Alarmed over missiles

I HAVE just heard that there is a move to position surface-to-air missiles on the roofs of tall apartments near the Olympic stadiums.

I know other air defence weapons, including fighter aircraft (who will have, apparently, a shoot-on-sight brief for unauthorised aircraft in the exclusion zone), will be deployed to counter any perceived threat from the air.

Presumably, if these are used, any interception and the subsequent shoot down may well be over heavily populated areas.

Have the authorities given any thought to the innocent people who may be killed or injured by falling debris?

LJ Maloney, Millfield Avenue, York.

• I READ with consternation the plans to use surface-to-air-missiles for the Olympic Games in London.

Are they serious? Do they expect terrorists to launch ballistic missiles against the London Games? Or maybe they are expecting the terrorist air force to bomb London instead? Can anyone please tell me which terrorist organisation has their own ballistic missile silos and/or their own air bases from which they can launch fighter or bomber aircraft?

Or perhaps they fear terrorists are going to hijack an aircraft and target the games? If so will they launch the missiles and blow it up over London with great loss of life and property, not to mention huge fires due to the burning aviation fuel causing even more damage and loss of life?

If the authorities are as worried as they appear to be, then perhaps they ought to start thinking about cancelling the games and thereby protecting possibly millions of innocent people’s lives by not exposing them to this kind of danger.

Are these the ‘well educated’ and ‘intelligent’ people who are elected to run a country?

Phil Smith, Cornlands Road, York.

Comments(8)

Firedrake says...
12:21pm Tue 1 May 12

LJMaloney makes a valid point. I understand these missiles only have an effective range of three and a half miles - if so - then they will only be able to shoot down hostile aircraft which are already over a densely populated area: the consequences could presumably be as horrendous as a successful attack. Surely it would make much more sense to position any such countermeasures well outside the M25? After all, any aircraft with a legitimate reason for being over the city will already have had their flight-paths logged and would be identifiable in advance.

Regarding Phil Smith's letter: the presumed risk is manifestly not from "balistic missiles" or a "terrorist airforce" - but from hijacked airliners or light aircraft which have been hired or stolen and packed with explosives.

Firedrake says...
12:21pm Tue 1 May 12

LJMaloney makes a valid point. I understand these missiles only have an effective range of three and a half miles - if so - then they will only be able to shoot down hostile aircraft which are already over a densely populated area: the consequences could presumably be as horrendous as a successful attack. Surely it would make much more sense to position any such countermeasures well outside the M25? After all, any aircraft with a legitimate reason for being over the city will already have had their flight-paths logged and would be identifiable in advance.

Regarding Phil Smith's letter: the presumed risk is manifestly not from "balistic missiles" or a "terrorist airforce" - but from hijacked airliners or light aircraft which have been hired or stolen and packed with explosives.

Joey Rancor says...
12:36pm Tue 1 May 12

Surely this will not be the only counter measure. These are for show more than anything else. Unless the aircraft is already inside the M25 before it becomes "a risk" for instance a light aircraft that has completed all it's correct flight path until just before landing and veers off. I bet there are more already planned to be elsewhere around the outskirts of the City for the attacks from further afield.

ColdAsChristmas says...
12:56pm Tue 1 May 12

I think this is more about sending out a message to those that might think about attacking from the air, not an unprecedented risk. I hope that works so that such weapons do not need to be used in anger.
But why not direct your anger at the nutters that contemplate such atrocities and see the UK as a target in their sick minds?

Seadog says...
6:12pm Tue 1 May 12

Calling the whole thing off certainly has its attractions; though not necessarily for the somewhat histrionic reasons Mr Smith suggests in his letter! I HAVE tried to be enthusiastic about the Olympics over the years, but it's always proved an uphill struggle. I'm into fencing and shooting - sports which we're usually quite good at (despite the hand-gun ban!) but any TV coverage always seems to get relegated into the wee small hours. Of course, my real passion is sailing (at which Brits frequently excel) but when I heard that 12 foot hoardings were being erected along the cliff-tops at Weymouth to prevent ordinary mortals with limited resources watching the action through binoculars, I gave up in despair. They don't even to that at the America's Cup for crying out loud!

Back and Beyond says...
7:35pm Tue 1 May 12

Also not sure about the Olympics, more from a financial side though,the Greeks are overwhelmed with their Olympic Legacy....

Is debris falling over a wide populated area better than a plane crashed into a capacity stadium?

Firedrake says...
9:39am Wed 2 May 12

A letter in today's Guardian from a former officer commanding an RA SAM battery reinforces LJ Maloney's point with a great deal of technical back-up.

wildthing666 says...
10:12pm Wed 2 May 12

Maybe they can site them all in Downing street with a large sign WE ARE HOME when Cameron is there

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree