Anybody else ever wonder, given the degree to which we refuse to adequately patrol the borders, just how easy it'd be to sneak a nuke, a dirty bomb, or a virus into the country?
1. To me the lack of border security signals our government really
doesn't consider this type of attack as a threat.And 2. the fear monger done by our media to keep us watching their
commercials is more real and more potent than the threat from this
type of attack.
.
You all have convinced me that immunization booster shots when crossing borders, checking airplane passengers for weapons, background checks associated with passports, and checking luggage should all be stopped. Its a quality of life thing.
Right. Because ANYONE said any of that.
The original poster is implying that the border protections are inadequate and they're not doing enough. What we're saying is lets not check everything, but that they're doing a reasonable amount.
When i went to Mauritania I got
Hepatitis A
Typhoid
Yellow fever
Meningococcus
Polio
Hepatitis B
Rabies (they wouldn't give me a tag)
MMR
Tetnus
and had my wisdom teeth pulled out just so they wouldnt act up over there.
When i went to Canada i go
a sandwich for the road.
Why? Because being in canada is pretty much the same as being in the us as far as health is concerned. What side of the border you're on doesn't matter for either medicine or security. The canadians are not letting anyone come into their country whilynilly or handing out surplus soviet fissile material. You go through pretty much the same screening process as you do when you go into the us and its just as hard to get your hands on WMD's in canada as it is in the us.
Mexico? I could set up a warehouse there breeding radioactive fruit bats carrying super-rabies for a 20 dollar a week bribe.
So yes, a little more scrutiny on one border than the other is certainly called for.
Its important to note that the Canadian border is a problem as well. The Millenium bomber violated US borders and came from Canada.
And what would you propose to do to stop it?
I really, really don't understand why we don't have robots
monitoring and securing our borders. It would be so easy
and very cheap.
.
And >look< what the S. Koreans have.
.
Its a complex problem and needs to be discussed. No one person is going to have the best solution.
Well.. start by outlining what you think the problem is and how severe it is.
Cost- how much more do you want to spend?
Benefit- how much safer would it really make us?
Risk- What could possibly go wrong/ how likely are we to be attacked?
I'm quite familiar with the math of risk mitigation. The point I'm making, though, is that its difficult to get good numbers on that stuff because its political suicide to write about it.
On the contrary, stirring up vauge fears of an imminent attack and using terrorism as an excuse to clamp down on people the voters don't like anyway for a variety of reasons (illegal immigrants) is SOP for getting elected in some areas. I don't think that the blame is on a lack of ability to advocate for more border security but on the simple fact of diminishing returns: we're already doing a lot to keep us safe and doing a lot more will result in very little improvement.
Your statement doesn't make sense.
Yes. It does. You happen to disagree with it. That's not the same thing. Stop this meaningless, disingenuous, and belittling of what other people say because you can't handle a difference of opinion based on ideas.
Doxy oxidizing free way ultraviolet <--- Does not make any sense.
"Republican whackos constantly advocate the position you're taking" makese sense, even if you disagree with it.
The statement that this is some sort of third rail of politics makes sense, it just happens to be blatantly wrong.
We've got about 20,000 border security officers. ... By no means does that qualify as "doing a lot to keep us safe"
20,000 people isn't a lot? Its certainly a lot. You don't think its enough. I do.
And as i said, you don't need to be as worried about canada as you are mexico. If you can hatch/carry out the plot in canada you can do it just as easily in the us.
As far as "doing a lot more will result in very little improvement", I have absolutely no idea how you reached that conclusion, but it sounds like you just made it up.
Its a conclusion of mine, and many others. If you think I'm wrong, show me how you plan to avoid the diminishing returns.
Finally, as was said before, increasing US border security will benefit poor people south of the border. Its disingenuous to dismiss the benefit it will bring to them simply because employers in the US might be forced to pay a living wage to US citizens.
Which i haven't done, so calling me out on it is completely nonsensical.
Ummm... The people watching the borders do get to use technology, right? I mean, things like radars, cameras, satellites? Should not that make watching a few miles of coast rather simple, or at least relatively doable? Or are you only "doing a lot" if you have people standing at the border physically, watching with their own eyes for evil commie mutant traitors wanting to Destroy Your Freedom(tm)?
