If New Dehli can figure it out, why can't Washington?

[Randy in Arizona]

Old saying: Good Fences make Good Neighbors.

DHAKA: India on Saturday told Bangladesh it would go ahead with the fencing of the border between the two countries, calling it a measure to prevent the movement of troublemakers.

"Fencing is a continuous process going on for the last 20 years. We do not consider it as something defensive or offensive, but a preventive measure to check trans-border movement of anti-social elements," Border Security Force (BSF) director general R S Mooshahary said here at the end of four days of border talks.

He said India would continue fencing outside the 150 yards of the borderline. If there is any marketplace or place of worship in the line of fencing, the BSF will inform the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR).

But Bangladesh said that if the BSF wanted to erect barbed-wire fence within 150 yards of the borderline, the issue would have to be settled through the diplomatic channel.

"If they have any compulsion (for fencing), we told them to contact Bangladesh through the diplomatic channel," BDR director general Major Gen M D Jahangir Alam Chowdhury told reporters.

Although the BDR and BSF signed a joint statement following the conference, BDR sources said the Indian side disagreed to take the fencing issue to diplomatic levels and wanted it settled at the level of the border security sector commander.

Mooshahary said New Delhi had not been pushing any Indian citizen into the territory of "any country".

"It is not the policy of India or the BSF (to push in). I don't know where you have got this information from," he said when asked about allegations that Indian nationals were being sent into Bangladesh.

But the BDR placed a list of 34 incidents of "push-ins" that took place over the last six months in which around 600 Indians were sent into Bangladeshi territory.

"When the conference was taking place in Dhaka between the BDR and the BSF, the BSF pushed some 34 Indians into Bangladesh, 23 alone in Naogaon. They (the BSF) shot dead a Bangladeshi in Srimangol and injured another. They also fenced along the border in Comilla," a top BDR official said.

On allowing anti-Bangladesh elements into Indian territory, Mooshahary said, "I don't think there is any place in India where terrorists can hide. I disagree with the idea."

However, Chowdhury said the BDR had handed 10 booklets to his Indian counterpart containing a list of criminal, insurgents and their camps in India.

He said these elements are active against Bangladesh.

Mooshahary said Bangladesh had insurgent camps from where anti-Indian elements were operating.


Times of India Article

 

[Standing Wolf]

Fencing is a continuous process going on for the last 20 years. We do not consider it as something defensive or offensive, but a preventive measure to check trans-border movement of anti-social elements...

Well, yeah, sure, but we don't have anti-social elements sneaking across our southern border by the millions. We have, uh... Wait. I'll remember it in a minute. I'm an old guy, you know, so you have to understand I'm a little forgetful around the edges.

Ah. I remember now. We have "undocumented immigrants," not anti-social elements. Our prisons aren't filled with anti-social elements, but undocumented immigrants. Our welfare rolls aren't bursting with anti-social elements, but undocumented immigrants. All that, and besides, they vote for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party, so it's cool.

Okay? Clear now?

Figured it'd have to be.

 

[Byron Quick]

20 years and not finished yet. Sure hope they've been doing regular maintenance on what they've already built. Now with our border, I guarantee you that as soon as we got finished building a fence it would be time to go back to the starting point to begin building the fence.

Yeah, there's a reason that Washington ain't built a fence. They studied the proposal decades ago and decided that it would not work .

Now, tell me, if the government spent billions on a project would you expect it to be a project that would perform its function or would you just be happy that the government was doing something, no matter how futile?

Israel is building a wall of interdiction also? Guess what? Israel is about ten times larger in area than my county...not really that big a job. Israel is over 1000 square miles smaller than Brewster County, Texas which is just one of how many US counties fronting Mexico? Hmmm? Before you can tell whether this will work or that will work, you've got to do the math. The engineers that have done the math for the US government turned in discouraging numbers all the way around: initial cost, maintenance costs, not to mention effectiveness ratios.

If New Dehli can figure it out, why can't Washington? If you will look into India's internal politics; you'll get the answer. You don't have to be effective to be a successful politician; you just have to look good and spout what the masses want to hear. Hindus in India are pretty xenophobic when it comes to other religions. Hindus have murdered several Christian missionaries in India in the past few years. Bangladesh is predominantly Muslim. It's a vote gimmick...in a land that can barely feed and cloth its populations and can't give them decent medical care and education...it's an extremely cynical political move and NOTHING more.

 

[Crosshair]

Well at least India is TRYING to solve the problem.

 

[Byron Quick]

Well at least India is TRYING to solve the problem.

I beg to differ. Forging ahead with a project that the newest engineering graduate in your country can tell you is futile is not 'trying.' Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a boondoggle whose only purpose is to get a clique of politicians reelected is not 'trying.' It would not be 'trying' if every citizen of India was well fed and well educated. They are not. Under the current circumstances in India, I can only think of one way to describe such a wasteful project: It is an atrocity and the perpetrators should be led to a post in front of a wall, offered a cigarette and a blindfold, and then shot. The Indians behind this are scum-pure and simple.

