Surface-to-air missiles for the Olympics

clv101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

i think the point is there will be an added number of people over the norm in london during the olympics to make the target worthwhile. having said that, im sure over the christmas period all the major city centers are probably just as busy and a lot easier to attack. plus, im pretty sure christmas killings would make a pretty huge media event, so you cant put it down to media during the olympics being the main factor.
 
clv101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes but it is the impact it would have on not just us in the UK. You are correct, there are 'weaker' targets week in week out but the impact to us and the rest of the world would be far less at say a cinema in bristol than a stadium full of people for the WORLD olympics.
 
a1ex2001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

To begin with the operational range of even the most basic SAM defence system is 3 miles or so, which would allow aircraft to be shot down a) at significant height b) before they enter Central London's airspace. Secondly, an airliner that crashes into a population centre is far more devastating than one which had been hit by multiple missiles, so even if debris was to hit Central London the effect would be significantly less than if the airliner had been in one piece.

a1ex2001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know quite a bot about terrorism as it goes, and I think you need to consider that amount of work that goes into actually making sure that these and other groups do not have either the opportunity or the resources to attack the UK......for every terror plot you may hear about on the news, you can be guaranteed that their are many many others that you are not aware or informed about.

a1ex2001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, let us hope that you are right. However I don't think you know exactly what a surface to air missile defence system actually does....



a1ex2001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think that these systems are line of sight??????
 
paradisiac said:
i think the point is there will be an added number of people over the norm in london during the olympics to make the target worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Worthwhile? Do you really think the terrorists are sitting around thinking about the cost-benefit of various attacks have rejected all the other mass gatherings in favour of the Olympics?
paradisiac said:
having said that, im sure over the christmas period all the major city centers are probably just as busy and a lot easier to attack. plus, im pretty sure christmas killings would make a pretty huge media event, so you cant put it down to media during the olympics being the main factor.
Click to expand...
Media? Is there any correlation between media interest and terrorists attacks? It seems not. The big attacks in the past have all occurred on perfectly normal days. Not special events. There's no reason to expect special events are any more of a target than any random Tuesday morning.
 
clv101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are right there are not hoards of terrorists....although the Newry Bomb found on Thursday does underline that they do actually exist and are not the invention of the Government as a way to control the population or turn the UK into a Police State as some seem to think.

The issue here is not that there are soft targets everywhere, but that the Olympics is a major global event and that as soft targets go it is pretty tempting to just about every nutter with an axe to grind.

The potential deployments (and remember we are talking about an exercise operation here, not a final decision) are being considered to cover every eventuality...and deploying a few air defence systems in strategic positions in and around London is hardly something to get all hot under the collar about.

Better to be safe than sorry, and the cost is pretty irrelevant compared to the total cost of the Olympics and the actual and potential value the Olympics has to our economy. Remember, money spent on the Olympics and during the Olympics is money spent in our economy, and as such is not wasted money.
 
clv101 said:
Media? Is there any correlation between media interest and terrorists attacks? It seems not. The big attacks in the past have all occurred on perfectly normal days. Not special events. There's no reason to expect special events are any more of a target than any random Tuesday morning.
Click to expand...

i thought he point of terrorism to was cause mass terror. without the media, then 99% of the world would not know about the attacks therefore no terror spread.
i also believed the point of it was to cause as much disruption as possible. which again, attacking a single football match would disrupt a very small percentage of people, whereas the olympic games would cause a lot. much like a christmas attack would.
 
mmj_uk said:
just look at Anders Behring Breivik he's probably killed more people than all muslim terrorists combined since 7/7.

Worst terrorists in history.
Click to expand...

In the UK maybe, but outside the UK... suicide bombings are almost a weekly event in some parts of the middle east.

As for the missles, I don't agree, I think its mentally paranoid. The only threat I can think of is from another airline outside of the US/EU surely all of our security measures pretty much guarantee that hijackers cant take over planes anymore? unless they know how to pick cockpit doors...

I have this image in my head of loads of Cessnas painted green flying towards the olympic stadium with flight of the valkyries playing.
 
Last edited:
What kind of SAMs are they talking about here anyway...if they are simply Starstreaks then they are MPADS and the costs would be negligible......
 
Castiel said:
Better to be safe than sorry, and the cost is pretty irrelevant compared to the total cost of the Olympics and the actual and potential value the Olympics has to our economy. Remember, money spent on the Olympics and during the Olympics is money spent in our economy, and as such is not wasted money.
Click to expand...

It is wasted money when the state investment far outwieghs the revenue actually being brought into the country, the Olympic games rarely if ever turns a profit or leaves anything constituting a significant legacy. The direct security cost that we know about has already balooned to have £550 million and I bet that doesn't include anything like all the real costs.

Even the ridiculously paranoid Americans don't publicly deploy surface to air missiles ahead of the superbowl so why are we planning it ahead of the Olympics. It's just a bunch of people in an office dreaming up scenarios to justify there jobs and the size of our armed forces. that statistics clearly show the risk of a terrorist attack in this country of any form is tiny let alone a crashing airliner scenario which would be clear cut enough to allow us to shoot down a passenger plane over London.
 
First they don't let you take photographs in public places, then they sue you for using the words twenty twelve or 2012 and then they threaten to take down any pictures or video you take of the day and dare post online.

Now they ramp up the security theatre.

Really great this winning the Olympic bid, isn't it?
 
a1ex2001 said:
It is wasted money when the state investment far outwieghs the revenue actually being brought into the country, the Olympic games rarely if ever turns a profit or leaves anything constituting a significant legacy. The direct security cost that we know about has already balooned to have £550 million and I bet that doesn't include anything like all the real costs.
Click to expand...

You do not understand the economic effect that State investment has then.....for example Jobs. The money is being spent in our economy, it benefits our economy. Whether the Olympics turns a profit or not (and you will find that even if the event doesn't, the associated revenue will) it is still boosting our economy. I'm not bothered about the Olympics tbh, but a lot of people are and I know a lit of people who are benefiting financially directly because of the Olympics.

a1ex2001 said:
Even the ridiculously paranoid Americans don't publicly deploy surface to air missiles ahead of the superbowl so why are we planning it ahead of the Olympics. It's just a bunch of people in an office dreaming up scenarios to justify there jobs and the size of our armed forces. that statistics clearly show the risk of a terrorist attack in this country of any form is tiny let alone a crashing airliner scenario which would be clear cut enough to allow us to shoot down a passenger plane over London.
Click to expand...

Actually they do.............along with 30mile no fly zones, Hazmat teams, CDC teams, Air Combat support, X ray lorries, and so on....they even spent out hundreds of thousands of dollars on replacing manhole covers for ones that were bomb proof and not allowing camera lenses to be longer than 15cm.....Americans are paranoid, you are right, but what harm does a bit of paranoia actually do in these situations?
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
So they are simple MPADS then, rather than fixed mobile installations? If they are putting Rapiers in then they have pretty sophisticated radar.
Click to expand...

No no they're using the little tiny rockets that look like toys. Hawkeye or something. Guided by those big monocular things. Sorry, don't know the 24 lingo!

Edit: I mean Starstreak. Not sure where I got Hawkeye from.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
Paranoid Americans don't publicly deploy surface to air missiles ahead of the superbowl so why are we planning it ahead of the Olympics. It's just a bunch of people in an office dreaming up scenarios to justify there jobs and the size of our armed forces. that statistics clearly show the risk of a terrorist attack in this country of any form is tiny let alone a crashing airliner scenario which would be clear cut enough to allow us to shoot down a passenger plane over London.
Click to expand...

From another site:

"The winter games in 2002 in SLC had unprecedented military participation. There were radar and missile emplacements all over the foothills and there were troops all over the place including Apache helicopters and F-16's patrolling the skies during the days major events. The SLC international airport was off limits entirely to unscheduled flights and the military was authorized to shoot down any plane violating SLC airspace."
 
Zbornak said:
No no they're using the little tiny rockets that look like toys. Hawkeye or something. Guided by those big monocular things. Sorry, don't know the 24 lingo!

Edit: I mean Starstreak. Not sure where I got Hawkeye from.
Click to expand...

That is what I said earlier, if they are using Starstreaks then the costs are pretty negligible as they are man portable. They are SACLOS systems and are multirole missiles, not only air defence.
 
Well at least the guys piloting the things will have a cracking view of London during the olypmics, just hope they load up on sunscreen & brews ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom