To elaborate, if someone were an assassin and wanted to perform a hit they would find these people to have the most security protection in the world.
I’m assuming that the President of the United States is way up there, probably number 1. If not, then Her Majesty the Queen. Or maybe some millionaire with an army of mercenaries I’ve never heard of?
Any suggestions of the top 3 hardest to assassinate?
The Pope is probably on the short list.
The Queen is probably relatively easy to assassinate. Or at least, attempt to assassinate. Just be one of the throng lining the street and lob a grenade into her carriage if it’s a fine day. Of course, getting away afterwards might be problematic…
I’d bet on the Chinese leadership. A combination of not having to be seen in public, caution, absolute power, ruthlessness, and more.
The head of NORAD, CIA, KGB…KFC… 
I’d guess Putin doesn’t stint on security measures.
By the same criteria, Kim Jong Un is probably high on the list. Leaders of democratic countries are far more exposed to the general public. If a leader of an authoritarian country is going to be assassinated, it’s more likely to be an inside job by someone who already has access.
While I think it’s probably hard to kill any of those people, I think they are probably bested by people who actively have people trying to kill them, and have no public responsibilities that require them to be out in public, or at any known location. I would put people like Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who runs the Sinaloa Cartel, ahead of Queen Elizabeth because if some nut really wanted to off her, they could just wait until she is out in public. Very few people know where Guzman is despite there being armies or trained killers searching for the guy.
My guess would be some scientist type who’s been locked up on a base to do military research or else his family will be shot. There’s no one who wants him dead, but he has guards watching him 24/7, is stationed in a hardened building that’s surrounded by soldiers and artillery, and he never goes outside. The only group who would attack is the US, and they’d actively try to keep him alive.
…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
It took a decade-long military manhunt and, finally, Seal Team Six to get bin Laden. Methinks it would’ve been a lot easier for them to get the Queen, the Pope and all of the Kim Jong’s combined in less time. I would suggest being able to hide is more valuable in this case than being able to fortify yourself.
Possibly the head of a drug cartel. They know they are in danger so they are prepared, they have tons of money to use on security and they don’t mind shooting anyone that looks mildly suspicious.
True, but the reason they’re suspicious is because people in their own circles are always trying to kill them. I’m not up on my kingpin history, so are there any modern-day druglords who have died comfortably in old age outside of prison?
Not in campaign mode. When he’s mingling with the voters, I would guess the Secret Service goes through Maalox by the gallon.
I think that it should be self-evident that we haven’t heard of the three people who are best protected.
To be fair, that was more not knowing where he was. But then again, the best protection against bullets is not being seen by the gunman.
The president isn’t on that list. You can kill the president fairly easily if you are willing to give up your own life (I don’t remember who said that, maybe JFK or Reagan, I don’t remember). But no, not the president.
As an example when Saddam Hussein ran Iraq he had at least one body double. Whenever he had to do something at least moderately dangerous he sent his double. His doubles were shot at numerous times. Obama does not have a body double, if he goes somewhere where there is even a remote chance of him being attacked he does not send a double.
Not only that, but you know where Obama is. He announces his schedule. Dictators like Hussein did not. So you had no idea where to target your efforts. You know where the president is, you know his schedule, and because we are a democracy you cannot investigate people as deeply as you would in a dictatorship. I read a book by Uday Husseins body double, and when he went to meet Saddam in person the physical investigation carried out on him by doctors and bodyguards was far more intense than what you get in prison. Very invasive cavity and clothing searches. You can’t do that on someone if they are going to meet the president. People who pay 20k for intimate dinners with the president are not examined that intensely.
The three most secure are likely the dictators in very unstable, brutal dictatorships. I don’t think the elected leaders in democracies are anywhere near as secure.
Another list of reasons dictators in brutal dictatorships are the most secure.
A brutal dictator will retaliate very hard against your family and community if you target them. If someone targets the pope or president, they get put in jail. They are not tortured, their children is not tortured, their grandparents are not tortured, etc. There is less to lose by killing a president vs a brutal dictator because mostly you just lose your freedom. You and everyone you care about aren’t horribly tortured and imprisoned for life.
Dictators are willing to hide behind human shields. Even if you target a dictator, he isn’t above hiding in civilian homes and using human shields, which would offput a lot of military units sent by democracies, as well as some criminal elements who do not want to kill women and children. Bin Laden was hidden with tons of civilians, which was a reason he was not targeted with a drone strike (a drone strike killing dozens of children would look pretty bad) and instead a hit team was sent in. Bin Laden wasn’t a dictator, but you get the idea. When Saddam was on the run in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, one technique he used was he along with a few bodyguards would pick houses at random, go inside and drug the owner(s) until they passed out. Then they would sleep there and leave the next day. People are less likely to target a home filled with and near civilians. If someone wanted to kill the leader of a western democracy, that leader does not hide behind human shields which would off put a lot of assassins.
Dictators have dozens of palaces, so you have no idea where they are.
I’m sure there are other reasons. But which dictators in which 3 countries? I don’t know. I’m guessing Kim Jong Un is one. No idea beyond that.
I would say North Korea would be a very difficult country to assassinate anyone from. All 3 probably live there.
Except that unless their name is Kim Jong-un, they’re not all that safe. Quite a few high ranking members of that apparatus had “traffic accidents” (in a nation with almost zero traffic) under his father’s rule.
The question is, security through obscurity or security through strength?
Kim Jong Un might have a million men with guns around him at all times and that makes him exactly as safe as they are loyal. I’d almost bet money Bashar Al-Assad is going to kill some bodyguard’s little cousin with an ill-timed artillery strike and will be shot in the back when he’s least expecting it.
How about those guys on the ISS? Go ahead and try to assassinate one of them!
Way to think outside the box (or the planetary surface), DWMarch!
Yeah, I’d say that the 'nauts up there are probably safer from direct assassination than almost anyone else. Of course, the ISS is pretty defenseless. An energy or kenetic weapon launched from a satellite in NEO could probably hole it.
Hmmm… I’m sure I remember a movie plot with this element in it.