Readers must familiarize themselves with these subtopics to understand the concepts discussed in this chapter. These articles are linked within this chapter, but it may be easier to read them in advance.
SM-3 Missile Defense Fraud - they lack needed range
Carrier Escorts Need Escorts - all navy ships need escort boats
Naval Commandos - may attack homeports
Air Commandos - may attack airbases in the USA
DE Corvettes - stealthy coastal ships are needed
Defending America at the Border - put troops back on the border
National Missile Defense
Anyone who seriously reads about National Missile Defense (NMD) knows that it will take another decade to develop and fully test a system, which is unlikely to work. Admirals and Generals understand this and do not want to waste money on NMD, so political backers established a separate budget for NMD. The first line of defense are SM-3 missiles fired from Navy destroyers. However, the destroyer must be ready to fire within 100 miles of the launch site, which is of no value if the launch site is 100 miles from the coast.
Admirals suggest that dozens more destroyers are needed so their SM-3s can perform "mid-course" intercept, not knowing or saying that the SM-3 can only reach half the 300-mile altitude required. Nevertheless, this scam has spread to a multi-billion land-based scam known as "Aegis ashore" with missiles now installed in Romania and Poland, which will be nothing more than odd, fixed anti-aircraft sites. A much larger ship-launched missile is possible, but then the Navy must build a new type of ship. Once an ICBM has passed its halfway point and begins its downward trajectory, it will release its small warheads to fall to Earth. Attempting to shoot down these small, hard, warheads during the Mach 5 "terminal phase" is nearly impossible.
Several billion dollars were wasted on another anti-missile scam called the Airborne Laser (ABL) with the idea of shooting down missiles in the boost phase hundreds of miles away from a 747 flying at 40,000 feet. The Air Force built two ABLs in Boeing 747 airframes and planned to purchase five more until the program was cancelled. The major problem with lasers is that the Earth's atmosphere contains particles and moisture that reflect light, which is why the sky is blue, so laser beams quickly lose strength. Although the air is thin at 40,000 feet, the Earth is curved, so to engage a target over 100 miles away it must fire downward through thicker atmosphere. In addition, an aircraft is not a stable platform needed to focus a laser beam on the same spot of a fast rising missile for several seconds to burn through the casing. This is probably impossible anyway since large missiles often spin slowly, and missile makers may use stainless steel to reflect most of the laser beam. An AWACs airborne radar aircraft or fighter is far more effective firing long-range AMRAAM air-to-air missiles at rising ballistic missiles.
Another issue never discussed is beam divergence, which spreads the beam thus making it less powerful. A US Navy manual states:
5.3.2. Laser Beam Divergence. Beam divergence is the spread of the laser beam over distance. Laser spot size is a function of beam divergence and the distance from the laser system to the target. If a designator has a beam spread or divergence of 0.25 milliradian, its spot would have a diameter of approximately 0.25 meters at a distance of 1,000 meters in front of the designator. At 5,000 meters, the beam would spread to 1.25 meters; at 10,000 meters, the beam would spread to 2.5 meters (see FIGURE 7).
In this example of a common military laser, at just a kilometer (.625 miles) a laser beam aimed to cut through steel expands to ten inches! That could burn skin and start paper fires, but not harm a tank, or even a missile.
These are huge obstacles that will never be overcome. The scientists knew this, but they enjoyed their work and will be fired for telling the truth to the public. However, an Air Force Colonel, Neil McCasland, admitted that a way must be found to "clean" the wavefront to avoid diffraction of laser energy in the atmosphere. No serious proposals emerged to overcome this reality, and no one explains why an enemy wouldn't just wait for a foggy, cloudy, or rainy day to launch missiles. These problem exists with proposals for ground-based laser defense systems. However, ship-based laser systems are a good idea for missiles flying directly at a ship since it can eventually engage the missile just a few meters away.
The most complex NMD layer are ground-based interceptors for mid-course intercept. First, a system of satellites is needed to detect the launch from designated launch sites, which does not work well if the system is mobile. Second, a very long range radar system must be able to track the target missile and somehow communicate that information to the intercepting missile. Finally, the intercepting missile must collide head-on with the target missile. This has been compared to hitting a bullet with a bullet. However, bullets travel at Mach 2, while these missiles travel at Mach 5, so the closure rate is Mach 10 and the chance of a collision slight.
