4 ms·

Oh, look, it's a tabloid article. Not packaged that way and with more words, also more eloquent, but still a tabloid article. Why can't this sort of advocacy (

by hej 14y ago

Oh, look, it's a tabloid article. Not packaged that way and with more words, also more eloquent, but still a tabloid article. Why can't this sort of advocacy (which is important) not take the high ground for once? Fighting FUD with FUD is disgusting.

phillmv 14y ago
This text field is your soapbox. Where is the FUD? He points out the ridiculousness of anti air missiles being installed in random flats: it is far more cost effective to be a shit head by triggering those missiles than it is to actually hijack a plane. To my mind, that is therefore a uselessly expensive security countermeasure that puts more lives in danger. To paraphrase Schneier, security is a trade off, and complete security is impossible at best and mandatory identification and cavity searches at every bus stop at worst. Given the casualties at previous terrorism incidents (Munich, Atlanta are the only ones that come to mind) we're lavishly wasting money. Where do you want it to stop?
- mseebach 14y ago
  > He points out the ridiculousness of anti air missiles being installed in random flats No, if that was his message, the post would be three words long ("Lunacy on stilts"). This is pure, unfiltered tabloid FUD: > If one of those things is ever fired, either in anger or by accident, it'll shower white-hot supersonic shrapnel across the extremely crowded residential heart of a city. As multiple comments courteously point out, that scenario has exactly zero grounding in reality.
  - vilya 14y ago
    Tell me, because I'm curious: what do you think will happen if the missiles are fired and hit their target? Will the target somehow vanish into thin air? If not, where do you think the pieces of it will go? Yes that's a sarcastic tone I'm taking. I live in London and the thought of missiles being deployed around my city frightens me a great deal more than the vague possibility of a terrorist attack.
    - mseebach 14y ago
      And what might such a target be? As a comment on the article says: > The real damage comes from the thing you're trying to shoot down; all the missile is going to do is to prevent a lunatic from hitting a stadium, by making it have a near-miss. If that means scores die when a plane hits a tower block, instead of thousands dying when it hits the opening ceremony or 100m final, then it's done it's job. Now, that doesn't make it any less security theatre, the main component of which is announcing the presence of the missiles loudly, but Stross' article is still pure FUD.
- smacktoward 14y ago
  > anti air missiles being installed in random flats The reference to a "High Velocity Missile system" implies that the weapon in question is the Starstreak HVM system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_%28missile%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_%28missile%29). Starstreak is a man-portable weapon, so nothing would need to be "installed" anywhere; it'd be a couple of guys standing on the roof with a Starstreak tube. > triggering those missiles As far as I can tell, the only way to "trigger" a Starstreak launch is by physically pressing a button on the launcher, so the risk of remotely triggered launch is pretty low. And even if a terrorist or group of terrorists managed to somehow neutralize the Starstreak operators, seize control of the weapon and launch it, the missile itself is so small it wouldn't really matter; the backblast from the launch is negligible (it has to be, for the missile to be safe to launch from the operator's shoulder), and the warhead is just three darts with around 16 ounces of explosive in each. The terrorists would do more damage if they stole bowling balls and dropped them on people from the roof. > uselessly expensive Presumably the Starstreak missiles in question have already been bought by the British army, so the only expense would be the cost of having the guys stand around on the roof all day. And since those guys are soldiers the British government is going to be paying them that day regardless of where they happen to be standing.
  - yread 14y ago
    I am not a terrorist, but if I was and I would get hold of an anti-air missile I probably wouldn't use to shoot people on the ground. There's plenty of airliners over London at any time. The missile seems to have a service ceiling only 5km but it's still fairly big risk. Couple of guys with guns can't shoot down an airliner unless you give them a Starstreak
    - smacktoward 14y ago
      Yeah, but (1) presumably the airspace over London is going to be pretty thoroughly controlled during the Olympics, reducing the risk; and (2) if terrorists want to shoot down an airliner with a man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) like Starstreak, there's easier ways for them to get their hands on one than by infiltrating one of the most heavily secured areas in the world and wresting one out of the hands of professional soldiers -- MANPADS have proliferated widely, and can be acquired on the black arms market for a few thousand bucks (see http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/MANPADS.html http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/MANPADS.html).

