Apparently, so says Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary.

So what is the point of that, then? What aerial threats may they face? It is hard to imagine anything other than hijacked planes. Is this really where we have come to? If a hijacked plane is thought to be headed for a stadium, what are we saying - that if we can blast it out of the sky somewhere else - Finchley, perhaps, or Shepherds Bush, somewhere, anywhere other than perish theb thought an Olympic venue - then that will somehow be a good result, and worth doing? Would we all then breathe a sigh of relief?

Is the knowledge that this may happen going to put off your average planejacker with a deathwish? Really?

Or have the lunatics taken over the asylum completely now?

In a worse case scenario then around 60,000 casualties or a couple thousand casualties is an easy decision to make for me.

Tragic, sickening and disturbing still, however if a hijacked plane is travelling straight for a packed Olympic stadium then damage limitation may come into play.

Right. It's not like we have an airforce to intercept any hijacked plane, or security measures at airports …

This is just a classic example of populist kneejerking in reaction to the Americans' "we don't feel safe, we want to send FBI agents over"

I suppose if we're talking decision-making on a national security level and as a last-ditch defence option, a hijacked airliner is better disintegrating at altitude and causing perhaps a few dozen casualties on the ground, rather than piling into a stadium packed with 80,000 people. I imagine the RAF will also be on alert and probably patrolling more intensively throughout the Games.

And it would make awesome TV.


Could a threat be identified, information passed to the top and orders given, aircraft possibly scrambled and the threat taken out in the few minutes it would take to reach Stratford from Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted or City?

How exactly does a country shooting down an international airliner full of innocents achieve a single thing? Or would we helpfully be told in advance by the bogeyman that they were en route for some specific venue? Some people are thick. All the venues are within minutes of normal air corridors so given no prior announcement by the bogeyman, can you tell me at what point you shoot, and who decides to shoot?

So a plane gets shot down and the debris and body parts land all over Finchley. Plainly obviously the most wonderful propaganda coup for terrorists everywhere, who would all say they never hijacked anything, or all they intended to do was fly past to prove a point, or whatever, and it is just a Western plot to justify militarism etc.

[urlhttp://newsthump.com/2011/11/14/nuclear-warheads-to-protect-olympic-village-claims-hammond/[/url

Probably not, if the terrorists were well organised then it would probably only become apparent once the aircraft deviated from it's flight path. Then it would be a race against time to scramble typhoon's which would probably have to come from Coningsby.

You don't know much about military and intelligence do you? The venue is surrounded by a no fly zone, as soon as that is breached then radio communications would attempt to be established, if there's no reply it would be considered a threat. It would then be too late for ANY fighter jets to intercept and 80,000 people would be dead.

This article also has nothing to do with the situation you're suggesting at all. Nuclear warheads would be used to prevent a WMD being used, not a hijacked plane.

It's the only language they understand.

Vested interests at work here. You just want it to hit its target rather than land on you.

On the other hand: Finchley … they did keep electing Margaret Thatcher to the House of Commons …

I don't get that though, we're going to destroy London in order to stop the terrorists from destroying London?

Is it just me who immediately thinks of this?