London 2012: East London residents march over missiles
64 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;36565108]Also if I was a terrorist, I would have no interest in hitting the games.
Killing a small group of troops and stealing a shoulder launched missile system though? That is a real prize.[/QUOTE]
Since when were they shoulder launched missiles?
[img]http://fedorafellows.com/uploads/Screenshot-2012-06-30_19.36.38.png[/img]
[QUOTE=GunFox;36565047]While I don't really see the need for a petition, the missiles are pretty stupid.
I can't see a plausible scenario in which they would do anything. Especially given the model of missile they are using.
A fighter jet isn't going to give a fuck about shoulder launched manually guided missiles. It is too fast and likely has enough friends that they were able to overwhelm the RAF. Plus, nobody is ever going to launch attack aircraft against the olympic games. They would be annihilated by virtually every nation on the planet.
A passenger jet is the real threat. But passenger jets aren't the intended target of shoulder launched missiles. A shoulder launched missile has an excellent chance of causing serious damage to a passenger jet, but unless it hits a perfect spot, the passenger jet is still going to have enough momentum and lift to reach its target.
Plus it is rather hard to hijack a passenger jet when you can't reach the cockpit. So that isn't even a real threat.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Swiss_rapier_missile.jpg/640px-Swiss_rapier_missile.jpg[/IMG]
These are the missile systems being used, they aren't shoulder mounted.
I understand their point of view. Who would want the army to take down a civilian plane just over their house?
On the other hand, if these missiles are somewhat useful it is almost sure it will be because of their dissuasive power. So the consequence of using them aren't really relevant.
Million missile march
[QUOTE=The golden;36564570]and assemble a fleet offshore.[/QUOTE]
Actually I recall reading somewhere that there's going to be a fleet in the Channel.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36565108]a shoulder launched missile system[/QUOTE]
Why do you think the Hulk would attack the Olympic games?
Holy shit are they going to put tanks on standby next? God damn, this is worse than the 1980 summer Olympics.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36565047]While I don't really see the need for a petition, the missiles are pretty stupid.
I can't see a plausible scenario in which they would do anything. Especially given the model of missile they are using.
A fighter jet isn't going to give a fuck about shoulder launched manually guided missiles. It is too fast and likely has enough friends that they were able to overwhelm the RAF. Plus, nobody is ever going to launch attack aircraft against the olympic games. They would be annihilated by virtually every nation on the planet.
A passenger jet is the real threat. But passenger jets aren't the intended target of shoulder launched missiles. A shoulder launched missile has an excellent chance of causing serious damage to a passenger jet, but unless it hits a perfect spot, the passenger jet is still going to have enough momentum and lift to reach its target.
Plus it is rather hard to hijack a passenger jet when you can't reach the cockpit. So that isn't even a real threat.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to be a ridiculous arm-chair muppet again, at least know what you're talking about.
[img]http://dailyonlinenews24.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Rapier-missile-defence.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36565241][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Swiss_rapier_missile.jpg/640px-Swiss_rapier_missile.jpg[/IMG]
These are the missile systems being used, they aren't shoulder mounted.[/QUOTE]
Interesting back when they first mentioned this, it was shoulder launched missiles.
These make marginally more sense. Still wholly unnecessary and the danger they present from the installation is likely greater than they protect against.
[editline]30th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36565482]If you're going to be a ridiculous arm-chair muppet again, at least know what you're talking about.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17884897[/url]
These were shoulder launched.
These same people would be furious if they weren't there and something horrible happened that these could have prevented
[QUOTE=GunFox;36565582][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17884897[/url]
These were shoulder launched.[/QUOTE]
Nope.
Unless you mistook this as 'shoulder launched'.
[img]http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/British%20Army%20-%202/86676031.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=GunFox;36565108]Also if I was a terrorist, I would have no interest in hitting the games.
Killing a small group of troops and stealing a shoulder launched missile system though? That is a real prize.[/QUOTE]
they're not RPG's/LAW's, they're proper SAM units.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36565868]Nope.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17943864[/url]
Yes.
This guy mentions the two higher velocity missiles systems. They are starstreaks.
The confusion came because they are using both the rapier and the starstreak systems.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)[/url]
They are the British version of the American Stinger.
The stand you see in the video is a starstreak system. Like the stinger, it can be mounted to a stand for ease of use, but is still a shoulder launched missile system.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36565896][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17943864[/url]
Yes.
This guy mentions the two higher velocity missiles systems. They are starstreaks.
The confusion came because they are using both the rapier and the starstreak systems.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)[/url]
They are the British version of the American Stinger.
The stand you see in the video is a starstreak system. Like the stinger, it can be mounted to a stand for ease of use, but is still a shoulder launched missile system.[/QUOTE]
Funny how the first word the guy said was 'Rapier', and you can see the massive missile system in the background.
EDIT: Oh you just got confused. Never mind then.
[quote]Campaigner Chris Nineham said: "We don't believe they will add anything to security. If they are going to be used they will explode over some of the most densely populated areas in London."[/quote]
In the event that they have to be used I think we have bigger shit to worry about than boom boom in the sky. The protest is ridiculous, the only objection one could have against this is one of effectiveness.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36565868]
[img]http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/British%20Army%20-%202/86676031.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
[img]http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/2450/star6q.jpg[/img]
Yeah that is just one of the variants for point defense. Same missile.
The stinger has a similar stand, it is just virtually never used because the Avenger humvee is more convenient.
Those starstreaks are what I thought were being used across the board, based on the earlier article. They are being used in a limited number, but the rapier is the main weapon here. Totally my mistake.
The weird thing is that until the aircraft hits its target, you have no way of knowing what the intentions of the pilot are.
So let's say a jet flies over the area accidentally. In the heat of the moment a decision has to be made, shoot or don't shoot. If you wait till the appropriate authority has made radio contact with the plane and determined whether it's hostile or not, AND then communicated with anti-aircraft crews- it'll be too late.
So do you shoot? If you do and bring down that aircraft on a neighborhood, killing many people on the ground, what do you say if it turns out the aircraft accidentally strayed in that airspace? Was it worth it?
[QUOTE=BloodYScar;36564467]9/11 word 9/11 another word september 11 word tragic event in 2001 9/11 death word 9/11[/QUOTE]
I would say more the 7/7 bombings more than 9/11
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36566618]The weird thing is that until the aircraft hits its target, you have no way of knowing what the intentions of the pilot are.
So let's say a jet flies over the area accidentally. In the heat of the moment a decision has to be made, shoot or don't shoot. If you wait till the appropriate authority has made radio contact with the plane and determined whether it's hostile or not, AND then communicated with anti-aircraft crews- it'll be too late.
So do you shoot? If you do and bring down that aircraft on a neighborhood, killing many people on the ground, what do you say if it turns out the aircraft accidentally strayed in that airspace? Was it worth it?[/QUOTE]
Aircraft are supposed to follow a flight plan, and they don't monitor the skies with a guy sitting on top of a building using a pair of binocs, so a threat would be identified way before it got any close.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36566618]The weird thing is that until the aircraft hits its target, you have no way of knowing what the intentions of the pilot are.
So let's say a jet flies over the area accidentally. In the heat of the moment a decision has to be made, shoot or don't shoot. If you wait till the appropriate authority has made radio contact with the plane and determined whether it's hostile or not, AND then communicated with anti-aircraft crews- it'll be too late.
So do you shoot? If you do and bring down that aircraft on a neighborhood, killing many people on the ground, what do you say if it turns out the aircraft accidentally strayed in that airspace? Was it worth it?[/QUOTE]
Building your argument on a whole bunch of 'what if' statements is a pretty stupid thing to do. And what if it isn't accidental? What if it crashes into the games on purpose, killing thousands?
I don't understand what people have against these things. Literally the only damage they could do to the neighborhoods that they were placed in is blow out a couple windows when launched. I guarantee you, if one of these things is ever launched against a passenger aircraft, you have a bout a million more things to worry about than some blown out windows.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36566618]The weird thing is that until the aircraft hits its target, you have no way of knowing what the intentions of the pilot are.
So let's say a jet flies over the area accidentally. In the heat of the moment a decision has to be made, shoot or don't shoot. If you wait till the appropriate authority has made radio contact with the plane and determined whether it's hostile or not, AND then communicated with anti-aircraft crews- it'll be too late.
So do you shoot? If you do and bring down that aircraft on a neighborhood, killing many people on the ground, what do you say if it turns out the aircraft accidentally strayed in that airspace? Was it worth it?[/QUOTE]
So you've got this notion that commercial airliners just fly around the skies like a bunch of mosquitoes, they don't have flight plans or anything of the sort. Nobody knows what they're doing or where they're going. Right...
[QUOTE=icemaz;36564336]I agree, but does that extra safety precaution [I]really[/I] hurt the local residents?[/QUOTE]
if they were to use these the debris could possibly kill even more people
As someone who currently does not live with the reality of having anti-aircraft missile systems set up near my residence, I can't imagine I'd be too upset with a temporary installation just to provide security during an international cultural event like the Olympic Games.
how dare those fascist bastards try to protect their citizens
I, for one, would welcome having a SAM site near my place of residence.
This isn't the first missiles have been set up in the olympics. Has everyone forgotton the 2008 Beijing Olympics? There were SAM sites everywhere.
The sam sites are there to deter potential terrorists on land and air; it's there to show a heavy presence of protection on land.
[QUOTE=icemaz;36564336]I agree, but does that extra safety precaution [I]really[/I] hurt the local residents?[/QUOTE]
When the debris comes raining down on their heads, maybe.
I understand the concerns, but having the missiles is better than not having them. Better to have a hijacked plane go down on your terms rather than those piloting it. Either way, look out below.
[QUOTE=Apache249;36567171]So you've got this notion that commercial airliners just fly around the skies like a bunch of mosquitoes, they don't have flight plans or anything of the sort. Nobody knows what they're doing or where they're going. Right...[/QUOTE]
USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing almost 300 people because they thought it was an F-14. Here's a ship with state of the art gear and it can't identify a target as a civilian airliner before shooting at it?
When the situation is tense, the people with their fingers on the trigger get jumpy. All it takes is some clueless pilot to come flying along, in the wrong place at the wrong time and the next thing you know you have a disaster.
They have to balance the possible benefits against the likely casualties if they do shoot something down over a populated area.
I personally think having a missile launcher would look cool. Didn't the 2008 Beijing Olympics had this too?
Better than stationing a bloody destroyer in the Thames.
On a second thought, they should station a destroyer in the Thames.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.