Sat May 12, 2012, 03:19 PM
kpete (46,664 posts)
A New Amenity, Missiles, May Show Up on Some London Roofs for the Olympics
Source: New York Times
LONDON — “It looked like one of those things where you get free pizzas through the post,” Hilal Bozkurt said, describing the innocuous-looking leaflet that came through her mail slot recently. “But this was like, free missiles.”
The leaflet was from the Ministry of Defense, and it briskly informed Ms. Bozkurt that her building, Fred Wigg Tower, part of a sad-looking public housing project in a depressed neighborhood in an unloved corner of this city, had been selected as a possible front line against terrorist attacks during the Olympics. Because of the 17-story tower’s strategic location and “excellent all-around view,” the leaflet said, the military was considering installing a “high-velocity missile system” on the roof.
“The air defense system will be manned by fully trained, professional soldiers,” the leaflet said, adding in the “frequently asked questions” section that it would “improve your local security and not make you a target for terrorists.”
Ms. Bozkurt said she did not think that a residential apartment building, even one made of concrete and built in the pugnacious Brutalist style of the 1960s, was a suitable place for a pop-up military base featuring surface-to-air weapons able to travel at three times the speed of sound and hit targets more than three miles away in less than eight seconds. “It does frighten you,” she said.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/world/europe/london-wary-of-rooftop-missiles-plan-during-olympics.html?_r=1
8 replies, 2668 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
A New Amenity, Missiles, May Show Up on Some London Roofs for the Olympics (Original post)
|Dawson Leery||May 2012||#1|
Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #1)
Sat May 12, 2012, 09:48 PM
FrodosPet (3,197 posts)
8. What good would they have done in Munich 1972?
I would be more worried about a repeat of that.
If there is a legitimate threat of air attack, just keep a couple F-16s or F-18s flying around 24x7 and menace any air traffic that strays into a sensitive zone.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Sat May 12, 2012, 04:26 PM
freshwest (52,246 posts)
2. It sounds like they have more than one purpose in mind. Creepy.
I'm glad she's speaking out, maybe it's not a done deal.
What exactly do they expect those missiles to hit, and how much damage will hitting their targets entail for the area beneath them?
Perhaps it's better to be in the place they're launched from than on the other end. I guess no one gets to vote on this scheme to turn downtown London into a war zone, either.