According to the FBI, home invasions and burglaries top the list of crimes that the average person is most likely to experience. In fact, they estimate there are over 2.5 million burglaries every year in the United States. Furthermore, 66% of these are home invasions, and almost 60% of all burglaries involve a forced entry.

We originally wrote this article years ago, since another site who stole our name also likes to steal our articles, we felt it was worth refreshing. The fact that crime and home invasions have significantly increased over the last year also gave us a reason to dust it off and add some more info.

Home Invasions and Burglaries on the Rise!

Unfortunately, we will likely see these home invasion numbers climb even higher as our economy heads into the gutter. Making things worse, liberal policies in Democrats cities throughout the United States, which allow criminals to get away with most petty crimes and have made bail a thing of the past, have caused crime to skyrocket in most cities.

In New York, The New York Police Department reports a 32.7% increase in burglaries from 2021 to 2022. Other Democrat-run cities like Los Angeles, Denver, Las Vegas, and Chicago reported a similar rise in burglaries. For example, Chicago Police Department (CPD) data shows a 35% increase in burglaries from 2021  to 2022.

While there are several things you can do to lessen your chances of becoming another statistic (check out our articles on Home Invasions & Criminal Attacks: Why the Police Can’t Save You and Home Safety: Security Tips for Staying Protected In Your Home ), there are a couple of cheap, no-thrills pieces of equipment that can help stop these criminals in their tracks — or at least buy you enough time to grab your firearm and fight back.

Home Security Gear: The Door Wedge

One item you might want to consider adding to your stockpile of supplies or taking with you when traveling is a good old-fashioned door wedge.

A door stop is now part of your home security plan?

Hell yes, it is! Listen, Urban Survival isn’t about looking cool or tactical; it’s about being prepared for real-life threats. It’s also about being smart enough to use common everyday items to help protect yourself from these threats.

These cheap little wedges can come in extremely handy during an emergency situation. For example, shoving one of these little bad boys under the door can help give you extra time to react during a home invasion or attack. They’re also a great addition to a bug-out bag because they can be used to provide added security when seeking temporary shelter in a building, public bathroom, or hotel room. They can also be used to wedge doors open during an evacuation.

While any door wedge will help buy you time, many companies now sell door jams made explicitly for security purposes. Jamming one of these wedges under the door can help you keep unwanted people out or buy you the time you need to fight back.

Wedge-It – The Ultimate Door Stop

The Wedge-It is designed to be used on almost any door and is a good option for home defense and a small and easy-to-carry device that you can use to protect yourself while traveling and inside hotel rooms. It is intended to be used either on top of the door, over a hinge pin, or like a classical wedge under the door.

This is one of our favorites. Made of LEXAN plastic, with rubber contact points for added strength and stickiness, the Wedge-It is carried by a lot of first responders because of its solid design. It’s small enough to fit in any bug out bag and has a hole to hook one or more on a carabineer. At only $10 they are a cheap way to add an extra layer of security.

Find the Wedge-it on Amazon

The Super Door Stop Alarm

With the addition of a very loud alarm, this little door wedge not only stops the bad guy from coming in but alerts you to the danger as well. They are great for traveling, and can give you an added layer of security while out on the road.

Find Super Door Stop on Amazon

DoorJammer Portable Door Lock Brace

Designed as a way for travelers to protect themselves in a hotel room, the DoorJammer is a solid steel device that is designed to redirect the invader’s energy downward into the floor and hold the door closed.

Find the DoorJammer on Amazon

CG PLUS Door Stopper

If you are looking for a permanent solution or something you are less likely to lose or misplace, the CG PLUS Door Stopper is something you can attach to your door and put up or down as needed. Then, during an emergency, you can quickly kick it into place in seconds while you make your way to your firearm or safe place.

Find the CG PLUS Door Stopper on Amazon

OnGUARD Security Door Brace

Another Semi-permanent at-home solution is the OnGUARD Security Door Brace. This device was built with security in mind and was created to stop home invasions and looters from being able to kick in your doors. It is designed to prevent door kick-ins and even an attack from a battering ram.

During testing, the designers beat the hell out of this thing with a 40-pound police battering ram and say it is designed to withstand up to 3000 Lbs of Violent Force.

Find the OnGUARD Security Door Brace on Amazon

Further Reading and Resources to Prevent Home Invasions

The Afghan debacle is a major setback for any notion of U.S. leadership of the world of liberal democracies.

Even though the Biden-Harris Administration frequently touts their allied-friendly strategy in foreign policy, the “blitzkrieg withdrawal” from Afghanistan is more than a road bump.

It is a strategic moment of great significance in U.S. global leadership.

The Obama Administration focused its attention on the “good war” versus any focus on “great power competition.”

The rise of the multi-polar authoritarian world was certainly aided by this lack of focus and accelerated by the “blitzkrieg withdrawal.”

The House Foreign Affairs Committee has released a significant report on this event.

The mainstream press will consider it to be partisan, but the stark reality is that the “blitzkrieg withdrawal” happened and its consequences are stark.

There is nothing partisan about reality.

As The Wall Street Journal noted today in an editorial:

“More broadly, the Afghan withdrawal marked the end of credible American deterrence during the Biden Presidency.

“You can draw a straight line from the withdrawal to Vladimir Putin’s decision to roll into Ukraine, or why the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen aren’t afraid to fire missiles at commercial ships in the Red Sea.”

The House Report noted:

“As a result of faltering U.S. standing, America’s partners and allies in the Middle East and Central Asia are increasingly turning to Russia and China as alternative security suppliers.

“Since 2021, the region has also moved toward normalizing relations with U.S. adversaries like the Ayatollah in Iran and Bashar al-Assad in Syria, both of whom are working alongside Russia with an overt goal of diminishing American presence in the region and beyond. The United States withdrawal from Afghanistan strengthened the ambitions of America’s adversaries of claiming newfound geopolitical clout in contested regions around the globe.”

It is certainly fair to argue that there was a clear path from the “Blitzkrieg withdrawal” to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

But there is even a clear path with regard to policies towards the Russians, a pathway which I focused on in my report on pathways to invasion.

Actions have consequences: even for Inside the Beltway.

Timeline to Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Three years have passed since the United States, Australia and United Kingdom announced on September 15 2021 that they would enter into a security partnership called AUKUS.

A major part of the deal involved the US and UK helping Australia acquire nuclear-propulsion submarines. This decision by the Morrison government controversially entailed backing out of a A$90 billion deal with a French company to purchase 12 submarines.

In recent months, the AUKUS deal has generated a fair amount of criticism from former Prime Ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, and some in the media.

Critics have focused on five main arguments about AUKUS:

• the pact enhances the prospects of war with China
• Australia doesn’t need nuclear-propulsion submarines
• the deal makes our neighbours in South-East Asia uneasy
• it drags us back to our Anglosphere past, tying us closely to the US and UK
• the forecast cost of the submarines (between A$268 and $368 billion) is unconscionably high.

Yet, each of these claims is based on assertions that miss the point. Here’s why.

1. AUKUS increases the likelihood of war

Some critics argue that by acquiring nuclear-propulsion submarines, Australia will support a more belligerent posture by the US towards China, notably over Taiwan. And this makes war more likely.

This, however, belies American awareness of its own limitations and the risks such a provocative approach would entail.

Others argue AUKUS encourages a military industrial complex that ostensibly makes Australia more of a dependent – rather than independent – ally to the US. And this denies Australia agency in regional or global security affairs.

But this bleak interpretation, again, sees a binary world in which Australia would be expected to support the US unquestioningly in a potential war with China over Taiwan. It also overlooks the prospect that war might not happen – that China will squeeze, rather than seize Taiwan.

As defence expert Peter Dean has observed, the debate over Taiwan’s security is “an argument without context”. It ignores the importance of Australia’s own regional security strategy. Whether or not we’d support the US in a war, Dean says, is the wrong question in the wrong argument.

This belief that AUKUS increases the likelihood of war also misreads the nuanced nature of deterrence for which credible force is needed.

Indeed, realists widely acknowledge that weakness invites adventurism, even aggression. The whole point of having a defence force is to deter would-be aggressors by giving them pause for thought and, failing that, to inflict such costs on an enemy, they fail in their objectives.

Tensions are greater today than they have been in generations. And as strategic studies expert Brendan Taylor argues, there are at least four flash points in Australia’s region: Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea and Taiwan.

Australia has a vested interest in preserving peace and stability in the region to protect and foster its prosperity. Capable and potent deterrent capabilities have proven increasingly effective at doing this, as conflicts in recent years in Ukraine and the Middle East have shown by not spiralling out of control.

So, the AUKUS deal shouldn’t be seen as provocative. Rather, it maintains strong deterrence in the region. Our neighbours understand that.

2. Australia doesn’t need nuclear-propulsion submarines

This myth persists despite mounting evidence. Australia is interested in nuclear-propulsion submarines because its ageing fleet of diesel-electric propulsion submarines has become vulnerable to aerial detection and strikes.

Most of earth is now covered by low-earth polar orbit satellites. Coupled with armed drones, artificial intelligence and pattern analysis, this means a determined adversary can detect the wake of traditional submarine funnels when they raise their snorkels to recharge their batteries.

Given that stealth had been their only advantage over surface warships, diesel-electric submarines are no longer so useful where long transits are involved.

Australia’s diesel-electric submarines cannot transit from any major domestic or foreign port to their base in Western Australia without multiple snorts. And each snort generates a grave risk of detection. This leaves nuclear propulsion as the only viable option for countries with vast ocean distances to transit, such as Australia or the United States.

Operationally, nuclear-propulsion submarines have other considerable benefits. For one, they can travel faster (about 20 knots on average instead of 6.5 knots). The transit time from Fremantle to the Strait of Malacca, therefore drops from 18 days to just six days.

The faster transit speeds means coverage of key choke points can be maintained with a handful of submarines that can relocate (away from danger or to a new surveillance location) with breathtaking speed.

The nuclear-propulsion submarines can also stay underwater “on station” (at an assigned patrol location, say, the Malacca or Lombok straits) for longer. A fleet should also be able to be deployed three times longer than Australia’s current submarines, remaining undetected without needing to recharge batteries.

3. The neighbours don’t like it

Official reservations about AUKUS in public declarations are entirely understandable, given Indonesia’s “free and active” foreign policy.

Yet, the new enhanced defence pact signed by Australia and Indonesia on August 29 suggests that Indonesia, like the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam, are quite comfortable with Australia engaging in AUKUS and with its neighbours concurrently.

4. The focus on the Anglosphere detracts from regional engagement

Australia was once described as a “torn country” because of its geographical location in the Asia-Pacific and its historical and cultural connections to the United Kingdom.

But these days, Australia is successfully managing the tension between its Anglosphere roots and its physical place in the world. Arguably, it’s a key factor making it attractive for foreign students and migrants, luring them away from UK and US alternatives.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s diplomatic successes also belie the line that AUKUS detracts from engagement with our neighbours. Successful summits with the Pacific Islands Forum and Association of South East Asian Nation leaders recently make a mockery of such claims.

Even France, the most slighted out of the AUKUS deal, has gotten over it because Australia matters to its Indo-Pacific claims.

Indeed, Labor’s election victory in 2022 allowed for a convenient reset in relations. This has been illustrated with the recently refreshed trilateral “FRANZ” agreement between France, Australia and New Zealand.

5. The cost is unconscionable

A cost of up to A$368 billion over 30 years sounds like a lot. But this amount is unlikely to be fully spent as other efficiencies may arise and because defence is accommodating the submarines from its existing budget, much to the chagrin of the Air Force and Army having to make cutbacks.

Defence budget increases are occurring only incrementally, with substantial increases slated for several years into the future.

To be sure, the government must grapple with competing demands for missiles, aircraft, drones and other fighting systems. As retired Lieutenant General Peter Leahy observed, military readiness requires additional expenditures in the short term to hedge against uncertainty.

Ironically enough, however, increased reliance on US-sourced technology is key to enabling a more self-reliant defence posture.

Australia prides itself on its high level of interoperability with the US military as part of maintaining a qualitative technological edge. This is intended to compensate for its lack of quantity when it comes to military hardware and uniformed personnel.

Under AUKUS, the US is transferring the know-how to build, maintain and operate the nuclear-powered submarines in Australia. This relies on trusted access to the most advanced US military technology – building on more than 80 years of collaboration on intelligence matters.

These advanced systems are vital should the US prove unwilling or unable to engage as actively in the neighbourhood as we might like in the future.

Balancing interests

What has emerged in recent times is what Rory Medcalf, head of the ANU National Security College, describes as “the Australian way of war and peace”. This means Australia is respectfully but firmly asserting its rights, protecting its interests and setting an example for others in the neighbourhood to follow.

In weighing up Australia’s interests, we must look beyond the critiques. Now is not the time for yet another submarine about-face.

The geopolitical circumstances and new technological advances point to the need to stay the course.

This article was published on The Conversation 

It was published on September 14, 2024.

See also, the following:

Australian Defence and Deterrence: A 2024 Update