Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RoofGardener

Worldwide Walls

262 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener

Wall of the Week. (week 17)

The Botswana/Zimbabwe wall. Length: 500km. Built in 2003 to help control foot-and-mouth disease, though the Zimbabwean government complained that it was designed to stop people.  This is reasonable, as at the time Zimbabwean economy was crashing, and people WHERE fleeing illegally into (relatively) wealthy Botswana. 

Status: unknown. The fence is not patrolled, and there are natural breaches in it (rivers, for example). The fence has caused on ongoing political rift with Zimbabwe. 

Success rating: uncertain. 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/botswana/fence.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8343505.stm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

We built a wall to keep the Scots out.  B*gger all use that was!  :D 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
On 25/04/2019 at 7:59 AM, RoofGardener said:

Well, the most highly publicised and most recent data comes from Israel. In 2012 they had 55,000 illegal economic migrants from poophole African countries flooding their southern borders. This was causing massive crime problems.

In 2015 they build a wall. Three years later, that illegal economic migrant figure is down to .. well.. .zero. The wall was 100% effective. Mind you, it WAS a very expensive wall. 

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/december/trump-is-a-border-wall-effective-ask-israel

Figures for other countries are harder to analyse, but I'll give it a go over the next week or three. 

That's a start. Now is it comparable to the US situation? Apparently near 100% of illegal migrants in Israel were crossing the border illegally. Is that the same for the US? 

Also, it's important to work out whether the wall was the actual cause of the decrease. Did environmental factors change meaning people don't try to cross (or go elsewhere) rather than the wall being responsible? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Setton said:

That's a start. Now is it comparable to the US situation? Apparently near 100% of illegal migrants in Israel were crossing the border illegally. Is that the same for the US? 

Also, it's important to work out whether the wall was the actual cause of the decrease. Did environmental factors change meaning people don't try to cross (or go elsewhere) rather than the wall being responsible? 

ROFL... 

"...near 100% of ILLEGAL migrants where crossing the border illegally". 

Umm... Setton.. I don't think that is what you intended to say ? 

I agree that it is important to work out WHY the decrease happened. In the case of Israel.. well... can you think of ANY reason... other than the wall.. why people stopped crossing  ? 

Anyway.. what do you think of the Wall of the Week ? Are  you upon on your Botswanean ? :D 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ogbin
On 4/22/2019 at 12:16 AM, Farmer77 said:

I love it Trumpians are now arguing that we should be like the rest of the world :lol:

I believe Trumpians argue common sense.. You know, that thing the Left has completely stripped from their Sheeple that they are constantly feeding stupidity to. Walls have been used for thousands of years. Must be a good reason.. wonder what it is.. oh ya thats right, It’s because they work! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

ROFL... 

"...near 100% of ILLEGAL migrants where crossing the border illegally". 

Umm... Setton.. I don't think that is what you intended to say ? 

Absolutely it was. There are lots of ways to become an illegal migrant. E.g. Entering legally but overstaying a visa. Just for example, you know. 

Quote

I agree that it is important to work out WHY the decrease happened. In the case of Israel.. well... can you think of ANY reason... other than the wall.. why people stopped crossing  ? 

Environmental factors are usually the biggest driver of migration. 

Quote

Anyway.. what do you think of the Wall of the Week ? Are  you upon on your Botswanean ? :D 

Haven't read it yet but will get to it soon :)

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
11 hours ago, Essan said:

We built a wall to keep the Scots out.  B*gger all use that was!  :D 

Hadrian’s Wall wasn’t really to keep the Picts out, but to say “right you smelly Lot, this is OUR side. We’ll stay here.” It was the edge of Empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
11 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Wall of the Week. (week 17)

The Botswana/Zimbabwe wall. Length: 500km. Built in 2003 to help control foot-and-mouth disease, though the Zimbabwean government complained that it was designed to stop people.  This is reasonable, as at the time Zimbabwean economy was crashing, and people WHERE fleeing illegally into (relatively) wealthy Botswana. 

Status: unknown. The fence is not patrolled, and there are natural breaches in it (rivers, for example). The fence has caused on ongoing political rift with Zimbabwe. 

Success rating: uncertain. 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/botswana/fence.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8343505.stm

 

Yeah but the real question you're not asking yourself is how many of these alternative walls/fences/barriers you're highlighting have been erected to safeguard it's leader from political failure e ineptitude?  Because, only some (many?) brainless, diehard, pigheaded Republicans refuse to see the wall as a symbol of Trump's Presidency which is what this is really all about.

