OT: narco subs

[ShadoWarrior]

I'm currently reading the latest Clancy novel and was struck by a thought. IRL, the Columbian narco traffickers have been using small diesel-electric subs for a number of years now. Why doesn't the US government just task the USN with stationing a LA-class attack sub or two off the coast of Columbia and blow the damn things to hell? I would think that it wouldn't take too many losses of quarter-billion dollar cocaine cargoes before the cartels gave up using subs. If we're waging a "war on drugs", then why the hell aren't we really fighting it? I'm sure that the sailors would love the target practice, and the PR from doing it would be great.

[Legbreaker]

At a guess, perhaps the fact that you can't actually tell it's smuggling drugs?
What if it was just a research sub, or one somebody made in the back yard(Don't laugh, it's been done)? Imagine the outcry!
Without physically boarding the vessel and searching it, no matter if it's a sub, ship, airplane or hot air balloon, there's just no way to be sure it's not just somebody out for a joyride.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

I'm currently reading the latest Clancy novel and was struck by a thought. IRL, the Columbian narco traffickers have been using small diesel-electric subs for a number of years now. Why doesn't the US government just task the USN with stationing a LA-class attack sub or two off the coast of Columbia and blow the damn things to hell? I would think that it wouldn't take too many losses of quarter-billion dollar cocaine cargoes before the cartels gave up using subs. If we're waging a "war on drugs", then why the hell aren't we really fighting it? I'm sure that the sailors would love the target practice, and the PR from doing it would be great.

You want to use a Los Angelese class attack submarine to hunt little narco subs? That's not just a waste of resources, but it's also stupid.

It's not exactly easy to find these subs so you'll need multiple subs patroling an extended area. Then you get to engaging the subs, the drug traffickers are criminals so you can't just "blow them to hell" and not expect some serious political fall-out. An attempt to arrest and seize the cargo has to be made, otherwise it's state-sanctioned murder and that opens a whole can of worms.

Then we get to cost, a mark 48 torpedo costs around 3.8 MILLION dollars per unit! It's designed to take out military-grade capital ships. The Harpoon missles only cost around 1.2 million but are designed for targeting surface ships.

So you want the USN to task up to 3 of it's best anti-ship sumarines to destroy narco subs with torpedos that cost nearly 4 million per unit? factor in the cost of keeping these ships on station, the political fall-out and mess a state-sanctioned execution (because that's what your sugesting) will cause.

The PR would not be great, it would be an international bloody disaster. Imagine the PR coup nations like China and Iran will make of it. Hell you'll get folks claiming these where "research" or "recreation" subs and because a mark48 torpedo won't leave much evidence to prove otherwise there will be no way of really proving the kill was carrying narcotics, sewater does bad things to cocaine so getting evidence will be next to impossible.

Worst case scenario will see a demand for the sub captains to be put on trial for murder. America will never give up said captains of course, but the international community would have a field day.

[ShadoWarrior]

Research subs are a lot smaller, and the sonar on USN subs is both extremely sensitive and tied to computer that has sonar spectra of almost all things in the world that produce noise at sea. The chance of making a mistake are very slim. Plus it's fairly easy to find out if it's a legit ship. Ping it with sonar. If they run (which is likely), you are free to blow it out of the water.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

You want to use a Los Angelese class attack submarine to hunt little narco subs? That's not just a waste of resources, but it's also stupid.

Got a better idea?

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

the drug traffickers are criminals so you can't just "blow them to hell" and not expect some serious political fall-out. An attempt to arrest and seize the cargo has to be made, otherwise it's state-sanctioned murder and that opens a whole can of worms.

The US already employs state-sanctioned murder in Pakistan (and other places around the world) with drone missile strikes. Narco criminals are classified as terrorists. And we all know that the US is "at war" with anything the US labels as a terrorist group. Narco subs are fair game under those rules. I don't see how applying the same "logic" being used against Al-Qaeda can't be applied to the drug cartels.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

So you want the USN to task up to 3 of it's best anti-ship sumarines to destroy narco subs with torpedos that cost nearly 4 million per unit? factor in the cost of keeping these ships on station, the political fall-out and mess a state-sanctioned execution (because that's what your sugesting) will cause.

Quarter of a billion dollars (or more) per drug cargo load. Do the math. Torp is cheap in perspective, especially when you consider the economic damage inflicted on the nation by each shipment. Wouldn't need to use many torps before the drug cartels got the message that using subs is a bad investment.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The PR would not be great, it would be an international bloody disaster. Imagine the PR coup nations like China and Iran will make of it. Hell you'll get folks claiming these where "research" or "recreation" subs and because a mark48 torpedo won't leave much evidence to prove otherwise there will be no way of really proving the kill was carrying narcotics, sewater does bad things to cocaine so getting evidence will be next to impossible.

Any target that refuses to surface when challenged is by definition not a legit vessel. So, if the US blew up a narco sub, who's going to claim it was a bunch of tourists on a joyride? If you think the drug cartels are going to, you're astonishingly naive. Plus there would be wreckage on the sea floor that could (and would) be photographed that would be impossible for the drug cartels to claim was something other than a drug sub. You're assuming that the US would announce the killing immediately, instead of taking the time to gather all the proof the media would demand to see before going public with an announcement.

[Legbreaker]

So they wouldn't be doing this in international waters would they?
Which leaves them a thin band of just 12 nautical miles from low water mark by just how many thousands of miles long? Just how shallow can the water be for a Los Angeles class (or other) sub to operate effectively?
Seems to me that all the smugglers need to do is ensure they've got a few decoy vessels in the area - just wait until the sub has surfaced and begun searching the decoy and dash across into shallow waters.

[95th Rifleman]

This idea belongs in a call of duty game, not the real world.

How exactly do you "challenge" a narco sub anyway? They have basic equipment at best and you can't exactly flag them down underwater. The "ping with sonar" and kill them if they run idea is not legitimate and is most likely ilegal. What happens when the cartels realise the Americans won't shoot something that looks legit on their sonar? They will just start using boats that are either legit research vessels or made to have the same signature.

As it hapens, I DO have a better idea. Use conventional ASW helicopters and crewed speedboats... oh wait, the US coastguard is already doing that.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

As it hapens, I DO have a better idea. Use conventional ASW helicopters and crewed speedboats... oh wait, the US coastguard is already doing that.

Last I checked, Columbia is in South America, which is well outside of the area patrolled by the USCG. And the subs go between Columbia and Mexico, not Columbia and the US. Moreover, they mainly travel in the Pacific, which puts them far beyond the range of USCG ships based in California, even if they were allowed to patrol so far from home.

But even if it was done, it presumes you already know that there's a sub in the area. It's a lot harder to detect a sub from the air or surface than from underwater. Sound travels a very long way underwater. And an attack sub doesn't tip off the bad guys that you're in the area hunting for them.

Next "better" idea?

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Last I checked, Columbia is in South America, which is well outside of the area patrolled by the USCG. And the subs go between Columbia and Mexico, not Columbia and the US. Moreover, they mainly travel in the Pacific, which puts them far beyond the range of USCG ships based in California, even if they were allowed to patrol so far from home.

Next "better" idea?

I mentioned the coastguard already has the capabilities and just a FYI they HAVE taken narco subs in US waters.

If you can get permission for an LA sub to patrol out there, you can get conventional naval units to do it. The US coastguard use the same equipment the US navy has. Unless you are suggesting there are no US navy ships with ASW helicopters or speedboats that can operate in the same waters an LA class attack sub can?

This is a schoolboy fantasy fueled by Tom Clancy novels and computer games.
The real world is far more complicated and you are ignoring geo-political considerations.

[ShadoWarrior]

The present "war on drugs" isn't working. Thinking outside of the box might make some small difference. As for geopolitical considerations, being "politically correct" also isn't getting the job done. Just as it wasn't in Afghanistan until the US decided to say "screw it" and started blowing militants to pieces with missiles regardless of the bitching and moaning.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The present "war on drugs" isn't working. Thinking outside of the box might make some small difference. As for geopolitical considerations, being "politically correct" also isn't getting the job done. Just as it wasn't in Afghanistan until the US decided to say "screw it" and started blowing militants to pieces with missiles regardless of the bitching and moaning.

Ok..

You seriously believe that don't you?

The reason the US has been making more missle strikes than it used to is because American intel operations have become more effective and professional. The missle strikes are actualy doing the job now because they are hitting the right targets, they don't drop a missle onto funerals anymore.

If anything America is MORE concerned about how the Afghans feel than when they started, this is why they are making progress. They are actualy giving a damn about hearts and minds now.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I mentioned the coastguard already has the capabilities and just a FYI they HAVE taken narco subs in US waters.

If you can get permission for an LA sub to patrol out there, you can get conventional naval units to do it. The US coastguard use the same equipment the US navy has. Unless you are suggesting there are no US navy ships with ASW helicopters or speedboats that can operate in the same waters an LA class attack sub can?

This is a schoolboy fantasy fueled by Tom Clancy novels and computer games.
The real world is far more complicated and you are ignoring geo-political considerations.

Not to mention that using the US military to enforce civilian laws is illegal. They can support civilian law enforcement agencies; hench the use of ground surveillance radar teams on the border with Mexico, not to mention aerial surveillance using E-2C Hawkeyes (although owned by the Navy, they are manned by DEA/Coast Guard crews).

It would take a Presidential finding of a threat to National Security to allow any greater use of the military in the war on drugs. And even then, there are so many legalities that is is very doubtful that a "shoot on sight" order would be issued.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

It would take a Presidential finding of a threat to National Security to allow any greater use of the military in the war on drugs. And even then, there are so many legalities that is is very doubtful that a "shoot on sight" order would be issued.

Pity. Though the drug trade is very much a threat to national security. It has already destabilized Mexico, and there's a real shooting war going on on the southern border and just beyond.

[Legbreaker]

And don't forget that any hostile action against the citizens of another country can be seen as an act of war or even plain old piracy.
Without international support, NOBODY has the right to board, let alone attack and sink a vessel outside their own territorial waters. Do you honestly think the UN or any other body would give the green light to the US to use nuclear powered attack submarines against essentially unarmed DIY subs in either another country's or international waters?

I don't think so...

[Sanjuro]

It could only be done (just as Clancy wrote in Clear and Present Danger) as a black operation; the subs just disappeared en route- as I suspect many do through routine hazards of the sea. Much harder to keep a secret with an entire sub crew in the know instead of one fighter pilot.
Of course, it could already be happening!

[Raellus]

America's "War on Drugs" has done little but destroy lives and incite violence both here and abroad. Treating it like a counterinsurgency war or low intensity conflict has done litte to stem the tide of drugs into the U.S. or reduce the drug-related violence in places like Mexico. If anything, it's made it worse. Criminalizing possession has led to prison overcrowding in the U.S. and turned users and small time dealers into career criminals. It's a significant drain on the American economy and there's really no return on the investment. As long as we treat illegal drugs as a more of a foreign issue than a domestic one, we are going to fail. The U.S. is the #1 consumer of illegal narcotics in the world. As long as there is such high demand, people will go to incredible lengths to supply it. It's hypocritical to blame foreigners for our [American] drug problems.

Spending billions more to use USN SSNs to sink drug carrying submarines is just throwing good money after bad.

IMHO, we need to seriously consider decrimininalization of most drugs and reprioritize government spending on treatment, rehab, and education instead of contracting private corporations to build and staff more prisons. Some European countries (Holland, at least) have done this and their addiction and drug-related crime rates (per capita) are still much, much lower than here in the U.S. Legalizing and taxing drugs like Marijuana is going to increase government revinues which can then be invested in treatement and rehabilitation programs. The system would start to pay for itself and tax dollars could go elsewhere. Decriminalization/legalization would also significantly reduce the power of the black market drug cartels both here and abroad, if not kill them altogether. The Prohibition years are a good historical precedent. This plan may not be as sexy as "black" ops raids, drone strikes, and sub-killing, but it would be a lot cheaper and more effective.

[dragoon500ly]

WHAT!!!!!!

Are you seriously suggesting that the political establishment of the US actually admit that they have made a serious error in declaring a war on drugs!!!!

It will never happen so long as the current crop of politicos remain in office.


On a more serious note, I do agree that something other than funding more prisons needs to be done. The Dutch approach has always struck me as a more enlightened way of doing things. Legalize it, and tax the crud out of it! Its the American Way!!!!!

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

WHAT!!!!!!

Are you seriously suggesting that the political establishment of the US actually admit that they have made a serious error in declaring a war on drugs!!!!

It will never happen so long as the current crop of politicos remain in office.


On a more serious note, I do agree that something other than funding more prisons needs to be done. The Dutch approach has always struck me as a more enlightened way of doing things. Legalize it, and tax the crud out of it! Its the American Way!!!!!

Then use the revenues saved on prisons and enforcement, as well as the new tax to pay for Obamacare?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

On a more serious note, I do agree that something other than funding more prisons needs to be done. The Dutch approach has always struck me as a more enlightened way of doing things. Legalize it, and tax the crud out of it! Its the American Way!!!!!

A world of yes. Legalise it, tax the hell out of it and direct the gathered revenue to the healthcare system (because really it is a health issue first and foremost) and drug education.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Targan

A world of yes. Legalise it, tax the hell out of it and direct the gathered revenue to the healthcare system (because really it is a health issue first and foremost) and drug education.

The biggest problem with this is that it is political suicide...

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

Then use the revenues saved on prisons and enforcement, as well as the new tax to pay for Obamacare?

The more I read through the new health care reform.....the more I sit, scratching my head trying to figure out were the funding is going to come from....

1. Obama has discovered a magical lamp and when he rubs it, the genie appears bearing billions of dollars.

2. Obama has discovered a magical lamp and when he rubs it, he gets this warm, fuzzy feeling that everything is perfect in the world, so why worry the little stuff.

3. Obama has discovered a magical lamp and when he rubs it, this sexy little number in a see-through outfit shows up and performs this really hot little dance that leaves him a drooling idiot.

4. Obama has discovered a magical lamp and when he rubs it, Joe Biden shows up in a see-through outfit and performs this really hot little dance that leaves him a drooling idiot.

5. Obama has discovered a magical lamp and when he rubs it, Al Gore shows up and starts talking, sending him into a deep sleep.

[ShadoWarrior]

The funding was supposed to come from ending the Bush tax cuts for people who really don't need it.

The magic lamp is no more strange than trying to figure out why half of the American public continues to vote for a party that is dead set on screwing over 99% of the public with policies that no sane person should want. Definition of insanity: doing something over and over and expecting a different result.

Insane: "trickle-down" (also known as "voodoo") economics, which has never worked, yet has been repeatedly pushed by Republicans since 1982, including right now.

Insane: denying climate change, and insisting that doing something about it is "too costly". How expensive will it be to keep New York, Miami, Boston, and countless other cities from being under several feet of water by the end of the century?

Insane: cutting funding from education and then spending a hell of a lot more on prisons to house the ignorant bastards that result from such decisions.

Insane: spending hundreds of billions a year on 2 wars most voters do not want us to be in and then claiming that we can't afford health care at home.

Insane: giving tax breaks to oil companies.

Insane: letting Wall Street firms do whatever they want. And then giving them hundreds of billions to keep doing it.

Insane: having laws that treat corporations as 'people', with the same rights.

Insane: equating spending money with "free speech". The Founding Fathers intended for everyone to have an equal voice. Today, the organization that can afford to spend the most has the louder voice, which is not an "equal" voice.

I could go on and on, but the entire subject makes me sick.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The funding was supposed to come from ending the Bush tax cuts for people who really don't need it.

The magic lamp is no more strange than trying to figure out why half of the American public continues to vote for a party that is dead set on screwing over 99% of the public with policies that no sane person should want. Definition of insanity: doing something over and over and expecting a different result.

Insane: "trickle-down" (also known as "voodoo") economics, which has never worked, yet has been repeatedly pushed by Republicans since 1982, including right now.

Insane: denying climate change, and insisting that doing something about it is "too costly". How expensive will it be to keep New York, Miami, Boston, and countless other cities from being under several feet of water by the end of the century?

Insane: cutting funding from education and then spending a hell of a lot more on prisons to house the ignorant bastards that result from such decisions.

Insane: spending hundreds of billions a year on 2 wars most voters do not want us to be in and then claiming that we can't afford health care at home.

Insane: giving tax breaks to oil companies.

Insane: letting Wall Street firms do whatever they want. And then giving them hundreds of billions to keep doing it.

Insane: having laws that treat corporations as 'people', with the same rights.

Insane: equating spending money with "free speech". The Founding Fathers intended for everyone to have an equal voice. Today, the organization that can afford to spend the most has the louder voice, which is not an "equal" voice.

I could go on and on, but the entire subject makes me sick.

COMMIE!

The American love-affair with capitalism always confused me. Suggest even the slightest liberal policy and people yell communist and Un-american.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

It could only be done (just as Clancy wrote in Clear and Present Danger) as a black operation; the subs just disappeared en route- as I suspect many do through routine hazards of the sea. Much harder to keep a secret with an entire sub crew in the know instead of one fighter pilot.
Of course, it could already be happening!

I believe it is.

On occasion or regularily.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

COMMIE!

The American love-affair with capitalism always confused me. Suggest even the slightest liberal policy and people yell communist and Un-american.

Trying to explain the American political system to any sane, rational, thinking human being is sorta of like teaching a hamster the higher mathematics. The hamster gets annoyed very quickly!

The problem with the political system is that it is mired in left-wing/right-wing thinking. Both political parties are so mired in each other's BS that is amazing that anything gets accomplished. Couple that with voter apathy and it becomes even more of a mess.

Personally, I feel that both parties have so lost contact with anything resembling reality that their members need to be committed to long-term care in various mental hospitals.