Missiles on the roof approved

but the army/government bloke said that was preferential to the aircraft reaching its target

the “target” would be full of paying customers, the rest of the occupants of london without olympic tickets are unpatriotic plebs so would just be collateral damage.

Anyone got any real idea what the differing outcome would be for plane hitting a stadium vs a plane being blown up across a lot of london?

nope, i am a millitary person so have daily exposure to these issues

Unless you are very senior, you only know what you’ve been told…

What concerned me though was the lack of security around the buildings etc with the missiles in place – seemed odd?

Anyone got any real idea what the differing outcome would be for plane hitting a stadium vs a plane being blown up across a lot of london?

Only that the military believe that the overall result would be far worse if a rogue plane reached its target.

Do you know any different.

Indeed, because if you’re upset about something then everyone else in the world must be too

no I just think missiles on top of your house would naturally make everybody atleast a little nervous. You may like cougar make the argument than on balance it may be a good idea, fair enough, but explosives around the family home perfectly fine? seriously?

Do you know any different.

no, hence the question, sorry if it read like I already knew.

Anyone got any real idea what the differing outcome would be for plane hitting a stadium vs a plane being blown up across a lot of london?

I think on balance I’d rather be hit on the head by a bit of plane than a whole one.

The ‘threat’ has been hyped to justify the ‘security’.

If ‘they’ hijacked a 747 and put it into canary wharf on a weekday afternoon ‘they’ would surely earn the undying gratitude of the nation.

Oh… actually that not going to work. The bankers will be the ones with all the Olympic tickets, sat around swilling fizz. On second thoughts, just put it into the stadium

but explosives around the family home perfectly fine? seriously?

Yup. They don’t tend to just blow up at random

There was some thing on Radio 4 about it the other day, where basically the government bod really couldn’t justify what they were there for. The presenter was trying to suggest it might be a bad idea to blow some thing up over skys of London, but the army/government bloke said that was preferential to the aircraft reaching its target,
doesn’t this tower block then become a target!

Hmmm, olympic stadium with a capacity crown of 80,000 spectators plus all the worlds top atheletes gathered in one place for the opening/closing ceremony…

or an area of mixed residential and business premises.

in the grand scheme of things…

Yup. They don’t tend to just blow up at random

no shit! still would prefer they were a long way away from from my house

Anyone got any real idea what the differing outcome would be for plane hitting a stadium vs a plane being blown up across a lot of london?

Doesn’t that assume that the only possible airborne security threat is a 747?

What about a small plane or a microlight packed with explosives? Or a remote control plane/drone? Or even a missile?

Taking any of them out while still in the air would be better than them reaching the target.

If I lived in Saaaaaaarf Laaaaaaaaandan I’d be asking questions like: just how accurate are surface to air missiles? What percentage of them hit their intended target? And what happens to the ones that miss?

Anyone know?

Other targets are available…

So when the olympics are over and the missiles removed (IF they are removed) does this mean that the rest of non-olympic Londomn is at increased risk of attack? Should we all go around wearing tin bowlers?

What about a small plane or a microlight packed with explosives? Or a remote control plane/drone? Or even a missile?

Dear god! Best get your tinfoil helmet on and get back under the desk. I never thought anyone really believed the fanciful, paranoid crap that the security establishment fed them. Remember when they were going to put Anthrax in all our resevoirs? You do realise its all just a wheeze to get more powers and increased budgets? 🙄

What about a small plane or a microlight packed with explosives? Or a remote control plane/drone? Or even a missile?

or a kite? or a nanocopter stuffed with matches? or a paper aeroplane with a strongly worded letter to Hussein Bolt?
Still nice of the MoD to provide the terrorists with a few extra and more easily accessible weapons

Some of us realise.

or an area of highly populated mixed residential and business premises.

as far as I’m aware there’s a helluva a lot of people living and working in that london

graham you mean little nellie?

If I can go back to

I hope the residents scatter used needles, dog mess and all manner of unpleasentness

does this tell us something about the residents?

And binners, I think the ones that miss are expected to self-destruct. The original owners wouldn’t like to see them on ebay.

Anyone know?

Given that they are designed to take out the likes of fast jets, they’ll be just fine with a lumbering 737/A320/757/767/777/747/A330/A340/etc

Putting on top or a residential tower block is a bad call. I would not want it on the basis that (i) there must be some risk of accidental firing and more so, (ii) making the building itself a target for terrorists.

Surely and office block or empty building would have been a better choice? This just smacks of – these people have no money/power, therefore we’ll position missiles on top of their home.

Personally, I think it’s a **** disgrace and the residents have every right to be pissed off.

This just smacks of – these people have no money/power, therefore we’ll put them on top of their home.

I think there was a bit more strategic thinking than than that. The decision was probably based on number of benefit claimants in the blocks selected, so what some of us might call a disaster, others would see as a bit of a bonus

Dear god! Best get your tinfoil helmet on and get back under the desk. I never thought anyone really believed the fanciful, paranoid crap that the security establishment fed them.