It has nothing to do with him as the leader of the country trying to stop the flow of criminals/drugs refugees etc. from crossing the border otherwise, after losing the House, he would have looked at possible alternatives, even to the extent of forcing the Democrats to offer better solutions, if they had any, pending political failure on their behalf if they refused to cooperate considering how important the issue was for Americans.  He didn't and was prepared to even put the Govt in lock down just because he didn't get his way with the funds, all because he wanted to play to the crowd in 2016, opened his trap by promising this 'big, beautiful wall the Mexicans would pay for' and committed himself to one of his main electoral promises he cannot and probably will not fulfill.  This doesn't only 'hurt' him politically, specially with 2020 approaching, but for a guy always used to getting his way it's an unacceptable defeat to his arrogance.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
On 22/04/2019 at 9:37 PM, RoofGardener said:

Sorry.. I was being mischievous. 

Yes, they keep immigrants out. OBVIOUSLY they do this. I mean... can YOU get through a 3m tall electrified fence ? 

Hmm... how long before that becomes an Olympic event ? 

electrified? Is that the latest refinement the Emperor Donald is proposing? At least they could generate it form solar power and so not increase their Carbon Footprint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Setton said:

That's a start. Now is it comparable to the US situation? Apparently near 100% of illegal migrants in Israel were crossing the border illegally. Is that the same for the US? 

Also, it's important to work out whether the wall was the actual cause of the decrease. Did environmental factors change meaning people don't try to cross (or go elsewhere) rather than the wall being responsible? 

probably the warm welcome that Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu would have given them (famously welcoming to all races that aren't members of the Israeli people) was a factor, I dare say. 

Edited by Vlad the Mighty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
14 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Hadrian’s Wall wasn’t really to keep the Picts out, but to say “right you smelly Lot, this is OUR side. We’ll stay here.” It was the edge of Empire.

And more importantly, it controlled trade.  The only cross border access was through the gates.  You want to sell to the southern Albions, then you pay our tariff.   And vice versa.   Probably quite a lucrative money earner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
19 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Yeah but the real question you're not asking yourself is how many of these alternative walls/fences/barriers you're highlighting have been erected to safeguard it's leader from political failure e ineptitude?  Because, only some (many?) brainless, diehard, pigheaded Republicans refuse to see the wall as a symbol of Trump's Presidency which is what this is really all about.

It has nothing to do with him as the leader of the country trying to stop the flow of criminals/drugs refugees etc. from crossing the border otherwise, after losing the House, he would have looked at possible alternatives, even to the extent of forcing the Democrats to offer better solutions, if they had any, pending political failure on their behalf if they refused to cooperate considering how important the issue was for Americans.  He didn't and was prepared to even put the Govt in lock down just because he didn't get his way with the funds, all because he wanted to play to the crowd in 2016, opened his trap by promising this 'big, beautiful wall the Mexicans would pay for' and committed himself to one of his main electoral promises he cannot and probably will not fulfill.  This doesn't only 'hurt' him politically, specially with 2020 approaching, but for a guy always used to getting his way it's an unacceptable defeat to his arrogance.

Well, that's YOUR opinion :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)

Wall of the Week - Wk18

Cuela and Mellila. Two walls for the price of one !

They where erected around the Spanish enclave cities of Cueta and Mellila respectively, to keep illegal immigrants out. As the cities are in North Africa, the immigrants in question are all black. So - of course - the wall is Racist. As the majority of the immigrants where young males of military age, the wall is also Sexist and Ageist. It discriminates against disabled people. HOWEVER.. it is Transgender-neutral, so that is at least ONE good thing !

The fences have been very successful. Previously there where assembly camps on the hills near Mellila for illegal immigrants to assemble and try and "storm" the previous fences, which they did very successfully. The new fence has proven sufficiently impermeable that these camps have pretty much disappeared. 

The wall at Cueta HAS been stormed more frequently by large gangs (hundreds) armed with shears and various weapons. Ultimately, however, with police backup, it has been successful in dramatically reducing illegal immigration from Africa into the European Union through Cueta. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla_border_fence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta_border_fence

It should be noted that these 'fences' are quite elaborate structures, and DO require a police/army presence to be effective. This is a recurring feature of the various walls listed in these posts :) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta_border_fence#/media/File:CeutaBorderFence.jpg

 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Wall of the Week - Wk18

Cuela and Mellila. Two walls for the price of one !

