[HN Gopher] Anatomy of the Presidential Motorcade (2016)
___________________________________________________________________
Anatomy of the Presidential Motorcade (2016)
Author : Tomte
Score : 54 points
Date : 2022-04-15 07:23 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| bannedbybros wrote:
| martyvis wrote:
| I was only commenting to my wife on how things are so much
| different here in Australia. Thankfully we have nothing of the
| threat model here (which primarily is the almost unfettered
| access to high powered firearms they have in the USA). Our Prime
| Minister was travelling in the state of Tasmania last week and
| I'd wager the security detail consisted of one or two standard
| state police motorcycles, one or two standard patrol cars, the
| PMs limo ( a pretty standard luxury sedan) and maybe a few
| unmarked cars like this one that had an awful accident. (I
| actually think maybe 10 years ago I passed the PMs car on a
| freeway and it was barely noticeable)
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-14/prime-minister-electi...
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Pfffft.
|
| Nobody is gonna successfully shoot at a presidential motorcade
| for the same reason nobody is gonna pull off another 9/11. The
| loophole could only be used once.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| It isnt the guns. Canada has basically all the same guns and
| the Canadian PM doesnt travel with an army. It is about
| information. The US president's every movement is announced
| publicly days or weeks in advance. His advance team openly
| secures routes ahead of his convoy. They are effectively daring
| someone to try something. Cananda does it differently. Thier
| PM's exact moves are not announced to the world the week
| before. And when he goes somewhere he doesnt bring an army,
| rather he uses mostly local police who know the terrain. Thats
| the benifit of having a national police force (RCMP). The
| american secret service isnt integrated with the hundreds of
| different police agencies in the US. They dont trust them. So
| they bring thier own army every time, to face down all the
| potential troublemakers who know exactly where the president is
| going to be standing almost to the minute.
| toast0 wrote:
| Even dead presidents get a substantial motorcade. They drove
| Reagan past where I was working a noon to midnight shift (on
| Wilshire Blvd), and all sorts of motorcycle police came and
| shut down cross traffic at the intersections so he didn't
| need to wait in traffic.
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| It's not so he "didn't need to wait in traffic". It's so
| someone can't pull dump trucks in front of and behind his
| motorcade and create a kill box.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Living presidents are controversial, human, figures. Dead
| presidents are saints, almost martyrs to the cause of
| democracy irrespective of how they actually die. America
| builds temples to them (aka presidential libraries) to
| which some followers make pilgrimages. It is downright
| strange.
| bombcar wrote:
| You can get basically the same thing when you die - just
| call the local PD. Stopping traffic for funerals is very
| common.
| yardstick wrote:
| I'd argue that no one cares about the Canadian, Australian,
| etc leaders. When's the last time one of them was
| assassinated? They don't have a nuclear briefcase with them,
| they aren't the ones leading military engagements across the
| world, they aren't the ones with a super important economy.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| 1868. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, one of canada's founding
| fathers. Three years after Lincoln.
|
| More recently, in 1995 an attempt was made against Jean
| Chretien. Even more recently, in march of last year a
| deranged former soldier drove a pickup truck into the prime
| minister's residence. Canada has its own fare share of
| crazy people looking to attack politicians.
|
| https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-reservist-who-
| rammed-...
|
| >>OTTAWA -- A Manitoba man who rammed a gate at Rideau Hall
| before arming himself and heading on foot toward Prime
| Minister Justin Trudeau's home last July was sentenced
| Wednesday to six years in prison.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > all the potential troublemakers
|
| Some of which may be part of those local police forces.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| Pretty much the _only_ kind of firearms Australians have easy
| access to are high-powered. In most states a bolt-acton rifle
| is no big deal. But they can shoot very big bullets!
|
| This is the type of individual small arm I'd assume is the most
| likely threat to someone in a presidential motorcade.
|
| The guns thing is one of the go-to stereotypes about the U.S.,
| but it isn't generally true or helpful.
| briandear wrote:
| > Thankfully we have nothing of the threat model here (which
| primarily is the almost unfettered access to high powered
| firearms they have in the USA).
