The Olympic torch made its way through England this week, but here in the Labs we wanted to know what your thoughts were on a very different kind of Olympics-related firepower.

Participants were invited to share their views on the Government’s plans to place surface-to-air missiles at six sites (including atop residential buildings) around London for the 2012 Summer Olympics.

In addition to the missiles, an 18-kilometre electrified fence around the “safe zone”, and an aircraft carrier parked in the Thames, there will also be 23,700 security staff protecting Olympic and Paralympic venues.

There was an uproar a few months ago when the security budget for the Games was found to have nearly doubled, going from £282 million to £553 million in one year.

Participants were fairly evenly split on the question of whether the ground-to-air missiles were necessary, with slightly more in favour.

The reason most frequently given by those who thought the measure was appropriate was a belief that there is a genuine threat of terrorist attack.

Justifying this view, these participants said that it was better to be safe than sorry, even if the missiles serve only as a deterrent, as expressed below:

“There is a fairly high level of risk of terrorist attack, and since it is known that terrorists target high profile and high casualty opportunities, I believe that our government is correct in taking appropriate measures to ensure safety and deterrence – including airspace” Daniel W, South Scotland

Those of you who were against the Government placing missiles around London questioned whether they would be effective in protecting against terrorists, and also took issue with the associated costs.

Many participants were also alarmed at the possibility of shooting down an aircraft over London, as the following view reflects:

“'Overkill' – no pun intended. How does shooting a plane down over a densely populated area protect anyone? It's nonsense and a waste of money” Mark, Wirral

On whether the increased security personnel should be a temporary or permanent fixture, the vast majority of those who took part said the extra security should only be in place for the Olympics:

“It’s unrealistic and unsustainable to have the increased volume of security on a permanent basis, and I think it would be excessive and unnecessary. Nothing will be different after the Olympics than it is now so such an increase in security wouldn't be justifiable” Rachel, Manchester

The small number of participants who were, by contrast, in favour of making the increased security presence permanent, endorsed the plan on the grounds that the threat of terrorism is constant in their view, and also, that more police could help deter crime:

“If they have the money to spend on extra police while the Olympics are on why can't we be more protected afterwards?” Anon