Over ten billion dollars are spent on NMD each year, and the Bush administration claimed to have a working system since interceptors are ready to fire. Of course they have no radar guidance, but it is possible that an unguided missile fired over the Pacific may run into a missile heading the other way; a hundred billion to one chance, but a chance nonetheless, allowing political leaders to claim that a "workable" system is in place. They are having trouble building the satellites and radars needed for guidance as the task is complex. As a result, tests so far have focused on the interceptor. During such tests, the launch location, time, and ballistic path of the target "enemy" missile is known in advance, so there is no need to rely on lengthy communication links with satellites and radar. In addition, a beacon was added to the target missile so it can be found by the interceptor for sure. Despite these advantages, interceptor missile tests have been successful less than half the time.
A 2-04-05 Business Week article described the failed NMD program. To make matters worse, it notes:
"And as the American program struggles, other countries are making headway in pursuing new technologies. Scott Ritter, the former arms inspector in Iraq who correctly concluded Baghdad had no weapons of mass destruction, now says Russia has tested an SS-27 Topol-M mobile ballistic missile that would render the current Star Wars scheme useless. It is too fast to hit right after takeoff unless the interceptor is lucky enough to be really close to the launch pad. Also, the SS-27 is hardened against lasers, so the airborne laser -- a program already way behind schedule -- wouldn't work. And because it's maneuverable and capable of releasing three warheads and four decoys, it would be much harder to defeat as it falls in the terminal stage of flight."
That article notes the Topol-M (above) is nearly impossible to intercept since it makes slight changes course while in flight. While Russia is no longer an enemy, it has adopted the capitalist mentality that business is business and sells its top technology to China, India, and sometimes Iran. The Topol-M is ideal for export since it is a self-contained mobile system. It doesn't require months to build a launch complex that can be attacked by aircraft. Of course the Russians worry that it might be used against them. However, the Topol-M knowledge and systems may be acquired indirectly in pieces, or by hiring Russian scientists and engineers.
Similar systems will eventually appear elsewhere. As a result, even if a workable NMD system is ever developed, it will not work against the latest missiles. This was predicted back in 2000 by one of America's leading experts on space weaponry, Professor Theodore Postol of MIT: "There is no question that the huge missile defense program promoted under Reagan, the so-called SDI, was a scientific fraud. It cost American taxpayers well over $100 billion, spent mostly on experiments that never had a chance of real success." His view of current plans for NMD: "the public may be facing an even worse rip-off."
A more important issue is the CIA conclusion that ballistic missiles are the least likely way a nuclear weapon would be delivered at the USA. Simply loading a weapon on a ship and exploding it near a major city is far cheaper, far simpler, far more reliable, and does not leave a trail back to its origin. The irony is that, if a workable NMD system is ever fielded, it only guarantees that a better method of delivery will be used, like a civilian airplane, ship, or truck. Tons of drugs are smuggled into the USA each year, can NMD stop that method? A half million people illegally cross America's borders each year with un-inspected luggage, can NMD stop them? Why spend billions of dollars each year on NMD while ignoring real dangers?
One of the most perplexing aspects of the debate over a NMD system is the absence of any discussion about the accuracy of less sophisticated missiles that supposedly threaten the United States, like those that might be developed by Iran or North Korea. Accuracy has a very specific meaning as far as missiles are concerned. It is defined by a measure called the circular error probability, or simply CEP, the radius of a circle centered on the target. This is where half the warheads to hit and half will land outside the CEP. Several years ago, Popular Mechanics magazine investigated and learned:
"In the Cold War era, the CEP numbers of Soviet missiles were one of the leakier secrets. These numbers varied and dropped during the 1970s and '80s from about 10 to 1 kilometers, or roughly 6 to one-half miles. The fact that Soviet CEPs were improving the chief reason the Air Force hardened its missile silos with tons of reinforced concrete. In the 1980s and '90s, the CEP numbers of American missiles also improved. Tomahawk cruise missiles have an astounding CEP of 30 centimeters, meaning half will hit within about 1 ft. of the bull's eye.
Given our understanding of missile accuracy, the first thing POPULAR MECHANICS did when a congressionally mandated study of the missile threat was published several years ago, was to look at the CEPs of the rogue nation missiles that were supposedly directed at America. Instead of numbers, we found artful language: 'circular error CEP cannot be provided with confidence.'
Curious about the decision to use weasel words instead of CEP numbers, PM pressed the issue with several senior intelligence officials. During a background briefing, we were finally given an answer and it was a shocker. The guidance systems on the missiles available to rogue states such as North Korea and Iraq are very basic. CEPs are in excess of 300 kilometers, or more than 200 miles. And because the range of these missiles reaches only as far as the fringes of Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands, the biggest danger is to fish.
Rogue states, it seems, are bullies who can't hit the broad side of a barn with a rock. As such, they are not the threat they seem to be."
If a nation wants to attack the United States with a nuclear missile, a cruise missile is a less complex, more accurate, and far less costly item. These can be launched from merchant ships or fishing boats far from American shores. The NMD system has no capability to stop these missiles. Of course using a commercial aircraft is even simpler and NMD cannot stop those either.
Former Senator Sam Nunn warns that the greatest threat are the "thousands upon thousands" of missing "loose nukes" from Soviet tactical nuclear weapons. The Nunn-Lugar program to find and destroy these warheads has proven very successful, but Congress ended funding since much of the money flows to Russia. Congress is also reluctant to spend billions of dollars on true "National Defense" by greatly expanding the US Border Patrol, US Customs, and the US Coast Guard, since that money goes to federal jobs, rather than defense contractors who make big campaign contributions. Fortunately, Senator Carl Levin, who is on the Senate Armed Services committee, displayed some insight when he said: "The greater threat is the truck or the suitcase or the ship delivering a weapon of mass destruction. I think we've spent too much time on the least-likely means of delivering a weapon of mass destruction. We have to put more eggs in that antiterrorist basket."
The most recent spin in the missile defense fraud are claims that Navy SM-3 missiles fired from ships or shore bases can defend against ICBMs and IRBMs with a mid-course intercept. These missiles lack even half the range to hit large missiles arcing 300 miles overhead. Billions of dollars are dedicated to these systems that simply don't work.
National Missile Offense
Retired Marine Corps General James Cartwright attempted to inform Americans of a simple fact. The USA is looking at a trillion dollar bill to rebuild 5000 aging nuclear weapons. Most leaders realize that the nation can't afford that and needs no more than 1000 nukes. Which to cut? Air launched, submarine launched, or land launched? Most likely all three, mostly for political reasons since there's lots of money to share among defense contractors.
Cartwright disrupted this assumption by noting geography. He points out the 450 Minutemen missiles kept in silos in the American Midwest can only be used against Russia, which is an unlikely enemy. Some Americans cannot shake their Cold war indoctrination about evil Ruskies, but the USA has no serious quarrel with Russia, which should be an ally against a rising China and Middle East chaos.
The Minutemen missiles are immobile and designed with the range to hit targets in the Soviet Union by arcing over the Polar region. They don't have the range to strike many targets elsewhere, and firing them over Russia would be extremely foolish. The Russian military might assume they are under attack and launch a counter strike. Even if informed the Russians don't want American nukes attacking from their airspace. So its best to eliminate the entire Minutemen system and keep more air and sea based nuclear warheads. As a result, the nuclear weapons industry has been working hard to inflame tensions with Russia.
Commercial Aircraft Defense
Military contractors have pushed for anti-missile jamming systems aboard commercial airliners. This is a pod weighing several hundred pounds designed to jam or confuse shoulder-fired infrared seeking missiles with flares or lasers. This is a tremendous waste of money since the proposed systems are unlikely to work and the threat is minimal. The sensors they employ work over an open desert, but flying over cities results in several false alarms each day as any large flash of light, like sunlight reflecting off windshields or a refinery flaring, may look like a missile launch to a sensor. Warnings would sound while lasers blind innocent people on the ground or expensive flares discharged, which may start fires on the ground. This would snarl air traffic as pilots maneuver while airports are shut down unnecessarily for hours.
A 2005 report from the RAND Corporation estimated cost of outfitting commercial planes with protective devices against shoulder fired missiles is $11 billion. There are an estimated 6,800 commercial jets that would have to be given protective technology. In addition to installation, it would cost an additional $2 billion per year to maintain the system.
Shoulder-fired anti-aircraft systems only have a small three pound warhead that rarely downs a military fighter. They have been fired at hundreds of larger aircraft. Most all missed, and those that hit just caused engine damage since that is what produces the heat they are attracted to. There are three cases where a lucky hit has downed two-engine aircraft in Africa, but those were out of hundreds of attempts. A greater threat is someone with a high-powered rifle blasting away at the cockpit of an aircraft taking off or landing. This can only be countered by extending ground security coverage outside the airport at the end of runways.
Better ground security can deter those that may be able to acquire an expensive shoulder-fired missile, and may know how to operate it correctly, and may hit their target, which may be an extremely lucky shot that causes the aircraft to crash. High-power rifle fire is a much greater threat, but is not discussed since this threat does not require airlines to spend billions of dollars on worthless jamming pods. If the goal is to save lives, using these funds to improve aviation safety will reap greater rewards.
Aviation Safety for Idiots
The FAA spends millions of dollars each year to evaluate expensive safety ideas but ignores simple improvements. Many airplanes are unintentionally camouflaged making it difficult to see them in the air or ground. Those flown by United Airlines are some of the worst. (right) Add some fog or light rain and their aircraft disappear from view. Note the barely visible white airplane flying above, which would be invisible against clouds. Keep in mind that "runway incursions" on the ground are a serious problem as well.
The FAA should require that 80% of an airplane's skin be painted with high visibility "luminous" colors, which are already used by fire departments and highway workers. Fire departments moved from red to luminous yellow decades ago to reduce traffic accidents, but airlines failed to adopt this common sense idea. This would greatly improve aviation safety as most small aircraft rely only on visual identification. If phased in over a ten-year period, this would cost little since aircraft are repainted every few years. The other 20% of the skin is available for unique lettering, logos, or stripes, like the brightly colored Hertz airplane pictured.
This idea could be improved by assigning specific colors to different types of aircraft. This allows pilots easier identification because a small dot in the distance may be a huge, fast 747 or a slow, tiny Piper Cub. Perhaps slow single-engine props could be painted bright orange; slow helicopters - pink; faster multi-engine props - bright "lime" green; and very fast jet aircraft - bright yellow. This idea is simple to grasp, costs nothing to implement, yet would prevent several accidents a year.
Airport Entry Loopholes
A major security loophole in many nations is the "political asylum" game that is well known in the Third World. Three billion people on Earth are repressed and can present an excuse for asylum. They are welcome to apply at any embassy or consulate overseas or while they are legally visiting. However, they should not be allowed that option after arrest for violating laws by entering illegally or overstaying their visa. Each year, thousands of people who are caught at American airports with a forged passports or fake visas demand "political asylum" and are allowed to enter the USA anyway pending a hearing. Thousands more arrested for overstaying their visas or lacking legal documents scream "political asylum" to qualify for a hearing.
One problem is the US Court system runs on a formal "calendar" with regular hours and holidays. Because of the flood of immigration cases, the calendar is backlogged in many districts. Since it is impossible to detain most arrested illegal immigrants and political asylum applicants for several weeks until their scheduled hearing, they are released. This "catch and release" game has become so well-known that one-third of those arrested for violating immigration laws demand a deportation hearing, even those caught "red-handed" crossing the border or presenting false passports or visas at airport arrival stations. As a result, 85% of those arrested who demand a hearing are freed in the USA after promising to appear a few weeks later; 90% of them never show.
The famous "shoe bomb" terrorist was traveling with a forged passport. If he had preferred to enter the USA for terrorist activities, he may have been released into the USA despite his fake passport with a promise to appear at his deportation hearing. The US Congress should tackle this problem immediately by establishing ten federal immigration courts in areas with high case loads. Ideally, some of these courts will be inside major airports, like: JFK, LAX, and Miami. Funding is needed to provide for the appointment of 100 new magistrates and staff required for two shifts a day, seven days a week. This means a courtroom is open 18 hours a day, 7 days a week for airport arrivals who are arrested, so those who demand a hearing will see federal magistrate within hours.
Aliens attempting to play the court game would see a magistrate within hours and most back on a flight home within 24 hours. In other cases, the judge may determine that a mistake may have been made and order the suspect released, detained, or released on bond. Ironically, this would save money each year because of lower prisoner detention and transport costs. Eventually, word would spread throughout the Third World that the "demand a hearing" loophole has closed. This would free Border Patrol agents to spend more time making new arrests and allow immigration officers time to pursue those who overstay visas, like the 9-11 hijackers did.
If a nation is serious about homeland security, it must not allow unknown ships near its shores and assign substantial forces to protect its main ports. The easiest way to attack a nation with a nuclear weapon is to place one on a ship and explode it in a harbor or just offshore of a major city. It doesn't matter how good security is at customs because the bomb would explode before the ship is inspected. The US Coast Guard is assigned to protect US waters, but it doesn't have the manpower and assets required, especially since it is preoccupied with search and rescue.
The US Navy is vulnerable because today's crowded port areas offer many chances for merchant ships to ram and sink smaller warships. In addition, fishing boats and pleasure craft loaded with explosives or torpedoes are a threat, as the 1999 attack on the USS Cole demonstrated. Navies may find "boat bombs" just as deadly as car bombs are in the Middle East today. The US Navy must take this threat seriously and embark at least one patrol boat on each of its ships. Read Carrier Escorts Need Escorts.
In the United States, the National Guard must take a more active role. During the Cold war, their focus shifted to preparing to fight a major war overseas and many units were sent for occupation duty in Iraq. National Guard units should be designated to protect vital infrastructure during wartime. This must be done in peacetime so units can evaluate vulnerable areas and familiarize soldiers with a specific mission. Their primary role will be to augment peacetime security forces at military installations, including port security since Naval Commandos and Air Commandos may attempt to enter the nation.
Slipping into the United States is not difficult, as illegal immigrants and drug dealers have shown. A merchant ship can slow offshore in international waters and drop small boats in the water at night full of commandos. It takes a lot of manpower to guard against this threat as was the case during World War II. In addition, the modern world is much smaller since commandos can take jet flights to a Latin American nation and easily make their way north and across the border. Of course moving weapons is difficult, but they can improvise or have weaponry shipped to the USA from a neutral nation since less than 1% of cargo is inspected.
What will keep enemy submarines from entering US harbors? The US Navy had submarine nets in World War II and can use sonobouys today. However, no equipment is standing by and no units assigned to perform this task at each port. This is an ideal role for the naval reserve, which can also be equipped with small boats and even DE Corvettes. The current plan is to expect the Coast Guard to handle everything as they do in peacetime. However, the Coast Guard is a relatively small force that is overworked during peacetime. They need major wartime augmentation, which is an ideal role for reserve units since reservists live in these areas.
Despite all the money spent on homeland security, no organization is really in charge of overall port security in the United States. For example, who is in charge of keeping the port of San Diego secure? The Coast Guard? Officially yes, but mostly they operate off the coast and have little manpower. The Navy? The US Navy doesn't waste resources on that. FEMA? Maybe on paper, but no. Customs? No. The state of California? Constitutionally yes, but no in reality. The military command, Northcom? Theoretically yes, but they are in Colorado. Hurricane Katrina exposed this lack of a unified command in New Orleans.
There is no unified commander to protect the port of San Diego nor the other dozen American ports important to national security. This need was understood prior to World War II when the US Marine Corps had port defense battalions and the US Army had soldiers based at port entrances. Using San Diego as an example, there must be a Commander, Port Defense, San Diego. This should be a Navy Captain who takes charge of US Coast Guard assets during wartime or an emergency. This Captain will have a full-time US Marine Corps security team under his command. These companies existed for such missions until a decade ago. The Commander, Port Defense, will also have authority to immediately take command of any military assets he chooses. This will allow him to call an airbase and order aircraft dispatched to deal with a threat without waiting hours for a series of commanders to okay such a request.
He will also have a reserve security company of Marines, a reserve Navy small boat company, and a Navy corvette squadron with half active duty and half reservists. He will also be assigned an infantry battalion from the California National Guard based in San Diego. These units will support peacetime port security during drills, and know their exact wartime mission so they can be on duty within 24 hours. This also allows increased security through partial mobilization when peacetime threats rise. This may seem like a lot of manpower, but providing security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week requires a lot of manpower.
Port security does not mean just Navy base security, which these units will augment. Military port security personnel will serve as coast watchers, guard the harbor entrance with small boats, and monitor sonobouys. They will have observation posts on islands offshore. They may stop suspicious boats offshore and search them. They may augment security at the border if the Border Patrol is unable to keep the San Diego sector secure. They will watch areas where someone can attack aircraft taking-off or landing at military and civilian airfields. While recent years has seen more emphasis on homeland security, attention has been focused on redrawing organizations while defense contractors used their influence in Congress to press for expensive high-tech equipment like UAVs.
What is really needed for homeland security is a unified command system and manpower. The Border Patrol does not need expensive detectors and UAVs, it needs manpower. The Coast Guard needs manpower and basic ships. Moreover, the US Navy and Marine Corps must divert resources from unneeded overseas bases to protect major ports in the USA. Finally, there must be unified port security command structure at all major ports, with the ability to mobilize trained reservists within 24 hours.
The Refugee Threat
A major threat to developed nations is rampant population growth in many poor nations. Population increases were curtailed throughout history by disease, famine, and war. Efforts by civilized nations to curb deaths in the uncivilized world have been successful, yet these poor nations cannot absorb the resulting population explosion. The conflict in Kosovo was caused by immigration from high-birth rate Albania. Perpetual fighting in Africa is the result of millions of homeless people wandering about due to population explosions back home. Discontent in the Muslim world is fueled by a population growing faster than national economies. All Americans are aware of the immigration problem caused by high birth rates in Mexico and the Philippines.
There are now seven billion people on Earth, twice as many as in 1960. For every human who dies each day, two are born. Most all of this population growth occurs in poor nations. This has been caused by the World Health Organization (WHO) and various worldwide relief agencies that try to eliminate premature deaths, which results in chaos among the billion people on Earth who are best described as "uncivilized." They cannot read or write, and many do not even understand what causes pregnancy. As a result, they continue a tradition of women giving birth as often as possible to strengthen their family and tribe. Rwanda in Africa leads the world in birth rates, with 8.5 children per woman, compared to Italy with only 1.3 children per woman. India has a high birth rate and is expected to surpass China's population by 2020.
With no work in the countryside and no unused land to farm, surplus people migrate to megacities and live in squalor. Half the people on Earth now live in cities; roughly 3.9 billion, nearly three-quarters of them in the developing world. The top five metro areas are: Tokyo - 26 million; Mumbai - 26 million; Lagos - 24 million; Dhaka - 21 million; and Sao Paulo - 20 million. Tokyo does not grow, but the other top four grew 50% the past decade. While the US Army struggled to maintain order in the fairly modern city of Baghdad with its five million residents, the prospect of a military conflict in a megacity is daunting. Since poor megacities operate near chaos, any disruption will result in catastrophe.
It seems impossible for poor megacities to absorb all these new arrivals, so where will they go? Will they starve on the streets, immigrate, riot, or turn to crime? This is not a future problem, but one that has been growing for years. These are complex issues that world leaders refuse to face, even after Pat Buchanan boldly addressed this problem is his recent book: The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. Third Worlders die from common diseases like dysentery, which can be treated with antibiotics, yet they have no money to buy them. The developed world can ship tons of antibiotics to poor nations to save lives, but then who will feed and house these millions of jobless people breeding like rabbits?
The best investment is educating uncivilized peoples about the problems of huge families and encourage family planning to curb birth rates. Relief efforts must focus on temporary help to acute crises in stable nations, and not hope to solve problems caused by population growth with grain shipments. This was attempted in Somalia where millions of surplus people had migrated to cities and caused a breakdown in social order. Feeding these people did not solve the underlying problem of overpopulation, it just prolonged inevitable fighting and dying. It is common for unemployed male refugees in Africa to join armed gangs, militias, and private armies, just for a daily food ration.
China suffered from chaos caused by overpopulation for decades until the communists took action, limiting women to one child with the threat of forced sterilization if they had a second. Many in developed nations are ignorant of these issues and denounce any aid to family planning organizations that promote contraceptives, sterilization, or abortion. They have never witnesses malnourished babies discarded on the roadside and seem unaware that uncivilized people produce large families when they cannot even feed themselves. Starvation, disease, and war are nature's way of correcting these imbalances and spending billions of dollars to ship food and medical aid to permanent refugee camps makes the problem worse. This threatens the developed world with mass migration, international crime, terrorism, and small scale warfare.
Citizens along the United States border with Mexico scream for federal assistance to stem the current flood of over one million illegal immigrants each year. Over 100,000 people a year enter the European Union illegally across the Mediterranean, a fifth of the total number of illegal immigrants. A special EU naval group was formed to repel this invasion. Even relatively poor nations like Morocco are no longer protected by a vast desert and that country is unsure how to handle the thousands of African refugees from the south accumulating at its border checkpoints trying to find some way to make their way north.
Western governments have done little to address this problem, thinking unskilled immigrants help by doing unpopular work for low wages. However, many unskilled and uneducated young immigrants and their teenage children become frustrated by their lowly status and turn to crime or violence, which has become a major problem in France. The governments of developed nations must focus efforts on the cause of refugees, and not treat this symptom by resettling these people in their poorer neighborhoods. Foreign aid must be directed at helping poor nations recover from natural disasters and stopping impoverished women from creating large families. A persistent shortage of food is not a natural disaster, it's a man made disaster. Unless high birth rates are curbed, the world will experience increasing violence as hoards of desperate people migrate to seek food and shelter.
Rapid population growth is the greatest threat to our national and economic security. Read this outstanding short article about this critical issue: Population bomb; 9 billion march to WWIII. Here is part:
"Yes, you can forget “Peak Oil.” Forget global warming. Forget debt, deficits, defaults. Forget commodities, scarce resource depletion. Forget all other economic, political, military problems. Yes, forget all of them. None of them matter … if our leaders fail to deal with the world’s out-of-control population bomb. Nothing else matters. Nothing."
Defending National Borders
A federal government must protect and defend its citizens from foreign threats. Despite the billions of dollars spent on "Homeland Security," US borders remain mostly unprotected. Last year, the government estimated that a half million unknown persons simply walked across unguarded areas of the border into the USA. Border Patrol agents have been added, but 21,000 agents are far too few to cope with the flood of refugees pouring across US borders.
The value of mass immigration is not the issue here. All sane Americans agree that anyone entering their nation should be screened and their luggage inspected. If the American people feel that more immigrants are needed, Congress can pass laws to increase quotas. In addition, as the US tracks international terrorists, restricts visas from certain countries, and tightens airport security, future terrorists are likely to just walk across the unguarded border. The Border Patrol routinely arrests Arabs from countries on the terror watch list, but no one seems concerned about those that slip by.
