Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Considering the new US embassy in London (special relationship! BFF!) will have a frigging moat, I think they try too hard most of the time.

It's actually ridiculous how they got caught out so badly in such an unstable country. Surely you wouldn't rely on "New Libya" military to buy you a packet of crisps...

They try too hard in places which are permissive, and have no real idea how to operate in non-permissive environments (Libya!). Semi-permissive they also don't do well (if you built a 30 year building, Yemen was semi-permissive back in the day, but is now someplace I'd define as non-permissive for US forces).

If London ever gets to the point of needing a moat to defend the US embassy, we're pretty screwed overall.

Part of this is hiding CIA crap in the embassy, but a lot of it is just ego and committee rule (no one gets fired for adding security features...)


The 9th paragraph from the end of this article on Salman Rushdie (I'd recommend the whole thing)discusses the British security approach versus the American. Big presence versus almost no presence. Rushdie is oddly relevant here... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/17/120917fa_fact_...


Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact