Olympic Security

Non- Rugby Related Chat. Please note that this forum is moderated. If you wish to make comments for the club's attention please do so in Fans Forum and not this one.

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Phil B
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:49 am
Location: St Julien Les Rosiers, Le Gard.

Olympic Security

Post by Phil B » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:11 pm

From the BBC today:

Surface-to-air missiles could be deployed at six sites across London, as preparations begin for a major Olympics security exercise.

Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about the state of the world?

Olympic games? Fun? Great time for one and all?

Sad, sad, sad. :smt022 :smt022 :smt022
I could agree with you...but then we'd both be wrong.

Kinoulton
Super User
Super User
Posts: 11357
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:13 pm
Location: East Riding

Re: Olympic Security

Post by Kinoulton » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:34 pm

The fighter jets screamed over our gaff this morning, and unlike the norm, when they have a roll around over the north sea and come back, they shot off south and haven't been seen since.

Apparently there is some sort of practice session on, in preparation for a possible missile attack.

They are quite capable of shooting down a missile, but the worrying word is "down". I.e. the bits and bobs of debris have to fall somewhere.
Kicks and scrums and ruck and roll.....Is all my brain and body need!

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: Olympic Security

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:05 pm

Kinoulton wrote: They are quite capable of shooting down a missile, but the worrying word is "down". I.e. the bits and bobs of debris have to fall somewhere.
And this has been the glaringly obvious point made by the local residents. So glaringly obvious that it will be ignored by the powers that be.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

me2
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Olympic Security

Post by me2 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:37 pm

Well what is the alternative?

Leave any missiles to hit their intended target & potentially kill tens of thousands of civillians?

I am a local resident living approx 1.5 miles from one of the planned missile locations) and personally don't have a problem with it.

I'd rather have the deterrent there & not need to use it than not have it and suffer the consequences of not having been prepared for such terrorist attacks.

I am more annoyed about the introduction of dedicated VIP/athlete "Games Lanes" and the restricted access on certain roads around my house than I am about the positioning of SAMs on high rise buildings near where I live.

DickyP
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2815
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Newark

Re: Olympic Security

Post by DickyP » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:42 pm

Kinoulton wrote:.... but the worrying word is "down". I.e. the bits and bobs of debris have to fall somewhere.
Given the 'beauty' of the area if it wasn't for the fact there are people involved this debris would merely constitute urban redevelopment.

One a more serious note the likely targets would be light planes and helicopters and the mere presence of such defences is a deterrent. A small Cessna light plane or Bell JetRanger helicopter crashing in the relatively open spaces round Stratford is likely to do far less damage than any targeted attack they would make. If you're talking hijacked airliners or aerial targets of similar size, however, then all bets are off anyway.
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."

CJ
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1396
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Olympic Security

Post by CJ » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:42 pm

They will not be the first Games to have missiles on stand-by. There were some under the sea in the Saronic Gulf for the Athens Games for example. Sad, but it has to be done.

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: Olympic Security

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:16 pm

DickyP wrote: Given the 'beauty' of the area if it wasn't for the fact there are people involved this debris would merely constitute urban redevelopment.
HEY!!! It's not that bad! :smt023
CJ wrote:They will not be the first Games to have missiles on stand-by. There were some under the sea in the Saronic Gulf for the Athens Games for example. Sad, but it has to be done.
Because of the terrorist attack that never happened?

The deterrent argument drives me mad - it's pretty fallacious. Because there hasn't been a need for these missiles previously, it must be the missiles that are keeping the bad guys away.

As far as I'm concerned, this paranoia is chronic terrorism and good for nobody.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

Eon
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:10 pm

Re: Olympic Security

Post by Eon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:27 pm

I'm calling for a personal exclusion zone of eighty miles around the capital for the duration.

If the Rugby 7 were on I'd probably break it.

DickyP
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2815
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Newark

Re: Olympic Security

Post by DickyP » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:08 pm

Skin_and_Muscle wrote: ... The deterrent argument drives me mad - it's pretty fallacious. ...
It's not fallacious - just unprovable - a very different matter. It's something you can only judge in retrospect, and not always then. I would content that deterrence worked during the cold war: ie, we never had a 'hot' war, but I can't prove it was down to deterrence.
Skin_and_Muscle wrote:As far as I'm concerned, this paranoia is chronic terrorism and good for nobody.
Reminds me of:
"Remember - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." This may originate as a joke but it's nevertheless true.

Anyway I'm looking forward to the Olympics as I have my tickets - for a cruise in Alaska.
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."

Kinoulton
Super User
Super User
Posts: 11357
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:13 pm
Location: East Riding

Re: Olympic Security

Post by Kinoulton » Tue May 01, 2012 10:06 am

This reminds me of the comments post 2,000 when everyone was smirking: "Well what was all that computer bug nonsense? Nothing happened."

Yes nothing happened because millions of people across the World worked damned hard to cure it.

It's the same with terrorist attacks. The reason there are fewer of them is precisely because countries have got much better at nipping them in the bud.

To ignore the obvious threat of a missile attack would be insane.
Kicks and scrums and ruck and roll.....Is all my brain and body need!

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: Olympic Security

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Tue May 01, 2012 1:01 pm

Kinoulton wrote:This reminds me of the comments post 2,000 when everyone was smirking: "Well what was all that computer bug nonsense? Nothing happened."

Yes nothing happened because millions of people across the World worked damned hard to cure it.

It's the same with terrorist attacks. The reason there are fewer of them is precisely because countries have got much better at nipping them in the bud.

To ignore the obvious threat of a missile attack would be insane.
I'm not disagreeing that work is done by intelligence services to prevent attacks but I don't understand how surface to air missiles as a deterrent can be pointed to as an example of the good work done in preventing atrocities.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

h's dad
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2560
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm
Location: In front of pc

Re: Olympic Security

Post by h's dad » Tue May 01, 2012 1:59 pm

Skin_and_Muscle wrote:
CJ wrote:They will not be the first Games to have missiles on stand-by. There were some under the sea in the Saronic Gulf for the Athens Games for example. Sad, but it has to be done.
Because of the terrorist attack that never happened?

The deterrent argument drives me mad - it's pretty fallacious. Because there hasn't been a need for these missiles previously, it must be the missiles that are keeping the bad guys away.

As far as I'm concerned, this paranoia is chronic terrorism and good for nobody.
That's right. The terrorists have never used aircraft for an attack and even if they had would be unlikely to make a repeat attempt unless it had been successful. :smt017


Failure to prepare any counter to an attempt at a terrorist outrage is surely gross negligence for such a major event and one scenario has got to be to consider previous actions.

Also, who know what intelligence they may be working on?
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: Olympic Security

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Tue May 01, 2012 5:13 pm

h's dad wrote:That's right. The terrorists have never used aircraft for an attack and even if they had would be unlikely to make a repeat attempt unless it had been successful.
That's true, but I was thinking in the context of the Athens games. At the time of 9/11, I'm not sure surface to air missiles were touted as a serious option. You could argue that this atrocity was brought about by a slip in investigation or the political and economic backdrop/tensions at the time but I doubt this would have been avoided if the US threatened to have missiles at the ready.
h's dad wrote:Also, who know what intelligence they may be working on?
'Obviously not much if this is what they have to resort to' is probably the crudest (and inaccurate, but I hope you get what I mean...) way of making my point in response to this question.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

kingol22
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3197
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 3:54 pm

Re: Olympic Security

Post by kingol22 » Tue May 01, 2012 8:58 pm

Skin_and_Muscle wrote: I'm not disagreeing that work is done by intelligence services to prevent attacks but I don't understand how surface to air missiles as a deterrent can be pointed to as an example of the good work done in preventing atrocities.
The missiles are there as a precaution and it is sensible to do this. They are not deterrents, the sort of people that carry out terror attacks hardly care if they survive. Surely it is better to look paranoid then be unprepared.

Kinoulton
Super User
Super User
Posts: 11357
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:13 pm
Location: East Riding

Re: Olympic Security

Post by Kinoulton » Wed May 02, 2012 10:46 am

Somebody I know extremely well is an army captain involved in the Olympic security.

As always there is an intense monitoring of "chatter" across the world. I.e. phone calls, texts, emails, chat rooms and this is how they find out when someone is planning to kill tens of thousands of people.

No one is going to scramble jets just because they fancy it. When information suggests that there might be danger, then it will be specific and the fighter planes will be deployed with one clear mission.

It will be messy, be sure of that, but the alternative is just to allow a massive missile to hit a stadium full of people.
Kicks and scrums and ruck and roll.....Is all my brain and body need!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests