5 ms·

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

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-election-security-car-crash-tasmania/100992714 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-14/prime-minister-electi...

sandworm101 5y ago
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.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > all the potential troublemakers Some of which may be part of those local police forces.
- toast0 5y ago
  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.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    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.
  - DoneWithAllThat 5y ago
    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.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    You can get basically the same thing when you die - just call the local PD. Stopping traffic for funerals is very common.
- yardstick 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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-rideau-hall-gate-with-truck-sentenced-to-six-years-1.5340945 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.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
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.
briandear 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  It’s the US who should be offended at their president being the target of all those shenanigans ;)
yohannparis 5y ago
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.
- eatonphil 5y ago
  > 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.
  - yohannparis 5y ago
    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.
- thegginthesky 5y ago
  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
NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
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.
mechanical_bear 5y ago
No, a bigger threat would be IED. Let’s ban all fertilizer. Somebody think of the children.

sandworm101 5y ago

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.

jacquesm 5y ago
> all the potential troublemakers Some of which may be part of those local police forces.
toast0 5y ago
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.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  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.
- DoneWithAllThat 5y ago
  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.
- bombcar 5y ago
  You can get basically the same thing when you die - just call the local PD. Stopping traffic for funerals is very common.
yardstick 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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-rideau-hall-gate-with-truck-sentenced-to-six-years-1.5340945 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.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

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.

briandear 5y ago

> 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 5y ago
It’s the US who should be offended at their president being the target of all those shenanigans ;)

yohannparis 5y ago

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.

eatonphil 5y ago
> 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.
- yohannparis 5y ago
  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.
thegginthesky 5y ago
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

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago

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.

mechanical_bear 5y ago

No, a bigger threat would be IED. Let’s ban all fertilizer. Somebody think of the children.