonton was a first strike target:

    1) Oil refining / pipeline centre
    2) Strategic air base
    3) Seat of government.

    It caused quite a discussion in our office, "what would you do with only 10-20 minutes warning?" One woman answered - take a lawn chair to the predicted epicentre, have a cold one and get it over with quickly!
    ... gobsmacked

  38. #38
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    It was probably a given that Edmonton was a Soviet nuke target especially considering the numbers of warheads at their disposal. In addition to the proximity of a military target such as CFB Edmonton, being a transportation, communications hub, and petrochemical center there was no reason not to strike Edmonton.

    One could easily make a case for targeting the Edmonton area with several warheads to hit CFB Edmonton, EIA, the petro facilities in the east end, and one more over the downtown for good measure. From a war planning point of view, you could assign one SS-19 ICBM with its 6 550kt warheads to drop 2 on CFB Cold Lake and 4 on Edmonton targets.

    Of course this would have been prior to START II which outlawed the use of MIRV warheads and not withstanding potential fratricide effects.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  39. #39

    Default

    A lifetime ago I had the pleasure of taking her majesties NCBW course.

    One warhead would be far more than enough for Edmonton.

    I am quite happy that period of time appears to have past us.

    Tom

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    A lifetime ago I had the pleasure of taking her majesties NCBW course.

    One warhead would be far more than enough for Edmonton.

    I am quite happy that period of time appears to have past us.

    Tom
    Absolutely agree on both accounts. The "madness" of it all, overkill, bombing the rubble so to speak. I once read an article about the numbers of warheads our side had targeted on Moscow, it really did seem to verge on insanity.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  41. #41
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Unfortunately, that's the way the bizarre calculus of MAD worked (mutually assured destruction). In some ways, the less nuclear warheads each side had, the more dangerous things were because a nuclear war could become winnable. Hence why things like ballistic missile shields are so contentious.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Unfortunately, that's the way the bizarre calculus of MAD worked (mutually assured destruction). In some ways, the less nuclear warheads each side had, the more dangerous things were because a nuclear war could become winnable. Hence why things like ballistic missile shields are so contentious.
    After taking the NCBW course (bear in mind thats over 30 years ago) I still stand by what I learned there...

    No nuclear war was winnable and I do believe anyone in the military believed it could be.

    Tom

  43. #43
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    I heard stories that there is a deep underground bunker benieth the leg.

  44. #44
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    [QUOTE=Thomas Hinderks;336661]
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    No nuclear war was winnable and I do believe anyone in the military believed it could be.

    Tom
    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
    Albert Einstein

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper View Post
    I heard stories that there is a deep underground bunker benieth the leg.
    There were several around

    While I have not seen it I understand there is a fairly conventional 1960s bomb shelter at the leg.

    There was (is) a much more extensive one for the City of Edmonton near a ravine in the Westend...that one I've not been in but have been at the entrance and it was a fairly good size.

    The main bunker for Command/Control both federally and provincially was in Red Deer and was extremely extensive set to house several hundred with air purification, water purification and all the other post apocalyptic needs.

    It is now sealed in concrete.

    To see what it was like...if you are ever in Ottawa visit the Diefenbunker, now a museum, well worth the visit and amazing. The one here was the twin.

    Tom

  46. #46
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    After taking the NCBW course (bear in mind thats over 30 years ago) I still stand by what I learned there...

    No nuclear war was winnable and I do believe anyone in the military believed it could be.

    Tom
    I don't know what NCBW is.

    No nuclear war with thousands of warheads exchanged is "winnable", sure. However a nuclear exchange of only a few dozen or even a couple hundred could be, especially if the first striker also had ABM capability or was somehow able to prevent the other side from launching some or all of theirs. That's why ABM systems, space based weapons and the like are so destabilizing.

    Like I said, the "calculus" of nuclear exchanges is strange to say the least.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    After taking the NCBW course (bear in mind thats over 30 years ago) I still stand by what I learned there...

    No nuclear war was winnable and I do believe anyone in the military believed it could be.

    Tom
    I don't know what NCBW is.

    No nuclear war with thousands of warheads exchanged is "winnable", sure. However a nuclear exchange of only a few dozen or even a couple hundred could be, especially if the first striker also had ABM capability or was somehow able to prevent the other side from launching some or all of theirs. That's why ABM systems, space based weapons and the like are so destabilizing.

    Like I said, the "calculus" of nuclear exchanges is strange to say the least.
    Sorry Marcel

    NCBW....Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Warfare training

    In the day there were many "ideas" cast around.
    -Limited battlefield exchange, which led to things like nuclear tipped artillery shells.

    -Limited tactical engagement, which led to the short range Nuclear strike missles both surface to surface and air to surface.

    -Limited strategic engagement, only a few dozen ICBMs or marine equivalent.

    But like "limited" aerial bombing of the First World War the belief was that
    it would rapidly escalate with both conventional, biological and nuclear gloves coming off leading to the inevitable.

    The idea of limited nuclear war is much like being a little bit pregnant.

    Tom

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Unfortunately, that's the way the bizarre calculus of MAD worked (mutually assured destruction). In some ways, the less nuclear warheads each side had, the more dangerous things were because a nuclear war could become winnable. Hence why things like ballistic missile shields are so contentious.
    After taking the NCBW course (bear in mind thats over 30 years ago) I still stand by what I learned there...

    No nuclear war was winnable and I do believe anyone in the military believed it could be.

    Tom
    Just noticed an error I made...
    "No nuclear war was winnable and I do believe anyone in the military believed it could be."

    Should read...
    No nuclear war was winnable and I do NOT believe anyone in the military believed it could be.

    Sorry bout that, poor morning grammar/spelling.

    Tom

  49. #49
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Yup, I don't think we're disagreeing on anything. It's just kind of bizarre that nuclear warhead reductions and arms control deals can actually lead to more instability and a higher chance of a nuclear exchange, if not handled properly.

  50. #50
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Tis indeed a perverse idea, but true none-the-less that the more the old-line enemies are able to blow up the entire world, the more safe we are because noone would ever start such a war.

    Well, except, I've no idea to whom or what North Korea or Iraq are willing to sell nuclear technology if not actual weapons. Small ones maybe - but very, very unsettling still.

    It's the nation-less terrorists and the nations willing to give them the tools to do thier dirty work that are the threat now.
    ... gobsmacked

  51. #51

    Default

    [QUOTE=Jasper;336665]
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    No nuclear war was winnable and I do believe anyone in the military believed it could be.

    Tom
    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
    Albert Einstein
    "There will never be a nuclear war; there's too much real estate involved"
    -Frank Zappa


  52. #52

    Default

    " if the first striker also had ABM capability or was somehow able to prevent the other side from launching some or all of theirs. That's why ABM systems, space based weapons and the like are so destabilizing.

    Like I said, the "calculus" of nuclear exchanges is strange to say the least"


    The problem with ABM/defense is believing it works as estimated. Kind of like yearly budgets

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,614

    Default

    While some quotable quotes are appearing here:

    We will all go together when we go
    All suffused with an incandescent glow
    No one will have the endurance to collect on his insurance
    Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go

    Oh we will all fry together when we fry
    We'll be french fried potatoes by and by
    There will be no more misery when the world is our rotisserie
    Yes, we will all fry together when we fry

    Tom Lehrer - satirical folksinger of cold war times.

    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    After taking the NCBW course (bear in mind thats over 30 years ago) I still stand by what I learned there...

    Tom
    Just noticed an error I made...
    "No nuclear war was winnable and I do believe anyone in the military believed it could be."

    Should read...
    No nuclear war was winnable and I do NOT believe anyone in the military believed it could be.

    Sorry bout that, poor morning grammar/spelling.

