We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Would you like surface to air missiles on top of your home?


Flak999
Resolved

Likes # 0

Missiles to be sited at residential flats!

It would appear from the report I have linked to that the MOD is intending to site a surface to air missile system on top of some residential flats which are within range of the Olympic park!

Now quite apart from the rather drastic consequences of having aircraft possibly engaged and shot down over east London, what are the rights of the residents of these flats with regard to the siting of this military hardware on their property? Does the MOD have to seek their permission for this installation or can they just impose it upon them? (Because I know what my answer to such a request would be!)

The other thing that strikes me about all of these draconian security measures which are going to be enforced upon the people of London for a three week sporting event is, really is it worth all of this expense? (£11 billion and counting) disruption to the life of the capital (chaos on the transport system) just for a three week jolly watching a load of people running jumping cycling and swimming!

If they really anticipate the possibility that they will have to start firing surface to air missiles over one of the most densely populated parts of eastern England then we have seriously lost our sense of priorities! Who makes the decision to fire them and based on what information?

I have a far better idea! Let's call the whole thing off!

Like this post
bremner

Likes # 0

Firstly it is not on top of anyones home and secondly it is only being considered.

Would I have it - if the police and security services deemed the risk needed them then absolutely.

Whether we should ever have had the Olympics is another matter altogether and will undoubtedly be revisited many times in the future.

That said I am glad they are here simply because it has given us the briliant Twenty Twelve.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

My verandah would accommodate a 'nest' of machine guns quite easily...but I live in Scotland.

As far as London is concerned, regarding security, this is another governmental 'wacky' idea.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"Who makes the decision to fire them and based on what information?"

The decision to fire would be taken by senior military commander, based on the information that an aircraft had entered the no-fly zone imposed around London, and that it had ignored radio warnings to alter course, and attempts by fighter aircraft to get it to turn. The missiles would only be fired as a last resort, if all other avenues have been exhausted.

I'm surprised that the military are considering this deployment because The Royal Navy has surface to air missiles, and navy ships can (and will) be stationed in the Thames during the games.

It's not a "wacky idea" - there's a genuine threat, and people who deride the use of such measures would probably be the first to point an accusing finger at the government if a terrorist attack succeeded, and there was a loss of life on the scale of the 9/11 attack. In these situations you plan for the worst, and hope it never happens.

Like this post
Flak999

Likes # 0

bremner

Firstly it is not on top of anyones home and secondly it is only being considered.

I beg to differ, the water tower that is to be used also contains residential flats according to the BBC.

Forum Editor

The missiles would only be fired as a last resort, if all other avenues have been exhausted.

OK, let's hypothesise this scenario. A fully loaded passenger aircraft is hijacked over the channel inbound for Heathrow, the hijackers switch off the IFF transponder and refuse to answer radio calls. They are thought to be going to attempt to crash the aircraft into the Olympic stadium during the men's 100 meter final.

Are you saying that we would consider bringing that aircraft down over London to avoid the Olympic stadium? The carnage and loss of life of doing so would probably be greater than allowing it to hit the stadium!

It's madness to consider such a thing!

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 0

The Chinese had anti - aircraft missiles on standby See Here. , so we are only following their precedent. Also although the vast majority of our Muslim population are absolutely loyal, we have over 1 million from the Pakistan dispera alone , and the "tube bombers" proved how determined a few dedicated people can cause so much destruction. I believe that the security risks are very great and we have to be very careful indeed.

Without being too pessimistic, I think the total cost and security risks will prove to outweigh the so-called benefits of holding the Games here.I hope they are a success and that the legacy is successful.

Like this post
amonra

Likes # 0

I'd love it ! Just to be one-up on the neighbours. Try keeping up with that wontcha !

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 0

PS Probably the safest place to be is where the missiles are sited. Their use under an emergency situation will no doubt be debated. The US nearly came to a similar decision at the 9/11 time.(Whether to shoot down an airliner)

Like this post
Woolwell

Likes # 0

"The Royal Navy has surface to air missiles, and navy ships can (and will) be stationed in the Thames during the games." But as far as I can find out the ship will be HMS Ocean which doesn't have SAM's. She would normally be protected by other ships. It would make sense if a new Type 45 was in the vicinity but there are only 3 operational.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"Would you like surface to air missiles on top of your home?"

Why not?

Once you have accepted the principle of needing them for this particular event ( and necessity for that is an entirely different debate) what is there against it?

Like this post
Flak999

Likes # 0

morddwyd

Why not? what is there against it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? See my reply to the FE at 7.39pm, that is my argument against it!

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Black Friday 2014 tech deals: Get bargains on smartphones, tablets, laptops and more

IDG UK Sites

Tomorrow's World today (or next year)

IDG UK Sites

See how Trunk's animated ad helped Ade Edmondson plug The Car Buying Service

IDG UK Sites

Yosemite tips: Complete Guide to OS X Yosemite