I was in many of them, one of the most impressive was "the 5-star hotel" with a hall so big that you could calibrate tank-cannons and in another "bunker/fortress" you could "throw" out f-18 fighter-jets.
To hijack your comment: all of these type of bunkers mentioned in the article are decommissioned as they don't match the modern military doctrine. The majority of these bunkers are artillery and anti-tank bunkers built during the cold war (some during WWII) to play a decisive role in large tank battles.
The article confuses this, as there were some plans in actually deconstructing them which however turned out to be too expensive. So virtually all of these bunkers were indeed decommissioned and most also declassified in the last 10 years (some turned into a museum e.g. a WWII bunker https://www.crestawald.ch/). Others, such as the Castello mentioned by /u/nix23 are used as temporary barracks for troops, but don't have an actual defensive function any more.
Yes, the very pictures used in the article are evidence that the bunkers are decommissioned. Tourists who took pictures like that used to get a stern talking-to and their pictures would get confiscated.
Before viewing the picture, I was thinking they had hidden a whole base in a fake Four Seasons building in Zurich or something like that. After all the other camouflage, I wouldn't have put it past them.
That reminds me of the two anti-tanks fortresses disguised as houses as part of the Toblerone line [1]. Those two were the only ones visible from the road by people (i.e. tourists), so they made them a bit less scary.
The Tim Traveller did a wonderful video on those a few months ago [2].
I travelled around Switzerland by car many years ago. I noticed there were military trucks driving around all the time, but I never saw a military base. I also noticed there were many iron entrance doors in the side of the mountains on the roads with no apparent purpose. Then one day, I saw one of these doors opened with 2 guards standing out front as a military truck drove into it. Finally, I figured out these must be tunnel entrances to the Swiss military bases.
Also an interesting fact: The Swiss packed all bridges connecting Switzerland to Germany with tons of explosives until just recently. The wooden bridge [0] connecting Bad Säckingen with Stein contained hundreds of kilo of TNT until 2015.
West Germany did much the same with all roads and train tracks crossing into East Germany and Czechoslovakia. There were pre-made holes in the roads to blast craters into them. Bridges and tunnels were prepared similarly. It was also rumored that the explosive charges were mounted in place all the time, but I don't believe that part anymore.
They weren't mounted, they were kept in a nearby bunker. The charges were standardized round flat 50kg lumps, called cheese charges because they looked like a wheel of cheese. The roads and bridges had prepared openings looking like a normal gutter (round in germany) into which the cheese charges fit perfectly. The top plate could often be recognized because there was a single number stamped in, telling you how many cheese charges to load. What was always present however was the initiator charge and the wiring to the nearby bunker.
There were even more interesting things like the new Elbtunnel in Hamburg having massive blocks of concrete above all entrances. The girders holding those blocks were intended to be cut by explosive charges drop the blocks, blocking the tunnel.
Yes, it’s not like the Cold War was armies staring at each other, there were a lot of preparations going on. Some bridges also were over-dimensioned so that heavy tanks could bridge them (and bridges, viaducts and roads are marked as to load-carrying capacity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Load_Classification)
Also, the original strategic plan for NATO against a soviet attack was defense in depth, so I think all NATO countries in Western Europe prepared for the need to destroy infrastructure. The Netherlands had plans to flood large parts of the country, for example. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJssel_Line, not just Germany, and not just near the border with Eastern Europe.
You have explosive nearly on every main bridge and "autobahn" sometimes in the street sometimes on the walls of mountains, to slow down tanks/troop transports.
Fun detail: Those can just be detonated with a "encoded" metal-plate.
Hehe no :) you have a central ignition away from the street (hidden in a bush under bridge etc) and it looks often like a sewer cover, if you uncover it you have 8-16 holes, on top of them you have to place your correctly encoded metal-plate then you place the igniter in the metal-plate-hole, that igniter fires another igniter and the whole bridge/street goes boom, if its the wrong hole (or wrong encoded metal-plate) you just destroy the main igniter and nothing will and can ever happen.
EDIT: The first ignition (the one in the plate) is manually fired often hundreds of meters away thru a fuse-cord, but you can "in theory" automatize it (trip wire or other technique's) witch is absolutely illegal, same with claymore's...they just have holes in the splinter to safe some weight ;)
BTW: DON'T try to open those sewer covers, you WILL have big problems in a matter of minutes.