    Tom
    I wouldn't be so sure. Everything is becoming interconnected. Take out a country's communication and plant viruses to suddenly crash or control deployment systems and a nuclear battle might be winnable. I think it's pretty scary what technological secrets may have been stolen from the US and what may already be sleeping in many computer systems.

  55. #55
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,853
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...er...

    Military computer systems aren't running on the good ol' Internet provided by AT&T....they are more than likely sequestered on their own little network...

    ...and the security for nuclear warheads would be intense....

    Wikileaks doesn't have the crucial secret secret information...the reaction would be a lot different if they did...

    As for a nuclear war being winnable, if it was, it would have happened already IMO. We've had enough ideologues and nutcases during the cold war to make it happen...and it didn't. Again, MAD had its own sort of logic...and still does even with the limited warheards...the delivery systems are more accurate so you can reduce the quantity and still have the same effect. ...the fear remains having someone in control of the warheads, or enough warheads...that does not fear death, welcomes it...and hopes to take us all with him/her/them so they can kill in the glory of something/deity and be rewarded...that would be the only "winnable" war...

    Gosh howie, I haven't heard that in awhile...Tom Lehrer was hilarious...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  56. #56
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Military computer systems aren't running on the good ol' Internet provided by AT&T....they are more than likely sequestered on their own little network...

    ...and the security for nuclear warheads would be intense...
    True, but no security is ever 100%. Look at Stuxnet (read here and here), which combined a very sophisticated and highly directed technical attack with basic old-fashioned wetware hacking. If this kind of attack doesn't scare the bejeezus out of anyone, it should.

    There's little guarantee that every nuclear facility in the world is more secure than the Iranian processing facility, and all it would take is the loss of control of a single one to wreak havoc.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Military computer systems aren't running on the good ol' Internet provided by AT&T....they are more than likely sequestered on their own little network...

    ...and the security for nuclear warheads would be intense...
    True, but no security is ever 100%. Look at Stuxnet (read here and here), which combined a very sophisticated and highly directed technical attack with basic old-fashioned wetware hacking. If this kind of attack doesn't scare the bejeezus out of anyone, it should.

    There's little guarantee that every nuclear facility in the world is more secure than the Iranian processing facility, and all it would take is the loss of control of a single one to wreak havoc.

    If a system is tied or can be accessed by the internet I agree.

    But bear in mind the U.S./European (yep they had a bunch too) and I would assume the Soviet systems were all in place long before the internet and operate on completely separate hard wire systems backed with conventional telux and VHF/UHF radio systems plus a few other back ups.

    Command and control for all were in multiple locations (political and military) as well as airborne.

    So as far as the Cold War systems...they were intense as noted with mulitple back ups, independent hard wire networks.

    Tom

  58. #58
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    No doubt cyber warfare is a revolutionary development. But it is worth remembering that the bulk of US ICBM nuclear warheads are carried on board its ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) that are not networked. Comms with US SSBNs are typically conducted through VLF (very low frequency) sound waves or via satellite if they come
    near the surface to expose their antennae.

    And from an operational perspective they probably have procedures in place for autonomous launch in the event they are cut off from command and control. So even if a large portion of terrestrial ICBMs were neutralized a significant retaliatory capability would remain.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 09-12-2010 at 01:15 PM. Reason: typo
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    If a system is tied or can be accessed by the internet I agree.
    Actually what Stuxnet proved was that your systems don't have to be connected to the internet; those soft and squishy organic units that make up part of the system are still the primary weak link in every system's security.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    But bear in mind the U.S./European (yep they had a bunch too) and I would assume the Soviet systems were all in place long before the internet and operate on completely separate hard wire systems backed with conventional telux and VHF/UHF radio systems plus a few other back ups.
    Are those same systems the ones in use today? Have absolutely no parts of it been replaced with more modern components? Even if they weren't, there's little guarantee that those old systems don't have vulnerabilities of their own - vulnerabilities that would be much more difficult to detect and patch on these old systems.

