SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-you-build-it-they-will-come...and-cut-through-it dept.
Smugglers have found an easy way to get through the vertical steel tube Mexican border wall. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/smugglers-are-sawing-through-new-sections-of-trumps-border-wall/2019/11/01/25bf8ce0-fa72-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html
The breaches have been made using a popular cordless household tool known as a reciprocating saw that retails at hardware stores for as little as $100. When fitted with specialized blades, the saws can slice through one of the barrier's steel-and-concrete bollards in minutes, according to the agents, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the barrier-defeating techniques.
After cutting through the base of a single bollard, smugglers can push the steel out of the way, creating an adult-size gap. Because the bollards are so tall — and are attached only to a panel at the top — their length makes them easier to push aside once they have been cut and are left dangling, according to engineers consulted by The Washington Post.
The taxpayer-funded barrier — so far coming with a $10 billion price tag — was a central theme of Trump's 2016 campaign, and he has made the project a physical symbol of his presidency, touting its construction progress in speeches, ads and tweets. Trump has increasingly boasted to crowds in recent weeks about the superlative properties of the barrier, calling it "virtually impenetrable" and likening the structure to a "Rolls-Royce" that border crossers cannot get over, under or through.
In other words, no one did any serious pen testing on the wall design, or it would have been obvious that with all that leverage, the top tie-in was easy to flex.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 04 2019, @05:55PM (41 children)
There has never been an wall built that could not be breached, avoided, undermined, or climbed over. Period. There have been lots of attempts at it, from the Berlin Wall to the Great Wall of China, but every single time, it's failed to keep people who want to cross it from doing so. Walls can help defend a particular location if they're guarded closely, but are still not impossible or even necessarily all that difficult to get through/around/over/under.
It was a stupid idea all along. If you supported it because you seriously thought it would prevent illegal immigration to the US from Latin America, you're a sucker.
The other lesson I'd mention from the Berlin Wall in particular: Walls that can keep some horrible (likely imaginary) enemy out can be used just as effectively to keep you in. Fortresses don't look that different from prisons.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 04 2019, @06:59PM (4 children)
We should also be asking, "Where are those sensors?" One of the selling points were sensors, which amount to a force multiplier. One guard can patrol ten times as much fence, if he has tattletales mounted in/on the fence. Infrared, visible light, motion sensors, UV, sound, whatever. That, and where is the moat with the alligators?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 04 2019, @07:44PM (1 child)
Oh yes, because nobody in the history of history has ever figured out how to disable a sensor. And no, that doesn't necessarily tell you where the breach is going to happen: The people trying to cross the border are organized enough to do moves like "Disable sensors at points A, B, and C simultaneously, then while border patrol is responding to those, disable sensors at point D and cross there".
My distinct impression is that the border wall plan serves its purpose equally well if it involves sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to their heads. In other words, the real point wasn't for it to be implemented or effective, but to motivate the portions of some people's psyches that enjoy inflicting cruelty on others, especially if they get to do it vicariously and not get their hands dirty themselves.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:25PM
Defense in depth, although you can pull off what you describe to distract and push through.
You're correct that no wall will stop everyone, but the point isn't to stop them. In fact there are regions where there are no walls or physical barriers at all due to terrain issues or sheer distance away from where mules and solo crossers will find profitable. A smart individual will be able to defeat the system without anything less than armed and shoot-on-sight wall standers and even then you'll get bribery. But the point is to slow and delay long enough for an effective response to be mounted with what force one has. And the effective response doesn't have to catch everyone, just stem the tide enough. Plus intimidate people from thinking about coming (which a "hey, you can Saws-All that" kind of diminished the impact of.)
This was still a stupid and ill-conceived idea and I can't wait for the Republicans to scream the next time a Democrat now creates a non-emergency national emergency.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 5, Touché) by sjames on Monday November 04 2019, @08:04PM
The Democrats proposed sensors, so those had to go.
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 04 2019, @08:38PM
Alligators are protected. We do have ill-tempered sea bass though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @07:05PM (31 children)
Israel and South Korea use a few sentry guns stated at $4million per pillbox covering 1.5km each. They only take a couple of operators per two dozen boxes since the operators only need to press the red button as the computers do all the movement detection, aiming and target finding. The US-Mexico border is some 3150km so with a little overlap you should be able to get decent coverage under $2billion and a standing maintenance and personal budget under $30million a year.
Well within current budget.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday November 05 2019, @01:04PM (30 children)
So you advocate murdering men, women and children fleeing from oppression, murderous cartels, gangs and governments?
What a nice guy you must be.
Seriously, Fuck Off!
