A few days ago they failed in another attempt, Mise-man.
SAMs to be installed on Gated community roof.
- Thread starter Silurian
- Start date
It's remote-control I worry about
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
I'm just really hoping this gets turned into a comedy series.
Like Fawlty Towers, but with a SAM on the roof and maybe a few other absurd things.
Missed the point. If these people are terrorists, and they want to attack Londoners, presumably these Londoners would be threatened whether there were missiles on their roofs or not.
And we're not talking about an enemy that would try a systematic attack neutralizing enough SAMs to open up an air corridor just to get at the Olympic Park, unless you're dealing with a large modern enemy air force or something. Which you're not. For a terrorist force, attempting to deal with SAMs to open up a flight path for an aircraft would be a) probably counterproductive in requiring too many resources to execute and b) reliant on an awful lot of things to go right to even think of having a chance at hitting Olympic Park. Also, there's the question of keeping that open air corridor open long enough to make a difference. Yeah, okay.
Not sure what that had to do with what I said at all.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I'd think terrorists would glory in getting a nation to shoot down its hijacked airliner as much as it would if it achieved larger ends with it. CNN is talking about surgically-implanted bombings as well.
Not much to say but vigilance pays.
Not much to say but vigilance pays.
Mise
isle of lucy
I don't think that a terrorist organisation would attack a SAM site in preparation for a wider attack using aeroplanes. To me it's more that it legitimises a terrorist attack on those buildings, because they are part-military. A terrorist attack on a civilian building would be roundly condemned, but on a civilian building that has been "repurposed" for military use, the terrorists or organisations/nations sympathetic to the terrorists could argue that the attack highlights Western hypocrisy. A terrorist attack on a random block of flats in London would galvanise the British population against the organisation who conducted the attack, but a terrorist attack on a civilian building that the military put SAMs on top of would cause civilians to question their own military's judgement and competence; a significant part of the population would blame the military for putting SAMs on top of civilian buildings. To me, that's a far more attractive outcome for a terrorist.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
The missiles do increase the chances of the flats being attacked because terrorist have used coordinated attacks before such as 911 which was 4 separate attacks.
An attack on the building in Bow would close the Blackwall Tunnel approach road which runs to the East. This would grid lock the major roads around the Olympic park. The railway to the south of the building stops at the Olympic park and carries a million passengers a week. There are better places where these could be attacked but now there is a good bonus of closing down air traffic over London even if there is no air attack. And as Mise has pointed out the terrorists would use the placement of weapons on homes for propaganda purposes.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Guardian article.
Do these people think at all? If they had been around 70 years ago would they have NIMBYed about flak guns during the blitz?
That's right, a falling, blown to smithereens 707 would clearly be more dangerous than one flown full speed into the olympic stadium.
Do these people think at all? If they had been around 70 years ago would they have NIMBYed about flak guns during the blitz?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
You don't think that there's a slight difference between a situation in which a certain kind of terrorist might conceivable occur but almost certainly won't, and one in the government can actually point at the bombers passing over head and say "those guys"?
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Imagine if terrorists hijacked a plane during the olympics, flew it smack into the stadium during the 100m final and the government hadn't taken a simple, inexpensive, preventative precaution like putting a few small portable SAM sites up in the general area. The fall out would be total worldwide condemnation of the government as well as the terrorists. This is a sensible and proportional measure and will mean that such an attack likely becomes logistically impossible to pull off by any of the organisations that would try it.
The risk is what? That terrorists try to bomb an apartment building (a static, defensible location) instead of fly an airliner into the olympic stadium during peak hours? I know which outcome I find preferable.
As for the argument about hypocrisy, I have never done anything except oppose the bombing of military hardware on people's houses, whichever side does it.
The risk is what? That terrorists try to bomb an apartment building (a static, defensible location) instead of fly an airliner into the olympic stadium during peak hours? I know which outcome I find preferable.
As for the argument about hypocrisy, I have never done anything except oppose the bombing of military hardware on people's houses, whichever side does it.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
So "yes"? "No"?
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Do I see a difference between installing hundreds (thousands?) of flak guns and barrage balloons around London and placing fighter squadrons on high alert during the Blitz on the one hand and putting up a few SAM sites in preparation for the Olympics on the other?
Quantatively, obviously yes there's a huge difference, qualitatively, no: they are both proportional responses to the threat. The only difference from the NIMBY's point of view is that in one situation the Luftwaffe were flying over every other night and in the other a single incident is relatively unlikely. It's still NIMBYism.
Quantatively, obviously yes there's a huge difference, qualitatively, no: they are both proportional responses to the threat. The only difference from the NIMBY's point of view is that in one situation the Luftwaffe were flying over every other night and in the other a single incident is relatively unlikely. It's still NIMBYism.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That wasn't my question.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
You asked if there was a difference. I answered.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I asked if there was a difference in the situation, not in the proposed solution.
It really was a simple question, I've no idea why you're making such a meal of it.
It really was a simple question, I've no idea why you're making such a meal of it.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
So what's your question? Unless it is "Was the Blitz a terrorist attack on the 2012 Olympics?" I feel I have answered it, i've no idea why you're making such a meal of it.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
I think there should be SAMs to protect the Olympic but they should not be placed on the roof of peoples homes. There have been seven years to plan the security for the Olympics and find sites that were not on the roof of peoples homes.
They have chosen these roofs because they are easy and require no effort. They could build a temporary structure the same height as the water tower in Bow; the industrial area on the other side of the A12, closer to the park would be suitable. The tower block on the edge of Wanstead Flats could be replaced by a temporary structure further up the hill towards the gulf course, 1000m further away. Such temporary structures could still be built before the Olympics if there was the desire.
.
If I was going to chose a place to defend it would not be a place where a there are going to be two or three thousand movements by members of the public a day. (700 residents plus visitors coming and going).
I am not sure if you are arguing that it would be better for the terrorists to attack the flats instead of the Olympic Park.
There are many other people who condemn the stationing of military hardware on people's houses and say that the death of the residents when their houses are bombed is unavoidable, and the people who stationed the weapons there are responsible.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
I agree that they could have chosen sites that were not literally on top of civilian areas, although in that part of London there is a limit to how far you can get from someone's home. On the other hand, how secure is a temporary structure in a park and how much would it cost to put up? I am sure the budget for this is not inexhaustable.
The thing I am taking issue with primarily is the idea that this is totally unnecessary.
The thing I am taking issue with primarily is the idea that this is totally unnecessary.
This is clearly a fatuous argument. Bombing a house is totally avoidable.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
If it is so necessary, why is this apparently the first time they have been deployed in this manner? Why isn't the restricted flight zone and the fighter aircraft on standby suddenly not sufficient?
