https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/top-secret-cold-war...
https://www.rferl.org/a/24993733.html
https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/18/czech-cold-war-depot-for...
Of course the Soviets (who were exclusively running and guarding those bunkers back then) never confirmed what they were used to or if they contained live nuclear weapons. But it is clear that this was the intended use case, given the storage conditions, the expens to build & run those as well as how heavily they were guarded.
"This is a special storage facility, type Granit 2 (or 3), designed for A-bombs."
Not sure if it's true, but the article says these nukes were meant for Italy.
Amazing how much money was wasted on these only to be staffed for years and then abandoned.
It’s the same insanity gun owners use justifying bringing weapons everywhere they go.
I simply don’t buy the argument, though I do see your point about deterrence
Military spending is similar - you want security at the minimum cost.
Unfortunately, military conflicts (real and potential) have vastly more complexity and uncertainty than the gravity, wind, traffic loads, etc. that a bridge has to withstand. And even a nation's best experts (generally its senior military officers) generally have motives at odds with minimum-cost security for their nation.
And yes tactical nukes were forward deployed to most Pact countries.
The west did basically the same thing. Not every "nuclear weapon bunker" at every American base actually held warheads.
It was in those bunkers where the warheads would be (were ?) stored in the time of crisis as a forward deployment.