Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "The Helsinki bunker that can withstand a nuclear strike amid Finland Russia tensions over Nato bid" video.

It's a shelter for civilians. Military facilities are elsewhere. They're dispersed all over the country.
7
@MRT-co1sd You're a layman preaching to the clergy. I've lived in Finland since 2014, and I speak the language. Throughout the years, both countries have kept their NATO options open while edging ever closer to the alliance. Both militaries are "NATO compatible" and exercise regularly with NATO. In Finland, even before the Russia's "special military operation", NATO membership was to be an election theme. The right-wing party that endorsed it even then is poised to win the upcoming parliamentary election. Also, neither country has pursued neutrality since they joined the EU in 1995. Military non-alignment is the official term in use.
5
@MRT-co1sd I wouldn't count on its. Norway, a founding member of NATO, has always made it clear that there won't be any nukes on Norwegian soil. It's likely that Finland and Sweden will adopt the same stance. The same goes for permanent NATO bases.
4
@akuma7969 There are emergency shelters for 85% of the population. In major urban centres like Helsinki, it's over 100%. In sparsely populated areas people won't have the benefit of shelters, but these areas are far less likely to suffer nuclear strikes.
3
@Jimmy1972 It's amusing that you as a Russian try to lecture Finns about the pitfalls of joining NATO. An overwhelming majority of the Finns support NATO membership. Finns are critical thinkers with full democratic rights, and they actively put them to use them, too. You're just a slave to your dictator. If you don't toe the line, you'll go to prison, or drop out of an open window.
1
@Jimmy1972 Nothing threatens Finland? Putin tried to curtail the sovereignty of both Sweden and Finland by demanding that neither join NATO. In the event of a war between the USA and Russia, NATO only becomes involved if the USA is the attacker. Do your homework, Botty McBotface.
1
@Jimmy1972 Again, curtailing one's sovereignty is a threat. There were plenty of official statements to that effect from the Kremlin, before and after Finland applied for NATO membership. Of a military nature, too. Being a vassal to someone means doing their bidding. That's not how NATO works. Decisions are made in unison. You still didn't do your homework, did you? It doesn't matter which NATO member were to attack Russia. Only if Article 5 is invoked, the whole of NATO has to spring into action. If there's no attack against NATO, there's no casus foederis. Can you spell D-E-F-E-N-S-I-V-E? Try to make some valid points for a change.
1
@Jimmy1972 Now you're just making stuff up. Guilt by association is not a recognised legal principle. It's quite the contrary -- with Finland and Sweden in NATO, the likelihood of either becoming a target of Russian aggression is lower. An attack -- conventional or nuclear -- will trigger Article 5 all the same. And which part of MAD don't you understand? NATO is not a hostile military bloc. Russia has been known to endorse NATO's military missions. In fact, Afghanistan is a case in point.
1
@Jimmy1972 If so, why was your precious and benevolent Russia fully supportive of NATO's Afghanistan mission? Explain that. By the way, You shouldn't exhibit your sociopathic suicidal tendencies on YouTube. There are impressionable children about.
1
There's no reason to bring in nukes. NATO has grown over the years, but its nuclear footprint hasn't.
1