Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Data Storage News Your Rights Online

The Nuclear Bunker Where Wikileaks Will Be Located 187

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the can-we-have-a-party-here dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Engadget has photos of 'Pionen White Mountains, the nuclear bunker in which Wikileaks will locate some of its servers. It was excavated 98 feet underground, in a rock hill in the center of Stockholm, Sweden, during the Cold War.' It looks like they hired the same interior designer who decorated Batman's lair."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Nuclear Bunker Where Wikileaks Will Be Located

Comments Filter:
  • Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomtefar (935007) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @11:42AM (#33426758)
    More specifically, it is up to the judicial branch of the Swedish government to decide. The cabinet and parliament has very little say in how the authorities carry out the law. The few times they have tried, the Swedish press goes berserk and accuses them of minister ruling (ministerstyre), which is forbidden.
  • Re:Seriously? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mysidia (191772) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @11:53AM (#33426876)

    Down the rabbit hole and back again.

    I doubt think this is to protect the servers against military/police action by legitimate authorities. This is probably the DR site they forgot to build.

    They need to bolster security, because Wikileaks might have information that bad actors would love to get their hands on in uncensored form.

    If the military wanted to blow up servers, they could simply secure cooperation from the operators of the datacenter, and force their way in, less collataral damage that way.

    If it was really war... a nuke would deny access to the servers from the surface, and might be combined with bunker busters

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @12:06PM (#33427064)

    ... with, or without, the obvious self-destruct button?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  • by suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @12:06PM (#33427070)

    Let's assume, just assume, that Wikileaks has some more juicy tidbits it hasn't been sharing.

    Now if they have a location that cannot be broken into physically, and if they have a satellite upload rig, HAM radio, or a similar guaranteed-broadcast failsafe, then there is no way short of abject violence (bombs or similar) to stop them from spreading the dirtiest secrets they have should any determined foe show up at their door and demand that they turn over servers.

    Now, given time or the right equipment, an agency can get through even a nuclear bunker, but if they need time, the broadcast capability becomes a serious threat, and if they need equipment, there's most likely going to be... well, leaks that it's getting ready to be mobilized, and then we come to the time issue again. Setting things up to get into a hardened facility without tripping a safeguard like that is tricky.

    Or maybe not, but it's food for thought.

  • by jgagnon (1663075) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @12:36PM (#33427450)

    I'm not part of the "political right" nor am I part of the "political left"... But I am able to make a joke about someone in the political world without the joke being politically slanted. Honest. Read it again and substitute anyone else's name in there. :p

  • Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by siriuskase (679431) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @12:54PM (#33427688) Homepage Journal
    This data center is as real as any mirror site. It has an advantage in that if the government simply pulls the plug, it pulls down every website hosted there. That would be a very unpopular move. People who wouldn't ordinarily rally around Wikileaks will get interested if their email, voip, or web are threatened. If, instead, the government uses legal processes, it could take days or weeks of injunctions and stays of injunctions and good old fashioned foot dragging by the ISP that operates the facility. The Swedish news would be full of "what happens when the internet goes down" scare stories, even if they only wind up shutting down the Wikileaks server. So either way makes the government into a bad guy to the general public.

    So, it's all theater. The best protection for Wikileaks is to have mirror sites in several countries, and don't publish the locations of any but this one that's particularly interesting. Then, if this one comes under attack, Wikileaks can just announce "never fear, Sealand [sealandgov.org] is here"
  • Re:Disappointed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mldi (1598123) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @01:09PM (#33427840)
    Depends on what type of nuclear attack. A bomb targeting the city it resides in would be detonated in the air for maximum mayhem. This bunker would have ZERO issue with that.

    For bunker busters, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster [wikipedia.org] :

    Altering the shape of the projectile to incorporate an ogive shape has yielded substantial results. Rocket sled testing at Eglin Air Force Base has demonstrated penetrations of 100 to 150 feet (46 m) in concrete[citation needed] when traveling at 4,000 ft/s (1,200 m/s). The reason for this is liquefaction of the concrete in the target, which tends to flow over the projectile. Variation in the speed of the penetrator can either cause it to be vaporized on impact (in the case of traveling too fast), or to not penetrate far enough (in the case of traveling too slow). An approximation for the penetration depth is obtained with an impact depth formula derived by Sir Isaac Newton.

    So, it still depends. What material is between the surface and this bunker? I'd imagine a hard rock would have a lot more stopping power than concrete (due to how they penetrated the concrete). Either way, it sounds like if you would line the bunker with a pretty thick layer of steel in addition, you'd probably turn out OK.

    Someone in the know correct me on this.

  • Re:Lets be realistic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by denis-The-menace (471988) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @01:34PM (#33428146)

    Somehow I can see the US being more interested on taking out Wikileaks that Osama or the-like.

    Why? Security theatre must be protected so that draconian laws can stay on the books.

    The irony is:
    -if they get Osama, Joe-six-pack will think that 9/11 is finally over and things can go back to normal.
    -If they take out Wikileaks, the world stays in the dark (OMG, new dark ages?) and the truth is what the USA says it is.

  • Re:Disappointed (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @05:43PM (#33430874)

    It's 30 meter of solid granite rock, so you would a pretty big bomb to break through. On the other hand, the vibrations would probably kill all hard drives long before the bunker itself collapses.

    To cope with the vibrations many of the old cold war-era bunkers i Sweden have hardened buildings standing on a suspension system inside a excavated cavern with at least 30 meter solid rock between the top of the cavern and the surface.

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Working...