Medieval Times: New US embassy in London to have high-tech security device
posted at 8:48 am on February 24, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Because the US is apparently flush with cash, we will shortly close our London embassy where our security measures have annoyed our neighbors to build a new one in a former industrial area — for over one billion dollars. The much-derided Green Zone embassy in Baghdad cost just over half that amount, and our new Islamabad embassy will cost close to $850 million. The obvious conclusion: our diplomats require more expensive security in London than they do in Baghdad or Pakistan, a weird and unexplained decision.
However, our embassy in the “Battersea wasteland” will have one ultra-high-tech feature that the others lack … a moat:
The United States has unveiled plans for its new $1 billion high-security embassy in London — the most expensive it has ever built.
The proposals were met with relief from both the present embassy’s Mayfair neighbours and the residents and developers of the Battersea wasteland where the vast crystalline cube, surrounded by a moat, will be built.
The decision to abandon the former site in Grosvenor Square by 2016 came after a prolonged battle with residents angered by the security measures demanded after the September 11 attacks. More than a hundred residents took out a full-page advertisement in The Times to oppose tighter measures that they said would leave the area more vulnerable to attack. …
A moat 30 metres (100ft) wide and rolling parkland will separate the building from the main road, protecting it from would-be bombers and removing the need for the blast barriers that so dismayed the people of Mayfair.
The State Department sought to play down the cost of security measures, noting the expense of London building work. But the price puts the London embassy above the US’s most fortified missions, including the Baghdad embassy, which cost $600 million (£390 million) but required a further $100 million of work on air conditioning, and the Islamabad embassy, still under construction, which has cost more than $850 million.
A moat? Let’s take a look at some of the other security measures we can expect at our new, high-tech embassy, such as its anti-missile defense system:

Its security team:

And let’s not forget the architectural process, explained in the first 45 seconds:
The new embassies in Baghdad and perhaps in Islamabad make some sense; the US didn’t have a defensible embassy in Iraq before 2003. In Pakistan, undoubtedly the US embassy has pressing security concerns that could require relocation. But our embassy in London certainly doesn’t fall into the same security-risk profile as those, and we don’t have a billion dollars to burn on a new one. Or, to put it another way, it seems presumptuous to ask the Chinese to build us a new embassy in London, with or without a moat. And how long before the stagnant waters of the moat become an environmental and aesthetic problem for the US in Battersea? (via HA reader CKD)
Update: HA reader Pat M points out that Battersea Park would be just about due east from Heathrow Airport on one of the approach/departure vectors … and a big shiny glass cube in the middle of nowhere might make a rather easy target for visual identification.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Outrageous waste of money in these times.
OmahaConservative on February 24, 2010 at 8:51 AM
here it comes….monty python all day…. Who’s going to start with the airspeed of a swallow jokes?
ted c on February 24, 2010 at 8:51 AM
Eh. If only our diplomatic corps could threaten to get medieval on someone (besides Israel).
apostic on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Hey, I’ll do my share and ship them some ‘gators for the moat.
katy the mean old lady on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Spending $1 billion on a new embassy: stupid
A moat? Hard to drive a car through a moat. Just because an idea is old, doesn’t mean that it is bad.
strictnein on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM
I guaranty they’ll have lifeguards on duty 24/7. Gays ones.
Akzed on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM
As a humble serf in the Obama Kingdom, I feel the King deserves the best that money can buy.
darwin on February 24, 2010 at 8:54 AM
Forget the moat. Just put a killer rabbit in front of the place.
Doughboy on February 24, 2010 at 8:54 AM
If they charged the prices that Medieval Times does for grog and those souvenir flagons to American tourists visiting the embassy and chunked all the silverware except for those wooden spoons, they could probably make their money back in no time.
jon1979 on February 24, 2010 at 8:54 AM
Actually, I do have to agree with the $1 billion new security measures. Even more so than Baghdad and Islamabad, London is filled with Muslim terrorists.
rbj on February 24, 2010 at 8:55 AM
Have to admit I like the moat idea, recycling old technology works quite well in this case.
Now, PBHO’s idea to reduce military spending by replacing M1A2 tanks with armored cavalry and arming our infantry with crossbows rather than rifles…not so great.
Bishop on February 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Vicious wild boar? You can eat them later.
katy the mean old lady on February 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM
So, what’s the real reason for the cost? I would very much like to take a peek at the new surveillance equipment that will be sprouting over the rooftops.
