Civil Nuclear Police Authority

[nottsnurse]

Actually, since 9/11 armed police training has changed. They do not tend to shoot at the torso anymore given the risk of suicide bombers.

I'm calling BS.

Suicide bomb vest are rarely set off by gunfire and centre mass is the easiest part of a target to hit (it's the biggest bit). Modern ammunition is designed to be nose light/tail heavy to ensure it tumbles on impact with a target, causing maximum damage and increasing the likelihood of neutralising a threat. Extremities on the other hand are difficult to hit, meaning that a potential suicide vest wearing terrorist may have the benefit of a 'warning shot' if the first shot misses.

Another issue with aiming anywhere but centre mass is that if the shot misses where will it stop? In the civil world consideration has to be made not just on where a hit may end up but so to where a miss may. It's not Call of Duty, brassing up city centres/airports is not the done thing.

(More importantly) I'm also calling BS because a former oppo of mine, who is now a firearms-trained officer, says it's BS. He and his colleagues are trained exactly the same as we were in the forces, aim for centre mass.

If you're interested in such things the following link is an article by the Police Firearms Officers Association regarding 'Shooting to Wound' which speaks much of the difficulty in shooting anywhere but centre mass and the dangers of 'training by Hollywood' affecting the nature of Rules of Engagement that are decided upon by the law makers.

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Feel free to say that to the Trojan officers who told me. More importantly, you can read about some aspects of Operation Kratos on the internet, you can also read about the visits the Metropolitan Police made to Sri Lanka and Israel to see how forces dealt with the suicide threat, and were advised not to shoot in the torso but to shoot the head (I see that you, for some unknown reason automatically assumed that I was advising shooting extremities despite me never having written that). You can also read this which also confirms the need to aim for the head when dealing with suspected suicide bombers, and Kratos policy was also discussed in the Stockwell investigation.

 

[Stigy]

Not sure whether there some confusion here or not, or even if different forces have different policies (highly unlikely given the importance and potential consequences if somebody is killed), but certainly armed BTP officers don't shoot to kill. As far as I'm aware there's never been a shoot to kill ruling unless there's a major terrorist incident such as 9/11 or 7/7. In which case officers are briefed accordingly.

 

[najaB]

... but certainly armed BTP officers don't shoot to kill.

There may be different rules for different folk, but as far as I'm aware if the situation is serious enough that use of deadly force is necessary, that is exactly what will be used. The intent is to stop the threat - the best, most effective, and safest way to do that is to shoot to kill.

Edit below

As far as I'm aware there's never been a shoot to kill ruling unless there's a major terrorist incident such as 9/11 or 7/7. In which case officers are briefed accordingly.

I believe that briefing more than likely consists of changing the 'rules of engagement'. On a normal day, use of firearms is restricted to situations where there is a clear, present and imminent danger to life and there is no apparent way to stop the suspect without risk that the officer or member of the public is seriously hurt or killed. At all times the officer's primary role is to detain suspects for investigation and subsequent prosecution. However, if the situation does arise where they need to shoot, it pretty much will be to kill.

If a major terrorist incident is believed to be ongoing, that primary role changes to the protection of life and prevention of further acts of terrorism, detaining the suspects is a secondary consideration. So while it won't be "fire at will", the threshold for use of deadly force will be a lot lower than usual.

 

[455driver]

Interesting that this obscure thread prompted a new member

Welcome.

Who is laying down the law from his very first post!

 

[sonorguy]

Feel free to say that to the Trojan officers who told me. More importantly, you can read about some aspects of Operation Kratos on the internet, you can also read about the visits the Metropolitan Police made to Sri Lanka and Israel to see how forces dealt with the suicide threat, and were advised not to shoot in the torso but to shoot the head (I see that you, for some unknown reason automatically assumed that I was advising shooting extremities despite me never having written that). You can also read this which also confirms the need to aim for the head when dealing with suspected suicide bombers, and Kratos policy was also discussed in the Stockwell investigation.

