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
Flak999

Likes # 0

As the crow flies (or should I say a surface to air missile!) the Olympic stadium is less than a mile from the site of the launcher which is to be located at Lexington buildings off Fairfield road E3 2UH see map Proposed location of surface to air missile battery

Assuming the cruising speed of a passenger aircraft is 500mph then when such an aircraft is destroyed in flight, the down flight path area of the debris field would be a huge swathe of east London, which would be covered by huge parts of falling debris, the bodies of the crew and passengers and possibly 20000 litres of burning aviation fuel!

The magnitude of such a self inflicted disaster would be difficult to imagine.

Yet, we are seriously contemplating this???

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"that is my argument against it!"

That argument is against the use of missiles per se which is, as I said, a different debate.

Your thread is about putting them on top of my home.

Like this post
interzone55

Likes # 0

Flak999

So you're saying that instead of blowing it up in mid-air, killing the 200 or so passengers, we should let it crash into a stadium packed with 80,000 spectators - I'm glad you're not in charge of the Olympic security...

Like this post
Flak999

Likes # 0

alan14

If you destroy a plane in mid-air over London do you think it just vanishes? A 737 weighs 56,470kg at take off. Look at what happened at Lockerbie! imagine that in the densely populated east end of London!

Like this post
Flak999

Likes # 0

morddwyd

Putting them on top of your home, presupposes that you are going to use them!

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

The proposed idea of rooftop missile launchers next to the London olympic venues will not give any comfort or peace of mind to the other tourists who might have considered visiting the capitol during the event.

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 1

Flak999

I have read your thread - have you looked at the replies in detail? The Chinese took similar precautions - you did not say that was wrong. Sometimes such measures are taken to deter the action of terrorists. There are other threats, such as a smaller aircraft that are possible.The military no doubt have many contingency plans, some of which will not be disclosed. You seem to be saying that this particular one should be ignored. No doubt in the unlikely event of a hijack, the RAF would attempt to intercept such a plane before it got to London- these missiles are a deterrent and a last resort, and, like the others here, Yes, I would allow them on or near my house.

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 0

BTW the weight you quote was too light! From Boeing:"The 747-400ER passenger airplane has a range of 7,670 nautical miles (14,205 km). The 747-400ER Freighter, at its maximum takeoff weight of 910,000 pounds (412,770 kg), "

Like this post
Flak999

Likes # 0

john bunyan

You have more faith in the ability of our Government and military to successfully interdict this threat than I, obviously! And there must be a threat mustn't there? Because they would not be announcing this so publicly if there were not, would they?

As for the Chinese, I can't imagine they would be to bothered about the loss of a few hundred of their citizens if a burning aircraft wiped out a Chinese town, compared to the dreadful loss of face if they allowed a terrorist act to succeed when they were Olympic hosts and the eyes of the world were on the peoples republic!

Like this post
Flak999

Likes # 0

john bunyan

Re-read my post, I was quoting the take-off weight of a 737 not a 747!

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

LED vs Halogen: Why now could be the right time to invest in LED bulbs

IDG UK Sites

Christmas' best ads: See great festive spots studios have created to promote themselves and clients

IDG UK Sites

Why Apple shouldn't be blamed for exploitation in China and Indonesia