OldEnglish on February 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM
The drawbride will be inlaid with the finest gold and most precious gems. The moat itself will be filled with milk and honey … and when the King visits his head shall lay only on the softest down.
darwin on February 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM
I billion dollars?…runaway, runaway…
right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 8:56 AM
The current Marxist/socialist regime is devouring our national wealth at an unsustainable rate . . . this is absolutely insane.
rplat on February 24, 2010 at 8:57 AM
the most foul, cruel and bad tempered rabbit that you ever set your eyes on….
classic.
ted c on February 24, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Does that include the nuclear sub that will patrol the waters?
right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 8:58 AM
A billion?
How much would it cost to pay Code Pink to walk a picket out front?
All u-can-eat doughnuts?
$300K a year – problem solved, next problem please.
NoDonkey on February 24, 2010 at 8:59 AM
So who is the security team, The Knights That Say “NEET!”?
pilamaye on February 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Pfft- everybody knows the Holy Hand Grenade is all one needs(not sure if you have to read the instructions aloud though)
TheVer on February 24, 2010 at 9:02 AM
What is wrong with this plan? Moats are really cool.
All they need to add is a big flame throwing dragon to fly over the moat!
Is there an awesome drawbridge?
It’s only a billion dollars. That is nothing these days.
After all, we will have our very own Tower of London in which to interrogate the Pakistani immigrants who will invariably be planning to blow up our beautiful new castle.
Off with their heads!
Brian1972 on February 24, 2010 at 9:02 AM
Yuck. A moat to protect from bombs and a building that will be made out of glass.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 24, 2010 at 9:03 AM
Sounds like they picked a prime piece of real estate.
Disturb the Universe on February 24, 2010 at 9:03 AM
Look at the picture of the thing. It is a big crystal Cube.
Reminds me of the Borg space ship. How appropriate.
percysunshine on February 24, 2010 at 9:04 AM
Was it as easy to get a Stimulus, I mean Jobs Bill for England passed? How many British jobs saved or created? You can’t fix stupid.
Cindy Munford on February 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM
anyone else having posts disappear?
right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM
Did I read it right in the last paragraph that the old embassy site has already been sold for $1Billion… and will be turned into a luxury hotel?
Besides that… the US diplomats don’t pay the car congestion fee in London (but I paid it when I went to London as a tourist), and they refuse to pay the 17.5% VAT on new buildings?
SnowSun on February 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM
How about some boiling pig oil to dump on their heads. I’m actually more on board with this than other random expenses. England will soon be under sharia law.
Haunches on February 24, 2010 at 9:05 AM
How secure would you feel sitting in a glass building?
right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 9:06 AM
OK fine! Let’em call it “Castle Argghhh!!!” while they’re at it. (Just don’t let Jonah’s military guys find out.)
apostic on February 24, 2010 at 9:07 AM
Any bets on if this actually is built within budget?
They say 1 bil, do I hear 2 bil?
right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 9:08 AM
They do make ballistic glass, ya know.
Brian1972 on February 24, 2010 at 9:08 AM
A billion dollars? Who’s getting paid off on this one? Everything these crooks do, from the $18 million website to $350 million Census marketing costs, to this $1B waste has to have incredible payoff amounts to some donor or group. Investigative journalism has disappeared.
PatMac on February 24, 2010 at 9:09 AM
To be fair, it’s often hard to tell whether you’re in Islamabad or London these days
Trafalgar on February 24, 2010 at 9:09 AM
What are we playing attack the castle?
Also, can a building made out of glass actually be secure?
taney71 on February 24, 2010 at 9:09 AM
At least that will be convenient for the embassy guard once DADT is repealed.
Loose lips, sink ships.
NoDonkey on February 24, 2010 at 9:10 AM
Yep. Ever since Salem bought out the boss.
OmahaConservative on February 24, 2010 at 9:11 AM
I wonder what bill this gosh horrible dc bunch voted for with this put in? Is this embassy going to be named after this bho? He does seem to think he is a king!
L
letget on February 24, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Trafalgar on February 24, 2010 at 9:09 AM
London’s the one with Indian food.
NoDonkey on February 24, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Hilarious!!!
search4truth on February 24, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Then the price just went up…look at the amount of glass…and you think ballistic glass is as strong as cement?
Already our enemies are perfecting the perfect weapon to attack this building…here is the picture of the prototype.
right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 9:12 AM
Wonder who gave that order?
And I am just sure so sure that the new owners of the old building will take care of those statues- not. We’ll have to retrieve them from the London dump.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 24, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Harry Reid: “I “moat” we use reconciliation and build this sucker.”
Rovin on February 24, 2010 at 9:13 AM
No more waterboarding, bring back the iron maiden.
hip shot on February 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM
It’s convenient for terrorist planning-
Power station and embassy – which do you hit first?
