Olympic Security
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
The major threat is an individual (or a group) the law enforcement and the intelligence don't know about. These people have lived in the UK for a long time or they were born there. They have never appeared on the radar screen, silent, lethal, and suddenly they emerge.
I am gearing up with cases of beer to watch the games. I am looking forward to the women beach volley ball, last time, the Brazilians were good, and I don't remember if they won, I was so distracted
Last edited:
Well, its no wonder the Brazilians were good- they are good at distracting everyone- opponents... spectators... lonely men...:cheers:
42RM
Banned
The reason for the public show of force is rooted in a doctrine prevalent throughout the Cold War: deterrence.
Deterrence is a strategic interaction in which an actor prevents an adversary from taking an action that the adversary otherwise would have taken by convincing the adversary that the cost of taking that action will outweigh any potential gains.
The lesser known but equally important aspect of deterrence is called the "deterrence-by-denial" strategy. Simply put, this concept states: if actors believe that they are unlikely to succeed or reap significant benefits from a certain course of action, they may be deterred from taking it.
Strategic deterrence seeks to deny terrorists the benefits (e.g. striking fear into the civilian population, bolstering recruitment capabilities, etc.) of carrying out an attack. The argument is premised upon the belief that terrorists may be deterred from attacking if they believe that even a string of highly successful attacks will not help them achieve those broader political goals. The Olympic games have always offered terrorist groups an appealing target because of the strategic benefits associated with carrying out a successful attack against such a symbolic event.
The unlikely to succeed aspect, refers to tactical deterrence. The concept of tactical deterrence holds that if terrorists believe that an attack is likely to fail, they will be less motivated to waste time and resources by attempting to carry it out. The important difference to note here is that while strategic denial strategies…seek to deny terrorists the benefits of a successful attack…tactical denial targets the attack itself.
Many of the tools now being used by the British may, from a tactical standpoint, prove successful in deterring a terrorist attack. For instance, teams of undercover security operatives will keep a would-be terrorist guessing about whether someone will thwart his attack prior to detonation of a weapon. It’s also not hard to imagine why other security measures (hardened targets, better surveillance, etc.) might cause a terrorist to think twice about whether he could actually succeed in carrying out an attack. Moreover, even if he could carry out an attack, he would probably still be wondering just how successful such an attack would be given the response mechanisms put in place and the overall preparedness of his adversary. The seemingly endless layers of security, some visible and some not, can actually deter potential attacks by giving terrorists the illusion of London as an impenetrable fortress on the watch for attacks, even if such a level of security does not exist in the real world.
Thus, there is a risk associated with high profile security expenditures –defeating them affords high level strategic benefits to an attacker. Just imagine if al Qaeda was able to carry out an attack in an area where the government has introduced security measures that include the showcasing of missile defense systems, drones, electric fences, and attack dogs. The corresponding message would be of the sort that would make any al Qaeda ideologue salivate: "You are not safe anywhere…your $1.6 billion dollar security measures cannot protect you." But the benefits outweigh the costs, at least as a political matter, because no government official can afford to not take these measures. If they did forgo some security measures, and a successful attack occurred, the public would be clamoring for answers as to why the security forces didn’t do more. The price tag may be high, but in the current security environment it seems impossible for public officials to spend less. Here’s to hoping the security investments work.
Deterrence is a strategic interaction in which an actor prevents an adversary from taking an action that the adversary otherwise would have taken by convincing the adversary that the cost of taking that action will outweigh any potential gains.
The lesser known but equally important aspect of deterrence is called the "deterrence-by-denial" strategy. Simply put, this concept states: if actors believe that they are unlikely to succeed or reap significant benefits from a certain course of action, they may be deterred from taking it.
Strategic deterrence seeks to deny terrorists the benefits (e.g. striking fear into the civilian population, bolstering recruitment capabilities, etc.) of carrying out an attack. The argument is premised upon the belief that terrorists may be deterred from attacking if they believe that even a string of highly successful attacks will not help them achieve those broader political goals. The Olympic games have always offered terrorist groups an appealing target because of the strategic benefits associated with carrying out a successful attack against such a symbolic event.
The unlikely to succeed aspect, refers to tactical deterrence. The concept of tactical deterrence holds that if terrorists believe that an attack is likely to fail, they will be less motivated to waste time and resources by attempting to carry it out. The important difference to note here is that while strategic denial strategies…seek to deny terrorists the benefits of a successful attack…tactical denial targets the attack itself.