I was wondering, how useful are ancient castles in modern battles? Armchair generals all over the planet kept prattling about them being useless because modern weaponry is awesome and all...
Then I went to look properly:
1. Kerak de Chevaliers, yes, that one crusader castle, was occupied during the Syrian war, and gave a hard time to the enemy outside, the castle worked exactly as intended, even with modern weapons.
2. Ditto to a bunch of other castles in some past wars.
3. A fortified monastery gave enemies a hard time in WW2 in Italy, I forgot its name now.
4. Not exactly "ancient castle", but a "star fort" in France was captured in the opening days of Battle of Verdun, in part because the french leadership believed castles to be outdated and didn't garrisoned it properly... the result was that the attempts to retake the fort resulted in 100.000 casualties on the French side before they succeeded.
5. Also in Verdun there was a smaller fort, the commander of that fort was old and the military ordered him to retire for medical reasons, he refused and basically "kept" the fort as his own, with a small garrison, the old guy and his small garrison fought fiercely against the invading Germans and caused 3000 casualties to the Germans before they lost.
This ancient fortification was the only thing the Syrian army held in the city for months, if not years. It functioned exactly as an ancient fortress did - providing high ground, spotting enemy movement, safety of supplies, etc.
This was NOT fortified, but allowed concealment, and was held through heavy bombardment, offering a tactical advantage.
Yes, US/Russia/China could pound it into the ground, but that takes a LOT of ordinance.
Btw, WW II is FULL of these examples.
I think the misconception comes from the fact that "modern weapons" - jets, radars, comm sites, missiles, etc cant be "secured" in these facilities. This is true. But that doesn't mean they can't be held through heavy bombardment and house mortars, snipers, ATGMs, small supply caches, etc.
A castle gives you a hard time when you only have a gun. If the military has aircraft, missile launchers, and artillery, they'll be flattened before any fighting occurs. Plus it's a pretty easy target.
"On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage.[6] The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers then occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins. "
What's often not told of the Battle of Monte Cassino is the destruction of a jewel of the West.
To the Germans' credit, they offered not to take the monastery as a position if the Allies wouldn't bomb it. They only took the advantageous positions after it'd been reduced to ruble.
The Germans also helped evacuate as much of the stuff inside as possible, moving it to the Vatican, where the monks trusted the Germans wouldn't steal the stuff. To further trust amongst the locals and monks, a monk accompanied every truck to the Vatican. As a result most of the library was saved.
Monte Cassino is one of the (many) examples of Allied war crimes and one of the (very) few examples of German honor in WWII.
As a Jew I find this concept of german military honor during ww2 utterly repugnant. This fetishization of nazis is utterly sick, why don't you also give us examples of the honor of pol pots army or the honor of Argentina's military when they were disappearing people. Absolutely repugnant.
I think what the commenter is mentioning is about the individuals. Remember, Nazi Germany instituted a draft and had conscription. Not every German soldier was a Nazi. You can mention the honor of the individuals themselves without praising the regime that lorded over them.
Not really. If you have really honour, you don't fight for a murderous regime. You fight against it.
Easier said, than done, when you have family etc. but any praise of the Wehrmacht is pretty out of place, considering the context. They only turned against Hitler when the war was about to be lost. Not before.
But given your name, you might see things differently.
To be fair that quote is probably mostly about carpet bombing with relatively small bombs. In modern warfare not only are weapons a lot more precise but they also pack a lot more high yield explosives. Also most old fortifications were made to stand hits coming from the ground towards the outer walls, not from above.
The reason almost any above ground strongholds still hold up today is that they're packed with civilians, not because their walls are that strong.
it was still 1400 tons of high explosive. Monte Cassino was reduced to rubble. The entire monastery was reduced to ruble and had to be rebuild from the ground up. Also, the US did have artillery at the time, which is bloody precise.
It didn't matter, the Monte Cassino was a meat grinder for the Allies.
Anyway, why dredge WWII era stuff? The US got spanked in Afghanistan by an irregular militia with bolt action rifles. And their tactic is simple as it is brilliant - negate the advantage of air raids by fighting as close to the enemy as possible.
not sure if you got flagged because Afghanistan didn't have actual 'castles' or because some American Exceptionalists took exception to your language...
How does 'safe distance' work? If you can hit them... they can hit you. And they know exactly where you're firing from as soon as you send up a shell into the air.
Well that's not safe distance then is it - that's manoeuvring. You can do that at any distance. And you can't suppress if you're firing one shot, spending five minutes moving, and then firing one more shot.
Krak DID got hit with all of these, it is still standing, and the people inside still kept fighting.
Same for some other castles in Syria from my research out of curiosity.
But I assume that people wanted to take the castles, not turn them into a parking lot... if you can nuke or throw MOAB into them, then it is obviously another matter entirely.
>Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective.
That was the whole plan in WW2, take the army back to the mountains leave the city's and flatland to the enemy, then start Guerilla warfare and protect the big Mountain Fortresses.
Also, viewed from the other side, the point of taking Switzerland would have been to have easier transport across the alps, Germany-Italy. But with all the bridges & tunnels blown up, this benefit would be lost.
In other words, I think the Swiss wanted to tilt the cost/benefit calculation for invaders, not only by increasing the cost, but also by reducing the benefit.
(Much the same game-plan seems not to have worked for Afghanistan, though. High cost, zero benefit, lots of invasions.)
"In other words, I think the Swiss wanted to tilt the cost/benefit calculation for invaders, not only by increasing the cost, but also by reducing the benefit. "
And that worked, as for sure germany did not wanted a neutral power in the middle of their empire, but due to cost/benefit the plan of invading was always pushed back till the war was over.
So this was also the plan for a potential cold war escalation.
Even though you can nuke (allmost) anything, fortified bunkers are still (the most) effective fortification.
There is lots of massive stone protecting them after all, you have to blast through. Which can be done, but is still a massive effort.
Unless you really know (and guard) all the exits and control the surface, how could modern tech render them useless?
For primitive caves(targeting Taliban), I believe there was a weapon developed where shockwave (and gas?) would kill anyone inside, but if you have multiple blast doors and air filtration inside, you still have to cut or blast your way inside.
And fighting in an enemy underground network is not something any soldier would look forward to.
So I guess the modern way to take the swiss bunkers out, would be
a) really scout them out
b) target critical infrastructure (bunker breaking bombs)
Häh? I think the modern way to take swiss bunkers out is to go around them: drive the Franc up to economy-killing levels, and tell the SNB they'll get cut out of the global financial system if they even attempt to defend reasonable exchange rates.
If you want to defeat the Swiss, and keep in mind what kind of enemy would want to do that, just start carpet bombing where the actual people live.
That and they only have about 25 aircraft that could realistically do any good air defense work.
The idea that the US would struggle against Switzerland is predicated on them not doing that, because they would've had to found a reason to invade in the first place.
Each building in Switzerland has an underground air raid shelter. So you wouldn't be able to kill too many civilians this way. And once you've destroyed all their aircraft, their SAMs are free to shoot an any target that's flying.
The idea is that the USA (or any other power) would struggle to occupy Switzerland, not to obliterate it from the face of the Earth. No country could defend against that, not even the USA.
i am afraid, these times are over with the advance of drone technology, look at the last Karabakh conflict. it's not just the US anymore, but lots of countries can use affordable drones an operate without much human or economic loss. Whereas the side practicing mountain guerrila tactics will have to abandon all civil economic activity, and still lose lives (you cannot stay in shelters all the time)
There's a difference between being able to bomb Switzerland without facing much opposition and being able to occupy and control the country. I don't think anyone doubts our ability to invade Switzerland and squander endless blood and treasure in a fruitless occupation that ends in us leaving without having truly "beaten" anyone, ala Afghanistan, Vietnam, et all.
The whole point of the Swiss defense system is to make the country much more difficult and costly to invade, occupy and control than it could possibly be worth to an attacker, even if such a goal was eventually achievable. In this, history has proven them successful.
While such stories and the pictures posted here are rather interesting, as a Swiss, I also find it at the same time quite depressing. The Swiss army is a bottomless barrel when it comes to funding; always requiring & demanding money, while preparing for scenarios that were maybe somewhat plausible during the height of the cold war but are nowadays obviously antiquated, plain for anyone to see who doesn't wear the nostalgia-tinged glasses.
It provides cool pictures such as the ones posted here and some nice stories, but apart from that - the billions currently going to the army could be used so much better.
I'm not a Swiss, so I don't know what your army strategists are preparing for, but generally a military staff plans for dozens of scenarios, not a single one. The overall trend of conflicts has changed, but the frequency has not. This might surprise you. There have been many conflicts since WW2 and even the end of the CW
I have to agree with this assessment. The opinion provided by /u/Shacklz is unfortunately rather widespread in Switzerland and mostly based on some outdated views on the role of the army ("plausible during the height of the cold war").
