Posted on 04/20/2005 11:50:46 AM PDT by xzins
Using the functions N(x) and S(x) (and using ® to convert to miles)we find the perimeter of the United States to be 8,878 miles: the U.S.- Canadian border is 3,283 miles, the U.S.-Mexican border is 1,386 miles, and the lengths of the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts are 1,719, 1,315, and 1,175 miles respectively.
According to the 1963 Boundary Agreement, the length of the U.S.- Mexican border is 1,933 miles. By the U.S. Geological Survey the length of the U.S.-Canadian border (excluding the Alaskan border) is 3,987 miles [3].
The lengths of the jagged coasts are more difficult to compute than the relatively smooth national borders. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes two sets of data regarding the length of the coasts. One measurement they title “coastline” and the other they title “shoreline.”
The coastline is the length of the coast measured using a “ruler” of length 30 minutes of latitude. It is the length of the general outline of the coast, ignoring small bays, peninsulas, and islands. Using this method NOAA found the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coastlines to be 2,069, 1,631, and 1,293 miles respectively [3].
The shoreline is the length of the coast obtained by measuring every feature, including offshore islands, bays, sounds, and mouths of rivers (up to the head of the tidewater or to the location where the tidal waters narrow to 100 feet). In 1939-40, using the most accurate charts then available, NOAA found the shorelines to be 28,673, 17,141, and 3,863 miles for the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts respectively [3].
Regardless of which of these techniques we use to measure the coasts, our computed perimeter is a significant underestimate. Using the coastline figures the perimeter of the United States is 10,913 miles and using the shoreline figures it is 54,059 miles. The error of our estimate is 19% using the first figure and 84% using the latter!
The minuteman project is a valuable to keep out illegal aliens and protect our economy. Expanded military coverage probably wouldn't make a lot of different against a determined, small group of infiltrators with military motives.
JMHO
Fun with fractals!
The Minute Men, a few hundred American men with some gumption have virtually shut down illegals crossing our border with their patrols.
The Federal government with almost unlimited resources has been unable to do this.
I hope the Federal government is rightly embarrassed!
I had read that Carter put up a partial wall on the southern border. I don't think it held up too well, though.
OK, I read it. But, what the @ell did I read. More importantly...why did I read it? The last sentence is rhetorical.
Butterfly effect?
We'd be better off if we constructed a huge wall north and south on the borders.
An unguarded wall will stop everybody without access to a ladder or a shovel.
If that's the one south of San Diego, it's pitiful. I'd want a real wall, probably 15' high with constantina wire that would extend another 5-7'.
To respect the soverignty of all nations involved, we should have 50 yards of more constantina wire continuously positioned just north of Mexico and just south of Canada. The wire should be staggered on the ground and 4' off the ground.
Army MPs at the various highway entrance points with Apache helicopters patroling. This would prove to everyone that we mean business on illegal immigration.
This should have been in the DHS budget yesterday.
I anticipated that. Please see #10.
Maine, by itself, makes up most of the Atlantic coastline.
I agree that any type of wall should be on both the northern and southern borders. I firmly believe that if the southern border becomes sealed, invaders WOULD use the north to access our nation. I suspect they already do.
It would be much cheaper to just place a $1,000 bounty on each illegal caught and turned in alive. Anyone caught a second time should be declared outlaw and subject to summary execution.
Where is that bunny with the pancake on its head when you need it?
Their estimate was 8800 miles. Compared with the two methods of actually measuring mileage, which gave the results of 10,000 and 54,000 respectively, their estimate was under 10,000 by about 19% AND under 54,000 by quite a bit.
I've heard this too - but I've never been able to find a source to verify it. Would you have one?
The key here is to use land mines. The mine fields along the Korean DMZ work pretty well at keeping out the North Koreans, who are certainly no slouches at border infiltration. Same for the former east/west Berlin minefields
You would not have to mine the whole border, but use patterned mine fields to canalize the illegal entrants into more easily observed areas, where they can be rounded up.
Clearly marked and combined with chain-link fence and tanglefoot, mines ensure that nobody makes it across. The cost in the long run is very managaeable compared to human guards/choppers.etc.
I fully agree with you about illegal immigration. Walls and checkpoints are the classic way to handle this.
About the infiltration of determined militarily trained terrorists, using huge numbers of soldiers on the border could not possibly cover all the inlets, bays, and long and lonely miles. We'd have to go to a border patrol of hundreds of thousands....a new DoD. (Perhaps I'd support a type of draft of 18-19 year olds for this kind of service, but I'm concerned with the liberty issues.) This massive new Border Guard would be low tech in vehicles, high tech in search and snoop technology. It would probably cost about a 4th of the Army's budget.
I'd change the name of all National Guard Units to "Reserve." I'd use the word "guard" for the Coast Guard and the Border Guard. I'd put all under DoD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.