|
| No offense to Australia, but the Aussie PM isn't a continual
| worldwide target from every terrorism group and some nation
| states.
|
| If you note, even when the US President is in a gun-free
| country, the motorcade and security processes are still at
| extreme levels. The motorcade is designed to withstand rocket
| propelled grenades, chemical weapons, and even EMP attacks.
| Weapons that nobody except terror groups or nation states have
| access to. While a lone gunman with a rifle is a legitimate
| threat, the motorcade is designed around a much more
| complicated threat model. Protecting against a guy with a gun
| is relatively easy.
|
| The assassination of any US president would send world markets
| into immediate chaos as well as create a dire world security
| situation as "bad" countries and organizations would seek to
| exploit the situation.
|
| Just as the World Trade Center attack was a symbolic action,
| taking out the US president would have a similar effect. While
| an assassination of the Australian PM would be tragic, it isn't
| even close to having the same impact.
|
| And prior to Australia having their gun ban, the Aussie PM
| still didn't have the enormously protective motorcade of the US
| president.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| It's the US who should be offended at their president being
| the target of all those shenanigans ;)
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| No, a bigger threat would be IED. Let's ban all fertilizer.
| Somebody think of the children.
| yohannparis wrote:
| It's mostly because Australia, like the UK and Canada, have a
| Prime Minister instead of a President.
|
| In case of murder of a PM, the government will quickly select a
| new one in the matter of weeks. It is a silly political move to
| kill a PM.
|
| In case of a President, there is a mandate from the population,
| because he/she was elected directly. And replacing the
| President is a matter of several months at least, or, in the
| case of the USA, not at all. And that sends a bigger message to
| kill a President.
|
| I personally see both system (Prime Minister and President)
| have pros & cons that doesn't make one better than the other.
| jefftk wrote:
| I don't think this is about elections, but about how much
| people care about the leader as an individual versus a
| representative of a party? For example, in a traditional
| monarchy, even if you had a very clear successor (popular
| 60yo king with a popular 35yo eldest child etc) killing the
| king would still be a huge "message".
| thegginthesky wrote:
| Why would it take months for a new president? In case of the
| death of a president, the vice-president gets automatically
| sworn into office as fast as possible and in fact becomes a
| president. Now if the vice president also dies, you have a
| line of succession to act as a president.
|
| I haven't found any information about the obligation to hold
| new elections in such event, but I could be wrong
| jefftk wrote:
| Your parent has "in the case of the USA, not at all". I
| think what they're saying is that someone who becomes
| president by inheriting the role is not seen as a full
| president, even if they formally are one.
| thegginthesky wrote:
| Got it, but I think most democracies (for example US,
| Brazil, Argentina) have a line of succession either in
| their constitution or in the amendments that follow it.
| Whenever anyone takes the role of president next, they
| have full authority, power, and responsibilities of a
| president, even if in some cases they don't have the
| title of President.
|
| I know of a few examples that it's required to have new
| elections months after a president step down, which is
| the case of India, but even then the acting president has
| the full power of a president.
| gumby wrote:
| > inheriting the role is not seen as a full president
|
| Just in the 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman,
| and Lyndon Johnson directly contradict your statement.
|
| Your statement does describe the most recent case, afore,
| but it's such an oddball case it's not surprising it's an
| outlier.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You seem to think that a new election is required, but in the
| case of the death of a President, the Vice-president is sworn
| in pretty much as soon as they can get a judge available to
| do the swearing in which can be done in a matter of minutes
| to hours. Much faster than gathering a bunch of drunk member
| of Commons together and letting them boo each other while
| some chap screams "orduh". ;P
| hydrox24 wrote:
| > Much faster than gathering a bunch of drunk member of
| Commons together and letting them boo each other while some
| chap screams "orduh". ;P
|
| I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but it's worth noting that
| the Parliament has almost nothing to do with appointing a
| Prime Minister. In practice (in Australia) the majority
| party meets, picks a new leader, and then sends them to be
| appointed as PM by the Governor General. That's all that's
| needed.
| martyvis wrote:
| In Australia there is always a Deputy Prime Minister
| available to fulfill the role of the PM in their absence
| because of illness, travel or leave. That said in the
| case of a coalition government, such as we have now, they
| are from the minority party in the coalition, and the
| deputy would unlikely to succeed as a permanent PM in the
| event of a sudden demise such as drowning in the surf -
| or taken by a Chinese submarine if you believe that. (For
| those not in the know this happened to Harold Holt, our
| PM in 1967l
| eatonphil wrote:
| > In case of a President, there is a mandate from the
| population, because he/she was elected directly. And
| replacing the President is a matter of several months at
| least, or, in the case of the USA, not at all. And that sends
| a bigger message to kill a President.
|
| We have a fairly well defined line of succession.
|
| And even if you're talking just about mandate, if the
| president dies the VP often takes up the dead president's
| mandates. Like LBJ passing major civil rights legislation the
| year after JFK died, or Truman following FDR pretty closely.
| Although Andrew Johnson did the opposite of that and Gerald
| Ford (not following a death, fair) didn't do anything at all.
| hawthornio wrote:
| Seems like security theater
| mc32 wrote:
| Why not use a couple of motorcycles and two MRAPs, one main and
| one replacement in the even the main suffers an incident?
| bombcar wrote:
| Because half the whole point is to put on a show for everyone.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Here is a picture of the Dutch Minister President and his
| motorcade:
|
| https://www.ad.nl/den-haag/alleen-rutte-fietst-nog-naar-zijn...
|
| Unfortunately even he had to have personal protection during the
| last couple of years for a period because of threats against him
| with respect to an attack or an attempt to kidnap him.
| johnflan wrote:
| Similarly the Irish President https://www.independent.ie/irish-
| news/only-in-irelandpreside...
| leobg wrote:
| Cool dude. Makes me want to emigrate to NL.
| bombcar wrote:
| The American Motorcade is more a display of gunboat diplomacy
| than really security driven.
| kube-system wrote:
| If that was the case, why are most of the security features
| hidden?
|
| If it were a show of force, it would look like this: https://
| cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/landscape...
|
| The current US motorcade's security features are no doubt a
| result of previous security incidents that actually happened.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's not so much a show of force vs a show of importance.
|
| If it was _super_ secure we wouldn 't know all this stuff
| about it.
| kube-system wrote:
| There are many details that aren't public, and part of
| what has been made public is highlighting that fact. This
| is probably intentional, to dissuade anyone from thinking
| it'll be easy to compromise.
|
| Elements of it are a show of importance. Like the fact
| that the cars are shiny Cadillacs and not dull vehicles
| made by Grumman or the like.
|
| But the security features listed here are mostly
| intentionally muted and not showy. Like the fact that the
| vehicle is made to look like a normal Cadillac despite
| being more custom than not.
| belter wrote:
| The picture just says 1000 words but not in the way meant. This
| just shows the power is somewhere else ;-)
| belter wrote:
| jacquesm wrote:
| > could also be considered upsetting
|
| It could be but not by anybody with a normal sense of
| proportion.
|
| > As if somewhat cooler than Presidents or Prime Ministers
| who have large security motorcades
|
| Intent matters. All I wanted to show is the contrast
| between the leader of one first world country and another.
| Obviously Obama or Biden are bigger targets and therefore
| need more security.
|
| > Just because he uses a bicycle for 400 meters as a photo
| op, between two Hague government offices while being
| discretely followed by the security services.
|
| You are inserting your own facts here. He actually does
| bike from home normally, as have many Dutch presidents
| before him. The main reason is that the Hague where our
| seat of government is is actually _much_ faster to traverse
| by bike and if he were to upset the city twice or more
| daily with motorcades it would ding his popularity
| considerably, besides that even the right wing in NL has
| some sense of environmental responsibility.
|
| > The truth is that if you are the prime minister of a
| small country, a country that in the last major war
| surrendered in 3 hours, the Netherlands security is
| outsourced to NATO, or in other words, you are 100%
| dependent on US Military Power.
|
| That's a revolting little bit of writing. NL surrendered
| after being overrun by the Germans, which took 5 days, not
| three hours, and they just had a very large city bombed to
| rubble and were promised 'more of the same'. It made good
| sense from a lives saved perspective with the note that at
| that time it wasn't yet apparent what kind of atrocities
| would follow.
|
| > If you are small economy, that could not survive without
| being integrated in the European Union, so means you have
| small voting power as portion of all the votes of all other
| 27 countries. So you will have to follow the decisions of
| the other countries.
|
| NL is small, but it actually isn't all that small an
| economy. It's the 7th largest in absolute sense and the 6th
| largest per capita. And it isn't nearly the 7th or 6th
| country by size.
|
| > And finally if you are a prime minister who does not have
| a majority, so you are at the head of the government only
| because you agreed with the politics of every small
| coalition party, so that you could stay prime minister. So
| you are implementing the policies of somebody else.
|
| Coalition governments are a fact of life here and I
| consider that to be a very good thing. Those 'policies of
| somebody else' require give and take rather than 'might
| makes right' where one administration continuously tries to
| undo what the previous one established.
|
| > In other words, the reason why the US President has such
| a complex motorcade is because he has real economical,
| military and political power and upsets a lot of equally
| powerful parties. So he has the threats commensurate to his
| real power.
|
| That is undoubtedly true, but that does not warrant your
| ridiculous response.
|
| > The fact the US President goes on a big motorcade is what
| allows the Dutch prime minister to promenade himself on a
| bike ;-)
|
| And that just isn't correct. Really, your comment is in
| pretty bad taste.
| hammock wrote:
| Glad his comment got censored by HN then, for its bad
| taste!
|
| You guys are talking past each other. For example he says
| the PM has 1% the power of the US President, and you say
| that's a good thing. There is no debate being engaged
| here that I can see.
| belter wrote:
| The comment was the Dutch prime minister is somewhat
| cooler because he goes on a bike, implying others don't
| go on bikes, can't go on bikes or don't want to.
|
| I just pointed to the real reason why he can go on a bike
| and others not so much. There are all kinds of reasons,
| why sometimes somebody does not like a comment. Because
| they disagree with it, but also sometimes because they
| are called on, their 'holier-than-thou' attitude.
| belter wrote:
| Picking up on your comment. The whole thing is about
| intent. Like the US President also does not like to go on
| a bike:
|
| Joe Biden: https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles
| /main_width/pu...
|
| Obama: https://cdn.shoplightspeed.com/shops/618730/files/
| 29004558/o...
|
| George Bush: https://cdn.shoplightspeed.com/shops/618730/
| files/29004560/g...
|
| Jimmy Carter: https://www.thebicyclestory.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2012/02/j...
|
| Bush: https://encrypted-
| tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmueZN...
|
| So are you saying the Dutch prime minister has military,
| political and economical influence somewhat on the 1% of
| other political leaders, and the threats that come with
| it, but he is somewhat cooler and more courageous so goes
| around on a bike?
|
| Let me give another example from another small country. A
| ex-president of Portugal (Mario Soares) was known for
| liking to do long walks along the Tagus river in Lisbon,
| and hitching rides from passing drivers, back to the
| Presidential Palace. But that is the luxury afforded to
| who is not important enough to threaten any powers that
| matter.
| ilamont wrote:
| _The protective detail of the Secret Service are masters of what
| they do, and they know how to optimize their capabilities against
| a potential enemy 's weaknesses and strengths._
|
| My respect for SS capabilities declined greatly earlier this
| month after it was revealed 4 highly trained agents including one
| on the First Lady's detail were accepting bribes from bogus DHS
| agents with high powered weaponry who are likely foreign agents.
| A postal inspector figured it out, not the SS.
|
| If SS can't discern an obvious threat and ethical violation, how
| good are they at the other tasks they are supposedly masters of?
|
| Another question: why do they have anything to do with
| investigating counterfeit currency? That particular
| responsibility should be reassigned to another agency at Treasury
| or FBI so Secret Service can concentrate on their core mission of
| protecting the president.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >>Another question: why do they have anything to do with
| investigating counterfeit currency?
|
| Because they were founded long before today's cadre of federal
| police agencies (FBI/ATF etc). At that time the federal
| government's mandate was rather slim. If there was going to be
| a federal police force it had to be in relation to an federal
| matter such as currency. Understand the "secret" in the name to
| be the old use, meaning more _private_ than clandestine, as
| used in _secret_ ary. They worked for the president and federal
| government rather than the states and could not enforce state
| laws.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service#E...
|
| >> With a reported one third of the currency in circulation
| being counterfeit at the time,[14] Abraham Lincoln established
| a commission to make recommendations to remedy the problem. The
| Secret Service was later established on July 5, 1865 in
| Washington, D.C., to suppress counterfeit currency. Chief
| William P. Wood was sworn in by Secretary of the Treasury Hugh
| McCulloch. It was commissioned in Washington, D.C. as the
| "Secret Service Division" of the Department of the Treasury
| with the mission of suppressing counterfeiting.
| briandear wrote:
| The SS's core mission isn't protecting the president. It wasn't
| until 1901 that they added protection to their duties. They
| have been tasked with financial crimes since 1865. Creating
| another agency when the SS is very good at what they do is
| pointless.
|
| Despite occasional missteps (any large org will have problems
| from time to time,) the SS is one of the best federal law
| enforcement agencies ever created.
|
| To your point of creating another agency so the SS can focus on
| the president, we could ask the same question why the FBI
| investigates kidnappings and bank robberies while also doing
| domestic counter intelligence. It's possible for agencies to do
| more than one thing.
| eatonphil wrote:
| > the SS is one of the best federal law enforcement agencies
| ever created.
|
| Not that I disagree but I've never heard anyone say this. I'm
| curious why you think so.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> the SS
|
| They really do not like being called "The SS". That has
| severe historical connotations.
| paulcole wrote:
| Here's the thing that goes for Secret Service agents, doctors,
| cooks, computer programmers, professional baseball players,
| etc.:
|
| Most people are just OK at their jobs. They do enough to get by
| but they make mistakes -- sometimes big mistakes. They're not
| superstars, they're average.
| eatonphil wrote:
| > Another question: why do they have anything to do with
| investigating counterfeit currency? That particular
| responsibility should be reassigned to another agency at
| Treasury or FBI so Secret Service can concentrate on their core
| mission of protecting the president.
|
| The Secret Service is under the Treasury. Its original core
| task was counterfeit currency. Only after McKinley was
| assassinated (20 years after Garfield was assassinated (15
| years after Lincoln was assassinated)) I think was it expanded
| to _also_ include protecting the president.
| bombcar wrote:
| Given that currency has dead presidents on it you'd think
| it'd be a conflict of interest to have the Treasury
| protecting live ones.
| ricktdotorg wrote:
| FYI Secret Service is no longer part of Treasury, has been
| part of DHS since March 1 2003.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Ah I forgot about that. Thanks.
| cstross wrote:
| _Multiple USAF heavy transports are required to facilitate a
| single presidential visit, and those flights come at a steep
| cost._
|
| This seems a peculiarly American way to go about things ...
| specifically, it's not actually about protection or transport at
| all: it's about signalling imperial primacy through conspicuous
| misuse of resources.
|
| I live in Edinburgh, capital of Scotland, about a mile away from
| a royal palace that is sometimes occupied by actual royals.
| (Typically Princess Anne; sometimes Charles, William, or the
| Queen when she's in town to open a session of the Scottish
| Parliament.)
|
| And as I live on a main road they sometimes drive past my front
| door.
|
| A royal motorcade scaled for the heir to the throne and his wife,
| or the queen's sister, or a similar level of VIP, consists of:
| two SUVs (typically Range Rovers) and 2-4 motorcycles. One SUV
| for the VIPs (presumably armoured), one for additional
| security/backup, and the bikes leap-frog the SUVs to stop traffic
| at intersections so the SUVs don't need to slow down.
