Surface-to-air missiles may be put on London flats during Olympics - Polidicks

Well, imagine if there was some sort of airborne attack during the games. Would you then criticize the government for not deploying readily available assets to combat such a threat? I'd imagine, yes probably, given recent history. Then again, I'm not saying its a good or bad thing we are deploying them, just a sad reminder of the world we live in at the moment.

[QUOTE=MIPS;35750224]I love when the Olympics happened in Vancouver there was pretty much nothing for security besides a higher than normal police and military presence. No high fences, additional cameras, or air defense systems. Just a lot of people on foot. amazingly, nothing happened. The UK seems to think people have it in for them.[/QUOTE] 7/7 bombings were only just under 7 years ago, so that could be why, not just an irrational fear of being bombed

Call me crackers, but I'd call a terrorist attack pretty damned successful if they got their missiles in the air/aircraft on the way/whatever it is. Even if they get shot down people will still know what's happened and depending on the range, debris everywhere over a crowded Olympic village (If not the stadium/park itself then the miles of surrounding hotels, car parks, train stations, shops... And further out various shitty council estates.) Better to have a 'worst case' final ring of missile batteries than not I suppose. Twisted metal landing all over the place is still better than shit blowing up entirely. Oh and while I was there for my dad running some event around the park/stadium it was also basically a dress-rehearsal for the ground security staff... We accidentally brought in all sorts without incident. Reassuring!

[QUOTE=Mingebox;35752031]Why are they on high alert if terrorists wouldn't want to attack?[/QUOTE] Because of national fear and paranoia.

If I was a terrorist organization, I'd be making olympics my temporary top priority. It's a perfect event for their goals. Can't exactly blame UK for securing the place.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35757999]If I was a terrorist organization, I'd be making olympics my temporary top priority. It's a perfect event for their goals. Can't exactly blame UK for securing the place.[/QUOTE]If I were a terrorist organization, I would be using car and backpack bombs instead of aircraft. [editline]00[/editline] What's that noise? [editline]00[/editline] OH SHI- [editline]00[/editline] Of course, they're probably going to have quite a bit of security to prevent such a thing.

I've thought for a while that terrorists who try to hijack planes are dumb - why not blow up a bus or a train or something, literally [i]anything[/i] is easier than a plane

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;35750172]Iirc China had missiles back in '08[/QUOTE]China always has missiles :v

I wonder what would happen if you flew a large RC airplane carrying stink-bombs over the stadium. . . Would it get shot down by a SAM?

[quote]The Army website says the HVM system is "designed to counter threats from very high performance, low-flying aircraft". It says the missile travels at more than three times the speed of sound, using "a system of three dart-like projectiles to allow multiple hits on the target". The missiles can be fired from the shoulder, from a lightweight multiple launcher or from armoured vehicles.[/quote] Oh god, they are deploying starstreaks. They are going to have guys sitting on the water tower with shoulder launched missiles. What the hell do they plan on doing with those? First of all, they aren't terribly good MANPADS. Who makes a surface to air missile require a laser guidance by the operator from start to finish? Second of all, MANPADS almost universally aim to disable aircraft and then let gravity bring them down. Eventually. Helicopters being the most vulnerable followed by fixed with fighter aircraft (assuming you can actually paint a fighter aircraft attempting to avoid your missile). But the terrorist aircraft of choice is a transport aircraft such as a 737. Shoot a 737 with a starstreak and all you have is a 737 with some holes in it. Even assuming you manage to hit the engine (again, laser guided, not heat seeking. A stinger would specifically destroy the engine, as it is the heat producing portion of the aircraft, but a starstreak is much more likely to collide with the fuselage, as it is the largest component and easiest to paint.), even the smallest of the major passenger aircraft have two engines and can maintain flight for a significant period of time on one engine, if not indefinitely (fuel permitting). Basically you can shoot a passenger aircraft with several of these and likely have little to no effect on it still colliding with any major group of people. If they are expecting an attack from gunship helicopters, then these would be perfect, buuuuut I doubt that is really the threat they expect.

[QUOTE=GunFox;35759219]First of all, they aren't terribly good MANPADS. Who makes a surface to air missile require a laser guidance by the operator from start to finish?[/QUOTE] People who realize the value of trick shots. Haven't you played any videogames made in the last decade? Being able to make a missile do a loop and hit something from another angle is tremendously useful, particularly against alien gunships.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35759427]People who realize the value of trick shots. Haven't you played any videogames made in the last decade? Being able to make a missile do a loop and hit something from another angle is tremendously useful, particularly against alien gunships.[/QUOTE] Style points....you make an excellent point. Shoot down an aircraft and they send more. Sign your name with the missile exhaust trail and THEN shoot down an aircraft and they might reconsider! :P

Don't forget Terrorists have hit the olympic games/ teams multiple times in the past

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35759427]People who realize the value of trick shots. Haven't you played any videogames made in the last decade? Being able to make a missile do a loop and hit something from another angle is tremendously useful, particularly against alien gunships.[/QUOTE] I know this is a joke post but you can't even do that with these, being beam-riding.

[QUOTE=GunFox;35759219]Oh god, they are deploying starstreaks. They are going to have guys sitting on the water tower with shoulder launched missiles. What the hell do they plan on doing with those? First of all, they aren't terribly good MANPADS. Who makes a surface to air missile require a laser guidance by the operator from start to finish? Second of all, MANPADS almost universally aim to disable aircraft and then let gravity bring them down. Eventually. Helicopters being the most vulnerable followed by fixed with fighter aircraft (assuming you can actually paint a fighter aircraft attempting to avoid your missile). But the terrorist aircraft of choice is a transport aircraft such as a 737. Shoot a 737 with a starstreak and all you have is a 737 with some holes in it. Even assuming you manage to hit the engine (again, laser guided, not heat seeking. A stinger would specifically destroy the engine, as it is the heat producing portion of the aircraft, but a starstreak is much more likely to collide with the fuselage, as it is the largest component and easiest to paint.), even the smallest of the major passenger aircraft have two engines and can maintain flight for a significant period of time on one engine, if not indefinitely (fuel permitting). Basically you can shoot a passenger aircraft with several of these and likely have little to no effect on it still colliding with any major group of people. If they are expecting an attack from gunship helicopters, then these would be perfect, buuuuut I doubt that is really the threat they expect.[/QUOTE] I [I]think[/I] the threat they anticipate is small aircraft, which would explain their focus on using helicopters for interception. It's still a terrible choice though, I don't get why they don't use something more sophisticated though. From what I understand they have the stinger at their disposal if they wanted to use it. To be honest though, when I heard this news I expected "proper" SAMs like China had around during their Olympics. Although I don't even know what the UK has for that purpose.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;35755509]It's actually extremely expensive, extremely time consuming to plan, and extremely secure. His limousine not only is armored, but it also has it's own air filtration system to protect from biological/viral agents. He even has his own personal ambulance that is completely armored and outfitted with defenses along with everything he could need if he were injured. They even stock up on his bloodtype prior to every trip he makes amongst the public. I watched a thing on the Secret Service the other night, it was really fascinating.[/QUOTE] Holy shit we watched the same show at the same time. Let me guess, Discovery channel

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;35751545]And then when the games were here in america? Russia didn't even show up. Or was it the other way around? Either way, example still works.[/QUOTE] The Carter Administration pulled US athletes from the 1980 Moscow Olympics because of the invasion of Afghanistan. A bunch of other countries followed in the boycott as-well.