Its clear that you have a very, very different definition of "doing a lot" than I do.
You want to make it relative. I see a lot or not a lot as based on an absolute. 20,000 and 12 billion dollars is a lot. Its the biggest (in terms of sworn armed officers) police force that the federal government has.
In your world
Knock that off. I live in the same world you do. I've tried to keep the rar to a minimum and keep this based on ideas but you refuse to make this about ideas, you want to make it about insults.
In my world, increasing the percentage of the border that is under "full control" -significantly increases- the effectiveness of the border patrol.
... thats a tautology.
Tell me what you would need to do to bring the entire us and canadian border under full control.
In your world, it decreases that effectiveness (since having border security do more makes it less effective in your world).
I did not say this.
I did not imply this
I did not hint at this
I did NOTHING that could lead a sane, honest, rational person to conclude this statement was indicative of my position.
Are you having trouble understanding what diminishing returns are? It doesn't mean that you get LESS effective by spending more. It means that you get less INCREASE in effectiveness the more you spend.
You did bring up illegal migration, which is all about decreasing the wage business owners have to pay.
I brought up that it happens and that its one of the things that the border patrol stops (indeed, what they spend the vast majority of their time doing).
I mentioned illegal immigration-----> Something happens-----> I don't believe that illegal immigration drives down the wages of low end jobs. Its the Gnome underwear school of reading comprehension.
You are really, REALLY cramming ideas into my mouth. If you want to talk to someone you need to stop treating them as this straw man left wing whacko boogey man you have in your head.
Anybody else ever wonder, given the degree to which we refuse to adequately patrol the borders, just how easy it'd be to sneak a nuke, a dirty bomb, or a virus into the country?
Nope.
1.) The New York Police Department has 36,000 uniformed officers. The US Border Patrol has about 20,000 officers. So, you're wrong that the US Border Patrol is the largest police force.
Last time I checked The new york police force was NOT a federal department.
Its the biggest (in terms of sworn armed officers) police force that the federal government has.
2.) increasing the amount of border under "operational control" won't decrease the returns/dollar. It will increase the returns/dollar. Diminished returns won't happen until after the percentage of border under "full control" reaches 100%. Marginal returns will decrease, but marginal returns aren't relevant. If they were, we'd be better off reducing police forces to one person.
The goals you're ostensibly worried about are terror attacks and illegal immigration. Doubling the number of officers would cost more than double the current budget but would not halve either goal.
3.) The economic research has already been done. Illegal migration drives down the wages of low end jobs. Harvard economist and recognized leader in the study of economics of migration, George Borjas has written several studies on this.
The problem isn't your research. The problem is that i didn't disagree with you here. You completely made up my position and have continued to do so after it was pointed out to you.
|
BNW, you're wrong in many points
1.) The New York Police Department has 36,000 uniformed officers. The US Border Patrol has about 20,000 officers. So, you're wrong that the US Border Patrol is the largest police force.
In defense of BNW, he did specify it was the "police force that the federal government has". The NY Police Dept is not federal.
2.) increasing the amount of border under "operational control" won't decrease the returns/dollar. It will increase the returns/dollar. Diminished returns won't happen until after the percentage of border under "full control" reaches 100%. Marginal returns will decrease, but marginal returns aren't relevant. If they were, we'd be better off reducing police forces to one person.
Actually, you will see a decrease in the returns/dollar as the percent of "operational control" increases. As the area covered increases, the possible avenues for transport decreases. Not every point in the border is usable for such activity, and as such you will see a decrease in ROI as more of the border comes under "operational control". Ad into that the increase in people on the ground will also be accompanied by an increase in the support mechanisms and personnel who are not on the ground. This causes an additional increase in cost above and beyond simply getting more than 1 border guard for every 3 miles. So you are looking at a model where the overall cost continues to increase where the associated increase in efficiency diminishes.
BNW, you're wrong in many points
1.) The New York Police Department has 36,000 uniformed officers. The US Border Patrol has about 20,000 officers. So, you're wrong that the US Border Patrol is the largest police force.
He said largest police force in federal control. NYPD is not under federal control. Also, the border patrol has thousands of unpaid volunteer watchers.
Your statement doesn't make sense.Yes. It does. You happen to disagree with it. That's not the same thing. Stop this meaningless, disingenuous, and belittling of what other people say because you can't handle a difference of opinion based on ideas.
Wait, wait...is this the first time you've argued with LT? Oh man. Have fun big guy! *walks away shaking his head and chuckling*
the border patrol has thousands of unpaid volunteer watchers.And the NYPD has Neighborhood Watches.
You say that like it invalidates my point.
I just don't think that anything short of lining up soldiers, shoulder to shoulder, across the entirety of our national borders will guarantee the security of them. Doing that would be outrageously cost prohibitive. If there are any weaknesses in border security a smart terrorist will exploit them.
I think the smarter way to fight the threats you speak of, which no one disagrees are threats, is to disincentivize them through foreign and domestic policy. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups want to destroy us because of a perceived presence in their holy land and our unwavering support of Israel. Solution part 1: stop supporting Israel. Solution part 2: invest in sustainable energy infrastructure (solar, wind, heck even nuclear) so we aren't reliant on foreign oil and thus don't have to go to war for it.
As far as Mexico, a lot of the problems there have to do with police corruption and their unwillingness to partner with us in patrolling the border. Solution part 1: legalize a wide array of recreational drugs, neutering the cartels and providing a revenue source for the US Gov't.
Overall though, securing the border is a matter of using the manpower we have more effectively, which may in fact result in a reduction of needed border patrol agents. A heavier concentration in trouble areas, and random distribution/patrols elsewhere. Invest in cameras and computer software to detect suspicious activity. Just ideas off the top of my head.
You wrote
I don't believe that illegal immigration drives down the wages of low end jobs.
No. He didn't. Way to take something out of context. He wrote that as an example of HOW you perverted what he actually said.
That'd be like if I said "No one is saying we should let child rapists go free" and you quoted me saying "we should let child rapists go free". That's incredibly disingenuous and prevents other people from having an actual conversation or debate with you.
And the relevance of that [[border security having the most armed sworn officers of any federal police force] is what?
Well, its hard to argue that we don't do a lot about border security when its the thing we've sunk the most federal officers into. More than child trafficking, organized crime, drugs, firearms....
You wrote
I don't believe that illegal immigration drives down the wages of low end jobs.
Yes. First of all, I said that as example of you blatantly making up things people didn't say. Secondly, you apparently need to use time travel to make up crap because this was said IN RESPONSE to you blatantly making stuff up.
Its not your ideas that people are dismissing out of hand: its you. You're not talking with anyone you're ranting AT them without listening to anything they say.
|
|
Moving into areas that are less suitable for transport, the cost of putting them under "operational control" decreases as drones and satellites will suffice.
Interesting ... considering you earlier stated:
Yes, they get to use radars, cameras, satellites, etc.And when they see something they need to respond to, they need to get to the site quickly.
When there is one agent per every three miles and they need 10 agents to arrive at site, that means that there will be one agent present, two agents three miles away, two more agents six miles away, two more agents nine miles away, two more agents twelve miles away, two more agents 15 miles away. To get 10 agents on site, agents will need to come from as far away as 15 miles. Since most of the land is broken, assume 40mph travel. That's about twenty minutes to arrive at site. Then, they need to be positioned, informed of what's going on, etc. It could take half an hour total for them to be ready to go.
In no sense of the word is a half an hour response time "doing a lot".
It does. You tried to make the point that volunteers increase the actual manpower of the US Border Patrol to a level above the NYPD force (I assume that was your point, elsewise what was the relevance of your point?), but just as volunteers increase the manpower of the US Border Patrol, volunteers ALSO increase the manpower of the NYPD.
You say that like it invalidates my point.
See. You have to knock that s*+~ off. Stop putting s!+~ in peoples mouths. My ONLY POINT was that there are really more than 20k people at the disposal of the border patrol when you count volunteers. That's all I said and that's all I meant.
So, no, the NYPD having neighborhood watches doesn't make those volunteers disappear.
As to your other inane ramblings, Al Qaeda can want to convert America as much as it wants, it would have no interest in the US if it weren't for our imperialist practices. No matter what you do someone, somewhere, is going to hate you. Using that as a reason to invest billions if not trillions in ineffective border defense is pure insanity.