|
| The SUVs are notable for not having number plates (that's
| normally illegal in the UK). And for special appearances the VIP
| carrier is sometimes replaced with a classic limousine -- I've
| seen Daimlers and Rolls-Royces used (older, pre-BMW-ownership
| ones).
|
| The queen isn't a common visitor these days (she's 95, doesn't
| travel much during the pandemic) but used to rate something not
| much larger: add another couple of Range Rovers to the convoy and
| that's about it.
|
| What they _don 't_ do is shut down an entire city and have
| military helicopters and transports flying around the place,
| signaling what's going on. The emphasis seems to be on being
| discreet and agile, and able to avoid any possible threats
| notified by intelligence. If you've got a convoy involving a
| hundred people you can't simply pick another route.
|
| Now, obviously the rules are a bit different for the leader of
| the global imperial hegemon: projecting an image of
| invulnerability and overwhelming might goes with the territory.
| And a formal parade like a Presidential Inauguration or a state
| visit calls for laying on the pomp, ceremony, and escort size (a
| UK example might be the Trooping of the Colours, or the state
| opening of Parliament and the monarch's speech).
|
| But if the objective of the presidential motorcade is to safely
| deliver POTUS to a speaking engagement then safely extract him
| afterwards, with elbow-room for close protection duty, then 95%
| of this motorcade arrangement is a very expensive waste of people
| and equipment: it's signalling that the subject of the motorcade
| is important, not actually accomplishing anything tangible.
| chernevik wrote:
| The royals aren't a decapitation target for a nuclear first
| strike.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The US presidents' motorcade protects against a lot of things
| but a nuclear first strike is probably not one of them.
| chernevik wrote:
| Not saying the President himself would be nuked, but that
| killing the President is the first move in at least one
| first-strike scenario.
|
| As part of deterring a first-strike, the Secret Service has
| to show that the President cannot be killed even by a
| substantial and sophisticated ambush. It has to be ready
| for weapons like these Javelin missiles that killing tanks
| in Russia.
| CPLX wrote:
| I mean the royals are essentially celebrities and spokesmodels.
| The appropriate comparison here would be to an American like
| Oprah Winfrey or Tom Cruise or something and their motorcade.
| jrootabega wrote:
| Sounds similar to behaviors of groups of bikers on highways.
| Controlling traffic to show dominance under the guise of
| safety.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| That is your takeaway?
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| The Special Escort Group[1] is interesting: they are highly
| skilled at moving the VIP with minimum of fuss and disruption,
| even using whistles rather than sirens to minimise the effect
| of their passage and only closing one junction at a time.
|
| Possibly because the default reaction to a flashy and
| obnoxiously visible convoy in the UK might be an eye roll and
| "fuck's sake, get over yourself".
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Escort_Group_(Metropol...
| nickt wrote:
| There's a decent documentary on YouTube about them -
| Inconspicuous Ingenuity.
|
| https://youtu.be/w5TkSE_5GsE
| jacquesm wrote:
| That project of 'overwhelming might' looked pretty silly when
| they got the beast stuck a while ago.
|
| Also, pretty wild to see your comment downvoted, someone must
| feel upset that you aren't giving 'proper respect' or something
| to that effect. Have an upvote.
| eatonphil wrote:
| > That project of 'overwhelming might' looked pretty silly
| when they got the beast stuck a while ago.
|
| I hadn't heard of this before. Video for the curious:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5zH0Il8B0.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I would love to hear the radio traffic around that
| incident, as well as to read the post mortem.
| eatbitseveryday wrote:
| > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never
| does any good, and it makes boring reading.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| eatonphil wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders
| eatbitseveryday wrote:
| What's your point?
| jacquesm wrote:
| It normally does, but in this case it's funny. I'll
| petition Dan to tell me off. Better?
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > That project of 'overwhelming might' looked pretty silly
| when they got the beast stuck a while ago.
|
| Yes, its like that old joke ... The Americans spent millions
| of dollars making a pen that could be used in space. The
| Russians gave their astronauts a pencil.
|
| I think its much the same with the President and his
| motorcade.
|
| When the President is visiting peaceful Western countries,
| then most of the motorcade (and associated aircraft) is
| largely security theatre.
|
| To visit Europe (or Canada) for example, why does the
| President need to bring along enough manpower to start a
| small war ?
| Invictus0 wrote:
| A pretty crappy joke, no idea why it keeps showing up. You
| can't sharpen a pencil in space without having
| wood/graphite shavings floating around in the air forever
| thereafter.
|
| https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/news-and-
| events/2021/01/22...
| akelly wrote:
| Also it's not even true. NASA was using mechanical
| pencils and grease pencils which both had issues. Fisher
| spent a million dollars of private money to develop the
| space pen and then sold them on the public market and to
| NASA for $2.95. But the story of needless government
| waste is just too good.
|
| Edit: whoops I should have clicked your link before
| replying
| cstross wrote:
| The presidential motorcade travels with the president in
| his own country, remember.
| [deleted]
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| A nit I like to pick: there is no substantial definition of
| "empire" by which the U.S. is an empire. Hegemon, maybe. So
| "imperial" isn't appropriate.
| mikem170 wrote:
| > there is no substantial definition of "empire" by which the
| U.S. is an empire
|
| I'm genuinely curious about your take on that.
|
| I've had the assumption that the U.S. control over so much of
| the world's economics and security amounts to running an
| empire - stuff like exporting inflation via the worlds
| reserve currency and selling treasury bonds (modern tribute),
| worldwide control over trade using a navy with more tonnage
| than all of our enemies combined, military bases in 80
| countries, things like the Monroe Doctrine enforcing our
| interests over an entire continent, decades of using the CIA
| and other means to replace governments in other countries
| that we don't like, wars in the past to secure our supply of
| oil, funding proxy wars to destabilize up and coming regional
| powers, exporting our drug and copyright laws to the rest of
| the world, running the worlds financial networks, restricting
| trade in territories we control like Puerto Rico, exported
| our culture to the rest of the world, etc. For decades we
| seem to have dominated a large swath of the world in ways
| that other western countries, like Canada for example, do
| not. There's even a long Wikipedia article on American
| Imperialism [0].
|
| Does the definition of empire preclude the idea of modern
| empires not following the same methods of past empires? Or am
| I missing something else?
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| > Does the definition of empire preclude the idea of modern
| empires not following the same methods of past empires?
|
| Yes, basically. There's a long wikipedia article on
| American imperialism because it's a popular trope among
| blue-team coastal elites. Here's A Collection of
| Unmitigated Pedantry on empires:
| https://acoup.blog/2019/11/22/collections-why-are-there-
| no-e...
|
| "...an empire is a state where the core ruling population
| exercises control and extracts resources from a periphery
| which is composed of people other than the core group
| (linguistically/culturally/ethnically/religiously
| distinct). So an empire is a state where one set of people
| (the core) extract resources (typically by force) from
| another set of people (the periphery)."
|
| You could argue that descriptive linguistics blah blah
| basically the word just means "really powerful state" now.
| And maybe it does to a lot of people, or maybe that's where
| we're headed, but it makes me sad and I don't think we're
| there yet.
| andrepd wrote:
| It's funny that you think empty palaces and motorcades for
| hereditary monarchs are not a "conspicuous misuse of resources"
| ;)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Where does he say that he thinks that?
| andrepd wrote:
| As I understand it they were making a contrast between the
| PotUS security apparatus and that of UK royals.
| t3rabytes wrote:
| Interesting timing on this post, I got stuck on the highway in
| Greensboro NC behind a police blockade on Thursday for what I can
| only assume was the presidential motorcade making its way from
| downtown back to the airport!