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Yeah, that made me sad…I maybe could understand Reagan, but not including Eisenhower…such petty politics.
right2bright on February 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM
This embassy is going to be in the same area as the power station on the cover of Pink Floyd’s Animals album.
Mark1971 on February 24, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Maybe the ‘vast crystalline cube’ will be like the movie Cube and anyone inside will have to fight to survive. Can I make suggestions as to who should be there?
Monica on February 24, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Iron Maiden?! Excellent! [doing air guitar]
apostic on February 24, 2010 at 9:18 AM
I know it seems ridiculous on its face, but a moat would stop something like a truck bomb, wouldn’t it?
Darth Executor on February 24, 2010 at 9:18 AM
Hey, give them some credit for thinking ahead. In the future, the UK will be an Islamic state. Medieval barbarians are best repulsed by medieval means. Maybe we can load that trebuchet with bodies of people who died from the plague.
Kafir on February 24, 2010 at 9:18 AM
When I was 10 we moved to England for a year. While trying to find a home to lease, we stayed in a hotel/apartment in Grosvenor Square. That is a very high-end location. We even had a butler who would pop in and out periodically, and we never could quite get used to his visits.
They could definitely find a lower-cost area than Grosvenor Square, but I’m not sure about the moat location (grin)
golfer1 on February 24, 2010 at 9:19 AM
Apparently the wizards that came up with the mote idea to keep bombs away from the glass walls, do not realize that most flammable liquids, like gasoline and diesel fuel, float on the surface of water and burn very nicely there. The glass cube would make a nice rotisserie with a stolen fuel tanker added to the mote.
MikeA on February 24, 2010 at 9:19 AM
Who needs high-tech security, when you have the Knights who say “Ni?” Now fetch them some shrubbery, stat.
In all seriousness, a billion dollars? Are they just pulling random large numbers out of their posterior orifaces? Of course, when Monopoly money holds more value than our current currancy, a billion must seem like a bargan.
Anna on February 24, 2010 at 9:21 AM
Go ahead, laugh, make jokes but I assure you RABBITS are no laughing matter!
Oldnuke on February 24, 2010 at 9:21 AM
Why do I think Harry Reid’s cousin owns an embassy construction consulting business?
angryed on February 24, 2010 at 9:24 AM
$100 million of additional work on air conditioning in Baghdad?!? Must have been Union labor.
KS Rex on February 24, 2010 at 9:24 AM
I don’t care what you say… I’m pro-moat!
Abby Adams on February 24, 2010 at 9:27 AM
Why can’t we build a moat on the border with Mexico?
SouthernGent on February 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Wait… Obama gives a $19.95 DVD movie collection as a gift for visiting head of state but we build a $billion dollar embassy with a moat in their country? Who’s running this nation named Titanic?
IntheNet on February 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Can Jihadists ice skate? English winters will surely freeze the moat.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, and other mid east countries announce plans to enter Winter Olympics in 2014!
donh525 on February 24, 2010 at 9:30 AM
The price sounds outrageous, but the moat sounds reasonable. Great way to defeat car bombs. Gates and barriers can perhaps be rammed through. It also restricts foot traffic better than a fence alone.
And London has a higher concentration of jihadists than anywhere in the world.
Between the new knightly powered armor being tested and the moats… every-thing old is new again.
theCork on February 24, 2010 at 9:31 AM
…fifty million for the cones of silence….200 million for an invisi-shield and rooftop helicoptor landing pad…alligators for the, err, moat? Priceless!
LEBA on February 24, 2010 at 9:31 AM
It’s the latest Embassy moat-tif
hip shot on February 24, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Breaking news: Terrorists transition from box cutters to glass cutters.
Yoop on February 24, 2010 at 9:33 AM
If the water is kept circulating, that shouldn’t be a problem. Also a minimal amount of heating would keep it liquid.
theCork on February 24, 2010 at 9:34 AM
I’d heard the Chinese had an extra billion they could loan us. Glad to see it’s been properly spent.
The Poseur-in-Chief has to go. He needs to leave early. He needs to leave now.
I weep for my country.
Crusader Rabbit on February 24, 2010 at 9:34 AM
Better yet, build moats around the House and Senate but withhold the monies for draw bridges.
Yoop on February 24, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Or just put lots of salt in it. And sharks. If we pay a cool bil and there’s no sharks in the moat I’m gonna be pissed.
Darth Executor on February 24, 2010 at 9:36 AM
We should build a pyramid instead. But since we’re building a cube with a moat, the least we can do is have a diplomat named Merlin. Or Uther Pendragon. Or something.
robblefarian on February 24, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Alright, now how the hell are we going to keep our mid evil theme going with circulating pumps and heaters?
donh525 on February 24, 2010 at 9:39 AM
I don’t know how long they expect a mote to keep the Jihadis out. England is a frickin ISLAND and they still got in there.
MikeA on February 24, 2010 at 9:40 AM
`
`
True, but hog manure doesn’t. Just add a few hog pens around the outside of the moat and gravity flow the waste into it. Don’t worry about the smell, you get used to it. The pigs can be part of a petting zoo and a tourist attraction. Set up the coin operated feed dispensers so the kids can get a handful of feed to give to Wilbur. Vendors can sell fresh pork sandwiches. Might be the best terrorist deterrent yet.
CBP on February 24, 2010 at 9:41 AM
I like the security team , there’s need for some crusade in Europe right now.Deus vult…
the_nile on February 24, 2010 at 9:41 AM
What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
Shy Guy on February 24, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Good thing we are not having a financial crisis or anything. A billion dollar embassy seems like an expensive ‘I’m sorry’ note for a poorly chosen Ipod gift. Couldn’t we just send them ‘an American treasure’? Really, we aren’t using him any more.
GnuBreed on February 24, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Whose idea was this?
ORconservative on February 24, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Sharks with frickin lasers attached to their heads?
loudmouth883 on February 24, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Funny!
donh525 on February 24, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Well, it worked in Vienna in 1673…
Vashta.Nerada on February 24, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Yes, actually, it would. IF the building behind the moat was made of something more bomb-resistant than GLASS!
Kinda defeats the purpose of the moat when a well-placed rock can cause significant damage.
Seriously, even if the thing is made of “ballistic” glass, who here doesn’t think that this thing won’t be costing us millions in repairs each year due to the local moo-slimes taking pot-shots and tossing rocks?
WORST. EMBASSY. DESIGN. EVAR.
wearyman on February 24, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Someone in the article stated that the building will be green and hopefully add electicity to the grid- not sure they will plan to keep the moat heated because that would not be green.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 24, 2010 at 9:47 AM
electricity. need coffee.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 24, 2010 at 9:48 AM
The high cost is unsurprising. Although built in London, the principal concrete contractor will be one of Obama’s former “associates” from Chicago. And in Chicago construction, there are always, ya know…”administrative”…costs. So I don’t think you wanna go pokin’ ya nose in what’s none of ya business, if ya catch my drift.
eeyore on February 24, 2010 at 9:51 AM
From the days when they used to Undermine a castle wall, and before they had powered flight.
Chip on February 24, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Seems like reasonable security in an enemy muslim city.
Shtetl G on February 24, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Heck, at least that would keep out Jimmah Cahtar…
psrch on February 24, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Guess they’ll need a few boats to cruise the moat with some Coast Guard types onboard for security. Will it have a dungeon with a little torture room as well?
Kissmygrits on February 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Blast! A day when you put up a post that I can link about a thousand Monty Python videos to and I am at work and big brother won’t let me!
conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM
To build this thing we’re going to need…(wait for it)…Huuuuge tracts of land!
Sefton on February 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM
No doubt the all-glass facade is 2 inch Plexiglas.
Dusty on February 24, 2010 at 10:03 AM
It will make a nice mosque after the Islamic jihadists take England.
David2.0 on February 24, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Picture of embassy model on Fox news just now. Moat looks more like a pond in front of the building. Mock up also shows many tall buildings in close proximity.
I kinda pictured this as being sorta remote. It looks like you could throw rocks from adjoining buildings.
They need to have different colored windows or panels. Would make it in Guinness book as worlds largest rubiks cube.
donh525 on February 24, 2010 at 10:05 AM
We need to fill the moat with sharks.
Sharks with frickin’ laser beams.
Sefton on February 24, 2010 at 10:05 AM
HELP! HELP! I am being repressed!
Wolftech on February 24, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Barack INSANE Obama.
NO TO THIS EPIC WASTE!
profitsbeard on February 24, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Having done research for one blast design situation, I can say that offset is the best of the best options for mitigating blast effects. In order to set up the desired offset, you have to control the perimeter. Walls or earthworks will accomplish that, but a moat is probably the least visually intrusive method. No elevated barrier is required, and the surrounding offset area (landscaped as a park) will be an actual visual plus to the area.
Good design decisions, actually. I love good snark as much as the next guy, but it’s not really warranted in this case.
TexasDan on February 24, 2010 at 10:14 AM
I was just looking at that and wondering if it was the angle of the picture or if noone in the planning dept asked security experts if an embassy should be taller than the buildings around it.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 24, 2010 at 10:14 AM
UK Jobs Bill
barnone on February 24, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »