[Closed] No, seriously?

FFS TJ? Did you read what I wrote?
Do you think a Govt would allow an airline to crash into a crowded stadium?
TJ, you accuse me of adding nothing constructive to the forum, yet it would appear that you have done nothing but provoke and attack people on a few threads. I could understand a girlie getting stroppy once every few weeks, but FFS! Get youself a life.

YOu really think a government could shoot a hijacked airliner down over a city?

Assuming it is possible then, might it be possible for them to crash it into a stadium containing 50,000+ people?

Damage limitation isnt it?

Yes I read what yo said - I simply do not believe any government could take teh decision to shoot an airliner down over a city. Understand the principle of why it might be the best decision in abstract but in reality I don't think they would have the bottle to do it quickly enough

A hijacked airliner? would they really shoot it down over london.

edit - too late.....

Wouldn't shooting it out of the sky and killing a couple of thousand be a bit better?

Why take the chance ? Surely it would be far wiser to ban all flights near London while the Olympic stadium is occupied.

I mean, you can't be too sure - can you ? And "killing a couple of thousand" seems like rather drastic action.

On reflection I don't think the government is taking this airborne terrorist threat seriously enough.

I can't actually believe that an airline would be allowed into that position in the first place, so a bit of a moot point.

Being completely unqualified and starting from a position of a zero knowledge base, I am going to offer my opinion.

On BBC news today they were actually filming the towerblock in question- in detail, with narration of exactly where they were. Surely they would never actually place missiles of any kind in a location that was being advertised on the national news, under any circumstances?

So seems to me the whole thing is a massive publicity stunt that will probably never happen, or certainly the chap on the news moaning about his house being turned into a missile silo can sleep safe, because if they're deployed, they won't be anywhere near where everyone thinks they are?

don simon - Member

I can't actually believe that an airline would be allowed into that position in the first place, so a bit of a moot point.

Exactly - there is no credible threat than needs SAM batteries placed in the city

Put the fear of god into people and you can control them.

Except it dosent seem to work with us Brits because we just take the p155 out of everything 😆

Isnt humour wonderful......

Exactly - there is no credible threat than needs SAM batteries placed in the city

By the way, page 155 is a continuation of p154............... which is utter pish.

😆

Surely it would be far wiser to ban all flights near London while the Olympic stadium is occupied.

So any other time, whilst the athletes are accommodated, opening ceremony to closing ceremony, would be OK? Closing London whilst the Olympics is on isn't [i]really[/i] an option.

Surely they would never actually place missiles of any kind in a location that was being advertised on the national news, under any circumstances?

You do know they have said where combat aircraft and military ships will be located as well don't you?

if they're deployed, they won't be anywhere near where everyone thinks they are?

They will be near the place they are defending.

Do you know how big a surface-to-air missile is BTW?

I can't actually believe that an airline would be allowed into that position in the first place, so a bit of a moot point.

But TooTall has now offered the suggestion that Iran might be busy 'reverse engineering' a drone in time for the Olympic Games, which they can then launch from over there to hit the Olympic Stadium in London.

No one thought of that eh ?

Really, isn't about time that we attacked Iran and put a stop to their nonsense ?

It's great to see so many uninformed commenting on this...missiles will be quite a small shoulder launched thing if it's starstreak

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/artillery-air-defence/1509.aspx

[img] [/img]

Will give a commander another option, especially against a slow moving stealth airborne intruder that a RAF fighter couldn't get near or lock onto with IR or Radar. Think microlite or small ROV...stuff that Eurofighter won't be able to react too.

All a bit strange, but I would be inclined to believe the fundamentals of what Too Tall is saying over, let's say, a nurse or a chippy. Know what I mean? 😉

TooTall- No, I didn't and no, I don't.

I still don't recall ever seeing locations of surface to air missiles in metropolitan cities, whatever their size, advertised on the BBC.

And you still haven't convinced me that this would be a totally normal thing to do, just because it might be general knowledge where an airfield or a big boat is.

Really, isn't about time that we attacked Iran and put a stop to their nonsense ?

Don't worry [b]we[/b] will, just as soon as every one is scared enough.

All a bit strange, but I would be inclined to believe the fundamentals of what Too Tall is saying over, let's say, a nurse or a chippy. Know what I mean?

I wouldn't, the military are fed whatever bullshit is required to keep them believing in the rights of their actions without question. To believe they are in any way well informed is at best naive.

missiles will be quite a small shoulder launched thing if it's starstreak

It will be - the article says so. It also says that it : "will only be authorised for active use following specific orders from the highest levels of government in response to a confirmed and extreme security threat". So the decision will be a political one not a military one.

This guy will decide.

[img] [/img]

It will be - the article says so. It also says that it : "will only be authorised for active use following specific orders from the highest levels of government in response to a confirmed and extreme security threat". So the decision will be a political one not a military one.

yes..the use of force tends to be a political decision in a democracy

Exactly - there is no credible threat than needs SAM batteries placed in the city

Like we would know?
AFAIK, Our Intelligence Services are not given to taking out full page ads in the press to alert the residents of Fundamentalist Street that 'We Know Your Game'?

I wouldn't, the military are fed whatever bullshit is required to keep them believing in the rights of their actions without question. To believe they are in any way well informed is at best naive.

the use of force tends to be a political decision in a democracy

So these decisions are made by people who know nothing. A bit like the average punter then.

marsdenman

Waht conceivable threat is there that any government could use these missiles for?

A bit like the average punter then.

What gwaelod said ^^. no one is talking about taking out a jumbo jet over central London.

You'd assume they've got some sort of in depth plan for this so no suspicious aircraft is going to be allowed to get near London in the first place. Small shoulder launched missiles might be a good last resort option against something like a microlight which has sneaked inside any air defence cordon.

Besides, imagine if by some tiny chance something big did happen and there were no missiles, the SAS were all on holiday or whatever. Imagine the cries then of "why didn't the Government station tanks/anti aircraft guns around the Olympic stadium?"

It must be a slow news day for the BBC, there's only so many weather reporters you can interview on some windswept pier so creating a bit of mass hysteria is probably quite a relief for the BBC.

BTW, I hope Cameron isn't having a shit when the Iranian drone comes hurtling towards Olympic Stadium.

Or at least that he's got his mobile with him.

Why take the chance ? Surely it would be far wiser to ban all flights near London while the Olympic stadium is occupied.

That's the really cunning thing about the whole plan: you ban the flights over London, which really, really helps when it comes to identifying flying things that shouldn't be there. Which you then shoot down.

In my naivety I've learnt not to listen to people who make uninformed generalisations without knowing the people.

Ignorance is bliss, carry on.

Which you then shoot down.

Only after you've checked with the PM that it's ok.

TandemJeremy - Member
marsdenman

Waht conceivable threat is there that any government could use these missiles for?

Like I said, [i]the likes of you and I[/i] simply do not know what is happening out there in the wider world- we can sit here, dodging the cold and rain and idly speculate about aircraft high-jackings, reverse engineering of drones etc etc

Would our security service alert us of a credible threat? I don't know - one thing for sure - it's well above my pay grade to work out if a threat is credible enough to make public, therefore potentially writing off The Games?

IIRC - evidence that 'something was not right' about a few guys wanting to learn to fly planes was not seen as a 'credible threat' pre 9/11....

'...but he's on the phone to the White House right now' - Imagine if Imelda May is next in line?

Waht conceivable threat is there that any government could use these missiles for?

TJ, while I firmly believe that all Governments, regardless of party, are at best an incompetent bunch of morons, I also believe that they, just possibly, have more information about threats (credible or otherwise) than you do...

But don't let that stop you arguing on that well known stage of democracy and military expertise, a mountain biking forum.

Marsdenman / crazylegs come on then - use your imagination. What could this thrat possibly be and how would shooting it down over a crowded city be politically possible?

Marsdenman - there is no credible threat in the sense of physically there is nothing they could shoot down in a city that could be a significant threat.

Apart from, say, a hijacked airliner.

The thing is youre going to put very deadly guns and rockets, armed police, etc into london town, but whats going to be done if some of them loose the plot and decide to stage their own re enacment of a war film or the latest computer game.

It would make the 2011 riots look like a playschool party.

Lets just hope it doesnt happen.

oh and 1 billion pounds for security could build a lot of off road cycle tracks, and trail centres, as well as new and decent hospitals.

Marsdenman - there is no credible threat in the sense of physically there is nothing they could shoot down in a city that could be a significant threat.

Could someone tell No 10 that it's all OK; TJ says so on an internet forum so it must be true.

😉

Apart from, say, a hijacked airliner.

or a train or tram.

Well give some credible scenario?

Apart from, say, a hijacked airliner.

That no government could make the decision to shoot down over a city. POlitically impossible

Marsdenman / crazylegs come on then - use your imagination. What could this thrat possibly be and how would shooting it down over a crowded city be politically possible?

But isn't this a stupid question, after all weren't the events of 9/11 inconceivable ie no one could conceive them and almost certainly wouldn't have listed them on an Internet mountain biking forum?

Have you considered the deterrent and prevention element TJ? I didn't think so.
Plod with guns will have problems shooting a microlight or small plane, might be worth the risk.
Army with big guns and missiles mean that the naughty terrorist types will need something bigger that can't take off/be launched from near by.
Suspicious aircraft takes of from leafy Surbiton, gets warning, gets shot down away from important people or large crowds.
Might that be feasible, obviously I'd have to bow down to your military experience, which is what exactly?

My own, personal credible threat would be two blokes in a light aircraft, one flying tight circles low over a stadium, the other busy with several automatic weapons. Other nightmares are available, I'm sure that better minds than mine from both sides are thinking of them.

TJ, while I firmly believe that all Governments, regardless of party, are at best an incompetent bunch of morons, I also believe that they, just possibly, have more information about threats (credible or otherwise) than you do...

Do you believe though that sometimes governments exaggerate or otherwise manipulate public perception of those threats, to suit their own political ends?

Personally I think anyone who doesn't is being fairly naive. Not saying this is necessarily an example of it, but.....

Marsdenman / crazylegs come on then - use your imagination. What could this thrat possibly be and how would shooting it down over a crowded city be politically possible?

TJ: you know that the SAS have a counter terrorist team on standby 24/7 should there be an "incident". The RAF still operate their QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) where they have planes and pilots ready to go into action at a moments notice? It's not the same levels as the Cold War where pilots were literally sat in their planes at the end of the runway, engines on but it's there and it gets used on a regular basis - that sonic boom over the South just a few weeks ago where two Eurofighters were scrambled on what turned out to be a false alarm.

That just happens in the background - few people notice or care. This is just an extension of that safety blanket. You've got THE biggest sporting event on the planet, watched by billions. Kind of makes sense to be prepared, don't you think?

That no government could make the decision to shoot down over a city. POlitically impossible

Hardly. Unlikely, difficult - yes. Impossible? No. You set up a no-fly zone, realistically NO airline flying into the UK wouldn't know about it. ANY airliner breaking the no-fly restriction would know about it. Politically being "tough on crime" is a safe bet, and being tough on terrorism is a no-brainer.

There are contingency plans slowoldgit.
[img] [/img]
I reiterate TJ, what is your military background? You haven't made it clear.

You are all missing the point; The missiles are pointing at Tottenham...

Crazylegs -yes I know that which is a part of why this missile battery is not needed. shoot it down outside a city is plausible

Mogrim - the thing is if they shoot an airliner down over a city massive loss of life is certain and on a judgement call - if they don't the massive loss of life is not certain .

Terrorism is rare, far rarer than many people think. It's rare because very few people want to commit acts of terrorism, and executing a terrorist plot is much harder than television makes it appear. The best defenses against terrorism are largely invisible: investigation, intelligence, and emergency response. But even these are less effective at keeping us safe than our social and political policies, both at home and abroad. [b]However, our elected leaders don't think this way: they are far more likely to implement security theater against movie-plot threats.[/b]

A movie-plot threat is an overly specific attack scenario. Whether it's terrorists with crop dusters, terrorists contaminating the milk supply, or terrorists attacking the Olympics, specific stories affect our emotions more intensely than mere data does. Stories are what we fear. It's not just hypothetical stories: terrorists flying planes into buildings, terrorists with bombs in their shoes or in their water bottles, and terrorists with guns and bombs waging a co-ordinated attack against a city are even scarier movie-plot threats because they actually happened.

Security theater refers to security measures that make people feel more secure without doing anything to actually improve their security. An example: the photo ID checks that have sprung up in office buildings. No-one has ever explained why verifying that someone has a photo ID provides any actual security, but it looks like security to have a uniformed guard-for-hire looking at ID cards. Airport-security examples include the National Guard troops stationed at US airports in the months after 9/11 -- their guns had no bullets. The US colour-coded system of threat levels, the pervasive harassment of photographers, and the metal detectors that are increasingly common in hotels and office buildings since the Mumbai terrorist attacks, are additional examples.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/beyond_security.html

don simon - Member

Have you considered the deterrent and prevention element TJ? I didn't think so.

Suicide bombers are not deterred

Military career please TJ?
They are if they can't get near the target.

That just happens in the background - few people notice or care. This is just an extension of that safety blanket. You've got THE biggest sporting event on the planet, watched by billions. Kind of makes sense to be prepared, don't you think?

Prepared for what - that is the point. Its politicaly unusable.

don simon - Member

Military career please TJ?
They are if they can't get near the target

If they can't get near the target then these missile batteries don't come into play.

Stop avoiding the question TJ, what is your military background?

If they can't get near the target then these missile batteries don't come into play.

No - they are no detternt. these missle batteries are right next to the possible targets,

I do not need a military career to see the bollox that this is - just a bit of clear logical thinking.

Its utter bollox designed to make it look like they are doing everything. There is no scenario under which they could be used and no one on here has made any credible suggestions for a sceario under which it could be used.

deterence - piffle.

Now that's sorted, can we discuss the danger to civilians when the terrorists decide to knock the soldiers off the water tower before ploughing a jumbo into the stadium?

I do not need a military career to see the bollox that this is - just a bit of clear logical thinking.

Mogrim - the thing is if they shoot an airliner down over a city massive loss of life is certain and on a judgement call - if they don't the massive loss of life is not certain .

Not really, a hijacked airline flying through a no-fly zone during the Olympic Games is a pretty sure-fire bet for a massive loss of life whatever you do, which means that, politically, shooting it down isn't that hard a decision to take.

The other situation is with smaller ("light") aircraft, that's even less of a complicated decision - shoot one of those down and the chances of death on the ground are considerably less.

No - they are no detternt. these missle batteries are right next to the possible targets,

You do realise they don't just shoot straight up, right?

I do not need a military career to see the bollox that this is - just a bit of clear logical thinking.

and a healthy dose of uneducated statements from a background of neither experience or knowledge on defence matters

As I said earlier and as mogrim has said above: no one is talking about shooting down a jumbo with a bloody great SAM over central London with the devastation and loss of life that would cause.

You have layers of protection. A no fly zone, air defence so that a hijacked airliner could never even get close to London.

But suppose someone took off in a microlight packed with explosives from a field in Hertfordshire? Or got a big radio controlled plane or a small drone. Easy to sneak through at rooftop height. That's what you'd use a small missile against.

It will almost certainly not happen. But if it (or something similar) does happen, won't you be glad that someone, somewhere had thought of that and prepared against it?

And yes, at the same time, I've got no doubt that it's being stirred up out of all proportion by a) the Government and b) a very bored media. The more the media trump on about it, the more the Goverment can do. Just look at Iraq, the media hyped that one to hell and back with The Sun screaming that Saddam could launch WMD in 45 minutes - the media basically did the Government's work for them in setting the stage for [s]an invasion[/s] liberation.

As I said earlier and as mogrim has said above: no one is talking about shooting down a jumbo with a bloody great SAM over central London with the devastation and loss of life that would cause.

No, I said they [b]could[/b] do that. With a massive loss of life.

I agree there's a certain amount of theatre to the whole thing - the publicity, etc. - but at the same time I certainly expect a government (of whatever hue) to take this kind of measure.

Seriosuly not one of yo has given any credible scenario where it would be politically possible to do so

Militarily it might well be the right decision but politically it would always be impossible

Ah sorry Mogrim, was so busy baiting TJ I didn't read your post properly. 😉

TJ: I have given a plausible scenario, read my post at the bottom of page 4.

and a healthy dose of uneducated statements from a background of neither experience or knowledge on defence matters

Like all the rest of the commentators on here. How many have experience in air defence against terrorist attack in a european major city.

its like the tanks at the airports pure theatre

At least I have the clarity of thought to understand the politics of this - that it is politically impossible to shoot a plane down over a city and that its pure political theatre.

Seriosuly not one of yo has given any credible scenario where it would be politically possible to do so

Seriosuly not one of yo has given any credible scenario where it would be politically possible to do so

Yes I have, but you don't agree with me. Why don't you think the PM would agree to shooting down a plane violating a no-fly zone over London, heading towards one of the Olympic venues? Given the plane could be a Cessna, doesn't have to be a Jumbo?

But suppose someone took off in a microlight packed with explosives from a field in Hertfordshire? Or got a big radio controlled plane or a small drone. Easy to sneak through at rooftop height. That's what you'd use a small missile against.

Still not plausible the missiles could be used - same issue - shoot it down loss of life is certain, don't shoot it down loss of life is not certain. You would never be certain it was a flying bomb not a publicity stunt or unarmed aircraft flown by a nutter.

Militarily it might be the right thing to shoot it down, politically it never could be.

At least I have the clarity of thought to understand the politics of this - that it is politically impossible to shoot a plane down over a city and that its pure political theatre.

At the risk of Godwin's law, I should point out that the RAF shot down loads in 1940, given the right situation it's no great problem.

Still not plausible the missiles could be used - same issue - shoot it down loss of life is certain, don't shoot it down loss of life is not certain. You would never be certain it was a flying bomb not a publicity stunt or unarmed aircraft flown by a nutter.

Militarily it might be the right thing to shoot it down, politically it never could be.

What? Shoot down a microlight over London, loss of life - 1? 2? Who cares if it's a publicity stunt, that's hardly a political problem!

But [s]you[/s] I have no authority or experience to make any judgements either, [s]your[/s] my opinion has no value, it means nothing and only a fool would think otherwise.

You would never be certain it was a flying bomb not a publicity stunt or unarmed aircraft flown by a nutter.

Look at what one nutter did to the boat race. If the boat race had put out loads of info saying that anything on the river in the way of the race was going to be shot by snipers, you can bet that the guy would almost certainly have stayed on shore.

Same here. The possibility that you *might* be shot down should theoretically deter the vast majority of nutters and publicity stunters.

Of course it's publicity, a bit of political theatre and sabre rattling. But it may just stop some nutter causing massive embarrassment and untold disruption live on international TV.

I assume this rule applies to you then?

Aye right so you know nothing, he knows nothing but its all his fault and he is wrong...got you, ta
[Dont worry I have another night of bike fettling ahead enjoy ]

Aye right so you know nothing, he knows nothing but its all his fault and he is wrong...got you, ta

I am one of the uninformed..

However I do not believe that a microlight would have a big enough heat signature for a SAM to hit, I may be wrong.

Equally the militar, generally, are uninformed. The higher ranks mingle and decide with politicians variuos scenarios. The front line guys follow orders, thats how it works and always has. Your average squaddy follows orderd and generally does not need to understand the politics.

As for shooting down an airliner I am prett sure there are now protocls in place for just such an event after 9/11. Do we need to worry. Probably not as if there is an incident then it will be just as big a shock as 9/11 and 7/11.

Atttacking Iran, what are we now all Yanks. Thats what they do. Dont let anyone have a similar military capability to themselves and control the oil. Bigger issues in Africa but no oil therefore no "peace" keeping farce.

USA insisting on SAMs, maybe we definitly need to grow a pair at the higher levels.

Shooting down an aircraft of letting it crash into a stadium, wetehr its Olympics, football or other building. The aircraft will be shot down without a doubt. Without even doing the casualty count the government would love it as it shows they aare in control and we are safe. Let it crash then it looks like they failed no matter what they say.

Are there SAMs in London already. Allegedly. They are not very big and its rumoured that they are already there. All eyes will be on London and there are still very soft targets, another tube outrage. Choose another city. Security at the games it preety tight but it only takes one incident for the terrorists to claim success.

Look at what one nutter did to the boat race. If the boat race had put out loads of info saying that anything on the river in the way of the race was going to be shot by snipers, you can bet that the guy would almost certainly have stayed on shore.

Yeah I wish more people's behaviour was managed through fear of being shot by snipers. We could stop littering at a stroke.

How many have experience in air defence against terrorist attack in a european major city.

If I put my hand up, will you STFU?

I am one of the uninformed..

Yes. Yes you are. Most of what you have written is guff. Just to reassure you that you are right in your first line anyway. 😀

air defence against terrorist attack in a european major city.

Really tootall?

🙄

I expect BAOR had them permanently set up over Berlin, for example. Prolly before tt's time, though.