Forum » In the News

London 2012: Missiles may be placed at residential flats

 
    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 29 apr 2012, 19:19

    London 2012: Missiles may be placed at residential flats

    BBC

    The Ministry of Defence is considering placing surface-to-air missiles on residential flats during the Olympics.

    An east London estate, where 700 people live, has received leaflets saying a "Higher Velocity Missile system" could be placed on a water tower...


    Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17884897

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 30 apr 2012, 08:37
    Londons great n' good have gone fucking mad. Its like all the MPs, organizers and officials had a to bet to see how heavyhanded and vaguely communist they could act before some other power intervenes. There will probably be a cull of local crackhouses next.

    I'm vowing to ignore the entire olympics, not out of any sense of moral outrage you understand, just because it will be boring as tits.

  • surface to air missiles, what good will that do?
    shoot down a commercial passenger aircraft over London and the falling fuselage and debris is just as likely to cause widespread damage and death on the ground as crashing a plane into a building/Sports stadium

  • Don't see why people are getting all angsty about this. Mostly just the same idiots that would complain about incompetency if a situation where these were useful arose and they were not there.

    • lawynd sa...
    • Abonnent
    • 30 apr 2012, 17:56
    I'm with steal-briefcase on this; a great deal of these sorts of measures are already in place to protect strategic infrastructure the UK over, you just don't know about it.

    Official recorder of Schrödinger's Tampon.

    Quote of the moment - "They tried to get me to eat haggis but I couldn't stomach it."
    • sgath92 sa...
    • Användare
    • 30 apr 2012, 22:22
    The real danger will be in the spread of drug resistant TB [of which London is the world's epicenter of the crisis]. If resistant TB gets spread around the world because of the London Olympics, it could feasibly kill thousands upon thousands of people.

    • lawynd sa...
    • Abonnent
    • 30 apr 2012, 22:34
    Um, I think your information might be faulty. TB is all but wiped out in the UK.

    EDIT: Next time, I'll do a more thorough Google search first. Interesting, although not surprising. What does puzzle me is that it hasn't received more press over here. As far as the Olympics goes, I don't think it's going to be an issue - the at-risk groups (refugees and asylum seekers predominantly) simply aren't going to come into contact with visitors.

    Official recorder of Schrödinger's Tampon.

    Quote of the moment - "They tried to get me to eat haggis but I couldn't stomach it."
  • But wouldn't they be obvious target for the terrorists? Or is that a stupid suggestion

    • sgath92 sa...
    • Användare
    • 30 apr 2012, 23:21
    lawynd said:
    Um, I think your information might be faulty. TB is all but wiped out in the UK.

    EDIT: Next time, I'll do a more thorough Google search first. Interesting, although not surprising. What does puzzle me is that it hasn't received more press over here. As far as the Olympics goes, I don't think it's going to be an issue - the at-risk groups (refugees and asylum seekers predominantly) simply aren't going to come into contact with visitors.


    The media [and this is in a way surprising consider how they like to sensationalize EVERYTHING to death and back] hasn't had much interest in stories involving drug resistant germs.

    Resistant staph has been a crisis in the US for many years, but its rare to see any mention of it in the news.

    • Bloopy sa...
    • Forum Moderator
    • 30 apr 2012, 23:40
    At least the residents have been informed about the missiles in advance!

    • lawynd sa...
    • Abonnent
    • 1 maj 2012, 06:48
    sgath92 said:
    The media [and this is in a way surprising consider how they like to sensationalize EVERYTHING to death and back] hasn't had much interest in stories involving drug resistant germs.

    Resistant staph has been a crisis in the US for many years, but its rare to see any mention of it in the news.
    That was what I was thinking. Mind you, they're very quick to jump on anything about MRSA in hospitals.

    Official recorder of Schrödinger's Tampon.

    Quote of the moment - "They tried to get me to eat haggis but I couldn't stomach it."
    • sgath92 sa...
    • Användare
    • 1 maj 2012, 18:11
    I can't remember the last time I saw an article over here about it in hospitals, they seem to have replaced that [now that its so common] with the occasional story about when its popped up in our public schools.

  • sgath92 said:
    The real danger will be in the spread of drug resistant TB [of which London is the world's epicenter of the crisis]. If resistant TB gets spread around the world because of the London Olympics, it could feasibly kill thousands upon thousands of people.



    For many decades this country had been free of TB, now it's back worse than ever, thanks to Labour.

    "I never picked cotton"
  • No doubt having SAM's stationed in a civillian area will mean a small army to protect them from metal thieves.

    "I never picked cotton"
    • sgath92 sa...
    • Användare
    • 5 maj 2012, 02:34
    Just a point to consider: SAMs are legitimate military targets.

    We [as in the western powers] see it as unfair, meanspirited unethicalness when dictators & other fanatics purposely station munitions in civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, mosques/churches etc. Yet here the British are actually considering deploying SAMs atop apartment buildings, without even consulting the people who live there first?

    I get the perception that the public must be protected during the games, but this is not the most rational approach. If I didn't know better I'd say they were outsourcing the security to the US Government.

    • lawynd sa...
    • Abonnent
    • 5 maj 2012, 10:25
    The other side of that coin is that, with the size of London, you'd have to locate any sites a great deal further away from the Olympic Park, drastically reducing their effectiveness should they be called upon. Plus, that argument is usually used when guerilla units fade into the local populace after attacking a conventional military force; this isn't the same and it's unlikely that any terrorist action is going to target the SAM sites, preferring civilian targets with higher numbers of casualties and less protection. Unless we think the IRA are going to have a go. ;)

    Official recorder of Schrödinger's Tampon.

    Quote of the moment - "They tried to get me to eat haggis but I couldn't stomach it."
  • sgath92 said:
    Just a point to consider: SAMs are legitimate military targets.

    We [as in the western powers] see it as unfair, meanspirited unethicalness when dictators & other fanatics purposely station munitions in civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, mosques/churches etc. Yet here the British are actually considering deploying SAMs atop apartment buildings, without even consulting the people who live there first?

    I get the perception that the public must be protected during the games, but this is not the most rational approach. If I didn't know better I'd say they were outsourcing the security to the US Government.


    The point about consulting people, just to let you know how the powers that be operate in the UK.
    In your country if you find oil on your land, it's yours.
    In the UK if you find oil on your land, it's the governments...To top it all, you may get a small rental to have blinkin' great big pump in your garden. lol.

    "I never picked cotton"
    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 13 maj 2012, 18:58
    Bloopy said:
    At least the residents have been informed about the missiles in advance!
    Well there was one resident, who filmed on his mobile phone, him confronting a man from the MOD at his apartment block and asked him under what law did he have a right to put missiles on the roof.

    The person in question is getting evicted and he believes it has something to do with the whistle-blowing, though it's not confirmed with conflicting accounts - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/im-being-evicted-says-east-london-resident-who-blew-whistle-on-missiles-7710810.html

    Though the other story is a little bit suspicious in my view.



    In relation to the deploying of these missiles, I think it's a reaction to the Americans (funnily sgath mentioned it's not got much coverage in the States) wanting these missiles deployed and extra assurances their athletes are not under threat by increasing military and security measures.

    I think if the people aren't happy to have them on their rooftops they should have a say but as they don't affect me I don't have a personal say or opinion on the rights and wrongs.

    • sgath92 sa...
    • Användare
    • 16 maj 2012, 03:07
    mickeymay1968 said:
    sgath92 said:
    Just a point to consider: SAMs are legitimate military targets.

    We [as in the western powers] see it as unfair, meanspirited unethicalness when dictators & other fanatics purposely station munitions in civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, mosques/churches etc. Yet here the British are actually considering deploying SAMs atop apartment buildings, without even consulting the people who live there first?

    I get the perception that the public must be protected during the games, but this is not the most rational approach. If I didn't know better I'd say they were outsourcing the security to the US Government.


    The point about consulting people, just to let you know how the powers that be operate in the UK.
    In your country if you find oil on your land, it's yours.
    In the UK if you find oil on your land, it's the governments...To top it all, you may get a small rental to have blinkin' great big pump in your garden. lol.


    Actually here in the US real estate ownership does not always give you a title claim to what's under the ground [often considered "mineral rights" in this context].

    This varies greatly depending on where you live, but most real estate owners in California [as an example] have no claim to any oil under their land and may even be forced to leave to permit easier drilling.

    In the case of PA real estate ownership doesn't automatically give you mineral rights so a coal company could theoretically be mining under your property without even telling you. To top it all off, they're not necessarily liable to any consequences of that mining.

    In the case of Centralia, PA: Two coal companies had exclusive mineral rights over the area. If you owned real estate in town you had no claim to the coal under your house whatsoever. The abandoned mines around the town were used as trash dumps and one of them set fire. The coal companies were not obligated to deal with this fire and it got progressively worse.

    For you all who haven't spent a lot of time around coaling towns I should read you in at this point: There is only one way to put out a coal fire. You have to bring in big machinery and dig out the fire. You dig and dig and dig in the fiery pit until the entire fire is brought up & extinguished. In Centralia's case a capitalist went to the town and offered to put out the fire for free. One condition: He got to keep any coal that he brought out of the earth while putting the fire out. The two coal companies flipped out and used their mineral rights to say "HELL NO!" so the fire continued until it started to swallow up parts of the town. Eventually the feds came in and tried to force everyone to leave by offering to buy their [now worthless] homes. Slowly almost everyone took the offer and left. The mineral rights still apply though I can't comment on who owns them today. Two whole towns [people only remember the bigger one] vanished.

    Not that you own land in the US, you rent it through property taxes. With the way homes are taxed in some areas you rebuy the house every ten years. That, and they can always take it away for minimal compensation & give the land outright to a private entity like the Waltons so they can put in a Walmart. Property rights are for corporations, not people.

  • Not sure if this information is accurate.

  • Very interesting read sgath92, but why were the coal companies not obligated to deal with the fire?

    "I never picked cotton"
    • sgath92 sa...
    • Användare
    • 20 maj 2012, 23:12
    mickeymay1968 said:
    Very interesting read sgath92, but why were the coal companies not obligated to deal with the fire?


    That's a complicated question. The two coal companies owned the rights to the stuff under the ground but they did not own the surface of the ground up top. They did own SOME real estate [surface land] in the area, but they did not own 99% of the surface land they were mining under. There are still some coal mining operations in the area, but I don't know who they're owned by or whether its the same companies.

    So let's say you owned a house on top, and had an abandoned mine shaft/entrance in your backyard. You'd own that mine shaft and could use it for whatever you wanted, as long as it didn't involve removing more coal [since they still have exclusive mineral rights]. The community used these abandoned minshafts as trash dumps [this was years before the EPA and no one cared what people were using as landfills!]. People believe the fire started at the abandoned mine entrance that the township was using as a municipality landfill. When garbage decomposes it gets hot, and you run the risk of autoignition. That's what most likely happened at Centralia but officially no one knows what started the fire. Likely decomposing trash got too hot, the combustibles lit on fire, and that fire spread into the mines using all that coal, natural gas, and oil as fuel. Local firefighters responded and thought they had put it out as soon as it was discovered, unknowing that the fire by then had spread so far under the surface that it wasn't extinguishable via water hoses or mine caps.

    The community eventually learned the fire was still there, and that it was so out of control they couldn't put it out but didn't think that this might be a problem. After all, even if one of these abandoned mines collapsed its not like it would cause a big crater or swallow up any of the buildings up top. Literally years went on as if this was no big deal. Then some twenty years later some boys were taking a short cut home behind one of the cemeteries and the ground gave in under one of them.



    He held onto a tree root that was hanging out of the new-hole in the ground and that's the only reason why he survived. The other boy pulled him up and they told their parents what happened. The investigation showed that if the boy had fallen another foot into the hole he would have died instantly from the noxious gases created by the coal fire. It was then that the state & the federal government decided that something had to be done about the fire, & realized the only cost effective way to deal with it would be to buy everyone's real estate from them, have them all move away, and just let it continue burning with no one around to be harmed by it. Almost everyone took the eminent domain offers eventually and every property the feds or state bought was razed.

    The problem is, do you hold the coal companies responsible when they weren't the ones throwing tons upon tons of garbage in there? That's what started the fire after all. You could make the case that they should have capped or imploded the mineshaft entrances after they become abandoned but no regulations at the time required this. There was no legal precedent on who assumed negligence over this type of a situation, and since the government(s) were willing to compensate people the idea at the time was that it no longer mattered.

    Aside from the scary incident with those two kids, no homes were swallowed up by the earth. No one's parked car caught on fire. No one was injured by being caught on fire or anything like that. This means the property owners in these towns couldn't sue the coal companies for property losses. The only argument they would have had was that their property values had plummeted [who would want to live in a town where the ground MIGHT suddenly open up to reveal a massive inferno?!] but back then people did not normally win civil cases over property value decreases, especially in situations where properties were being bought out using eminent domain.

    There may be health consequences to breathing in these noxious gases. It's really nasty stuff you don't want anywhere near your body. Carcinogens, mutagenics, etc. But if someone ever developed cancer from the fire due to prolonged exposure [I know of no such claims], they would have a hard time arguing that the coal company was at fault when the government had given them a check to leave. If someone decided for sentimental reasons to either not take part in the buy outs, or to delay doing so: that's their own fault and a choice they made at their own peril. There are still a handful of homes in the area, and aside from their community disappearing the fire hasn't yet "cost" them anything aside from the heart ache [or more recently: the vandalism from the tourists who come to gawk at the fire pits].

    In google earth go to 40°48'2.91"N, 76°20'35.13"W and the dark grey areas w/out vegetation are where most [but not all] of the gas vents out of the ground. I don't know which of the four cemeteries is closest to where that boy fell into that hole in 1981 [pictured earlier]. I would guess it would be near St. Ignatius Cemetery, and what is interesting about it & the Russian Orthodox Cemetery to the west of it are these large patches of light tan seen from google earth.



    In person you don't notice any large circles of light tan while walking around there, but incidentally while I was at St Ignatius I noticed that the ground was very, very soft to walk on approximately where these tan patches appear in the google earth view. Future cave in locations perhaps? Who knows. There are signs telling people not to be in Centralia, for safety reasons but they're frequently ignored.

    Redigerad av sgath92 den 20 maj 2012, 23:56
    • dankine sa...
    • Användare
    • 20 maj 2012, 23:52
    you can die instantly from noxious gases? don't you have to inhale/absorb them?

    still, crazy shit.

    • sgath92 sa...
    • Användare
    • 20 maj 2012, 23:57
    dankine said:
    you can die instantly from noxious gases? don't you have to inhale/absorb them?

    still, crazy shit.


    Yea, especially when they're hot enough.

    Dosage makes the poison: Ever hear of miners keeping birds & rats with them down in the mine? The smaller organisms would die sooner from poisons, so when the canary dies or you start seeing dead rats, you run out as fast as you can before your exposure gets too long.

    But with high enough concentrations you'll simply drop dead not knowing anything went wrong. That's why some states still consider gas chambers an ethical method of execution. Theoretically the poisons will kill you before you'd notice them. All you have to do is breathe.

    • dankine sa...
    • Användare
    • 21 maj 2012, 00:17
    no. you don't die instantly from that stuff. even heat, unless we're talking about something like the sun.

Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.