Iranian border guards on the Pakistan border.

[Serpentine]

On our side we have Frontier Corps;

View attachment 249714 View attachment 249715

They won't be able to do much, as evidence also shows. Neither Iran can do much by only stationing soldiers.

The only solution is to build a huge wall on border, monitored by cameras, soldiers, electrified fences and mounted automatic guns with optics to target anything moving where they should not.

 

[bozorgmehr]

Okay, let me try to clarify my point more for you & for others in this thread.

First thing we need to understand is that in any country or situation (business, personal, etc), resources are limited, whether they are financial, human, time, etc. A top manager or leader needs to decide which expenditure of certain resources brings the highest benefit. The average person looks at his surrounding and wonders, "Why can't they fix this road, why can't they build a mosque, why can't they pay us higher, why can't they reduce tax, why can't they save the environment" and so on. But any expense means you are spending less on something else. The question is, which would be the best use of the resources?

Fortifying a 900+ km in mountainous terrain is extremely resource-heavy. Let's use the USA-Mexican barrier as an example. For almost the same amount of length, the project cost USA $2.4 billion! And while it brought down illegal immigration, it didn't make it zero. In 2010, there was still almost 463,000 illegals entering!

Now let's look at the problems we face with the border. Each countries border situation is different. We don't face a immigration problem (Berlin Wall made to prevent people going out, Mexican-USA border made to prevent people coming in). Pakistanis aren't illegally coming to Iran to find work nor are we having a problem of Iranians going to Pakistan to find work. Nor are we at war, like Koreans with their DMZ.

Our situation is two-folded,
1) Illegal Trade - Smuggling, Drugs, etc
2) Terrorist actions by Sunni Extremists from Pakistan

And I will propose that both situations have better solutions than pouring money into border control, which I personally believe never address the actual problem. Israel's wall doesn't address the actual problem of their situation with Gaza. Berlin Wall didn't address the shitty situation East Germany was in. And so on.

So, let's start with Illegal Trade

I knew Baluchis who would travel between the two countries. There are special drivers who know the mountainous terrain with their eyes closed. And I mean, literally with their eyes closed, because these guys drive at night, with their lights switched off. They do this so they won't be seen by patrols. Can you imagine how hard it is to even notice a car in 900 km border that is driving in the dark at high speed without any lights? This is why with USA's high budget, personnel (21,000 men and women!), and technology, they still have around half a million people entering per year.

Instead of spending millions on the border, use the money this way instead:
1) More campaigns in Iran to discourage people from using drugs
2) More camps for people who want to quit
3) Coordinate with Pakistani & Afghani government to see if it is possible to buy the raw drugs (such as opium) to use in legal medicines (such as codeine). Let farmers benefit more than the legal trade than the illegal one
4) Study if possible to legalize certain illegal drugs, and then discouraging traders to import it legally
5) Regarding smuggling of goods, look at better streamlining the customs procedures. Tariffs should be heavily reduced on goods between Pakistan & Iran to make smuggling pointless.

Now, let's talk about Sunni Extremists. Again, I find the money that could be used for border control can be used for the root of the problem.

Keep in mind our main objective should not be how to prevent Sunni extremists coming in to harm us, but how to reduce the tension in the first place!

The money can be used for:
1) Make the Iranian Sunni Borders an example of prosperity! Let the people from the other side of the borders see that a few kms away, their neighbors are living well under the Islamic Republic. Any of them from the Pakistani border who sits with his friend from Iranian border and talks about "Shia Iran", the Iranian Sunni will compare their two lives, and realize that he is much better off, and won't take his talks seriously.
2) Have lots of Sunni-Shia conferences and gatherings between the two countries. Let the two sides sit and talk and have events together. The best way to fight ignorance is through building relationships.
3) Spend money in Pakistan border cities. Build Iranian hospitals and clinics. Make wells for villages. Send free Iranian made farm machines. The extremist preacher who insults Iran at the friday mosque in a village, one day will be sick, and he will go to the Iranian hospital in the village, and this alone will make him look like a fool. And don't go to Pakistan to build Husseiniyas. The last thing a Sunni wants to see is Iranian government building a Hosseiniya in their city.

If we attack roots of the problems, we solve the problem. Walls have never solved any problem.

I'm sorry but the premise of your argument is still very much flawed.

If you think for the price of a wall we can solve the drug problem in Iran and everything that it entails and at the same time make the Sunni border areas an example of happiness and prosperity, then as the saying goes, I have a bridge to sell you...

Richer, more rational, more representative governments in far more educated and tolerant societies have been trying to tackle those issues for a long time without much to show for. You think a government that believes Islam can be used to set up the perfect society will be reasonable enough, sensitive enough and accountable enough to get at the root of these social ills?

What you're asking for is far more unrealistic than a wall...

Now, regarding the necessity for the wall itself, if somebody is coming at you or your family with a knife, the first thing you think about is protecting yourself, not sending the other person to therapy. It doesn't mean the attacker won't need to seek therapy or he's the devil's incarnate and you should close the book on him. But first thing's first. You need to make sure he cannot harm you. A wall would go a long to way to achieving that goal. We would then be able to tackle the cultural and societal issues you described, which by their definition take a lot longer to resolve and are a lot more expensive to deal with.

And a few points about the US-Mexico border wall/fence:

1. The cost you quoted is with American manpower, on US soil. An Iranian wall with Iranian manpower, technology and material will cost a fraction of the American one to build.
2. The US-Mexico border at 3,145 km, is 3.5 times the length of our border.
3. Mexican cartels were never engaged in a shooting war with the US, as a country. Or they would have been dealt with very differently, a long time ago.

 

[Madali]

I'm sorry but the premise of your argument is still very much flawed.

If you think for the price of a wall we can solve the drug problem in Iran and everything that it entails and at the same time make the Sunni border areas an example of happiness and prosperity, then as the saying goes, I have a bridge to sell you...

I'm not saying the price of wall will solve ALL problems. I'm saying that the return of investment on the wall is lower than other expenses. That is, the calculation that should be made is, if a wall costs 100 million USD per year, could this money be used in a different way that brings more benefit than the wall?

I'm not talking in absolutes. That is, I'm not saying wall has NO benefit nor am I saying other avenues have 100% benefit, but we compare different ways we can spend our resources and try to figure out which brings in the highest profit (or benefit).

Richer, more rational, more representative governments in far more educated and tolerant societies have been trying to tackle those issues for a long time without much to show for. You think a government that believes Islam can be used to set up the perfect society will be reasonable enough, sensitive enough and accountable enough to get at the root of these social ills?

What you're asking for is far more unrealistic than a wall...

I don't don't automatically put other governments on a pedestal. I think our culture has a lot to show for that other "more rational" governments fail at. For example, when it comes to race issues and racial tensions, our culture handles it much better than the so called rational, richer, more educated, more tolerant societies.

There is absolutely no reason why our people can't be more successful in tackling issues that societies face than the west.

Now, regarding the necessity for the wall itself, if somebody is coming at you or your family with a knife, the first thing you think about is protecting yourself, not sending the other person to therapy. It doesn't mean the attacker won't need to seek therapy or he's the devil's incarnate and you should close the book on him. But first thing's first. You need to make sure he cannot harm you. A wall would go a long to way to achieving that goal. We would then be able to tackle the cultural and societal issues you described, which by their definition take a lot longer to resolve and are a lot more expensive to deal with.

I'm not talking about "therapy". I'm talking about tackling the root issues. I'm not saying completely ignore the security issues, but pouring millions into the borders won't bring as much benefits as you claim. If someone comes at you or your family with a knife, you will protect yourself. But if someone might, maybe, one day, maybe not, in the future, could or could not, come at your with a knife, you won't spend all your income protecting yourself now, would you?

Most won't put in a $400,000 to buy a bullet proof door if their whole saving is $500,000 on their home. Even if it makes them more secure.

And a few points about the US-Mexico border wall/fence:

1. The cost you quoted is with American manpower, on US soil. An Iranian wall with Iranian manpower, technology and material will cost a fraction of the American one to build.

The quote was 2.4 billion. So let's say ours is vastly cheaper. Ours is 90% cheaper, okay? That's still $240 million. And how effective would that be when in USA, still 400 thousand make it through? You need a system to make this number zero.

2. The US-Mexico border at 3,145 km, is 3.5 times the length of our border.

But the expense I mentioned was for the length of 900 something KM. They have finished bordering the full length yet.

3. Mexican cartels were never engaged in a shooting war with the US, as a country. Or they would have been dealt with very differently, a long time ago.

Mexican cartels are responsible for US citizen deaths. Inside USA, there is an estimate of 1,100 homicides related to drug wars. Actual numbers are probably higher.
90% of the drugs come through the Mexican border & there are 20,000 deaths per year due to illegal drug usage, meaning that if 90% of the drugs come through the borders, that's 18,000 deaths per year.

 

[xyxmt]

Not Pakistan they want to stop Drug smugglers

why dont they nab them once they are inside Iranian borders.

 

[Sinnerman108]

They won't be able to do much, as evidence also shows. Neither Iran can do much by only stationing soldiers.

The only solution is to build a huge wall on border, monitored by cameras, soldiers, electrified fences and mounted automatic guns with optics to target anything moving where they should not.

Not wall.
It can be breached and broken.

We need a ditch, so trucks can't move across;
and then mine them properly.

Ayatullahs have their eyes on the gold and copper, thus they will not allow any permanent making of the border.

 

[bozorgmehr]

I'm not saying the price of wall will solve ALL problems. I'm saying that the return of investment on the wall is lower than other expenses. That is, the calculation that should be made is, if a wall costs 100 million USD per year, could this money be used in a different way that brings more benefit than the wall?

I don't know how you came up with $100 million/year operating cost for the wall. But I would say your views are somewhat ideological and not rooted in past experience and reality.

History has shown that social issues don't get resolved quickly and are expensive to deal with. You would like to believe investing the money into making border Sunnis happier and undercutting demand for drugs will better protect us against attacks than the wall. I say please go ahead and prove your case.

All I will say is that countries (including our own) from ancient times until now have been using walls to defend against external threats. There's every indication that this one will be effective too.

I'm not talking in absolutes. That is, I'm not saying wall has NO benefit nor am I saying other avenues have 100% benefit, but we compare different ways we can spend our resources and try to figure out which brings in the highest profit (or benefit).

And I'm not speaking in absolutes either. The root causes will absolutely have to be addressed. But that's a much longer term project. But first you have to patch the leak. You have to stop the bleeding. And at that, the wall will have a much more immediate effect than anything else.

I don't don't automatically put other governments on a pedestal. I think our culture has a lot to show for that other "more rational" governments fail at. For example, when it comes to race issues and racial tensions, our culture handles it much better than the so called rational, richer, more educated, more tolerant societies.

There is absolutely no reason why our people can't be more successful in tackling issues that societies face than the west.

Dude please!!! Don't let your pride blind your judgement. Right now in the US they have a black person as the head of their state. Get back to me when a Jew or Christian... or a woman for that matter will be allowed to become our head of state. That's right! That will never happen in our system, because it is a Shia Muslim Theocracy, and those people will by definition be always excluded from running for that position. So yes, those reasonable, tolerant western societies are much better at creating opportunities for all of their members and addressing the inherent disadvantages that minorities suffer from, which is very much the root of problem we're talking about here.

I'm not talking about "therapy". I'm talking about tackling the root issues. I'm not saying completely ignore the security issues, but pouring millions into the borders won't bring as much benefits as you claim. If someone comes at you or your family with a knife, you will protect yourself. But if someone might, maybe, one day, maybe not, in the future, could or could not, come at your with a knife, you won't spend all your income protecting yourself now, would you?

