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

The "it can be sawed" people should give up their homes since they can be easily destroyed in many ways. You house is a waste.

Well, I have to presume that a few folks here never bother to lock up their cars or homes seeing how many cars get stolen and homes that get broken into. How stupid the public is to put money in banks, they get robbed. I mean gosh, we will all be dead in 100 years,why bother doing anything at all? Just wallow in your own crapulance in bed!!

a reply to: Byrd

Electrify it, then.

originally posted by: network dude

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.

And airplanes can be brought down into buildings with box cutters. But somehow. most of them aren't.

It did happen, but you can't get box cutters on to a plane any more.

a reply to: thedigirati

I lock my house at night because my wife insists.

I don't lock up my cars. I live in a rural area and no one stops by here to mess with my vehicles. Better pickings in the "big city" - a town of a few thousand down the road a few miles.

My son trashed my car one night because he could not get in the house. Forgot his key. He banged on the front door, but we were asleep upstairs asleep, and in a field stone house noise does not carry well. He slept in my car all night with a backpack full of snacks...so trashed car.

originally posted by: thedigirati
Well, I have to presume that a few folks here never bother to lock up their cars or homes seeing how many cars get stolen and homes that get broken into. How stupid the public is to put money in banks, they get robbed. I mean gosh, we will all be dead in 100 years,why bother doing anything at all? Just wallow in your own crapulance in bed!!

See...I lock my home, though I do know anyone wanting to break in can pop the deadbolt in about 10 seconds....it's really easy. But I don't have bars on my windows or steel plated walls or a moat or such things because it would be an excessive waste of money and not make my house any more secure than it already is.

Some useful things I could do if I were gonna spend a bunch of money would be maybe to put a camera system in my house, reinforce the doorframe with a metal plate next to the dead bolt, maybe get an alarm system. These things might actually be helpful. Sure the first one would look pretty intimidating and makes a point and everyone around me would know I was serious about security but any actual criminals will still get in.

Building a wall across the continent is like the first one...sure it looks impressive, might stop a few people and will make some people feel safer. But it won't solve the problem the way actually addressing the causes of the problem would. You can't really stop people from getting in somewhere they want to go....but you can stop them from staying.

Either way wall, no wall it doesn't really matter. As long as people in america keep profiting from illegal immigration it won't stop. You could surround the entire country on all sides with death lasers and nukes and people would still get in as long as there's money to be saved by paying someone a slave wage to do work Americans should be doing.

a reply to: thedigirati
I don't lock my vehicle, it has a dead switch. By leaving it unlocked and with nothing inside to steal it avoids damage from people getting in.
My house is easy to get into as well, all houses are, just smash a window. The only way to be sure these days is CCTV to a phone app and calling the cops if you are away from home.

My house looks the poorest in my street though lol, haven't painted it for years, the local residents association hate me, well perhaps more tolerate me...million £££'s apartments here, no burglar would bother with my place.

On-topic, Hungary went for steel fences with razor wire on their 325 mile border, patrolled at all points by their army. It has worked keeping migrants out. Hungary is a poor country, just times the length of the fence and patrols by about 6 and the US could do the same.

You have 35,000 US troops sitting on their asses doing nothing in Germany, aside from a bit of drill, guard duty, eating at the base McDonalds, and partying when they have leave off base. They should be protecting your nation, not some imagined threat from Russia which really isn't happening.
Putin needs to sell natural gas to the EU, and most dirty Russian money is tied up in London.
Waste of good US troops in Germany, I'd be calling for it if I was a us citizen.

Well, I guess if we just install an invisible fence and place collars at strategically placed locations with a sign to please put these on if you plan on entering illegally will work. Might even cost a little less than $5 billion, but not everyone is literate so maybe loudspeakers with instructions on a loop.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Byrd

My personal opinion: we can't afford a wall until our dams, bridges, and roads are back in shape.

That said: your argument isn't factual insomuch as musings. WIthout your points being tested and costing done its no more valid than Trump saying a wall is the answer.

The two things I do know: walls are used to increase security the whole world over, often to great effect. And there is no security to save you from someone who is determined to bypass it.

There are other factors though at play, like crooked border patrol agents, you know a few nice payments will have a few turn a blind eye as holes are cut in the wall or tunnels secured, some won't even be payed they will be coerced through threats to family etc.

a reply to: Byrd

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

Anyone know?

originally posted by: UnendingVigilance
a reply to: Grambler

Its like people arent even reading the article it clearly says,

"While the design currently being constructed was informed by what we learned in the prototypes, it does not replicate those designs," said Waldman. "The steel bollard design is internally reinforced with materials that require time and multiple industrial tools to breach, thereby providing U.S. Border Patrol agents additional response time..."

THEY'RE PROTOTYPES PEOPLE. They show what they look like but their composite will not be the same.

Those are just excuses pro open border people use to not get a wall built. We could get a durable barrier up and with drones, manpower and sensors, be able to monitor and react to attempts to destroy, go under or over the barrier with a quick response.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Byrd

Electrify it, then.

I'm not in favor it it in the first place... and there's the issue of how much that will cost and how resilient the electrical part is... and where do you run the cables.

I'm in favor of revamped immigration policies and additional personnel and drones (just like most of the people who live on the border.)

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?

That would be Trump. You may remember a quote about beautiful steel in one of his tweets

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.

Its also really easy to just kick in a locked front door, and yet locks still successfully deters theft.

by that logic I’ll never be rich so I shouldn’t even go to work

a reply to: Byrd

I'm also in favor of revamping immigration policies and I think most people who are for a fence are on board with that. Always has been the case.

Would not the best solution be a combination of physical barriers and other things like drones? I think it makes sense that it would be a valuable tool for the Border Patrol also.

It was not that long ago the Left was for all of the above as I am as a moderate. Why the change?

A banks safe can be easily cut open with the right tools, just as a steel fence can be. The vault works because it's contained inside physical barriers and complimented by an alarm system. Anyone could go to a industrial tool supplier and purchase what they need to get inside a vault quickly and easily. They don't because of the building and the alarm. A metal fence by the way can be easily fitted with sensors to set off alarms if it's cut or damaged. Same as the door to a bank.

The cost of the fence is actually a false issue IMO. The money spent is recycled in the US and local economies in the same way recovery after a disaster can actually benefit an economy in the long run.

This has been going on since Reagan without either side actually being willing to tackle it once and for all. Isn't the real reason that both sides want to keep it as a tool to bludgeon each other with? I like the idea of compromise, but for decades now partisans from both sides have made it impossible.

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?

originally posted by: Byrd

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?

That would be Trump. You may remember a quote about beautiful steel in one of his tweets

Tungsten steel works best.

originally posted by: timequake

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.

Its also really easy to just kick in a locked front door, and yet locks still successfully deters theft.

Locks keep the honest man honest.

originally posted by: Grambler
Exactly.

In addition, how long would it take someone to saw thru?

The wall isnt a stand alone, you will also have borders agents patroling. They would have a far better chance of caatching illegals attempting to say thru steel than they would them just running over an open area.

And gven this logic, drones can also be easily aavoided, as can border agents. So should we not "waste" money on them as well?

So here's what you're overlooking.

If you're sawing through these slats, it only takes a few minutes per slat, and a couple dollars in tools.

I did the math earlier today, for the couple hundred miles that this $5 billion would cover, you would be looking at approximately $70,000 per slat. It can be taken down in a few minutes by $20 in tools. They don't even have to cross, it's on the border and they're on the other side where Border Patrol can't get them. Vandals can take out every other slat, and people can then squeeze through, while Border Patrol won't be able to chase them in the other direction. Repairing it would then cost a lot of money.

It's just not effective.

As far as the other part, that armed guards are what matter. That's not cost effective either. Putting aside the cost of infrastructure to get people to/from their posts, to actually guard at a density that keeps people out (say, the same density as a prison wall) you would need one person every 150 feet or so. That's 35 people per mile, with 2000 miles that's 70,000 people on duty at any given time. With travel time to posts, you would probably need 6 shifts to cover everyone (2 hours travel to your post, 4 hours on duty, 2 hours travel home, for an 8 hour day). Doing this would mean a staff of guards of 420,000 people. Plus management and support and you're looking at needing about 600,000 BP members. At an average salary of $55,000 per year, plus pensions, payroll taxes, and so on, that's about $55 billion per year in payroll.

That is a significant expense, additionally the border patrol only has about 18,000 people on staff, and due to needing to hire people that can't be bribed, have the right mentality, etc, can realistically only hire about 1000 people per year, since most are totally unqualified. How exactly are we supposed to go from 18,000 to 600,000 guards? Even a conservative 18,000 to 40,000 is wholly unrealistic.

There is no way to obtain the manpower to guard the border.