May you find yourself on the business end of your own suggestion. After all, it's well within the budget.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:03PM (29 children)
Very few would be killed. People tend to not want to go where they know they're going to get shot, so if you publicized it only the terminally stupid would get themselves a Darwin Award.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:32PM (25 children)
Christ man, advocating murder at all is so totally fucked. Makes us no better than the oppressive regimes they are fleeing from.
Perhaps that's the point?
Is that what this country is coming to?
If so, soon it will be us fleeing. Hopefully Canada doesn't follow that lead.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 05 2019, @02:47PM (24 children)
It's not murder though. Words have meanings and defense of a border with deadly force is not within murder's scope.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:29PM (14 children)
Then laying a deadly trap in your home to eliminate an unwanted trespasser should be completely legal. And it ain't. Even if you post you may use lethal force.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:56PM (5 children)
Shooting home invaders is legal throughout most of the nation, so not a very good example.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:10PM (2 children)
Mooooorrrrroooonnnnnnnn
Deadly trap != you with gun
Shooting a defenseless robber could easily get you jail time
Next up, how Buzzy is stupid and some of his greatest mistakes
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 06 2019, @06:29AM
FTFY.
Because Buzzy is so stupid he even doesn't do mistakes. No, seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:37PM
Not in any state I'm willing to live in it can't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:32PM (1 child)
No, an extremely good example. The key being whether it can be done in an automated fashion (as a booby trap).
Katko v. Briney, 1971. McComb v. Connaghan, 1990. Deadly traps not under direct supervision are not legal ways to defend a home. Even most castle doctrine laws require an imminent threat to human life (so if nobody is home that does not apply, either.)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:41PM
No, not a very good example for both the reason above and because a government protecting a border has a whopping hell of a lot more leeway in what force is justified than a homeowner. Murder is unjustified by definition.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday November 06 2019, @03:45PM (7 children)
You might've had a leg to stand on, if he'd been advocating for the use of land mines in the protection of the border. As is, he's just promoting the defense of the border of the United States of America. Though, quite a bit more radically than some.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 06 2019, @11:37PM (6 children)
The GP to Buzzard was advocating the use of automated sentry guns, i.e. turn-on-and-forget operation. The legal principle would be the same: firing at people regardless of the situation except where they were located and regardless of their intent to do harm. (The real reason why lethal booby traps are not lawful - no human being to make the judgment call whether shooting it warranted.) Not legal nor ethical outside an actual war zone. It's a deterrent whose power is completely unwarranted against the threat being faced. And it's behavior which advocacy of is something one would expect from the Soviet Union, East Germany, or Syria. Not the United States.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:31PM
Ahh..., my bad. I skimmed his post(s), but didn't notice the recommendation of automated defenses. Relegating killing to automated systems, is just asking for trouble. While I support the use of lethal force where required; I also think a human being should be making the final trigger pull. Just imagine, if Nuclear Weapons were on an automated system from the beginning. We'd already be living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Then again, it'd be a pretty large assumption to think we'd be alive.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:46PM (4 children)
Legal principle would not be the same. There are a hell of a lot of things a government is justified in doing that private citizens aren't. I generally disagree with that but what is, is. The government can in fact bomb a full school or hospital to kill an enemy combatant hiding inside it quite legally if there's no other way to kill him and he needs to be taken out ASAFP, for instance. It won't win them any approval points but it's justified even under "international law".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday November 08 2019, @08:57PM (3 children)
Even as I disagree with your other point, you're right here that just because a homeowner can't do it doesn't mean the government can't. It does, however, establish a precedent that even if one is justified in killing an intruder that justification is taken away when it becomes a booby-trap and there is no human being discriminating the targets and why the trigger is pulled.
And in any case a killing would still have to be justified under the law. "The government," as in the military, can't just bomb someplace because the enemy is there - any such case would be governed by rules of engagement. For example, this incident [wikipedia.org] was regarded as a mistake after the occurrence. Even if they are whitewashed more often than not, any military of the type you describe still has to be justified under those rules and ultimately (if in an actual war and not the pseudo-wars we've been fighting the last 75 years) to the laws of war and Geneva conventions. (Which might likewise be ignored but ignoring them the justifies a signatory to go to war with you...) While the dead won't have their own voices to complain, the U.S. does end up settling such matters as quietly as possible rather than have the crimes (maybe war crimes) penalized.
Of all of Trump's bone-headed moves that should have been stopped by a rational Congress, militarizing the border comes pretty close to the top of that list. There's a reason we never had that before (only logistical supports), and it was a good one. There should have been a posse comitatus lawsuit.
But lots and lotsa shoulds, and the one you're square on the nose that what is, is, and a single citizen is not going to change it. Still, I hope the first time a civilian is killed by a soldier on the border that the pictures are plastered up all over the news with big bold print saying, "Trump did this!" And for me, I don't care if it was a drug dealer badass - let the Border Patrol police the border as they should. Oh, well.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 08 2019, @11:42PM (2 children)
No, it really doesn't. The military still routinely uses unmanned mines to this very day and border protection is a military function if ever there was one.
And no, military action does not have to be justified under laws that apply to civilians. Creating a minefield, especially one with big fucking warning signs posted all around it, is not even sort of murder. Maybe suicide but there is no stretch of the imagination that could classify it as murder any more than a person jumping off an overpass into interstate traffic could be said to have been murdered.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 11 2019, @04:50PM (1 child)
I'll just disagree. The enforcement of the borders is in no way a function or duty of the military unless the country is in a declared war. There is no reason for combat troops or military police to be stationed on the border unless we go to war with Canada or Mexico. And no, I do not want my country to place landmines on its borders as if this were Korea or cold-war Berlin. We can be better than that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 11 2019, @05:32PM
I don't either. It's a silly, wasteful, overkill idea. It's not immoral or illegal though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday November 05 2019, @04:14PM (8 children)
Do you really want to live in a country that values life so little?
Defense against armed invaders sure. Deadly force against unarmed asylum seekers? Sounds more like a war crime.
"Examples of war crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torturing, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, performing a perfidy, raping, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and seriously violating the principles of distinction and proportionality, and military necessity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime [wikipedia.org]
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:01PM (7 children)
You probably pass a hundred things a day that could get deadly force used on you but you don't go near them/do them and you don't even get pissy about the vast majority of them. The threat of deadly force is not unusual in your life, you just choose not to see it.
And, no, protecting and controlling your national borders is not a war crime. That is a recognized right and even duty globally acknowledged to every sovereign nation. Except by a small minority of very vocal idiots.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday November 05 2019, @06:21PM (5 children)
The DOD disagrees with you. These got a bit more strict since my service days. Only posting the relevant part. It's long. These are not Rules of Engagement used in a war zone. But the rules used for the military in a domestic situation and would apply to border protection or a campus riot equally. When I served we still used the rules that allowed the Kent State Massacre to occur. They have changed significantly since then.
Department of Defense, U.S. Army, U.S. Northern Command
U.S. Military Civil Disturbance Standing Rules for the Use of Force (SRUF)
August 12, 2011
RULE 4: LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF FORCE – A SERVICE MEMBER will use force of any kind only as a last resort and, if used, the force should be the minimum necessary to accomplish the mission.
Rule 4.1: REASONABLE – Any use of force must be reasonable in intensity, duration, and magnitude to counter the threat based on all the circumstances.
Rule 4.2: SAFETY – Exercise due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders when using any type of force.
Rule 4.3: WARNING SHOTS – Warning shots are NOT authorized.
RULE 5: USE OF NON-DEADLY FORCE – A SERVICE MEMBER may use non-deadly force to stop a threat when it is reasonable:
to control a situation and accomplish the mission,
to provide protection for himself and other DoD personnel,
to defend non-DoD persons in the vicinity, but only IF directly related to the assigned mission, or
to defend designated protected property.
RULE 6: USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF OTHERS, AND DEFENSE OF PROPERTY – A SERVICE MEMBER may use deadly force to stop a threat only when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed and it reasonably appears necessary:
to protect DoD forces when a commander reasonably believes a person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm,
to protect yourself and other DoD forces from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm,
to protect non-DoD persons in the vicinity from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, but only IF directly related to the assigned mission,
to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security or inherently dangerous property, and
to prevent the sabotage of a national critical infrastructure.
Rule 6.1: USE OF DEADLY FORCE NOT AUTHORIZED – Deadly force is not authorized to disperse a crowd, stop looting, enforce a curfew, or protect non-designated property.
RULE 7: USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST A SERIOUS OFFENSE – A SERVICE MEMBER may use deadly force, but only IF it is directly related to the assigned mission AND it reasonably appears necessary:
to prevent a serious crime against any person that involves imminent threat of death of serious bodily harm,
to prevent the escape of a prisoner where probable cause indicates he has committed or attempted to commit a serious offense and would pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to DoD forces or others in the vicinity,
to arrest or apprehend a person who, there is probable cause to believe, has committed a serious offense that involved imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm or sabotage of designated protected property.
RULE 8: USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST A VEHICULAR THREAT – A SERVICE MEMBER may fire his weapon at a moving land or water vehicle when he reasonably believes the vehicle poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to DoD forces or to non-DoD persons in the vicinity, but only IF doing so is directly related to the assigned mission.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:48PM (4 children)
Border control is not a civil disturbance.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday November 08 2019, @01:08AM (3 children)
Truce?
Two old guys butting heads over ideological differences could go on forever and I'm sure we could both find better uses for out time than trying to convince each other of things neither one of us is going to change our minds on.
Plus, I've been fighting Xfinity for two days over my internet that drops out a dozen times a day now, preventing me from completing the next module in an online class on top of a family emergency a few days ago that got me riled up in the first place. Just not feelin' it if you know what I mean. We'll debate again I'm sure but for now:
Peace out and good luck with your restoration. :)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday November 08 2019, @09:00PM
Oh come on.... the popcorn is all popped already!
But seriously, it (and my above with TMB) I find to be interesting conversation.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 08 2019, @11:54PM (1 child)
Pax. If you're putting any thought into it except when you're checking messages, you're taking it a lot more personally than I am anyway. I'm not particularly fond of being miserable all the time, so I don't spend any time at all thinking about political stuffs except when I'm here on SN or when The Roomie won't STFU about it. The only good thing about politics is it provides an endless supply of things worth arguing about.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday November 09 2019, @06:02AM
Nah, I have a life as well, as shown by our other totally off-topic conversation on this very thread about your restoration project. Hey, an interesting ideological debate however.
Pax Soylentil and good day!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:37AM
Buzzy schooled by someone more educated. Again. Don't worry, the only difference between you and me in this case is I wouldn't be puffing up pretending I know shit about military regs.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 05 2019, @03:28PM (2 children)
Terminal stupidity happens, man. Take a look at the statistics of how many people die from dehydration attempting to cross every year (plus the idea now that providing humanitarian water supplies to avoid that is 'aiding and abetting' the crossers). Heat exposure in the summer and cold exposure in the winter (people can get hypothermic if doing night winter crossings),drowning in the transition periods from "desert monsoon" flash flood activity... the ideal window is only a few weeks.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 05 2019, @05:03PM (1 child)
This doesn't particularly concern me. I mean I'd render first aid and call a Mexican ambulance if I was present but you can't fix stupid. You should not treat everyone like complete morons to protect those who are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @09:52PM
Well, there you have it, guys. It looks like the Buzztard is giving all of us permission to let him die from his own terminal stupidity. Couldn't happen to a nicer fella.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @07:33PM (3 children)
Exactly. Walls don't keep people out; they slow the attempt. Any castle can be breached with enough time, the goal is to give that time. You turn a 5-second "walk in" into a 5-minute "get ladder, set it, make it stable, climb over it." Ideally, that 5 minutes would be long enough for a human to notice and foil the attempt. Obviously you would need to have a human check every 4.5-ish minutes, though, for that wall to help.
Another way to think of it, imagine spending $10 Billion to build a 1000-mile wall. That's spending about $5,000 per yard. So imagine an attacker spends $10,000 to breach the wall. They've spent 1/1000000 less than you, but have locally invested more resources, so likely will be able to defeat your efforts.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday November 04 2019, @09:04PM (2 children)
Well, there were castles that were never breached before the days of gunpowder. These days, though...
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 04 2019, @10:33PM
That of course has a lot to do with how serious a siege they were under and what their garrison was when they were attacked, but castle technology was never perfect. For example, a rampaging mob of peasants were able to take over the Tower of London without that much trouble in 1381.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @12:29AM
Please investigate military and political history. Yes, there are castles which have not been breached, but that was due to political and military reasons rather than them being made out of indestructible unobtanium and being architecturally perfect. You can find numerous youtube videos, books, websites, and university courses on medieval architecture, but the short summary is as follows...
There are numerous ways to breach a castle, the simplest being an earthen ramp. You get your 5,000 strong army, tell them "each man go to the field over there, get a barrel of earth, bring it over here," and you pile it up to make a giant ramp which goes over the wall. There are other ways as well, such as ladders, siege towers, battering rams, undermining the walls, or other technologies.
The point of a castle is simply to delay attacks substantially (as well as a safe spot from which to launch skirmishing attacks, but that's beside the point here). A well-stocked castle could last months, maybe years. The idea is that you hole up for a few months while your nearby allies rally together, call in their forces, form an army, and drive off the attackers. You would stay in your castle for months-to-years, stalling until your allies bring you relief. However, if you had no possibility of relief, you would be bound to fall eventually.
Suffice it to say, the only reason a castle would have not fallen is that the local population was stable enough, and regional feudal alliances were strong enough, to prevent a wide-scale attack.