[QUOTE=MIPS;35750224]I love when the Olympics happened in Vancouver there was pretty much nothing for security besides a higher than normal police and military presence. No high fences, additional cameras, or air defense systems. Just a lot of people on foot. amazingly, nothing happened. The UK seems to think people have it in for them.[/QUOTE] I remember I read an article a while back saying that if the UK didn't step up the defence with missiles and shit that the USA would become angry and send a battleship over to the UK to do it for them Or something along those lines I don't remember the details

[QUOTE=smurfy;35750199]Why would a terrorist try to attack the Olympic Games, when the security services are on highest alert?[/QUOTE] Uh, because they've done it in the past? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre[/url] And what kind of logic is that? The reason terrorists won't attack is because we have all of this security. If you're advocating taking away the security because they won't attack, then they will attack.

Wait, they do know that when you hit a plane with a missile it doesn't magically disappear, right? It creates a giant fucking tube of burning death, or a fuck ton of shrapnel.

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;35755276]It may seem over the top, but safety first. ...even though if they shoot down a plane you still got the debris of it falling all around london[/QUOTE] Seems to me thats more likely to happen than something actually dangerous, like hearing a noise in the house, grabbing the gun, going to look for what it was and shoot yourself/someone/the dog by mistake.

[QUOTE=Crimor;35764991]Wait, they do know that when you hit a plane with a missile it doesn't magically disappear, right? It creates a giant fucking tube of burning death, or a fuck ton of shrapnel.[/QUOTE] Wow how did we not see this before? Might as well let it fly into its target then.

[QUOTE=Crimor;35764991]Wait, they do know that when you hit a plane with a missile it doesn't magically disappear, right? It creates a giant fucking tube of burning death, or a fuck ton of shrapnel.[/QUOTE] Imo, while any lost of life is horrible, it'd be better to lose a few people than tens of thousands of people.

[QUOTE=winsanity;35765037]Imo, while any lost of life is horrible, it'd be better to lose a few people than tens of thousands of people.[/QUOTE] A portable sam site won't have that long of a range, 50 km at best probably. And if they choose to go the flak route to make it easier to make an effective curtain without blowing out windows when firing, the range is a few km at best.

[QUOTE=Crimor;35765348]A portable sam site won't have that long of a range, 50 km at best probably. And if they choose to go the flak route to make it easier to make an effective curtain without blowing out windows when firing, the range is a few km at best.[/QUOTE] Dude if you're shooting down a 747 filled with 300 people, no one gives a fuck if you shatter a couple windows. What don't you get?

I was just pointing out the windows as a minor thing, the main thing will be that if they're using a plane, they'll most likely have it full fucking throttle towards that place, which makes it keep flying for a good while, turning it either into a shrapnel bomb, a firebomb, or just a great big metal tube saying fuck you to whatever it hits. A smarter idea to be honest would just be to up the in plane security while the games are playing, like having armed guards on the plane itself.

[QUOTE=Crimor;35765452] A smarter idea to be honest would just be to up the in plane security while the games are playing, like having armed guards on the plane itself.[/QUOTE] An even smarter idea, which they are actually doing is to restrict all of central London's airspace and have special regulations in place in the surrounding airspace to allow anything acting suspicious to be intercepted (and if needed, dealt with) over an area that isn't built up. I think the SAM site idea is a last resort if the interception plans do not work.

The closest thing to terrorism that could happen in london during the games is from the IRA. I doubt they are crazy enough to hijack a plane to have the military use a missile which will cause widespread damage.

[QUOTE=jordguitar;35765855]The closest thing to terrorism that could happen in london during the games is from the IRA. I doubt they are crazy enough to hijack a plane to have the military use a missile which will cause widespread damage.[/QUOTE] Does the IRA even have a history of suicide bombing?

[QUOTE=jordguitar;35765855]The closest thing to terrorism that could happen in london during the games is from the IRA. I doubt they are crazy enough to hijack a plane to have the military use a missile which will cause widespread damage.[/QUOTE] Or you know Al Qaeda and their various offspring that just [B]love[/B] attacking the UK.