Missiles on blocks of flats for Olympics
to be honest, it is all about prevention rather than the reality of shooting down anything.
We have gone public on where all the sites will be, they know there are jets that can identify a target and launch a missile pretty much 30 miles away. Any potential terrorist will know what they are up against. It makes their job a lot harder, but not impossible. It is just another level of security in the long line of prevention.
I suspect that if the worst was to happen, the only person more fearful than the bloke with his finger on the trigger will be David Cameron, who for 2 weeks over the Olympics, blood running cold, every time the "bat-phone" starts ringing, so to speak,
We have gone public on where all the sites will be, they know there are jets that can identify a target and launch a missile pretty much 30 miles away. Any potential terrorist will know what they are up against. It makes their job a lot harder, but not impossible. It is just another level of security in the long line of prevention.
I suspect that if the worst was to happen, the only person more fearful than the bloke with his finger on the trigger will be David Cameron, who for 2 weeks over the Olympics, blood running cold, every time the "bat-phone" starts ringing, so to speak,
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 78
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"to be honest, it is all about prevention rather than the reality of shooting down anything."
And how is threatening to shoot down airliners going to deter terrorists?
Reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where someone escapes by holding himself hostage!
If I were a terrorist would be delighted that the authorities offer such assistance.
And how is threatening to shoot down airliners going to deter terrorists?
Reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where someone escapes by holding himself hostage!
If I were a terrorist would be delighted that the authorities offer such assistance.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear me! We love to ridicule journos for their dimness and lack of understanding but that doesn't prevent some of out members eclipsing that a hundredfold does it?
Surely, surely even dimmest amongst us can see that what that achieves is in the ultimate event it drops a pile of wreckage somewhere, anywhere, where it cannot do a thousandth of the damage that it would if plunged into the Olympic Stadium killing 50,000 or wiping out the House of Commons (I'll refrain from the witless sarcasm that is bound to follow that statement).
For those without a sense of proportion it is called "Damage Limitation" and given the threat it would be criminally irresponsible not to take such a precaution.
Surely, surely even dimmest amongst us can see that what that achieves is in the ultimate event it drops a pile of wreckage somewhere, anywhere, where it cannot do a thousandth of the damage that it would if plunged into the Olympic Stadium killing 50,000 or wiping out the House of Commons (I'll refrain from the witless sarcasm that is bound to follow that statement).
For those without a sense of proportion it is called "Damage Limitation" and given the threat it would be criminally irresponsible not to take such a precaution.
The facts are that these missiles are the last line of defence and as such will have failed to achieve any purpose whatsoever if used. A large passenger aircraft crashing, controlled or not, into the massive target which is London will cause catastrophic carnage regardless of any preposterous theory that shooting it down will somehow limit the damage. Besides, the inertia built in to the decision to shoot it down will guarantee that won't happen.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrant nonsense!
I think examples of large aircraft accidents in urban areas show that whilst there can be significant casualties on the ground, there are - more often than not - relatively few casualties on the ground compared to the lives lost on board. Contrast that to a scenario where aircraft are deliberately flown into large buildings.
So I'd respectively suggest that allowing an aircraft to crash into a packed stadium or a tower block would probably cause massively more casualties than an engagement.
That's not to say I would regard stopping such a scenario as a 'success' - it would obviously be a tragedy - but in the extremely unlikely event it was to happen I would view it as the least worst option. Utilitarian perhaps, but not IMHO 'preposterous'.
Last edited by Clearedtoroll; 20th Jul 2012 at 19:48.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East sussex
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it be easer for the naughty boys to flush Semtex down the loo with a timer? No sh8t jokes please. The sewage system in London would be a plethora of various routes. Lucky dip?
Daz
Daz
Last edited by dazdaz1; 20th Jul 2012 at 19:52.
And how is threatening to shoot down airliners going to deter terrorists?
Reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where someone escapes by holding himself hostage!
If I were a terrorist would be delighted that the authorities offer such assistance.
Reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where someone escapes by holding himself hostage!
If I were a terrorist would be delighted that the authorities offer such assistance.
Quite a difference
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there's definitely some polarised opinions on here aren't there?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam, as I said there are some people here who seem unequipped with a sense of proportion and you are clearly one. If you really think it is better to let someone fly an aeroplane into a stadium containing 100,000 people than to down it first, even into an urban area then you qualify fully for a number of epithets and doubting the intelligence of such a view is more than valid. I assume you'd prefer to have no final backstop at all and just risk it?
Just how is damage limitation an "off the wall" view? Dear oh dear...but clearly the Gov't and their security services suffer from off the wall thinking too...
Just how is damage limitation an "off the wall" view? Dear oh dear...but clearly the Gov't and their security services suffer from off the wall thinking too...
How the **** to you 'deter' suicide terrorists with SAM's ?
