by Outcast_Searcher » Mon 07 Jan 2019, 14:54:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')Ruthless death from above, no exceptions, no body count, no video records, get it?
I think that kind of thing works very well in a place like Venezuela. Here? Nice fantasy.
Meanwhile, let's pretend NOTHING could go wrong with automated technology carrying "death from above", so it will all be dirt cheap. Again, nice fantasy.
And how do you CHEAPLY ensure "no entry ever, by anybody" over a 2000 mile-ish border? Wishful thinking?
...
When it happens, and after 30 years, it costs less than $100 billion, be sure and get back to us.
Or after the first year when it's implemented, and the total cost to the US taxpayer is less than $5 billion. (I'll predict it would cost 20 times that just to secure all the land and put up the barricades to keep everyone out. Not all the land is federal land. That has to be purchased or seized. This is the US. So far we mainly seize property for suspicion of selling drugs, and I still maintain that is illegal taking and unconstitutional, since no trial is required. Hell, it would probably cost billions just for all the legal fights and hassle over trying to implement the plan.)
Then it has to be guarded to keep all miscreants, protestors, etc. out. With what? Automated technology that shoots on site? No one would EVER have a concern with that.

(Or if you use people, it is very expensive). How do you ensure nothing goes wrong and something gets bombed outside the designated killing zone? How much does THAT cost?
Given that in the real world, lawyers exist and things don't always work perfectly, I'll believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, I think you're more than a little hazy and over-optimistic on the details and the ease and cost of the scheme.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.