Who made a big deal out of them?, not the MOD or anyone in the army, just the BBC really and other news people talking about one SAM site because residents got some leflets.
Surface-to-air missiles for the Olympics
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Who made a big deal out of them?, not the MOD or anyone in the army, just the BBC really and other news people talking about one SAM site because residents got some leflets.
These stupid terrorists are still obsessed with crashing aeroplanes even after all the security we've put in place to stop them? there are literally thousands of ways to commit terror without needing to hijack an aeroplane.
I bet anyone on this forum could get at least 100 kills if they REALLY wanted to cause mass deaths/terror and weren't afraid to die doing it, just look at Anders Behring Breivik he's probably killed more people than all muslim terrorists combined since 7/7.
Worst terrorists in history.
I bet anyone on this forum could get at least 100 kills if they REALLY wanted to cause mass deaths/terror and weren't afraid to die doing it, just look at Anders Behring Breivik he's probably killed more people than all muslim terrorists combined since 7/7.
Worst terrorists in history.
Why make clones when we already have real ones, and what happens when those 'fake' defences are outted by wiki leaks or similar?
They are there for deterent and protection.......
What is the actual issue with there deployment exactly?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
well if they are meant to be secret, then surely the reason for having them wouldnt be the fear factor
Do you really think that the army deploying cardboard cutouts instead of operational equipment would not somehow be leaked. That information would be worth lots of money to the wrong people, and it's too big a chance to take.
At the end of the day big events like this become targets. For all we know the sites are bogus, I'm sure there's much more going on than what has been released to the press. But it's important to have a workable strategy not only to discourage action, but to meet it should it occur.
Sooner or later someone would find out that they were fake and word would leak out, you can't keep that sort of thing completely secret. Besides, on the off hand chance that some completely bonkers bomber tries it out anyway can you imagine the backlash of not being able to stop them because the material we deployed was actually a cardboard box?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
the fact we are meant to be low on funds, yet we are pumping stupid amounts of cash into something no one really cares about.
im not against protecting the country, but was winning the olympics really worth all this expense.
I can see that going down well if something did happen and we couldn't deal with it.. 'British military uses fake missiles!'
well if they are meant to be secret, then surely the reason for having them wouldnt be the fear factor
Who said they were secret......it isn't an either or situation. They are just being deployed, no fuss, no secrecy.
The media have decided that it is newsworthy and people who generally don't understand the situation or reasons for them being there are up in arms about it....nimbys.
That is a different argument, whether you think the Olympics are worthwhile or not is up to you, but not adequately protecting the citizens and visitors now we have them? Really?
Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean nobody else does. For all the people claiming it's going to be awful I know a lot of people looking forwards to it. The worst poll I've heard suggested that around 50% of people think it is a waste of time, which leaves the other 50% looking forwards to it. If the UK is great at one thing it's moaning, and the people who are looking forwards to it just seem to be quietly saying nothing and waiting patiently.
As for the expense, you can't really put a figure on that until afterwards when people can figure out the boost in tourism, sales, merchandise etc. One thing to bear in mind though is that it has been 64 years since the UK last hosted the olympics, so for the last 60 or so years we've been able to enjoy them for a fraction of the cost of the hosting nation. That doesn't seem like too bad a deal for me, even if the costs would have been a lot lower way back when.
It's also money being spent in our own economy.......which people seem to forget.
If muslim terrorists were really out there looking to 'terrorise' us they could do it on an almost daily basis without our government ever being able to stop them.
eg. they could simply walk around with a knife stabbing people and murder hundreds of people before the police even got close to catching them.
Washington snipers
Raul Moat
Anders Behring Breivik
All of those instances of terror were easily done and left governments helpless to protect the people, when these muslims get over the whole public transport obsession and 'waiting for the right time' they could actually cause some real terror with a bit of effort.
Perhaps there is not really the will?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
good glad to see a robust response u! potential threats, rather than being caught out by being to pc
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
It is a great idea, instead of having a single plane crash into just one area, you can blow it up and spread the mess over half the city.
I see nothing wrong with making precautions, if they didnt and a plane needed to be shot down and they could have mobilised missile batteries, then the question woud be why on earthnwas it not done.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 5,717
- Location
- Derbyshire
O/T but. if Terrorists did launch a missile for arguments sake from within London. do we have the means to be quick enough to destroy it before it hits a target.
Just was not sure from how quickly it is picked up on radar (or whatever they use) to being able to shoot it down etc?
Just was not sure from how quickly it is picked up on radar (or whatever they use) to being able to shoot it down etc?
You keep saying things like this but really how do short range missile defences in central London protect the citizens or scare of the terorists, if the threat is big enough to be taken seriously ie a hijacked passenger plane shooting it down over central london is harly protecting the lives of Londons inocent inhabitants.
The deterent effect is minimal purely becuase of the location the terrorist wins either way 'Burning Passenger Jet Smashes into Tower Block on route to Olympic Stadium' is hardly a worse out come for them than 'passenger plane crashes into olympic stadium' either ends the games the next day due to the fear instilled in the world. The key part of Terrorism is the terror bit why do you think the IRA made telephone warnings pretty much everytime they planted a bomb these fundamentalists have done a pretty good job of scaring us so badly we are looking for suicide bombers in every hedge row they must have cost the western world billions without actually doing anything in years.
I say again these missiles will never be fired the consequences of pulling the trigger are far two costly the rules of engagement will be a mess and the permission to engage will never be given.
these missile systems are so close to the centre of the city that the plane would be low enough if being flown to crash on the stadium that there would be no scattering it over half the city, you would just kill lots of people outside the stadium instead of lots of people in the stadium.
Last edited:
Yeah, I quite agree.
Urm, no this is isn't the case. The country is consistently full of weak targets. Football stadiums, trains, stations, cinemas, night clubs etc. The huge number of weak targets are not being hit be terrorists and our jails aren't full of terrorists that have been stopped. The only conclusions to draw is that there aren't hoards of terrorists just waiting for a weak target to present itself.