US Scraps Virtual Fence Along Mexican Border 437
Pickens writes "The Arizona Republic reports that the federal government has officially cancelled its multibillion-dollar plan to build a virtual fence along the border with Mexico as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano disclosed in a congressional briefing that the program known as SBInet was costing too much and achieving too little. 'SBInet cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border-security technology solution,' says Napolitano. Boeing was hired in 2006 to develop the system under a three-year federal contract with cost projections for full build-out as high as $8 billion but efforts were plagued by delays, glitches, budget increases and congressional criticism. Napolitano has ordered Customs and Border Protection to launch a more modest and geographically tailored effort using SBInet funds and existing technology such as mobile-surveillance systems, unmanned aircraft, thermal-imaging devices and remote-video surveillance with proven elements of SBInet including stationary radar and infrared-sensor towers. SBInet cost nearly $1 billion for development along 53 miles of Arizona border."
So... why did it fail? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious as to why the project failed. They claim to have a much cheaper plan that they're going to try now; why didn't they try that in the first place? Is it going to be substantially less effective? So ineffective that it's not worth spending money on that, either?
The article mentions "glitches and delays". Is that because Boeing is just bad at its job? Or is it a fundamentally difficult thing?
I'm not asking about the political implications, which are substantial. I just want to know: America is supposed to be good at tech, but this is hardly the first time that a Big Government Project has failed. Is there a lesson we can learn here? Or is it endemic to the fact that the US government does things on a scale no other operation in the world does?
Re:The Virtual Fence was always a dumb idea (Score:4, Interesting)
This, exactly.
The people making a stink about "onoz illegals!" IMO don't know what they're talking about. I live near the border (Tucson, AZ), and all these horrible problems created by the dirty Mexicans just ... aren't there.
Yes, there is some crime associated with drug smuggling; yes, there is a higher crime rate among the poor. But it's better among the Hispanic community here than in many other populations of non-immigrants.
Re:The Virtual Fence was always a dumb idea (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the problems with the Mexican drug lords and gangs (they're not really cartels), is that they're heavily armed. Armed by US citizens who (legally) buy guns and (illegally) sell them to Mexicans for a profit.
I read some statistics showing that almost all illegal guns in Mexico could be traced back to legally bought guns in the US, and we're not talking hunting rifles here.
My suggestion: Make it a felony to not be able to present any and all legally bought guns within 24 hours of the police requesting it, or to not report a lost gun in a timely manner, or to file a false report. Get the fuckers who arm the drug lords.
Re:So... why did it fail? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be very surprised if the original estimates were realistic without absolutely everything going as planned.
Re:More Boeing cancellations (Score:4, Interesting)
Boeing is, as their own executives describe themselves, an 'honest broker' of engineering and management services. Aside from a very few core competencies (airframes, etc.) they subcontract or acquire the skills needed to complete a contract. So, they aren't as big as they seem. I mean, where was Boeing's e-fence division prior to this contract?
A couple of observations:
<chicago_mob_accent>
"If you want to do work in my territory, you've got to give me a piece of the action"
</chicago_mob_accent>.
We can put real live guards on it 24x7x365 cheaper (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's do the math.
The US Mexico border is 1,969 miles. Stationing on average 4 guards per mile gives us 7,876 guards. 4 shifts to give us 24x7x365 coverage gives us 31,504 guards.
31,504 guards would give us 4 guards per mile of US Mexico border, 24x7x365.
Assume generously that each guard costs us $150,000 / yr for pay, benefits, equipment, logistics, training, and administration.
BOTTOM LINE: For a price of 4.75 billion USD per year we can have 1 well paid, well equipped guard stationed on average every 1/4 mile along the entire 1,969 miles of the US Mexico border.
No, that doesn't include facilities and infrastructure to support the operation, but building guard towers, barracks, and administrative buildings is one of the few things that the government excels at.
Like government make-work programs? This is among the best I can think of in terms of jobs created per $$$ because it puts real people on the ground doing what real people do best. Rather than giving billions to some contractor who will employ 1,000 people, we are CREATING 31,504 NEW JOBS, and they are good hard working outdoor jobs, in the service of our nation, that most Americans would be proud to do and to pay for.
Personally I would like to see open borders and see us eliminate the uneconomical policies that drive us to fight the free flow of people and ideas, but that's not going to happen, so let's secure the damn thing.
Re:The Virtual Fence was always a dumb idea (Score:2, Interesting)
The Mexican cartels are well armed, alright. And make no mistake--they are cartels in more than one sense of the word. Sure, some have rifles and handguns that were smuggled out of the US.
But they're also armed with heavy machine guns, hand grenades, 40mm grenade launchers, RPGs, LAW anti-tank rockets, and fucking *helicopters outfitted with machine guns*. It's also suspected that they have some cold-war era Stinger SAM missiles. Yeah, didn't read that one in the 'statistics', did you? How do you account for these items? A few hundred semi-automatic AKMs and AR-15s really does not compare to the firepower they've obtained elsewhere.
Out of the items *submitted* to the ATF for tracing, most are found to originate in the US. Why would the Mexican government ask the ATF to trace machine guns, rocket launchers, and other significant battle-field weaponry, which obviously did not and could not come from the US? It would probably come out that the Mexican government's own armories are the source of many of these fun toys.
In fact, the cartels are so well armed that certain sections of the the US government are in fact more worried about *what is coming into the US*, rather than what is going out. Suppose some of our local al-Qaeda cells got a hold of these man-portable anti-air missiles?
So, you'd impinge on the rights of ALL US citizens, rather than tackle the source of the issue--the cartel's money? If they did not have the cash flow, they could not buy the heavy weaponry from South America. If they couldn't move their product, they wouldn't have the money.
If we put a Korean peninsula style DMZ across the southern border, they couldn't move their product, nor could they smuggle a few piddly AR-15s into Mexico. Nor would we have to suffer continued illegal immigration, and all of the economic externalities which come along with it.
Let's buy a few thousand of Samsung's machine gun turrets and place them every 1000 yards along the border. The price would be about a billion dollars to cover the entire border, even if we didn't get a bulk discount from Samsung, which could still charge the full $200k per unit, plus a bit more to network them. Add some more to pay soldiers to staff the cameras and controls--it would be a steal compared to the $1 billion / 100 mile virtual fence bullshit.
This would be like hitting ten birds with one stone. Trespassers first get a warning salvo, and if they don't turn around or wait to be arrested as directed by loudspeaker, they get lead poisoning. The vultures would love it.
Re:More Boeing cancellations (Score:2, Interesting)
Northrup Grumman is getting away from that actually; they're spinning of their shipyard business because they suck at it. The joke in shipbuilding (i work in shipbuilding) is Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding (NGSB) always stood for No Good Shipbuilders. It's actually a smart move for them; they're very good at all the other things they do, and now they're refocusing on their core and what they do best; cutting edge technology both IT and Aerospace.
Cancellations is typical for Boeing. The Border Fence thing was a poor project from the get-go; they failed at it and that's that. But most of the cancellations you read about are due to their new aircraft, the 787, mostly because it's been delayed like 2 years now, and the airlines need new aircraft. So they ended up going to Airbus to buy A340's, which are already on the market. But this isn't new to the airline business; it happened to the 777, it happened to the A340 and the A330, it's happening now to Airbus with the A380; it's had several severe delays so customers canceled orders and bought the competitor plane, the Boeing 747-800. Once the A380's worked out it's technical issues (a few are flying now) and once the 787 overcomes it's manufacturing issues, they'll sell like hotcakes. Sadly this is normal business for Aircraft manufacturers.
Re:fucking Mexicans! (Score:3, Interesting)
We'd be better off if we just ripped down the fences and let people migrate like any other animal.. But then how would you be able to acquire and keep your slaves if they could just walk off the plantation?
Re:More Boeing cancellations (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to question the math on this one. $25,000/year isn't very much considering that these people are going to be dealing with rugged terrain, harsh desert conditions, and facing violent, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers. It sounds like we're not even factoring in any sort of benefits like health care or retirement. In short, you're offering minimal pay and benefits for dangerous, difficult work. The obvious solution, of course, is that we fill these positions by hiring illegal immigrants.