Got it, I misunderstood.
Troops in tanks at Heathrow is not quite the same as troops visibly in many locations in London on guard duty which is now being reported as what will be involved. I don't recall boots on the ground inside the Heathrow terminals.
You could also have added the deployment of anti aircraft missiles, the stationing of air defence destroyer and a helicopter carrier during the Olympics let alone the widely reported availability of SAS units at that time.
None of the above change the position that this will be the first time there has been such a visible
presence of armed troops on the UK mainland in the last decade or four. At the moment it is being reported as replacement of armed police on static duties at high visibility targets such as Parliament etc to allow the police there to be freed up for mobile duties elsewhere i.e. it is a manpower issue.
Could happen to an armed policeman any day of the week though they seem to be in pairs. Don't think I have ever been armed and on my own, ever. You could get an unarmed guy as with Lee Rigby. Again could happen any day.
Will there be medals?
Ahem again.
Second picture on link....
The troops would operate in a brick formation.each soldier covering the other.They would give no warning if attacked and blow the crap out of the detested isis scum.
The brick would consist of 4/6 men. try kidnapping that lot.
Army arrives at Westminster as London landmarks put on lockdown
Armed soldiers guarding the Palace? If only there was troops doing that regularly.
Well an armed soldier standing guard at the entrance to Parliament could have stopped the London terrorist last month. Remember the only reason the guy was prevented from entering Parliament was that there was an armed passerby who shot him - if an armed protection officer hadn't just happened to be in the area there were no armed security personnel between the terrorist and the chamber.
If the terrorist are smart enough to make/get hold of explosives, find a mug dumb enough to blow themselves up, avoid capture by the army in their own country etc, I doubt faking an Id card will cause any lack of sleep.
Beside even if they couldn't make a id card it isn't going to stop anyone doing the rest, unless people think there going to walk up to the police with the bomb strapped on and show the id card before they blow someone up.
To stop people like this you need to
Monitor and control the Internet,
Read everyone's emails,
Tap phone calls
Have an army of secret informers spy on their neighbours
Accept people being arrested without charge or trail
The list goes on
That for me is a too high a price.
Even if you agree to the above, what's to stop government from changing what it is used for when set up? Disagree with the government, sure that's a risk to people.
OK I'm taking it to extremes, still where it would ultimately lead to
A very limited deployment at Heathrow in 2003 doesn't invalidate the main point I was making that this is a different situation entirely. One location vs many, 450 troops (how many were boots on the ground rather than in the tanks) vs 1,000 (although this is now mentioned as 984 and up to 3,800).
Heathrow also involved the deployment of a reported 1,000 extra armed police in addition to the 450 troops. The stated reason here is to free up armed police on static guard duties for mobile use replacing them with troops.
If, as in the photos of Heathrow you're refering to, there is to be a 1:1 ratio of armed police to troops not many police are going to be made available especially if it is only the static guard elements. I suppose if one of the usual two man police patrol teams was replaced by miitary that could potentially allow 50% more availability but again what proportion of static vs mobile teams would be involved.
As noted earlier 1,000 or 10,000 troops would not be able to stop a solo bomber especially if that was outwith major city centres, the unguarded soft underbelly of the country.