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

[Zakarath]

I say it's absurd. What sort of threat are they expecting that needs to have SAM sites everywhere? Terrorists don't usually have access to jet fighters and attack helicopters, and there haven't been any dragons in the UK for thousands of years. Wtf are these missiles for?

I mean, I could see the point in having a sort of antimissile defense like Phalanx CIWS/CRAM systems in case someone managed to get their hands on some rocket-type weapon, which wouldn't be quite as far-fetched, but this seems pretty crazy imo.

 

[ReadyAmyFire]

Aren't there Hague/Geneva Convention articles against this kind of thing?

 

[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...

That would be the El-Al policy. There is a reason people stopped hyjacking them. They have a response program in place and even with the public parts you know that their official policy is to bring a plane down before allowing it to be taken.

Of course millies on top of buildings doesn't destroy those buildings so your analogy is silly anyway.

It only damages neighbouring buildings because of how they discard parts (in case of firing).
It also goes behind my understanding how freaking AA missiles would help anyway, it's not as if another country wants to invade the UK during the Olympics and I didn't hear of terrorist groups flying around in choppers and jets attacking stuff.

Seriously, this is the point where it goes too far.

 

[Bestival]

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.)

No, a Boeing 767 ploughing into a stadium packed with tens of thousands of people will always cause more casualties than the debris raining down of one that's been blown to shit. It will cause some damage to cars and houses sure, but most pieces will be too small to actually break through roofs, and a huge amount will land in parks/streets/gardens. Sure there might be people outside that get hit, but it will always be less than the stadium.
Also it's not unthinkable to make the area around the stadium a No Fly Zone, giving ample time to shoot the hijacked plane down since all planes in the area are instantly suspicious.

This is worst case scenario of course, and best case scenario is that they won't be needed. In which case it doesn't matter that they're there anyway.

 

[RobDaBank]

As said in Armageddon, 'It's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it'

I know its probably a tad paranoid, and possibly excessive, but WHAT IF there was an attack? The uproar over the militaries failure to defend us would be horrendous.

 

[Nickolai77]

I can appreciate that residents might not like the idea of a SAM launcher being placed on their roofs but it's to counter what i think is a credible security risk- terror attack from the air. It's not like terrorist attacks haven't happened before at olympic venues before. Plus- It's only temporary, at the end of the summer the SAMS's will be gone.

 

[The Lunatic]

I think providing enough protection that an airborne attack isn't even considerable is a good idea.

These sites will also be protected, likely by armed personnel.

Chances of these being attacked is extremely slim.

 

[evilneko]

It all boils down to money, dear boy. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoneyDearBoy]

Can they stop an air attack without the ground-based missiles?

Yes. Very much so.

Can they do it more cheaply with SAMs?

Yes. Very much so.

 

[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.)

No, a Boeing 767 ploughing into a stadium packed with tens of thousands of people will always cause more casualties than the debris raining down of one that's been blown to shit. It will cause some damage to cars and houses sure, but most pieces will be too small to actually break through roofs, and a huge amount will land in parks/streets/gardens. Sure there might be people outside that get hit, but it will always be less than the stadium.
Also it's not unthinkable to make the area around the stadium a No Fly Zone, giving ample time to shoot the hijacked plane down since all planes in the area are instantly suspicious.

This is worst case scenario of course, and best case scenario is that they won't be needed. In which case it doesn't matter that they're there anyway.

London has 5 airports around it, there are gonna be planes in the air, its a bigger risk that someone would get an itchy trigger finger and shoot one down, rather then someone actually high-jack one. Assuming of course those are real missiles and not just dummies to make it look like they are doing something. Its much more likely that some asshole would just do a homemade bomb, that seems to happen in almost every Olympics.

 

[dfphetteplace]

Does anyone really think there is going to be a missile attack during the Olympics? Just seems to be the military trying to show off their dicks.

 

[Private Custard]

I don't understand what they're moaning about, they will never have been so safe in their lives.

I say we should have rapier missile batteries on every structure taller than 50ft. Fuck 'em!

EDIT: Just to validate my argument. Better to shoot something down and probably destroy a street than have it come crashing into a stadium containing 80,000 people. Sounds heartless I know, but the numbers don't lie.

Anti-terrorism laws being used for pointless things, like persecuting innocent photographers for pointing their lenses at the police/government buildings etc, is wrong. But terrorism still exists, and as we all know, they love a big and very public target. This is a valid anti-terrorist measure.

 

[Daveman]

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!

Regardless of if it's free I doubt it said in the tenancy agreement "we reserve the right to turn your rooftop into an anti-air missile platform".

I'm not sure what good they'll go in the centre of London anyway. Surely if we shoot anything in the air that'll just mean a shitload of debris falling just about anywhere? Last I checked we still had jets. We could use them to intercept anything before it got there, or do the terrorists have stealth bombers now?

Just seems generally a little crazy is all.

 

[KeyMaster45]

Hating these Olympics, way to bankrupt the country.

Just ask Greece how they got on!

From what I understand, Greece had economic problems that had been brewing long before the Olympics brought the riotous hordes of international sports fans to its doorstep.

OT: I think I'd be more worried if there wasn't somebody protesting it. Though frankly I think both sides have something of a "sky is falling" attitude.

The missiles on roofs is a bit much considering they're there to counter the slim chance of an air based attack, but they're putting somebody important's mind at ease and probably a damn sight cheaper than having fighter jets circle the area 24/7 during the games. The people freaking out about the missiles on the roofs are overreacting though.

Yes, I can see being upset that the military just plopped some missiles on your roof without asking, but in the end they're just going to sit there and bother exactly no one. Well it might bother the poor bastards who have to sit on the roof and keep an eye on them.(who, despite being in the military, probably have a million other places they'd rather be than on top of an apartment complex watching some missiles rust in the London fog) I also imagine that the security around the buildings will be a bit beefier than usual, so I'd consider that something of a perk.

Of course this could all just be a ruse and the missiles are really there to keep the mutant gargoyle monsters, which plague the London skies at night, from disrupting the event. They are a national secret of course, so any that get shot down will not be reported.

 

[Neonit]

sigh, that reminds me of the big anti missile shield project, and why people are against it.

lets say that i am a terrorist leader, and i plan to drop a plane on a stadium. I KNOW there are missile launchers placed on top of flats. i know WHICH ones. if i have the menpower and materials to hijack a plane, avoid interceptors AND standard AA installations.... how much of a trouble would it be for me to place a few extra bombs... you know, in a flat that is unguarded?

this whole situation puts them at risk. ANY risk that is created by government should be compensated by government. now, i dont claim i know everything about this whole situation, just what ive heard from the news, but from my point of view - people are being put at risk by government. that should not happen, at least in a way that is happening right now - because it SCREAMS chaos, and that my friend, is exactly what "they" want.

but thats just my opinion.

edit: oh yeah, and lets not forget that such a roof isnt designed to hold a missile launcher. we dont know how much they weight, less how much of an impact they generate on launch. im not saying it would drop right through the roof, but it could damage the whole construction. you know, small cracks that get larger every time temperature shifts...

 

[Atmos Duality]

Huh. Is it wrong that the only thing I'm thinking right now is the line from Weird Science:
"A missile. A missile! A MISSILE IN MY HOUSE, GARY!"

 

[Imat]

Yeah, I imagine they aren't exactly going to be over the moon about it, though I disagree that they'll be targets (terrorist organisations want to hit civilians, not fight the military).

Right, and these people are civilians. With missiles on their flats. Missiles meant to stop air-based attacks. It's not hard to see why they'd be a target.

However, how much right does a person living in a house that someone else owns have in saying what that person does with their house? I think the government (and the military) are justified

Again, you're basically saying that because it's not their house the government can just dick them over. Well no they can't. This shit might fly in China but not here.

I mean that food they bought isn't technically theirs it's the government's. It's cool for them to just take it then right?

their business isn't to ensure everyone is happy.

Kinda is

That really isn't the job of the government. The government exists to protect, or at least that is what it should exist for. Anything else is extra, so that you'll put people back in office when they want it, despite them raising taxes to pay for this program that you'll never even see.

Anywho, if they are living in free housing, provided by the government, they'll just have to deal. They can think of it as a "property tax" that doesn't cost them a cent. If it is their own housing that they pay for the matter is different. They should've had a say in that case, and should at the very least receive some sort of compensation in the form of rent from the missile-toting soldiers who get this nice little roof all to themselves.

 

[chadachada123]

I would personally volunteer my house to have missile sites on top of it if the Olympics were nearby. How freaking awesome would that be?

However, I can understand why some people that aren't as awesome would whine about it being done without permission.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I say it's absurd. What sort of threat are they expecting that needs to have SAM sites everywhere? Terrorists don't usually have access to jet fighters and attack helicopters, and there haven't been any dragons in the UK for thousands of years. Wtf are these missiles for?

Since 911, the UK military has helicopters constantly in the air watching aircraft for suspicious movement (in lieu of building a radar station on a really tall tower). SAM missiles on flats? Mind you, might help if the dragons are walking along teh ground.

I mean, I could see the point in having a sort of antimissile defense like Phalanx CIWS/CRAM systems in case someone managed to get their hands on some rocket-type weapon, which wouldn't be quite as far-fetched, but this seems pretty crazy imo.

Er...if you have one of those turned on, it will constantly start firing at anything flying around in the area. Radar glitches and pigeons would send thousands of 20mm rounds around London.