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

[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.

 

[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.