1. Post #41
    Gold Member
    Mingebox's Avatar
    February 2010
    14,742 Posts
    Why would a terrorist try to attack the Olympic Games, when the security services are on highest alert?
    Why are they on high alert if terrorists wouldn't want to attack?

  2. Post #42
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    8,037 Posts
    The UK seems to think people have it in for them.
    Perhaps its because past history suggests that various terrorist groups aren't exactly opposed to attacking the UK?

    Would be rather morbidly amusing if it turns out the method of attack used will be a bloke with condoms filled with explosive fluid in his stomach or something silly. I don't really see why they think that another 9/11 type attack is the likely scenario.
    I get the feeling that the purpose of these things is to enforce (and more importantly, be seen to) the prohibited airspace around London. I don't think a 9/11 style attack is the sort of thing they are trying to prevent.
    From the exercises they have made very public it seems they think any airborne threat will be small aircraft with packages.

  3. Post #43
    Trainbike's Avatar
    May 2010
    3,202 Posts
    They say it's for the Olympics but I bet they're there for the next time there are riots.
    Yeah. All those chavs in their riot-copters were a real big problem last time.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 5Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Ninja Duck's Avatar
    July 2010
    12,032 Posts
    I remember something like this being posted before...
    Rehashed news, how disappointing.

    Better safe than sorry anyways.

  5. Post #45
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    8,037 Posts
    I remember this article before.

    Rehashed news, how disappointing.
    This isn't rehashed news at all. The MoD have sent leaflets to people in certain buildings telling them that they will probably be getting SAMs on their roof. Slightly different to the news at the end of last year about how it could happen.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux United Kingdom Show Events Informative Informative x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #46
    You British and Americans are crazy paranoid IMO.
    So many cameras. So much military. Only time I remember massive security in my country was when Obama visited, and they placed SAMs on farmers fields, swept for bombs, had convoys and apache helicopters. I had never seen anything like that.
    Seriously how expensive is that guy's travelling?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac Denmark Show Events Funny Funny x 5 (list)

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    markg06's Avatar
    September 2006
    11,052 Posts
    This seems a little bit overkill, are we worried that Russia's going to invade or suicide bombers are going to take flight?

  8. Post #48
    PikachuX1000
    PX1K's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,286 Posts
    I remember a while ago that America was crying because "we didnt have ebough security" and thats how these ideas cake about. Its an old article sonehwere on FP

  9. Post #49
    Dennab
    December 2011
    5,623 Posts
    This seems a little bit overkill, are we worried that Russia's going to invade or suicide bombers are going to take flight?
    Like it was said earlier it's probably just to demonstrate the seriousness of the no fly zone, and in a worst case scenario of a plane being hijacked they could come in handy.

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    August 2005
    12,791 Posts
    Iirc China had missiles back in '08
    Not what I meant. Do we really need a crapload of security like this? Its as if they are ready for a war.

  11. Post #51
    "Epic Leddit pwner :)"
    UberMunchkin's Avatar
    March 2010
    12,364 Posts
    Not what I meant. Do we really need a crapload of security like this? Its as if they are ready for a war.
    It may seem over the top, but safety first.

    ...even though if they shoot down a plane you still got the debris of it falling all around london

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    Mr. Someguy's Avatar
    March 2006
    24,418 Posts
    You British and Americans are crazy paranoid IMO.
    So many cameras. So much military. Only time I remember massive security in my country was when Obama visited, and they placed SAMs on farmers fields, swept for bombs, had convoys and apache helicopters. I had never seen anything like that.
    Seriously how expensive is that guy's travelling?
    Well it makes sense, you have the most powerful man in the world and a million people who want him dead. You're going to make sure that does not happen under any circumstances.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  13. Post #53
    BAZ
    Dav0r, buy me a custom title. I'm far too poor ;_;
    BAZ's Avatar
    July 2005
    12,630 Posts
    It also acts as a deterrent, when potential terrorists hear that they're going to the effort of placing SAMs around the place they realise that it might not be such a good idea to try anything.

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    Thom12255's Avatar
    January 2009
    8,602 Posts
    We've pissed off a lot of people in the past 11 years.
    They pissed us off first!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 3 (list)

  15. Post #55
    Gold Member
    Bredirish123's Avatar
    October 2006
    9,264 Posts
    You British and Americans are crazy paranoid IMO.
    So many cameras. So much military. Only time I remember massive security in my country was when Obama visited, and they placed SAMs on farmers fields, swept for bombs, had convoys and apache helicopters. I had never seen anything like that.
    Seriously how expensive is that guy's travelling?
    It's actually extremely expensive, extremely time consuming to plan, and extremely secure. His limousine not only is armored, but it also has it's own air filtration system to protect from biological/viral agents. He even has his own personal ambulance that is completely armored and outfitted with defenses along with everything he could need if he were injured. They even stock up on his bloodtype prior to every trip he makes amongst the public.

    I watched a thing on the Secret Service the other night, it was really fascinating.

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    It also acts as a deterrent, when potential terrorists hear that they're going to the effort of placing SAMs around the place they realise that it might not be such a good idea to try anything.
    I don't think anybody even considering such a thing is going to hold back at that point.

    Besides, it's not about actually killing people, it's about terror. The government will start thinking "what if those SAMs weren't there?" and they'll start spending money on more and more security. All you need to do is have a singular attack every three years or so against that security, and as long as there's even a faint idea that what they have may not be enough to stop you from attacking they'll keep spending more money on things that may not necessarily work.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  17. Post #57
    Niklas's Avatar
    July 2010
    3,946 Posts
    They say it's for the Olympics but I bet they're there for the next time there are riots.
    LET'S SHOOT THOSE FUCKING RIOTERS WITH ANTI AIR MISSILES, THAT WILL SHOW THEM!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Germany Show Events Funny Funny x 6 (list)

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Indyclone77's Avatar
    May 2010
    1,621 Posts
    If Terrorists are going to attack the Olympics it will not be the main games due to the Insane amount of security. They would most likely target a team in the city they are based in during the games. For example China's team is situated in leeds and Brazil's in sheffield two easy targets. Kill them and its free publicity

  19. Post #59
    Marik Bentusi's Avatar
    June 2010
    6,315 Posts
    Actually somewhat clever plan to draw massive attention to a certain event and then deal with the unfocused or lessened security somewhere completely else.

  20. Post #60
    BAZ
    Dav0r, buy me a custom title. I'm far too poor ;_;
    BAZ's Avatar
    July 2005
    12,630 Posts
    Besides, it's not about actually killing people, it's about terror.
    Good point, do you feel safer with SAMs, or without them?

  21. Post #61
    smelly member
    The DooD's Avatar
    June 2005
    7,148 Posts
    They should also plant mines around areas where athletes are performing, to make sure no one can run up to them unhindered
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  22. Post #62
    Gold Member
    JustExtreme's Avatar
    April 2007
    7,157 Posts
    Nation state prickwaving yay

  23. Post #63
    Blue and Proud Of It.
    Dennab
    September 2011
    961 Posts
    Ouch, but why would someone attack the Olympic games? Other than the mass casualties of a bombing.

    It's a symbol. Terrorists invoke terror. MILLIONS almost a BILLION people will be watching. That means they will see a worldwide event destroyed.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    19,159 Posts
    Good point, do you feel safer with SAMs, or without them?
    Well obviously I'd feel safer with them, but that's what they'd take advantage of. If terrorism were as dagnerous and widespread as people tend to make out, how much do you think it would cost to be safe?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    Matriax's Avatar
    November 2006
    726 Posts
    Well, imagine if there was some sort of airborne attack during the games. Would you then criticize the government for not deploying readily available assets to combat such a threat? I'd imagine, yes probably, given recent history.

    Then again, I'm not saying its a good or bad thing we are deploying them, just a sad reminder of the world we live in at the moment.

