KELVEDON HATCH SECRET

secret-bunker.jpg
 
Von Luck said:
Hardly secret - there's a great big sign on the road which says "SECRET NUCLEAR BUNKER 300yds"
Click to expand...

Yes, but it will still be secret to dyslexic and illiterate people. They're the ones whom we've decided will not be joining us in the "New World" after WWIII.

:)
 
thepedster said:
I'll be heading down to the Magic Mountain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Alconbury

this is better: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=530359&in_page_id=1770

Scary place at night when it's dark and rainy!
Click to expand...
I wonder if it could really survive a direct nuclear strike as described in that article?
Take a look at Cheyenne:
The underground Combat Operations Center (COC) was originally intended to provide a 70% probability of continuing to function if a five-megaton nuclear weapon detonated three miles (5.6 km) away, but was ultimately built to withstand a multimegaton blast within 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km). Src:Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain

..and that's buried under 2000ft of granite! :eek:
 
Kelvedon is a great day/afternoon out. Whilst some of the tour is factually incorrect it's still an awesome place well worth a visit.
 
Yeah, it's good. Well worth an afternoon's exploration if you're in the area.

Biggest problem is they removed (for obvious reasons no doubt) a lot of the most sensitive kit during decommissioning and replaced it with spares/generic stuff from other sites - the result being that some of the kit that's there shouldn't have been and some that isn't should.

As for the comparison with Cheyenne, that isn't really fair. The WWII bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 13 and 21 kilotons respectively - nowhere near the megatonnage for which Cheyenne was intended to survive. I admit I'm not entirely convinced by the idea of placing water storage tanks on top of the Kelvedon site though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom