Well, I am glad you have clarified your argument down to ANYTHING. Limiting your response to just about ANYTHING really makes the point. /s
I made no such clarification, but repeated the same point I made from the beginning. I stated that “ANYTHING may be destroyed” in my FIRST response to you. Go back and read it.
Your initial claim is that concrete and rebar is better than steel alone. That is factually wrong, as it depends upon the use. If the argument were about sustaining a pure gravity load, as in a “skyscraper,” then you would be correct in your assertion. However, that is not the case with a wall structure - nor is it even practical from an engineering point of view. Treated steel is more than sufficient to effectively and economically accomplish the task of deterrence.
A steel structure may not be as aesthetically pleasing to the eye as would be concrete - but I don’t give a rat’s tail about aesthetics when it comes to spending my tax dollars - I want efficiency and effectiveness. As engineers are fond of saying: “keep it simple, stupid” And “get the mostest for the leastest!”