Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Surface-To-Air Missiles At London Olympics

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the gold-medal-launch dept.

The Military 395

First time accepted submitter TheGift73 writes "I have to admit, when I first read about this I thought it was a hoax, but unfortunately it's true. The UK government is considering placing surface-to-air missiles on residential buildings in London for the duration of the London Olympics. From the article: 'The Ministry of Defence is considering placing surface-to-air missiles on residential flats during the Olympics. An east London estate, where 700 people live, has received leaflets saying a "Higher Velocity Missile system" could be placed on a water tower. A spokesman said the MoD had not yet decided whether to deploy ground based air defence systems during the event.'"

cancel ×

395 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

paranoid nanny state (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841555)

n/t

Re:paranoid nanny state (5, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841937)

Oh, it gets worse than that... it's pure idiocy to even try using the things as a defense.

If some jackass wanted to slam a plane into the crowd, they'd merely have to fly very fast and very low. Most missiles have a minimum effective altitude (due to the physics of speed, for starters). Most missiles also work on the principle of sending shrapnel into an enemy plane, hoping to tear it apart... few (if any?) are made to simply blow a plane up.

Finally, with sufficient speed, no missile short of a full blown telephone-pole-sized SAM (we're talking massive multi-ton Soviet-style rigs) would completely stop a multi-ton object moving full-throttle at nearly 1,000 km/h. So instead of an intact aircraft slamming into a crowd, you now have a big flaming ball of metal flying into the crowd. Umm, okay...

The best you can hope for is to knock it off course, which in London just means that it'll slam into some other heavily-populated area full of buildings.

Seriously? Someone in security has been watching too many frickin' movies.

Re:paranoid nanny state (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841971)

Re:paranoid nanny state (3, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842003)

Sounds cool, too bad your article finishes in mid-sentence. Does this rocket work well against someone on a motorcycle with a backpack full of explosives?

Re:paranoid nanny state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841993)

It's not defence, rather it's damage control. Damn people are ignorant.

Re:paranoid nanny state (2)

MechaStreisand (585905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842043)

So instead of an intact aircraft slamming into a crowd, you now have a big flaming ball of metal flying into the crowd . . .

Sir, you know it's possible to shoot down an attacking aircraft away from its target, right?

Re:paranoid nanny state (5, Informative)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842093)

He is mentioning the "away" is still full of London crowd. If a hostile plane can reach London itself, wherever it hits will cause loss of lives.

If the missiles are long or medium range SAMs, then there is no need to put it inside London and at the top of the apartment building. It appears therefore that the SAM is a short range.

Re:paranoid nanny state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842117)

Two words: Population density. Even if the plane hits another portion of London, it's not likely to have as high a concentration of people in a single area as the active Olympics nor as high a concentration of foreign dignitaries.

Re:paranoid nanny state (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842161)

Well, Buckingham Palace has a pretty low population density compared to its surrounding environs. I'm pretty sure if a plane smacked that it would raise a few complaints...

Long story short, there's really no part of that town that isn't heavily populated, a historical icon of some sort, or considered to be important as hell for some other reason. The best you could hope for is to knock it in the Thames, but doing that would require some real super-human planning and execution, and not a little bit of luck.

Re:paranoid nanny state (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842099)

Unless their exclusion zone is measured in a circle at least 100km wide (are we going to shut down Heathrow, then?), there won't be time to detect an inbound jet, sufficiently determine its intent, get permission to arm the weaponry, then actually shoot it down. At least, not with any confidence that the result avoids hitting buildings and population.

Not anywhere around London anyway... This is why I'm fairly safe in my assumption that by the time a missile launches, the jet will likely be in its terminal dive, or close enough to it to not really matter otherwise.

Re:paranoid nanny state (-1, Troll)

quarkscat (697644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842139)

London is the very last place I would want to be this summer. False flag terror attacks are used by every government to create an external threat that justifies consolidation of police state powers, especially democracies. The USA has had our false flag attacks, beginning with the USS Maine in Havana Harbor through to 9/11. The British have been somewhat less prolific in their false flag terror attacks, but they are trending toward more as the drumbeats for war with Iran beat louder, just like their 5/11 (?) metro transit attack.

One thing about SA missiles in London -- there's always a chance for an errant missile to strike the City of London (where the real global terrorists are located) rather than kill some videographer with more ambition than common sense in a plane over the Olympics.

The way things are going now in the USA, I'm not certain the USA's Big Brother nanny state would let me leave the USA, or once gone let me return, or while gone strip me of my citizenship and put me on a drone "hit list". The German Nazis lost World War 2, but found a new home for their best National Socialists (fascists) thanks to Operation Paperclip right here in the USA.

loss of words (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841565)

This is just getting ridiculous.

You won't be saying that... (4, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841745)

... when Daleks invade. Again.

Re:You won't be saying that... (0)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841955)

Nah - Daleks can be stopped by installing a simple staircase.

Now these bad boys [wikipedia.org] require a bit more firepower.

(and for the love of all that's holy, do NOT let them find the fertilizer warehouse...)

Re:loss of words (4, Insightful)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841825)

Ditto... I'm not so cynical of governments to deny that terrorist attacks have been made at the Olympics in even relatively peaceful times. But surface-to-air missiles? Why?

What is the minimum threshold for an airborne projectile's size to be shot down? After a certain threshold I start having trouble seeing someone lobbing a rocket/missile at the Olympics just because of the Olympics. Not only would it be practically a declaration of war against everyone in the world, but surely there would be more damaging targets if you just wanted to harm the UK.

Re:loss of words (4, Funny)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841879)

This is just getting ridiculous.

I would agree. Cutting off the first letter of a quote 'he Ministry of Defence...' is something I would do while hurriedly posting quotes into MSN, not something an editor should do on a widely read website. Just ridiculous.

And the residents are complaining (2)

xQx (5744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841567)

I heard this on the radio this morning, along with a heap of upset residents!

  Those Poms will complain about anything.

I'd be wrapped to have a missile array on my roof!

Re:And the residents are complaining (4, Funny)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841719)

I'd be wrapped to have a missile array on my roof!

I know! It'd be the bomb! (...especially if manufactured on Friday).

Re:And the residents are complaining (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841853)

Somebody set up us the bomb.

Re:And the residents are complaining (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841765)

Those Poms will complain about anything.

Perhaps the Poms would have preferred Pom-Poms [wikipedia.org] , rather than missiles? :)

Re:And the residents are complaining (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841985)

I'd be wrapped to have a missile array on my roof!

I'm thinking the exact same thing!

You see, I live on the coast, and there was recently this company a bit up the road who set up shop giving helicopter rides over the more scenic bits of our county, and sometimes they can really irritate, especially on weekends, so...

Re:And the residents are complaining (5, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842073)

You wouldn't be. I have the misfortune to own a place with a great view over a convention center often used for various government meetings. Since two of my balconies overlook their terraces and hall windows from above, every fucking time they have some diminutive French, Italian or Russian head of state I have to remove my flowers and my telescope tripods from the balcony, keep the windows closed, get a badge from the security scum that infests the stairwell, endure their cheap cigarette smoke, bad breath, awful manners, atrocious looks and general incompetence.

The worst was when the wife of the first black president came over a few months ago, they even ordered us to remove our cars from the parking lot in front of the place. I don't get it, I heard she was really brave dodging bullets in Bosnia back in her days with the military.

So far we have been lucky not to have an expensive weapon system mounted on the rooftop, but I don't even want to contemplate what that would mean. And they never, ever compensate you for the trouble.

To sum it up, having to deal with a security implement in your building sucks major ass, and should be avoided at all costs and complained against loudly at every opportunity.

I have the login joshua and I want to play (4, Funny)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841575)

London missile defense

Re:I have the login joshua and I want to play (1, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841659)

Want to know how I know you're full of shit?
The password is Nigel.

Re:I have the login joshua and I want to play (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841811)

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's so cute. The UK thinks their relevant.

Re:I have the login joshua and I want to play (5, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842059)

Can we have a -1 basic grammar option for moderators?

Re:I have the login joshua and I want to play (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842063)

They've got a decent education system. I wonder if they're possessive about that as well?

Re:I have the login joshua and I want to play (1, Insightful)

Pesticidal (1148911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842177)

Their relevant what? Finish your sentence please.

Curious Games (5, Funny)

internic (453511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841831)

A curious Olympic Games. The only winning move is not to play

Re:Curious Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842031)

Some don't play to win, but enjoy the fun of the game.

Re:Curious Games (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842183)

Please mods - at least a +4 Funny for the parent comment

Kinda makes me wonder... (5, Funny)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841579)

...why we bother having the Olympics. We should all just have a big war instead. The winner gets a gold medal.

Re:Kinda makes me wonder... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841777)

Instead of a big war, each country could send two young representatives. They fight to the death and the last one standing gets the gold medal.

Re:Kinda makes me wonder... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841951)

I remember Hunger Games when it was called Battle Royale.

Re:Kinda makes me wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841987)

Do you also remember Saving Private Ryan when it was called F-Troop? Both of them featured dudes in uniform, and it seems you don't need much similarity to call two things equivalent.

other way around? (4, Insightful)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841911)

maybe sports are a way to channel certain instincts without the massive damage of war

Translation: If you plan to attend... (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841583)

...fly into Charles de Gaulle and drive.

HUMAN SHIELDS! (5, Funny)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841589)

"UK government uses civilian residents as human shields to protect their missile sites".

It'll make the terrorists think twice before blowing up those flats to eliminate the SAM batteries.

Re:HUMAN SHIELDS! (3, Funny)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841669)

Eliminate them? Hell, jump across from the neighbours' place and STEAL THEM.

Re:HUMAN SHIELDS! (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841905)

This is the UK. You better find a way to disable all the cameras before even considering stealing them.

IOC... (5, Funny)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841591)

IOC needs to protect its copyrights somehow.

Re:IOC... (5, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841757)

Yup. When one of those damn pirate drones [thepiratebay.se] flies in to steal the events from the BBC and NBC, they'll feel full SAM stopping power!

</uppermanagementpov>

So... (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841595)

Who's taking odds as to the possibility that these fancy little toys will end up inflicting enough casualties to cover a front-page photo spread through either accident or malice, in a situation where just leaving them out of the picture would have gone fine?

Re:So... (4, Funny)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841661)

Dunno, an air burst explosion would almost always be preferable to an explosion directly on the ground. You'd have to have a pretty serious misfire situation to make things worse. There's also the deterrent factor, just having the visible defense will disenchant some who might think of piloting a small aircraft into the games.

And... it creates loads of jobs just making the missiles, installing them, maintaining them, covering them in the press....

Of course, if it convinces the terrorists to switch from a lightweight high-profile flying assault to a simple Oklahoma City style ground delivered Big Bomb, that could be a turn for the worse...

Hey, it's London, bombs go off all the time anyway, or at least they did 20 years ago when I used to travel there.

Re:So... (2)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841715)

Someone could make a really clear point by getting a Oklahoma City style bomb, and detonating it near the SAM sites not the stadium.

Minimum casualties, maximum awkwardness from the politicians at the press conference.

Re:So... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842069)

Or just USE the missiles the Olympics have so graciously provided at such easily accessed locations in close proximity to your target!

Re:So... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841889)

if it convinces the terrorists

Terrorists? Who said anything about terrorists? This is to make sure nobody tries to take any unauthorized pictures of the event!

Re:So... (1)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842107)

It actually makes me feel I am entering military zone instead of Olympics.

The joke gets worse (4, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841607)

This has been a farce from day 1, starting with the chronically underestimated budget for the whole thing, and the unfounded, misguided claims that it would be profitable for the country and spark unprecedented 'urban renewal', as well as a renaissance in sports for everyone in the country as people became inspired.

As each and every one of these things has been debunked, the fanatics and toadies have continued to shout them, just louder. The level of denial here is incredible. The best one I've heard so far was putting the lie to the idea that it would get the population back into sports. Studies have shown that this doesn't happen in host countries, for the olympics, the commonwealth games or whatever the event. When faced with this the organisers just repeated their feelgood bunk about how inspirational the whole thing was, despite having just been shown unequivocally that the opposite is true.

So now surface to air missiles? Well I suppose a gathering that big could be a target. I know what londoners will be saying though, the same as they said from the start (when I was living there) - "We never wanted them in the first place".

Re:The joke gets worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841695)

It isn't unusual. Those are similar to the arguments that cities in the US use for hosting the super bowl and they usually don't turn out as well for the cities as they had hoped. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/02/03/146363292/the-friday-podcast-is-hosting-the-super-bowl-worth-it [npr.org]

Re:The joke gets worse (1, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841705)

Australia basically lucked out in having the last truly successful Olympics. Since then computers, the internet and the drive for participation over sucked in by marketing passivity is taking over.

Whiny, it's not lying it's acting product promoting, athletes and their lawyers, as just so yesterday, last millennium in fact. Olympic gold medal winners are promoting crappier and crappier products, it's getting so bad, using the reduces the appearance value of a product rather than enhancing it.

Of course not to forget, generally speaking it is not a very good idea to shoot down aircraft over a crowded city. So who will be deciding who dies it stead, wait don't shoot it down yet, it'll fall on some place important. Of course this anti-aircraft missiles bullshit might be exactly that bullshit to drive marketing of the Olympics.

Re:The joke gets worse (4, Interesting)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841859)

No, I'm going to say Beijing was just as successful as Sydney. Maybe goals were different, but China wanted to show off its bling bling and achieved just that.

Re:The joke gets worse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841837)

Well those Nazis won't stand a chance now. England will give Jerry a good thrashing and the blitz will be over. Huzzah!

Re:The joke gets worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842089)

Well, London DOES have prior experience with landing rockets...sorry.

Re:The joke gets worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842147)

too soon? lol

We NEED these rockets. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841609)

I mean, we DO have to protect Airstrip 1, after all.

Re:We NEED these rockets. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841655)

I wish I had mod points. I tip my hat you sir. Excellent Orwell reference.

Re:We NEED these rockets. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842163)

I mean, we DO have to protect Airstrip 1, after all.

The missiles are not for the terrorists, they're for the tourists.

The hottest seats for the london olympics... (3, Funny)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841623)

... are in an ultralight air craft.

That's one advertisement you will not see during this year's olymics!

Air-Air Missiles? (0)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841629)

Sorry, but what kind of attack are they expecting where air-to-air missiles won't be sufficient?

Re:Air-Air Missiles? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841667)

Keeping planes in the sky is more expensive than keeping missiles on alert in the city.

Re:Air-Air Missiles? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841787)

But we can scramble supersonically and the exclusion zone is large enough that anything save a hostile invasion force is probably going to be flying slow enough to intercept before it reaches the olympic site.

The zone is nearly 100 miles across. 50 miles at 500kts is around 5 minutes. The Eurofighters are going to be based at Northolt, within the area and around maybe 20 miles from the stadium. At speed they could get there in a minute or two.

There will be an AWACS flying around at all times as well as the usual ATC services looking out for unidentified aircraft. Radar is pretty good these days, if you fly in on anything of reasonable size without telling them, they will find you and they will scramble something after you.

I fail to see how just having fast jets on alert isn't enough?

http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/airspace-restrictions/restrictions-14-july-2012-to-15-august-2012

Re:Air-Air Missiles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841823)

Okay all that is good..... but why the fuck is anyone actually concerned?

It's all security theatre bullshit

Re:Air-Air Missiles? (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841791)

You know how long it takes to "scramble ze fighters"? Too long, in cases of "hey, that Airbus we thought was coming in to drop off tourists just decided to go kamikaze on us".

And do you know how insanely expensive keeping even a handful of fighters in the air 24x7 is? A lot. Not to mention the noise, and the intimidation factor (despite what /. thinks, the government does not want to induce general terror in their populace), and the chance of one of them crashing on accident OR shooting down a friendly plane by accident.

Re:Air-Air Missiles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842053)

Yeah, because SAMs sitting on roof tops isn't intimidating at all. Add plus, a SAM could never accidentally shoot something down.

Re:Air-Air Missiles? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841819)

The evil people could build some form of aircraft in a big barn from parts via diplomatic bags. 10 years of family trips to the country in an old Merc - the parts shipped could really add up to something big.
The barn doors open and a group of microlites fan out under the radar. Only vigilant SAM crews can save the day ...

Weapons for all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841637)

The war on terror has now reach the stage where governments involved provide weaponry for a strike, in situ.

Rapier -- 30 year old worthless missile system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841657)

the problem is the UK SAM systems are basically Rapiers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_%28missile%29
They were built in the 60's and entered service beginning 1970. They are known for missing target and getting IFF confused shooting down friendly aircraft e.g. http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EF248AAE-5B25-4CB4-BE90-EE096980354B/0/boi_loss_gazellexx377.pdf
They cant be deployed too far away because they basically suck. to have any chance at all they need to be stuck to the target. why they still use em is anyones guess.

You're not thinking 4 dimensionally, Marty! (2, Funny)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841691)

No no, for the Olympics they'll be using... wait for it... wait for it... Javelins! [wikipedia.org]

Re:You're not thinking 4 dimensionally, Marty! (1)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841857)

No no, for the Olympics they'll be using... wait for it... wait for it... Javelins! [wikipedia.org]

Javelins are Surface to Surface Missiles. Just like its namesake. They are designed to take out armour of all kinds ( no tank today can withstand a direct hit in Top Attack mode ), and have been successfully used to take out buildings, cars, bicycles, APC's, the list goes on.

  London needs (lol) Surface to Air Missiles.

Re:You're not thinking 4 dimensionally, Marty! (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841929)

You're confusing the American FGM-148 Javelin anti-armour missile with the British Javelin surface-to-air missile. Click the link, above.

They use civilians as human shields!!! Hostages!!! (4, Interesting)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841679)

Isn't that the claim, US and other NATO countries' media makes every time a victim of their invasion tries to place any air defenses in their cities?

Re:They use civilians as human shields!!! Hostages (2)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841729)

Oh course the states did it as well.

Operation Dark Shield.

anything to keep away unwanted... (1)

slew (2918) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841701)

anything to keep away unwanted... photographers [slashdot.org] ! ;^)

Really?... (2)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841709)

Well, the Internet Generation just hasn't really grasped just how horrific the Battle of Britain was.
But hey, those bunkers are only what, 70 years old? Some blood, sweat, toil and tears will get those spit spot in a jiffy.
Keep calm and buy our officially licensed London 2012 merchandise!

A new Olypic sport (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841711)

Clay pigeon shooting with Surface-to-air missiles. You can't miss!

bunch o fail. (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841725)

London Calling.

Salt Lake City 2002 (5, Informative)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841803)

The winter games in 2002 in SLC had unprecedented military participation. There were radar and missile emplacements all over the foothills and there were troops all over the place including Apache helicopters and F-16's patrolling the skies during the days major events. The SLC international airport was off limits entirely to unscheduled flights and the military was authorized to shoot down any plane violating SLC airspace.

We see a lot of air traffic being that Hill Airforce base is close and Fort Williams is where the Apaches train but I've never seen so many military air craft all over the place.

Residential Buildings? Really? (2)

kosh (4232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841807)

If this is true...

Has anyone stopped to consider that if it came to situation that required ground to air missiles, by putting the launchers on residential buildings they have just made civilian homes prime targets...

Really? They are considering this?

Re:Residential Buildings? Really? (1)

dwillden (521345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841907)

Not that big a concern. The missiles aren't the targets, the Olympic Venues with tens of thousands of attendees and athletes from around the world are the primary target. And it's very unlikely any terrorists planning an attack will have enough resources to target multiple launch platforms as well as the targeted venues.

And even if they did, that is the trade off, 30,000 casualties or at most a few hundred. This really isn't anything new. Since at least the 2002 Winter Olympics if not before SAM's have been in place to protect the Olympic Venues. It's very unlikely they'll be used but should the need be there it's better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them ready to react to an attack.

Re:Residential Buildings? Really? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841935)

Is anyone stopping to think at all? Surface to air missiles are for shooting down airplanes (from the article: "designed to counter threats from very high performance, low-flying aircraft"). What country is going to get airplanes into London, unnoticed before arriving? Is London so devoid of radar watchtowers? Do they have such powerful enemies? Wait a second....

Oh, that devious Obama.

Re:Residential Buildings? Really? (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842131)

Personally, I'd be glad to have one my house. Those kids'll think twice before playing on my lawn...

Terrorist target? (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841821)

I guess they fear that having the Olympics will make London a target for terrorists.

I guess somebody will have to explain it to the terrorists that they had best wait for the show to begin. Otherwise they might continue bombing busses and subway stations in the meantime and not have any anybody left to fly planes over the Olympic site come late July and August.

Where went wrong? (5, Insightful)

tomthepom (314977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841867)

I thought that we invaded Iraq to make us safer. I thought the war in Afghanistan would make us safer. They told us that all this war, imprisonment without trial, assassination, torture, mass surveillance, nude scans and enhanced pat downs would make us safer.
And yet now, after more than ten years of this, we've reached the stage that we're considering placing surface to fucking air missiles on top of people's houses in the middle of London.
What the hell happened? Are we losing this 'war on terror'?

"higher velocity" ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841873)

Because the current missiles on your roof are too slow?

This is just one of those things (1)

jfern (115937) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841881)

That the more you think about it, the stupider it seems. What if someone steals one? What if someone sets one off?

See the Olympics ? Thanks, I'll pass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841887)

What a great advertisement for spending your tourist dollars
somewhere else.

The winter Olympics are better anyway.

Re:See the Olympics ? Thanks, I'll pass. (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842115)

The olympics are great, they get all the tourists out of the rest of the world's vacation hot-spots so you don't have to wait in line or worry about hotels being booked up!

raining white hot shrapnel over a crowded city (2)

Ranger (1783) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841895)

Charlie Stross has some interesting things to say about this Olympics 2012: A Bruce Schneier Moment [antipope.org] :

Lunacy on stilts. (Oh, and let me add, the residents don't get any choice over having missiles billeted on top of their homes.)

If one of those things is ever fired, either in anger or by accident, it'll shower white-hot supersonic shrapnel across the extremely crowded residential heart of a city.

PULL! (5, Funny)

NoEvidenZ (807374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841917)

PULL! Should also make Discus and interesting event.

I'd request keeping it (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841961)

I would totally request keeping it after the olympics if it was on my house. That or wrap a huuuuge air conditioning chassis around it and then when they come back and are like "hmmm, guess we didn't put one here like the notes say" then tada, SAM on my roof, bitches lol.

Oh great! (1)

humanrev (2606607) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841963)

So in 2016 does this mean Rio de Janeiro's gonna have to one-up the Brits? Maybe have a few tactical nukes on standby as a deterrent?

Do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841965)

Sounds like a perfect way to get London to blow up citizens. Terrorists take the gold.

Even Hitler had better taste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841979)

dunno whats worse, the "civil" country preparing for attack, or the animal group of religious wackjobs that might be planning it... either way its fucking sad

Wow, the U.K. are going all out on this one... (4, Funny)

mijxyphoid (1872142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842005)

For the past Olympic games, the hosting country just made do with fireworks....
To step up to actual missiles, now that is going to take a lot of effort to top for future hosting countries !!

Another suggestion (2)

thexile (1058552) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842037)

Arming the missiles with nuclear warheads will be an even better terrorist deterrent.

Too Expensive To Remove, Best Leave Them (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842067)

I hope they don't over look the plans and funds to remove them after the Olympics are over. After all, once they're in place they could in theory help prevent an asteroid strike. Might as well leave them there just in case.

These were in place for the Athens Olympics (5, Informative)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842153)

They had AA in place for the Athens Olypmics. They were clearly visible out beyond the outfield wall at the Softball and Baseball fields. This type of thing:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6203/6074130550_928b676ecc_z.jpg [staticflickr.com]
Although that was in an open, unpopulated area. Placing them on a residential complex is obviously a step up though.

Useless for defense, but... (0)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842187)

They'd be a perfect offense on a civilian crowd. Why wait for real terrorists to strike when you can just facilitate them or even just stage it yourself.

"This just in, terrorists have taken command of two flat-top SAR missile platforms and are raining missiles all over London. MI5 has been granted emergency powers to arrest and detain indefinitely without charge" etc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?