by hej 14y ago

phillmv 14y ago

This text field is your soapbox. Where is the FUD? He points out the ridiculousness of anti air missiles being installed in random flats: it is far more cost effective to be a shit head by triggering those missiles than it is to actually hijack a plane. To my mind, that is therefore a uselessly expensive security countermeasure that puts more lives in danger. To paraphrase Schneier, security is a trade off, and complete security is impossible at best and mandatory identification and cavity searches at every bus stop at worst. Given the casualties at previous terrorism incidents (Munich, Atlanta are the only ones that come to mind) we're lavishly wasting money. Where do you want it to stop?

mseebach 14y ago
> He points out the ridiculousness of anti air missiles being installed in random flats No, if that was his message, the post would be three words long ("Lunacy on stilts"). This is pure, unfiltered tabloid FUD: > If one of those things is ever fired, either in anger or by accident, it'll shower white-hot supersonic shrapnel across the extremely crowded residential heart of a city. As multiple comments courteously point out, that scenario has exactly zero grounding in reality.
- vilya 14y ago
  Tell me, because I'm curious: what do you think will happen if the missiles are fired and hit their target? Will the target somehow vanish into thin air? If not, where do you think the pieces of it will go? Yes that's a sarcastic tone I'm taking. I live in London and the thought of missiles being deployed around my city frightens me a great deal more than the vague possibility of a terrorist attack.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    And what might such a target be? As a comment on the article says: > The real damage comes from the thing you're trying to shoot down; all the missile is going to do is to prevent a lunatic from hitting a stadium, by making it have a near-miss. If that means scores die when a plane hits a tower block, instead of thousands dying when it hits the opening ceremony or 100m final, then it's done it's job. Now, that doesn't make it any less security theatre, the main component of which is announcing the presence of the missiles loudly, but Stross' article is still pure FUD.
smacktoward 14y ago
> anti air missiles being installed in random flats The reference to a "High Velocity Missile system" implies that the weapon in question is the Starstreak HVM system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_%28missile%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_%28missile%29). Starstreak is a man-portable weapon, so nothing would need to be "installed" anywhere; it'd be a couple of guys standing on the roof with a Starstreak tube. > triggering those missiles As far as I can tell, the only way to "trigger" a Starstreak launch is by physically pressing a button on the launcher, so the risk of remotely triggered launch is pretty low. And even if a terrorist or group of terrorists managed to somehow neutralize the Starstreak operators, seize control of the weapon and launch it, the missile itself is so small it wouldn't really matter; the backblast from the launch is negligible (it has to be, for the missile to be safe to launch from the operator's shoulder), and the warhead is just three darts with around 16 ounces of explosive in each. The terrorists would do more damage if they stole bowling balls and dropped them on people from the roof. > uselessly expensive Presumably the Starstreak missiles in question have already been bought by the British army, so the only expense would be the cost of having the guys stand around on the roof all day. And since those guys are soldiers the British government is going to be paying them that day regardless of where they happen to be standing.
- yread 14y ago
  I am not a terrorist, but if I was and I would get hold of an anti-air missile I probably wouldn't use to shoot people on the ground. There's plenty of airliners over London at any time. The missile seems to have a service ceiling only 5km but it's still fairly big risk. Couple of guys with guns can't shoot down an airliner unless you give them a Starstreak
  - smacktoward 14y ago
    Yeah, but (1) presumably the airspace over London is going to be pretty thoroughly controlled during the Olympics, reducing the risk; and (2) if terrorists want to shoot down an airliner with a man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) like Starstreak, there's easier ways for them to get their hands on one than by infiltrating one of the most heavily secured areas in the world and wresting one out of the hands of professional soldiers -- MANPADS have proliferated widely, and can be acquired on the black arms market for a few thousand bucks (see http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/MANPADS.html http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/MANPADS.html).