This problem is well known to most Americans, yet American Presidents are reluctant to take action, even though this would boost popularity. Some politicians support "amnesty" for aliens who broke American law to enter illegally, and continue to break laws in order to work by stealing identities of American citizens. What they propose is not really "amnesty," which implies they will not be punished. It is a plan to reward those who broke laws and cut in line ahead of the millions of other foreigners who properly applied for entry visas and have waited years for their turn. Offering a complex "path to citizenship" is a corporate spin. All one needs to work or obtain welfare benefits is a social security card, which an amnesty provides instantly.
Rewarding lawbreakers with visas will dramatically increase illegal immigration as millions more refugees and criminals surge across lightly guarded borders to seek visas, rather than waiting their turn through the legal process. Politicians endorse foolish proposals because corporate America likes the idea of millions of desperate peasants crossing the border to drive down wages of American workers. While Americans see the negative effects of insecure borders everyday in the form of increased crime, vagrancy, and soaring local taxes to cover county hospital bills, they rarely see anything negative in the corporate media. A book: Mexifornia explains how mass immigration transformed California from one of the nations' wealthiest states, to one of its poorest.
Sealing the border against all intruders is too costly, although Israel and South Korea prove it can be done. However, cutting illegal border crossers from 500,000 a year to 5,000 is a reasonable goal. These aliens are not black-suited ninjas dashing across the desert, they are just regular people stepping through a hole in a fence and walking a mile to a border city or waiting automobile. The 21,000 Border Patrol agents cannot handle the problem because half of these agents are involved in training, administration, processing, transporting, or deporting criminal aliens. Agents assigned to patrol the border work 40-hour weeks, with vacation and holidays. As a result, there are fewer than 2000 agents at work right now guarding the entire Canadian and Mexican border.
Aliens don't sneak across the border, they flood across. Finding aliens is not the problem, rounding them up is the challenge. In a typical urban sector, hundreds of aliens in small groups step through the fence each night while a dozen border patrol agents scramble to stop who they can. They built an expensive metal wall along the San Diego sector, but some aliens just climb over. Proposals to use nasty razor wire are rejected since they will injure aliens who then require care at American hospitals. Another problem is that even when agents detect and confront aliens near the fence, the aliens just wait until the agents leave to continue their patrol or respond elsewhere. Crossing the border is so easy that many illegal aliens go home to Mexico for Christmas knowing they can just dash back across.
Every homeowner knows that the best way to keep people out of their yard is to buy a dog. Amazingly, the Border Patrol uses no dogs to guard its fences. Trained attack dogs are not needed nor desired, just small mutts that bark and snarl to defend their territory, yet are too small to seriously injure any fool who attempts to cross. The Border Patrol should build pens along the fence line in busy areas 200 meters long by 10 meters wide (dual fencing already exists along some of the border) and keep several dogs in each pen. Dogs can be on duty 24/7 and require no pay or retirement. They will bark at anyone who comes within 50 meters of the fence and become furious at anyone attempting to cut or climb the fence. This commotion will be heard by Border Patrol agents who can drive over to investigate. If the aliens choose to linger on the Mexican side, the dogs will be happy to stay and watch them for days.
Dogs can instantly eliminate illegal crossings at vulnerable areas. Border Patrol agents will no longer waste time chasing and arresting aliens, and fence repair will be rare. Instead of chasing aliens, they will just watch groups of befuddled aliens standing 10 meters from the fence watching snarling dogs. The only solution for desperate smugglers is hike several miles through the desert to cross in remote areas, or to shoot the dogs, which is messy and extreme. This also requires a gun whose shots will instantly attract Border Patrol agents. Placing dogs along the entire border is impractical and unnecessary because around 90% of illegal crossing occur along small segments of the border near roads and towns. Illegal crossings along fences guarded by dogs will become rare, and Border Patrol agents will enjoy a leisurely life of feeding their dogs and intercepting the few young men who attempt to hike several miles around the sectors guarded by dogs.
Once the Border Patrol secures the easy crossing areas with dogs, crossing will become so difficult that most aliens will not try as word spreads that the border is no longer open. However, tens of thousands will make long treks to cross remote areas of the border that remain unguarded today. The Border Patrol does not have the manpower or resources to watch these areas, but the US Army has 50 times more manpower and can to assist. US Army troops should resume their pre-1940 mission of guarding the border, yet only remote areas. The legality and practicality of deploying US troops to defend the United States has been deemed impractical by the corporate media, but this section erases those myths: Defending America at the Border. While federal agents work hard to find and deport dangerous aliens, most will walk back into the USA until the border is secured.
