It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ultimate Border Security Options

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
It was suggested that this topic have its own thread, noone has bothered yet, and I got impatient and started it myself here...

Proteus33 wrote a message in this thread, suggesting the use of land mines for an effective border security method.


Originally posted by proteus33
YOU WANT TO SECURE ARE BORDER EASY. put up a mine field post it as a mine field in spanish english arabic and chinese. spread out around field
dead animal bones that are broken up. they will get the idea.


Is this a viable option? Could it be taken seriously as a good idea? Why not? The U.S. is not against the use of anti-personnel mines (having not signed up on any international treaty to ban their use, i.e. Ottawa Treaty), so I believe it would be a legal option, right? Is the idea just morally wrong to think of this option for protection?

I guess one concern if this option is viable or not is to try and determine a quick cost estimate of this project. So very quickly, say the U.S.-Mexican Border is 3600 Km (sorry, use metric to make it easier). Say the "no-man's-land" is 1 Km wide. So that is a 1 Km wide border the entire 3600Km distance, which makes for a 3600 square kilometer mine field or "no-man's-land".
1 square kilometer is 1 million meters squared. That multiplied by a 3600 Km border is 3.6 billion square meters in the mine field border zone.
So if you plant one mine per square meter, obviously you have roughly 3.6 billion mines to buy and plant.
Mines can be manufactured for as little as $3 dollars each apparently, and would probably be WAY cheaper on a 3.6 billion quantity order, so you might get each mine for about .50 cents each maybe? Anyway, lets use $3 dollars per mine. So right off the bat, before we even go out on site and dig our first post hole, we just spent 10.8 billion dollars cash into the american economy for land mines.
Now we got to get up and drive out to the site, plant mines, build two security fences (one on border, one a kilometer back to keep Americans from wandering into the field), and re-arrange or accomodate any infrastructure within this security zone. Plus there is the huge profit margin that Halliburton slams us with (Of course Haliburton will get this contract, who else would even have a chance at this tender?), so lets 2.5 times the cost and call it 25 - 30 billion dolars into the economy to totally secure the south border. For now, trust the canadians to not abuse the north border too much yet...

Is that crazy cost justifiable? What cost is justifiable? Where do you draw the line between the negative aspects of illegal immigration and the costs of securing the border to stop that illegal immigration? How much of a concern is illegal immigration to you, and how much are you willing to spend on proper border security? 30 billion is a lot of money, but considering the debt is at about a zillion dolars now, and spenditures on the Terror War must be up around a trillion now, is 30 billion that much to totally secure the south border? Or is illegal immigration not really that big of an issue?

Are there other options for border security that would not cost near as much, but would be just as effective? I don't really think that hiring another 100,000 border gaurds is really the right answer, but maybe... I don't know, what do you think?

Someone in that other thread had mentioned that so what if you sealed the south border, what about the coastlines? Well, one step at a time, sure there would be more people sneaking in through the coastline, but there would be next to zero sneakins from the land border I would think. That would be a huge number no longer coming in compared to the increasing numbers of coastline sneakins... No doubt, coastline sneakins would be the next problem to deal with... Maybe that is another thread where we can discuss the training of great white sharks with lasers on their heads to protect coastlines from swimmers and boats with immigrants onboard.

Some other issues to consider that i was wondering about while writing this:
-If the NAU comes into effect, than this certainly was a complete waste of money, time, and land space that would never be recovered.
-The canadian border (including alaska) is 8891 Km. Imagine the cost and logistical nightmare of securing that border...




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I fully support the use of landmines on our southern border. There really isn't any reason NOT to use them. Sure there will be objections of people whining that "it's inhumane!", but hey, no one is forcing them to invade our nation.

We have every right and duty to secure out borders by whatever means necessary, up to and including landmines. After a few illegals see their friends get blown to piece, they will think twice before violating our borders.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The US military, which last used antipersonnel mines during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reportedly has antipersonnel mines stored in Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain and elsewhere for possible use in Iraq.

Sine US has not signed the land mine treaty of 1997 US pretty much have that option.

www.icbl.org...

Personally I think is barbaric.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
How is it barbaric? No one is forcing the illegals to cross a minefield. They make that choice, and they must deal with the consequences of their decision.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Iron, while I am big on securing our national borders, I don't think placing landmines is either ethical or plausible. I have stated it many times and I will state it again here. The border solution is simple. While my solution is not a cure all, it will eliminate much of the problem. We, as a nation, need to stop placing troops all over the freaking world and start placing them on our borders and ports.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Iron, while I am big on securing our national borders, I don't think placing landmines is either ethical or plausible. I have stated it many times and I will state it again here. The border solution is simple. While my solution is not a cure all, it will eliminate much of the problem. We, as a nation, need to stop placing troops all over the freaking world and start placing them on our borders and ports.


Landmines are much more cost effective than maintaining a constant military presence on our border. I believe we could mine a majority of the border and concentrate military forces on the most highly trafficked areas.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Slackerwire, how is placing mines on our borders even close to being ethical? You honestly want to kill people just for trying to come here? I'm sorry, but that's not right. I would support placing troops on our borders, as a matter of fact, do it tomorrow. However, I can't support nor condone the idea of placing explosive devices out there... No... :shk:


[edit on 26-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
By the way, how would it be more cost effective than placing military on our borders? We are already paying the same amount of money to have troops in foreign lands as we would be paying to have them on our own borders... What you are saying doesn't add up

[edit on 26-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
We, as a nation, need to stop placing troops all over the freaking world and start placing them on our borders and ports.


Well, that is an old, but a great idea, isn't it Speaker? IMO, probably one of the better suggestions out there maybe? Instead of spreading democracy, and liberating countries from their oi... um, dictator leaders, America worries about her own problems first, and gets a hold on national security, killing a few birds with one stone so to speak. Between the Navy, Army, and the airforce, the new Coast Gaurd would be pretty much make America impenetrable, wouldn't it? And there would still be plenty of Armed Forces left over for U.S. to help out with NATO Policing activities that NATO decides to engage in around the world....

A great idea Speaker, but I wonder how hard it would be to convince the leaders of America to sway in that direction?



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Iron, yes, it is an old and "great" idea. One that I truly think would work. Considering that Bush has already sent National Guard troops down there, I don't think it will be as hard to convince poloticains as we may think. If we were to put enough pressure on them, they'd do it.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Slackerwire, how is placing mines on our borders even close to being ethical? You honestly want to kill people just for trying to come here? I'm sorry, but that's not right. I would support placing troops on our borders, as a matter of fact, do it tomorrow. However, I can't support nor condone the idea of placing explosive devices out there... No... :shk:


[edit on 26-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


Ethics, like morals, are subjective. What I think is morally right and ethical, you don't and vice versa.

Illegal aliens are an invading force composed of foreign nationals, any and all means must be taken to stop them. The future of America depends on it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join