7,500 foot soldiers, 13,200 privately hired security guards, fighter jets, a helicopter carrier in the River Thames, and now six batteries of high-velocity missiles stationed around and within the city of London; the system of security in place to protect the athletes, attendees and workers of the 2012 London Olympics is unprecedented.
The defense ministry says the missiles are capable of taking down a hijacked aircraft; one of the missile sites will be situated atop an apartment building, the Fred Wigg Tower, who’s occupants are extremely upset about the placement of the destructive weapons. According to The New York Daily News, Iqbal Hossain, a husband and father of three, said “it’s kind of scary now…If it’s about safety for the Olympics, what about safety for us?” The occupants of the tower are specifically concerned that the missiles on the roof above are not only dangerous in general, but that they make the entire building a target for a terrorist attack.
The controversy escalated so much that locals and occupants of the Fred Wigg Tower challenged the defense ministry’s actions; a High Court judge rejected their appeal, claiming the missiles presented “no real threat” to the citizens, according to the New York Daily News.
Is the safety of the residents of London the same as the attendees of the Olympics? And if different, should one be placed over the other? What are your thoughts on the High Court Judge’s ruling to keep the missiles above the apartment building?
-Kevin Shea (@kevinnshea)
