Test of steel prototype for border wall showed it could be sawed through

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: iplay1up2

originally posted by: rickymouse
nothing an electric fence charger can't correct. Those high voltage ones make your hair stand up on your arm and will jump across a wet sweaty rubber glove

It can be set up to monitor a fence being cut with modern technology and motion sensing cameras and someone can be there within ten minutes to fix the problematic people.

Really, High Voltage? On all 2000 miles of trumps proposed wall? How much do you think that would add to the cost? Also with Modern technology, and motion sensing cameras, why do we need a wall?

A forty buck charger every half mile costs about eighty bucks for the charger, the solar ones can possibly pay for themselves in electric savings. I know people who use electric fences, the cost is not that high. Although, if the government is spending money, it might be twenty five times what a farmer would spend.

Farm animals don't know how to defeat an electric fence. Attaching some heavy metal objects to a fence will reduce the charge. Additionally, some rubber insulated tools and gloves is all you need to still cut through it. That's not going to work, to say nothing of the electricity you would need.

originally posted by: Unruhestifter
a reply to: Byrd

So what?

Just give them the stupid wall.

Trump won the election and one of his promises was to build a wall. Thats his mandate and what he was voted in to do.
Let him just bloody well do it.

If you dems hate the idea then just tear it down next time you get in.

His party had total control of the government for two years, and he still couldn't get it started. He was even offered $25 billion by Democrats a year ago, when he actually had some leverage and he turned it down because Republicans don't want the wall either.

Now he has no leverage and is asking for much less.

This isn't a Democrat thing, neither Democrats or Republicans want to build it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: iplay1up2

originally posted by: rickymouse
nothing an electric fence charger can't correct. Those high voltage ones make your hair stand up on your arm and will jump across a wet sweaty rubber glove

It can be set up to monitor a fence being cut with modern technology and motion sensing cameras and someone can be there within ten minutes to fix the problematic people.

Really, High Voltage? On all 2000 miles of trumps proposed wall? How much do you think that would add to the cost? Also with Modern technology, and motion sensing cameras, why do we need a wall?

A forty buck charger every half mile costs about eighty bucks for the charger, the solar ones can possibly pay for themselves in electric savings. I know people who use electric fences, the cost is not that high. Although, if the government is spending money, it might be twenty five times what a farmer would spend.

Farm animals don't know how to defeat an electric fence. Attaching some heavy metal objects to a fence will reduce the charge. Additionally, some rubber insulated tools and gloves is all you need to still cut through it. That's not going to work, to say nothing of the electricity you would need.

WEell, have you got a better solution?

originally posted by: carewemust
People working and owning businesses around Steel Production plants are thrilled.

Ahh yes... corporate welfare at it's best.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
So what you are saying is that by the time the illegal criminals got close to sawing through, border patrol would be there to arrest the illegal criminals because the wall was effective in keeping them from crossing the border because walls work absolutely everywhere they are implemented?

And if their goal was just to cost the US money?

Wars are fought against superpowers with economics. We lost in Iraq because a $500 IED would do a million in damage to our equipment. 9/11 was so effective because Al Qaeda spent $800,000 out of a budgeted $1 million on the operation, to induce us to spend $8 trillion in ineffectively securing ourselves.

This wall, as suggested would cost $100 billion. Steel slats run about $70,000 each and can be defeated with a $20 hand tool and 15 minutes of work. What if the goal isn't even to have anyone cross? Just sit on the other side of the wall and cut down half the slats. That forces us to spend $50 billion to replace them, lest we have an ineffective wall. Then they chop down half of them again. Labor is cheap in Mexico, you could get 1000 people to each cut down 4 slats a day for about $10,000 which is nothing to the cartels. That would do $280,000,000 in damage, and we wouldn't be able to stop it, because that would mean putting our patrols on the other side of the wall.

The economics simply don't make sense.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Then I looked into the situation and changed my mind. When illegal immigration is costing over $100 billion/year. The number of raped women, human trafficking, drug smuggling, gang activities, etc. The wall easily pays for itself within a month.

First of all, it doesn't cost us $100 billion/year.
Second of all, 75% of illegal immigrants to the US enter the country legally through work visas, they then become illegal through overstaying their welcome.
Third, of the remaining 25% of illegals who do enter illegally, only 40% of that, or 10% of total illegal immigration comes through the southern border.
Fourth, of that 10% that does come through the southern border, 80% of it is smuggled in through the regular check points.
Fifth, of that remaining 2% of total immigration that crosses through the gaps in the US/Mexico border, a wall would at best stop half of it.

Meaning, even if the $100 billion figure is accurate, a wall would only be cost effective if the cost for the wall, the maintenance of the wall, and the manpower to watch the wall, cost us less than $1 billion per year.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Byrd

Electrify it, then.

Electrified walls are also trivial to overcome. Some rubber insulation is very effective. That's if they even feel like going that far. Just placing a bunch of grounded metal poles against the circuit will overload it. At which point, your fancy electrification (that some quick math suggests would cost nearly half a billion a year on it's own, just for the electricity) becomes completely useless.

originally posted by: dug88
You can't really stop people from getting in somewhere they want to go....but you can stop them from staying.

People have been to the bottom of the oceans, live in outer space, half walked on the moon, live in Antartica, and have built subway tunnels underneath the English Channel.

People can go anywhere or get through anything if they're determined to do it. The only thing barriers do is cost a lot of money.

If we were actually serious about dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, we would discourage people here at home from hiring them, and we would be taking steps to make their home countries more stable and more prosperous thereby removing their incentive to come here illegally.

Its just one excuse after the other. Just one easily shot down point that shouldnt even be brought up. Well, what happens if a giant meteor hits it huh? What THEN huh? Look we get it. You dont want any security at all. You want people to come in and out and go as they please. All because it will benefit "your side". And when it all goes wrong, youll be the first ones behind the people that will have to save your butts. Grow up already.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Byrd

Who exactly said it should be steel? Who's idea was it to use steel specifically?

Anyone know?

The idea of the guy who just tanked the steel industry and is trying to undo his screw up by implementing a huge government contract to function as corporate welfare.

a reply to: Byrd

And a one, two, three.

"Coz the silly walls don't work.

They would just get sawed to f***.

But we know Trump will just bump his gums again.......ahhhhh ah".

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: rickymouse

Am I missing something here with your electrified fence idea. I know you're a deep thinker; where is the electricity going to come from. A whole new grid and transformers is a major infrastructure undertaking?

Solar and Wind!

Renewables are the future right? Good enough to replace just about everything else now too?

Renewables are sustainable energy sources. They are not free energy sources.

originally posted by: rickymouse
WEell, have you got a better solution?

Yes. See my other posts.

Crack down on people who hire illegals in the US. Do this by scrapping the Social Security Number system, and come up with an actual secure ID that significantly reduces identity theft. Then force rather than heavily encourage E-Verify. Finally, move to a cashless society, so that illegals can't be paid under the table.

That's what we can do to discourage hiring illegals on our side and it's applicable to illegals from all borders and nations rather than a Mexico specific thing.

In dealing with Mexico specifically we can do the following.

Start legalizing drugs to both lower the prices on drugs and to introduce competition to the cartels. If prices drop in 1/3, and cartels maintain 1/3 of the current market, we effectively cut their revenue from the US drug trade to 1/9 of what it is currently. If we have strong partnerships with other nations, we could make that 1/9 globally.

After that, impose some serious crackdowns on US oil refineries that buy tankers of pirated oil stolen from Pemex to further cut cartel revenue.

Then expand our legal immigration program to bring over more seasonal labor from Mexico. This gives more Mexican families very nice incomes, and it does it in positions that are free from the influence of cartels.

Finally, end our policies of making Mexican cartels fight against each other. Rather than weakening all sides like was hoped, it is instead resulting in a survival of the fittest situation where power is consolidating and they're becoming more powerful overall.

All of this combined would cut cartel revenues to a fraction of what they currently are, probably 3-5%. With that type of funding loss, they will lose influence, and those who leave the cartels would instead be able to move back into legitimate fields of employment.

Over time this would allow Mexico to regain full control over their country, bringing the stability and prosperity needed to discourage people from coming here illegally.

Countries further south than Mexico need some slightly different strategies.

originally posted by: iplay1up2

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Byrd

President Donald Trump has repeatedly advocated for a steel slat design for his border wall, which he described as "absolutely critical to border security" in his Oval Office address to the nation Tuesday. But Department of Homeland Security testing of a steel slat prototype proved it could be cut through with a saw, according to a report by DHS.

A photo exclusively obtained by NBC News shows the results of the test after military and Border Patrol personnel were instructed to attempt to destroy the barriers with common tools.
Source

And apparently all eight of the prototypes (according to the article) were fairly easily breached.

Trump, in a news conference this morning, said it was "a previous administration's wall", which is not correct.

Liberal logic...

Three inmates escaped from Alcatraz, therefore prison walls don't work...

No one has ever claimed no wall is fool proof. The point is 99% of those approaching the wall won't have the tools or time to actually breach it. Would you rather have a wall that stops 10,000 attempts but maybe allows 50 to get through or no wall where all 10,000 can run across the border?

"99% of those approaching the wall won't have tools or time to breach it". The wall would be 2000 miles long. Once in place, Tunnels will immediatly be built (there are alread a ton of tunnels), people will find easy ways to climb, and DRONES are perfect to deliver drugs from one side to the other! Less than a minute, and a drone could carry a great big stash of drugs, over the wall.

You don't think the Mexican drug cartels, would invest in some drones, capeable of carrying some real weight? Its a no brainer.

A drone carrying that weight would be easier to detect and we will devise counter measures for them. Or do you think since drones exist we should just, give up? It's a lot more than just drugs coming over the border... Human Trafficking is the main concern!

a reply to: Aazadan

I have studied food chemistry and pharmaceutical chemistry for many years now, the illegal drugs being a part of my research. Studying how these things effect enzymes and proteins in our bodies. Many of those illegal drugs are hard on people's minds and bodies and should definitely stay illegal or we will have a bunch of morons walking around, way worse than it is nowadays.

The drugs do not just temporarily change our physiology, some actually cause major changes to our brains and enzyme systems which can make us die if we quit them.

Your solution about keeping anyone from hiring illegals is good, but it can't be easily enforced, on top of that lot of food industries would go out of business because our people are spoiled by promises of good jobs from completing college and schools and will not go work in those kind of places anymore. We messed up, it is partly caused by the attitudes of teachers in our schools.

We need to build the wall and start to vett people who want to come into this country better and make getting citizenship easier and cheaper for good people. I know people who say just make a wall of soldiers that shoot anyone trying to get across. I do not agree with that, but a wall I agree with.

I have seen a lot of human nature over my lifetime, your ideas might sound good, but they just won't work very well because it's the way it is and that won't change very easy.

originally posted by: 3n19m470
A drone carrying that weight would be easier to detect and we will devise counter measures for them. Or do you think since drones exist we should just, give up? It's a lot more than just drugs coming over the border... Human Trafficking is the main concern!

Drones are just the high tech version. Catapults, balloons, and trebuchets are routinely used these days already to get drugs over.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The drugs do not just temporarily change our physiology, some actually cause major changes to our brains and enzyme systems which can make us die if we quit them.

I didn't mention it specifically, but in addition to legalizing drugs, I would add more regulations to prevent people from working or traveling while under the influence, and I would expand those laws from only applying to things like operating heavy machinery, to also including better paying white collar jobs where you can be responsible for people, or lots of money. In short, we should make drugs legal, but we should make financial success easier to obtain by being drug free to discourage addicts.

Additionally, though this goes without saying in my mind, we should make a free and robust addiction recovery service so that people can get off of drugs if they want.

Your solution about keeping anyone from hiring illegals is good, but it can't be easily enforced

In a cashless society it is trivial to enforce. By forcing people to go through the banks, and by requiring a secure ID, you can ensure that illegals are unable to open an account, and therefore unable to be paid. This effectively stops them from being hired.

We messed up, it is partly caused by the attitudes of teachers in our schools.

Or the attitudes of lazy students who think 4 years is enough to learn anything of value.

Remember in the 50's and 60's when college was cheap and people could support their families on one income without much of an education? Their lives in those jobs were miserable, that's why they did everything they could to send their kids and grandkids to college.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse
The drugs do not just temporarily change our physiology, some actually cause major changes to our brains and enzyme systems which can make us die if we quit them.

I didn't mention it specifically, but in addition to legalizing drugs, I would add more regulations to prevent people from working or traveling while under the influence, and I would expand those laws from only applying to things like operating heavy machinery, to also including better paying white collar jobs where you can be responsible for people, or lots of money. In short, we should make drugs legal, but we should make financial success easier to obtain by being drug free to discourage addicts.

Additionally, though this goes without saying in my mind, we should make a free and robust addiction recovery service so that people can get off of drugs if they want.

Your solution about keeping anyone from hiring illegals is good, but it can't be easily enforced

In a cashless society it is trivial to enforce. By forcing people to go through the banks, and by requiring a secure ID, you can ensure that illegals are unable to open an account, and therefore unable to be paid. This effectively stops them from being hired.

We messed up, it is partly caused by the attitudes of teachers in our schools.

Or the attitudes of lazy students who think 4 years is enough to learn anything of value.

Remember in the 50's and 60's when college was cheap and people could support their families on one income without much of an education? Their lives in those jobs were miserable, that's why they did everything they could to send their kids and grandkids to college.

The last part about their lives being miserable in those jobs....that is wrong, most people worked their jobs and then went home and enjoyed their evenings and days off. There were some people who hated their jobs, there are still people who hate their jobs. You cannot please everyone, some people will never be happy with their job, the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence applies.

I remember the sixties, only one person in a family needed to work to make a living, people were doing fine, if you wanted to make money to build up your savings, people went to cities and worked in car factories or other factories then went back in a few years and bought a house. Back in the seventies, if you got a college education you could get a job easily in a field, it was a growing society in that kind of work. If you just went to school for a basic education, you gained nothing, but usually there was little money spent on college anyway those days, scholarships paid the whole bill. No debt required at all. It's not that way anymore.

I liked working construction and learning new professions. College was boring to me, the learning was way too slow. I was in premed, going to be a doctor, I found out that the profession was plagued with people trying to get prestige and wealth and I did not want to change who I was to fit in. All my medical school would have been paid by someone I knew who was on the board of the AMA in Indiana, but I could not in clear conscience stay in that field, I chose to go out and learn multiple professions instead. I get bored with slow learning, I only have one life to experience.

It is better to rid the streets of stuff like Heroin and coke, those drugs are not good for people to take. Neither are the Meths that are being used and produced, the addiction is physical, metabolic changes occur and going cold turkey can kill someone. It causes many alterations to enzymes. You say make them legal, look at the mess we got in in this country by doctors overprescribing pharmaceutical pain pills, pills that actually have similar side effects to those drugs I mentioned.

I used to believe that addiction was mostly mental addiction but upon studying all of these chemistries and how our metabolism is altered, I am completely against the worst ones. I also see problems with cannabis use causing some negative effects on people,. cannabis is no miracle medicine, most times people use it to get high. Yes, it has some medical benefits but if someone does not need it, it can actually make their life much worse overall. It is legal here, well, I suppose a buzzed person is a happy person, and they can now grow their own instead of spending lots of their money buying it. Cannabis dumbs people down if they use it too often, I read articles on it's use as to that effect and having experienced it personally thirty to forty years ago, I can say that is true.

Super Conductive Diamond nanotubes would probably be the way to go.

However the nanotech industry is nowhere near creating anything useful to the public.

OMG you can cut through steel? - I thought it was forged by magical trolls under mount doom of elfen star bones, impervious to anything shy of 1.21 jiggawatts.....

It will stop some and slow others down - it's not the whole plan, it's just easy for people to understand because they see it.