As Switzerland's strategic reserve, the army has a broad array of tasks, ranging from support in low threat levels (current example: preparing for the storage and distribution of Covid vaccines), supporting the police (example: World Economic Forum) to high threat levels (where tanks and artillery are needed, so this is also being trained for).
In the end, the Swiss Army is the Swiss Army knife for Switzerland's national security. Articles like this one that talk about defunct bunkers that were built for a very specific cold war scenario (but again: are now decommissioned) naturally don't really help.
Furthermore, the 'bottomless barrel' also completely misses the mark, as Switzerland's military expenditure is very low (around 0.7% of the GDP, NATO benchmark is around 2% for comparison).
> mostly based on some outdated views on the role of the army
And this is where we differ - I think _your_ opinion is outdated ;) The services that you listed mostly do not require an "army", what exactly is camouflage gear & combat training good for with regards to helping with covid-related tasks (or any other "Katastrophenhilfe"-related endeavour)?
The "Swiss army knife" metaphor is exactly what I so despise about the Swiss army; it's their excuse for essentially being an eternal "Pfadilager" for adults. Actual participation in conflicts mentioned by GP aren't an option anyway thanks to Switzerland's neutrality.
Luckily, it seems the trend is clearly in my opinion's favor, as was evident once again with the results of the last referendum on fighter jets - the pro-army-folks are a dying breed, it is just a matter of time until the 'Wehrpflicht' is finally abolished (I estimate it takes another ~20 years or so until the cold war era generation starts to become a minority), and when that happens, it's just a matter of time until the rest of the army gets to boot too, as all the nostalgia-driven sentiments towards it will not exist anymore (currently, put 10 Swiss men in a room, and it will take at most half an hour until their army experience becomes a topic).
And you know what? It'll be for the better of the world, and Switzerland especially. Finally, we will be able to say "We do not participate in this barbarian head smashing anymore, we're civilized folks"; someone needs to make the start and Switzerland is in the best position to do so. We're already not participating anyway; but we're still training generation after generation to do so; and this needs to stop eventually. My hope is that this will be the case in the next 20-30 years or so, I wouldn't mind if it was earlier ;)
Si vis pacem, para bellum. "If you want peace, prepare for war"
I am not Swiss so my opinion might not matter to you but I would say that there are many skills that are taught with military service that help out in other circumstances. Organization, mindfulness and the ability to give and receive orders.
>currently, put 10 Swiss men in a room, and it will take at >most half an hour until their army experience becomes a >topic
What is wrong with having something that is common across generations and backgrounds that allows people to connect with each other?
In my opinion we should train people to have many skills or better put:
>A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an >invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, >write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, >comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act >alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch >manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight >efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
>
>-Robert A. Heinlein
> I am not Swiss so my opinion might not matter to you but I would say that there are many skills that are taught with military service that help out in other circumstances.
Being Swiss, and having served in the army, I have a less optimistic view of its value. In particular, the professional officers it attracted tended to be mediocre at best.
> Organization, mindfulness
Armies in general have poor cost control, and an army at perpetual peace has even fewer repercussions to fear, so there is virtually no accountability. Your workforce can't quit because it's drafted, parliament sometimes gives you a higher budget than you asked for, because reasons, and you perennially plan for fictional wars that thankfully you never have to fight.
> and the ability to give and receive orders.
It's easy to give orders if your workforce can't quit and goes to prison if they don't follow the orders.
> What is wrong with having something that is common across generations and backgrounds that allows people to connect with each other?
This aspect, that (mostly) men of all backgrounds served together, was maybe the one positive thing about the army. But nowadays, a smaller part of each generation serves, so that seems to go away as well. And it should be possible to implement a common service for other purposes than an army.
I do think that mandatory service does not a good army make, I would rather have a mandatory Civilian Conservation Corps program that trained people in basic skills & trades as well as being a common experience for people to fall back on.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum. "If you want peace, prepare for war"
This quote is so out of date, really. Humanity progressed so far just in the last couple of decades, but we're still supposed to prepare ourselves to smash each others heads in like we're some brutish barbarians? At some point, we should start acting like civilized adults and solve our conflicts by discussion, not by smashing each others head in.
The things you mentioned with regards to skills and such - you're right, but you don't need to have training on the weapon and such. The army teaches you ultimately death and destruction; everything else is just a means to that end. After all, if it truly were about the skills you mentioned, we could just have an obligatory boy scout camp instead and learn all the stuff without the barbaric parts, no?
I look at how the world around me seems more polarized and divided with every passing day and I find I am unable to agree with you that we have progressed far.
But I do agree with you on the point that the training does not need to be with weapons, I would rather have some sort of mandatory Civilian Conservation Corp program than military service program.
The recent vote to buy expensive planes confirms many swiss and myself included in the opinion that efficient defense capabilities clearly is not the national focus. There were two main points in support of planes:
- policing the skies
- radar tech
As for policing, I'm quite sure many swiss would prefer to have 2-3 high-speed unarmed exploratory planes instead. Wanna shoot down the offender? Just a single missile base in the center of the country would do the trick more efficienty and for cheap. As for radar tech, we could most certainly have a better and cheaper solution adapted to our country by just asking for it at ETHZ or EPFL. We are not Russia or the USA. Our country is minuscule.
Just remembering the recent scandals with the israeli drones and the useless command software that cost tens of millions while we have degrading education, postal and healthcare systems makes me furious. And I'm far from the only one.
Missile bases are just sitting ducks that are waiting to be destroyed before the real attack...
Look at the Karabach, The nice S300 anti-airplane system was obliterated at the start of the war with cheap drones. (even the anti-drones systems were destroyed by drones)
In opposition to our 25 fighter planes piloted and commanded by greenhorns who have never seen a real conflict. Those will make quick work of the invader.
This is laughable. Swiss armed forces have their justification in policing or counterterrorism. Not defense against actual whole armies.
I'd rather have good hospitals and schools, thank you very much.
They weren't lost, this politician just talked some nonsense
"die Logistikbasis der Armee hätte ihn darüber informieren können, denn trotz ihren Informatik-Problemen hat sie den Bestand an M-113 und M-109 säuberlich registriert, wie mehrere Stellen im Verteidigungsdepartement betonen.
Might be a very stupid question, but when you saw "lost", do you mean they were destroyed somehow, or do you literally mean lost as in "couldn't find them"?
The tanks were thought to be destroyed (they weren't in use anymore) but while cleaning up a bunker/ tunnel system (idk) the reappeared. So they were lost (couldn't find them) somewhere in the process, instead of destroyed.
Oh these are cool. When I was a teen, I stayed in one during a trek in the Alps; and then again (in another one) a few years later when I was a youth camp counselor myself. I was cooking dinner in the kitchen of the one we were staying at, and the supervisor came in, and casually told us "see that trap door you're standing on? If this bunker would actually be used during war, that's where any dead bodies would be stored in." Made for great "scary stories" around the campfire.
I've heard those trap doors referred to as leichenluke
Many of my older neighbors said pre-1990, these bunkers were used in a drill and everyone realized how cramped things were; I believe they've been retrofit for far less occupants now.
Oh I've often thought about what it must be like to live in there in the case of an actual war. There were 3 or 4 rooms with bunk beds, 20 or 30 sleeping spots in each; one common room, not much bigger than each if the bedrooms; the kitchen, and bathroom/washing area. It would be horrible being locked up with 100 others in there for months on end.
These are very cool. Especially the ones that appear to be natural features.
Unfortunately, my first though upon seeing military installations camouflaged as cabins, barns, homes - that gives an invading enemy a good excuse to target civilian structures...
I had the same thought, I even assumed there would be some international wartime law against it. But turns out it's apparently ok according to this study I found from US Naval College
> Conventional IHL (international humanitarian law), then, indicates that at least one form of disguising a military object as a civilian object—camouflage—is a permissible ruse of war, not a prohibited act of perfidy.
Curious. Let's say the Swiss military has been studying other conflicts and strategizing accordingly, but has not actually experienced any warfare in 200 years. Does the lack of actual experience in warfare put a force at a disadvantage to the forces that had experienced actual warfare?
To use a sports analogy, while game-time experience is valuable, it’s practice that wins games. Much of America’s military advantage is rooted in extensive, ongoing, and realistic training and exercises. Any country can train and practice, but to do so at operational scales and in a way that accurately portrays your adversary’s capabilities requires lots of money and accurate intelligence.
