Olympic missile attack

[tornado64]

I thought that one of the things that the military did was to deploy soldiers ships, aircraft, guns etc. in places where a potential enemy might attack. I think it is called "defence".
The military also have the capability to show an potential enemy that they have all these tanks, soldiers, aircraft, ships, etc. that they could use against them. I believe this is called "deterrence"

.

quite correct if anyone rememmbers the red square parades of the sixties and seventies ( it was practicaly the only news reports to come out of the secretavie communist russia ) but it worked !! it was quite an astonishing and frightning display of hardware and streangth

the reality was much of it wasn't actualy that good but it made outsiders think twice and kept the west on its toes for many decades

and that is defence don't forget we used wooden tanks and inflatable tanks as decoys in WW2 ( It was very sucessful and achieved its goals )

defence isn't only actualy having the equipment but also blagging the enemy into thinking you have too even when you don't then slapping them on the back of the head when they least expect it !!

[tornado64]

Whilst agreeing 100% with your 'posturing' suggestion, may I just point out that no British policemen tote machine guns at Heathrow or elsewhere?

Moggy

realy ??? the police arms carried at most airports ( police at my local airport certainly carry !! ) assault rifles ( listed between a light machine gun and a sub machine gun ) so to all intents and purposes a machine gun !!

this chappie at manchester airport

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09...99_466x296.jpg

without any doubt is armed with an H&K G36 assault riffle it has a firing selection of "F" meaning continuous firing "that my friend is a machine gun !"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36

and they have been a regular sight since at least the 1990's

[Dave Wilson]

quite correct if anyone rememmbers the red square parades of the sixties and seventies ( it was practicaly the only news reports to come out of the secretavie communist russia ) but it worked !! it was quite an astonishing and frightning display of hardware and streangth.

A display of hardware yes, the display of strength was a little misleading as the waves of aircraft simply flew a large circuit to fly past again.

[tornado64]

but at the time not everyone knew that and without doubt it was an intimmidating display of millitary streangth

[Moggy C]

realy ??? the police arms carried at most airports ( police at my local airport certainly carry !! ) assault rifles ( listed between a light machine gun and a sub machine gun ) so to all intents and purposes a machine gun !!

A machine gun is a weapon, that, on depressing the trigger releases a stream of rounds until such time as the trigger is released, the ammunition runs out, or the barrel melts.

No police force in the UK ever carries or deploys such a weapon.

I haven't bothered to follow your links through, since time was I supplied most of the UK police establishment with most of their ammunition and some weapons.

What you will generally see at airports is an H&K MP5 (or sometimes now an MP10) a machine pistol restricted to single-shot (semi-auto) only.

It is a small difference, but a quite important one.

Moggy

[Dave Wilson]

I'm pretty sure the intelligence services knew, but Joe Public didn't. It didn't hurt to keep us scared of the Red Menace.

Typically simple Russian approach to the problem actually, they were always good at that. I'm reminded of the money that NASA spent trying to get a pen to write in space/zero gravity. The Russians took a pencil....

[John Green]

Re 26

Yes, I do very much 'want to engage in discussion' but, only on equal terms. Sadly, I don't appear to have that luxury.


Re29

Admittedly, I haven't been to Heathrow or any other major airport for some years. When I was last there, the Police looking very smart (shows how long ago it was) were carrying what looked like a short barrelled, short handled Lanchester/Sten/Schmeisser type machine carbine albeit of much later vintage and incidentally of a type that I have myself carried on patrol. I had no doubt then and no doubt now that this weapon appeared capable of automatic fire which would put it in the category I've described.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter - we now know that whatever they were they weren't designed to be used.


John Green

[Moggy C]

No. Full auto is deemed unacceptable to the public (It is also considerably less effective)

Moggy

[tornado64]

A machine gun is a weapon, that, on depressing the trigger releases a stream of rounds until such time as the trigger is released, the ammunition runs out, or the barrel melts.

No police force in the UK ever carries or deploys such a weapon.

I haven't bothered to follow your links through, since time was I supplied most of the UK police establishment with most of their ammunition and some weapons.

What you will generally see at airports is an H&K MP5 (or sometimes now an MP10) a machine pistol restricted to single-shot (semi-auto) only.

It is a small difference, but a quite important one.

Moggy

that would be these then ??? i don't believe for one second that a force protecting major strategic airports would be retarded enough to deactivate a weapons full ability !! but then there's the explanation they think joe public is ignorant enough to take in !!

http://youtu.be/963-B2Al428

[Moggy C]

It tells you on the title. An mixture of MP5s and MP10s (The calibre is the major difference.)

What is shown are versions unavailable to UK police forces since they can fire full auto.

Believe what you wish. I merely give you facts.

Moggy

[Arthur Pewtey]

Re 26

Yes, I do very much 'want to engage in discussion' but, only on equal terms. Sadly, I don't appear to have that luxury.


Re29

Admittedly, I haven't been to Heathrow or any other major airport for some years. When I was last there, the Police looking very smart (shows how long ago it was) were carrying what looked like a short barrelled, short handled Lanchester/Sten/Schmeisser type machine carbine albeit of much later vintage and incidentally of a type that I have myself carried on patrol. I had no doubt then and no doubt now that this weapon appeared capable of automatic fire which would put it in the category I've described.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter - we now know that whatever they were they weren't designed to be used.


John Green

You know exactly what I mean and your continual arrogance and refusal to even acknowledge the points I made mean only one thing to me. You have well and truly lost the argument. If, as an apparent ex-forces person, you do not understand the meaning of defence or deterrence then I'm afraid there is not much that I, or anyone else can say to you. I can only assume that your idea of having armed forces is to have stationed in barracks until they all retire. That would certainly save us all a lot of money, it might not make the public very safe but that doesn't appear to be behind your idea of having armed forces anyway.

[Creaking Door]

Does anybody remember the time that ‘tanks’ or at least tracked reconnaissance vehicles, CVR(T) - Scimitar / Scorpion / Spartan, were deployed to Heathrow (and other) airports; it was just before the Second Gulf War? That was in response to a ‘credible terrorist threat’ but I’ve always wondered what that threat was to require so much armour!

My cynical mind does wonder about the fine line between sensible precautions and propaganda; it is very easy to prey on unspoken public prejudices and create an atmosphere where it becomes more acceptable to embark on an unprovoked invasion of another country (for example).

[Dave Wilson]

I've always been of the opinion that they keep us frightened enough not to complain about funding of security services. Not necessarily the armed forces but the rest of the stuff.

It's noticeable that whenever spending cuts are mooted for said security services that all of a sudden a 'credible terrorist threat has been scuppered by our heroic services' is spread all over the news and their empires are safe for a little longer.

[John Green]

Re 41

Your personal barbs apart, I think that my understanding of matters military, inferior as it is, is substantially better than yours.


John Green

[JT442]

Dear bickering sirs,

You are cordially invited to watch the whole of the Olympics at a public house of your choice anywhere north of the M62. You will be able to enjoy coverage of your favoured sport in the wonderful company of us rowdy Northerners, without the risk off getting your heads blown of by some damp cardboard missiles. We are outside of the blast area of every possible missile, nuclear or conventional, our police carry big sticks (and the occassional Moat-seeking-Taser) and will give any nasty terrorists a severe telling off or a clip round the ear. You will be able to sleep soundly in your beds, well away from any terrorist threat (unless there is an increase in Boarder Reiver activity). There is room for all in this sparsely populated sleepy-hollow. I'd suggest you abandon the south from Nottingham down, and come to live in the peaceful hills north of the Humber.

Oddly, if an airliner or missile fell anywhere near south London, how would you tell?....



:diablo:

[Arthur Pewtey]

Re 41

Your personal barbs apart, I think that my understanding of matters military, inferior as it is, is substantially better than yours.


John Green

Well to be honest, the fact that you would leave important targets undefended from the air appears to contradict that statement. The fact that you thought that having air defence fighters investigate hijack transponder codes was a stunt would also weaken that argument somewhat.


During a war, around a military base or an important target it seems to be fairly normal to post guards or sentries to ensure that it was defended in the event of an attack. That would be correct, yes?
Similarly around targets it seemed normal to position anti-aircraft guns or other defensive aids in order to either deter an attack or defend against it. I don't think this concept is unusual and to me, a non-military person, it seems like a good idea.
Oddly enough military chiefs, those actually in charge, also think it's a good idea.
If, by the end of August, the Olympics have passed off without incident then it will have been worthwhile.

[me109g4]

I think that the "powers that be" have gone stark raving mad,, watching this farce from outside the country makes the UK look like they have totally lost touch with reality,,,,

[ppp]

The air defence is fine, but they'd lose no capability by getting rid of the Starstreak HVM from the ground. The Typhoons are a much more effective, and they can get up close and see what is really going on. Greece and China used medium range SAMs (e.g Patriot missiles), which are two orders of magnitude above Starstreak missiles!

Starstreak


Patriot

that would be these then ??? i don't believe for one second that a force protecting major strategic airports would be retarded enough to deactivate a weapons full ability !! but then there's the explanation they think joe public is ignorant enough to take in !!

http://youtu.be/963-B2Al428

It's not retarded to deactive the full auto, its common sense. Police officers with full auto in a civilian environment risks more civilian casualties and encourages spray and pray rather than point and shoot! It's not as if the small number of police there are actually intended to defeat a serious attack by armed gunmen, more to provide a presence to deal with armed individuals and any extremely dangerous criminals.

I've always been of the opinion that they keep us frightened enough not to complain about funding of security services. Not necessarily the armed forces but the rest of the stuff.

I doubt it. Just look at how much money they give to the EU, and such funding is extremely unpopular.

During a war, around a military base or an important target it seems to be fairly normal to post guards or sentries to ensure that it was defended in the event of an attack. That would be correct, yes?

Actually the UK doesn't really use SAMs for base defence with the notable exception of the Falklands. The SAMs used are for supporting deployed forces!

[Creaking Door]

Greece has Patriot missiles.....no wonder they’re broke!

[John Green]

Re 46

What's the point ? The element of surprise means that the initiative lies with the attacker. Think 9/11. If the twin towers had been ringed with every state-of-the-art missile system, would this have prevented the catastrophe ?

It is possible - but I doubt it for very good reason. Other things being equal - such as sensible and rational radio transmissions between ground and aircraft creating a clmate of doubt as to what exactly is going on, would any commander actually give the order to fire knowing that there was a strong possibility that there was some commonsense if unusual explanation, for the erratic flight patterns of the aircraft in question.

Knowing full well that the pressing of the button would unleash irrevocable destruction of the aircraft and three or four hundred lives not only on the aircraft but almost certainly on the ground of the city over which they would be flying? I, certainly, would never wish to be placed in that situation.

There is a parallel to the events of 9/11 which had a happier outcome. Some years ago when the Cold War was at its height and the USSR was heavily and effectively armed including the city of Moscow being ringed with anti aircraft missile systems, a young German (that made the incursion worse!) civilian pilot took off from West Germany in a light aircraft, flew it all the way through Warsaw Pact countries and into Russia without being detected and landed triumphantly in Red Square.

Can you imagine what that episode demonstrated to Western military commanders and the amount of 'egg on the faces' of the Russians ? I heard a story that the Russian commander of the Moscow air defences was sentenced to sweep Red Square every day armed with nothing more than a dustpan and brush.

In short, all the military hardware in the world can offer little protection against a surprise attack. It would be interesting to note the level of detection, if an existing military base possessing all the necessary equipment were to be subjected to practice, low level raids by a variety of aircraft. I can't believe that hasn't been done.


John Green

[ppp]

@John Green

It's not much of a problem in most wars as they tend to happen for a reason, and that reason also provides a motivation to disperse targets etc.

[TEEJ]

Re 46

Some years ago when the Cold War was at its height and the USSR was heavily and effectively armed including the city of Moscow being ringed with anti aircraft missile systems, a young German (that made the incursion worse!) civilian pilot took off from West Germany in a light aircraft, flew it all the way through Warsaw Pact countries and into Russia without being detected and landed triumphantly in Red Square.

Mathias Rust was intercepted but nobody would make the decision to either force or shoot him down. Command and control went out the window that day! His flight path was also not through Warsaw Pact countries, for example East Germany, Poland etc, but through Soviet airspace over the Baltic States.

