henric
04-30-2012, 08:38 PM
30/04/2012 10:17:00 AM
by Monica Bugajski
To ensure security at this summer's Olympic Games in London, the British air defence may put missiles on the rooftop of an apartment complex. Whether residents like it or not.
When it comes to large, high-profile world events like G20 meetings, World Fairs and so on, the questions of security and potential terrorism are important ones. History tells us so, and we all know that it's crucial to protect attendees and the general public. This is no less true for the upcoming Olympic games in London, England.
But residents of one east London apartment block have recently been told that the battle against extremists may be closer to home than ever - in the form of surface-to-air missiles, which may be stationed on the rooftops of their buildings.
The Ministry of Defence has told the 700 people residing in the upmarket, gated complex in Bow (roughly 3.2 km from the Olympic Stadium) that their buildings offer an uncluttered "view of the surrounding areas and the entire sky above the Olympic park." Because of their prime location, missiles along with 10 troops may be stationed at their building for as long as two months.
Residents were informed via a leaflet that assured them they would be under no harm and that the missile system would be "only authorized for active use following specific orders from the highest levels of government in response to a confirmed and extreme security threat."
I can't help but think that the British government's not-so-secretive announcement of the proposed plan is primarily meant to discourage any potential threats. Sure, they want to be prepared, but they also want to give a stark warning to anyone wishing to cause any trouble. But doesn't placing missiles on the roof of a residential building put its residents at risk?
It's really no surprise then that the tenants are unnerved. Whether or not anything happens up in the air, the presence of the missiles could alone make the complex a target itself. I certainly would be weary knowing that military-grade weapons were stationed above my head. The fact that the inhabitants had no say in the matter makes the issue all the more distressing.
The missiles would mark the first time since WWII that weapons of this caliber have been placed in London but not the first time that the Olympic Games have seen them. Beijing stationed air missiles a kilometres south of its stadiums, although I'm not sure if following in China's footsteps is really the best way to handle for Britain to handle the events.
I can understand the need to put missiles in residential areas during times of war, but doing so for the Olympics is bothersome. Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of nations rallying behind their athletes and countries challenging one another in friendly competition, but spending millions or even billions of dollars on security, as Britain is doing, doesn't sit right with me, especially when that country is in its own rather grave financial crisis.
This summer's games are not only going to be one of the most costly, but also one of the most armed in history. 13,500 troops will be on land, sea, and air along with police and security guards. There will be two warships stationed close by in addition to the helicopters, fighter jets, and bomb disposal experts on hand. It all makes me wonder whether the games are worth the effort and costs.
What do you think? Are these precautions necessary or are they taking things too far?Should the need for security trump the rights of property owners?
by Monica Bugajski
To ensure security at this summer's Olympic Games in London, the British air defence may put missiles on the rooftop of an apartment complex. Whether residents like it or not.
When it comes to large, high-profile world events like G20 meetings, World Fairs and so on, the questions of security and potential terrorism are important ones. History tells us so, and we all know that it's crucial to protect attendees and the general public. This is no less true for the upcoming Olympic games in London, England.
But residents of one east London apartment block have recently been told that the battle against extremists may be closer to home than ever - in the form of surface-to-air missiles, which may be stationed on the rooftops of their buildings.
The Ministry of Defence has told the 700 people residing in the upmarket, gated complex in Bow (roughly 3.2 km from the Olympic Stadium) that their buildings offer an uncluttered "view of the surrounding areas and the entire sky above the Olympic park." Because of their prime location, missiles along with 10 troops may be stationed at their building for as long as two months.
Residents were informed via a leaflet that assured them they would be under no harm and that the missile system would be "only authorized for active use following specific orders from the highest levels of government in response to a confirmed and extreme security threat."
I can't help but think that the British government's not-so-secretive announcement of the proposed plan is primarily meant to discourage any potential threats. Sure, they want to be prepared, but they also want to give a stark warning to anyone wishing to cause any trouble. But doesn't placing missiles on the roof of a residential building put its residents at risk?
It's really no surprise then that the tenants are unnerved. Whether or not anything happens up in the air, the presence of the missiles could alone make the complex a target itself. I certainly would be weary knowing that military-grade weapons were stationed above my head. The fact that the inhabitants had no say in the matter makes the issue all the more distressing.
The missiles would mark the first time since WWII that weapons of this caliber have been placed in London but not the first time that the Olympic Games have seen them. Beijing stationed air missiles a kilometres south of its stadiums, although I'm not sure if following in China's footsteps is really the best way to handle for Britain to handle the events.
I can understand the need to put missiles in residential areas during times of war, but doing so for the Olympics is bothersome. Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of nations rallying behind their athletes and countries challenging one another in friendly competition, but spending millions or even billions of dollars on security, as Britain is doing, doesn't sit right with me, especially when that country is in its own rather grave financial crisis.
This summer's games are not only going to be one of the most costly, but also one of the most armed in history. 13,500 troops will be on land, sea, and air along with police and security guards. There will be two warships stationed close by in addition to the helicopters, fighter jets, and bomb disposal experts on hand. It all makes me wonder whether the games are worth the effort and costs.
What do you think? Are these precautions necessary or are they taking things too far?Should the need for security trump the rights of property owners?