Many of the tools now being used by the British may, from a tactical standpoint, prove successful in deterring a terrorist attack. For instance, teams of undercover security operatives will keep a would-be terrorist guessing about whether someone will thwart his attack prior to detonation of a weapon. It’s also not hard to imagine why other security measures (hardened targets, better surveillance, etc.) might cause a terrorist to think twice about whether he could actually succeed in carrying out an attack. Moreover, even if he could carry out an attack, he would probably still be wondering just how successful such an attack would be given the response mechanisms put in place and the overall preparedness of his adversary. The seemingly endless layers of security, some visible and some not, can actually deter potential attacks by giving terrorists the illusion of London as an impenetrable fortress on the watch for attacks, even if such a level of security does not exist in the real world.
Thus, there is a risk associated with high profile security expenditures –defeating them affords high level strategic benefits to an attacker. Just imagine if al Qaeda was able to carry out an attack in an area where the government has introduced security measures that include the showcasing of missile defense systems, drones, electric fences, and attack dogs. The corresponding message would be of the sort that would make any al Qaeda ideologue salivate: "You are not safe anywhere…your $1.6 billion dollar security measures cannot protect you." But the benefits outweigh the costs, at least as a political matter, because no government official can afford to not take these measures. If they did forgo some security measures, and a successful attack occurred, the public would be clamoring for answers as to why the security forces didn’t do more. The price tag may be high, but in the current security environment it seems impossible for public officials to spend less. Here’s to hoping the security investments work.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
I hope the investments works and nothing happens. There is another perspective on terrorism. The reason for an attack can be to create anger in the country. Lets take an example, if a group originated from Mali (they are in deep shxt) execute an attack, only to provoke GB and others to initiate actions toward Mali, which could create more hostilities toward GB and other participating countries. I don’t have any comments about the other parts
The above entry by 42RM makes sense, real sense.
A major concept of security is deterence and prevention- not doing damage control. If you have to use security to do damage control, then you have lost and the hostile party has won...
I totally agree with you, 42RM...
ray:
sven hassell
Active member
I agree... When you talk about security, you want to put across the idea to the people you are protecting that you are more than capable of protecting them, not only that, you CAN deter any potential threat to the ones you are protecting...
As for your adversaries, this will also make them consider 3, 4 or even 10 time over before contemplating any acts of aggression. It like playing with their heads- I used to tell me this simple anology to people when we talk about mind games- when you are newly married, and you go to work smiling, your friends know why. But after 20 years of marrieage, and you go to work smiling, it makes your friend wonder why...
Of course, all this mind games will be further enhanced if your potential adversary knows you are more than capable to counter those threats- and I personally think the UK is more than capable of handling stuff like that... You got the SAS, and if those guys cannot do it, the bad guys still have 42RM's buddies to worry about...
On a personal note, I actually do not see any issue about deploying troops for the Olympic security, honestly, what is the big deal?
You obviously didn't read my thread last week 'Olympic shambles...." or you would realise what the big deal is. you have brave men and women returning from long combat tours of 12 or even 24 months and instead of greeting them as heroes,allowing them the leave they have SO earned so they can try to repair the damage to their relationships with wives,girlfriends and children.(don't try and say that combat tours do no damage to relationships within families). Spending time with loved ones,enjoying holidays that are booked and non refundable with mum,dad,wife,girlfriend,best mates...seeing children for the first time because they were unborn before dad left fo Afghanistan ect..
instead they've got to go live in squalor and work doing the job that is normally carried out by the bottom unskilled section of society as security guards.!!! Imagine if the astronauts who walked on the moon were told "sorry on returning to earth you have no leave,you have to sleep rough and do 12hour back to back shifts flipping burgers In McDonald's for three months" NOW do you see what the big deal is!!!!:-x:-x:-x:-(
Oh, REALLLLY...
My good man, are you telling me that ALL Her Majesty forces were deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, or whichever places they've been to, and the same soldiers are going to be deployed for security deployment for the Olympics. I think you should give more credit to you MoD.
And please do NOT BELITTLE security guards- they ARE performing a function.
These good men and women know what is expected when they take an oath to defend their country, so they know what is expected of them, so my good man, do not underestimate their sacrifice...
And I still do not see what is the big deal...
Last edited:
42RM
Banned
What the hell are you babbling about. Being in the armed forces is not a 9 to 5 job, it's a 24/7 job. Not willing to accept it?... then find another job!
My job is to provide security to every citizen in Britain twenty four hours a day, 365 days a year and it is a commitment that all of us in the armed forces take very seriously. Yes, it can cost at the home front but it should not come as a surprise if one joins the Armed Forces of the Crown. Live with it, or leave.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Crikey "Rule Britannia" just went through my mind.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Indeed, it was a nice opening ceremony. Personally, I prefer the winter games. Ice hockey isn't a sport, it’s a religion. I like to watch the Paralympics; the people competing there don't know what the term "I can't" means
Scouse Lancer
New Member
Now this is the sign of a diligent and conscientious serviceman:
A DILIGENT soldier on Olympic security duty stopped David Cameron
yesterday — demanding to see his papers.
The PM praised the squaddie for being “on his marks” as he walked to
Downing Street after using the London Underground to visit the Olympic
Park in Stratford.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ess-Prime-Minister.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=Olympics
So many valid comments on here and as for 42RM's post reference 24/7/365 absolutely spot on. I can understand Sven's issue here also with regards to guys n girls coming from tour and being spammed (Chosen to carry out a duty) for Olympic Security.
Its a sad day when you do not have enough bods on the ground to ensure Service Personnel can take their Post Op leave and bods to carryout extra duties of this nature.
Not too sure where Sven got the 12 - 24 Months on tour details from, but UK forces do 6 month Op tours.
Anyways, so far a job well done by HM Forces, Police and in many respects G4S as thankfully not all of their staff are incompetent/disrespectful or damned right useless.
G4S guard faces sack after he spits at Afghanistan hero and brands him...BABY KILLER
AN Olympic guard faces the sack for spitting at an Army hero drafted in to boost security — and yelling: “Baby killer.”
The Asian G4S worker flipped as he patrolled an archery contest at Lord’s cricket ground with the Afghan veteran.
A source said: “This security guard was ranting and raving at the soldier.
“He was trying to defuse the situation but the guard was going crazy. He spat at the soldier and screamed at him. He was calling him a baby
killer.
“He left the soldier in no doubt he meant he’d been responsible for children’s deaths while serving in Afghanistan.
“Despite the provocation, the soldier remained ice cool and didn’t lose his calm.
“Some of their respective colleagues arrived and the guard was removed.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ess-Prime-Minister.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=Olympics
Well done to the Bod for not snotting (Beating the sh1te out of) the G4S employee. :box:
A DILIGENT soldier on Olympic security duty stopped David Cameron
yesterday — demanding to see his papers.
The PM praised the squaddie for being “on his marks” as he walked to
Downing Street after using the London Underground to visit the Olympic
Park in Stratford.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ess-Prime-Minister.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=Olympics
So many valid comments on here and as for 42RM's post reference 24/7/365 absolutely spot on. I can understand Sven's issue here also with regards to guys n girls coming from tour and being spammed (Chosen to carry out a duty) for Olympic Security.
Its a sad day when you do not have enough bods on the ground to ensure Service Personnel can take their Post Op leave and bods to carryout extra duties of this nature.
Not too sure where Sven got the 12 - 24 Months on tour details from, but UK forces do 6 month Op tours.
Anyways, so far a job well done by HM Forces, Police and in many respects G4S as thankfully not all of their staff are incompetent/disrespectful or damned right useless.
G4S guard faces sack after he spits at Afghanistan hero and brands him...BABY KILLER
AN Olympic guard faces the sack for spitting at an Army hero drafted in to boost security — and yelling: “Baby killer.”
The Asian G4S worker flipped as he patrolled an archery contest at Lord’s cricket ground with the Afghan veteran.
A source said: “This security guard was ranting and raving at the soldier.
“He was trying to defuse the situation but the guard was going crazy. He spat at the soldier and screamed at him. He was calling him a baby
killer.
“He left the soldier in no doubt he meant he’d been responsible for children’s deaths while serving in Afghanistan.
“Despite the provocation, the soldier remained ice cool and didn’t lose his calm.
“Some of their respective colleagues arrived and the guard was removed.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ess-Prime-Minister.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=Olympics
Well done to the Bod for not snotting (Beating the sh1te out of) the G4S employee. :box:
Last edited: