Olympics 2012: A Bruce Schneier Moment

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/04/olympics-2012-a-bruce-schneier.html

by pavel_lishin • 14 years ago

107 33 14 years ago

hej• 14 years 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• 14 years 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?

mseebach2• 14 years 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.

smacktoward2• 14 years 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). 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.

Deestan• 14 years ago

Flagged for linkbait title. Bruce Schneier isn't even involved.

4ad• 14 years ago

But it's about what Bruce Schneier talks all the time.

prawn• 14 years ago

Then use "Olympics 2012 Security Theatre" and leave the connection to those reading?

gouranga• 14 years ago

The problem is that a lot of people think it's a good idea because they are ignorant fucktards and believe any spiel that comes out of the media terror promoters.

this may sound horrible, but I genuinely hope someone innocent gets injured or killed by the security forces and everyone jumps on it. it's about time it all came to a head.

AlexMuir• 14 years ago

Firstly, that's a ridiculous thing to say.

But when it happens (and it does - see Jean Charles de Menezes) it will be put down to insufficient budgets, manpower, equipment and training. So far from coming to a head, it is perpetuated - bigger budgets, more people and more kit.

dageshi• 14 years ago

I've sadly decided to unsubscribe from Charlies rss feed today, I used to quite look forward to his posts but it seems like his blog has descended into an echo chamber filled full of dull and pretty predictable diatribes. If that's what he wants to do with his blog then that's his business, but I'm not interested any more.

nkoren2• 14 years ago

I'm as big a critic of the "Security Theatre" as the next guy, but trying to fight bollocks with even higher-grade bollocks isn't really very helpful. And Charlie's "white-hot supersonic shrapnel" is bollocks of the purest sort. A surface-to-air missile -- after its fuel is burnt out and its payload is detonated -- is basically nothing more than a thin tube. The "shrapnel" would consist of lightweight scraps of carbon fibre and sheet metal, fluttering downward like ordinary carbon fibre and sheet metal. Definitely annoying to have it land on your roof -- but fairly inconsequential.

Disappointed in Mr. Stross for this one.

mortenjorck• 14 years ago

What's most unfortunate is that he's drawing attention away from the real issue by whipping up this largely unfounded public safety concern.

There aren't a lot of places on earth that put SAMs in residential areas apart from North Korea.

femto• 14 years ago

The Olympics is all about sponsorship. One could see this as a sponsorship deal: British designed technology (Starstreak) built by a British company (British Aerospace) being promoted to the world via the Olympics. They've already got their money's worth in publicity. (Were you aware of Starstreak before reading it here?) If the Olympics can be used to sell a soft drink, why not a missile system?

D_Alex• 14 years ago

What, I wonder, is the chance of a passenger airliner being shot down by such missiles...? To what extent does this - small - chance counter the also small risk of airplanes being used by the terrorists?

I agree with C. Stross that this is a daft idea.

Moschops• 14 years ago

I was there on holiday last week; whilst I saw lots of military hardware in the parades, I must say that I didn't see any SAM batteries in Pyongyang (and we did a lot of driving around, and had a good look at it from the top of the Juche Tower and the revolving restaurant on top of the Yanggakdo).

ovi256• 14 years ago

>A surface-to-air missile -- after its fuel is burnt out and its payload is detonated -- is basically nothing more than a thin tube.

No, no, no. Modern SAM missiles have either a continuous rod warhead, a quite substantial affair that on detonation will spread shrapnel to a substantial range, or, even worse in this context, are kinetic killers like the HVM Starstreak the UK DoD is deploying. A kinetic killer is a heavy metal rod with some guiding fins that is propelled to hypervelocity (Mach 3.5 for the Starstreak) by a first stage. The Starstreak has 3 of these. There's a strong possibility that they stay intact after hitting their target, as aircraft are more flimsy than armoured combat vehicles, or even worse, some of the 3 will miss the target. What happens then is easy to guess: is goes on a ballistic trajectory at a high Mach speed, and in a dense urban area, may hit something fragile and cause some damage. Each of the 3 Starstreak submunition has as much energy as a 40mm Bofors shell.

So your scenario of "they'll gently come down" is far off target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead

Edit: the Starstreak submunitions also have an explosive payload so they won't stay intact neither on hitting nor missing the target. The raining shrapnel caveat still applies, but shrapnel slows down beyond a few hundred meters.

nkoren2• 14 years ago

That edit is an important caveat: the Starstreak is not a kinetic killer, but a kinetic penetrator. Half its weight is explosives, and after those detonate, the rest would turn into very small bits.

Of course an intact Starstreak submunition is very definitely something you that wouldn't want landing on your roof. But fragments from half a mile overhead? Not such a problem. Certainly not pleasant, and possibly a bit dangerous -- but probably no more than things that London drivers do hundreds of times every day already.[1]

[1] NB: I'm not a weapons engineer, but I do live in London. So to that degree, at least, I know of what I speak.

redthrowaway• 14 years ago

> The "shrapnel" would consist of lightweight scraps of carbon fibre and sheet metal

I suspect that people who are concerned about shooting down planes over London are worried less by the debris of the missile, and more by that of the target.

brazzy• 14 years ago

Not in TFA, which is about the possibility of AA-missile shots deliberately provoked by a harmless dummy.

In the scenario of an attack by something that is actually dangerous, shooting it down will almost certainly cause less damage than letting it hit its intended target (at least when the target is a mass of spectators at a sports event).

iamichi• 14 years ago

> "the best solution would be to designate a permanent Olympic venue somewhere isolated — Diego Garcia would be a prime candidate"

A better idea would be letting the Chagossians return to their homeland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians).

LoonyPandora• 14 years ago

I live in the complex where these missiles are supposed to be deployed.

The part of this situation that upsets me the most is not the missiles, but what comes along with them - the heavily armed soldiers billeted for up to 2 months.

We have no choice in this, and were informed by a leaflet through the door.

This isn't war time and the Olympics only last for a few weeks. We shouldn't have to have soldiers and weapons in a residential complex!

dugmartin• 14 years ago

We took care of this potential problem a while ago in America: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.". I always thought that was one of the sillier amendments to our Constitution.

ElliotH• 14 years ago

Unarmed according to The Guardian, may be supported by armed police.

nicholassmith• 14 years ago

Hang on, so the people guarding the incredibly dangerous surface to air missile aren't going to be armed?

Wonder how long it'll be before you see a SAM in the local Cash Converters.

Angostura• 14 years ago

I live in Leytonstone, a little under 2 miles from the stadium. My thoughts on this when I heard it where (i) The communication with the block residents might have been better (ii) That seems like reasonable thing to, given the balance between shrapnel potentially hitting my house and an aircraft hitting the stadium.

Moreover, if I were the authorities I would make sure that there was a big public kerfuffle about anti-aircraft missiles being stationed in London - whether they were actually going to be stationed or not. It may be security theatre, but not in the way that the blog author thinks.

And it may be deeply unfashionable, but the family and I are pretty excited by the prospect of the Olympics.

rhizome• 14 years ago

Do you think it's a reasonable thing to do, in that it's a case of good risk analysis?

Daniel_Newby• 14 years ago

This is not security theatre. Think of a few helicopters trucked in and loaded with ANFO and white phosphorus. Novelists just have to be plausible, but security analysts have to cover the whole threat surface.

And anyway the British military does not want to be caught with its trousers around its ankles like the USAF on 9-11.

Olympics 2012: A Bruce Schneier Moment

Related Stories