Its very likely the mainstream media pick up this stuff because they follow him :D
blackhaj7 · 2h ago
Wow, that website has some interesting stuff on it!
lordnacho · 1h ago
Why not make a solar-electric narcosub? That way you don't need fuel, and you're not relying on an IC engine with a bunch of moving parts, and that has a heat signature. The sun is shining in the ocean that these cartels are sailing in anyway, so there should be power.
Steer with GPS, that way you are only listening.
I wouldn't rely on Starlink, it seems like something that could be discovered easily. Any authority that had a map of where legit ships are could filter down to the mysterious Starlinks that are in the middle of the water, but near a remote coast, having traveled from Colombia, not on a known vessel.
Maybe if you need the comms, you rely on radio. Whatever the ham radio people use could perhaps be made into something. You don't need a lot of bandwidth anyway.
I guess the question is economics, then. How many trips could you get on a little boat that has a solar panel, electric engine, a battery, GPS, and a radio? And what would that cost?
kjksf · 1h ago
Because solar panel math doesn't work.
It's the same reason it makes no sense to put solar panels on a car: the solar panels would add minutes of driving daily.
You would need massive area of solar panels to power a sub which is obviously not workable if you want to be stealthy.
lordnacho · 27m ago
But I'm thinking of a sub that is mostly just a solar panel. You don't need to be able to put a person in it? Don't you get a few hundred watts from a square meter?
15155 · 20m ago
You need far more than a few hundred watts to move something in the open water, and these semi-submersibles aren't typically more than 30' vessels.
The math doesn't work out.
rkagerer · 11h ago
"The vessel was not carrying drugs"
Why wouldn't they track it and wait until it rendezvoused with people they could arrest?
Also, today I learned it's illegal to operate a semi-submersible in Colombia.
DanielVZ · 10h ago
I wonder how much of this is just a publicity stunt. Last time I dove deep into studying corruption in Latin America at University, Colombia was pretty much captive to the cartels. Hope it has gotten better now but I’m not sure if that’s the case given the massive Colombian diaspora that keeps increasing.
chasil · 3h ago
The thought is that things had improved in Columbia, until a recent attempt on a Columbian senator.
Miguel Uribe is in the minority conservative party and was shot three times at campaign event by an underage youth who was hired for this purpose. A number of arrests have taken place.
The leftist president Gustavo Petro has not strongly reacted against this event, and the U.S. recently recalled their ambassador for somewhat confusing reasons (Columbia did the same).
I just came across this podcast in the last week after wondering what ever happened to the FARC and AUC (right wing death squads) after the peace deal. How did things end up playing out relative compared to what was expected and feared at the time.
It’s a pretty batshit story that focuses on what became of the right wing death squads (they run the start of the cocaine supply chain it turns out among many other things) that’s extremely well researched and has amazing access. A strong recommendation from me https://insightcrime.org/audio-from-the-ground-up/the-shadow...
philipallstar · 57m ago
FARC was left-wing death squads; AUC far right counter-death squads.
achow · 10h ago
Perhaps because they watched it long enough to know that it is not going to rendezvous with anyone, and if they wait longer it may turn around and they will lose sight of it?
hugoromano · 2h ago
Wrong antenna choice—should've used Starlink Mini to avoid motor damage from oscillation and salt exposure. Some suggest fiber optics instead of satellite comms, but these aren't submarines—they're boats, and autopilot technology is already reliable. Not sure why real-time communication is necessary; a "fire and forget" approach would suffice to reach the intended target.
rozhok · 1m ago
Starlink dish does not require "leg" with motors for proper operation.
bob1029 · 3h ago
I wonder what it's like being a developer / systems engineer for the cartel.
dawatchusay · 2h ago
I imagine you couldn’t keep pushing deadlines out indefinitely like we can in American software companies.
wiradikusuma · 1h ago
I'm sure it's very rewarding, but I'm also sure it's a one-way street. So either enjoy your single life while it lasts, and/or use crypto to channel your income to people you care, without being able to enjoy it _with_ them for their own safety.
treebeard901 · 2h ago
I have always wanted to do this but it's not like they post on LinkedIn
arthurcolle · 2h ago
Probably pretty scary
greenavocado · 3h ago
In the future millions of kilometers of cartel owned fiber optic will be laid from Columbia to the United States
afthonos · 2h ago
Columbia is in the United States. Colombia is not.