Although the vast majority of uses of firearms by the police in the UK are not related to suicide bombers, in fact I suspect that the number of instances of this would be countable on one hand with a couple of fingers missing. Aiming for the head is for desperate circumstances, not as a general rule. For the majority of gang or armed crime instances they'll still be aiming for centre-mass.

As someone current on a number of different firearms types, aiming for centre of mass is still taught as the preferred option as there's more of it to hit and it lessens the chances of any collateral damage, unless in extraordinary circumstances, as nottsnurse points out.

Two observations, firstly regarding 'shoot to kill'. It was notable that in the murder of Lee Rigby the police officers concerned did not shoot to kill, they used firearms to incapacitate instead, thus denying the two murderers martyr status.

Secondly, while nottsnurse is right for all sensible scenarios, there has been at least one instance of a person-borne IED being initiated by a weapon round, when a Coldstream Gds sniper in Afghanistan hit the vest of the bomber with a .50cal round, detonating the vest and killing the target and five other insurgents standing close to him.

Naja B, detaining suspects is never a 'secondary consideration' unless they appear to pose a significant and imminent threat. A terrorist incident ongoing is still not a reason for a free fire environment and in that sense nothing much would change. I'm not aware of the Met's RoE, but I'd imagine that the emphasis would still be on firing only if the officers felt there was an imminent threat to life. The chances of that may be greater, but I doubt it would change the approach.

If suspects could be detained without being shot then they would be. A dead suspect can't be questioned.

Should add, this isn't my first post, I had another username previously (Sonorguy) but changed email address

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Even if someone detonated a bomb next to one of the containers the risk of nuclear contamination to the general public would be minimal and almost non-existent.

I know the DRS fuel trains always operate with at least 2 locomotives so that if one fails en-route they still have the other one.

I think there was some controversy after Greenpeace or CND found out that the trains were being kept overnight in goods yards or something like that but I can't remember.

There was a fuss made, many years ago, about the nuclear flask trains travelling through densely populated areas. I suppose the issue resurfaces every now and again. As though any accident being within or outside a populated area makes much difference - as Chernobyl showed - radiation knows no boundaries (yes there are different types), some rare mid 80's welsh lamb for Sunday lunch anybody?

In the creepy nuclear conspiracy thriller TV series 'Edge of Darkness' there is footage of said trains in BR days being hauled by a 31. I think it was a drama or was it a documentary......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who is laying down the law from his very first post!

And having discovered the hotbed of radical fundamentalism that RailUKForum is (at least as far as seat covering materials and obscure ticket prices go) will be monitoring every post by every subscriber for evermore - more tax money down the drain. Someone, somewhere must have an automated search function for one or all the of key words in the thread title.

 

[Jonny]

Even if someone detonated a bomb next to one of the containers the risk of nuclear contamination to the general public would be minimal and almost non-existent.

I know the DRS fuel trains always operate with at least 2 locomotives so that if one fails en-route they still have the other one.

I think there was some controversy after Greenpeace or CND found out that the trains were being kept overnight in goods yards or something like that but I can't remember.

The containers are as hard as nails/a brick s***house/<insert analogy here> so knowing the most likely terrorist method, the worst thing would be cleaning up the bits of the bomber. They aren't going to be the main target. I would be more bothered about drone-type projectiles at storage locations.

 

[DownSouth]

There was a fuss made, many years ago, about the nuclear flask trains travelling through densely populated areas. I suppose the issue resurfaces every now and again. As though any accident being within or outside a populated area makes much difference - as Chernobyl showed - radiation knows no boundaries (yes there are different types), some rare mid 80's welsh lamb for Sunday lunch anybody?

If you want to reduce the amount of radiation spilling out from trains into populated areas, putting lids on coal hoppers would be the biggest gain to be made.

 

[nottsnurse]

...Secondly, while nottsnurse is right for all sensible scenarios, there has been at least one instance of a person-borne IED being initiated by a weapon round, when a Coldstream Gds sniper in Afghanistan hit the vest of the bomber with a .50cal round, detonating the vest and killing the target and five other insurgents standing close to him...

I was well aware of this fine piece of marksmanship (I was in theatre at the time and heard about it through the jungle drums) and not wishing to split hairs but...

- The Coldstream Guard was using an L115A3, in .338 Lapua (8.59mm), not .50.
- The shot was aimed specifically at the triggering mechanism in order set the device off, not something that I'd suggest would be attempted in the UK, and thus I felt it unnecessary to quote it as an example.

 

[najaB]

I'm not aware of the Met's RoE, but I'd imagine that the emphasis would still be on firing only if the officers felt there was an imminent threat to life. The chances of that may be greater, but I doubt it would change the approach.

If suspects could be detained without being shot then they would be. A dead suspect can't be questioned.

How is that significantly different from what I wrote: 'So while it won't be "fire at will", the threshold for use of deadly force will be a lot lower than usual.'?

 

[sonorguy]

How is that significantly different from what I wrote: 'So while it won't be "fire at will", the threshold for use of deadly force will be a lot lower than usual.'?

Because the threshold for use of lethal force won't be a lot lowere, or lower at all, it'll remain exactly the same. It's just that in a situation where there may be a number of armed terrorists, say a Mumbai type incident, the chances of it being needed are higher.

However the aim would be to capture them without firing if that's possible, therefore the threshold wouldn't alter. There aren't any scenarios I'm aware of where that wouldn't be the case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was well aware of this fine piece of marksmanship (I was in theatre at the time and heard about it through the jungle drums) and not wishing to split hairs but...

- The Coldstream Guard was using an L115A3, in .338 Lapua (8.59mm), not .50.
- The shot was aimed specifically at the triggering mechanism in order set the device off, not something that I'd suggest would be attempted in the UK, and thus I felt it unnecessary to quote it as an example.

I'll give you the weapon, but
I'm fairly sure, given that the shot was from 800yds plus, that hitting the trigger mechanism was a lucky shot rather than an aimed one (other than being aimed at a chap with a rifle), and the sniper's own account plus his CO's suggests he wasn't aware he'd hit a suicide vest IED until the after the big bang had happened.

I've fired a L115A3 with full optics and they're good, but not good enough to aim at a tiny trigger mechanism from 800yds.

However, that's splitting hairs even further!

 

[brianthegiant]

I think this thread presents a slightly macho take on nuclear policing.
I don't accept the narrative on this thread that anyone going near a nuclear transport will get a 'bruising' I think the reality is more complex.

I don't know about rail transports, but road transports have been the subject of peaceful protest blockades from time to time. Clearly this type of situation is especially challenging for Civilian or MOD police and the protestors would presumably expect the risk of being arrested/charged much more likely than at other demonstrations.

Use of force does have to be proportionate since the police are below English Law not above it. There have been numerous successful legal actions against police forces for injuries to civilians engaged in peaceful protest, including protest at Faslane Nuclear base, such claims are especially counter productive to the police as they tend to be used to finance better publicity of protests.... Whilst 'bruisings' at the hands of UK police forces do still happen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
they will become rarer now that there is video footage from both sides, but those which do happen will be more widely reported.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think this thread presents a slightly macho take on nuclear policing.
I don't accept the narrative on this thread that anyone going near a nuclear transport will get a 'bruising' I think the reality is more complex.

I don't know about rail transports, but road transports have been the subject of peaceful protest blockades from time to time. Clearly this type of situation is especially challenging for Civilian or MOD police and the protestors would presumably expect the risk of being arrested/charged much more likely than at other demonstrations.

Use of force does have to be proportionate since the police are below English Law not above it. There have been numerous successful legal actions against police forces for injuries to civilians engaged Cheersful protest, including protest at Faslane Nuclear base, such claims are especially counter productive to the police as they tend to be used to finance better publicity of protests.... Whilst 'bruisings' at the hands of UK police forces do still happen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
they will become rarer now that there is video footage from both sides, but those which do happen will be more widely reported.

I suspect walking close up to, looking at, and perhaps even sitting on the flask and having a picnic, on a power station waste train, would have different consequences than trying to physically interfere with the 'naval' trains!