'Oh dear - we might die slightly earlier than expected - we will still however murder all of the passengers we managed to take hostage, crash the 'plane into a major city with a good dense population & kill untold numbers on the ground AND leave behind years of recrimination, pain, wailing & gnashing of teeth while they debate how a supposedly free and humane government can sanction shooting down innocent civilians over a city...not to mention the class action law suits and international political fall out'
Anyone claiming 'deterrent' or 'well we get to choose where the innocent die' or 'well it's better than a direct hit on a stadium' is an utter dehumanized numpty of the lowest order.
'Oh dear - we might die slightly earlier than expected - we will still however murder all of the passengers we managed to take hostage, crash the 'plane into a major city with a good dense population & kill untold numbers on the ground AND leave behind years of recrimination, pain, wailing & gnashing of teeth while they debate how a supposedly free and humane government can sanction shooting down innocent civilians over a city...not to mention the class action law suits and international political fall out'
Anyone claiming 'deterrent' or 'well we get to choose where the innocent die' or 'well it's better than a direct hit on a stadium' is an utter dehumanized numpty of the lowest order.
Last edited by Load Toad; 21st Jul 2012 at 08:54.
Agaricus, well said.
This is about increasing the options and increasing the time for making a very unwanted decision. With no backstop as you so rightly term it, there might be no option but to take down an aircraft much further out.
Since the HVM capability exists, one can just imagine the "expert" criticism afterwards if we failed to deploy it and it turned out to be needed after all.
Hopefully this will all turn out to be academic.
This is about increasing the options and increasing the time for making a very unwanted decision. With no backstop as you so rightly term it, there might be no option but to take down an aircraft much further out.
Since the HVM capability exists, one can just imagine the "expert" criticism afterwards if we failed to deploy it and it turned out to be needed after all.
Hopefully this will all turn out to be academic.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 78
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying into a tower block on a relatively even path at a constant elevation is a different problem compared to finding then diving into a stadium at ground level.
Apart from target acquisition, the acceleration due to sticking the pointy end downwards,etc has to be allowed for.
If a member of your family was killed because a (possibly) crashing plane was diverted elsewhere, would you be delighted and thank whoever was responsible?
Apart from target acquisition, the acceleration due to sticking the pointy end downwards,etc has to be allowed for.
If a member of your family was killed because a (possibly) crashing plane was diverted elsewhere, would you be delighted and thank whoever was responsible?
This all presumes that it's a large commercial passenger jet. It could equally be a small private aircraft packed with explosives, or other material.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are they going to put them there ??
Underslung load from a Chinook ??
Underslung load from a Chinook ??
Image pinched from Aviation Archive: Aviation Heritage.
Last edited by Windy Militant; 21st Jul 2012 at 11:29.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Arrant nonsense!
Well there's definitely some polarised opinions on here aren't there?
I think examples of large aircraft accidents in urban areas show that whilst there can be significant casualties on the ground, there are - more often than not - relatively few casualties on the ground compared to the lives lost on board. Contrast that to a scenario where aircraft are deliberately flown into large buildings.
So I'd respectively suggest that allowing an aircraft to crash into a packed stadium or a tower block would probably cause massively more casualties than an engagement.
That's not to say I would regard stopping such a scenario as a 'success' - it would obviously be a tragedy - but in the extremely unlikely event it was to happen I would view it as the least worst option. Utilitarian perhaps, but not IMHO 'preposterous'.
Arrant nonsense!
Well there's definitely some polarised opinions on here aren't there?
I think examples of large aircraft accidents in urban areas show that whilst there can be significant casualties on the ground, there are - more often than not - relatively few casualties on the ground compared to the lives lost on board. Contrast that to a scenario where aircraft are deliberately flown into large buildings.
So I'd respectively suggest that allowing an aircraft to crash into a packed stadium or a tower block would probably cause massively more casualties than an engagement.
That's not to say I would regard stopping such a scenario as a 'success' - it would obviously be a tragedy - but in the extremely unlikely event it was to happen I would view it as the least worst option. Utilitarian perhaps, but not IMHO 'preposterous'.
The way I see it, an engagement at least allows the possibility of no more fatalities; the wreckage could come down in an open area. There are parklands and bodies of water, even in London.
Granted, 0 casualties on the ground is probably not going to happen, but there is at least a chance. There is a greater chance that the casualties will be relatively modest. Whereas if some nutter plants a jet into a packed stadium the death toll will probably be thousands.
Its a no brainer.
If a member of your family was killed because a (possibly) crashing plane was diverted elsewhere, would you be delighted and thank whoever was responsible?
The idea that a small number of people might need to be put at risk to protect a much larger number of people ought to be something that any current or ex-serviceman ought to understand imho.
pb
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,042
Received 2,916 Likes
on
1,248 Posts
End of the day they have already won...