julianeon · 12h ago
I'm kind of curious how much this matters to Colombia now. For this who haven't been following the drug wars, most of the action, and money, has moved to Mexico. If you only know this stuff through pop culture, Mexico today is what Colombia was in the 80's and 90's: the violence, level of corruption, money flowing through, etc.
cammikebrown · 11h ago
Cocaine is still produced overwhelmingly in South America. Yes, it does have to go through Mexico. But the start of the trade route is Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru.
muststopmyths · 4h ago
Also Mexican cartels are wreaking havoc in coastal Ecuador, which is being used in an alternative sea route for drug shipments north.
So yeah, South America is still a main hub of the drug trade.
sleepyguy · 11h ago
Colombia is the main producer of illegal cocaine, responsible for 70 to 80 percent of the world's supply. It is the largest producer in the world.
GardenLetter27 · 2h ago
And Ecuador, sadly.
stickfigure · 12h ago
Just legalize it already. This is stupid.
anuvrat1 · 8h ago
Cartels are already diversifying, thanks to bullish gold market they are going full tilt on gold. "In Colombia and Peru gangs are now thought to make more money from gold than from the sale of narcotics."[1]
Even if they do, the cartels already own huge man & firepower. They will just move on to the next thing, maybe coffee, avocados, oil whatever.
When you have accumulated so much power you can demand cash from the world around you.
stickfigure · 11h ago
Coffee, avocados, and oil aren't illegal. But I'm pretty sure if you banned coffee it would spawn criminal gangs that made 1920s prohibition look tame.
There's no substitute for the margins you can get in the illegal drug trade. Take away the primary source of funding and you make it much easier to break the gangs. We've already gone through this. Just legalize it already.
clvx · 5h ago
They already extortion every single producer. Any coffee and avocado coming from South America has an extortion tax somewhere in the supply chain whether it’s to the farmers, shipping companies, distribution center warehouses at port or whatever you imagine.
The extortion comes as placing gang members as part of security, real threats or just bribes to unlock to keep moving towards the consumer.
Illegal goods have better margins but extortions provide a platform for power and money with less effort.
whatever1 · 8h ago
They could set a 1000% tax on the coffee produced, if they can consolidate control. Latin America is 50% of the world coffee production. What will Starbucks / Nestle do? They will just pay up. They can even go against the families of the execs to make their case about the new price.
They tried this before with fruit. The US companies just sold their interest in production and have plenty of other options for acquisition if they try to tax beyond the relative ease of South America verse anywhere else in the global south.
I would agree that letting black market bs continue will eventually lead to groups that could threaten global control on random other commodities but that's no reason kick the can further down this road.
arijun · 5h ago
Part of the reason such a large percentage of coffee is grown there is because it's cheap. The cartels can (and do) make profit on legitimate crops, but they can't magically rewrite the rules of capitalism.
techjamie · 3h ago
Coffee beans are notoriously picky about their environment. But with modern technology, it wouldn't surprise me if large companies would resort to growing it in artificial greenhouses, or putting more stock in breeding plants that can be grown elsewhere.
preciousoo · 11h ago
They'll probably move onto mass producing weaponry, which, depending on the sophistication and scale, could be big issues for the rest of the world. They already partner with terrorist groups and other unsavory orgs as-is. Any group worth mentioning these days interfaces with the cartels
reactordev · 10h ago
I don’t think weapon production is in their wheelhouse. Arms dealing maybe but not manufacturing. Facilities like those are permanent locations. Permanent locations tend to get raided and attacked.
I think controlling municipalities like they are is working fine for them. No need to mass produce weapons when you can just buy them.
15155 · 14m ago
Where do you think this submersible was manufactured?
whatever1 · 8h ago
They do have expertise in manufacturing and managing manufacturing facilities and logistics though. Likely the production equipment is not very sophisticated/ hard to reproduce if destroyed. I don’t expect them to produce state of the art F35s anyway.
eviks · 11h ago
Not really, the competition with the existing governments will significantly limit the amount of replacement cash they can demand, so they won't be able to sustain the same scale of man/firepower
Jemm · 5h ago
Applies to corporations as well but they do it legally and we consider part of our 'economy'. Heck we even subsidize them and give them the power to lobby and legally be a 'person'.
