Unmanned wall does nothing.
And no, it’s a perfect counterpoint… according to what you’re saying the wall itself had zero affect on the effectiveness, yet they improved it three separate times.
If all the other factors were enough, there wouldn’t have been a wall at all, it would just have been the Berlin military zone.
So, we have continuous IR detection out to a “couple hundred yards” all along the wall’s 2,000 mile stretch. That sounds expensive.
A 30 foot aluminum ladder does’t weigh all that much, and a couple people carrying it will not take that long to cross your couple hundred yards of distance that is being constantly monitored.
Climbing 30 feet doesn’t take long either.
You do realize that you are calling for the border patrol agents to be traveling about 100 mph on their atv’s to do that, right?
You seem to be comparing people who are rather desperate to escape from violence and poverty with the lazy americans that you know.
Once again, how exactly are they being apprehended? Are we just shooting at anyone who runs?
So why use a wall? Why not just the agents? After all the wall has no function
How long do they need, given that the agents trying to catch them may well be dozens of miles away?
Also note this new report (released in December 2018) from Homeland Security’s Inspector General about the contract DHS signed with Accenture to recruit 7,500 new border patrol agents. In the first ten months of the contract, they hired …
…wait for it…
two.
Accenture collected $13 million in expenses, plus a $40K/head bonus, and they found TWO people willing to work for the Border Patrol who could pass the tests and background checks.
2:30 to go 2.5 miles… That’s 60mph
Individual performance is staggeringly faster than a group. Just in case you’ve never done a team obstacle course.
Hell if just climbing s ladder is 10 seconds it’s takes 1:20 for a dozen people… Ideally
2:40 to do it twice.
Plus 45 for a 300 yard dash
We’re at 3:25 already
iR detection is extremely cheap.
How about:
Cite that the wall would be equipped along its length with sensors that would detect potential crossers out to 300 yards, and would be able to reliably distinguish at that distance between humans, coyotes, cattle, and dust devils.
Explain why you think that an entire group of 1 dozen crossers would be relying on a single ladder, instead of having 1 ladder per 2-4 crossers.
Explain why they’d have to do it 20 yards later–is there a specific proposal with two walls that you’re talking about? (I may have missed your proposal above with two walls).
Cite that border guards are available on a hair-trigger basis, already in vehicles, ready to travel up to 5 miles (so, these hair-trigger guards are posted no more than 10 miles apart) at breakneck speeds to capture border crossers.
I mean, if money and realism are no object, I’ma just hire Tony Stark to put autonomous Iron-Man suits all along the border. But the fantasy you’re fantasizing bears zero resemblance to any specific proposal I’ve seen put forward.
And yet an unmanned wall is precisely the proposal to which we are reacting.
I never said the wall itself had zero effect, so please don’t put words in my mouth. The East Germans NEVER had an unmanned wall; they used a wall in conjunction with guards and dogs and land mines and so forth and so on. We here are discussing Mr. Trump’s proposal, which is exactly like the East German solution except for the guards and the dogs and the land mines and so forth and so on.
Realistically, though, the guards are more likely to be 25 miles away than 2.5; do you have any conception at all how remote and empty the borderlands really are? Or are you planning to set up hundreds more outposts so you can station agents every five miles?
I thought you had said 5 miles in 3 minutes in a previous post.
Of course, if you change the distance, you can change the time.
Also, 60mph if pretty damn fast for an ATV
Only if you have langoliers in your group.
Why do they have to climb it one at a time?
And the border patrol shows up to see a cheap ladder agsint the wall, and the back ends of a couple of new immigrants.
Do they shoot?
define extremely, and define what cheap mens when you are detecting out to a couple hundred yards along a 2,000 mile long wall. Keep in mind that we are no just putting in sensors, but the wiring for power and communication, and then we need to have someone who actually monitors these things.
Put a cost on it.
You’d only be 5 miles out if you waited until after a breech to react.
If you had any warning whatsoever you are much closer already
Thermal imaging cameras that can make out a person at a couple hundred yards cost $200
You said it was everything else that made it work, not the wall itself.
Are we? Because this was all a hypothetical response to what sort of wall i would set up if I were so inclined.
Then you are agreeing with everyone else that “the Wall” would be ineffective.
Trump has never proposed anything like the Berlin Wall situation. It is irrelevant, because it is something different. It’s like pointing to an airplane when someone points out that adding wings to a car won’t make it fly. Yes, wings have a purpose in the airplane. But adding wings to a car would be completely ineffective.
You’re the one who is trying to change the Wing into the airplane. You think “the Wall” means some extensive system. But that has never been what Trump has proposed.
Becsuse, once you do propose that, you realize that the Wall part is the least necessary part. You just need some sort of barrier. It can be a natural barrier. It can be a much cheaper fence. There is no reason for it to be a wall.
“The Wall” is a dumb, ineffective idea. The fact that you have to add stuff to it to make it effective means it is ineffective. Sure there whole can be more than the sum of its parts, but “The Wall,” on its own, would be ineffective.
So it makes perfect sense that we call it ineffective.
Hey while we’re at it we could save a bunch of money by building all prisons without walls.
I mean there’s armed guards right there anyhow that can response immediately. The walls don’t do anything.
If a lone unmanned wall with no CBP is the proposal than I’m definitely wrong and Trump’s wall would definitely be inneffective
There are currently 20k CBP agents on Mexican border, so there’s already 10 per mile.
You don’t need a thermal imaging camera that can make out a person at a couple hundred yards.
You need a thermal imaging camera hooked up to a network that can distinguish a person from a dust devil or cow at 300 yards, along with a power network that’s not easily disrupted, and that’s not affected by weather.
Can you show us how much that costs? Like, with a link?
I won’t say your claim is bullshit, because I don’t know a lot about IR technology. But I’ll be pretty surprised if the technology you’re imagining actually exists, much less costs $200 per camera.
No, stop saying that. “Comprehensive,” i.e., nigh-complete, border security would require militarization. Just stop even putting that objective out there. We need border cooperation with Mexico, not border aggression against her.
No, there are not.
The most recent statistics I can find show about 20,000 CBP agents NATIONWIDE. The Mexican border gets most of those, but there are a couple of thousand along the Canadian border. The Southwest border sectors have around 16,600.
Now remember that these “sectors” extend far inland; Yuma Sector, for example, extends to the Nevada/Idaho border. Relatively few agents are assigned that far from the border, but some are.
Of the ones who are on the border, perhaps a quarter of those are on duty at any given time, a chunk of those on duty will be on other assignments (training, testifying, preparing paperwork, etc.), and a lot of those on duty and on the job will be assigned to the major crossing points. At any given time, there are dozens of agents working at San Ysidro, for example, actually AT the port of entry or working the surrounding land. That doesn’t leave many for the wide open spaces, where the actual ratio is probably more like one agent per ten miles.
Yay! You finally got it!