They where erected around the Spanish enclave cities of Cueta and Mellila respectively, to keep illegal immigrants out. As the cities are in North Africa, the immigrants in question are all black. So - of course - the wall is Racist. As the majority of the immigrants where young males of military age, the wall is also Sexist and Ageist. It discriminates against disabled people. HOWEVER.. it is Transgender-neutral, so that is at least ONE good thing !

The fences have been very successful. Previously there where assembly camps on the hills near Mellila for illegal immigrants to assemble and try and "storm" the previous fences, which they did very successfully. The new fence has proven sufficiently impermeable that these camps have pretty much disappeared. 

The wall at Cueta HAS been stormed more frequently by large gangs (hundreds) armed with shears and various weapons. Ultimately, however, with police backup, it has been successful in dramatically reducing illegal immigration from Africa into the European Union through Cueta. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla_border_fence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta_border_fence

It should be noted that these 'fences' are quite elaborate structures, and DO require a police/army presence to be effective. This is a recurring feature of the various walls listed in these posts :) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta_border_fence#/media/File:CeutaBorderFence.jpg

 

Interesting examples. Is there evidence to suggest it would maintain this efficacy if scaled up to the size of a country? 

Also, I wonder how many officers are required to support the fences. This would, of course, also have to be scaled up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
43 minutes ago, Setton said:

Interesting examples. Is there evidence to suggest it would maintain this efficacy if scaled up to the size of a country? 

Also, I wonder how many officers are required to support the fences. This would, of course, also have to be scaled up. 

Indeed @Setton. The determination of the Africans to get into Europe means that these walls ARE expensive to maintain. The two walls are only a handful of tens of kilometres long, but cost £33 million Euro's to build. (and presumably a lot of money each year to maintain and staff). Still, the Spanish seem to think that's worthwhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
6 hours ago, Setton said:

Interesting examples. Is there evidence to suggest it would maintain this efficacy if scaled up to the size of a country?

You answered your own question.  If it is scaled up, by definition will maintain its efficacy.

 

Also, I wonder how many officers are required to support the fences. This would, of course, also have to be scaled up. 

It would still be fewer agents needed than if there was no wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Indeed @Setton. The determination of the Africans to get into Europe means that these walls ARE expensive to maintain. The two walls are only a handful of tens of kilometres long, but cost £33 million Euro's to build. (and presumably a lot of money each year to maintain and staff). Still, the Spanish seem to think that's worthwhile. 

Yes, certainly shows the effectiveness and efficiency of small, strategic barriers over, say, a wall the width of a continent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
24 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

You answered your own question.  If it is scaled up, by definition will maintain its efficacy.

Only if the data is linear. Which you have not shown. 

Quote

It would still be fewer agents needed than if there was no wall.

Yes, but there could still be a more efficient position somewhere between those two extremes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
23 minutes ago, Setton said:

Only if the data is linear. Which you have not shown.

That would be meaningless.  If it was being scaled up but failed to meet that threshold, then it wasn’t scaled up.  Don’t know if it would need to be linear or exponential?  Whatever is required.

 

Yes, but there could still be a more efficient position somewhere between those two extremes. 

A wall is not an extreme position.  Human ingenuity is never stopped by extremes.  Something is better than nothing.  The most efficient wall will be one that uses the terrain and surroundings to the fullest.   Walls, fences, earthworks, ridges, rivers, etc.  Supported with bunkers, OPs, towers, and tenacious ports of entry.  Coated with cameras, sensors, drones, aircraft and satellite.  And the whole thing manned by humans on mounted, foot, regular, and irregular patrols.  With regular maintenance.  Including administrative controls like laws to go after businesses that hire illegals and closing the anchor baby loophole.  Of course, the underlining strength of the wall will be determined by the will of the people.  Are the people serious about preserving their borders, language, and culture?  This is the minimum requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Hmm.  We have 700 miles of border fencing and have so many immigrants coming in that we have to declare a national emergency.  Yet when we had no fence, we didn't have an immigration problem or a national emergency.  (You see the logic error here?  Can you see how it would also apply to your other fence examples?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
15 hours ago, Setton said:

Yes, certainly shows the effectiveness and efficiency of small, strategic barriers over, say, a wall the width of a continent. 

Hmm.. it's true that the Cruella wall is only about 10km long. And it cost $33 million to build. 

So lets scale that up: two hundred times 10km is 2000km, which is about the length of the Mexican border ? 

Two hundred times $33 million is .. gosh.. around $6 billion ? 

So it's eminently do-able from the financial side of it. 

