DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Bizarro » UK’S CHICKEN-​​POWERED NUKE

UK’S CHICKEN-​​POWERED NUKE

Like me, you’ve prob­a­bly stayed awake count­less nights won­der­ing, “Did the Brits ever make plans for a nuclear land­mine, pow­ered by chick­ens?“
Well, dear reader, I’m here to tell you that the answer is yes. At least, accord­ing to the UK’s National Archives.

chicken.gifConceived dur­ing the Cold War, the seven tonne device was the size of small truck and was designed to be buried or sub­merged by a British Army retreat­ing from Soviet forces. The land­mine had a plu­to­nium core sur­rounded by high explo­sive and would have been det­o­nated by remote con­trol or timer, caus­ing mass destruc­tion and con­t­a­m­i­na­tion over a wide area to pre­vent sub­se­quent enemy occu­pa­tion.
Scientists work­ing on the project realised that the bomb could fail in win­ter if vital com­po­nents become too cold, so they explored ways of keep­ing the inner work­ings warm. One pro­posal put for­ward con­sisted of fill­ing the cas­ing of the nuke with live chick­ens, who would give off suf­fi­cient heat, prior to suf­fo­cat­ing or starv­ing to death, to keep the del­i­cate explo­sive mech­a­nism from freez­ing. Despite the poten­tial impor­tance of chick­ens to the project, the mine was code­named ‘Blue Peacock’.

“The mines were to be left buried or sub­merged by the British Army of the Rhine. They would then have been det­o­nated by wire from up to five kilo­me­tres away or by an eight-​​day clock­work timer. If dis­turbed or dam­aged, they were primed to explode within 10 sec­onds,” New Scientist explains.

Each mine was expected to pro­duce an explo­sive yield of 10 kilo­tons, about half that of the atom bomb the US dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki in 1945…
Blue Peacock was to con­sist of a plu­to­nium core sur­rounded by a sphere of high explo­sives, all encased in steel. The design was based on Blue Danube, a free-​​fall nuclear bomb weigh­ing sev­eral tonnes that was already in ser­vice with the Royal Air Force. But Blue Peacock, weigh­ing over seven tonnes, would have been much more cum­ber­some.
The steel cas­ing was so large that it had to be tested out­doors in a flooded gravel pit near Sevenoaks in Kent. If ques­tions were asked, Nuclear his­to­rian David Hawkings says the army’s cover story was that it was a con­tainer for “an atomic power unit for troops in the field”. In July 1957, army lead­ers decided to order 10 Blue Peacock mines and to sta­tion them in Germany.
Hawkings describes their plans for deploy­ing the weapons in the event of an immi­nent Soviet inva­sion as “some­what the­atri­cal”. One prob­lem was that the mines might not work in win­ter if they became too cold, so the army pro­posed wrap­ping them in fibre­glass pil­lows.
In the end, the risk from radioac­tive fall­out would have been “unac­cept­able”, says Hawkings, and hid­ing nuclear weapons in an allied coun­try was deemed “polit­i­cally flawed”. As a result, the Ministry of Defence can­celled Blue Peacock in February 1958.
(via Linkfilter and Improbable Research)

Share |

April 14th, 2005 | Bizarro | Comments Off Both comments and pings are currently closed.

« « BLIMPS FOR MARINES IN IRAQ | “MINORITY REPORT,” FOR REAL » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I wonder if anyone noticed: This attack happened right after...
      freefallingbomb
    • Keep it Simple
      To the poster "Zandor" : You wrote: "Your last post...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      Part III : You wrote: "These airbags are made similarly, so the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      To the educated guesser: Part I : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      Only two companies in the world are...
      Frank Hols
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Dear Designer; It is somewhat strange that the German Armed forces...
      Zandor
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      The first priority is to get a reliable...
      Brian
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I've seen them to. Believe me, I hate those 19 just as much as...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      You are funny.
      Zandor
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Wow after reading these varied comments, I am surprised and educated. I...
      John
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage