Poll: 'Stop The Olympic Missiles' and you...

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

You are right, there as NEVER been a terrorist attack connected to the Olympics. Oh wait...there has...twice in fact.

Yes there have, but the paranoia surrounding it is over the top. And twice is not an awful lot in the entire history of the olympics. I'm not saying we should stop all security measures but it doesn't need to be excessive.

It's not excessive...

GBAD constitutes most countries air defence as standard, we don't, so we have added it for this time of heightened security... how is that excessive?

 

[ToastiestZombie]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

You are right, there as NEVER been a terrorist attack connected to the Olympics. Oh wait...there has...twice in fact.

Yes there have, but the paranoia surrounding it is over the top. And twice is not an awful lot in the entire history of the olympics. I'm not saying we should stop all security measures but it doesn't need to be excessive.

It's not excessive...

GBAD constitutes most countries air defence as standard, we don't, so we have added it for this time of heightened security... how is that excessive?

It's excessive because people who live in the worst part of London might have to deal with a bit of loud noise if something comes along that's a thread to national security! How dare they want to protect the people by putting their missiles near people live, even if it is the most logical and least dangerous place to put them! It doesn't matter if it saves the lives of thousands of people, those poor people in their houses paid for the council shouldn't have to put up with this bullshit!

(If you couldn't tell, heavy sarcasm just happened.)

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

And they say fanboys in gaming are bad, you guys are cracking down on Olympics with the god damn army? Wow... it must really be getting competitive out there.

I'm not even sure now if you are for real.

Two previous Olympic Games have suffered terrorist attacks. Most previous Olympic Games have had some involvement of the local armed forces to guard against such problems.

Is missiles on blocks of flats a bit much? I don't know. I'm not the head of the Secret Intelligence Service. I have no idea what the current "threat level" is thought to be.

This pretty much answers your last line... The SIS look outside the country and MI5/Security Services look at home, so it's them who are doing security. So they are saying that there are no credible reports, but don't want to be caught out as they cant see everything.

 

[mirasiel]

Wow these people were slow to get started, I heard about this plan at the start of the fucking year.


boo-fucking-hoo, you live at/in some of the highest points (owned by the govt, well local council I imagine) in London so yeah, you got the fucking short straw, suck it up and move on.

God, these people are like the NIMBY fuckers who keep moaning on about the RAF and Navy running training excercises in our area of the country but demand we invade whichever mean man is dictator of the week or want to run their tech-rich lifestyle but don't want to have ANY sort of power generation facility near their lovely view (whether it be coal, nuclear, wind, solar or tidal).


/edit

And to answer the inevitable question, yes I would be happy to have a rapier site located on top of the multi-story block I lived in. I am happy that my town regularly gets 'bombed' by Tornadoes and Typhoons, I am happy for the regular visits we get from naval training vessels. I am also eager for us to erect wind turbines in all the empty 'pretty' green land we have thousands of miles of or put Tidal generators out in the shallows.

You know why I am happy? because I know that I benefit greatly from these tiny fucking inconveniences and I am not a whiny little shit who wants all the cool stuff of living in a 'relatively' advanced, safe and free country but doesn't want to pony up any of the costs to maintain and secure it.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

You are right, there as NEVER been a terrorist attack connected to the Olympics. Oh wait...there has...twice in fact.

Yes there have, but the paranoia surrounding it is over the top. And twice is not an awful lot in the entire history of the olympics. I'm not saying we should stop all security measures but it doesn't need to be excessive.

It's not excessive...

GBAD constitutes most countries air defence as standard, we don't, so we have added it for this time of heightened security... how is that excessive?

It's excessive because people who live in the worst part of London might have to deal with a bit of loud noise if something comes along that's a thread to national security! How dare they want to protect the people by putting their missiles near people live, even if it is the most logical and least dangerous place to put them! It doesn't matter if it saves the lives of thousands of people, those poor people in their houses paid for the council shouldn't have to put up with this bullshit!

(If you couldn't tell, heavy sarcasm just happened.)

I didn't only notice the sarcasm, but I heavily engoyed it!

Sums up your point well too!

 

[White Lightning]

Aww man seriously? I would give my left foot to have missles on my house and these guys are literally being HANDED them, and they're complaining?

 

[Doclector]

What's the problem? I can't see why having a sam site on top of the building you live in would be a problem. If anything, that'd make me feel safer.

And besides, those things are perdy.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

I think it's a great idea, and most of the people living in the flats are probably there for free anyway. Quit whining, I say - it's hardly the worst thing about living in said areas!

Muggings, Violence, Riots: Ooo, lets give them missiles too!
David Cameron is a fucking imbecile. Not because anyone their is smart enough to use them, because someone there is stupid enought to try to dick around with them. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[getoffmycloud]

If this was a permanent thing then yes I could understand there issue but it is for two weeks to make sure the entire world doesn't witness someone crashing a plane into the Olympic stadium and killing thousands of people.