Mathias Rust interview recounting the intercept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aerA5oLif3k

Further details on the following webpage. There are 8 pages.

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/rust.html

[John Green]

Re 52

Thanks for the corrections. It does though support one of the points that I made in 50.

John Green

[tornado64]

Re 46




Knowing full well that the pressing of the button would unleash irrevocable destruction of the aircraft and three or four hundred lives not only on the aircraft but almost certainly on the ground of the city over which they would be flying? I, certainly, would never wish to be placed in that situation.

John Green

there was a tv programe broadcast a few years ago in the uk that put members of the public in politicians shoes for making decisions

one scenario was a jumbo jet that was not communicating and heading towards the capital

it was intercepted by fighters and coms from the pilots confirmed all was not well aboard

even though close to 911 the decision was to err on the side of caution as there were hundreds of innocent passengers aboard

the oppertunity of shooting down over a thinly populated area elapsed so then the problem was not only lives aboard but on the ground also

the scenario ended with the aircraft being flown into the house of commons

i'd say the real outcome would be much the same !! it would be a suprise attack that you could do nothing about in real terms

how do you predict the unpredictable ??? you order an airliner shot down over a populated area , what if it is innocents going through a series of unpredicted events???

[JT442]

.....the scenario ended with the aircraft being flown into the house of commons....

... a thinly populated area most days of the week....

pity for those who would be lost on the aircraft, but no real loss on the ground.. :diablo:

[John Green]

The only practical way that you could overcome the attackers advantage of 'surprise' is by implementing a layered defence or defence in depth. Not very practical or cost effective when we are considering the impact of urban terrorism.

The infrequent incursions of a small group of perhaps deranged terrorists would not justify the siting of several rings of anti aircraft missile systems requiring some expense to maintain and operate. The 'detection at a distance' opportunity afforded by layered defence would offer a greater chance of ruining the terrorists day but, at what cost ? Would that cost be justified if, for example, five years or so went by between attacks and alert awareness dropped leading to a strike.

In conventional warfare, increases in troop and material movements and radio traffic etc. would provide an indication that a potential enemy was on the move - not quite the same with urban terrorism though intelligence is still vital.

Just like more permanent structures and establishments, the Olympic stadium is vulnerable. Although our security forces had, from time to time, some success, the IRA were still able to infiltrate British cities causing mayhem. The means to effectively deal with them was at hand but did not find favour.


So, Eurofighters making big scary bangs and missile arrays don't really 'cut the mustard.


John Green

[Moggy C]

the scenario ended with the aircraft being flown into the house of commons

I do love a story with a happy ending

Moggy

[Lincoln 7]

I guess most of us on here remember the Miners Strike in the 80s?. Convoys of Transit vans containing Police were a regular sight going up and down the
A1. In fact they came from all over the place, leaving Cities, towns, villages with just sufficient men to cover.At my nick, one man covered for up to 10 or 12 others who had gone to the miners picket lines.
Now take the Olympics, and I bet you a pound to a pinch of the proverbial, that the same will happen there. The only difference is, it will awaken the sleepers in all our Cities Towns etc to carry out whatever they may have planned, knowing cover is down to the minimal, and be able to get away with whatever they have planned, be it London, or any other major City, one Copper can't be in two places at the same time. I think we have far less Officers on the front line now than we did during the Miners strike, which is rather worrying.
I just hope I am wrong, and all goes well, and without incident/s.
Moggy is right with regards the H/Ks, semis, our force has them.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[Richard gray]

I do love a story with a happy ending

Moggy

This one was close in 1944.

Nov. 12, (20.43 hours) - Battery 444, (Site 47), V-2 rocket fired, impacted Westminster (airburst). This rocket was presumed to have exploded high above the Houses of Parliament

[tornado64]

I guess most of us on here remember the Miners Strike in the 80s?. Convoys of Transit vans containing Police were a regular sight going up and down the

it is still debateable wether there were squadies masquerading as police look at photo's of the riots and there are clearly "alleged" coppers with no rank or number badges in fact they are in striped back uniforms

in fact if you observe the riot photo's now a great percentage look like they had just drawn old uniforms from the stores with no identifying markings on

i'd say squaddies were drafted in on the quiet !!