@bozorgmehr @Daneshmand
Thank you both for your detailed responses. You have clarified your point of views very well, and I have now a much better understanding of your perspective.
Please understand that our end goal is the same (a more secure Iran), it is only our paths to that end that are different. But that's normal.
Instead of replying point by point to the comments, which might move as furthur and further away from each of our main points, let me just restate the discussion, and where I stand.
You both believe that more resources allocated to border security will resolve Iran's border issues.
My perspective is that, if we look at it in a cost-profit method, it would be ultimately an expense that could be better spend elsewhere which will better result in security.
I'm going to ignore the drug & smuggling trade for now, to keep the discussion as focused and narrow as possible.
Iran's border attack due to terrorism is generally one or two incidents per year. I am not convinced that mass allocation of resources in this 900 kms, can prevent turn this into zero. All it would take is 2-3 people from the other side to find a weak spot in the 900 kms, and slip through.
Now let's look at this from another perspective. We'll use randomly made up numbers just to get my point across, obviously the numbers mean nothing at this stage.
Let's first start with the hypothesis that no wall at this stage can reduce threat to 0%. We haven't yet seen 0% in any wall in other country, so I can't imagine a scenario where it would be possible. A tunnel, for example, is a low cost solution of bypassing walls that citizens in various countries have used and are using.
Okay, if we agree on that hypothesis, then let's say our current situation is as follows:
Terrorists Per Year: 100
Current Border Control Stops: 10%
Terrorists entering the land: 90
Now let's say we implement a new plan and 200 million Dollar Expense per Year will reduce threats by 70%. So we have,
Plan A
Terrorists Per Year: 100
Current Border Control Stops: 70%
Terrorists entering the land: 30
This obviously looks like an outstanding success. However, my argument is that the same 200 million can be used in a way to, instead of increasing the percentage of border stops, we reduce the number of terrorists. So, mine would look like, for example,
Plan B
Terrorists Per Year: 30
Current Border Control Stops: 10%
Terrorists entering the land: 27
So, this is what I mean. That the money should be focused on the first figure, not the second figure. Because if we implement Plan A, then that percentage of 70% will remain, but year by year, the terrorists will increase. So in 10 years, we will have,
Plan A in 10 Years
Terrorists Per Year: 1000
Current Border Control Stops: 70%
Terrorists entering the land: 300
Even if we keep increasing the percentage, to lets say 90%, we will have
Plan A in 10 Years with Better Security
Terrorists Per Year: 1000
Current Border Control Stops: 90%
Terrorists entering the land: 100
On the other hand, if we keep reducing the terrorists from 100 to 30 to less, and keeping the same the same security percentage, we will still have a better final figure,
Plan B in 10 Years
Terrorists Per Year: 10
Current Border Control Stops: 10%
Terrorists entering the land: 9
In the end, with a super advanced border security that stops 90%, we will have 100 attacks per year, while with a low security (10%) but high concentration on reducing tensions, we will have only 9 attacks.
I hope this better explains my take on the matter. Obviously, the numbers are made up, but it should at least clarify where I am coming from.
