Building a City for war.

With growing populations iits increasingly likely that wars be fought in urban environments, so, I would think it makes sense to build cities with possible wars in mind by design.

In medeval times you had the thick citywalls and a circular canal surrounding important cities, but I think for modern times hidden traps (Claymore city) make more sense than visible thick fortifications, since they can be destroyed relatively easily by modern artillery.

What kind of nasty surprise would you build into a city if you were the architect?


Example: I heard that during Stalins rule, many bridges were already wired with hidden explosives and could be remotely detonated by a secret underground network of cables.

Example: www.corrosion-doctors.org...

this was a horrible accident, but suppose you made sewers that could be exploded on demand.

Let's here them ideas.


[edit on 29-11-2004 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 29-11-2004 by Countermeasures]

And how do you suggest this works? Extra layers of concrete? A nuke on top of a city and everyone is already dead...

I dont think id want to live in a world where we built cities primarily for war. But if i lived in such a world, i think i would burrow into the ground and sleep it out. Eventually everyone would be dead and i would be king of the world.

If this were the case I would live in the country. Simply put these cities would be the targets. Remember the offense is developed to counter the defense and the defense is made to counteract the offense, and currently we are in an offensive period. Basically we've developed weapons without ways to defend against them, so if it's targeted it's screwed.

Lots of underground areas that are large enough to store company sized formations of soldiers and tanks. The underground mall in Toronto are a good example of this, profitable in peacetime and survivable in wartime.

Originally posted by WAMPAROO
I dont think id want to live in a world where we built cities primarily for war. But if i lived in such a world, i think i would burrow into the ground and sleep it out. Eventually everyone would be dead and i would be king of the world.

That's hilarious. Thanks for the idea I think I'll follow it and become King of the Northern Hemisphere you can have the south

I'd put barbed wire and fortification just in case. You never know they might use swords for no reason at all. I can build a metal wall so artillery can't kablooie it. I'd also put a trillion wired, heat and pressure sensitive mines all over the ground on top. All the other people will walk underground to work and walk up stairs to the house they work in.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by CookieMonster000]

If a nuke hit anywhere you'd be screwed, even in your secure "underground mall" wou'd be dead...

building a city for war would be impratical unless there was a direct threat.

The population would have to fund it for a start... and then there is the political implications. Any so-called future rivals would see it as a provocative measure

And as stated above, it would be targeted, even if it was civilian only...

Originally posted by Nexus
If a nuke hit anywhere you'd be screwed, even in your secure "underground mall" wou'd be dead...

If it were an airburst, or a groudburst not over the site you would have a good enough chance of surviving in an underground mall like the one in Toronto. It would shield you against most of the blast effects and filter out most of the radiation.

But if it landed within a few hundred metres...

I dont think building a city for war is as ridiculous as its being made out. Cities already are the primary targets in war so why shouldnt they be hardened targets? In a way its already being done for instance the increased strictness in architectural design for defense against terrorist attacks.

A city designed for war isnt just about offensive defense its also about a city grid laid out to promote an efficient flow to allow for rapid response in case of emergency and to allow rapid evacuation while still maintaining the use of defensive choke points. Utilities would be placed in hardened structures beneath the ground to prevent ease of disruption with a good deal of redundancy built into the system.

Basically what we are talking about here are milititary bases built on an urban scale. Realistically I dont see a city like this being built except under the most militaristic of societies but degrees of hardening will be and currently are being built into cities around the world.

the sheer cost outweighs any benefits.

If your not under the threat of war than is there any purpose to the extra expense?... in a capitalist society there is simply no room for extra expense that may never be needed

The next big war will probally be nuclear, so if your city is attacked then you'd probally die, even with reinforced walls. Firstly the initial explosion, then the collapsing buildings etc...

What a good idea!
We can start that in Iraq
I think the best idea is to build a big thick wall around the city, say Mosel,

A wall with no breaks, no gaps to stop people from breaking in

fill in any tunnels and pipes to stop people from getting in

Make it really high so people can't climb over

Seal the ground to stop people from digging out

and...

.
.
.
.
.
.
fill it full of water!!

I can dig it

I've been suggesting for years that we just build a huge PVC dome over the entire Mesopotamian subcontinent, and let people out at one of four heavily-guarded airlocks if they decide they'd like to leave.

It may not be friendly, but it's a hell of a lot more practical than what we're doing now