- Problem? What Problem? I don't see no stinkin' Problem!
baxtr · 11h ago
Which drugs exactly are you proposing to be legalized? All?
cluckindan · 8h ago
That would be the humane and sensible thing to do, so obviously we are not going to do that. Let’s double down on enforcement so violence, corruption and profits increase.
We really did not learn anything from the alcohol prohibition.
soraminazuki · 4h ago
It's not a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. Sure, the way the US cracked down on drugs did more harm than good. But that doesn't mean there should be no regulation for drugs whatsoever.
Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that?
cluckindan · 3h ago
The opioid epidemic is not a great example, as it began by overprescription of legal, regulated medicinal drugs. The problem blew up when authorities started cracking down on those prescriptions, and the newly dependent started seeking drugs from illegal sources. Those sources included clandestinely produced heroin and fentanyl, leading to massive numbers of overdose deaths.
In other words, it was the enforcement of prohibition that ultimately caused more societal and health issues than the quasi-legal sales of hard drugs. It definitely wasn’t the doing of ”humane and sensible” policies!
So you see, it is actually a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption.
The system can only regulate drugs when they are legal.
Illegal drugs combined with enforcement of prohibition pits producers, traffickers, dealers and users against the police and ultimately the army, which are usually the only groups of people who have a state-sanctioned mandate to use violence against other people.
How could violence not result, when it is an integral part of the alleged ”solution”?
Just add pervasive income inequality, throw in some general lack of future prospects mixed with widely publicized lies about the billionaire class being entirely self-made through hard work, and baby, you got a stew going, and the people getting thrown in the hot water are already boiling over.
soraminazuki · 2h ago
That's quite some wall of one insane libertarian take after another that it's impossible to keep up. Regulating drugs isn't the same thing as turning into a police state.
> The opioid epidemic is not a great example
You think the issue of regulating heroin and fentanyl is comparable to alcohol prohibition, but not the opioid epidemic?
> The problem blew up when authorities started cracking down on those prescriptions
The problem blew up when pharmaceutical companies deceitfully advertised addictive pain killers as safe and aggressively prescribed them to even those who didn't need it. It would've been prevented if the government adequately stepped in before it happened. It was already too late when authorities started cracking down, and to frame that time as the starting point of the problem is blatantly disingenuous.
> It definitely wasn’t the doing of ”humane and sensible” policies!
It's you who's framing the deregulation of OxyContin, heroin, and fentanyl as "humane and sensible," not me.
> So you see, it is actually a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption.
No, you haven't presented a single supporting argument that stands the test of logic and common sense.
> The system can only regulate drugs when they are legal.
What kind of logic is that? The only way to regulate something is to not regulate? What kind of mind games are you playing here?
> Illegal drugs combined with enforcement of prohibition pits producers, traffickers, dealers and users against the police and ultimately the army, which are usually the only groups of people who have a state-sanctioned mandate to use violence against other people.
Just because the US tries to solve every social issue with over-policing, police militarization, and mass incarceration doesn't mean that it's the only solution.
> Just add pervasive income inequality, throw in some general lack of future prospects mixed with widely publicized lies about the billionaire class being entirely self-made through hard work, and baby, you got a stew going, and the people getting thrown in the hot water are already boiling over.
Yes, and you think having more would-be Sacklers selling highly addictive drugs without anyone to stop them is a solution to that? Give us a break. Libertarianism doesn't stop billionaires and their exploitation of everyone else.
quickthrowman · 2h ago
> Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that?
If an opiate addict could get their daily heroin legally for $10/day, there would be no black market filled with poorly dosed fentanyl pills that kill people.
The amount of overdose deaths is caused by enforcement forcing the market to select an inferior product, fentanyl
I’m not advocating for making opiates legal, for what it’s worth. I’ve been addicted to heroin, suboxone got me clean.
l0ng1nu5 · 11h ago
The only conclusion i can draw from all this insanity is that the powers that be want things to be this way.
vineyardmike · 10h ago
Of course, "the powers that be" can want things to change, but not want to pay the cost required to truly change it.
As hyperbole, you can stop all court cases, assume everyone is guilty if they're arrested, and give everyone capital punishment. That would most likely end cartel issues rather quickly, but it would absolutely mess with society to a dangerous level. El Salvador took a (less hyperbolic) extreme approach, and it dramatically reduced crime, but it's not clear that citizens are actually happy with this outcome as.
Of course, it could be possible that leaders are corrupt, but it could simply be that the cost to fixing things is very high.
all2 · 12h ago
The outcomes are bad for all parties involved.
numpad0 · 10h ago
Or fix up the Latin America. Just stop pretending US has no control over internal politics of foreign countries.
DragonStrength · 6h ago
We don't do that precisely because that's how you end up with this situation. We wonder how history repeats itself, but we can't be bothered to know history from over 40 years ago.
clvx · 5h ago
60 years actually but for the recent criminality you need to look to Venezuela’s attempt of revolution in the late 10’s which generated the expansion of the Tren de Aragua which evolved extortion from random events to an enterprise level kind of thing.
reactordev · 10h ago
The US made this.
mdhb · 8h ago
That’s a really smart idea, I don’t know why nobody thought of this or tried for multiple decades before.
Synaesthesia · 6h ago
The US is a big part of the problems of Latin America. They participate in the drug trade, big time.
gambiting · 11h ago
Cocaine, I could maybe see the argument. But the article also said there was another submarine seized with 4.5BN worth of meth aboard. And I really hope you aren't suggesting legalising meth. I could see the argument that if other amphetamines were legal no one would use meth, but.....I don't think that's necessarily true. All the illegal meth would have to do to keep existing is to be cheaper than legal speed.
bigmadshoe · 11h ago
The war on drugs has failed.
Everyone agrees that no-one should do meth. But the solutions presented so far by prohibition are not just conceptually flawed - they demonstrably don’t work. We literally have 50+ years of data that shows it.
We need to
a) legalize drugs,
b) provide proper treatment to addicts, and
c) get unsafe drugs off the streets.
I’m speaking as someone who lost a close family member to an overdose. What we’re doing now is not working.
crackrook · 10h ago
I know we have data that shows just how harmful the war on drugs has been, but I'm curious if we have data showing that legalization in a modern society, with global supply chains and marketing campaigns, does not result in a bunch of people who previously wouldn't have done drugs - for fear of legal consequences, or just because they're hard to obtain - suddenly doing drugs. I'm genuinely interested to know, this isn't something I've made up my mind about.
I finally managed to quit vaping a year ago after starting as a teen. To be honest, if I could get a dime bag at the corner store, I'm not certain that I would be able to resist the temptation to do so for the first time or umpteenth time. Speaking only for myself, I suspect I would be a happier and more productive member of society if it continued to be the case that these chemicals were inaccessible to me. I'm interested to know if there's data suggesting that I'm mistaken or just an outlier.
Just given what I know about the issue (which, admittedly, isn't a lot), I feel decriminalizing possession and keeping distribution illegal would be my first choice. I want people to be able to test their drugs for fentanyl without fear of legal consequences, but I'm reluctant to trust corporations or individuals not to push addictive poison into the hands of the vulnerable when there are profit incentives and no legal boundaries.
nosioptar · 1h ago
When weed was illegal, buying weedeant calling a guy who also dealt in opiates and meth. When they didn't have weed, they'd try to upsell you on harder stuff.
Now that I can get weed at a legit store, I have no clue where to get the harder stuff. My dozens of hookups have all left the field.
crackrook · 5m ago
When I bought weed as a teen, I bought from all kinds of characters, but meth and opiates were never on the menu for me. So it's your anecdotes against mine here.
Also, I think the specific drug we're talking about legalizing matters a lot. There's a clear case for making non-addictive psychedelics and weed legal, at least for medicinal use. Even drugs that are more frequently abused, like ketamine, still seem to be worth administration in controlled settings. You'll have a much harder time convincing me that society would be better for it if recreational opiates could be obtained as easily as recreational weed.
gambiting · 1h ago
On the other hand I'd love to try weed but I'm terrified of both the potential legal consequences where I live as well as just interacting with drug dealers is not something I need in my life. The potential payoff doesn't seem worth the risk. But I can promise you that the day is becomes legal where I live I'm going to buy some to finally give try it.
jillesvangurp · 4h ago
Most places that focus on treatment rather than punishment see drops in all the relevant stats for deaths, crime, health issues, etc. related to drugs usage. And even drops in drug abuse itself. The one thing that has never really worked and continues to create endless amounts of misery is the war on drugs and all the collateral damage it causes.
