WALTHAM FOREST: Olympic missile plan 'will go ahead' (From This Is Local London)

"Residents fear the military bases could be dangerous and make them a target.

The MoD denies the claims and says it will make homes in the area safer."

Have to agree with the residents. If some third-world dictator did this, they would be accused of using civilians as shields.

How do local residents benefit when the army blow up an enemy aircraft over their homes? Why should those in the Olympic Park be protected and residents who have paid for the Olympics be put at such a high risk? Why should a terrorist be afraid of a few rockets - they know they will be on a suicide mission!

Such stupid comments. If a plane is going to fly not the Olympic stadium, it could kill 60,000 people. If it gets shot down and land on local houses, yes people will die, but nowhere near as many, and the chances of the plane hitting the missile site is a near impossibility. If the army like, I'd welcome them in my back garden, they are a positive thing in light of the worst that could happen.

What a surprise. I suppose this is what is meant by force majeure (trust the French to have a name for it!).

Dwtuning wrote:
Such stupid comments. If a plane is going to fly not the Olympic stadium, it could kill 60,000 people. If it gets shot down and land on local houses, yes people will die, but nowhere near as many, and the chances of the plane hitting the missile site is a near impossibility. If the army like, I'd welcome them in my back garden, they are a positive thing in light of the worst that could happen.

There is nothing 'stupid' about the comments. This is a serious issue with important interests which need to be considered and balanced. Safety is obvious one of them, as well as who is expendible and who is not. Personally, I do not think that my expendibility is worth a single athlete's moment of glory, let alone a single sponsor's message projected on foreign televisions.

One factor not often discussed is the fact that Rapier systems are now very old and have been known to misfire, which means residents are being put at risk even though the systems being deployed may not achieve the results claimed for them.

We are also being asked to ginore the fact that we are supposed to have an airforce which can deal with planes intruding our airspace. Is this deployment an admission that the RAF can no longer defend us?

The military have not really made the case in my view, especially when in other conflicts they brand people who deploy weapons in civilian areas as cowards and war criminals. Why copy Hamas? Why choose buildings to deploy on when there are plenty of open spaces? There are lots of legitimate questions that can be asked.

Or is this deployment really just an expensive show put on for publicity to make us feel safe when it adds little to our real security but does enhance the aggrandisement of a load of corrupt sports officials at the taxpayers' expense?