Trump's border wall prototypes virtually impassable, pass rigorous testing

originally posted by: daskakik
You have no idea what actually happens. Most people don't go without having a coyote, even though you are instructed to not point him out if caught and say that he either left you stranded or that you are all on your own. I'm willing to bet that there wouldn't be a significant drop if all you need is a ladder. The coyotes will provide.

But that's discounting the other technological defenses that can be utilized once the groundwork (big sturdy wall) has been placed. Rail-mounted drones, sensors, & cameras can continually monitor pretty much the entire length of the wall - thereby alerting border patrol offices as soon as there is a breach/potential breach. Hell with the level of technology we have at our disposal these days - you can even have flying drones that can be auto-activated when a breach is detected, and the drone can immediately fly to the point of breach and find/continually track the illegals and transmit coordinates/video feed to the nearest border patrol outpost.

The wall - while on it's own I firmly believe will still do a good job of deterring would-be illegals from even making the attempt - will also provide the frame-work for the technological defenses to be properly utilized. Something that simply could not be done with a simple fence.

7th century fixes to 21st century problems will not work.

originally posted by: hoss53
7th century fixes to 21st century problems will not work.

See post above regarding the wall being a necessary framework in order for 21st century technology to be used as an additional solution. A little bit of common sense goes a long way.

a reply to: Navieko

The other tech doesn't need the wall and www.abovetopsecret.com...

The wall on its own will not deter anyone.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Navieko
The other tech doesn't need the wall and www.abovetopsecret.com...

The wall on its own will not deter anyone.

Your opinion. There are quite a few good reasons a big sturdy wall would be necessary to effectively use the various types of technology.

1. A means of delaying/stalling would-be illegals while the technology (sensors, drones, cameras) are activated and do their thing, while also giving time for border patrol units to get alerted, prepared & positioned. Any delay is vital here, otherwise illegals will just run straight past and get out-of-sight before anything can be done.

2. Obviously a decent vantage point (high up) is required for these technologies to be effective and to be protected.

3. If implementing a micro rail system (key to automation/detection), a sturdy structure is clearly necessary (as well as the height advantage)

These are just the 3 most obvious points I have time to think of right now but I'm sure there are many more good reasons.

And to say the wall on it's own will not deter anyone is just being flat-out disingenuous and I'd easily make a good wager that a wall, even on it's own, would result in a good % taken off the yearly averages.

a reply to: Navieko

And that is just your opinion.

1. A fence would stall them.

2. Towers

3. If...

You might think it is disingenuous but people who are willing to cross 1000s of miles are not going to blink an eye at 30 feet of wall if a rope or ladder is made available.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Human trafficking will stop when US stop allying bad guys and causing blockades on other countries hunting them down. Simple as that.

Yes. A fence will stall people. That means the chances of that group of people being caught in a close proximity of either side of the fence goes up. Pretending like it has to stop everyone from crossing completely is so disingenuous, I can't believe it is being presented as an argument.
Businesses use walls and barbed wire for this reason. Can you get over a wall and barbed wire? Sure. But it's a pain in the ass, and it takes time and effort, and the chances of getting caught go way up.
A combination of walls and security works. Noone is proposing to have a giant wall with no sort of security or monitoring. These arguments are naive or disingenuous.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Who exactly are you replying to? Someone pro-wall said a fence couldn't hold the tech.

I never said it has to stop everyone. That is a strawman.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Navieko
1. A fence would stall them.

How can I take your opinion seriously when you make such silly arguments as above? Tell me how many seconds an easily climbable/jump-able/breakable fence will stall someone trying to cross, verses a big bloody wall that is specifically designed not to be easily climbable?

Aside from that, towers/fences would severely limit the types of technology that can be used in deterring would-be illegals from crossing (such as rail systems)... There is just no way around that.

a reply to: Navieko

Who said it was an easily climbed fence?

You are making the rail system seem like it is a done deal. "If" they never use one then the wall isn't needed.

a reply to: face23785

Since this is a conspiracy site, is anyone else slightly concerned this wall is meant to keep people in, not out?

a reply to: face23785

Since this is a conspiracy site, is anyone else slightly concerned this wall is meant to keep people in, not out?

a reply to: dragonridr

I am correct, fences and walls will not stop the flow of drugs or illegal immigrants into the country.

Back when they first suggested a fence along the boarder, and it was a popular election promise that only went so far. But what was seen, was that areas that they built up the fence and had a heavy presence, did see a slowing down in both drugs and illegal immigrants. But there was a far greater increase in other states that were slated for the fence building. And after they were done, those transporting both people and drugs into the USA found other ways in, via the water ways, and through underground, by tunneling under the fencing or walls that exist along the border. And it got far more dangerous where many of both started to carry military hardware.

And if you look at where such is coming through, the wall will have the hardest trouble going through, mountainous and isolated areas where there is very few border patrol vehicles. It is a branch that is far too understaffed and underfunded.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

So your argument is if we don't make it easy for drug dealers to cross they will just cross in areas that are more remote????? See this increases odds of being caught because in remote areas droan's would be much more effective. You have someone crossing a desert heading towards your wall odds are pretty good they will try to cross.

The more difficult we make it for drugs to cross the border the greater the odds it will be intercepted by border patrol. There are serious problems with heroine making it in to the US. And with a shipment there is good odds someone will OD because of it.

So even stopping one shipment will save lives. And frankly the argument they will simply criss somewhere else is stupid. Because I'm going to say border patrol is going to allocate man power based on where people cross.

Just saying :-) ... all that money on a wall to be thwarted by people with some ladders and access to a scrapyard....

If Trumps for it, I'm against it.

I will remove my garage doors in protest.


Why don't we just give our marines some R&R beach time after they wipe out the cartels?

Almost shocking the number of comments from people who clearly didn't read the article or even the entire OP. Almost. Then I remembered where I posted it.

Just keep shutting out information that doesn't conform to what you want to hear in your little echo chambers. The rest of the country is long past the election, while you're still kicking and screaming.

Personally I think the wall is a good FIRST step in keeping out cartels and illegals. But there is still so much more that needs to be done that its not even funny anymore.
I would personally like to see a multi-teared system on fines for businesses who hire illegals. Basically what I mean is based on the number of employees your company employs will determine how much of a fine and or jail time you will be facing. Say $50K/illegal with up to 5 years in jail for companies with less than 50 employees. $100K/illegal with a minimum jail time of 3 years for companies with more than 50 but less than 100 employees. $500K with a minimum jail time of 10 years for companies with more than 100 but less than 250 employees $5M (5 Million just to be clear)/illegal with a minimum jail time of 15 years for companies of over 250 employees. I would even take it a step farther and say that franchises should be hit harder than your average mom and pop business. maybe to the tune of 10 - 20X the fines.

I also think that any mayor or governor or senator who run these sanctuary cities/states should be fined and be forced to serve jail time for violating federal law... but that's maybe a topic best left to another thread.

I realize that those fines and jail times are slightly (ok maybe highly would be the proper word) unrealistic, and it would take years to get anything even close to this passed into law. but damn it would certainly take the profit out of hiring illegals don't you think.

a reply to: face23785

I know, right?
www.abovetopsecret.com...