Awesome firepower for the Olympics

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....trength-Olympics.html

It seems that we have got the security of the Olympics stitched up, both from the sea and from the air, but I wonder what measures are to be taken against those who would cause trouble on the ground?

Would it have been much easier to have let France win.

[andy-hughes]

I shudder to read that a government minister is prepared to blythly advise that he would give orders to shoot down a hi-jacked civillian aircraft.

Like the rest of the Olympic hype, the minsters and the military have to get their chance in this global p**sing contest - it's utterly abhorent.

It would be better if anyone else had won - because Britain didn't bid!

[TheNovice]

better to be safe than sorry i guess. My thought are the stadia/village areas will be well protected those that carry out such functions. Both in a highly visible way and, no doubt, using more clandestine methods.

I live quite near Stratford and today we've enjoyed a few helicopter flypasts, now waiting to be strafed by RAF Typhoons.

Still, I think it's worth it.

[TheNovice]

Sorry, but don't you think these security measures stand for the Queens Jubilee celebrations as well. And as for the minister what was he supposed to say, 'no fly right in, we won't touch you'.

[andy-hughes]

It would be more appropriate if the minister said nothing at all, and took that horrendous decision if he had to.

To simply make an off-the-cuff remark that you would murder hundreds of innocent civilians - albeit in the defence of thousands - is cold and heartless.

It doesn't make the minister sound like a tough decision maker for our times, which was no doubt his intention, it makes him sound like a borderline psychopath who should be kept away from sharp objects.

[naomi24]

I'm not sure if this is meant to make the population feel safer, or to deter potential terrorists, but shooting down an aircraft over London would cause unthinkable devastation and loss of life and is no deterrent to would-be hijackers. They'd be planning to hit a target and die anyway - and to take as many people with them as possible - so shooting a plane down would be job done.

Still, I suppose people would complain even more if the potential threat was ignored. The powers-that-be can’t do right either way.

[andy-hughes]

naomi24 - actually they can - they just have to say that all possible security measures are in place to deal with any terrorist threat, however delivered.

That would sound better than some suit chatting about playing 'Top Gun' like it's some kind of computer game he's playing.

[TheNovice]

you're right Andy but looking at the original article there seems to be a gap in the quote attributed to Hammond - [i]Asked if he was personally willing to give the order to destroy a rogue aircraft, he said: 'Of course ... I’m certainly prepared to make decisions.'[i].

I would hope there was some qualification in this statement which the Mail/Standard have omitted.....for some reason!!

[TheNovice]

Sorry italics don't seem to work on cut and paste

[B00]

They've got missiles on the roofs of buildings installed haven't they? Sure I read that last week.

Don't understand your last sentence?

[TheNovice]

I mean that the words missing in the quote could possibly alter the whole emphasis of the statement.

[pdq1]

Maybe the powers that be have forgotten why the US is the main target for terrorists. Its because it uses its almighty military strength to execute its will in the name of freedom.

Since Blair we have been trying to emulate this on a smaller scale. Getting into the mind of a terrorist would surely make Britain a target that has to be knocked down. Parading our military strength can only add to the terrorists feeling of inadequacy and revenge.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //actually they can//

I think it's quite clear that my post referred to the criticism of the measures in place, and not the decision to broadcast those measures.

[emmie]

if anyone thinks it a good idea to site missiles on the roof tops of homes, then i reckon the fallout if one hits a rogue aircraft will be devastating.
debris for miles, and thousands dead, can't see it happening. However i can envision a lone bomber, with a bag or backpack walking through the gates of the Olympic park. and you won't be able to do anything about that. You may have tight security, but if it's well hidden on the person, or stashed inside as drug carriers do, then there won't be anything you could do about that.

[Philtaz]

The military might is indeed a great show of strength, however the ongoing debacle at Heathrow promises to provide the watching world with nothing short of a f***ing shambles come July!

[237SJ]

What do you mean, "come July"? It`s already a f*****g shambles :-)

[ludwig]

// Asked if he was personally willing to give the order to destroy a rogue aircraft, he said: 'Of course ... I’m certainly prepared to make decisions.' //

Despite it being a lying tabloid, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the above actually happened. How else would you expect him to answer the question?

[237SJ]

It wouldn`t really be his decision anyway. There are powers that know much more about security than him. He would just be the person at the end of the chain that gives the authority to go ahead.