27 Exploring Leonardo Shelter

Exploring Leonardo Shelter

Posted on December 14, 2011 by

This shelter looked huge from the outside due to over 15 air vents and about 10 exits which could be see. Judging by the area it occupied, it could contain up to 1500 people. Let’s go see what remained of it.

Its plan reminds the letter ‘E’, so there are three sections separated from each other with hermetic doors. The middle section is almost empty.

There is just one full-size emergency exit here.

It is a hermetic door which consists of two layers of metal with concrete in between.

Near the empty section with the hermetic door there is a medical department.

The commander’s room.

This is a working place of the communications engineer.

Consequences of a nuclear explosion.


More stories:

Click here to read next random post from English Russia

27 Responses to “Exploring Leonardo Shelter”

  1. yojimbo says:

    I post this one late at night dont worry I have tomorrow off it is my birthday.

    Anyone these shelters honestly where basically a waste of time.The effects that thousands of nuclear warheads going off in a US vs. Soviet would pretty much kill outright easily 200 million and make life very miserable for anyone else for the next few thousand years at least.

    I read some place that various scientific studies have been done to study the possible effects that thousands of nuclear weapons gong of within 24-72 hours of each other.Some felt that it could possibly change the earths axis a slight bit which would be very bad in its own right.

    At any rate a nuclear war between the US and the USSR would have ensured that most every US and Soviet would die or live a very horrible short life after the fact.

    • yojimbo says:

      A+ for my amazing spelling and editing by the way…

    • ZeroDrop says:

      That’s why it was called “mutual assured destruction”, and that’s the reason to make none of the two sides attack first: not because of the damage, but because of the fear of retaliation.

      I think these shelters would work, because of a simple fact: only a small part of the population would reach them. I don’t think there was space on the shelters for the elderly and sick ones: there’s no hospital rooms in these shelters for the sick, right?

      • Pedro says:

        MAD is great because no one will try to attack because that means auto destruction.
        Problem is Mr. Bush re started usa missile shield thing and that made the MAD disappear. Since he started a missile defence then other countries, mainly russia, wanted to overcome those defences, so they built new missiles, Bulava and such. Much more potent that can penetrate any missile defence.
        Stupid Bush started a new weapons race.
        No one will win from this escalation.
        And Obama receiving a nobel prize for reducing the nuclear warheads? nice joke, they still develop the shield and others develop new missiles. Also what is the point of reducing from like 10000 to 5000 if even 300 is enough for the whole destruction of the planet?
        This shelters are worthless in a full scale nuclear war. The whole Earth would be easily annihilated, and even in the very very small and rare chance that someone would eventually survive in such a shelter it would have to live there for the rest of his life since life on earth wouldn’t be ever possible for at least more then a millennium.
        I think this shelters are made for 3 things, making fell people more secure (false security), chance to get a second attack (which is already automated), 3 very small local nuclear war.

        • Emperor Norton says:

          “think this shelters are made for ,.. Very small wars”

          Dare we say the words “North Korea”?

          I was wondering, EnglishRussia claims Putin is building more shelters, there some little country that Russia is worried about?

        • Jeff says:

          I have to disagree with you about Bush (and no, I’m not American). His big worry was countries like Iran who are not very stable and are close to developing atomic weapons. Maybe they can shoot off 2 or 3 or even 10 rockets before they are destroyed. Russia has way too many missiles to stop with a shield (including submarine missiles that could not be stopped by a shield based in Europe). Besides, I would think that Iran or Syria getting nuclear weapons would be a threat to Russia as it would just take one to be given to Chechen rebels (in the guise of ‘fraternal Islamic cooperation’) to destroy a large part of any major Russian city.

      • yojimbo says:

        You seem to completely ignore the fact that the US and USSR came with in hours of actually mutually assuring the destruction of the other on more than one occasion.

        All it would have taken was one misunderstanding and 15 minutes later it is all over at least for most folks.

        And the shelters they only last in most cases months at best then they have to go topside.That is assuming that they did not have a nuclear warhead go off with in a few miles in which case the blast would destroy the shelter anyway.

        Even the NORAD Cheyenne Mountain facility which is inside a mountain would not have survived direct hits from a nuclear warhead nor could/can US or Soviet in ground missile silos.So hate to break it to you Zero but your thoughts are highly and unrealistically optimistic.

        Modern times are not perfect but things are farther away from complete nuclear annihilation of the entire earth.Sure nut bags might be able to use nukes on a small scale but not the thousands scale of the Cold War.

        MAD is bad because it assumes reason and perfection no mistakes no misunderstandings and no human made system is error free not matter how controlled it may be set up to be any honest engineer will tell you that any system has a chance of failure in it.

    • George Johnson says:

      Yes, now we only have to worry about the “mad mulla’s” out there. Or the rogue mooslums getting ahold of the nukes in Pakistan, or that little gargoyle in North Korea (which was partially created by Russia I might add, them and China, then just kinda walked away to let the USA deal with them).

      Yes, it will be somebody other than the USA or Russia setting off nuke, because we don’t believe in their God, or don’t follow their religion or because we have Las Vegas and they think it’s a “sin city”….

      Yep, don’t have to worry about the Russia/USA nuke war, just war with anybody else out there that has them. By the way, Love how Russia is helping Iran get them….. just another thorn. (and another North Korea.)

      • Bud says:

        George, you must be suffering from a fever.

        Iran and North Korea are not run by irrational people.

        Their arms are for the same purpose as the quills on a porqupine’s back.

        • Hirsh says:

          Funny, i’ve never seen a porcupine pretend (?) to be a mad man and use his quills for extortion to get what he wants.

        • Hirsh says:

          Sorry. Rational people do not constantly praise the value of martyrdom to their people, you know, like Iran’s leaders do.

          And North Korea’s Kim Jong-il has repeated demonstrated his willingness to act out irrationally (nuclear saber rattling) to extort the concessions he wants out of the west.

          They are both bad actors and the world is worse off when dictators like these gain access to nuclear weapons.

    • Jim-Bob says:

      Well, survivability all depends on how bad the conflagration is and where you are in relation to the detonation of the weapons. Yes, the radiation from a full -scale nuclear war between major powers would likely make the planet uninhabitable in many places but it may not be so bad that you could not survive long enough in a shelter to let the radiation go down low enough to get out of the area. Remember too the “rule of sevens” when dealing with radioactive decay regarding fallout. This states that radiation decreases by a factor of ten for ever seven fold increase in time starting at the first hour. Thus, after 7 hours, 90% of the initial radiation will dissipate. in 49 hours another 90% of the remaining radiation will dissipate, and so on. Nuclear weapons have different levels of certain fission byproducts than do nuclear reactors used for power generation. This is because reactors need slower decay rates to sustain the reaction for long periods while bombs release all of the energy at once. This is not to say that an area around a detonation will be inhabitable in a short time after a bomb goes off but rather that it’s lethality for a short duration through the blast zone will diminish greatly within a few days to a week of the detonation. Thus, a well-stocked shelter that is properly shielded from radiation will allow those within it to have a good chance of survival.

  2. ZeroDrop says:

    “we have reasons” for not showing construction plans? Since so many construction plans were shown in English Russia in full detail, I conclude it’s a recent measure.

    If it’s a recent measure, someone is caring about these shelters. IF we hear about shelter restoration in Russia in a near future, start preparing for a new cold war.

  3. Daniel says:

    The most important reason that there was no nuclear war between the U.S. and Soviet Union is because madmen weren’t running either country. For all the idealogical differences between the two nations, nobody wanted to see Armageddon.
    Now, if a reckless gambler like Hitler had been running either country, that would be a different story.

  4. Emperor Norton says:

    So here is a thought; the US during the Cold War there was the whole “survialism” thing were people were building fortresses in the Mojave desert to survive the big one. All kind of pointless but I guess it made the survivalist feel a little less helpless. These shelters the socialist mirror of that kind of thinking?

  5. moof says:

    Why is the “Leonardo” sign not in Cyrillic?

  6. David says:

    funny that russians are so much more pissed off about a shield than about nuclear war heads
    How can a defense be more offensive than the missiles that will kill you and your children?
    If Russia has no plan on attacking the US, the shield should be a non-issue.

    • yojimbo says:

      Not really when one considers the fact that some US missiles are still aimed at Russian targets and some Russian missiles are aimed at American targets.Think again man.

      This is coming from someone who served in nuclear capable B-52 squadrons something that also has and plans for the possible nuclear strike of Russian targets even to this day the same is done on the Russian side.

    • Bud says:

      And how do you know that the “shield” is for defensive purposes only?

      Do your homework.

      Interesting that these various sites are encircling Russia.

      Even Poland’s opportunist neo-con minister of foreign affairs admitted when switching parties (jumped from sinking ship) that Poland is not worried about Iran, but the purpose is to defend against Russia. The American purpose is to ultimately be able to launch a non-answerable first strike. No strike need be launched, but that the Russians know that they would not be able to retaliate.

  7. ayaa says:


    It’s an interesting situation with the missile shield.

    I once took part in some pre-emptive exercises, aimed at disabling the US shield. The whole point of the exercises (which could so very easily become reality), was basically to create a distraction so that Iskanders could get within range to destroy all the shield components. Interestingly enough, I learned that all of the priority targets were not the ABM missiles themselves, but the radar and guidance systems.

    Russia’s stance against the missile shield isn’t particularly about the fact that it could shoot down Russian missiles (thus cancelling out Russia’s land-based retaliation). No missile shield in the world can stand upto a full-scale nuclear barrage, and only three countries have that capability, like it or not Russia is one of them.

    Russia’s main issue is with the radars. How would the Americans react if Russia were to build a similar shield in Central America (which is the US’s backyard). I’m sure they wouldn’t want powerful radars (stationed in Cuba or Venezuela) that can track every goddamn aircraft in the air from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border.

  8. ayaa says:

    If the shield poses no offensive threat to Russia, why the US refusal to an agreement (not to use it against Russia) and put it in writing. Or better yet, why not accept Russian help and include Russia in the shield.

    Plenty of reasons why suspicions are high.

    • Hirsh says:

      I appreciate Russia’s concerns about it being in their backyard. But i suspect part of the reason for the lack of cooperation is, Russia has long been on friendly terms with the very nation the missile shield is intended to defend against, Iran. That kind of complicates things. There are plenty of reasons for suspicion on both sides…

  9. Hirsh says:

    So what’s with the imported generation equipment mounted on Dunlop Metalastik anti-vibration mounts in a Soviet era bomb shelter? Was it installed after Soviet times? The equipment isn’t anything special that the Soviets couldn’t have built themselves.

  10. ayaa says:

    Here’s a very interesting way of putting things.

    “Try thinking about an agreement on how many rounds you can have in a magazine. Both have thousands of rounds of ammo, but in the interests of peace you both decide that a 30 round mag should be sufficient as you are both big fat buggers that are going to stand and shoot from the hip.
    The US ABM system is one guy turning up one day with a helmet.
    The European ABM system… which is American, is like he turns up the next day with a helmet and a flak vest.
    The other guy is getting suspicious, but the guy in the vest and helmet is saying that his abuse is upsetting his wife and sometimes she tries to hit him with a rolling pin and other times stab him with a knife… so he needs the vest and the helmet to protect himself… it is ok… it wont stop a bullet.

    Now they are saying that he suspects his wife is trying to buy a handgun so he is going to get a bullet proof vest with hard plates to protect himself. But it is OK, he wont wear it if we get into a fight.
    The other guy has asked for that in writing, but he refused saying you don’t need it in writing… just trust me.

    Would you be suspicious?

    Especially when the guy is dumb enough to release documents about long term expansion and performance improvement plans that include interceptors with multiple kill capability and potential expansion of launch sites.

    Of course the other guy is going to demand either defensive measures be added to the agreement, or he is not going to stick to 30 rounds in his mag… he is going to look into armour piercing rounds and perhaps more exotic weapons.

    What happens if the other guy turns up in a tank?”


Leave a Reply

  • Random Post