Hi everyone,

I was just browsing through the interwebs today - like I do, and I came across a news article in the London Evening Standard, it was about UKSF, and their possible use of American MH-6 'Little Bird' helicopters at the 2012 Olympics in London.

I've seen several articles about Olympic security - and according to the same newspaper, over one billion pounds has been spent on security already.

There are SAS & SBS squadrons on the Thames, Royal Marine assault units moored at Greenwich, two Royal Navy air squadrons on standby, Rapier air-defense missiles, SAM (surface-to-air-missiles) sites on the roofs of tower flat blocks.

My question to you lot, is: Is THAT MUCH really necessary? One BILLION pounds... not mention several tens of thousands of soldiers on the ground.

My opinion, you can never be too careful. But, honestly, I believe that they've got just a bit too far, only a bit.

Originally Posted by hawky94

Hi everyone,

I was just browsing through the interwebs today - like I do, and I came across a news article in the London Evening Standard, it was about UKSF, and their possible use of American MH-6 'Little Bird' helicopters at the 2012 Olympics in London.

I've seen several articles about Olympic security - and according to the same newspaper, over one billion pounds has been spent on security already.

There are SAS & SBS squadrons on the Thames, Royal Marine assault units moored at Greenwich, two Royal Navy air squadrons on standby, Rapier air-defense missiles, SAM (surface-to-air-missiles) sites on the roofs of tower flat blocks.

My question to you lot, is: Is THAT MUCH really necessary? One BILLION pounds... not mention several tens of thousands of soldiers on the ground.

My opinion, you can never be too careful. But, honestly, I believe that they've got just a bit too far, only a bit.

I guess they aren't taking chances, besides which we don't know what intel they have received about possible terrorist attacks. If innocent lives were lost to terror attacks due to lack of or poor security the fallout for the UK would be horrendous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

its better to be safe than sorry...

Originally Posted by hawky94

Hi everyone,

I was just browsing through the interwebs today - like I do, and I came across a news article in the London Evening Standard, it was about UKSF, and their possible use of American MH-6 'Little Bird' helicopters at the 2012 Olympics in London.

I've seen several articles about Olympic security - and according to the same newspaper, over one billion pounds has been spent on security already.

There are SAS & SBS squadrons on the Thames, Royal Marine assault units moored at Greenwich, two Royal Navy air squadrons on standby, Rapier air-defense missiles, SAM (surface-to-air-missiles) sites on the roofs of tower flat blocks.

My question to you lot, is: Is THAT MUCH really necessary? One BILLION pounds... not mention several tens of thousands of soldiers on the ground.

My opinion, you can never be too careful. But, honestly, I believe that they've got just a bit too far, only a bit.

They will probably prevent a similar event as what happened in Munich; to prevent a suicide bomber can be more difficult, but if the person has a bomb shoved up in his axx, he could be identified by his strange walks.

A reference to another thread on this forum

Sodomy OK if it advances Jihad

.
I think that it would be far easier and cheaper to just do away with the Olympics and hold combined anti terrorism exercises.

When it's all boiled down, they are only a very expensive chest puffing exercise anyway.

Originally Posted by senojekips

.
I think that it would be far easier and cheaper to just do away with the Olympics and hold combined anti terrorism exercises.

When it's all boiled down, they are only a very expensive chest puffing exercise anyway.

And it will only create an illusion of security, which can never be achieved

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

And it will only create an illusion of security, which can never be achieved

So,... you advocate that we do nothing??

Originally Posted by senojekips

So,... you advocate that we do nothing??

We can put x amount of soldiers and defense system around a city, but only one man can ruin the day. We can never catch that man until it’s too late. The security is always an illusion, you can spend a lot on the defense budget and you will never get security.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

We can put x amount of soldiers and defense system around a city, but only one man can ruin the day. We can never catch that man until it’s too late. The security is always an illusion, you can spend a lot on the defense budget and you will never get security.

So, you still advocate that we do nothing?

In case you haven't thought of it, it's not necessarily the "security" that the Army etc., provide, but it does give any potential terrorists another hoop to jump through.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

We can put x amount of soldiers and defense system around a city, but only one man can ruin the day. We can never catch that man until it’s too late. The security is always an illusion, you can spend a lot on the defense budget and you will never get security.

It is still better to have something in place to react to and contain an incident. If nothing else but to pick up the pieces.

This level of security will make it harder for a terrorist attack to occur. But you would rather leave that to chance or the apathy of a terrorists?