
To Smuggle More Drugs, Traffickers Go Under the Sea - mhb
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/world/americas/drug-smugglers-pose-underwater-challenge-in-caribbean.html?_r=1&hp
======
enko
My idea for when I became an evil criminal mastermind was always to use a kind
of computer controller drogue which would attach to the bottom of cargo ships:

\- construct a buoyancy-controllable drogue which would magnetically attach to
a cargo ship, then hang behind and below it during transit

\- load up the pseudoephedrine, or whatever, in (say) shanghai or during a
stop somewhere near a supplier

\- wait until the ship came near the US, then release the drogue offshore and
pick it up with a boat

Seems almost foolproof, although I'd imagine marine capable technology is
harder than my web developer's brain is envisaging, and you'd be betting lots
of money that your little parasite didn't fall off.

I'm probably overthinking this, however, and you'd just pay someone onboard to
keep some suitcases in their cabin, or something.

~~~
tomjen3
You are missing the fuel -- it takes a lot of fuel to drag that parasite
across the ocean and it would almost certainly be noticed by the crew of the
ship as shipping is a low margin, high volume business and costs are closely
watched.

~~~
jpdus
If that parasite is designed slightly aerodynamic (with a total volume of lets
say 5-10 tons) and you have a vessel with 100k+ GT, i dont think that the
difference in fuel costs will be noticable - the difference due to tide/winds
etc. will be much bigger.

~~~
dredmorbius
Aerodynamics are good. Hydrodynamics are more appropriate.

------
LaRakel
>More troubling for American officials is their belief that these vessels
could be used by terrorists to transport attackers or weapons, though they
emphasize that no use of submersibles by militants has been detected.

When in doubt, terrorists.

~~~
fredBuddemeyer
by fighting the war on drugs these traitors are advancing terrorism! by
countering terrorsim these scoundrels divert precious resources from the the
nation's war on drugs!

whats needed is another agency to resolve this conflict.

------
niels_olson
Before going to med school I was a Navy officer and my first deployment was
counter-drug ops. We got a tour of the Columbian collection of recovered
smuggling vehicles. This is definitely more advanced than anything I saw or
heard about. I'm not sure our VBSS teams (1) would even be able to board such
a vessel, assuming ROTHR (2, 3) ever found it, which I can't imagine it would.

I also did some in-class papers on subs in college. This strikes me as more
advanced in many ways than John Holland's original designs.(4)

\---

(1)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visit,_board,_search,_and_seizu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visit,_board,_search,_and_seizure)

(2) <http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/an-tps-71.htm>

(3) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar>

(4) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Holland_(SS-1)>

------
gghootch
In case you'd like to look at some pretty pictures of these submarines, I
recommend this quality Wired article:

<http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/ff_drugsub/all/>

~~~
ljf
Vice magazine also made a really good documentary about narcosubs:
<http://www.vice.com/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs> \- only 30 mins long and
worth a watch.

------
SoftwareMaven
_More troubling for American officials is their belief that these vessels
could be used by terrorists to transport attackers or weapons_

One more reason to legalize and regulate drugs. The independent contractors
making these subs would fold without their primary clients: the drug cartels.
No more money for R&D.

~~~
jrockway
I doubt anyone intends to transport attackers or weapons in this manner. The
9/11 hijackers had valid visas and Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh were
Americans. They didn't need a submarine to bring bombs or terrorists to the
US. They are already here.

The line in the article is just a way to spread fear, justifying the outlay of
millions of dollars to patrol for drug boats. Nobody is scared of drugs
anymore, so I imagine funding is harder to come by. Terrorism, though, is
still scary apparently. (Look at the TSA. The thought of what incompetent
government agency will be created after the next attack is _frightening_.)

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I agree with you. My point still stands, though. If we are concerned about
terrorists having access to this, shut off its R&D money and gain other
societal benefits (I say as a non-drug user).