  26. Post #66
    Gold Member
    Jimbojib's Avatar
    April 2008
    3,606 Posts
    I love when the Olympics happened in Vancouver there was pretty much nothing for security besides a higher than normal police and military presence. No high fences, additional cameras, or air defense systems. Just a lot of people on foot.
    amazingly, nothing happened.
    The UK seems to think people have it in for them.
    7/7 bombings were only just under 7 years ago, so that could be why, not just an irrational fear of being bombed

  27. Post #67
    arachnidsGrip's Avatar
    March 2011
    207 Posts
    Call me crackers, but I'd call a terrorist attack pretty damned successful if they got their missiles in the air/aircraft on the way/whatever it is. Even if they get shot down people will still know what's happened and depending on the range, debris everywhere over a crowded Olympic village (If not the stadium/park itself then the miles of surrounding hotels, car parks, train stations, shops... And further out various shitty council estates.)
    Better to have a 'worst case' final ring of missile batteries than not I suppose. Twisted metal landing all over the place is still better than shit blowing up entirely.

    Oh and while I was there for my dad running some event around the park/stadium it was also basically a dress-rehearsal for the ground security staff... We accidentally brought in all sorts without incident. Reassuring!

  28. Post #68
    Gold Member
    Falchion's Avatar
    May 2009
    8,048 Posts
    Why are they on high alert if terrorists wouldn't want to attack?
    Because of national fear and paranoia.

  29. Post #69
    If I was a terrorist organization, I'd be making olympics my temporary top priority. It's a perfect event for their goals.
    Can't exactly blame UK for securing the place.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Latvia Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  30. Post #70
    ExplodingGuy's Avatar
    December 2009
    7,516 Posts
    If I was a terrorist organization, I'd be making olympics my temporary top priority. It's a perfect event for their goals.
    Can't exactly blame UK for securing the place.
    If I were a terrorist organization, I would be using car and backpack bombs instead of aircraft.

    Edited:

    What's that noise?

    Edited:

    OH SHI-

    Edited:

    Of course, they're probably going to have quite a bit of security to prevent such a thing.

  31. Post #71
    Gold Member
    smurfy's Avatar
    October 2007
    22,057 Posts
    I've thought for a while that terrorists who try to hijack planes are dumb - why not blow up a bus or a train or something, literally anything is easier than a plane

  32. Post #72
    Lizzrd's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,804 Posts
    Iirc China had missiles back in '08
    China always has missiles :v

  33. Post #73
    "You should see my penis, it puts a wookie to shame. its like a fucking front tail."
    Dysgalt's Avatar
    January 2010
    2,426 Posts
    I wonder what would happen if you flew a large RC airplane carrying stink-bombs over the stadium. . . Would it get shot down by a SAM?

  34. Post #74
    I SHOULDN'T OWN A FIREARM
    GunFox's Avatar
    May 2005
    7,548 Posts
    The Army website says the HVM system is "designed to counter threats from very high performance, low-flying aircraft".

    It says the missile travels at more than three times the speed of sound, using "a system of three dart-like projectiles to allow multiple hits on the target".

    The missiles can be fired from the shoulder, from a lightweight multiple launcher or from armoured vehicles.
    Oh god, they are deploying starstreaks. They are going to have guys sitting on the water tower with shoulder launched missiles.

    What the hell do they plan on doing with those?

    First of all, they aren't terribly good MANPADS. Who makes a surface to air missile require a laser guidance by the operator from start to finish?

    Second of all, MANPADS almost universally aim to disable aircraft and then let gravity bring them down. Eventually. Helicopters being the most vulnerable followed by fixed with fighter aircraft (assuming you can actually paint a fighter aircraft attempting to avoid your missile). But the terrorist aircraft of choice is a transport aircraft such as a 737. Shoot a 737 with a starstreak and all you have is a 737 with some holes in it. Even assuming you manage to hit the engine (again, laser guided, not heat seeking. A stinger would specifically destroy the engine, as it is the heat producing portion of the aircraft, but a starstreak is much more likely to collide with the fuselage, as it is the largest component and easiest to paint.), even the smallest of the major passenger aircraft have two engines and can maintain flight for a significant period of time on one engine, if not indefinitely (fuel permitting).

