What it would really take for the US to build the Wall if approved.

a reply to: AboveBoard
I did not reall understand what that poster was on about. I did not want to continue discussing the topic to avoid dragging the thread off into a discussion of common mathamatical symbols.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: amazing

A wall/fence by itself is nothing.

That's not quite true, especially if you look at it from the perspective of someone considering joining a caravan, walking thousands of miles, knowing that at the end lies a 30-50 ft wall. It's massive deterrent.

And there's a point to that. I think most people understand there is a fence and border patrol and it's not easy to cross. But look at places where a wall could be considered to be a success, like Israel. Their border with the Palestinian territories is not just wall. They have towers and listening posts, all kinds of surveillance measures and drones and armed guards and stuff I haven't even mentioned here. A wall by itself would be useless there. Same with our Mexican border.

Once again, this is really outside of the scope of this thread. This thread is not about if walls are effective, but the mechanics of building a wall after Congressional authorizeation has occured.

Anything to add to the topic?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Point. Or just say 3145 km. Or if you really have to 3.145

Be happy the measurement is in metric. You can meet halfway and accept a comma instead of a decimal as the thousands-placement.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Yes, bits of the wall are build. Please reread the OP. It states the requirements for a wall that spans the entire US Mexico border.

Now, if the go-ahead was given today, and funding was approved, any competent Program manager (using PMI FAC/PPM methods per US Federal govt. PGM standards) would most likely begin releasing contracted teams to the areas where the wall could be constructed immediately, while working in parallel with the legal issue of eminent domain and environmental issues with the EPA to resolve issues where construction could not begin.

As for enhancement, they were not listed as in scope for the requirements for the wall contruction, but they could be picked up by a different project or program.

Thanks for your comments.

Double

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: AboveBoard


In Europe the use of decimals and commas is reversed from what it is in America.

I'm kind of amazed this is the first time I've seen people have an issue with the difference on this site.

I looked this up.

Europe:Latvia, Lithuania, EstoniaRussia, Ukraine, Poland and other countries use the "," for what the rest of the world uses the ".".

Boy, I bet this has caused some big trouble in the past....

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: amazing

A wall/fence by itself is nothing.

That's not quite true, especially if you look at it from the perspective of someone considering joining a caravan, walking thousands of miles, knowing that at the end lies a 30-50 ft wall. It's massive deterrent.

And there's a point to that. I think most people understand there is a fence and border patrol and it's not easy to cross. But look at places where a wall could be considered to be a success, like Israel. Their border with the Palestinian territories is not just wall. They have towers and listening posts, all kinds of surveillance measures and drones and armed guards and stuff I haven't even mentioned here. A wall by itself would be useless there. Same with our Mexican border.

Once again, this is really outside of the scope of this thread. This thread is not about if walls are effective, but the mechanics of building a wall after Congressional authorizeation has occured.

Anything to add to the topic?

I think it's on topic as this relates to the question...what is a wall? and What kind of wall do we need? Is a fence enough? Do we have money for all of the other more important things relating to the wall...like towers, cameras, drones, listening posts/sensors, etc. You can't talk about Mechanics of building a wall without defining what is the wall. And that's where I think this topic has to go. You get 5 billion for a wall..great. Does that include all the other stuff, if not. How big is that wall now?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: amazing

A wall/fence by itself is nothing.

That's not quite true, especially if you look at it from the perspective of someone considering joining a caravan, walking thousands of miles, knowing that at the end lies a 30-50 ft wall. It's massive deterrent.

And there's a point to that. I think most people understand there is a fence and border patrol and it's not easy to cross. But look at places where a wall could be considered to be a success, like Israel. Their border with the Palestinian territories is not just wall. They have towers and listening posts, all kinds of surveillance measures and drones and armed guards and stuff I haven't even mentioned here. A wall by itself would be useless there. Same with our Mexican border.

Once again, this is really outside of the scope of this thread. This thread is not about if walls are effective, but the mechanics of building a wall after Congressional authorizeation has occured.

Anything to add to the topic?

I think it's on topic as this relates to the question...what is a wall? and What kind of wall do we need? Is a fence enough? Do we have money for all of the other more important things relating to the wall...like towers, cameras, drones, listening posts/sensors, etc. You can't talk about Mechanics of building a wall without defining what is the wall. And that's where I think this topic has to go. You get 5 billion for a wall..great. Does that include all the other stuff, if not. How big is that wall now?

If you reread the OP under the assumptions sections I lay out what the scope of the wall is for the sake of this arguement:

The first draft Homeland Security specifications for the wall is that it be either a solid concrete wall or a see–through structure, “physically imposing in height,” ideally 30 feet high but no less than 18 feet, sunk at least six feet into the ground to prevent tunneling under it; that it should not be scalable with even sophisticated climbing aids; and that it should withstand prolonged attacks with impact tools, cutting tools, and torches. The cost of the wall is estimated at $21.6 billion.(2)

That is why I said your comments, though valid, are still out of scope for the sake of this discussion.

Thanks for the input.

a reply to: FilthyUSMonkey

Dunno what it would take for the US to build the Wall, but its certainly the silly stupid sort of thing American govts do.

Do many Americans really think its going to work and keep lower classes out the US??

I can appreciate the politicians are stupid enough to think it will because they are so far out of touch with reality they have no idea but surely ordinary everyday Americans don't really think its going to work do they??

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: AboveBoard

In Europe the use of decimals and commas is reversed from what it is in America.

I'm kind of amazed this is the first time I've seen people have an issue with the difference on this site.

Pretty sure the US uses , as a thousand separator and . for decimal as well.

Would someone stop this madness and confirm!!!!!!