You’re right. It’s best not to consider it too much and just assume that terrorists will only ever attack in exactly the same way they have attacked before.

Putting in any kind of last resort contingency, just in case, is paranoid. 🙄

Still nice of the MoD to provide the terrorists with a few extra and more easily accessible weapons

Yeah. Because the missiles will be left unguarded with a big button marked “Go” next to them. 🙄

at least the millitary are letting the residents stay in the tower block while they are there . . . .

nope, i am a millitary person so have daily exposure to these issues

I love it when the army uses itself to justify itself.

Some of us realise.

So have the rest of us, thankfully we’ve all realised different things. You’ve realsied that the government really is trying to screw the little guy. The middle classes have realised the government is trying to screw the middle classes, the rich are convinced that they’re being screwed.

You’re right. It’s best not to consider it too much and just assume that terrorists will only ever attack in exactly the same way they have attacked before.

In that case, have you worked through any possible scenarios involving tunneling equipment, ice-cream vans or maybe a satellite-based death ray of some type?

I’m sure if we give the security services another blank cheque, they’ll look into it for us

Putting in any kind of last resort contingency, just in case, is paranoid.

Yes it is! Don’t you think so? seriously? Where exactly would you draw the line. Have the terrorists got submarines? They might have. We don’t know. Why aren’t ewe planning for that?

So… yes.. its very paranoid. Not to say expensive, potentially disastrously counter-productive and, quite frankly just plain bloody stupid

I love it when the army uses itself to justify itself

im not army.

but do have a hand in the air defence plan of london. not the launching things at flying things part though.

In that case, have you worked through any possible scenarios involving tunneling equipment, ice-cream vans or maybe a satellite-based death ray of some type?

Are you suggesting that terrorists getting hold of a Cessna and some explosive/biological weapons is just as fanciful as them having a satellite death ray?

crush83 – Member
at least the millitary are letting the residents stay in the tower block while they are there . . .

Gaw’ bless em!

So where are they flying this Cessna from then? Maybe some slightly more robust security at small aerodromes within range of London might be a tad more rational solution to this ridiculously unlikely threat. Instead of shoving a load of heavy artillery in the middle of built-up, heavily populated urban areas.

Like I said….. ridiculously paranoid, expensive, potentially disastrously counter-productive and, quite frankly just plain bloody stupid

I thought an Englishman’s home is his castle. These sound ideal for the battlements.

So where are they flying this Cessna from then? Maybe some slightly more robust security at small aerodromes within range of London might be a tad more rational solution to this ridiculously unlikely threat.

How is guarding a large number of sites across a very large region more rational then guarding the few high profile possible targets?

Perhaps this shocking situation, shoving a load of heavy artillery in the middle of built-up, heavily populated urban areas isn’t quite as unprecedented as people suggest?

Hyde Park 1940

or how about:

http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/Environment/Documents/chadwell-heath.pdf

I’m somewhat more confused as to how someone can describe a missile battery as heavy artillery though… 😯

How is guarding a large number of sites across a very large region more rational then guarding the few high profile possible targets?

Large number of sites? How many places can you fly a plane from? Aren’t they called airports? I seem to remember the last time I passed through one, there was quite a bit of security there anyway. Could have been wrong though. Maybe I dreamt it

So where are they flying this Cessna from then? Maybe some slightly more robust security at small aerodromes within range of London might be a tad more rational solution to this ridiculously unlikely threat.

As I understand it all flying over London is banned or very heavily restricted during the games and the small aerodromes are basically shut, for exactly this reason.

You understand that the missiles are a last line of defence type thing? A contingency plan.

I really don’t understand why people would object to more protection being provided in a way that has absolutely zero impact on their lives.

Large number of sites? How many places can you fly a plane from?

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

A small training plane like a Cessna 162 has a range of about 500 miles.

As I understand it all flying over London is banned or very heavily restricted during the games and the small aerodromes are basically shut, for exactly this reason.

SO WTF DO WE NEED SURFACE TO AIR MISSILES FOR?!!!!!

As I understand it all flying over London is banned or very heavily restricted during the games and the small aerodromes are basically shut, for exactly this reason.

I assumed these missiles were to shoot down people like this who aren’t limited to airfields and could still carry a reasonable amount of explosive.

Large number of sites? How many places can you fly a plane from? Aren’t they called airports?

In a similar fashion to Aunty Mable from Come Outside, I fly my Cessna from a private airstrip which is little more than a windsock, anchor and flat strip of grass.

SO WTF DO WE NEED SURFACE TO AIR MISSILES FOR?!!!!!

You classy man, you.

Just to get this straight Binners:

Heavy artillery:

HVM:

Perhaps the hyperbole of talking about ‘heavy artillery’ shows who’s ‘ridiculously paranoid’ and ‘quite frankly just plain bloody stupid’ eh Binners?