Yes, that is why Chinese military for example has a lot of catching up to do to us, cause whatever your idea is about the efficiency of the military, they have been constantly involved in many conflicts after the Second World War
How effective would the Swiss military really be? I looked up the last military operation they were in and couldn’t find anything relevant. Looks like they do extraordinary light peacekeeping and such. (Yes, yes, they’re “neutral”. Suppose I assumed they were still deploying with western bloc powers at least for some sort of combat experience training.)
Seems like the military is more for show than anything else at this point. I can’t imagine a populace living some of the most privileged European/western lives possible would have the stomach for its populace taking heavy casualties in any form of conflict.
The terrain is seemingly still their best advantage, but with modern air power this feels more like some sort of historical LARP the Swiss are proud of more than a force that would really achieve anything.
I'm no expert, but I've been reading Brett Deveraux's blog recently, and he argues that armies built from a civilian society frequently outperform expectations through history.
The other thing he argues that people overestimate is the effectiveness of hugely powerful weapons and technology. They generally don't degrade civilian morale enough to get them to surrender, and well prepared defensive positions are incredibly hard to render defenseless, even with modern weapons and seriously destructive bombing.
I don't think that it's necessary at the moment, but these decisions are a risk/reward thing, and I think the Swiss are prepared enough to make the pain of invading Switzerland outweigh the relatively small gain.
As a Swiss - yup, it's just for show & nostalgia. In my opinion, it will take another 20-30 years of wasted money for this charade until the cold-war-era folks start to become a minority; then we can finally dump our armed boy scout camp.
In David Brin's novel Earth part of the backstory is that WW3 is basically everyone else vs Switzerland and everyone nearly loses (the Swiss almost use cobalt salted doomsday bombs).
— It was to be announced at the P/a/r/t/y/ C/o/n/g/r/e/s/s/ Federal Council presser on Monday. As you know, the P/r/e/m/i/e/r/ President loves surprises.
(as far as kleptocrats hiding loot in banks goes, I believe currently the New World, especially states such as Montana, are better tax-havens than we are.)
Huh, I’m reading Ministry for the Future (cli-fi) and just stopped last night as people were arriving at a camouflaged Swiss military bunker. Very cool to see images of real-life ones today.
It's made with ventilation thru hidden inlets (often hundreds of meters away), the outlets are over pressure protected, when a explosion outside goes off those then close, so the inhabitants have no eardrum rapture, in the case of nuclear/chemical/bio attack you attach big filters to the inlets. In some Bunkers the circulation is so bad, that after 2 week sleeping on your mattress mold starts to grow in it (bunkerhusten (bunkercough) is common after 1-3 weeks because of that mold), natural fortresses/bunkers drip water quite allot from the ceiling, but sleeping and living "rooms" are normally plastered or with concrete walls.
> It's made with ventilation thru hidden inlets (often hundreds of meters away), the outlets are over pressure protected, when a explosion outside goes off those then close, so the inhabitants have not eardrum rapture, in the case of nuclear/chemical/bio attack you attach big filters to the inlets.
Maybe a stupid question, I understand that with Swiss Conscription this is perhaps common knowledge for a large chunk of the Swiss population. Nevertheless is this really public knowledge? As in, should you really be disclosing how bunker ventilation operates, and the additional protection mechanisms etc.?
>should you really be disclosing how bunker ventilation operates, and the additional protection mechanisms etc.
No problem, even civil bunkers works like that, you can make tours and even buy some. However there are some bunkers which are used as "control-centers" and those locations are kind of ~secret, but then again i'm really sure that Russia and the US already know much more about them as i do.
That's a typical over-pressure vent (seen from the inside):
Hint for recruits/active military: In military bunkers the outlets are also very important so that the "enemy" cannot smell your kitchen or see the warm air (infrared), which makes it a excellent place to smoke some green stuff ;)
As someone with a causal passing interest in the cold war and nuclear weapons, yes this is public knowledge. How to build a blast shelter or fallout shelter was widely disseminated in the cold war for citizens to build their own. Overpressure protection and NBC air filtration is just part of building a good shelter. The filtration systems are not some exotic radiation neutralizing material, they are just filters to catch irradiated particles and keep them from entering the shelter and being breathed in. If anything, the pictures of the bunkers showing their camouflage design and locations would be the biggest disclosure, but even that is obviously not an issue at this point.
Edit: BTW that the entrance of the 5-Star:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Me...
The plate is for making fun of new recruits because it's the opposite of a "5-Star" and for sure not a "Hotel"