|
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. |
|