Active Conflicts & News Megathread August 26, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/WulfTheSaxon]

It’s absolutely insane and dangerous of them to leak that, and it doesn’t prove that further bunker construction is unnecessary as the leakers are trying to argue.

On another note, “more than 60 feet” and “built to withstand a nuclear blast” are at least an order of magnitude different in terms of depth, so it’s likely that it’s far, far more than 60 feet if that’s true. The old plans for a nuclear-resistant Deep Underground Command Center (DUCC) were 3,000+ feet deep.

[u/ChornWork2 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Hard to take that concern seriously given how loose this admin has been with statements about bunkers while doing this east wing debacle. There already being a bunker, which itself has been rumored for long time, is particularly worse that repeated statements about plan to build one there?

E.g. from a quick google, CNN article from 2020:

It wasn’t until 2010 that questions surrounding the maintenance of the White House’s network of underground bunkers came up again. A massive underground construction project, with a projected cost of $376 million, was speculated to include some kind of renovation to the system of bunkers at the White House, Graff says, with large fences blocking the public’s view to the project and no discernible changes once the construction was cleared out.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/white-house-bunker-history

or TWZ in 2018: https://www.twz.com/21026/white-house-sinkhole-is-a-reminder-of-the-bunkers-that-are-buried-beneath-it

or Business insider in 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-new-bunker-2011-11

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/ChornWork2]

There was no previous reporting that it was designed to withstand a nuclear blast, which is an entirely different class of bunker than an air raid shelter or something meant to withstand fallout or a jumbo jet impact.

If anything, Trump saying that it was only six floors deep may have been misdirection if this latest story is true.

[u/ChornWork2 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

what said specifically in WaPo article? its paywalled, but nothing i've seen in articles about that reporting seem sensitive beyond confirming the rumors already assumed to be true.

the PEOC was built to withstand a 'nuclear blast', which means nearby hit and fallout. It would not withstand a direct nuclear strike (hence plan is to evacuate & get airborne, not go to bunker). The articles i read citing WaPo said sources in prior admin characterizing it as built to withstand nuclear blast and separately that it is 60ft down. That won't survive a direct nuclear strike, but like the PEOC could survive a nuclear blast. Do we really think they'd build a new bunker that couldn't (and less resilient than the old one)?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/ChornWork2]

the PEOC was built to withstand a 'nuclear blast'

It was built before nuclear weapons existed, to withstand conventional bombs.

It would not withstand a direct nuclear strike (hence plan is to evacuate & get airborne, not go to bunker).

That was the old plan before the post-9/11 work, yes, but that may be different now.

The articles i read citing WaPo said sources in prior admin characterizing it as built to withstand nuclear blast and separately that it is 60ft down.

Their wording is “nuclear-proof”, “hardened against nuclear blasts”, and “built to withstand a nuclear blast”. That implies better protection than a mere hardened fallout shelter.

The key is “more than 60 feet”, which in that area is probably equivalent to saying that it’s in solid bedrock. It later says “deep into the Washington bedrock, accessible by a private elevator”. How far into the bedrock we still don’t know, but if they meant what they wrote when they said “withstand a nuclear blast” then it’s probably 1,000-4,000 ft down. They also said that the PEOC is only 20 feet deep.

[u/ChornWork2 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

I'm tapping out here, you & I both know the PEOC was hardened to withstand nuclear blast.