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Or it was a training event. There are more fake convoys out
| there than real ones, and yes they will block traffic during
| practice events.
| daenz wrote:
| >This vehicle, along with others in the motorcade, may also
| provide laser warning (used by some anti-tank guided missiles)
| and radar warning for the convoy. If a threat is detected, such
| as one using a laser for designation and ranging, or if a threat
| radar were detected, IR smoke, chaff and targeted jamming could
| be deployed, disrupting such an attack.
|
| This suggests that if someone pointed a powerful laser at the
| vehicle, it would deploy countermeasures. I don't suggest anyone
| do that, but wouldn't we have seen something like this by now?
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| Maybe laser guidance for weapons uses some detectable carrier
| wave and not just an always-on laser? That way an enemy
| couldn't jam laser guidance easily with fake laser dots.
| zauguin wrote:
| But wouldn't any competent weapon developer then change this
| wave and emulate laser pointer as much as possible to avoid
| detection?
| bombcar wrote:
| I assume that they don't turn all countermeasure systems on all
| the time.
|
| Though I do think they should roll out with the minigun out
| just for funsies.
|
| https://www.military.com/video/specialties-and-personnel/pre...
| daenz wrote:
| That's pretty cool. It's a shame that the gunner's back is
| exposed though. Some more engineering could probably fix
| that.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| I used to commute between DFW and Houston every week. I would
| time my departure so that I missed as much of the ordinary
| traffic along the way as possible so that I could drive above the
| speed limit without having to deal with the highway patrol and
| all the other local cops who would be out during normal peak
| traffic times.
|
| One time during the Bush administration I made it into Waco
| flying fast and took the loop out onto HWY6 which would take me
| south most of the way to Houston. At the time HWY6 was two lanes
| for most of the drive with part of it under construction for
| widening. It traveled through several small towns, speed traps
| all of them, and eventually merged with HWY 290 out of Austin
| near Hempstead, Texas.
|
| Anyway I was about to merge from the loop onto HWY6 and was
| coming up to speed, roughly 80-85 would've been normal cruising
| speed for me back then though the speed limit varied from 55-65
| mph. I know, what an asshole. This was me.
|
| As I merged I could see a couple of SUVs coming up hard behind me
| so I made sure to get up to speed quickly and stay in the right
| hand lane (4 lanes thru this part of the drive). I was cruising
| pretty fast but was still passed by two black SUVs with US Gov't
| plates moving a bit faster than I was. I figured they had to be
| Secret Service or similar since they were coming from the
| Crawford direction where Bush had his ranch. They were cruising
| pretty fast and so I decided to glide in behind them and get a
| rolling speed check. I had to do 98-100 mph to stick with them.
|
| Doing some quick mental calculations I decided to just lay back
| behind them and match their speed as far as that would take me
| since they would obviously be able to fly thru all those speed
| traps with no issues. Onward we all went, two black SUVs and a
| blue VW flying along about a half mile behind at near 100 mph. We
| cruised thru those little towns without seeing a single cop and I
| followed those SUVs all the way until I let them go in traffic in
| NW Houston since I was near my destination. That drive cut enough
| time from my normal commute that I was able to sit and eat
| breakfast before showing up at my work site.
|
| If any of you are former Secret Service and remember being tailed
| by a blue VW across Texas one morning, thanks for the escort!
| kappuchino wrote:
| Weird ... some link (for me: "basic layout") directs to an
| eyewear site?! I'm confused.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Personal stories from the edge: I was at Google (GW3, down
| Charleston from the main buildings). The Turkish PM was visiting,
| and they had the intersection at Charleston & Rengstorff blocked
| off for him. OK, I don't know who ordered that.
|
| Another time, there were two black SUVs parked in the "expectant
| mothers" spaces, and a guy in a suit with an earpiece standing
| nearby doing nothing. I walked in between the SUVs, just to see
| what would happen (nothing). I don't know who was visiting, and
| I'm they wouldn't tell me.
| eatonphil wrote:
| While reading on tangents I noticed this kind of funny collection
| of breaches the Secret Service didn't know about during the Obama
| years.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/long-list-breaches-scan...
| jacquesm wrote:
| That is a pretty chilling read, not quite funny, at least one
| of those had the potential to go pear shaped in a hurry.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-16 23:02 UTC)