UK: Tanks at Heathrow

On stationing armored carriers at Heathrow, John Heelan takes a position between those of George Sassoon and Christopher Jones: "Blair is in a "no-win" situation in this respect. If he deploys a show of military force and no terrorist attack happens (or is deterred) he is accused of scare-mongering. If he does not deploy security and an attack happens the he is judged culpable. According to the BBC News (a fairly reliable source of information), the contacts their security journalists has in the intelligence services confirmed that there was a fully believable risk of a ground-to-air missile being fired at an aircraft approaching or leaving London Heathrow.

Whether the military deployment would stop such an attack is a moot point as the immediate perimeter of Heathrow covers some 13 miles and the attack could be made from anywhere on that perimeter or from one of the many car-parks that surround the complex (as the IRA did some years back). Further, such an attack could also take place along the approach/departure flight-paths which are a mixture of urban and rural spaces impossible to patrol to the degree that the attackers would certainly be detected and disposed of before doing harm.

Even a tyro in defence matters would recognise that such an attack would be very difficult to detect and stop. So the military deployment at Heathrow can serve only as a defence against a direct attack on interior of the terminal buildings (even that would not stop a suicide bomber) or an attack with a vehicle loaded with explosives. Thus the deployment seems to have limited value as a defence, some value as a deterrent and great PR value in showing the Government is taking action of some kind to generate confidence in the general public".

Ronald Hilton - 2/13/03