But whatever. It's obvious you don't actually want any discussion or debate in this thread but rather a soapbox from which you can shout people down. Having encountered you before on these boards I should have known this coming in, so really it's my fault. I'm done here.
|
|
Moving into areas that are less suitable for transport, the cost of putting them under "operational control" decreases as drones and satellites will suffice.Interesting ... considering you earlier stated:
Yes, they get to use radars, cameras, satellites, etc.And when they see something they need to respond to, they need to get to the site quickly.
When there is one agent per every three miles and they need 10 agents to arrive at site, that means that there will be one agent present, two agents three miles away, two more agents six miles away, two more agents nine miles away, two more agents twelve miles away, two more agents 15 miles away. To get 10 agents on site, agents will need to come from as far away as 15 miles. Since most of the land is broken, assume 40mph travel. That's about twenty minutes to arrive at site. Then, they need to be positioned, informed of what's going on, etc. It could take half an hour total for them to be ready to go.
In no sense of the word is a half an hour response time "doing a lot".We're talking about areas that are poor for transport - areas where the temperature and lack of humidity make entering dangerous. The probability that anyone would be these places is very low.
So, why do you find my statement "interesting"?
As these areas are used in the calculation for the 1 border guard every 3 miles value, and in your previous post you expanded on the fact that agents needed to be on site when a situation arises that needs to be responded to, I just find it interesting that now you advocate for reliance on technology for some areas, but require feet on the ground for others. It does seem to go against your previous statements. It also nullifies your 1 guard every 3 miles point; the value would be much lower when one removes those areas which would be acceptable for technological observation alone.
Please explain the relevance of your point that 20,000 doesn't include volunteer forces to what was actually being discussed (that NYPD is larger than the US Border Patrol) - especially given that, just as 20,000 doesn't include volunteers, 35,000 doesn't include volunteers either.
I see no relevance. So, I tried to interpret your point such that it would actually be relevant. Then, for my efforts in doing that, I'm told that I'm putting words in your mouth and looking for a soapbox.
That the number is over 20k is relevant to your "calculation" of 1 agent every 3 miles.
Why is 1 agent every 3/4 miles not sufficient? I mean, in the desert they can practically see one another at that distance. What is sufficient to you? Shoulder to shoulder?
Just out of curiosity, why the massive obsession with physical border control? I was under the impression that the 9/11 hijackers were here legally on visas -- not one of them crossed from Mexico or Canada. Further, it would be far easier to come over on student visas, build a WMD at a U.S. university with the requisite materials and technical facilities, and not have to cross any borders at all -- certainly not have to contend with ravening drug cartels in Mexico who are likely better armed than the average terrorist cell. Yet there's no call for the creation of a massive internal federal police force specifically to safeguard university science departments.
Fortifying the physical border might make people feel safer in a siege-mentality kind of way, but I don't see it as a particularly useful or cost-effecive way to safeguard against terrorism. We catch a lot more terrorists through intelligence than we do through physical security measures.
meatrace, what is sufficient to me is that enough border agents can arrive at any border jumping event within sufficient time to respond appropriately to the event - even when multiple such border jumping events are happening a few miles within reach of each other and that the cost of providing such protection does not exceed the cost of potential loss (X) times the probability of the event (Y).
If that's the case, we already have infinitely more border security than we need, since the likely loss of such an incursion is virtually nill.
Just out of curiosity, why the massive obsession with physical border control? I was under the impression that the 9/11 hijackers were here legally on visas -- not one of them crossed from Mexico or Canada. Further, it would be far easier to come over on student visas, build a WMD at a U.S. university with the requisite materials and technical facilities, and not have to cross any borders at all -- certainly not have to contend with ravening drug cartels in Mexico who are likely better armed than the average terrorist cell. Yet there's no call for the creation of a massive internal federal police force specifically to safeguard university science departments.
Fortifying the physical border might make people feel safer in a siege-mentality kind of way, but I don't see it as a particularly useful or cost-effecive way to safeguard against terrorism. We catch a lot more terrorists through intelligence than we do through physical security measures.
Excellent points all. However, for coming up with an idea for how the terrorists could be more effective, you have raised suspicion that you may be a terrorist. The DHS will disappear you forthwith. It's been nice knowing you, Kirth *salute*.