News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I mean, realistically, we would probably be just fine with Air Force One having no security systems at all. Like, the likelihood that someone is going to attack Air Force One probably isn't all that high, and you can also mitigate that by choosing where to fly the thing.
And as long as Trump understands any risk that he exposes himself to...I mean, it's not as if a future President is required to use the Trump-era Air Force One. It's really just him and people during his administration.
Most national leaders don't have anything like the kind of protection that the President does.
Now, granted, most also haven't had four assassination attempts against them be intercepted in past months, but I'm also not sure that shooting down Air Force One is the easiest way to assassinate the President, either.
EDIT: And I think that it's also worth considering that some of our norms for modern Presidential travel were developed during the Cold War, in an era of potential nuclear conflict where launch-on-warning was part of nuclear doctrine. In that scenario, the President needs to travel around with the nuclear football, and a decapitation strike might be an important early first move in a nuclear war.
But we haven't relied on launch-on-warning for a long time. The President is a lot more expendable in the context of dealing with an opposing nuclear first strike today; it's the SLBM arsenal used to counter that now.
Today, if a hostile state kills the President, it might produce disruption for a short period...but that disruption probably isn't going to buy all that much, strategically.
Can't possibly be any more disruption than what the current president is causing... So I'd call it a win if he was taken out.
I always thought Air Force One needed security to prevent terrorists from taking the president hostage and forcing them to release more terrorists. But, our current president already lets a bunch of terrorists go like the Taliban and Jan Sixers.
Most politicians are fine riding a bicycle to work, ride a train or a normal car, just fly a normal ass airline, things like that. But americans need them to ride in a tank because they love to kiss the feet of their celebrity overloards. I mean putin obviously can't or kim jong-un can't which says a lot.