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.
This is true, and yet almost all serious attempts against American presidents have been lone wolves. Even worse, they tend to be lone wolves who are quite literally insane in terms of their motives (as in, rather than being convicted of attempted murder they are found legally insane and institutionalized). So the Secret Service protection is fairly comprehensive.
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.
As you wrote in your other comment that was downvoted,
>The fact the US President goes on a big motorcade is what allows the Dutch prime minister to promenade himself on a bike ;-)
I compare it to how certain cities in the US and elsewhere declare themselves to be "nuclear-free zones". They have the luxury of performing such virtue signaling because other places aren't nuclear-free.
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.
>That's a revolting little bit of writing. NL surrendered after being overrun by the Germans, which took 5 days, not three hours
Would you have found what belter wrote less "revolting" had he written that Dutch surrender occurred after five days? I think not.
>> 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.
How is what belter wrote wrong?
Certain cities/entities/nations in the US and elsewhere in the West declare themselves to be "nuclear-free zones". They have the luxury of performing such virtue signaling because other places aren't nuclear-free.
>Really, your comment is in pretty bad taste.
Why not just call belter's comment "problematic"? I think that's the go-to pejorative description nowadays.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
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 Chrétien. 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.
>>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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
I agree that there is a line of succession, but those people "in line" are not directly elected representative. I know I'm being facetious, but my point is that the population have chosen their president, not the rest of the line. The VP becoming the Acting President is akin to a PM in parliamentary government.
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
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.
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.
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
> 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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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".
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.
> 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 ?
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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?
> 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.
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.
>>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 secretary. They worked for the president and federal government rather than the states and could not enforce state laws.
>> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
>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?
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.
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.
I suppose there’s a whole essay about culture and masculinity to be written here, and someone probably has, but color me unsurprised that people who volunteered and were selected to travel the world as some of America’s most elite fighters would also get up to some drunken sexual adventures in their downtime.
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!
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.
Similarly the Irish President https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/only-in-irelandpreside...
Whatever you may think about his political views, I think Pim Fortuyn would have benefitted from better security.
Lone wolves are the hardest to defend against.
This is true, and yet almost all serious attempts against American presidents have been lone wolves. Even worse, they tend to be lone wolves who are quite literally insane in terms of their motives (as in, rather than being convicted of attempted murder they are found legally insane and institutionalized). So the Secret Service protection is fairly comprehensive.
The American Motorcade is more a display of gunboat diplomacy than really security driven.
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.
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.
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.
Cool dude. Makes me want to emigrate to NL.
The picture just says 1000 words but not in the way meant. This just shows the power is somewhere else ;-)
As you wrote in your other comment that was downvoted,
>The fact the US President goes on a big motorcade is what allows the Dutch prime minister to promenade himself on a bike ;-)
I compare it to how certain cities in the US and elsewhere declare themselves to be "nuclear-free zones". They have the luxury of performing such virtue signaling because other places aren't nuclear-free.
> 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.
>That's a revolting little bit of writing. NL surrendered after being overrun by the Germans, which took 5 days, not three hours
Would you have found what belter wrote less "revolting" had he written that Dutch surrender occurred after five days? I think not.
>> 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.
How is what belter wrote wrong?
Certain cities/entities/nations in the US and elsewhere in the West declare themselves to be "nuclear-free zones". They have the luxury of performing such virtue signaling because other places aren't nuclear-free.
>Really, your comment is in pretty bad taste.
Why not just call belter's comment "problematic"? I think that's the go-to pejorative description nowadays.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
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 Chrétien. 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.
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.
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.
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.
You can get basically the same thing when you die - just call the local PD. Stopping traffic for funerals is very common.
> all the potential troublemakers
Some of which may be part of those local police forces.
> 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.
It’s the US who should be offended at their president being the target of all those shenanigans ;)
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.
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.
> 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.
I agree that there is a line of succession, but those people "in line" are not directly elected representative. I know I'm being facetious, but my point is that the population have chosen their president, not the rest of the line. The VP becoming the Acting President is akin to a PM in parliamentary government.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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
> 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.
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
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".
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.
No, a bigger threat would be IED. Let’s ban all fertilizer. Somebody think of the children.
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.
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...
There’s a decent documentary on YouTube about them - Inconspicuous Ingenuity.
https://youtu.be/w5TkSE_5GsE
It's funny that you think empty palaces and motorcades for hereditary monarchs are not a "conspicuous misuse of resources" ;)
Where does he say that he thinks that?
As I understand it they were making a contrast between the PotUS security apparatus and that of UK royals.
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.
> 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
https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders
What’s your point?
It normally does, but in this case it's funny. I'll petition Dan to tell me off. Better?
> 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.
I would love to hear the radio traffic around that incident, as well as to read the post mortem.
> 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 ?
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...
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
The presidential motorcade travels with the president in his own country, remember.
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.
Sounds similar to behaviors of groups of bikers on highways. Controlling traffic to show dominance under the guise of safety.
That is your takeaway?
The royals aren't a decapitation target for a nuclear first strike.
The US presidents' motorcade protects against a lot of things but a nuclear first strike is probably not one of them.
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.
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.
> 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
> 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.
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.
>>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 secretary. 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.
> 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.
FYI Secret Service is no longer part of Treasury, has been part of DHS since March 1 2003.
Ah I forgot about that. Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
>> the SS
They really do not like being called "The SS". That has severe historical connotations.
>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?
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.
But wouldn't any competent weapon developer then change this wave and emulate laser pointer as much as possible to avoid detection?
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...
That's pretty cool. It's a shame that the gunner's back is exposed though. Some more engineering could probably fix that.
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.
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...
That is a pretty chilling read, not quite funny, at least one of those had the potential to go pear shaped in a hurry.
I suppose there’s a whole essay about culture and masculinity to be written here, and someone probably has, but color me unsurprised that people who volunteered and were selected to travel the world as some of America’s most elite fighters would also get up to some drunken sexual adventures in their downtime.
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!
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.
Why not use a couple of motorcycles and two MRAPs, one main and one replacement in the even the main suffers an incident?
Because half the whole point is to put on a show for everyone.
Weird ... some link (for me: "basic layout") directs to an eyewear site?! I'm confused.
Seems like security theater