Going underground

svchop889

svchop889

Well-Known Member
tbh its would be sweet tits to grow in a former military facility might feel a bit like growing in there house :D not to mention they would never pick up your heat signature any one else thinking vertical silo scrog grow?
 
proheto8008

proheto8008

Well-Known Member
svchop889 said:
tbh its would be sweet tits to grow in a former military facility might feel a bit like growing in there house :D not to mention they would never pick up your heat signature any one else thinking vertical silo scrog grow?
Click to expand...
LOL, the mother of all vertical grows! I love it
 
Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
Punk said:
Ummmm...ya, probably getting a bit out of touch here, mentioning buying a 1980s cold war era underground missile silo, don't you think? That's not advice, it's fantasy talk.
Click to expand...
Actually they were 1950’s and 1960’s era, not 1980’s. They had long been decommissioned by the 1980’s.
　
Fantasy? Not actually since I have spent the last several years trying to find one in the right location and in the right condition so what I do in real life is not fantasy. If I had not drug my feet just a bit to long I would have owned an AT&T "Long Line" communications bunker for several years now.
　
Being that they are all so large I was looking for a smaller one and the smallest I had been able to find was 6,500 square feet. It is on 5 acres that are fenced in with barbed wire on top and gated and while I was checking out the area to see if I liked it a deposit was placed on it and the deal went through. Since then I have not found one that I liked nearly as much.
　
It is amusing to me how people see things. When someone like myself does something, it is a part of their life, it is something they have actively done, and are still half-heartedly doing …. Half-heartedly because of the lack of many options …. and if or when they mention it someone else sees it as fantasy but then when someone says they want to dig an underground room in their yard to grow in no one says hey buddy, come on back to reality.

One is an actual option for unconventional housing that a good number of people have taken. There is a really nice home built over an Atlas-F missile site in the Adirondack Mountains that has been reduced from something over $2mil to around $675,000.00. The home is something like 2,500sq. ft. and the owner has said he would add on an addition, I do not recall the sq. footage but it was large, and add either another 20 or another 40 acres to the land, which is already if I remember right 20 acres .. and it has its own landing strip on it. The silo has been built in and there is something like 12 floors/levels in the silo. It is move in ready.
　
There have been people living in many of the decommissioned sites for decades. The Atlas-E is the most popular. It is the least heavily constructed but it is by far the largest of any site of the era. The sites were built were a number of 18-wheel vehicles carrying missiles could be parked underground in the site and driven around when needed for missile reloading. They were like underground malls or something other than not on multiple floors.
　
Then the other is a totally impractical dream that most homeowners could never do on their own and could costs thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to do and take untold numbers of permits and inspections while it would be built to only in the end have a high suspicious attention drawing unimaginably expensive underground grow room
 
Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
Punk said:
The majority are all in the upper midwest: nebraska, south dakota, north dakota, montana.
Click to expand...


If you are talking about decommissioned missile sites you can add to the areas you mentioned other locations where I have found them for sale like New York, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Colorado and likely others that I have just not found one for sale in yet.

Back in the 50's and the 60's they really spread them around the country a lot more than they do now.

With the horrible accuracy of the then Soviet missiles and ICBM’s not having MIRV’s at the time, all being single warhead missiles it made sense to make many small compact extremely well constructed underground sites and spread them out all over the country.

Doing so assured such a high percentage survivability chance for the U.S. that if the Soviets had launched a surprise attack there would be more than enough fully operational U.S. sites to retaliate with a strike more than large enough to make the Soviets wish they had not pressed the button and it would likely at the time been big enough to make sure that no more Soviet buttons would be or could be pressed.

Things are very different now.
 
proheto8008

proheto8008

Well-Known Member
Brick Top said:


Doing so assured such a high percentage survivability chance for the U.S. that if the Soviets had launched a surprise attack there would be more than enough fully operational U.S. sites to retaliate with a strike more than large enough to make the Soviets wish they had not pressed the button and it would likely at the time been big enough to make sure that no more Soviet buttons would be or could be pressed.

Things are very different now.
Click to expand...
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all

Read this article: There was no way to strike the Soviet Union hard enough to prevent a retaliation. Youll find that Soviets didnt have a "Button" in the traditional sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top