How about a moat?

[Derec]

The terror tunnels from Gaza into Israel are a huge problem, as are tunnels going to Egypt that are used to smuggle things like rockets and explosives. So why not dig a big-ass moat all around Gaza? 50 m (i.e. length of an Olympic swimming pool) wide, about the same deep. Of course the terrorists could go deeper but it would be much more difficult and expensive for them and also the tunnels could be made permanently inoperable by simply blowing up the section under the moat and flooding it.

 

[Jayjay]

Great idea. Also, draw bridges and crocodiles.

 

[Ford]

How about a moat?

 

[bleubird]

Since Gaza is the largest open air prison,how could not be a great idea?

 

[Valjean]

A 51 km long swimming pool could be a great recreational venue for Israel, but I'd imagine it would be tremendously expensive and use a good deal of the region's water supply. Of course, some of the expense could be recouped if it were used for tilapia or shrimp production.

It might be simpler and cheaper just to bury seismic detectors every couple hundred meters, though.

There would still be that border with Egypt, though...

 

[bleubird]

Oh,Water.Moat.How could we miss this.Great idea to use the most important thing to make the place even worse.
Brilliant!I hope you do not supervise anything of importance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The OP is a joke right?

 

[Bronzeage]

Let's see. A moat in a desert where the annual rainfall is less than 20 inches a year and open water evaporates at a rate of 50 inches a year? I can't see a problem.

 

[aeebee50]

Sounds good. Get the water from the Mediterranean Sea and allow fishing and recreation. I would like to have property with a moat around it just for the recreation.

 

[Derec]

The OP is a joke right?

Ok, I admit I wrote it partly tongue-in-cheek. It might not be very practical (cost, international opposition) but it would be effective anti-tunnel and generally anti-infiltration defense.

Let's see. A moat in a desert where the annual rainfall is less than 20 inches a year and open water evaporates at a rate of 50 inches a year? I can't see a problem.

Why do you (and others) think I was thinking of filling it with fresh water? Obviously the way to go is to use the limitless water supply of the Mediterranean by simply digging the moat all the way to the sea.

 

[Derec]

Sounds good. Get the water from the Mediterranean Sea and allow fishing and recreation. I would like to have property with a moat around it just for the recreation.

Sure. Once Gazans throw off the shackles of Hamas and decide to live in peace the moat would serve no defensive purpose and could be used as a canal for all sorts of peaceful purposes.

 

[laughing dog]

Ok, I admit I wrote it partly tongue-in-cheek. It might not be very practical (cost, international opposition) but it would be effective anti-tunnel and generally anti-infiltration defense.

Let's see. A moat in a desert where the annual rainfall is less than 20 inches a year and open water evaporates at a rate of 50 inches a year? I can't see a problem.

Why do you (and others) think I was thinking of filling it with fresh water? Obviously the way to go is to use the limitless water supply of the Mediterranean by simply digging the moat all the way to the sea.

Water is not in "limitless" supply anywhere in the world. Water - salt or fresh - is a valuable resource. Most people do not intentionally treat a valuable resource with such casual indifference.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ok, I admit I wrote it partly tongue-in-cheek. It might not be very practical (cost, international opposition) but it would be effective anti-tunnel and generally anti-infiltration defense.

Which leads to the next avenue. If detonating the bottom of the moat to drown a tunnel would work, why not just drown or grout the existing tunnels? Certainly, it'd cost a lot to grout them, but honestly, it'd have to be less than a military operation.

 

[laughing dog]

Ok, I admit I wrote it partly tongue-in-cheek. It might not be very practical (cost, international opposition) but it would be effective anti-tunnel and generally anti-infiltration defense.

Which leads to the next avenue. If detonating the bottom of the moat to drown a tunnel would work, why not just drown or grout the existing tunnels? Certainly, it'd cost a lot to grout them, but honestly, it'd have to be less than a military operation.

And even a military operation to destroy the tunnels that concentrated on finding them from their openings in Israel would be less costly than invading Gaza.

 

[Derec]

Ok, I admit I wrote it partly tongue-in-cheek. It might not be very practical (cost, international opposition) but it would be effective anti-tunnel and generally anti-infiltration defense.

Why do you (and others) think I was thinking of filling it with fresh water? Obviously the way to go is to use the limitless water supply of the Mediterranean by simply digging the moat all the way to the sea.

Water is not in "limitless" supply anywhere in the world. Water - salt or fresh - is a valuable resource. Most people do not intentionally treat a valuable resource with such casual indifference.

Seawater is limitless for all practical purposes.
Volume of Earth's oceans: 1,300,000,000 km³
Volume of the Mediterranean: 3,750,000 km³
Volume of the proposed moat: <0.2 km³

 

[laughing dog]

Water is not in "limitless" supply anywhere in the world. Water - salt or fresh - is a valuable resource. Most people do not intentionally treat a valuable resource with such casual indifference.

Seawater is limitless for all practical purposes.
Volume of Earth's oceans: 1,300,000,000 km³
Volume of the Mediterranean: 3,750,000 km³
Volume of the proposed moat: <0.2 km³

Providing volumes is a naive measure. It is the value of the water in situ and the effects of moving it around (in this instance) that are relevant.

 

[Derec]

Which leads to the next avenue. If detonating the bottom of the moat to drown a tunnel would work, why not just drown or grout the existing tunnels? Certainly, it'd cost a lot to grout them, but honestly, it'd have to be less than a military operation.

And even a military operation to destroy the tunnels that concentrated on finding them from their openings in Israel would be less costly than invading Gaza.

Destroying the parts in Israeli territory would still leave the parts in Gaza unscathed.

- - - Updated - - -

Seawater is limitless for all practical purposes.
Volume of Earth's oceans: 1,300,000,000 km³
Volume of the Mediterranean: 3,750,000 km³
Volume of the proposed moat: <0.2 km³

Providing volumes is a naive measure. It is the value of the water in situ and the effects of moving it around (in this instance) that are relevant.

You dig a canal. The water moves in by itself. The volume is infinitesimal compared to the total and doesn't effect the Mediterranean at all and neither does it affect the amount of water in situ.

 

[Celldweller]

 

[Derec]

Ok, I admit I wrote it partly tongue-in-cheek. It might not be very practical (cost, international opposition) but it would be effective anti-tunnel and generally anti-infiltration defense.

Which leads to the next avenue. If detonating the bottom of the moat to drown a tunnel would work, why not just drown or grout the existing tunnels? Certainly, it'd cost a lot to grout them, but honestly, it'd have to be less than a military operation.

Grout? It would be trivial to remove it?
Flood it with what? A fire hose? The beauty of the moat is that the water is right there, above the tunnels and that it automatically floods them to the sea level and attempts to pump it out would be futile.

 

[Bronzeage]

And even a military operation to destroy the tunnels that concentrated on finding them from their openings in Israel would be less costly than invading Gaza.

Destroying the parts in Israeli territory would still leave the parts in Gaza unscathed.

- - - Updated - - -

Seawater is limitless for all practical purposes.
Volume of Earth's oceans: 1,300,000,000 km³
Volume of the Mediterranean: 3,750,000 km³
Volume of the proposed moat: <0.2 km³

Providing volumes is a naive measure. It is the value of the water in situ and the effects of moving it around (in this instance) that are relevant.

You dig a canal. The water moves in by itself. The volume is infinitesimal compared to the total and doesn't effect the Mediterranean at all and neither does it affect the amount of water in situ.

Geology and engineering be damned. Hell, they did it in Panama.

But, then again, there's a tunnel under the English Channel.