    I'm not trying to be a doomsayer or anything, I'm sure for the most part these systems are extraordinarily secure in both technology and organic-unit process. But what Stuxnet tells me is that we should never, ever assume anything is secure against a sufficiently determined opponent, and never underestimate the level of sophistication that an electronic attack and its entry vector could achieve with such determination.
    Last edited by RTA; 09-12-2010 at 02:32 PM.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    No doubt cyber warfare is a revolutionary development. But it is worth remembering that the bulk of US ICBM nuclear warheads are carried on board its ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) that are not networked. Comms with US SSBNs are typically conducted through VLF (very low frequency) sound waves or via satellite if they come
    near the surface to expose their antennae.
    Keep in mind that the US is only one arsenal to be concerned with, and that activation of a single tactical weapon elsewhere can escalate before anyone ever knew what happened.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  61. #61

    Default

    Hey RTA

    "Actually what Stuxnet proved was that your systems don't have to be connected to the internet; those soft and squishy organic units that make up part of the system are still the primary weak link in every system's security."

    I know from meeting and talking SAC missile command retired personnel that the extensive psch profiling and other profiling done every few months, plus the (2) man system in operations made for a pretty fail safe system from the skin side...if anything a non fire was considered a far bigger problem than a renegade fire.

    "Are those same systems the ones in use today? Have absolutely no parts of it been replaced with more modern components? Even if they weren't, there's little guarantee that those old systems don't have vulnerabilities of their own - vulnerabilities that would be much more difficult to detect and patch on these old systems."

    From what I know about the systems from touring Cheyenne Mountain some years ago the systems were designed for a hundred year life span and parts were placed to last the duration so other than some communications the systems were in place till shut down.

    The other smart thing they did was "keep it simple" and multiple layers of redundancy and verification prior to fire.

    I am quite sure that Europe and the Soviet Union was just as intense.

    "Keep in mind that the US is only one arsenal to be concerned with, and that activation of a single tactical weapon elsewhere can escalate before anyone ever knew what happened."

    Here we agree....

    In the Cold War there were few players huge budgets and intense exercises to maintain security and operations.

    With the increase in countries with Nuclear weapons or the capability since the end of the Cold War there are too many players and using the quickest (least secure methods) to secure and create the weapons.

    This is today's concern...a terrorist with a dirty or operational weapon, no checks, no balance, no fail safe (good movie BTW both the original and the remake).

    Today I feel there is a far higher likely hood of a nuclear incident than during the Cold War. Just the scale of damage would be smaller (but not for those affected).

    Tom

  62. #62

    Default

    NSA considers its networks compromised

    Debora Plunkett, head of the NSA's Information Assurance Directorate, has confirmed what many security experts suspected to be true: no computer network can be considered completely and utterly impenetrable - not even that of the NSA.

    "There's no such thing as 'secure' any more," she said to the attendees of a cyber security forum sponsored by the Atlantic and Government Executive media organizations, and confirmed that the NSA works under the assumption that various parts of their systems have already been compromised, and is adjusting its actions accordingly.

    To preserve the availability and integrity of the systems it has the duty to protect, the NSA has turned to standardization, constant auditing, and the development and use of sensors that will be placed inside the network on specific points in hope of detecting threats as soon as they trigger them, reports Reuters.

    The problem with cyber defense - especially when it comes to attacks backed by governments and intelligence organizations - is that attackers are usually highly motivated and often very well funded.

    Organizations can think of a hundred things to do to secure a system, but the attackers have time, money and incentive to keep at it as long as it takes to identify that crack in the armor that will allow them to get in.

    So far, as I can see, the main aspect of cyber defense that every one should concentrate on is real-time detection of intrusions that would allow defenders to actively fight off the attackers - and the NSA is possibly on the right track if the sensors the plan to deploy will allow them to do that.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  63. #63

    Default Power of Decision

    This declassified US movie is pretty amazing and scary, shows the US control room and planning in the case of nuclear war, "if they start a war, this is what will happen":

    http://archive.org/details/AirForceS...owerOfDecision

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    NSA considers its networks compromised

    Debora Plunkett, head of the NSA's Information Assurance Directorate, has confirmed what many security experts suspected to be true: no computer network can be considered completely and utterly impenetrable - not even that of the NSA.

