No alternative?
Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 03:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caddymanI see that residents have lost their High Court bid to prevent the siting of surface-to-air missiles (SAM) on the roofs of tower blocks and other residences in east London over the Olympic period.
It’s a bit of a poser, really. I do sympathise with the people that live there with the missiles on their homes, though I very much doubt that any will be fired off. I wouldn’t like it very much. It’s a bit of a lark having a couple of Puma helicopters stationed a block away at the local TA Centre, but a SAM in the back garden or on the bedroom roof? Rather different.
The problem is, they may be necessary, even if only as a deterrent. It’s no use pretending that the Olympics are anything other than a juicy target for the bad guys. They are. The Olympic Games dwarf any other sporting event in the world, I believe, including the football World Cup Finals.
It’s an entirely separate question as to whether or not we should spend obscene amounts of money on the games in the first place, but the fact is they are here and they are happening and somebody somewhere is likely to want to try and mess them up. Unfortunately we are not talking about leafleting. Even before post 9/11 paranoia set in for the world’s governments, the Olympics have provided a juicy target for terrorists, with probably the best example being Munich in 1972, when the Israeli team was attacked.
Over the years the source of, magnitude and methods of threat may have fluctuated and changed, but I very much doubt that they have ever gone away. It is also naïve to believe that London 2012 is the first time that such measures have been taken. The planners will have liaised with many organisations and authorities who have experience in this field. We are just right on top of it; I doubt the general population of rest of the world has even thought about it, much less heard about it, though the residents of recent Olympic cities will probably remember similar measures being taken when they hosted the events.
As much as I sympathise with the people directly affected, I can’t think of anywhere else these things could be deployed. It is very easy to complain glibly, as I have seen one commentator do, that we live in a society that sites missile batteries on roofs ready to shoot down aircraft over major population centres, but I very much suspect that if, in this post 9/11 world, that a major attack were permitted to take place unopposed and unexpected, with the consequent destruction and loss of life, the same people would be on their high horse complaining that no precautions were taken and that it should have been foreseen.
I think, on balance, I’d sooner be in the position of grumbling about the SAMs than having to help dig people out of the rubble.
It’s just a shame that we live in a world where such steps are necessary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18778723
It’s a bit of a poser, really. I do sympathise with the people that live there with the missiles on their homes, though I very much doubt that any will be fired off. I wouldn’t like it very much. It’s a bit of a lark having a couple of Puma helicopters stationed a block away at the local TA Centre, but a SAM in the back garden or on the bedroom roof? Rather different.
The problem is, they may be necessary, even if only as a deterrent. It’s no use pretending that the Olympics are anything other than a juicy target for the bad guys. They are. The Olympic Games dwarf any other sporting event in the world, I believe, including the football World Cup Finals.
It’s an entirely separate question as to whether or not we should spend obscene amounts of money on the games in the first place, but the fact is they are here and they are happening and somebody somewhere is likely to want to try and mess them up. Unfortunately we are not talking about leafleting. Even before post 9/11 paranoia set in for the world’s governments, the Olympics have provided a juicy target for terrorists, with probably the best example being Munich in 1972, when the Israeli team was attacked.
Over the years the source of, magnitude and methods of threat may have fluctuated and changed, but I very much doubt that they have ever gone away. It is also naïve to believe that London 2012 is the first time that such measures have been taken. The planners will have liaised with many organisations and authorities who have experience in this field. We are just right on top of it; I doubt the general population of rest of the world has even thought about it, much less heard about it, though the residents of recent Olympic cities will probably remember similar measures being taken when they hosted the events.
As much as I sympathise with the people directly affected, I can’t think of anywhere else these things could be deployed. It is very easy to complain glibly, as I have seen one commentator do, that we live in a society that sites missile batteries on roofs ready to shoot down aircraft over major population centres, but I very much suspect that if, in this post 9/11 world, that a major attack were permitted to take place unopposed and unexpected, with the consequent destruction and loss of life, the same people would be on their high horse complaining that no precautions were taken and that it should have been foreseen.
I think, on balance, I’d sooner be in the position of grumbling about the SAMs than having to help dig people out of the rubble.
It’s just a shame that we live in a world where such steps are necessary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18778723
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-10 02:47 pm (UTC)The other thing that mkes me queasy, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand these are council flats...are any of the other batteries on private blocks or office blocks ? If not then that looks more than a little like taking advantage.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-10 03:03 pm (UTC)As to the tower blocks themselves - I think they probably are council blocks because east London has lots of them but no - or at least very few private ones (people don't generally live in tower blocks by preference unless they are very high end (though there are exceptions in west London). I doubt they have to pay rent on them either, being 'public' property.
I'm not sure, but I think that any of the best sites in the City itself, don't have the flat roofs you would need to place SAMs, so logistically I doubt they would be useful, even if the big banks and accountancy firms there were acquiescent, which I very much doubt.
As I say, in my view, the biggest shame is the fact that such steps are probably necessary.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-10 06:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-10 07:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-10 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-11 02:35 am (UTC)Worrying that they might be a terrorist target is more rational.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-11 10:52 am (UTC)Worryingly you could also argue that the perceived cost of letting an air-to-ground threat reach it's Olympic target might be less than bringing it down prematurely over the city of London and having it take out multiple high cost/irreplaceable buildings and institutions.
The £cost of a downed 747/civil Airliner in the city is likely to be significantly more than a flattened Stadium or out lying building complex.
In reality the threat of an aerial attack is probably minimal.
It's the Exploding-Fatwa-Pixies that are present a much greater cause for concern. And Rapier SAMs won’t be any use unless you drop one off a roof as they’re walking below…