Every time he comes to the area they put a huge [30-mile-radius, 18,000 foot tall] no-fly zone for all but commercial air traffic around him. Why inconvenience so many pilots? Is he that afraid of his people?
back
3 comments
That happens for every president. It's a military aircraft carrying the leader of the country, probably high ranking officials and diplomats, and a lot of sensitive information. It would be ludicrous and irresponsible not to control the airspace around him.
The UK prime minister doea not have this level of bullshit surrounding him. Nor does the French president or the German chancellor. I'm pretty sure the Japanese and Canadian prime ministers don't. The Russians do.
I submit a further argument for the superiority of parliamentary over presidential systems. Less worship of politicians.
Fair enough. But how easy is it for common citizens in those countries to buy a small arsenal of weapons?
I don't know. I doubt you could get a pistol without a severe background check in any of them except maybe Canada but you can definitely do hunting or rifle shooting as a sport in all of them.
Also, the Nordic countries and Switzerland all have very, very high rates of gun ownership/possession and they don't treat tgeir heads of government like god-kings.
The threat model for the UK PM is not the same as that for the POTUS (regardless of the individuals involved).
The presidency is by FAR the most dangerous job in America. Out of 44 presidents, eight (18%) have died in office, four by assassination. The next-most dangerous job in America is logging, with a death rate of 128 per 100,000 workers per year, while the presidential assassination rate is 1,777 per 100,000 workers per year.
Given the frequency of presidential assassinations, and the extreme disruption to all Americans' lives when they do occur, it's worth spending lots of effort, money, and inconvenience to do our best to prevent them from happening.
> and the extreme disruption to all Americans' lives when they do occur,
I'm intrigued by this comment. Isn't it a case of swearing-in the VP and carrying on?
Does it trigger a new election?
Isn't the regular disruption to daily life when POTUS is in town ( even me as a UKian, when the office holder* comes here ) far, far greater than that?
* the power is in the office, not the person
I think the disruption the parent is talking about is the emotional anguish and existential soul-searching that occurs in empathetic individuals when their leader is taken from them. No, I don't think the disruption caused by traffic at all compares [1].
1: Los Angeles resident for ten years
Fallacy of measuring non-tail(logging) vs tail(presidency) data, and then using means/averages to derive a conclusion. Epistemologically meaningless; further than incorrect.
I love it when a comment fits a username so perfectly.
"Being OLD is by FAR the most dangerous health risk in America"
Well, that's not the same thing, is it?
The 4 deaths by natural causes would make POTUS the most danerous job in the US without making reference to asassignation.
So, it is the same thing.
Of course, the british monarchy has not had a fatality in office that was <not> old age since 1600.
Which makes it safer or more dangerous, depending on how you look at it.
Either way, the fatality rate is 100%.
Good grief.
This is not Obama's doing. A US President essentially travels with a 30-mile-radius 18,000 foot TFR wherever they go.
I know. I just think it is wrong
It's a reasonable precaution to take. Inconvenient for everyone else yes, but people do try to kill the American president from time to time, and those people are usually Americans.