State governments will quickly see their finances improve as welfare cases and medical costs for the poor fall, while more Americans take jobs as wages rise when employers must offer more than the minimum wage. Finally, soldiers of the US Army will be happy to defend America and receive daily thanks from Americans, in contrast to the hostility they encounter defending borders overseas. While the 9-11 hijackers entered the USA legally, they overstayed their visas for years and no one looked for them. This happened because there are millions of illegal aliens in the USA whose background is unknown, and that number is growing rapidly because loopholes and bureaucratic snafus prevent enforcement of American laws.
Thwarting Drug Smugglers
Most illegal drugs are driven across border checkpoints risk free. Choosing which vehicles to send to detailed secondary inspection is up to the lowly Homeland Security guy at each booth. He asks for ID, runs the license plate, asks a few questions to measure nervousness, and allows around 95% to pass on without a detailed inspection. Since friends, relatives, or drug smugglers can call, text, or see who is in each booth, they can choose the line to their friendly inspector and avoid searches. Border officials also know the big political players in their border region, so they never search the mayor, police chief, fellow employees, senior officials, or their wives.
The guys in the Homeland Security booths can wave through whoever they want so they are easy to corrupt since they can trade favors or collect cash for doing nothing. They just pretend not to notice the illegals crouched down in the back seat or the suitcases, which may have drugs. They cannot be caught, unless someone squeals on them. Even when that occurs there is no hard evidence. Some may apply for such jobs with plans to become rich by waving through fellow gang members. This problem is widespread because few are caught every year. A lone, low ranking, corrupt official can allow dozens of vehicles with tons of drugs or dozens of illegals to pass through risk-free each day!
The solution is simple and costs almost nothing. Federal agents from outside the area should be tasked to supervise border inspections. Every few years, they would be assigned a 90-day duty at a border station, which would require a half dozen temps at each border crossing to provide coverage 24/7. They would often search Homeland Security personnel at booths for cell phones -- none allowed. They would choose who is at each booth, and move them around every hour. Its a good idea to install sun tarps so people in the Mexican side can't see who is in which booth.
The temp Fed supervisor would walk among cars waiting in line and also choose vehicles to inspect. He would keep a keen eye out for cars that try to change lanes for no reason, especially after he shuffles the guys in the booths. The drug cartels now drive large shipments through daily at no risk because they have a "friend" at the inspection booth. This would become risky because it would be difficult to determine which lane their friend is working, and he might be moved just before they pull up, and that annoying Fed wandering around may choose them for inspection. The Fed should wear a bullet proof vest and carry an M-16 because smugglers may open fire and flee when he doesn't allow them to choose their lane.
This would be a thankless task because this outsider would be disliked by the local Homeland Security people. This is why he must be an outsider on temporary duty, outside the local Homeland Security chain-of-command and not worried about becoming hated in the local community. Every border crossing is different, yet the impact of outside supervisors would be huge. These agents would face serious authority confrontations with a few border inspectors who are found with cell phones or officials who insist that certain vehicles cannot be searched.
This would be similar to the disruption drug smugglers encountered when aircrews were required to go through gate security checkpoints after 9-11. A lot of stewardesses and pilots were frequent drug mules, with a perfect cover and risk free transport method. If outside supervisors are used at border crossings, the drug flow from Mexico would fall in half. This wouldn't solve the drug war, but would smack down the profits of the Mexican drug cartels and those of some Homeland Security folks. Unfortunately, Homeland Security dislikes this idea because it implies that corruption exists, and no one wants outsiders telling them what to do.
Protecting Citizens from Foreign Threats
The flood of illegal immigrants is America's greatest national security problem and a growing problem in Europe and Australia. The US Congress made laws that must be enforced and citizens who think greater legal immigration is needed are free to argue for changes. However, no sane American wants their city to become a dumping ground for impoverished refugees who may become unhappy and riot, as happened in France. No American wants foreign criminals slipping into the USA. No American wants an epidemic because diseased persons entered the US illegally. No American wants terrorists or enemy commandos strolling across the border or slipping ashore using small boats.
The chaos along US borders and in major cities is a grave threat to national security. Every week, thousands of people with criminal backgrounds, diseases, illegal drugs, and violent political beliefs enter the USA unchecked. Even if caught and arrested, many demand a deportation hearing or political asylum for prompt release. The al Qaeda terrorists entered the US legally, but stayed for years illegally because immigration officers were too busy caring for detainees and sending millions of illegal immigrants through revolving court doors. Homeland security needs more resources, and ample forces are available in the US military, while funding can be diverted from bogus NMD programs.