    Basically you can shoot a passenger aircraft with several of these and likely have little to no effect on it still colliding with any major group of people.

    If they are expecting an attack from gunship helicopters, then these would be perfect, buuuuut I doubt that is really the threat they expect.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    Xenocidebot's Avatar
    April 2006
    5,075 Posts
    First of all, they aren't terribly good MANPADS. Who makes a surface to air missile require a laser guidance by the operator from start to finish?
    People who realize the value of trick shots. Haven't you played any videogames made in the last decade? Being able to make a missile do a loop and hit something from another angle is tremendously useful, particularly against alien gunships.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 3 (list)

  36. Post #76
    I SHOULDN'T OWN A FIREARM
    GunFox's Avatar
    May 2005
    7,548 Posts
    People who realize the value of trick shots. Haven't you played any videogames made in the last decade? Being able to make a missile do a loop and hit something from another angle is tremendously useful, particularly against alien gunships.
    Style points....you make an excellent point.

    Shoot down an aircraft and they send more.

    Sign your name with the missile exhaust trail and THEN shoot down an aircraft and they might reconsider!

    :P

  37. Post #77
    Gold Member
    TheTalon's Avatar
    June 2008
    20,313 Posts
    Don't forget Terrorists have hit the olympic games/ teams multiple times in the past

  38. Post #78
    BMCHa's Avatar
    August 2007
    856 Posts
    People who realize the value of trick shots. Haven't you played any videogames made in the last decade? Being able to make a missile do a loop and hit something from another angle is tremendously useful, particularly against alien gunships.
    I know this is a joke post but you can't even do that with these, being beam-riding.

  39. Post #79
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    8,037 Posts
    Oh god, they are deploying starstreaks. They are going to have guys sitting on the water tower with shoulder launched missiles.

    What the hell do they plan on doing with those?

    First of all, they aren't terribly good MANPADS. Who makes a surface to air missile require a laser guidance by the operator from start to finish?

    Second of all, MANPADS almost universally aim to disable aircraft and then let gravity bring them down. Eventually. Helicopters being the most vulnerable followed by fixed with fighter aircraft (assuming you can actually paint a fighter aircraft attempting to avoid your missile). But the terrorist aircraft of choice is a transport aircraft such as a 737. Shoot a 737 with a starstreak and all you have is a 737 with some holes in it. Even assuming you manage to hit the engine (again, laser guided, not heat seeking. A stinger would specifically destroy the engine, as it is the heat producing portion of the aircraft, but a starstreak is much more likely to collide with the fuselage, as it is the largest component and easiest to paint.), even the smallest of the major passenger aircraft have two engines and can maintain flight for a significant period of time on one engine, if not indefinitely (fuel permitting).

    Basically you can shoot a passenger aircraft with several of these and likely have little to no effect on it still colliding with any major group of people.

    If they are expecting an attack from gunship helicopters, then these would be perfect, buuuuut I doubt that is really the threat they expect.
    I think the threat they anticipate is small aircraft, which would explain their focus on using helicopters for interception.
    It's still a terrible choice though, I don't get why they don't use something more sophisticated though. From what I understand they have the stinger at their disposal if they wanted to use it.

    To be honest though, when I heard this news I expected "proper" SAMs like China had around during their Olympics. Although I don't even know what the UK has for that purpose.

  40. Post #80
    Gold Member
    Kyle902's Avatar
    September 2008
    7,760 Posts
    It's actually extremely expensive, extremely time consuming to plan, and extremely secure. His limousine not only is armored, but it also has it's own air filtration system to protect from biological/viral agents. He even has his own personal ambulance that is completely armored and outfitted with defenses along with everything he could need if he were injured. They even stock up on his bloodtype prior to every trip he makes amongst the public.

    I watched a thing on the Secret Service the other night, it was really fascinating.

    Holy shit we watched the same show at the same time. Let me guess, Discovery channel