On 4/1/05 21:58, in article , "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"goldfinch" wrote in message
...


Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to
home.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
---------------
OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone
else
would ask ;-)

Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to
blow
up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try
and
invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E.
coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of
information
act.



No they didnt.

Do you write newspaper headlines as well?Or just read the daily mail?

(translating 'some officials considered a bomb but it was never
implemented'
into 'government had plans to swamp SE with massive waves'.)

Not that there would have been any 'massive waves' anyway, maybe a small
ripple. (raspberry?)

--
Tumbleweed

-------------
I heard it on the BBC 1 news at 6 pm today. Obviously it was never
implemented ;-)

Probably more than a ripple though, being close enough to the shore even
if
it was in the middle of the channel.


Not if it was going to make the tunnel unusable for only 3 years.
And the middle of the channel is 10 miles from the shore.
They had tests in the nevada desert *much* nearer than that from las vegas
in the 50's, not even a tremor felt in LV.

The idea of a nuclear explosion was considered but in the end it was decided
that a couple of valves to let in sea water would be cheaper and less
damaging to much of Kent..... That was in the Telegraph an the Mail and I
think the Times. Take your pick.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)