What's wrong...

:

..@gmail.com eorge H.

d that it would be hopelessly ineffective and the environmental damage woul d be huge.

all would reduce the number of border patrol agents needed to stop illegal border crossings. And also places where erecting a wall would cost more tha n it saved.

ould be large.

re are around 1.8 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions embodied within a k ilogram of steel. That means the steel would contribute a further 4.1 milli on metric tons of CO2.

that a kilogram of steel would contain 1.8 Kg of CO2. I could believe 1.8 grams, but have a problem with steel containing more CO2 than steel.

at's what they're talking about. Concrete is the worst at 900 Lbs CO2 per c ubic yard, and a cubic yard doesn't get you much in any kind of constructio n, you need a bunch of them.

.
s

GET LOST!

There is certainly a lot of emotionally loaded language. The denialist prop aganda machine seems to be good at digging out - or inventing - rabid envir onmentalist rantings. John Larkin claims that environmentalist want to take us back to the Stone Age, which isn't something I've ever seen in the envi ronmentalist articles I've read.

That's rational.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman
Loading thread data ...

Yeah, sure they are.

Reply to
krw

:
:

e:

|
|
|
|
|
|
h
e

t would be hopelessly ineffective and the environmental damage would be hug e.

ogy. Almost everyone knows they're 10-20 years behind the curve in all they do, and any advances they make are by adopting technology and techniques f rom the civilian recreational industry. Any arborist can tell you in 5 seco nds how to get over that joke using low tech gear like ropes, and, if you g o mechanized, a bucket truck on the Mexican side will make even shorter wor k of it. You've been conned, brainless.

The most practical conveyance is probably helicopter. They can drop maybe 1

6 people per trip several hundred meter inside the U.S., into an ad hoc lan ding zone they activate wirelessly, and will evade radars and motion sensor s. It won't take them any time to get bunches over the wall and into waitin g transports to exit the area rapidly.
Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 4:00:07 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:

16 people per trip several hundred meter inside the U.S., into an ad hoc l anding zone they activate wirelessly, and will evade radars and motion sens ors. It won't take them any time to get bunches over the wall and into wait ing transports to exit the area rapidly.

If I wene designing the wall, I would deploy geophones to detect digging and audio sensors to detect any unusual noises such as helicopters. Maybe have a couple of vehicle mounted ground penetrating radars and do a scan e very month or so of the most likely areas where tunnels might be used.

Helicopters are unlikely to be used, as the cost would be high and the cha nce of capture or destruction would be too high.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

The Israelis have some experience. I'm sure Trump could enlist their help. A nice big lake would help, too.

Yeah, they could use a Space Shuttle, too. Or maybe one of Kim's rockets. But more likely a shipping container.

Reply to
krw

be 16 people per trip several hundred meter inside the U.S., into an ad hoc landing zone they activate wirelessly, and will evade radars and motion se nsors. It won't take them any time to get bunches over the wall and into wa iting transports to exit the area rapidly.

ng and audio sensors to detect any unusual noises such as helicopters. May be have a couple of vehicle mounted ground penetrating radars and do a scan every month or so of the most likely areas where tunnels might be used.

hance of capture or destruction would be too high.

GPR are too slow, it would take forever and a day to scan the area. As for the sensors, it would be very easy to harass the system with false alarms t o the point the border patrol just shuts them off. Helicopters are relative ly cheap when the cost is spread out over a lot of people. They would not b uy the helicopter, they would lease it.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

As the entire planet makes an exodus AWAY from the use of landmines, this DeArmond idiot thinks they are a viable solution to some imagined problem.

Reply to
Long Hair

Yet another 100% uneducated, 100% ineducable, therefore self retarded DeArmond crack.

Reply to
Long Hair

I don't think you've fully thought this through. Imagine 10 years from now when some Obama MkII may be in office and you get flooded with claims for compensation from all the wouldbe wetbacks who lost legs trying to enter the US. The Democrats would be bound to compensate them all fully - with YOUR money. A wall doesn't carry the same financial risks.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

I thought it through...

We let them cross. When they do, we catch them and there begins a three stage handling process.

First time: French style trebuche... short toss... they can use their baggage for padding.

Second time: Good old fashioned American Circus Cannon. Small charge for just a bit more distance than the trebuche.

Now they are easier to spot because they are limping.

Third time: Same circus cannon... bigger charge... no padding.

Reply to
Long Hair

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.