 

[mirasiel]

Actually digging in more I see that the site isn't on their roof, its even higher up on the water tower part of the main building which is another 50 or so feet up from them.

And their flats are not council owned, they are private flats in a gated community.

I love the quote from one of the idiots pushing this complaint "I can't imagine the circumstances that would require you to fire missiles over a highly populated area." .

So maybe not a NIMBY, just a complete fucking idiot then.

 

[2fish]

Let's not do half measures here. We have nukes tell the people you will remove the SAM missiles if you can store nukes there to be sure the terrorists don't get away.

'merica says

Nuke yeah!

Sorry got distracted thinking of carpet bombing...

I do think they have a historical reason to put them up so as long as they don't stay past the olympics fine by me.

 

[FamoFunk]

I don't really have much of a problem with the missiles but they shouldn't be on top of people's flats. You can see why that would make people uneasy, I mean I certainly wouldn't like it.

I think it's a great idea, and most of the people living in the flats are probably there for free anyway. Quit whining, I say - it's hardly the worst thing about living in said areas!

That's... not very nice

Perhaps not, but it's fairly practical. In such a built-up area, we need to put them on top of something tall, so why not use the flat blocks in said area?

Because it's a residential area with people who object to it? I was under the impression we lived in a democratic country

There's a difference between a democracy and a powerless government. I do agree that they should have been much more upfront about the plans and asked if any flats would volunteer, but in reality someone's ultimately got to bite the bullet, so to speak.

And again I must ask if you'd feel the same way if it was your flat? Would you just 'bite the bullet', or would you be pissed that the government decided to put hi-tech weaponry on top of your home without asking you?

My decision ultimately is based on the question of whether I'm living there for free. If not, yeah, I get why they're pissed, and I would be too. If these are council flats, I'd hope I was gracious enough to go 'Yeah, let's use the flats for something other than just paying to house other people.'
What would you think, if you lived in a council flat they were doing this in?

(Note: I base the thought that these are probably council flats on my experience of the areas involved)

You are fully aware that a lot of people that live in council houses and flats actually work and pay for the rent themselves? Some even brought them (Thanks, Thatcher, selling off hoses people need)

I don't even get why it matters if the council/government pay their rent or them themselves, it's still somewhere they need to live and probably raise children and they have every right to complain if they don't feel safe or are unhappy with the situation.

 

[In Search of Username]

Out of interest how could you shoot down a plane over London without it, y'know, crashing into London, anyway?

OT: I don't think the security around a sporting event should be allowed to disrupt the daily lives of the people who live nearby. Half the people in there probably don't even care about the Olympics in the slightest, and yet they're still being expected not to mind having missiles deployed around their homes for the benefit of everyone who does.

Maybe it's just because I always hate these big events that everyone is automatically expected to care about, and generally end up not caring myself - but this attitude of 'This event is more important than your convenience, because I said so!' really annoys me.

 

[Navvan]

Honestly I think its perfectly reasonable assuming the missiles have appropriate guarding. That and it doesn't directly inconvenience people without compensation. By inconvenience I mean things along the lines of security checks or other things that cost you time or money.

Its a safety measure, and as far as I can tell the buildings are owned by the government or by people who agreed to have missiles placed there. If they are privately owned building(s) and the owner(s) of the building(s) do not want them there then that is a different story.

 

[mad825]

Making civilian targets into military targets isn't such a bright idea. It would even make the deaths of the civilians more justifiable.

If the people who are effected were notified and voted on the idea then it would be morally justified.

 

[Raven's Nest]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

What makes you think there aren't missile sites dotted around the capital already? These ones are just to advertise that we have a deterrent. The real ones won't have their locations broadcasted in the media for painfully obvious reasons.

 

[MetalMagpie]

And they say fanboys in gaming are bad, you guys are cracking down on Olympics with the god damn army? Wow... it must really be getting competitive out there.

I'm not even sure now if you are for real.

Two previous Olympic Games have suffered terrorist attacks. Most previous Olympic Games have had some involvement of the local armed forces to guard against such problems.

Is missiles on blocks of flats a bit much? I don't know. I'm not the head of the Secret Intelligence Service. I have no idea what the current "threat level" is thought to be.

This pretty much answers your last line... The SIS look outside the country and MI5/Security Services look at home, so it's them who are doing security. So they are saying that there are no credible reports, but don't want to be caught out as they cant see everything.

I was mostly thinking about abroad-originating threats. But you're right, this is more an MI5 thing.

I confess that - suspicious person that I am - I don't find the head of MI5 saying "It's all going to be fine" to be all that reassuring. He'd hardly be likely to say "We're all going to die!" in a press release.

*Magpie does not trust professional liars-and-schemers* _>

In all likelihood, it will be fine. One thing I do trust our government (and secret services) to do is be paranoid.