The Mexicans should educate themselves about siege weapons. There is a much superior design that could launch heavier projectiles over a greater distance without sacrificing firing rate.
The trick is that you want your payload to be intact on impact. :3 Staining the Arizona desert with marijuana mulch doesn't help anyone except the jackrabbits.
Another technique is to get a diver to bolt on (or otherwise attach) a container full of drugs to the hull of some regularly scheduled cargo ship and use another diver to detach it when it arrives at the destination.
The distance between the subs they have now, and the type described in the post I replied to is the distance between a Model T and a Ferrari LaFerrari.
Rocket scientists are well educated. There are lots of smart people who aren't. Generally speaking most people are smart. What one believes about other people's intelligence says more about the believer's intelligence than the believee's.
The drug dealing world is resourceful. I would be shocked to the point of incredulity if the primary obstacle to implementing basic improvements casually mentioned in HN comments was simply that they didn't have anyone they could consult on the matter.
They're not going to be developing in-house nuclear weaponry, no, but cartels can and do find intelligent, experienced and competent people who can help optimize their supply chains.
I don't think it's a matter of them not realizing there are superior designs; I think it's a matter of superior designs not being worth the extra cost or somehow having an unintended result.
Resourceful only gets you so far... at some point you need a team of engineers with stable jobs over a long period of time. I'd say the line is roughly between the junky subs we see now, and researching, developing and fielding a stealthy modern sub. It's not impossible, but it's not like finding a chemist who can teach a whole bunch of people who to follow a recipe. You're talking about specialized skills, and people who have those skills and have put them into practice tend to be watched.
You're not going to find a specialist in "Whole sub designs and manufacture" anymore than you could kidnap one person who would teach you how to build the space shuttle. You'd need to kidnap teams of specialists, which I would assume might draw international attention.
Insane. I don't doubt that legalizing drugs would have relatively short-term impacts as some people who would have otherwise never tried them, try them, and some of those become hooked. How anyone can look at that, and compare it to the insane and eternal war we've chosen instead, and find the war a better choice is baffling to me.
No but thankfully rocket scientists have publicly demonstrated that it works, and car manufacturers ensure the parts are available worldwide at rock bottom prices (with native language schematics and instructions!).
I suspect they don't gain any tangible benefit from firing further.
but I'm more endeared by the fact that the state of the art in short-range ballistic drug transport is looking more and more like the IRA's improvised mortars (up to and including mounting them in modified vans): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_buster
From what I understand, the latest in non-chemical ballistic drug delivery mechanisms are capable of launching a 90kg brick of cocaine over 300 meters. Outdated drug catapults can't really compare.
I'm guessing these didn't get modded down, because they're actually relevant and maybe interesting. Even if it's not interesting, it's certainly bikeshedding which is generally popular here :)
Wall or no wall, much of the border is unguarded at any particular time. And if Age of Empires taught me anything, it's that trebuchets can be packed up and moved before the other player---err, before the DHS and DEA even notice
More likely the well capitalized one's with sound business plans aren't. About twenty years ago, I heard someone describe the difference in the drug trade then and in the 1970's as the difference between some hippies with a boat and the green shipping container every Tuesday.
Forty-seven pounds is not even hippies with a boat. They moved tonnes in fifty pound bails.
Love the following engineering problem and fix:
"The newer models pipe their exhaust along the bottom to cool it before venting it, making the boat even less susceptible to infrared detection"
The cat and mouse between these guys and the naval/Coast Guard units of the involved nations might in the far future see the introduction of full-blown diesel-electric, liquefied oxygen-bearing, water-cooled exhaust submersibles. Battery-powered and make the legs of the run only at night. Diesel plant is fed stored oxygen, gas expansion powers compressor-free air conditioning. Metal-oxide-based CO2 scrubber is regenerated from diesel generator heat while engine is run during day-time to recharge, as the smugglers stop and snorkel stationary to avoid wake-detection. Noise-isolating mounts reduce detectable range of running diesel generator. At or near the destination port, a disguised tender trans-loads the shipment, and resupplies diesel/food/reverse-shipment-goods. Between those technologies and operational discipline, it would be a big PITA to detect.
It's a good thing these future submarines would be immensely more expensive, and narcos are not known as good employers guaranteeing solid operational secrecy, as such an unusual setup would bound to get disgruntled/prideful operatives blabbing/boasting. By the time they get around to it, involved nations will probably litter the nearby ocean floors with a SOSUS-style dragnet, and that will likely put this smuggling route out of reach of all but nation-state-grade narco-cartels willing to spend about multiple billions in R&D and $1B US per construction unit to upgrade to military-grade diesel-electric submarines with their more advanced acoustic signature mitigation systems and protocols.
You also have to consider that the US at least would be strongly inclined to bomb that kind of thing out of existence... it would after all be a huge potential threat if used for something other than smuggling drugs. We're not trying to fight the cartel subs like we would an invading military, and if we did, they'd have no chance. The payoff stops being worth it when fucking up means you lose the sub and the cargo without warning.
The US Navy is already involved a fair amount, as the article described the torpedoes getting detected by their acoustical signatures. That is not US Coast Guard-built skills, equipment, and expertise, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the military is involved way more than we are let on.
This presents an interesting operational challenge for the US Navy. Say they are authorized to engage and terminate without warning any submarine operating within US territorial waters that is not a registered civilian submarine broadcasting its presence, or another US military submarine. Just how would US naval underwater assets know who each other are without compromising their mission if it involves staying undetected? The closest approximation I can think of is encrypted sub ID and anticipated operating theater within the next 24 hours, using a Gertrude-like system or some other two-way submarine communication (and there aren't any good current choices for systems in that field).
There's additional (comparatively) low-cost actions that can be taken to avoid intercept such as:
Make it autonomous (to avoid the cost and complexity of air conditioning and crew oxygen).
Use an ADS-B/Mode-C receiver, FLIR camera, and AIS receiver to detect any nearby aircraft or vessels. If there's something nearby, dive.
Monitor VHF and UHF airbands (and frequencies used by military tactical voice/data systems), and if there's any strongish signals there, assume that's a nearby aircraft, and dive. You don't need to know what is being transmitted -- just presence is enough.
An uncrewed system means that endurance can be made very long -- so it's feasible to dive and stay down (with every noise-generating system shut down) indefinitely, multiple times, as evasive action. This application is latency insensitive -- as long as you can be assured that the cargo is still proceeding nominally, everything is fine.
There's lots of money to be made thanks to prohibition, which means that the criminal organizations involved can afford illicit submarines and tunnels and aircraft.
Not much I would reckon. The catapult is probably a more efficient device for getting the drugs to the other side.
Having to fly a drone back and forth takes time. Unless they have a very large drone capable of carrying large quantities of drugs, I don't see the benefit.
The problem is weight. The heaviest thing there's really a market for are cameras and those still have pretty short flight times so any narco-drone would have to be a custom build so it's more expensive. That still would only get them a pretty short distance from the border because of battery capacity and power draws.
Cartels are using drones for aerial surveillance in some areas to scout clear paths for foot smugglers, but I haven't heard of them using them to transport drugs. They do use manned ultralight aircraft, though.
Clearly the cartels need to set up a "punkin chunkin"[1] contest where the winner takes home some cash and the cartel gets their device. Then every year they get an additional 'chunking' machine and they can drive them back and forth along the border periodically sending their payloads several thousand feet inland.
I just hope that I'm never kidnapped by a cartel because I think there are a lot of rather low tech (but tech) means for them to circumvent border control. I'd never ever want to associate with these groups, but I imagine it's a bit of a nightmare trying to prevent movement of desirable and valuable goods (drugs, objectively have value according to most news reports on seizures, street value estimates are quoted). Seems like decreasing demand might be a higher ROI investment than trying to prevent said smuggling.
One thing that worries me is the potential for wildlife to be abused as a means of smuggling.
Ballistas are no more (or less) mobile than catapults, are harder to maintain and have a lower payload if you use them for transport. They have a good precision and piercing power, but much less payload, even if you include the entire bolt.
I disagree. Walls stop physical objects from passing through it. Good economic policy has the primary function of building the national economy––economic policy has no role in curtailing contraband.
It's not lack of regulating prices that causes it... it's the proliferation of intellectual property laws in America that were written to protect corporations. This is what creates the need to get knock-off drugs.
I mean yeah, we really should just leave the border wide open since after all, if you can't stop border shenanigans 100% you shouldn't bother at all. Might as well remove all our border patrol agents as well since a non-zero number of people still get through despite their presence.
There already is a tall wall in some parts. According to a border patrol agent the Mexicans just showed up with long ladders. Shortly border patrol had collected so many ladders that they had as giant pile at their station. They soon have up at even collecting the ladders.
I don't think giving up on securing the border is the right thing to do either. But doing something super expensive that was tired and didn't work doesn't seem like a good idea. Maybe we could instead try to innovate. Maybe small, autonomous drones that patrol the border might be a approach worth trying. I also heard that they are just lacking the resources to process people who were caught in a timely manner and they ended up staying for years. That sounds worthwhile addressing as well before we spent tons of money on a wall. Or we might even stop the war on drugs which would undermine the Mexican cartels, make Mexico saver and reduce push effects for illegal immigrants.
While at it, might as well remove the door from our homes. It doesn't stop a determined burglar picking the door lock or breaking it open anyways so why bother?
>...we really should just leave the border wide open...
It isn't, hasn't been, won't be, and everyone perfectly well knows that.
In 2016 the US spent about $0.75 on CBP for every $1.00 we spent on NASA. Illegal immigration across the border reached new long-term lows, and so did the number of immigrants living in the country illegally. There is no border crisis.
Falsely promoting a crisis is unpatriotic, it undermines the culture and institutions that we collectively refer to as "the country." It's a betrayal, a dereliction of duty.
Penn & Teller did a show on Immigration. Tthey got a bunch of Mexicans to build a wall. And yes, after it was built, they asked the workers to try to get across it.
The wall slowed them down by about 2 minutes. Which isn't really worth it.
Any wall built along the border will likely be similar in efficacy. And even if the wall is perfect, tunnelling under it won't be a problem.
TBH, You'd probably be better off increasing detection along the border. Leave it open, but make sure you catch everyone $21 billion will buy a lot of equipment that can be hidden, and a lot of border patrols.
I think it would be interesting if the internet were around 50+ years ago so we could hear everyone respond to news of the Berlin Wall being constructed with "LOLOLOL ever heard of a ladder?"
The Berlin Wall worked because it was backed by fear and guns. The Soviets had no problem arresting and torturing or outright shooting anyone who tried to cross. I think you understand what I'm trying to point out here.
Land mines, attack dogs, shoot-to-kill and a totalitarian regime make walls more effective. Not that these options are totally unrealistic at the moment. Calling up the national guard would seem a step this way.
The Berlin was was built in a densely populated area, was patrolled regularly, had frequent guard towers, and, was ~100 miles long.
Are you really claiming that's a good comparison to a wall 1000 miles long, through desert and unpopulated areas, which won't* be manned continuously along it's length?
As for the Hungarian border wall, yes, it has helped. But again, EU population density is a lot higher than the southern US desert. It's not just the wall that stops people, it's the frequent patrols, and repairs to the wall.
Given the inability of the US to prevent tunnels between the Mexico / US border, I'm skeptical that a 1000 mile wall will work.
A good jobs programme results in something which creates more jobs and economic activity over time. This wall wall will hinder economic activity (though generally the kind that is less desirable).
> As far as patrols go, sounds like a fantastic jobs program.
i.e. a way to throw money away doing nothing productive.
Either the people involved will be highly trained / paid well, and therefore bored. Or, they won't be paid well, and will be susceptible to bribes from people wanting to cross.
$21 Billion for a wall is nothing for a country as large and successful as the USA. It's pretty much pocket change that could get lost under a sofa cushion and not be missed. Our federal budget for 2015 was $3.8 trillion. Spending half a percent on a wall is not a problem. $21 Billion is about 0.1% of our GDP.
Note that even Mexico has a GDP of $1.3 trillion (in US dollars), so they can in fact pay for the wall. Even for Mexico, the wall is kind of affordable.
Walls are cheaper than highways. Notice that we have numerous highways running across the USA.
Dealing with these people is costing us 3 to 6 times as much EVERY YEAR as your figure of $21 Billion. If the wall were flawless, we'd get a payback in just 2 to 4 months.
I agree on the detection though. In most areas, the proper physical barrier is probably a fence every half mile for a couple miles, for a total of 5 fences.
Quite the opposite. He claims to want to secure the border. Anybody who has had their gentiles fondled by TSA might be suprised that you can get stuff over the border but not on a plane.
The point is that the border could be a lot stronger.
The Germans went mostly through Low Countries, violating the neutrality of Netherlands and Belgium, not just Ardennes forest. The Maginot line did not extend to the Belgian border because when building it, the French did not want to offend Belgians.
Trump does not seem to hesitate offending anyone, so from that point his walls should be more effective...
> The Germans went mostly through Low Countries, violating the neutrality of Netherlands and Belgium, not just Ardennes forest.
Would be pretty interesting to see Mexicans reroute to come through canada. I say it in joking, but if you fly to canada and cross over into the US, whats the difference?
It would require more financial resources from each individual, reducing the number of people that could make it across. From a pure threat/security perspective it's a win.
Planes existed and bombed things prior to the Maginot Line being built. It was also protected against aerial attack, which is kind of intuitive as the French were familiar with just how much explosives could home from the air after ww1 (though generally by by heavy artillery).
It's a talking point to make you angry. The wall is really a fence which is really an idea. Ideas keep people distracted and that way no one cares that the CIA funnels weapons and money into many Central/South American countries and then funnels drugs out of those same regions; regardless of whether it's a D or an R in the <insert any branch of government here>.
