Hacker News Reader

Comment by m4rtink | Hacker News Reader

It was likely similar to the warhead storage bunkers in Czech Republic (or Czechoslovaki back then), most likely intended for tactical nuclear weapons, like Scuds or maybe for aircraft as well:

https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/top-secret-cold-war...

https://www.rferl.org/a/24993733.html

https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/18/czech-cold-war-depot-for...

Of course the Soviets (who were exclusively running and guarding those bunkers back then) never confirmed what they were used to or if they contained live nuclear weapons. But it is clear that this was the intended use case, given the storage conditions, the expens to build & run those as well as how heavily they were guarded.

View on HN

Same in Hungary: https://worldwidepanorama.org/wwp1208/BanfalvyZoltan-5060.ht...

"This is a special storage facility, type Granit 2 (or 3), designed for A-bombs."

Not sure if it's true, but the article says these nukes were meant for Italy.

I find these bunkers fascinating. I've always wanted to explore one.

Amazing how much money was wasted on these only to be staffed for years and then abandoned.

Successful military spending always appears to be "wasted" if you think the point is to use weapons. War means that your defense strategy has failed, peace means that it has succeeded. Never having to use what was stored in those bunkers means that they served their purpose.

By this logic people can justify almost anything. I can say that we should’ve sent dinosaur clones to the moon because otherwise something bad is going to happen. Then we send the dinosaurs to the moon and nothing bad happens, and it justifies the action.

It’s the same insanity gun owners use justifying bringing weapons everywhere they go.

I simply don’t buy the argument, though I do see your point about deterrence

Si vis pacem para bellum.

No snark intended, but if you see his point then you do seem to buy his argument

Might you have heard the old saw "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands"?

Military spending is similar - you want security at the minimum cost.

Unfortunately, military conflicts (real and potential) have vastly more complexity and uncertainty than the gravity, wind, traffic loads, etc. that a bridge has to withstand. And even a nation's best experts (generally its senior military officers) generally have motives at odds with minimum-cost security for their nation.

I have a rock that cures cancer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com