'Trying' is silly and stupid if you are attempting an engineering project that all your engineers say will not work and cannot work. Unless, of course, you're a politician and your purpose is to get re-elected for 'trying.' To hell with 'trying;'I prefer sucess, myself...YMMV.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Yeah, there's a reason that Washington ain't built a fence. They studied the proposal decades ago and decided that it would not work .

...The engineers that have done the math for the US government turned in discouraging numbers all the way around: initial cost, maintenance costs, not to mention effectiveness ratios.

When was this, I don't recall any such study being done and I dispute that such was conducted.

As for border fences, I seem to recall that the USSR and the Warsaw Bloc were very successfull in using border fences to control movement across borders that stretched for thousand of miles.

 

[foghornl]

Too expensive to build/maintain a fence? ? ?

OK, ever heard of that industrial trenching device sometimes called a "backhoe" or "Steam Shovel" ? ? ?

 

[Daemon688]

How expensive would it be to lay a minefield across our border compared to a fence? I think a congressional committee should be made to find out. Who's with me?

 

[foghornl]

. . . lay a minefield across our border . . .

WORKS 4 ME ! ! ! !

 

[junyo]

How expensive would it be to lay a minefield across our border compared to a fence?

Far less expensive than my proposal of a moat filled with flaming oil, backed by a half mile of razor wire lines, caltrops, tiger pits, and bear traps.

We're talking about the Canadian border, right?

 

[auschip]

How expensive would it be to lay a minefield across our border compared to a fence? I think a congressional committee should be made to find out. Who's with me?

Depends, defending the imminent domain lawsuits would be huge. Then the cost of the ID payout. Of course, then we could have more people on the internet complaining about the government seizing land illegally using imminent domain. I know I wouldn't want land I owned on the border mined.

 

[roo_ster]

Byron Quick wrote:

...
Before you can tell whether this will work or that will work, you've got to do the math. The engineers that have done the math for the US government turned in discouraging numbers all the way around: initial cost, maintenance costs, not to mention effectiveness ratios.
...
I beg to differ. Forging ahead with a project that the newest engineering graduate in your country can tell you is futile is not 'trying.'
...

Whew!

Luckily for me:

1. My bachelor's was in physics, not engineering
2. I've walked the ground in some of the rougher parts of the border
3. I've spent the last 6 years analyzing/modeling/simulating sensors & comm networks and developing new ConOps to take advantage of new capabilities...as well as pricing various alternatives

So, I don't feel the constricting grasp of being the "newest engineering graduate of the country" and am free to apply the latest/cheapest COTS products to the problem at hand.

True, building a fence along the border then going home wouldn't accomplish much. Any solution would require:
Hardware
Software
Networked comms & sensing
ConOps development to fully utilize the system
Personnel
Training
and a few other things.

To put it plainly:
We CAN secure our northern & southern borders in a cost-effective manner using today's (COTS) technology. Solutions are already being worked in other countries by all the big players in this market.

Uncle Sam is less interested, however.

Anyone interested in this topic can google up all sorts of tasty information.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard!!! HAHAHAHAHA

And I have been listening to rednecks talkin about blowing up brown people for a long time.

You realize that if you mine a border that you cannot control, you are freaking giving away explosives to anyone who desires them? You propose mining the border to STOP terrorists? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Like the VPC giving them guns because they are more likely to use them on themselves. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Mines are a way to make an area harder to traverse quickly. Mines are not a forcefield. They are explosives and projectiles that make a boom when the switch is triggered. You can retrieve them if you do not trigger the switch. How long until gang-bangers start making IEDs? Or even the dreaded `trrists.

Wow. That idea was astoundingly stupid.

 

[Byron Quick]

When was this, I don't recall any such study being done and I dispute that such was conducted.

I'll check on this and get back to you.

On the communist thing: Yes, they did it. Check out just how much of their GNP was spent on such annually. Then ask an economist at a university via email what that did to communist economies. Then add a like amount to the federal budget and ask the economist what that would do to the economy that you are a member of. Then ponder what happened to the communist countries that had all the wonderful fences. Just a note but they had minefields, too. Yes, it was a wonderful policy that worked so well for them. The fall of communism was dictated because the rocketing costs of security (police, intelligence, and military) undermined their economy. Liberals pooh-poohed the CIA's estimates of the Soviet economy prior the the break-up of the Soviet Union. After the break-up, when it was discovered that the Soviet economy was actually in much worse shape...then the liberals criticized the CiA for underestimating the Soviet economy.

Besides all that, that's really what all freedom minded people need to be doing: adopting communist policies

Oh, American citizens who live within walking distance of the border just might look on the proposal to put a minefield in their back yard with a jaundiced eye. Guess those unreasonable reprobates don't want their kids, pets, livestock, tourists, family and such wandering into minefields. Such an unreasonable, not in my back yard attitude of some people.

 

[Byron Quick]

OK,

Still looking. The Border Patrol guy I spoke with doesn't know of any reports available to the public.
Congressman Duncan Hunter is quite proud of getting a whole 40 miles of border fencing in California. Do a websearch. That's a hell of a fence.

I've got an inquiry into his office about the parameters of the Southwest Border Fence Project, the total projected cost, what's been completed to date, and what it has cost to date. Give you a hint: it appears that over 10 million dollars was spent in fiscal year 1997 alone in one district and the work is still ongoing in that district.

Just for comparison, the average quote that I received for an eight foot chain link fence was 16 dollars a foot installed. The Mexican border would cost $16,496, 000.00 at that quote. Not taking into account additional costs due to rough country. Ever driven the Rio Grande River Gorge? Now that fence that is being built in parts of California isn't a chain link fence...I don't even want to think about the cost.

Oh, yeah, another factor: if I was a terrorist wanting entry into the US...I'd come across the US-Canadian border in the summertime. Much less chance of winding up lost in a desert. Lot easier to hide, too. The cost of its eight foot chain link fence would be $46,688,000.00. Pretty soon we're going to be talking about serious money.

The Border Patrol employee that I talked with this afternoon said they have videos of holes cut through existing fences by illegal immigrants. During my web searching I came up on an article detailing a mobile ramp that Mexican drug smugglers used on a fence. They drove the ramp up to the fence, dropped another ramp on the other side of the fence, and then drove a vehicle on the ramp and over the fence.

Wouldn't living in a country that is surrounded by fences, minefields, guardtowers with snipers make you feel so secure? How about so free? Remember what Franklin said about being willing to relinguish essential liberties to obtain temporary security?

 

[Randy in Arizona]

Standing Wolf

Democratic (sic) party

I think ya left a 'k' out of the parentheses.

Daemon688

lay a minefield across our border

I don't want to kill them, I want them to stay home. The US is a safety valve for the pressure cooker that is Mexico. The Mexican 'Tree of Liberty' needs a Hemoglobin enriched root feeding.

jfruser

To put it plainly:
We CAN secure our northern & southern borders in a cost-effective manner using today's (COTS) technology. Solutions are already being worked in other countries by all the big players in this market.

Uncle Sam is less interested, however.

That is what the MMP is all about. Kicking Uncle Sam in the shins until most of the congress realizes that they can lose their soft jobs & perks over this issue!

This is a bigger issue than Prez Bushwhacker the Second either realizes or will admit. He fails to realize that by placating his friend Fox and the Dumbercrapic & RINO congress critters, he jeopardizes the security of every family in the whole United States! And my family is the most important thing in the world to me!

This is what he swore to do:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

[flame suit on]

 

[Byron Quick]

Jfruser,

We CAN secure our northern & southern borders in a cost-effective manner using today's (COTS) technology. Solutions are already being worked in other countries by all the big players in this market.

I assume that the acronym COTS stands for Commercial Off The Shelf.

You say you've spent six years studying this problem. I've a few questions:
1) Exactly what would the interdiction consist of?
2) Installation costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs?
In other words, what's your concept of cost-effective? Remember that the government would be running the show.

The multi-tiered system you alluded to has elements that make much more sense than: Let's build a fence! I don't have too much faith in static defenses or barriers.

Don't get me wrong. I've got no problem with securing the borders. But since I'm planning on moving close to the border; some folks' suggestions get my back up. Minefields...sheesh!

Randy, take the flame suit off. Count to ten Look at the things that Congress has done when it felt the types of pressure you envisage applying...it has happened more than once. After contemplating the idiocies they came up with...personally, I think a more practical path is to find a practical solution and then apply pressure for that solution. Depending on Congress to initiate plans of its own usually devolves into cluster orgies...expensive ones...that don't work.

 

[Daemon688]

Well, is a minefield any different than crossing the desert and dying from dehydration? Besides that, it would be motivation NOT to cross the border. A minefield would slow down illegal immigrants so they could be picked up by border patrol.

And to digital warrior, do you really think it is that difficult to make an improvised explosive? How can I be a redneck? My skin is brown. Does that make me a brown neck?

Mines are a way to make an area harder to traverse quickly.

That is the idea. Look above.

An idea is an idea, no matter how crazy it sounds. Calling me a REDNECK and STUPID makes you look silly. Don't even try defending that one because although you didn't directly state it, the intent was obvious.

In all reality, the best solution to illegal immigration is the prosecution of employers. After all it is a felony. Once the job market dries up for illegals, no more problem.

Now comes the issue of national security. Both northern and southern borders lack any real manpower. Terrorists can easily enter our country from land borders, cargo containers, and legally visas. The only solution is some sort of physical barrier that is properly patroled on our land borders. Greater inspection of all cargo containers entering our country. Finally, we need to know where all the foreigners are in this country (Yeah big brother) and background checks need to be run on all of them before they are allowed in the country. Many of the terrorists who conducted 9/11, were staying here on student visas, travel visas, etc. Funny thing is, these terrorists who were staying on student visas never even took any classes.

So there you go, a real solution from a "stupid" "redneck".

 

[Byron Quick]

I remember reading about a house that sit's right dead on the US-Canadian border. Should the minefield surround their house or be on the US side only? The house, I believe, houses US citizens.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Daemon,
Redneck is in the soul. Skin color has nothing to do with it. Except that an severely disproportionate number of rednecks have something to say about skin color. Nowadays it is often described in different terms, rather than say "lazy ******", they say welfare queen. But they mean the same thing.

I do not care if it is easy to make an IED out of fertilizer and fuel oil. It is really bad tactic to supply your enemy with easy access to powerful weapons. If they transport the mines to Central Park the resulting trajedy would be impressive.

And in addition there is the whole imminent domain thing.

And the whole northern border thing. But few seriously suggest mining that because "Thems white people".

Using a static minefield would not be effective either, because unless it is realy wide, they will just follow a deer path, and if there were no deer paths, how thick will it be? The illegals use a metal detector, and chart a path for others. I would bet after they get good at it it would not take 5 minutes to cover a hundred yards to make a path, and no time to use it after that.

And we can lose track of our mines so that generations of people can go looking for them in the shifting sands. OOOh! What if a mexican official had an American mine buried in his yard? That would be funny/bad.

Or a bunch of US kids veering off course and hitting them with their ATVs.

Or cattle getting loose.

horseback at night.

or...

Honestly I am a much larger fan of using the militia to do it. The MMP worked, now what can we learn from it?

 

[Waitone]

If we can build and maintain an interstate road system, we can build a fence.

The question is, is a fence the most cost effective and efficient means of reducing criminal infiltration.

What is the political ramifications of a fence.

Like most security systems it is layers of security that do the trick. Putting everything into one humongous <insert provision of choice> can and will be circumvented. If congress and the president and the state department and corporations and one-world blissninny NGO's really wanted to fix the problem it would consist of mobile interdiction (harassment), cut off of all welfare bennies, doing away with anchor bennies, summary deportation, rabid workplace enforcement, severe sanctions against employes who hire criminal aliens, and a bounty system for fingering criminal aliens.

Problem is we ain't got the political will to fix the problem. So Bush and other politicians will play around the edges until we smoke LA, Phoenix, or NY. Then all hell will break loose and we'll begin a fox hunt featuring politicians rather than animals. We will begin to fix the problem when some notable politicians lose their jobs specifically over their failure to act.

 

[Randy in Arizona]

Waitone

Problem is we ain't got the political will to fix the problem. So Bush and other politicians will play around the edges until we smoke LA, Phoenix, or NY. Then all hell will break loose and we'll begin a fox hunt featuring politicians rather than animals.

I fear you are right, good sir. :banghead: :banghead:

[sarcasm mode]
Now LA would be a small loss, except for the Weatherby plant, Disneyland, and a few other spots, but darnit I'm downwind from there!
[/sarcasm mode]

 

[Crosshair]

I think Waitone has the right idea. The French learned in WWII that massive fixed defences where obsolete. Though fences in the "high traffic" areas might not be a bad idea.

 

[Blackburn]

Bwwahahahaha, mines?!

What a hilariousl idea.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

On the communist thing: Yes, they did it. Check out just how much of their GNP was spent on such annually. Then ask an economist at a university via email what that did to communist economies. Then add a like amount to the federal budget and ask the economist what that would do to the economy that you are a member of. Then ponder what happened to the communist countries that had all the wonderful fences.

I had this exact conversation with a professor of Russian history back as an undergrad.

The amount spent on border security by the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries was a small fraction of overall military spending. Saying that it was an appreciable percentage of those nations GDP is true to a certain extent, but you need to keep in mind that the total and per capita GDP's of those nations were very small compared to that of the USA. Bottom line: we can easily afford a secure border.

The fall of communism was dictated because the rocketing costs of security (police, intelligence, and military) undermined their economy.

No, it was dictated by the desire for freedom of the people of Poland, East Germany, Russia, etc. And again, border security was a small fraction of overall spending.

Besides all that, that's really what all freedom minded people need to be doing: adopting communist policies

Border security is not a "communist policy" any more than ownership of a firearm is "acting like a Nazi". Every nation has the right to secure borders.