Of course, that doesn't include the annual cost of patrolling the wall. I would imagine that would be done by cameras and drone's n' tha', with a series of "forts" along its length housing rapid reaction units who could rush out to any breach points with handcuffs and lengths of rubber piping ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That would be meaningless.  If it was being scaled up but failed to meet that threshold, then it wasn’t scaled up.  Don’t know if it would need to be linear or exponential?  Whatever is required.

A wall is not an extreme position.  Human ingenuity is never stopped by extremes.  Something is better than nothing.  The most efficient wall will be one that uses the terrain and surroundings to the fullest.   Walls, fences, earthworks, ridges, rivers, etc.  Supported with bunkers, OPs, towers, and tenacious ports of entry.  Coated with cameras, sensors, drones, aircraft and satellite.  And the whole thing manned by humans on mounted, foot, regular, and irregular patrols.  With regular maintenance.  Including administrative controls like laws to go after businesses that hire illegals and closing the anchor baby loophole.  Of course, the underlining strength of the wall will be determined by the will of the people.  Are the people serious about preserving their borders, language, and culture?  This is the minimum requirements.

Rivers ? 

RIVERS ?? 

Ravenhawk, you are a GENIUS. That's how we do it. 

Just build the California-Texas Canal, on the model of the Panama Canal. 

It would form a natural immigration barrier, PLUS the states of California, Arizona and Texas could charge transit fees for ships wanting to cross between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans without swerving south to Panama..Heck, it could make money with docking/mooring fees for Californians wanting to sail to Arizona etc in small boats.  It would pay for itself !!!!!!

Of course, at an estimated cost of $350 BILLION, it might take a few years to pay for itself. But after that, it would all be plain sailing ! Literally !

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Rivers ? 

RIVERS ?? 

Ravenhawk, you are a GENIUS. That's how we do it. 

Just build the California-Texas Canal, on the model of the Panama Canal. 

It would form a natural immigration barrier, PLUS the states of California, Arizona and Texas could charge transit fees for ships wanting to cross between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans without swerving south to Panama..Heck, it could make money with docking/mooring fees for Californians wanting to sail to Arizona etc in small boats.  It would pay for itself !!!!!!

Of course, at an estimated cost of $350 BILLION, it might take a few years to pay for itself. But after that, it would all be plain sailing ! Literally !

I hadn't thought about building new waterways, just using the existing rivers.  This is known as a moat and we could fill it with alligators.  It could be a mile wide.  However, it would cost far more than $350 billion.  Where the Panama canal is about 50 miles (at about $10 billion in today's money) and utilizes fresh water rivers and lakes, this border moat would be nearly 2000 miles and the Rio Grande and Colorado would not be able to supply the needed freshwater.  It would have to be a huge salt water lock system.  The freshwater ecosystems would be impacted as would land owners.  Land owners would lose property and not be able to use it.  It would create the world's largest brine sea.  The locks would have to be going 24x7 to refresh the stock of water.  You'd probably need a pumping system to keep water levels up.  The energy requirements would be that of several cities.

 

BTW, you left out New Mexico as a border state.  Thanks a lot!  :)  Now we get furiners forgetting we're not part of Mexico.... :rofl:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
28 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I hadn't thought about building new waterways, just using the existing rivers.  This is known as a moat and we could fill it with alligators.  It could be a mile wide.  However, it would cost far more than $350 billion.  Where the Panama canal is about 50 miles (at about $10 billion in today's money) and utilizes fresh water rivers and lakes, this border moat would be nearly 2000 miles and the Rio Grande and Colorado would not be able to supply the needed freshwater.  It would have to be a huge salt water lock system.  The freshwater ecosystems would be impacted as would land owners.  Land owners would lose property and not be able to use it.  It would create the world's largest brine sea.  The locks would have to be going 24x7 to refresh the stock of water.  You'd probably need a pumping system to keep water levels up.  The energy requirements would be that of several cities.

 

BTW, you left out New Mexico as a border state.  Thanks a lot!  :)  Now we get furiners forgetting we're not part of Mexico.... :rofl:

 

Noooo... if it cost $10 billion to build 50 miles, then it would cost $100 billion to build 500 miles, and hence about $400 billion to build 2000 miles :)

It wouldn't effect the ecosystem: we'd line it with that stuff you use to line garden ponds, so no salt water would enter the environment. 

As for pumps, you'd just have to dig the channel right, and then tidal effects would take over. Water would flow from the Atlantic to the Pacific during certain times of day - hence the 'direction of flow' would be Brownseville to San Diego. This would reverse later on. 

Think of the benefits for local anglers ? The good people of New Mexico could fish for ocean fish along its banks :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

The plant I work at has a wall to keep people out.   It works well.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.