[Closed] Missiles on the roof approved

Really? Why do you hate the army so much?

Yeah, cos it's all the foot soldiers' fault 🙄

Why. Its not their fault. I can't imagine they're relishing the prospect of spending a couple of weeks camped on a Saaaaarf Laaaaaaaaandan tower block. In fact I could see a few transfer requests going in for Helmand 😀

Where do I apply to have one of these stuck on top of my house?

I can understand the residents point of view, but this..

I hope the residents scatter used needles, dog mess and all manner of unpleasentness around on the roof to make the troops feel welcome.

Makes you look a pillock, shame you returned to the forum really.

Its all the paranoid politicians fault. The residents should have said "fair do's. Well have the missiles on our roof, if you have a few tanks and an Ammo dump, or maybe a filed hospital in your sprawling, leafy Chipping Norton Garden. You may need your moat cleaning afterwards"

You mix with the locals round there then?
Are you some kind of terrorist sympathiser?

What would you do as far as security was concerned then?

There was some thing on Radio 4 about it the other day, where basically the government bod really couldn't justify what they were there for. The presenter was trying to suggest it might be a bad idea to blow some thing up over skys of London, but the army/government bloke said that was preferential to the aircraft reaching its target 😯

OP did you forget to add one of these 😉

I wouldn't mind as long as I could have a go.

What exactly was their problem with them being there? It's not like they will be playing loud music or anything.

By rights, they should feel really sorry for the poor sods that will be stuck there 24/7 eating rat packs and getting bored for a month.

I thought they'd just stuck missiles on the top of some places, no consultation.

That's pretty vindictive ohno, as they ^ said the guys fitting the things weren't responsible for where they were placed.

What exactly was their problem with them being there?

besides with top class [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18780966 ]airport security like ours[/url] I'm sure there's no need for SAMs 😯

www.thalesgroup.com don't think online ordering is in place yet though 😉

I'd be pretty pissed off if MOD decided to stick missiles on my roof, wouldn't you?

No. Why should I be?

This is why...

http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/1729

so having some serious ordnance on your roof wouldn't make you the teensiest bit nervous?

let alone the possibility of some trigger happy official shooting a plane that might just have radio trouble out of the sky right above you?

I'd be pretty pissed off if MOD decided to stick missiles on my roof, wouldn't you?

If I lived in a suburban detached then probably. If I lived in those Fred West towers in inner city London next to an attractive terrorism target then I'd more likely welcome it.

so having some serious ordnance on your roof wouldn't make you the teensiest bit nervous?

Nope. Not at all..

Why should it?

And as for the OP??

What a complete bellend... 🙄

Trolltastic.

Another keyboard warrior....maybe pop over there and give them your thoughts face to face.

No. Unless they broke my skylight, then I'd be well pissed off

soon be moaning if a 747 crashed into their block (very unlikely i Know) or maybe they wouldn't be moaning as they would be toast

If it wern't for the olympics then you can imagine how any application to store explosive ordinance on the roof of tower block would be recieved, not to mention the H&S regulations that would be invoked.

You have a skylight? Oooooooooooooh how the other half live 😀

For the true Keyboard Warrior:

Comedy dude in the radio was complaining that if used, the missiles on the roof would cause chaos in a five mile radius in which case comedy dude you're in the safest place with the missiles on your head.

Re: the link above,

I've little sympathy for complaints about the amount of security, when the alternative could later come to be referred to as "The London 2012 Tragedy." But.

All other things aside, it's bang out of order that they're terminating tenancy agreements for people who voice concerns (if indeed that's an unbiased account of what's happened).

You do realise the whole Olympic/Terrorist/shooting down planes thing is just a cover for the Mets new riot precautions, don't you?

Check the guidance system on those missiles and they're locked onto JD Sports and Curry's on Tottenham High Street 😆

Welcome to London 2012...

It is, after all, just a glorified Egg and Spoon race.

You have a skylight? Oooooooooooooh how the other half live

Sometimes I have the butler open it for me.

If it wern't for the olympics then you can imagine how any application to store explosive ordinance on the roof of tower block would be recieved, not to mention the H&S regulations that would be invoked.

The Olympics are kinda integral to this discussion

If I lived in those Fred West towers in inner city London next to an attractive terrorism target then I'd more likely welcome it

Those who state it wouldn't bother them I don't believe you

*some? most? all? dunno

It is, after all, just a glorified Egg and Spoon race.

Have you missed out on selection or something?

I wouldn't mind an army missile placement on my roof - thay could make themselves useful by re-setting the ridge tiles & re-pointing the chimney stack while they were up there ... and there's probably a few tiles that need replacing ... and the old TV aerial can come down ... gutters need clearing ...

.....the government bod really couldn't justify what they were there for.

Ok.

The presenter was trying to suggest it might be a bad idea to blow some thing up over skys of London, but the army/government bloke said that was preferential to the aircraft reaching its target

Ah.

So he could justify why they were there then.

I hope people realise that these are a [b]last line of defence[/b] there are '' other '' things further away to keep any potential air thret away long before it gets anywhre near london.

Also have people forgotten there [b][u]IS[/u][/b] a WAR going on. Just because alot of people dont care about it because they [u]Think[/u] it is overseas and not going to impact their daily life are frankly misled.

1) this is a global war.
2) not all terroists / extreemists are afgan/iraqi
3) people should be thankful there is some defence and realise that ideal situations can not always be met.

i am gonna shut up now before i say something i shouldnt 😉

neal I think your first quote related to justifying the location itself.

Also have people forgotten there IS a WAR going on.

Oh dear. Have we been reading Alastair Campbells dosiers?

nope, i am a millitary person so have daily exposure to these issues

Those who state it wouldn't bother them I don't believe you

Indeed, because if you're upset about something then everyone else in the world must be too.

Admittedly I'd rather have a land based Phalanx installation on my roof. Great for taking out neds

but the army/government bloke said that was preferential to the aircraft reaching its target

Anyone got any real idea what the differing outcome would be for plane hitting a stadium vs a plane being blown up across a lot of london?

[i]nope, i am a millitary person so have daily exposure to these issues

[/i]

Unless you are very senior, you only know what you've been told...

What concerned me though was the lack of security around the buildings etc with the missiles in place - seemed odd?

Anyone got any real idea what the differing outcome would be for plane hitting a stadium vs a plane being blown up across a lot of london?

Only that the military believe that the overall result would be far worse if a rogue plane reached its target.

Do you know any different.

Indeed, because if you're upset about something then everyone else in the world must be too

Do you know any different.

Anyone got any real idea what the differing outcome would be for plane hitting a stadium vs a plane being blown up across a lot of london?

I think on balance I'd rather be hit on the head by a bit of plane than a whole one.

The 'threat' has been hyped to justify the 'security'.

If 'they' hijacked a 747 and put it into canary wharf on a weekday afternoon 'they' would surely earn the undying gratitude of the nation.

Oh... actually that not going to work. The bankers will be the ones with all the Olympic tickets, sat around swilling fizz. On second thoughts, just put it into the stadium

but explosives around the family home perfectly fine? seriously?

Yup. They don't tend to just blow up at random

There was some thing on Radio 4 about it the other day, where basically the government bod really couldn't justify what they were there for. The presenter was trying to suggest it might be a bad idea to blow some thing up over skys of London, but the army/government bloke said that was preferential to the aircraft reaching its target,
doesn't this tower block then become a target!

Hmmm, olympic stadium with a capacity crown of 80,000 spectators plus all the worlds top atheletes gathered in one place for the opening/closing ceremony...

or an area of mixed residential and business premises.

in the grand scheme of things...

Yup. They don't tend to just blow up at random

Anyone got any real idea what the differing outcome would be for plane hitting a stadium vs a plane being blown up across a lot of london?

Doesn't that assume that the only possible airborne security threat is a 747?

What about a small plane or a microlight packed with explosives? Or a remote control plane/drone? Or even a missile?

Taking any of them out while still in the air would be better than them reaching the target.

If I lived in Saaaaaaarf Laaaaaaaaandan I'd be asking questions like: just how accurate are surface to air missiles? What percentage of them hit their intended target? And what happens to the ones that miss?

Anyone know?

Other targets are available...

So when the olympics are over and the missiles removed (IF they are removed) does this mean that the rest of non-olympic Londomn is at increased risk of attack? Should we all go around wearing tin bowlers?

What about a small plane or a microlight packed with explosives? Or a remote control plane/drone? Or even a missile?

Dear god! Best get your tinfoil helmet on and get back under the desk. I never thought anyone [i]really[/i] believed the fanciful, paranoid crap that the security establishment fed them. Remember when they were going to put Anthrax in all our resevoirs? You do realise its all just a wheeze to get more powers and increased budgets? 🙄

What about a small plane or a microlight packed with explosives? Or a remote control plane/drone? Or even a missile?

Some of us realise.

or an area of highly populated mixed residential and business premises.

graham you mean little nellie?

If I can go back to

[i]I hope the residents scatter used needles, dog mess and all manner of unpleasentness[/i]

does this tell us something about the residents?

And binners, I think the ones that miss are expected to self-destruct. The original owners wouldn't like to see them on ebay.

Anyone know?

Given that they are designed to take out the likes of fast jets, they'll be just fine with a lumbering 737/A320/757/767/777/747/A330/A340/etc

Putting on top or a residential tower block is a bad call. I would not want it on the basis that (i) there must be some risk of accidental firing and more so, (ii) making the building itself a target for terrorists.

Surely and office block or empty building would have been a better choice? This just smacks of - these people have no money/power, therefore we'll position missiles on top of their home.

Personally, I think it's a ****ing disgrace and the residents have every right to be pissed off.

This just smacks of - these people have no money/power, therefore we'll put them on top of their home.

Dear god! Best get your tinfoil helmet on and get back under the desk. I never thought anyone really believed the fanciful, paranoid crap that the security establishment fed them.

You're right. It's best not to consider it too much and just assume that terrorists will only ever attack in exactly the same way they have attacked before.

Putting in any kind of last resort contingency, just in case, is paranoid. 🙄

Still nice of the MoD to provide the terrorists with a few extra and more easily accessible weapons

Yeah. Because the missiles will be left unguarded with a big button marked "Go" next to them. 🙄

at least the millitary are letting the residents stay in the tower block while they are there . . . .

nope, i am a millitary person so have daily exposure to these issues

I love it when the army uses itself to justify itself.

Some of us realise.

So have the rest of us, thankfully we've all realised different things. You've realsied that the government really is trying to screw the little guy. The middle classes have realised the government is trying to screw the middle classes, the rich are convinced that they're being screwed.

You're right. It's best not to consider it too much and just assume that terrorists will only ever attack in exactly the same way they have attacked before.

In that case, have you worked through any possible scenarios involving tunneling equipment, ice-cream vans or maybe a satellite-based death ray of some type?

I'm sure if we give the security services another blank cheque, they'll look into it for us

Putting in any kind of last resort contingency, just in case, is paranoid.

Yes it is! Don't you think so? seriously? Where exactly would you draw the line. Have the terrorists got submarines? They might have. We don't know. Why aren't ewe planning for that?

So... yes.. its very paranoid. Not to say expensive, potentially disastrously counter-productive and, quite frankly just plain bloody stupid

I love it when the army uses itself to justify itself

im not army.

but do have a hand in the air defence plan of london. not the launching things at flying things part though.

In that case, have you worked through any possible scenarios involving tunneling equipment, ice-cream vans or maybe a satellite-based death ray of some type?

Are you suggesting that terrorists getting hold of a Cessna and some explosive/biological weapons is just as fanciful as them having a satellite death ray?

crush83 - Member
at least the millitary are letting the residents stay in the tower block while they are there . . .

Gaw' bless em!

So where are they flying this Cessna from then? Maybe some slightly more robust security at small aerodromes within range of London might be a tad more rational solution to this ridiculously unlikely threat. Instead of shoving a load of heavy artillery in the middle of built-up, heavily populated urban areas.

Like I said..... ridiculously paranoid, expensive, potentially disastrously counter-productive and, quite frankly just plain bloody stupid

I thought an Englishman's home is his castle. These sound ideal for the battlements.

So where are they flying this Cessna from then? Maybe some slightly more robust security at small aerodromes within range of London might be a tad more rational solution to this ridiculously unlikely threat.

Perhaps this shocking situation, shoving a load of heavy artillery in the middle of built-up, heavily populated urban areas isn't quite as unprecedented as people suggest?

[img] [/img]

Hyde Park 1940

or how about:

I'm somewhat more confused as to how someone can describe a missile battery as heavy artillery though... 😯

How is guarding a large number of sites across a very large region more rational then guarding the few high profile possible targets?

Large number of sites? How many places can you fly a plane from? Aren't they called airports? I seem to remember the last time I passed through one, there was quite a bit of security there anyway. Could have been wrong though. Maybe I dreamt it

So where are they flying this Cessna from then? Maybe some slightly more robust security at small aerodromes within range of London might be a tad more rational solution to this ridiculously unlikely threat.

As I understand it all flying over London is banned or very heavily restricted during the games and the small aerodromes are basically shut, for exactly this reason.

You understand that the missiles are a last line of defence type thing? A contingency plan.

I really don't understand why people would object to more protection being provided in a way that has absolutely zero impact on their lives.

Large number of sites? How many places can you fly a plane from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_British_Crown_Dependencies

A small training plane like a Cessna 162 has a range of about 500 miles.

As I understand it all flying over London is banned or very heavily restricted during the games and the small aerodromes are basically shut, for exactly this reason.

SO WTF DO WE NEED SURFACE TO AIR MISSILES FOR?!!!!!

As I understand it all flying over London is banned or very heavily restricted during the games and the small aerodromes are basically shut, for exactly this reason.

I assumed these missiles were to shoot down people like this who aren't limited to airfields and could still carry a reasonable amount of explosive.

Large number of sites? How many places can you fly a plane from? Aren't they called airports?

SO WTF DO WE NEED SURFACE TO AIR MISSILES FOR?!!!!!

Just to get this straight Binners:

Heavy artillery:
[img] [/img]

HVM:
[img] [/img]

Perhaps the hyperbole of talking about 'heavy artillery' shows who's 'ridiculously paranoid' and 'quite frankly just plain bloody stupid' eh Binners?