    "There's no such thing as 'secure' any more," she said to the attendees of a cyber security forum sponsored by the Atlantic and Government Executive media organizations, and confirmed that the NSA works under the assumption that various parts of their systems have already been compromised, and is adjusting its actions accordingly.

    To preserve the availability and integrity of the systems it has the duty to protect, the NSA has turned to standardization, constant auditing, and the development and use of sensors that will be placed inside the network on specific points in hope of detecting threats as soon as they trigger them, reports Reuters.

    The problem with cyber defense - especially when it comes to attacks backed by governments and intelligence organizations - is that attackers are usually highly motivated and often very well funded.

    Organizations can think of a hundred things to do to secure a system, but the attackers have time, money and incentive to keep at it as long as it takes to identify that crack in the armor that will allow them to get in.

    So far, as I can see, the main aspect of cyber defense that every one should concentrate on is real-time detection of intrusions that would allow defenders to actively fight off the attackers - and the NSA is possibly on the right track if the sensors the plan to deploy will allow them to do that.
    Cyber probably beats neutron bombs for leaving a country's resources and infrastructure intact. You just round up the survivors and move right in.

    Cyber-perils real, former spy warns
    Vulnerability of infrastructure network 'potentially devastating'
    Ian MacLeod, Postmedia News
    Published: Saturday, November 17


    http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjourn...8-17fe5325aaa6

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    This declassified US movie is pretty amazing and scary, shows the US control room and planning in the case of nuclear war, "if they start a war, this is what will happen":

    http://archive.org/details/AirForceS...owerOfDecision
    I liked that one. The really thought they could win it...or at least made Americans believe they could.
    You see humanity differentl when you clean up after it

  66. #66

    Default

    "We have the air, we have the power. And they know it." Cue the visual effect and the music!

    By the way Joe, I'm glad my family was in favour of cremation and not burial.

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,614
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  68. #68

    Default

    The moral of the story (below) is not to take life too seriously. Someone might still accidentally launch something our way.

    This was an interview on the CBC today. Sounds like an interesting book too, on the state of nuke safety... In it he's saying that the Dr. Strangelove scenario was criticized by the military at the time but in reality it was until until the 1970s that it was 'preventable'.

    He also talks about the Titan 2 which he says: 'was 3X more powerful than all the bombs used by all of all the armies in WWII combined, including the two atomic bombs.'




    Eric Schlosser on the legacy of nuclear mishaps | The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti | CBC Radio

    "The world's nuclear weapons keep us all on the knife edge of survival. But there are times when that knife is sharper than others. Eric Schlosser, the author of a new book on atomic weapons and nuclear mishaps is a little surprised we're all still hanging around. "

    "Just two years after that toe-tapping film was circulated to staff, the US air force was in a life-and-death struggle with a Titan 2 missile that could have destroyed Arkansas."

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode...clear-mishaps/





    Another interview here... With some text.

    Eric Schlosser (The Bat Segundo Show #515) | Reluctant Habits

    "Correspondent: Much of the missile culture that you describe in this book is, to say the least, remarkably unsafe. You have this Arkansas Titan II mishap at Launch Complex 374-7 — the so-called Damascus accident — that forms the backbone of this book. It all hinges on a socket wrench that is dropped down a silo and pierces this fuel tank. ..."

    http://www.edrants.com/eric-schlosse...undo-show-515/





    British nukes were protected by bike locks
    "Newsnight has discovered that until the early days of the Blair government the RAF's nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm
    .
    Last edited by KC; 18-11-2013 at 11:53 AM.

  69. #69

    Default

    ^the Alpha Omega bomb was built for that purpose, one day it will be worshiped as the Divine Bomb

  70. #70

    Default

    I finally got around to buying Schlosser's book Command and Control. It was very interesting.

    Also interesting was its mention of China's "underground Great Wall". Who approves these budgets? Makes me think of the endless LRT underground expansion delays in the 1980s. If only we'd offered to carry military hardware in some cars, maybe we'dhave had got some funding.

    excerpt:

    "A Georgetown University team led by Phillip Karber conducted a three-year study to map out China’s complex tunnel system, which stretches 3,000 miles.

    The 2011 report, “Strategic Implications of China’s Underground Great Wall,” concluded that the number of nuclear weapons estimated by U.S. intelligence was incorrect. ...

    Karber’s report presents evidence of a complex system of tunnels in areas noted for nuclear testing and storage — a far greater subterranean cavity than needed for just 300 nuclear weapons. ..."

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...e-Nuke-Tunnels



    The Illusion of Nuclear Safety | Foreign Affairs

    Command and Combust
    America's Secret History of Atomic Accidents
    JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 By Gregory D. Koblentz

    Excerpt:
    “...The Damascus accident epitomizes the hidden risk of what the sociologist Charles Perrow has dubbed “normal accidents,” or mishaps that become virtually inevitable once a system grows so complex that seemingly trivial miscues can cause chain reactions with catastrophic results. As the journalist Eric Schlosser explains in his new book, Command and Control, “The Titan II explosion at Damascus was a normal accident, set in motion by a trivial event (the dropped socket) and caused by a tightly coupled, interactive system.” That system, he writes, was so overly complex that technicians in the control room could not determine what was happening inside the silo. …”

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...nd-and-combust
    Last edited by KC; 07-09-2014 at 08:45 PM.

  71. #71

    Default

    Also interesting.. (There's a thread on this elsewhere on c2e)


    Main | Edmonton Civil Defence Museum Ltd.

    http://edmontoncivildefencemuseum.com/
    Last edited by KC; 11-09-2014 at 11:38 PM.

  72. #72

    Default Inside Americas Doomsday Plane


  73. #73
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Very cool.

    I often try to fit in visits to american airforce bases when i'm on vacation. Just a couple weeks ago i was at Mt Rushmore and was able to visit Ellsworth AFB just outside Rapid City. Although SD no longer is home to any active ICBM silos, they do tours to one of the silos. Plus they are one of the main bases for the B-1 bomber fleet. Kinda cool to see those take off and land almost regularly throughout the day - not to mention the B-52s that are also stationed there.

    IF you don't want to drive that far, then i recommend checking out the Malmstrom AFB in Great Falls MT. Home of the 341st Missile Wing. Now that is an active ICBM launch centre. Very interesting to see how many silos there are scattered around northern Montana.

  74. #74

    Default

    ^I would love to see that. I wonder what the Canadian plan was for our politicians, and military leaders, in the event of nuclear war? I'm guessing those US command planes would also perhaps be in control of the Canadian air forces under NORAD.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I would love to see that. I wonder what the Canadian plan was for our politicians, and military leaders, in the event of nuclear war? I'm guessing those US command planes would also perhaps be in control of the Canadian air forces under NORAD.
    Look up the Diefenbunker and the Canadian Civil Defense Museum...

    We had our own full systems in place across Canada...just not flying ones

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  76. #76

    Default

    Secret US nuclear bomb videos revealed
    4 hours ago

    The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has, for the first time, made their archive of approximately 10,000 nuclear testing videos available online.
    The footage, much of it from the Cold War era of the 1950s and 60s, has been painstakingly restored after the original films were declassified by the US government.
    Video Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Prelinger Archives

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39573188

  77. #77

    Default

    ^I watched a bunch about a month ago on their YouTube. Many are quite banal for various reasons, but the most amazing ones for me were from cameras close to the blast, where the blast shock was like a furious fiery rolling thunderstorm across the ground. I've never seen them released in any form on any documentary I've ever seen.

    BTW, in case you need some extra motivation to get your yard spring-cleaning done:

    The House in the Middle
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •