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
Input Overload

Likes # 0

I agree with Flak999, if any situation arose where deployment of SAM's were deemed necessary (much like all out nuclear war) there would be a lose-lose situation. The difference in a nuclear deterrent is 'the other side' has something to lose also.

In the case of a hijacked airliner with the kind of people who would perpetuate such a monstrosity they have nothing to lose & in their eyes maybe everything to gain. With such a large area such as Greater London an airliner or similar (Unless it was armed) would have much the same effect where ever it landed.

There is of course the possibility of appeasing a rather large country to the west of us?

Like this post
Input Overload

Likes # 0

In the early posts I agree with Flak999 but somehow I missed two pages & it seems thgings got out of hand, ignore my above post things got silly.

Like this post
mark2

Likes # 0

I'm sure it has been mentioned previously, but they're not being sited on the flats. The building where the missile could sit is uninhabited and has a lift shaft.BBC

And there are differing views on the subject BBC again

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

spuds

"Once again it would appear that a reasonable discussion topic as degenerated into and with the usual grave yard air about it, that usually results in perhaps other possible contributor's steering well clear, in fear of being insulted for talking nonsense, being stupid or not having the facts, and not being able to provide a personal opinion?."

Have you seen anyone here prevented from expressing a personal opinion? I certainly can't see any evidence of it, in fact I can see plenty of personal opinions. Mine are personal opinions, based on what I've found out by researching the subject on the internet - as anyone else can do.

It's usually the case, when a discussion becomes heated, that someone eventually posts the kind of remarks that I've quoted above. I'm accused of stopping people from expressing their opinions, or of being aggressive, or stifling debate, or all three. If it's not me who is on the receiving end of that kind of comment it's some other person who has challenged a sweeping statement, or a badly constructed argument.

This is a discussion forum, and if you want to express opinions about something, go ahead, but you must expect your statements of opinion to be challenged, in exactly the same way as I expect mine to be challenged. I have no problem with that; what I don't like is when someone is criticised because he or she picks up on a dramatic comment that has obviously been made without much reference to the facts.

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

Looking at today's Sun newspaper, it would appear that the newspaper have already broken the security chain by taking a dummy explosive device into the main arena?.

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 0

I used to be involved in testing security at highly sensitive locations, such as Northwood, Coulport etc. Believe me, nowhere is totally secure. To provide total security at the Olympic games is impossible. The Powers that be have to rely strongly on intelligence; again very difficult with the huge diaspora of recently settled populations, a few of whom are fanatics. This newspaper stunt is just that.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

I would accept terracotta camouflaged SAM's 'cos they would not clash with my new verandah...and as a bonus clause, I would like to handle the BIG Bazookas...that's it. My plants wouldn't mind the excitement, I'm sure.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

7 coolest 3D-printed objects: Body parts, houses, camera lenses and even pizza

IDG UK Sites

iOS 8 review: Hands on with the iOS 8 beta

IDG UK Sites

Thinking robots: The philosophy of artificial intelligence and evolving technology

IDG UK Sites

Sharknado 2 VFX: how The Asylum created CG flying man-eating sharks