screech Posted April 29, 2012 Report Share Posted April 29, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17884897 Deary me, this government is getting as paranoid as the Americans. Keeping the citizens living in fear of their lives seems to be the only policy they can bring out these days, most laughable thing I've read on the state broadcasters website for years. I'm almost too frightened to drive my car 2 miles to work these days just in case AlQaeda start targetting cleaning supplies vans. What next for our government to scare us with, the baked potato vans in the high street selling arms on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted April 29, 2012 Report Share Posted April 29, 2012 It would be irresponsible not to have every possible angle covered. A London Olympics is probably the most high profile target in the world this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 29, 2012 Report Share Posted April 29, 2012 I'm exactly surprised- high profile target and also Govts tend to drive overboard with these kinda things...First hearing it, it's pretty shocking but thinking about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craven arms Posted April 29, 2012 Report Share Posted April 29, 2012 It's ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted April 29, 2012 Report Share Posted April 29, 2012 It would be irresponsible not to have every possible angle covered. It is absolutely impossible to cover every possible angle and that's not their aim. This is security theatre. It's more about avoiding blame than adding security like almost all of the security reactions to 9/11 and 7/7 have been. Putting SAMs in residential areas probably worsens real security as it offers new and cheaper attack opportunities. Try these two links if you're interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted April 30, 2012 Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 That first blog is a hystericle load of shit. You've dissapointed me. The second one, I kind of agree with the message but fail to see the relevance. However you are right, it IS all about avoiding blame. There's probably a less than 1% chance of an attack involving aircraft at the Olympics, but if it was your watch, would you take that risk? I'm sure there's been "chatter". It wouldn't be hard to hijack an aircraft SOMEWHERE in the world, but it would be shot from the sky the moment it got near a western airspace. But for all the hassle of planning, and them implementing a hijack, it would be far easier for 3/4 vested up martyrs to board a tube or mingle with crowds. Anyone know if a US carrier is still going to be docked in the Thames, with a full detachment of Marines? I'd love to know what eventuality that's planned for - Zombie outbreak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted April 30, 2012 Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 That first blog is a hystericle load of shit. You've dissapointed me. It's by a science fiction writer so yes it is a bit OTT but there's some truth in it. Anti missile SAMs work by exploding in front of the target creating a cone of high velocity shrapnel aimed at causing mid air explosion or damaging an inbound missile to take it off target. Either of these can and do result in collateral damage. (Misses don't, the SAM will self detonate at a high enough altitude). They have a very limited time envelope to launch, particularly for short range low flying inbounds so launch decisions have to be taken fast. Putting them there could well create more opportunities than prevented. The second one, I kind of agree with the message but fail to see the relevance. However you are right, it IS all about avoiding blame. There's probably a less than 1% chance of an attack involving aircraft at the Olympics, but if it was your watch, would you take that risk? I'm sure there's been "chatter". It wouldn't be hard to hijack an aircraft SOMEWHERE in the world, but it would be shot from the sky the moment it got near a western airspace. But for all the hassle of planning, and them implementing a hijack, it would be far easier for 3/4 vested up martyrs to board a tube or mingle with crowds. Anyone know if a US carrier is still going to be docked in the Thames, with a full detachment of Marines? I'd love to know what eventuality that's planned for - Zombie outbreak? The general point is that if you have limited resources (which you always do) you need to spend them the most efficient way. Whatever you choose to spend them on there will always be other angles you didn't cover. Making your spending decisions on blame avoidance generally isn't the most efficient way because you end up preventing last year's attack not this year's and sometimes you make things worse. The point about the TSA restrictions on air travel in the US being linked to more deaths by driving is a good example of how this happens indirectly. Terrorist organisations can't actually afford to fail too often, it's bad for their funding and detracts from the aim of causing terror. They need surer bets than re-using old attacks. I think the less visible but more proactive counters like comms intercepts are better ways to spend money. You're always going to be at risk from martyrs though, most prevention strategies fail when the perpetrator does not plan on getting away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.