Re: And Spalls thinks COD is shallow

On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:30:38 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 19/07/2025 01:42, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>
You haven't convinced me that every nation does this.  I can
understand America or even Russia doing this, but the lasting damage
would be greater with "groundbursts"? A vindictive nation might not be
so green- conscious. Do you think Iran cares which of the two they
conduct with a nuclear strike, since they have to work so hard just to
get the initial blast?
>

If you want to occupy the ruins, airburst.  If you want to salt the land
for 10,000 years, ground burst.

>
If you want real ground burst, in the 50's the British developed some
prototypes for a nuclear mine. So literally bury them on the East
Germany border and if the Soviets attacked then detonate them. The idea
wasn't just to cause casualties but to deny a whole area as an avenue of
advance due to the fallout.

Weren't these the ones that used live chickens as heaters? In order to
keep the electronics /just/ warm enough, buried as they were
underground and in the cold winter, the body heat of a chicken was
found to be sufficient. So the poor bird was buried beneath the earth
with enough food, water and air to survive for a week or so.

Or at least, that was the plan. I don't think any nuclear mines
--chicken-powered or not-- were ever actually deployed.

Rumors that these spicy chickens were later re-deployed to Kentucky
under the command of a Colonel Sanders have been vigorously denied.