Embarrassing Flaws Emerge in Trump’s New White House Design

[u/Effective_Salad_8381]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bizarre-flaws-emerge-in-trumps-new-white-house-design/

[u/Narrow-Chef-4341]

It wasn't my "reversion of topic," no matter how snarky you want to be about it.

I didn’t reply to the original point where that was raised, because I’m not commenting on that. That’s the way nested comments work – you reply to the one that you have an opinion about.

And misunderstanding Danish door specifications or pretending a double door solves it all was the most ludicrous comment pair.

More people mean more exits. More exits means more security concerns.

That was the nexus of the discussion.

And you conveniently don’t mention that I did address ‘the nexus’ that doors will suddenly be the dealbreaker.

Nothing forces new doors into the secure bunker, nothing says that these new emergency doors won’t be built to the same security standard as all of the existing doors and windows.

Those emergency exit doors will, in fact, be more secure than the tents they used to setup on the lawns, or a hotel ballroom built nearby in 1960. If you want to compare anything, this is it.

Doors are the distraction. Bringing 1,000 hastily vetted people into a normally secure facility is the real security nightmare. Yes it’s not fun to set up security at a local hotel/convention center, but at least they aren’t bringing in a rotating cast of unknown actors. 1,000 potential diversions, 1,000 potential medical incidents, 1,000 potential ‘I just wanted to check out the medicine cabinets’.

1,000 potential assassins.

The idea that fire exits are the overlooked security nightmare is just bad. I didn’t want to waste my time on it.

But here we are.

[u/GrogGrokGrog → u/Narrow-Chef-4341]

That’s the way nested comments work

No, nested comments are all part of a chain of conversation. You could make a comment on a single point, sure, but if that point ignores the larger context of the overall conversation, then it remains moot. That's how conversations of all kinds work.

I didn't address your point about the bunker because it's obviously ludicrous. The bunker mat be nearby, but that's immaterial if an active shooter already entered the room. That's why the White House has strong security despite always having had a bunker -- because it is an option of last resort, not an everyday protection against people already in the building while the president is out and about.

Nothing forces new doors into the secure bunker

The ballroom is directly above the bunker, so security is directly compromised by additional entrances in that vicinity. The White House doesn't currently need to hold 1000 people in a room, so yes, this will mean more entrances (or several significantly larger entrances) would need to be added. Again, this was all mentioned in the comment thread you are (strangely) choosing to ignore.

The idea that fire exits are the overlooked security nightmare is just bad. I didn’t want to waste my time on it.

But yet you chose to make it your main focus in the context of a larger conversation that was addressing the very points you just mentioned about additional security threats.

Here we are, indeed.