Most won't put in a $400,000 to buy a bullet proof door if their whole saving is $500,000 on their home. Even if it makes them more secure.

I was hoping that you will understand that therapy is an analogy for the long term issues that we face. And it's not might, maybe, one day, maybe not... We have a determined enemy on our hand. Should I go over the list of their attacks for the past 20 years to refresh your memory? Do you want them to put up the schedule of their future attacks for you to be satisfied?

And no, nobody is foolish enough to put a $400K door on a $500k house. But I've seen owners of much less expensive houses spend a few grands to build a fence around their house.

The quote was 2.4 billion. So let's say ours is vastly cheaper. Ours is 90% cheaper, okay? That's still $240 million. And how effective would that be when in USA, still 400 thousand make it through? You need a system to make this number zero.

$240 million is the cost of small to medium size power plant. If your argument is one of economy vs efficacy, then we have much bigger problems if we can't even afford that. And we need to critically review our whole system to understand why we've been left in such a vulnerable position.

But the expense I mentioned was for the length of 900 something KM. They have finished bordering the full length yet.

Hmmm, interesting... you seem to have very precise information about this project. Do you mind sharing where you've got the information from?

Mexican cartels are responsible for US citizen deaths. Inside USA, there is an estimate of 1,100 homicides related to drug wars. Actual numbers are probably higher.
90% of the drugs come through the Mexican border & there are 20,000 deaths per year due to illegal drug usage, meaning that if 90% of the drugs come through the borders, that's 18,000 deaths per year.

Hmmm... again very exact information... and facile conclusions. All your numbers notwithstanding, there's a very distinct difference between the 2 cases. In the US, once the drugs make it inside the country, they become a matter law and order and are followed through civilian institutions. However, if attacks were mounted from outside the country with the explicit purpose of killing American border guards or military, then those attacks would be construed as an attack on the whole of the US. I'm not saying the US would have necessarily invaded Mexico. But it would have definitely taken much stronger action.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

They won't be able to do much, as evidence also shows. Neither Iran can do much by only stationing soldiers.

The only solution is to build a huge wall on border, monitored by cameras, soldiers, electrified fences and mounted automatic guns with optics to target anything moving where they should not.

Go ahead .. We are almost done digging a trench along our border with Afghanistan that's streched around 2200+ km...

 

[Daneshmand]

Okay, let me try to clarify my point more for you & for others in this thread.

First thing we need to understand is that in any country or situation (business, personal, etc), resources are limited, whether they are financial, human, time, etc. A top manager or leader needs to decide which expenditure of certain resources brings the highest benefit. The average person looks at his surrounding and wonders, "Why can't they fix this road, why can't they build a mosque, why can't they pay us higher, why can't they reduce tax, why can't they save the environment" and so on. But any expense means you are spending less on something else. The question is, which would be the best use of the resources?

Fortifying a 900+ km in mountainous terrain is extremely resource-heavy. Let's use the USA-Mexican barrier as an example. For almost the same amount of length, the project cost USA $2.4 billion! And while it brought down illegal immigration, it didn't make it zero. In 2010, there was still almost 463,000 illegals entering!

Now let's look at the problems we face with the border. Each countries border situation is different. We don't face a immigration problem (Berlin Wall made to prevent people going out, Mexican-USA border made to prevent people coming in). Pakistanis aren't illegally coming to Iran to find work nor are we having a problem of Iranians going to Pakistan to find work. Nor are we at war, like Koreans with their DMZ.

Our situation is two-folded,
1) Illegal Trade - Smuggling, Drugs, etc
2) Terrorist actions by Sunni Extremists from Pakistan

And I will propose that both situations have better solutions than pouring money into border control, which I personally believe never address the actual problem. Israel's wall doesn't address the actual problem of their situation with Gaza. Berlin Wall didn't address the shitty situation East Germany was in. And so on.

So, let's start with Illegal Trade

I knew Baluchis who would travel between the two countries. There are special drivers who know the mountainous terrain with their eyes closed. And I mean, literally with their eyes closed, because these guys drive at night, with their lights switched off. They do this so they won't be seen by patrols. Can you imagine how hard it is to even notice a car in 900 km border that is driving in the dark at high speed without any lights? This is why with USA's high budget, personnel (21,000 men and women!), and technology, they still have around half a million people entering per year.

Instead of spending millions on the border, use the money this way instead:
1) More campaigns in Iran to discourage people from using drugs
2) More camps for people who want to quit
3) Coordinate with Pakistani & Afghani government to see if it is possible to buy the raw drugs (such as opium) to use in legal medicines (such as codeine). Let farmers benefit more than the legal trade than the illegal one
4) Study if possible to legalize certain illegal drugs, and then discouraging traders to import it legally
5) Regarding smuggling of goods, look at better streamlining the customs procedures. Tariffs should be heavily reduced on goods between Pakistan & Iran to make smuggling pointless.

Now, let's talk about Sunni Extremists. Again, I find the money that could be used for border control can be used for the root of the problem.

Keep in mind our main objective should not be how to prevent Sunni extremists coming in to harm us, but how to reduce the tension in the first place!

The money can be used for:
1) Make the Iranian Sunni Borders an example of prosperity! Let the people from the other side of the borders see that a few kms away, their neighbors are living well under the Islamic Republic. Any of them from the Pakistani border who sits with his friend from Iranian border and talks about "Shia Iran", the Iranian Sunni will compare their two lives, and realize that he is much better off, and won't take his talks seriously.
2) Have lots of Sunni-Shia conferences and gatherings between the two countries. Let the two sides sit and talk and have events together. The best way to fight ignorance is through building relationships.
3) Spend money in Pakistan border cities. Build Iranian hospitals and clinics. Make wells for villages. Send free Iranian made farm machines. The extremist preacher who insults Iran at the friday mosque in a village, one day will be sick, and he will go to the Iranian hospital in the village, and this alone will make him look like a fool. And don't go to Pakistan to build Husseiniyas. The last thing a Sunni wants to see is Iranian government building a Hosseiniya in their city.

If we attack roots of the problems, we solve the problem. Walls have never solved any problem.

I agree with @bozorgmehr . You are making it sound as if it costs trillions of dollars to secure a border. Even if no high technology solution is implemented and the job is done by a simple razor fence and fortification the cost of securing the entire borders of Iran, would be cheaper than one ekhtelas. How much razor fence costs per kilometer? 100,000 dollars? That is 100 dollar per meter. Building a well engineered house in Iran probably costs 250,000 dollars minus the cost of land (on border government owns the land already). Accordingly building 900 fortifications at every one kilometer of border would cost roughly 200 million dollars. Add in razor fencing, flood lights, and cheap cameras would bring the cost to 300 mil or so. Spread this cost over a five year budget plan and it would come to 60 mil a year. Very much affordable for Iran with an economy of nearly half a trillion dollar. It is better than putting a few sarbaz sefr and basiji (yeh mosht bacheh) in old pickups and sending them into desert in the name of border protection. Iran loses more money each year by oil smugglers who take out subsidized Iranian diesel to neighboring countries than the cost of building a proper border protection force in five years. Forget about other types of smuggling, opium, heroine, terror etc which cost Iran even more. Your excuses are really just that.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

we have sistanies which are not blochies your map is wrong when it come to iran side of it

Yes, you have Sistani but the Baloch are the majority. The map for sake of clarity just covers the majority group. That way in Pak Baloch we have a heterogenous mix of Baloch, Pashtun, Brahu, Makrani people.

 

[Daneshmand]

Okay, let me try to clarify my point more for you & for others in this thread.

First thing we need to understand is that in any country or situation (business, personal, etc), resources are limited, whether they are financial, human, time, etc. A top manager or leader needs to decide which expenditure of certain resources brings the highest benefit. The average person looks at his surrounding and wonders, "Why can't they fix this road, why can't they build a mosque, why can't they pay us higher, why can't they reduce tax, why can't they save the environment" and so on. But any expense means you are spending less on something else. The question is, which would be the best use of the resources?

Fortifying a 900+ km in mountainous terrain is extremely resource-heavy. Let's use the USA-Mexican barrier as an example. For almost the same amount of length, the project cost USA $2.4 billion! And while it brought down illegal immigration, it didn't make it zero. In 2010, there was still almost 463,000 illegals entering!

Now let's look at the problems we face with the border. Each countries border situation is different. We don't face a immigration problem (Berlin Wall made to prevent people going out, Mexican-USA border made to prevent people coming in). Pakistanis aren't illegally coming to Iran to find work nor are we having a problem of Iranians going to Pakistan to find work. Nor are we at war, like Koreans with their DMZ.

Our situation is two-folded,
1) Illegal Trade - Smuggling, Drugs, etc
2) Terrorist actions by Sunni Extremists from Pakistan

And I will propose that both situations have better solutions than pouring money into border control, which I personally believe never address the actual problem. Israel's wall doesn't address the actual problem of their situation with Gaza. Berlin Wall didn't address the shitty situation East Germany was in. And so on.

So, let's start with Illegal Trade

I knew Baluchis who would travel between the two countries. There are special drivers who know the mountainous terrain with their eyes closed. And I mean, literally with their eyes closed, because these guys drive at night, with their lights switched off. They do this so they won't be seen by patrols. Can you imagine how hard it is to even notice a car in 900 km border that is driving in the dark at high speed without any lights? This is why with USA's high budget, personnel (21,000 men and women!), and technology, they still have around half a million people entering per year.

Instead of spending millions on the border, use the money this way instead:
1) More campaigns in Iran to discourage people from using drugs
2) More camps for people who want to quit
3) Coordinate with Pakistani & Afghani government to see if it is possible to buy the raw drugs (such as opium) to use in legal medicines (such as codeine). Let farmers benefit more than the legal trade than the illegal one
4) Study if possible to legalize certain illegal drugs, and then discouraging traders to import it legally
5) Regarding smuggling of goods, look at better streamlining the customs procedures. Tariffs should be heavily reduced on goods between Pakistan & Iran to make smuggling pointless.

Now, let's talk about Sunni Extremists. Again, I find the money that could be used for border control can be used for the root of the problem.

Keep in mind our main objective should not be how to prevent Sunni extremists coming in to harm us, but how to reduce the tension in the first place!

The money can be used for:
1) Make the Iranian Sunni Borders an example of prosperity! Let the people from the other side of the borders see that a few kms away, their neighbors are living well under the Islamic Republic. Any of them from the Pakistani border who sits with his friend from Iranian border and talks about "Shia Iran", the Iranian Sunni will compare their two lives, and realize that he is much better off, and won't take his talks seriously.
2) Have lots of Sunni-Shia conferences and gatherings between the two countries. Let the two sides sit and talk and have events together. The best way to fight ignorance is through building relationships.
3) Spend money in Pakistan border cities. Build Iranian hospitals and clinics. Make wells for villages. Send free Iranian made farm machines. The extremist preacher who insults Iran at the friday mosque in a village, one day will be sick, and he will go to the Iranian hospital in the village, and this alone will make him look like a fool. And don't go to Pakistan to build Husseiniyas. The last thing a Sunni wants to see is Iranian government building a Hosseiniya in their city.

If we attack roots of the problems, we solve the problem. Walls have never solved any problem.

Your comparison with US is laughable. On average budgetary terms, a US soldier or military officer costs at the very least ten times what an Iranian soldier costs if not a hundred times. The costs in US are higher than Iran. Have you ever been at US Mexico border? I think you should bring examples that are relevant not the one that is completely idiotic.

But I fully agree with you and I have to appreciate you for bringing it up, that Iran must invest in border areas. Not only Sunni areas but all border areas. I have been to border areas of Iran and the conditions suck. Though the conditions are still light years ahead on Iranian border areas compared to places like Pakistan or Afghanistan (I know this, because I have been there, unlike some who talk about things without having seen things in real). But this does not mean, things are ok. Alot has to be done. But even with all this investment and development, the security problem will not go away. A strong hand is necessary to keep things under control. I have been, I have seen and I know. Iran is surrounded by chaotic lands and without good protection the chaos will creep into Iran as well. Development and security measures have to go hand in hand. Relying only on one of them, will fail.

In short alot has to be done both in security arena as well as in developmental arena. Because I frankly do not see Iran's neighboring countries becoming bastion of stability in coming decades. Even Turkey is going downhill, forget about Afghanistan or others. Just fence/wall the border and develop the area. Iran is surrounded by chaos.

I don't know how you came up with $100 million/year operating cost for the wall. But I would say your views are somewhat ideological and not rooted in past experience and reality.

History has shown that social issues don't get resolved quickly and are expensive to deal with. You would like to believe investing the money into making border Sunnis happier and undercutting demand for drugs will better protect us against attacks than the wall. I say please go ahead and prove your case.

All I will say is that countries (including our own) from ancient times until now have been using walls to defend against external threats. There's every indication that this one will be effective too.



And I'm not speaking in absolutes either. The root causes will absolutely have to be addressed. But that's a much longer term project. But first you have to patch the leak. You have to stop the bleeding. And at that, the wall will have a much more immediate effect than anything else.



Dude please!!! Don't let your pride blind your judgement. Right now in the US they have a black person as the head of their state. Get back to me when a Jew or Christian... or a woman for that matter will be allowed to become our head of state. That's right! That will never happen in our system, because it is a Shia Muslim Theocracy, and those people will by definition be always excluded from running for that position. So yes, those reasonable, tolerant western societies are much better at creating opportunities for all of their members and addressing the inherent disadvantages that minorities suffer from, which is very much the root of problem we're talking about here.



I was hoping that you will understand that therapy is an analogy for the long term issues that we face. And it's not might, maybe, one day, maybe not... We have a determined enemy on our hand. Should I go over the list of their attacks for the past 20 years to refresh your memory? Do you want them to put up the schedule of their future attacks for you to be satisfied?

And no, nobody is foolish enough to put a $400K door on a $500k house. But I've seen owners of much less expensive houses spend a few grands to build a fence around their house.




$240 million is the cost of small to medium size power plant. If your argument is one of economy vs efficacy, then we have much bigger problems if we can't even afford that. And we need to critically review our whole system to understand why we've been left in such a vulnerable position.



Hmmm, interesting... you seem to have very precise information about this project. Do you mind sharing where you've got the information from?




Hmmm... again very exact information... and facile conclusions. All your numbers notwithstanding, there's a very distinct difference between the 2 cases. In the US, once the drugs make it inside the country, they become a matter law and order and are followed through civilian institutions. However, if attacks were mounted from outside the country with the explicit purpose of killing American border guards or military, then those attacks would be construed as an attack on the whole of the US. I'm not saying the US would have necessarily invaded Mexico. But it would have definitely taken much stronger action.

I agree with you.

India already has a longer border with Pakistan. Over 3300 kilometers of it in a very complex terrain and geography. Since 2003, India has built a quite robust border protection system.

It is basically an electrical fence, with trigger sensors and cameras and watch towers that shoot at anything which moves. The area is flooded with sodium lights. And this is how it looks on the ground and from the international space station:

 

[scythian500]

Border Forces At Iranian Border with Pakistan:

Combined IRGC, Border Police and Local Balouch Basijis:

 

[scythian500]

 

[Daneshmand]

Border Forces At Iranian Border with Pakistan:

Combined IRGC, Border Police and Local Balouch Basijis:

Looks good. But the quality seems to be like kahgel with ajor (tarakam keh khordeh).

Does the commander build his own house according to same standards or he uses better engineering standards when building his own house?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Khudos to our brave commandos , we can't use autocannons , we need boots on the ground , like one IRGC commander said once the real war is not in the west it's in the east ..

No, let me correct you. You don't have war in the east. You have law and order problem in the east. Please tell me have you ever, ever had any of these roll over the border?

or have you ever had these guys charge across the border?

or ever had these fly over you?

or have one one of these nuclear tips pointed at you?

which can hit as far as Turkey or Isreal.

The answer is big fat NO. The problem is Pakistan has left the vast deserts of Balochistan almost untouched without any real law and order. The result is drugs, contraband, smugglers paradise including the Jundalah antio Shia terrorists. It these guys causing problems. It is a LAW and ORDER issue. Although a serious one. We also need to tackle it on our side and I think we are now heading towards that.

Pakistan poses NO threat to Iran and vice versa.


Ps. I do recall though that you had ten year war on the west when a neighbour attacked and you lost 100,000s of men.

 

[Daneshmand]

No, let me correct you. You don't have war in the east. You have law and order problem in the east. Please tell me have you ever, ever had any of these roll over the border?

or have you ever had these guys charge across the border?

or ever had these fly over you?


https://www.***************/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Pakistani-F-16-Fighter-Jet.jpg


or have one one of these nuclear tips pointed at you?

which can hit as far as Turkey or Isreal.

The answer is big fat NO. The problem is Pakistan has left the vast deserts of Balochistan almost untouched without any real law and order. The result is drugs, contraband, smugglers paradise including the Jundalah antio Shia terrorists. It these guys causing problems. It is a LAW and ORDER issue. Although a serious one. We also need to tackle it on our side and I think we are now heading towards that.


Ps. I do recall though that you had ten year war on the west when a neighbour attacked and you lost 100,000s of men.

Completely un-need, emotional and not so well thought response from your side to a false flagger. It really does not suite your stature. And please do not bring nukes into every thing. This really does not help. Threatening to nuke people left and right only will make people despise you. Specially when you already know yourself that it is Pakistan whose law and order situation is causing huge problems here (I have been to these areas and have seen it from upclose, I know how things are there).

By the way he did not mean, by west and east the borders of Iran. He meant that in West (meaning Western countries) the commanders like to automate things but in East (meaning Eastern countries), the commanders take pride in pushing young kids into harms way.

Your response has more to do with Pakistan's paranoia than with reality on the ground (or what the false flagger said). There is chaos in Pakistan from drugs to religious fanaticism to law-less-ness and Iran should make every effort to block this chaos from creeping into Iran. I wish things were different and Pakistani state could control things on its own. But this seems be not the case. So better would be for Iran to erect a robust border protection system along with Pakistan and Afghanistan and by extension even Iraq and Turkish border.

As I said, I wish things were as if we were in Europe and no such physical barriers were necessary. But this is not the case. Unfortunately.

Pakistan poses NO threat to Iran and vice versa.

I really and genuinely hope so. But emotional people change their mind in a second. That is my worry.

In other words, we are a long way away from co-existing like civilized countries. It is really unfortunate. Specially taking into account that Iran and Pakistan have no territorial disputes, no water disputes, no old enmity and no nothing. If there is anything there are cultural, religious, linguistic, genetical and historic links between the two.

But with all this, I am really surprised, you brought in nukes and all. And this is not the first time. Many other Pakistanis members here regularly threaten to nuke Iran. Despite the fact that Iran is not Afghanistan and has the same technology both in missile and nuclear arena. But no Iranian threatened to nuke Pakistan or use missiles on Pakistan etc. It shows the emotional immaturity that Iran has to deal with, in order to live in peace.

I again urge you to reconsider your reply above. It was not really needed to put in those kind of words. Specially by someone like you whom I respect alot.