Of course, why choose a method that would reduce the police state and its
associated costs when we can choose one that will increase them. :(

~~~
andreasvc
What makes you believe that legalizing drugs would automatically cause the
cartels to stop doing what they do? Instead of being smugglers they'll be tax
evaders; they won't stop overnight, if at all. In general, in poorer countries
there will always be an incentive to get rich by illegal means, simply because
there's not much else.

Also, you could hypothesize that, conversely, the subs builders would re-
purpose them for more nefarious ends if the drug smuggling incentive is taken
away.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
_..the subs builders would re-purpose them for more nefarious ends if the drug
smuggling incentive is taken away._

I suppose the subs could be sold "on the cheap" if the cartel business went
away. There is probably some danger there, but probably not as much danger as
1) a lot more of these getting built and 2) the US strengthening its police
state to protect us from these subs.

The second is my real concern. Our rights have already been ludicrously eroded
anywhere near a border. I really don't want added to that "anywhere near a
waterway that can be reached by ocean." I guess that those of us in northern
Utah and Nevada would be OK, since our water goes into the Great Salt Lake.

I'll tolerate some risk of a terror attack that I'm less likely to be involved
in a terror attack than I am to drown in my bathtub[1] rather than the
degradation of my civil liberties that the police state engenders.

1\. [http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-
terroris...](http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-
should) (using the numbers that assume attacks would have succeeded if we
weren't in the semi-police state we are)

------
Beltiras
Nixon's War on Drugs is lost. It's time to offer terms.

------
mijail
This was on HN a few weeks ago. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4415508>
What's the obsession with cartel technology?

~~~
tomjen3
What you don't want to build submarines and be paid in hookers and cash?

~~~
mijail
Touché

------
Kilimanjaro
Nop, it will always go by air, cheaper, faster, anywhere.

Learjet is the preferred brand. A ton to your doorstep. Delivered with class.

------
pseingatl
I wonder if an enterprising naval architect somehow obtained the plans for a
US or German WWI or WWII sub. The diesel/battery technology is the same, and
without weapons systems, using today's technology for nav, etc. the task is
really only one of hull fabrication.

------
berito
Working on this kind of hack sounds much more compelling than coding for an
overhyped Internet startup.

To my mind, solving an impossible sounding challenge is larger than ethics.

~~~
MartinCron
There are plenty of impossible-sounding challenges that don't require ethical
breaches. May I suggest that you try to find one of those?

~~~
mindcrime
What's the ethical breach in using technology to route around bad laws?

~~~
lutusp
> What's the ethical breach in using technology to route around bad laws?

The fact that individuals decide on their own which are "bad laws", but
without going to the trouble to defeat them in court. If a law is defeated in
court, this remains a country of laws, not people. But if people decide on
their own which laws to obey, it becomes thinly disguised anarchy.

That's all. No big deal.

~~~
mindcrime
_this remains a country of laws, not people_

Yeah, that sounds pretty horrible to me. Personally, I like people a lot more
than I like laws.

 _it becomes thinly disguised anarchy._

Works for me. But, I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, and
attribute no particular special status to "government" and "laws", so maybe
I'm coming at this from a different angle.

~~~
lutusp
>> this remains a country of laws, not people

> Yeah, that sounds pretty horrible to me. Personally, I like people a lot
> more than I like laws.

You really missed the point of that aphorism -- it's meant to elevate shared
values over individual values when dealing with other people. Imagine a
community with ten members, nine of whom believe that stealing is wrong, one
who believes stealing is right. Either the community becomes hostage to the
one thief, or it makes a rule against stealing that everyone must obey.
Obviously the second approach is best, and at that point the community becomes
one ruled by laws, not people.

>> it becomes thinly disguised anarchy.

> Works for me. But, I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, and
> attribute no particular special status to "government" and "laws" ...

Yes. You're an anarchist. For me, the existence of governments and laws is the
lesser of two evils. The alternative is no governments and laws, but the same
number of people, i.e. the fascism of unchecked individuality.

~~~
mindcrime
The fascism of unch.. oooohkaaay. Right. Gotcha. Sounds good, I'll be on the
lookout for that. Thanks for the warning.

