In a recent movie trailer they talked about the White House as “the most protected building on earth”. Is that true? Is there a division of Marines stationed nearby equipped with ground to air missiles?
I would have thought Fort Knox would have been one of the most, if not the most, protected ‘buildings’ on earth. Please fight my ignorance.
The embassy of the US in Iraq would have to be high up the list.
But the actual security measures are going to be classified. How are you going to compare realistically?
Someone must know. Perhaps what is the most protected building in the US would be a good place to start.
I’ll go with Cheyenne Mountain.
Cheyenne Mountain has a big door, but not a lot of active defense. (I live in Co Springs, it’s right down the road)
The White House does allegedly have anti-aircraft missiles but shooting a plane down over a city is problematic.
But I don’t think the most-protected building is in the USA by quite a margin.
How do you define best? How do you compare isolated military bases with publicly-accessible buildings in the middle of cities? What are they being protected from? A car bomb? A terrorist attack? An atomic missile? When you say “somebody must know,” who decides these things? Do you really believe the Pentagon maintains a list called “best protected”?
Everything important is protected to the highest level of feasible protection these days. Doesn’t that make it a zillion-way tie?
You don’t really need anti-air missiles when you’re inside a mountain though, do you?
No you sure don’t. 
I missed the public tours, but NORAD is just as secure as it claims to be.
The facility is a bit dated- Schreiver Air Force Base, just to the east, has some newer stuff in deep bunkers.
But then, they’ve got a Stargate, so there’s that.
If someone says that a building is “the most protected” to me that means it’s the hardest to penetrate by an invading force. Sure, if you drop a 30 megaton bomb directly over any building there won’t be much left, but if someone wanted to kidnap the US President, take over the US nuclear arsenal or steal the gold out of Ft. Knox which would be harder to accomplish?
If you allow underground bunkers then the White House is going to be nowhere near the most protected. All they have to do at Cheyenne is sound the alarm and seal the blast doors.
Hell yes. Plus Ft Carson at the foot of the mountain, and Peterson air base standing by.
If that’s the criterion, then the Greater Cheyenne Mountain Complex is right up there at the top.
30 megaton bomb wouldn’t break NORAD. It would be a hassle at most.
The most protected building on Earth is one in Russia. You’ve never heard of it, and neither has anybody else.
Without a precise definiton, we are arguing about nothing. In any case, the White House ain’t it, no matter what it is.
“Taking over the nuclear arsenal” is more or less impossible. Kidnapping (but not killing) the Pres almost equally so.
So stealing gold from Ft Knox is the answer to the question. Though as another thread pointed out, it’s logistically challenging.
until it is decided which definition to work under, how about financial? which building costs the most to build and maintain its security?
Fort Knox has 10,000 troops stationed around the Treasury storage building, right?
Since there is general agreement that the White House isn’t “the most protected building on earth” I’m satisfied with that answer. As far as which building is the most protected, without a precise definition of “protected” it’s a meaningless question. No further discussion is needed.
You mean Project Koschei, right? 
Ia!
But they have missions that are other than protecting the Bullion Depository.