Poll: 'Stop The Olympic Missiles' and you...

[mad825]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

What makes you think there aren't missile sites dotted around the capital already? These ones are just to advertise that we have a deterrent. The real ones won't have their locations broadcasted in the media for painfully obvious reasons.

Maybe true but the problem is that with SAM sites you need preferably a wide area of open space. Maybe they're on a pulley underground but I highly doubt that.

Most military bases near and around London aren't very spacious.

 

[Raven's Nest]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

What makes you think there aren't missile sites dotted around the capital already? These ones are just to advertise that we have a deterrent. The real ones won't have their locations broadcasted in the media for painfully obvious reasons.

Maybe true but the problem is that with SAM sites you need preferably a wide area of open space. Maybe they're on a pulley underground but I highly doubt that.

Most military bases near and around London aren't very spacious.

There are however, plenty of big government owned buildings with rooftops. MI5 HQ for example.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

This is the first I've heard of it, but I have to wonder what the hell they need the SAM missiles for. I mean shit, what the hell are they expecting? Terrorists in Harriers (shut up, it's the only fighter plane I could think of)?

 

[Westaway]

I don't see the problem, I would love to have some SAMs on my block, I would go chat up the guys operating it in hopes of testing it out.
But seriously, I think it would be fucking cool to have that shit on my block.

 

[Bestival]

I don't really have much of a problem with the missiles but they shouldn't be on top of people's flats. You can see why that would make people uneasy, I mean I certainly wouldn't like it.

I think it's a great idea, and most of the people living in the flats are probably there for free anyway. Quit whining, I say - it's hardly the worst thing about living in said areas!

That's... not very nice

The reason why they are on top of peoples flats is very simple, if they weren't they would hit buildings when launched. Its not very nice but the reality is that the only place where they can be effective is on top of peoples flats. No one likes to live next to sewage farm but without them we would be dying of Colora. The missiles are not going to be there permanently but just for 8 weeks

Yeah but people not wanting missiles on top of where they live isn't exactly whining is it? I wonder if you'd feel the same way if it was your flat?

I would LOVE a fuckin SAM site on my roof, that shit's badass as all hell!


To me this is the same bullshit as people bitching about living next to a prison... Even if an inmate escapes, you really think he's going to be hanging around the fucking prison!? Ofcourse not, dude's gunna bail at full speed.

 

[freaper]

I think it's a goddamned ridiculous and unnecessary piece of security theatre that was forced on the residents of the sites over their very vocal objections. I also think it's really sad that a country that fought off real invasions from Spain, France, and Germany over the centuries should get into such an alarmist pearl-clutching the-sky-might-fall state over an imagined and extremely unlikely threat.

Yea, warfare 70 years ago is really comparable to warfare today. [/sarcasm]

OT: If the missiles don't hinder the residents' daily lives I don't see why the added (psychological) security would be a bad thing. It's not like anti-missile-missiles form a larger target.

 

[Xyliss]

I don't really have much of a problem with the missiles but they shouldn't be on top of people's flats. You can see why that would make people uneasy, I mean I certainly wouldn't like it.

I think it's a great idea, and most of the people living in the flats are probably there for free anyway. Quit whining, I say - it's hardly the worst thing about living in said areas!

That's... not very nice

The reason why they are on top of peoples flats is very simple, if they weren't they would hit buildings when launched. Its not very nice but the reality is that the only place where they can be effective is on top of peoples flats. No one likes to live next to sewage farm but without them we would be dying of Colora. The missiles are not going to be there permanently but just for 8 weeks

Yeah but people not wanting missiles on top of where they live isn't exactly whining is it? I wonder if you'd feel the same way if it was your flat?

To be honest I wouldn't mind...it'd be one of the safer areas around. I would however like to be told about it beforehand, which is what I disagree with in this instance

 

[mad825]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

What makes you think there aren't missile sites dotted around the capital already? These ones are just to advertise that we have a deterrent. The real ones won't have their locations broadcasted in the media for painfully obvious reasons.

Maybe true but the problem is that with SAM sites you need preferably a wide area of open space. Maybe they're on a pulley underground but I highly doubt that.

Most military bases near and around London aren't very spacious.

There are however, plenty of big government owned buildings with rooftops. MI5 HQ for example.

waaay too far.

By the time they are recognized as a potential threat they would already be on a collision course and missiles will only turn them into a flaming ball.

Spoiler: Planned SAM sites

As you can see, the SAM sites are close to the stadium and clear of most tall buildings.

 

[MrPeanut]

Why don't they have turbolaser batteries in London? After all, it's just as likely they get assaulted by Imperial Star Destroyers.

 

[Raven's Nest]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

What makes you think there aren't missile sites dotted around the capital already? These ones are just to advertise that we have a deterrent. The real ones won't have their locations broadcasted in the media for painfully obvious reasons.

Maybe true but the problem is that with SAM sites you need preferably a wide area of open space. Maybe they're on a pulley underground but I highly doubt that.

Most military bases near and around London aren't very spacious.

There are however, plenty of big government owned buildings with rooftops. MI5 HQ for example.

waaay too far.

By the time they are recognized as a potential threat they would already be on a collision course and missiles will only turn them into a flaming ball.

Spoiler: Planned SAM sites

As you can see, the SAM sites are close to the stadium and clear of most tall buildings.

The olympic stadium isn't the only target in London. I'm talking about long term defences not just for the time we are hosting the olympics.

 

[Daverson]

Ok, so here's the thing, if nothing happens that'd require the SAMs to launched, then nothing will happen if they're deployed. The British army is unarguably one of the best (if not the best) trained and disciplined, the chances of one of these missiles being launched accidentally or erroneously is practically non-existent.

The only rational argument I've heard against them being deployed is the danger of shrapnel if they actually hit something. And, yes, this is a valid concern. However, if any kind of hostile aircraft is in range of these missiles, then not shooting it down is guaranteed to cost a huge number of people their lives.

This is simple damage control, weighing the cost in lives of a handful of people who'd be in the wrong place at the wrong time, to the millions of people who'd undoubtedly be the target of such an attack.

 

[Exocet]

I'm sorry, but why is this a problem?

Let's see the cons:
- a weapon on your roof, which you would not even notice in day to day activity

Let's see the pros:
- improved security for hundreds of thousands of people of people
- armed guards near the missiles, deterring burglars, and the "turning a civilian structure into a military target" argument, because terrorists never attack civilian buildings anyways, it's in their code of honor, or something.

So it's really a choice between making some people happy, either: the people living under the missile may be angry that they have to see a missile, or an armed guard a few times per day, or hundreds of thousands of people, who in the worst case scenario receive a plane in their faces.

Yeah, not a hard choice to make. This is mostly a case of: "I would love this community to be powered by wind turbines, but not in MY back yard"

 

[bakan]

I'm actually suprised by how many people are ok with putting missiles on some houses.

Maybe we should install self-destruct devices in planes, too, just to be sure...

 

[mad825]

The olympic stadium isn't the only target in London. I'm talking about long term defences not just for the time we are hosting the olympics.

Their isn't much air defence when you've got to major airports in and around London. Might as well get the old flank AA guns back into service from the battle of Britain or get Star Wars v2.0.

 

[Greni]

This lulzy social paranoia that's been building up in this western world has not gone nearly far enough if missiles on houses is the best they can think of during such a populated wank fest. Put armed guards on every street-corner, double, nay triple the cameras in London, ban social meetings of three or more people.

Constant vigilance, be on your guard, suspect your neighbour, keep an eye on your friends, spy on your family. And of course don't forget to report all suspicious behavior to your local law enforcement agency.

And don't forget to


stay paranoid!

 

[natster43]

I can see why people would not want them on their roof as it seems a tad excessive. Personally though I would be fine with it on my roof.

 

[DEAD34345]

This seems fair enough to me. So long as it's government owned council flats, anyway. When they're giving the lodgings away to people freely in the first place, they should certainly be able to also use them to help protect people at the Olympics. At worst it's a minor inconvenience for a couple of people, and considering it's there in order to improve security and potentially save lives I think that's a small price to pay.

As for whether we actually need the missile sites in the first place, I don't know, but I'm sure they wouldn't be put there without reason. I do not have a very favourable opinion of our government, but even I don't think they'd waste money placing these things if they didn't think it was worthwhile.

 

[Worgen]

Why the fuck are they putting anti-aircraft missiles around the Olympics? are they worried about Russia invading or something? Since when do terrorists use attack choppers or anything that these could be remotely useful against? (no a hijacked airliner would not be a good thing for these to shoot, by the time it was obvious they would even have to use these. The plane would probably be close enough so that instead of one big plane hitting a spot you would end up with lots of wreckage, probably more deadly.)

 

[Tallim]

The missiles have a 20% failure rate and are intolerant of bad weather..........plus they use discarding segments while in flight. Being on the roof of your building probably makes you safer than everyone else if they are used.