,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The story itself notes that the prototype tested was less formidable than the deployed wall would be. Leaving that aside, yes, all physical barriers can be breached or surmounted with sufficient effort. And yet we still build them. Why?
Most of the politicians who oppose building a wall live inside walled estates, for example. Why do they insist on having walls for protection when intruders could simply bring tall ladders, saw through fences, or breach the barriers with explosives?
The point of walls is not to build an utterly impregnable barrier, but to create an *obstacle* to movement. The time and highly detectable effort needed to overcome the obstacle makes it easier for security forces to detect the intruders.
Many prospective intruders are deterred from even making the attempt by the presence of a wall. In the case of the border, many invaders who might take their chances running across an undefended border will think twice about challenging a difficult physical barrier.
Professional criminals who run smuggling operations might try breaching the wall, and could even use explosives or advanced equipment, or dig tunnels. All of those activities are risky and far more prone to detection than racing hell-for-leather across open space.
All forms of criminality are risk-reward calculations. Criminals, especially the professional variety, tend to be much more meticulous about balancing risks vs. rewards and cost vs. benefits than, say, socialist politicians. Increasing the risk or cost tends to deter crime.
That deterrence is never perfect and rarely insurmountable, but it's an absurd false choice to insist it would have to be. Even the most secure bank or casino *could* be robbed, but they still invest heavily in defenses and make some of them highly visible.
The idea is to deter enough criminal violations to make the remainder more manageable. That is the effect walls tend to have on trespassers. It should not be necessary to explain this, but again, criminals are better at risk/reward calculations than socialist politicians. /end
