London to use missiles to protect 2012 games after US claims they are "furious at lack of security"
58 replies, posted
Great way to counter-act!
i can see the missiles blowing up alot of innocents though.
[QUOTE=Ryz0;33273644]bring them to glasgow we'll get a couple of neds/chavs to stand with broken bottles an poles[/QUOTE]
Fuck that, get Smeato down to London. All the the terrorist ball kicking security you could ever need.
G4S are paying for a lot of peoples Level 2 Door Supervisor courses so that they will have enough staff, they saved me £250. From what I've heard they're like 8000 security staff short of there target.
[QUOTE=Jsm;33272676]They should do this, just because they look awesome.[/QUOTE]
Doubt the Thames would be deep enough, they had to dredge Portsmouth Harbour so they could birth the ships.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;33273729]Fuck that, get Smeato down to London. All the the terrorist ball kicking security you could ever need.[/QUOTE]
I'll hoof you in the baws like John Smeato I'm ghetto as fuck cause I smoke weed-o And I'm friends wae Snoop Dogg on Bebo
In London? Really?
They should have put:
1. Two overwatch nexus weapons in the London Eye area.
2. One nexus weapon at the top of that round futuristic tower.
3.SAM sites around the city.
4.Inner SAM site defense in the city.
5.A giant mobile wall around the area.
6.Struts over the roof of the stadiums,to hold the suspended security bases.
7.Militiary bases everywhere in the city,with elite soliders guarding.
8.APC patrols supported by police.
9.Authorization to use lethal force in any situation.
I would do that,those pesky terrorist mingebag scumbag assholes wants to destroy base,NO MORE WOERY!
[QUOTE=geoface;33272428]missiles + london = mass civilian death
Sounds like a plan![/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm sure they'd be firing missiles at civilians.
"suspect is escaping on foot"
"firing missiles"
Then there was vancouver where you for the most part barely noticed security.
[QUOTE=Chrille;33272515]Who would attack the fucking Olympic games with aircraft?
[editline]14th November 2011[/editline]
Not to mention that anybody who does would have to traverse several countries' airspace, I don't think they would get very far.[/QUOTE]
You would be surprised how easy it is to set up a makeshift runway for a small plane carrying a bomb to take off on, hell they did it in Vietnam in hours
I will only accept this if the missiles have the Olympic mascots on them.
[QUOTE=raviool;33274279]"suspect is escaping on foot"
"firing missiles"[/QUOTE]
I hope those Surface-to-air missiles work as low as a few feet above the ground.
[QUOTE=Ryz0;33273644]bring them to glasgow we'll get a couple of neds/chavs to stand with broken bottles an poles[/QUOTE]
This post is dedicated to John Smeaton , the almighty hero of glasgow
[img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01007/John_Smeaton_1007723c.jpg[/img]
[i] John Smeaton : "We'll set aboot ye" [/i]
[QUOTE=MacD11;33273691]Great way to counter-act!
[b]i can see the missiles blowing up alot of innocents though.[/b][/QUOTE]
This is Britain not fucking Libya.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;33274670]You would be surprised how easy it is to set up a makeshift runway for a small plane carrying a bomb to take off on, hell they did it in Vietnam in hours[/QUOTE]
They are not going to use a plane
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQb0d7rYp9o&feature=player_embedded[/media]
[QUOTE=Red scout?;33272593]Cant we just add ICBM's and Tanks as well to ensure total security?[/QUOTE]
I think using an ICBM as a close range missile would be a bad idea...
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;33276317]I hope those Surface-to-air missiles work as low as a few feet above the ground.[/QUOTE]
that would be a major oversight from the security department if they didnt
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33276413]This is Britain not fucking Libya.[/QUOTE]
I [I]think[/I] they are talking about the risk of shooting down a plane over a built up area. Its the problem with the generally accepted solution to a hijacked plane.
If the US had shot down any of the planes on 9/11 they would have caused more deaths.
[QUOTE=Jsm;33278590]I [I]think[/I] they are talking about the risk of shooting down a plane over a built up area. Its the problem with the generally accepted solution to a hijacked plane.
If the US had shot down any of the planes on 9/11 they would have caused more deaths.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? Yes, it's generally accepted that shooting down a plane will still result in casualties, but you'd only be talking at most a couple hundred people (not including those aboard the planes) as opposed to the nearly 3,000 deaths that resulted from the attacks in NYC.
"Suspect is a white Male, wearing a purple hoodie and Jeans. Acting violent towards staff in Burger King"
"Rodger that, The Burger King on Liverpool Street yes?"
"Uh, confirmed"
"Missile away"
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33272342]We really do like our extremes...[/QUOTE]
There is no kill like [I][B]Overkill[/B][/I]... :v:
This is the next best thing after weaponising the London Eye.
[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;33278808]Are you kidding me? Yes, it's generally accepted that shooting down a plane will still result in casualties, but you'd only be talking at most a couple hundred people (not including those aboard the planes) as opposed to the nearly 3,000 deaths that resulted from the attacks in NYC.[/QUOTE]
And what if the plane had hit a building with similar occupancy to the WTC when crashing? What if it broke up after being shot and hit multiple buildings / occupied areas? Unless you shot a plane down over the water or an empty area you would run the serious risk of killing more.
not good enough
i want food vendors with collapsible miniguns concealed in their carts
Hey can a Brit send me a plane ticket outta' here?
Wow, the only way they could have a more destructive method of security is if they hired a fuckin' team of Robocops.
Guys I finished building a bike, I'm gonna' ride it in London see you there <3
[img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-h4o369UybWs/TYNu68InPJI/AAAAAAAABX8/1vD3itVPJCE/s1600/1149084764_NhEb3-L.jpg[/img]
Yeah, I mean, come on. An aircraft used in a terrorist attack? Get real, America. Never gonna happen.
[QUOTE=Jsm;33278590]I [I]think[/I] they are talking about the risk of shooting down a plane over a built up area. Its the problem with the generally accepted solution to a hijacked plane.
If the US had shot down any of the planes on 9/11 they would have caused more deaths.[/QUOTE]
And that's why we will break the plane into smaller, more manageable chunks, so we can rain harmless shrapnel over the entire area.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.