To Smuggle More Drugs, Traffickers Go Under the Sea
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
- 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.
As for power, why not a turbine powered generator? The host ship won't miss the few tens of watts extra drag.
The beauty of current AI is that the compartment can be set to notice divers nearby and "walk" to the other side of the hull. Since sonar can't pick up small attached objects, boom you got yourself the equivalent of a smuggling bed bug. The crew can be all detained while this happens because they are not in on it.
The only issue would be noise made if you have listener crews. That one would be tough to solve. That's why you attach yourself to large boats, not to small smuggle ships.
[1] http://www.apl.washington.edu/projects/seaglider/summary.htm...
The sea gliders are interesting (see Liquid Robotics) but they have limited cargo capacity. 15,000 lbs would be like 5,000 sea gliders, that is a big foot print.
The game will of course really change when the human operators step out. Most drug cartels seem unwilling to risk their load to robotic pilots but at some point that will change. In a submersible you could gain a tremendous advantage if you didn't care how 'deep' you went relative to the Coast Guard.
Once we get electro-stimulus drugs this will become moot of course but in the mean time it makes for some interesting engineering challenges.
When in doubt, terrorists.
whats needed is another agency to resolve this conflict.
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...
(2) http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/an-tps-71.htm
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.
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.)
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. :(
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.
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... (using the numbers that assume attacks would have succeeded if we weren't in the semi-police state we are)
Learjet is the preferred brand. A ton to your doorstep. Delivered with class.
To my mind, solving an impossible sounding challenge is larger than ethics.
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.
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.
> 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.
I just think that "oh, this looks fun!" shouldn't always trump "is this the right thing to do?", that's all. You'll get no argument on the drug war from me.