Ground-to-air missiles 'may protect' London 2012 gamesDefenc
Discussion
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has told MPs that ground-to-air missiles will be deployed to protect the 2012 Olympic Games in London if deemed operationally necessary.
He was asked to confirm this by the former defence secretary Liam Fox.
It was Mr Hammond's first appearance at Defence Questions since taking over from Mr Fox.
The comments follow reports of concern in the United States about security plans for the Games.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15724639
Blimey!
He was asked to confirm this by the former defence secretary Liam Fox.
It was Mr Hammond's first appearance at Defence Questions since taking over from Mr Fox.
The comments follow reports of concern in the United States about security plans for the Games.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15724639
Blimey!
Yes Minister said:
Sir Humphrey: Bernard, what is the purpose of our defence policy?
Bernard: To defend Britain.
Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people believe Britain is defended.
Bernard: The Russians?
Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it's not.
Nobody will be shooting anything down: too risky, too slow and too late. They can't really change the flight paths into Heathrow either but they can turn most of the South East into a restricted zone, demanding flightplans be filed. Their initial plan to essentially shut down the airspace for months was thankfully reversed.Bernard: To defend Britain.
Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people believe Britain is defended.
Bernard: The Russians?
Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it's not.
My knowledge of physics and london is shakey at best.
however
If you shoot a big flying thing it becomes a big falling thing.
London isn't known for its large open spaces so the chances are that someone will end up wearing the big falling thing as some sort of large burning aluminum hat.
I know London is know for its odd fashions but i don't see large burning aluminum hats being very popular
But i've been wrong about london before
however
If you shoot a big flying thing it becomes a big falling thing.
London isn't known for its large open spaces so the chances are that someone will end up wearing the big falling thing as some sort of large burning aluminum hat.
I know London is know for its odd fashions but i don't see large burning aluminum hats being very popular
But i've been wrong about london before
I suspect this is just noise and posturing.
Only intelligence is going to work in preventing attacks in the first place.
These statement are really intended for the media IMO.
Ground to Air missiles become ground to ground missiles if they miss. If they hit then you get a large explosion and falling aircraft over a major population area.
Both things are very bad and not a sensible defence option.
Only intelligence is going to work in preventing attacks in the first place.
These statement are really intended for the media IMO.
Ground to Air missiles become ground to ground missiles if they miss. If they hit then you get a large explosion and falling aircraft over a major population area.
Both things are very bad and not a sensible defence option.
thinfourth2 said:
My knowledge of physics and london is shakey at best.
however
If you shoot a big flying thing it becomes a big falling thing.
London isn't known for its large open spaces so the chances are that someone will end up wearing the big falling thing as some sort of large burning aluminum hat.
I know London is know for its odd fashions but i don't see large burning aluminum hats being very popular
But i've been wrong about london before
however
If you shoot a big flying thing it becomes a big falling thing.
London isn't known for its large open spaces so the chances are that someone will end up wearing the big falling thing as some sort of large burning aluminum hat.
I know London is know for its odd fashions but i don't see large burning aluminum hats being very popular
But i've been wrong about london before
brilliant!
toppstuff said:
I suspect this is just noise and posturing.
Only intelligence is going to work in preventing attacks in the first place.
These statement are really intended for the media IMO.
Ground to Air missiles become ground to ground missiles if they miss. If they hit then you get a large explosion and falling aircraft over a major population area.
Both things are very bad and not a sensible defence option.
Spoilsport.Only intelligence is going to work in preventing attacks in the first place.
These statement are really intended for the media IMO.
Ground to Air missiles become ground to ground missiles if they miss. If they hit then you get a large explosion and falling aircraft over a major population area.
Both things are very bad and not a sensible defence option.
My hopes of seeing Russian TU-95's falling from the sky and onto the s
tty Olympic stadium are now well and truly dashed.
toppstuff said:
I suspect this is just noise and posturing.
Only intelligence is going to work in preventing attacks in the first place.
These statement are really intended for the media IMO.
Ground to Air missiles become ground to ground missiles if they miss. If they hit then you get a large explosion and falling aircraft over a major population area.
Both things are very bad and not a sensible defence option.
I think the idea is that the average population density of a randomly hit place will be (slightly!) less than that of a full Olympic stadium. Only intelligence is going to work in preventing attacks in the first place.
These statement are really intended for the media IMO.
Ground to Air missiles become ground to ground missiles if they miss. If they hit then you get a large explosion and falling aircraft over a major population area.
Both things are very bad and not a sensible defence option.
Mind you, I'm not going
Why would any terrorist take the risk of attacking the Olympics when you get similar sized gatherings with much looser security on a weekly basis at many football grounds up and down the country? I know the Olympics is a high profile event, but a successful terror attack on a big sporting target is going to get you plenty of publicity whether its 80,000 in the Olympic stadium or 60,000 watching Arsenal playing Everton at the Emirates.
Obviously Al Queda would never target Arsenal as they were Bin Laden's team but you know what I mean!
Obviously Al Queda would never target Arsenal as they were Bin Laden's team but you know what I mean!
Inkyfingers said:
Why would any terrorist take the risk of attacking the Olympics when you get similar sized gatherings with much looser security on a weekly basis at many football grounds up and down the country? I know the Olympics is a high profile event, but a successful terror attack on a big sporting target is going to get you plenty of publicity whether its 80,000 in the Olympic stadium or 60,000 watching Arsenal playing Everton at the Emirates.
Obviously Al Queda would never target Arsenal as they were Bin Laden's team but you know what I mean!
The impact of killing people from all around the world, with a city full of the world's media ready to run and rerun 9/11 images?Obviously Al Queda would never target Arsenal as they were Bin Laden's team but you know what I mean!
0a said:
The impact of killing people from all around the world, with a city full of the world's media ready to run and rerun 9/11 images?
It would get marginally more coverage, but a terrorist attack on that scale would get massive publicity regardless (it could make 9/11 look like a small incident), and a football crowd is going to contain people from all over the world anyway so the impact would be felt worldwide. At the Olympics there will be huge amounts of security and even more paranoia, none of which you'd get if planning an attack on a typical saturday afternoon so would it be worth the risk when the chances of success are so much smaller? 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff