Surface-to-air missiles on top of London homes to protect Olympics

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,430
1,668
113
Ground-to-air missiles are to be sited on the roof of a block of flats (what North Americans call an "apartment complex") as part of a huge security operation to protect the London Olympics.

The 700 residents of the Lexington Building residential complex in Bow, east London, near to where the Games are being held, have received a leaflet warning them that a team of ten soldiers and police will be placed at the building for the duration of this summer’s Games.

It follows an announcement by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in November that missiles might be used to safeguard the Olympic site.

Last night, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the missiles would be deployed within the next few days. They describe them as ‘a useful deterrent’.

Resident Brian Whelan, a journalist, said the MoD leaflet says the missiles will be fired only as a last resort.

The missiles will be situated at the top of the building's water tower.

London will host the Summer Olympics - the XXXth Olympiad - for a world record third time from 27th July to 12 August and will host the Paralympics for the first time from 29th August to 9th September.


Surface-to-air missiles on top of flats to protect Olympics as part of huge security operation

By Daily Mail Reporter
29 April 2012
Daily Mail


The Lexington Building residential complex near the Olympic Park in Bow, east London, where a missile battery is to be installed. Photograph: Chris Helgren/Reuters


Ground-to-air missiles are to be sited on the roof of a block of flats near the Olympic site as part of a huge security operation to protect the Games.

The Army will station soldiers and high-velocity surface-to-air missiles on the residential block in East London to ward off airborne terror threats.

Residents in the private, gated flats in Bow have received a leaflet warning them that a team of ten soldiers and police will be placed at the building – home to 700 people – for the duration of this summer’s Games.



Warning: High-velocity surface-to-air missiles will be stationed on the residential block in East London to ward off airborne terror threats


Protection: Defence Secretary Philip Hammond saw some of the Rapier System ground-to-air missile launchers during a visit to RAF Waddington near Lincoln, earlier this year

It follows an announcement by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in November that missiles might be used to safeguard the Olympic site.

Last night, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the missiles would be deployed within the next few days. They describe them as ‘a useful deterrent’.

Resident Brian Whelan, a journalist, said the MoD leaflet says the missiles will be fired only as a last resort.

He said: ‘They are going to have a test run next week, putting high-velocity missiles on the roof just above our apartment. They’re stationing police and military in the tower of the building for two months.

‘It’s a private, gated community with an old watch tower which is now a lift shaft.


Target: Security agencies fear the Olympic site in Stratford, east London, will be targeted by terrorists and are preparing for a range of difference scenarios


‘We have an MoD leaflet saying the building is the only suitable place in the area. It says there will be ten officers plus police present 24/7. I’m not sure if they are going to live in the building. We have a gym and a pool and people have seen them there so it makes you think it will be some sort of Army base – it’s not ideal.

‘The property management company which runs the place put up posters and gave out the leaflets today.

‘The general tone was, “Great news, aren’t we lucky”, but that’s not normal, it’s not something people should have put on them.

‘I’ve looked these up [the missiles] and I don’t think they’re the kind of thing you can fire over a highly populated area like Tower Hamlets, think of the debris.’

Mr Whelan said the leaflet poses a series of questions residents might ask, such as: ‘Will this make me a target for terrorists?’

The 28-year-old said: ‘But the answer on it is that we will be safer with it here.

‘From the few people I’ve spoken to, and the security we have here, they’re not happy about it. I don’t think it needs to be here at all.’


Read more: London 2012 Olympics: Surface-to-air missiles on top of flats as part of huge security operation | Mail Online
 
Last edited:

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Less expensive than fighter jets, and probably more effective too since they're already on site.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Still an unfounded expense.

How so? Planes crashed into the WTC buildings, so what makes you say that it's not possibe that anyone would try the same again in Lonbon?

I'm not saying it's likely, but it is possible.
 

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
They don't call it GREAT Britain for nothing... they are a hardy and strong people.. and don't take it bent over from anyone.

They have the experience and they know what they are doing.. The MI5 & Military are doing what they are paid to do, protect the people.



Cologne Cathedral in 1944, one of few buildings left standing after World War II air raids.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
That would be worse.

????

It depends. If it hits an oil tanker, you could be right.But if it just splashes into the water, it could save lives.

Then again, it might be wise during that period of time to keep tankeers a safe distance if at all possible, or have special protection for them.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Seems like very good strategy to me. I mean, they could have guys sneaking around like the terrorists,

armed to the teeth, but to be right out there, ready for any cowardly crap that some groups might

decide, is standing up and challenging any of the cowards, saying we will protect our people, and we

are ready.

Or, they could do nothing and think that all will be well, that would be negligent.

It is a defense mechanism, can't hurt, and won't be used unless it is necessary.

Go for it England.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Seems like very good strategy to me. I mean, they could have guys sneaking around like the terrorists,

armed to the teeth, but to be right out there, ready for any cowardly crap that some groups might

decide, is standing up and challenging any of the cowards, saying we will protect our people, and we

are ready.

Or, they could do nothing and think that all will be well, that would be negligent.

It is a defense mechanism, can't hurt, and won't be used unless it is necessary.

Go for it England.

But would it not make more sense to station fighter jets hundreds of miles away from the site and then scramble them when the attack comes like it was with the WTC attacks where it took about 20 minutes for the first figher jets to reach the scene, eh?

Sarcasm aside, the surface to air missiles are far less expensive than fighter jets plus can be located on-site, close to where an attack is likely to occur. Minimal take-off time required too.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
But would it not make more sense to station fighter jets hundreds of miles away from the site and then scramble them when the attack comes like it was with the WTC attacks where it took about 20 minutes for the first figher jets to reach the scene, eh?

Sarcasm aside, the surface to air missiles are far less expensive than fighter jets plus can be located on-site, close to where an attack is likely to occur. Minimal take-off time required too.

yeah thats right, but of course the fighter jets are ready too if needed, but these systems located
very close to the scene should prove much more efficient, as you say, also if needed.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
yeah thats right, but of course the fighter jets are ready too if needed, but these systems located
very close to the scene should prove much more efficient, as you say, also if needed.

Fighter jets are usually not stationed near central urban locations and for goo reason. But again, by the time you realise an attack is about to occur, you have to inform the squadron, who pass the message to the pilots and brief them, who then have to scramble the jets, and then intercept the target. By the time you realise an attack is about to occur, you have seconds to respond. A soldier on the ground with surface to air is far more effectrive in that case.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,404
11,455
113
Low Earth Orbit
????

It depends. If it hits an oil tanker, you could be right.But if it just splashes into the water, it could save lives.

Then again, it might be wise during that period of time to keep tankeers a safe distance if at all possible, or have special protection for them.
Jeepers....