It never worked. Not even a little bit.
prmoustache · 8h ago
> "or just because they're hard to obtain "
Are they?
I have the feeling they are easier to obtain than if they were only sold at dedicated stores and teenagers had to show an ID, or similar to casinos addict trying to get out could ask to be put on ban list.
Having said that, legalizing would not get rid of cartels, who are very diversified and also operate illegally on legal products by taxing producers and controlling transport and distribution. It would merely allow us to spend the same amount of money on health care and prevention so that less people get addicted and those who are have more chances of rehab.
If war on drug worked, you would see addicts accross the country in the news complaining that their dealers are all in jail and they can't find a new one. Or saying that their dealers do not have any stock so they have to travel to get their fix. Has this ever happened?
crackrook · 20m ago
At least in my circles I'd have a much harder time getting access to meth or heroin than I would a product that can be bought from a special store. I imagine there are many individuals like me, but I'm not sure, which is why I ask for data.
There's no doubt in my mind that addicts know how to find dealers, and don't have trouble finding new dealers when their former dealer gets arrested. What I'm worried about and asking for data about is the possibility of legalization creating a new cohort of addicts who would start to use hard drugs if they were to be as conveniently-obtained as liquor.
I'm not advocating for the war on drugs, to be clear, I'm dubious about treating hard drugs like alcohol, tobacco, or weed (in some states). I still lean towards decriminalization of possession and harm-reduction as being better policy, but I recognize it doesn't solve all the issues.
amanaplanacanal · 8h ago
In most countries alcohol and tobacco are legal and widely available. They are both highly addictive and hazardous to health. And yet society mostly carries on, though we do lose some quantity of people to both of them.
crackrook · 40m ago
I have a few reasons I might more willingly accept the legality of alcohol, I believe they're also the reasons prohibition didn't work:
1. Alcohol is deeply embedded in human culture, to get a significant portion of society to stop using it would be like trying to get people to stop eating bread or to stop having sex. It would be expensive and unproductive to enforce.
2. Alcohol is easy, though more dangerous, to make. To prohibit it would be to turn people towards more-dangerous moonshine.
3. Relatively speaking, alcohol's health effects aren't that bad; it's poison, but it's only very mild poison. Overindulging on alcohol once mostly leads to a hangover, it's difficult to drink enough alcohol to kill yourself and it starts to get unpleasant before you reach that point. The real dangers of alcohol seem to come with chronic use.
4. Alcohol is not extremely addictive. It seems most people can somewhat regularly partake without becoming alcoholics. In my understanding most addictive drugs won't get you hooked the very first time you try them, but trying them a few times is usually all it takes. Anecdotally, having used both, sometimes in excess, I find it much easier to resist a drink than nicotine.
If you pair these with the other harms and expenses of general drug prohibition (organized crime, disproportionate criminalization of minorities, etc) it becomes very hard to justify the prohibition of alcohol, in my mind.
Some of those things apply to tobacco too but to a lesser degree, so the case for illegalizing it might have some legs, although I suspect it's not worth it either. I might argue that burning tobacco products, specifically, should be illegalized due to the fact that there are several known, practical, and less destructive nicotine delivery methods. Lozenges, patches, and vapes work, and so far seem to be much less catastrophic for one's health. It's not clear to me that you'd get murderous tobacco cartels who lace their product with fentanyl.
reactordev · 10h ago
making drugs legal doesn’t mean it will be available at your local corner store. I’m all for keeping certain volumes of distribution illegal but no good has come from the war on drugs.
crackrook · 9h ago
Yep I misunderstood "legal" to mean "regulated like alcohol/tobacco" or "unscheduled" in this context and "decriminalized" to be the colloquial term meaning "legal to own and use but illegal to sell." My mistake!
vineyardmike · 10h ago
> To be honest, if I could get a dime bag at the corner store, I'm not certain that I would be able to resist the temptation to do so for the first time
When people discuss "legalizing drugs" in the context of ending the war on drugs, they don't necessarily mean it should be sold at corner stores. Generally the exception to this is Cannabis which has its own legalization movement, but not hard drugs.
> I feel decriminalizing possession and keeping distribution illegal would be my first choice
This is usually what legalization means in most practical policy discussions. They want to make possession legal or "de-criminalized", not distribution. Because they want addicts to feel safe seeking help.
Portugal had a big "legalization" push around 2000 which saw a huge uptick in rehab and addiction treatment cases, and it's often the program advocates point to. Oregon tried this in 2020, but didn't couple it with strong social support (recovery programs) and rolled it back a few years later. Oregon is often what detractors point to.
vidarh · 6h ago
Decriminalising without legalising manufacturing and distribution is a pretty shitty compromise, because it leaves lack of control of the safety of the drugs, and the violence and other criminality through the entire chain.
crackrook · 9h ago
I see. I understood "legalization" to mean the same thing in this context that it means for cannabis, e.g. legal to distribute/purchase for recreational use. I should have clarified, thank you.
Synaesthesia · 6h ago
Addicts need help, if we want to reduce drug use we can do it through education and support. That's how tobacco use has dropped in western countries, not by banning it and using violence.
stickfigure · 10h ago
We already have legal meth, it's branded Adderall® and we regularly prescribe it to children, grad students, and hedge fund managers. You just have to be rich enough to afford the 'scrip.
blincoln · 7h ago
Adderall is an amphetamine, but it is not methamphetamine. It would be closer to accurate to compare it to Dexedrine than meth.
nandomrumber · 7h ago
Isn't Dexedrine just slow release dextroamphetamine?
There isn't really a whole lot of difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine. Meth is, weight for weight, stronger due to the methyl- group enabling the molecule to pass through cell membranes / the blood-brain barrier easier, and at the effect-equivalent dose most people wouldn't notice any difference.
scns · 6h ago
Adderall is a mixture of 75% Dextroamphetamine and 25% Levoamphetamine.
tayo42 · 10h ago
The brand name is Desoxyn for meth
lupusreal · 4h ago
I do think Adderall should be available OTC to everybody. It's an open secret that rich kids with no legitimate mental issues buy prescriptions for adderall to boost their school and job performance. The popular talk of "ADHD brains" for which Adderall works differently is pseudoscience tacitly endorsed by the medical community to make people feel okay about using these drugs. They don't just boost the school performance of people who have ADHD, they do that for everybody. It's a relatively harmless drug in the vein of caffeine, almost everybody would benifit from using it, not just the people with diagnosed attention disorders. Broad legalization would level the playing field.
Meth is different, even though it's basically the same if you look at it reductively. Meth hits you fast, it's not slow release. It gives you mind melting sex and gives you psychosis if you use it a lot. In a world where Adderall is easily and legally accessible to everybody, meth will remain desirable and ruinous.
inemesitaffia · 10h ago
The $amount is dishonest.
Check the weight then compare with wholesale prices
billy99k · 3h ago
This has been a failed experiment. When you legalize drugs, it comes at increased cost due to taxes and regulations.
The black market can easily compete because they can sell a cheaper product without either of these things (and now that it's legal, it makes it easier to bring shipments into the country under the guise of a legal business) and it eventually drives the legitimate companies out of business.
This has now been seen in both Colorado and California.
Violence still drives the business and it only makes the cartels richer. I'm also tired of all the pot smoke you can smell everyone now in every US city where it's legalized.
The people like me, that didn't want drugs legalized, predicted all this would happen a decade or so ago.
Update: you know I'm right
Roark66 · 4h ago
Next one will lie 300km of it's own fiber optic cable.
cyanydeez · 4h ago
The next one after that will have a hologram of donald trump and atomatically try to bribe the officials with a detention center and bitcoins.
tczMUFlmoNk · 13h ago
Fascinating. Does the Starlink antenna work well underwater? Or was this sub surfacing to communicate?
poink · 13h ago
Narco subs are mostly/entirely submerged to reduce visibility, but they almost all still operate at the surface
threemux · 6h ago
It's not a submarine and I wish news outlets would stop saying "narco sub". It's a surface vessel designed to have only a very small part above water. Building an actual submarine capable of submerged travel for lengthy periods is quite difficult.
progre · 11h ago
The wavelengths used in satelite communication are entirely absorbed by water. I think the sub would have to surface to use the antenna.
more_corn · 5h ago
Semi-submersible wild be a more accurate description. Most of the boat is under water, usually only an inch or so down so it’s hard to see from a boat.
Scoundreller · 11h ago
> No drugs were found
That’s some level of confidence on the part of the Colombian military. I thought it was still customary to declare at least half otherwise nobody would believe you.
supertrope · 51m ago
Some smuggling submarines are towed behind a boat. When the authorities stop the boat the smugglers cut the towing cable and sink the submarine.
mdhb · 8h ago
It’s possible they interdicted this on a test run.
thakoppno · 10h ago
I wonder if the alleged perpetrators are reading this thread? Are there any comments that would help with the next revision?
I think both conjectures are likely true.
0cf8612b2e1e · 10h ago
I am wondering why they used the link so much that it was able to be used against them. Submersible loses benefits if it requires an external service.
Launch. Submerge. Drunkenly move in the direction of the destination. If N days since last check-in and/or uncertainty in location, ping mothership. Repeat. Only lean on communication channel for final handoff stage.
immibis · 6h ago
> Launch. Submerge. Drunkenly
I thought they were smuggling cocaine, not acid.
(this is like the second time this week someone has spelled out LSD on HN and it's been relevant)
more_corn · 5h ago
To that end I suspect that tracking starlink used in an unmanned narco sub would be trivial for an insider at the company. My first thought was “I wonder if the movement and activity pattern would be unique. Yes probably. If unique could a script be run to pinpoint them? Yes probably.” If law enforcement has tasked someone with doing this (likely and legal) there’s high likelihood that any future narcosub using starlink will be intercepted.
So to anyone on either side of this arms race: “you’re welcome”
idiotsecant · 13h ago
This strikes me as not a very good technique. With minimal help from starlink law enforcement could find every sub out there. Anyhow, what does this buy you that an offline gps connected controller does not?
AngryData · 12h ago
If you have direct control you need far less automation and can potentially solve more problems at sea or change destination as needed or retrieve it faster if it breaks down by telling you exactly what is wrong, and it requires less skills to build all the hardware. Your entire radio communications setup is as close to plug-and-play as it gets and it both looks like "legitimate" radio signals and is far less likely to detected on the ground as a remote control link since it is using phased array antennas pointed at the sky rather than at the horizon.
You also have to remember its not like they are building tons of identical subs and moved an entire fleet over to starlink. They could have a dozen very different setups running with just a few guys tinkering around with whatever devices are easy to obtain under the radar, and it prevents single design vulnerabilities from collapsing your entire sub delivery supply line at once. Even if it only evades enforcement a single time by being novel, the cocaine it delivers out values whatever hardware and work it took to setup in the first place.
flowerthoughts · 8h ago
Yes, this one got caught. ;)
This seems difficult. Even with two Starlinks: one to control it in Colombia, and one to control it at the destination coast, killing power to each. And make it autonomous on the way. This leaves the problem that there is a sudden (dis-)appearance of the link at sea, which might still make you light up like a lighthouse in analysis.
However, it would seem cartels could use a cubesat and make their own links?
Polizeiposaune · 3h ago
One cubesat launched as a rideshare payload wouldn't cut it. Those typically get dropped off in a highly inclined low earth orbit -- around the world, roughly pole to pole, in 90 minutes. Any given satellite in that sort of orbit will only be useful to a ground station when it has line-of-sight for maybe 5-10 minutes every few days.
At the very least you'd need a few dozen. Iridium manages to get coverage from 66.
Then there are the power/cooling/antenna size issues.
thephyber · 10h ago
GPS is only a confirmation of positioning. It doesn't free you from having a pilot in the vehicle.
Starlink opens the possibility for remote command & control. It opens up the possibility to fully remote drone capabilities.
Starlink should probably be disabled except to rarely report sensor data and accept new routing commands, so law enforcement can’t use EM scanning to find the source.
ungreased0675 · 13h ago
Because the cargo is high value and illegal, real time connectivity is needed. If it was on autopilot, how could they verify delivery? What if a third party was tipped by an insider and intercepted the shipment? What if it simply sank along the route?
gambiting · 11h ago
>>If it was on autopilot, how could they verify delivery?
You put in a cheap SIM card and it will pick up signal when you get close to the coast and send a message saying it reached its destination.
krisoft · 9h ago
I just imagine being a techie working for the cartel. In case you do not receive the ping, would you want to tell this to your violence prone boss: “Hey boss! Sooo. According to my calculations the significant investment you made in my idea should have pinged back by now. Maybe it is there, just there is something wrong with the SIM, or the antenna, or the network. Or maybe it is a few miles left or right on the coast and not getting cell signal. Or maybe the snorkel got swamped out on the sea and it stalled the engine and it is drifting somewhere. Or maybe our rivals nabbed it. Or maybe a random ship colided with it and it sunk. I hope this uncertainty is fine with you and won’t affect adversely our relationship, or how you treat my family.”
Sounds like a nightmare honestly.
immibis · 5h ago
Don't ask me how a criminal operation holds together without either someone defecting and getting everyone killed, or someone killing someone else because they thought they were defecting. Presuming that it does, in fact, somehow maintain cohesion, I think they're all aware the submarine stuff is risky.
They're earning however many tens of millions of dollars per successful shipment and it's way higher than what it actually cost them to produce. And I'd guess they send perhaps ten to fifty shipments per year. Having 50% shrinkage is balanced by a 9999% profit margin.
This one, if it truly had no drugs in it, might have been a test run (risk-reducing).
drakenot · 13h ago
Remote tracking?
zarzavat · 13h ago
Just a simple radio transmitter could fulfil that function.
Retric · 12h ago
At the cost of it being really obvious where you are.
However the bigger draw is probably high bandwidth two way communication globally. No need for an obvious route as you can use GPS to get near US waters before turning it on, while still being in control of location of delivery or even meet up with it on the open ocean.
zarzavat · 10h ago
Not as obvious as a Starlink transmitter though!
Sending the position only requires a few bits, let's say 48. A position update requires even less, depending on how far it could have travelled since the last known position. At such low data rates you could hide the transmission quite effectively.
Retric · 6h ago
As a once off it’s not going to be investigated, start making regular trips and people are going to start looking for such signals. Short bursts strong enough to detected many hundreds of miles away inherently need to be fairly strong making them standout from the background noise for close receivers. You can similarly triangulate based on signal strength given some ocean ships or even cheap buoys.
Starlink needs to be detectable by satellites, but you can almost completely block the signal going in other directions.
SpaceX might already be sharing it’s data with coastguards though.
0cf8612b2e1e · 9h ago
I also wonder if you could have a visible surface vessel (e.g. fishing boat) which acts as a navigation beacon for the sub. Sub can just follow the beacon without any active communication of its own. If enforcement appears, sub will destructively sink to avoid revealing the operation.
more_corn · 5h ago
No. Consider the distances.
aussieguy1234 · 12h ago
I thought drone delivery was years off, but I guess that only matters if the law is being followed.
taneq · 11h ago
Like most things, the tech is ahead of the legislation. ;)
thaumasiotes · 12h ago
Drone delivery is a pretty different thing. Drones are clearly visible to everyone. Submarines are... not that.
LexGray · 11h ago
Wikipedia says unmanned underwater vehicles fall in the drone category as do unmanned surface vehicles.
Speaking of which does Ukraine use weaponized RC vehicles and roaming unmanned anti-ship subs? I would think you would get a larger payload and better damage from the undercarriage.
thephyber · 10h ago
I think you are making mental assumptions that aren’t justified.
Narco drone subs are delivery vehicles, just not for the “last mile” to the end user. They are more like self-driving long haul trucks that don’t care about international borders.
Archonical · 12h ago
I think the person you are replying to was making a joke.
atonse · 11h ago
What’s the purpose of starlink? Can’t be for GPS?
thephyber · 10h ago
Remote command & control.
Drone submarine doesn’t require life support systems so it can be smaller, simpler, and stay submerged longer.
selkin · 2h ago
Only this isn’t a submarine, as it operates at surface and doesn’t dive. This is semi-submersible. When built right, it’s hard to detect from a boat.
I guess the goal of automation here is like it always is: remove the cost of human labor.
inemesitaffia · 10h ago
Search "Magura drone boat Ukraine"
madaxe_again · 11h ago
It’s a space based data network, used for internet access.
atonse · 4h ago
Right I get that. Sorry my question wasn’t clear.
But you could theoretically build a drone that would guide itself to a destination with just GPS right? It would potentially be even easier with water?
He does videos on youtube too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO-VQllYIZo
Its very likely the mainstream media pick up this stuff because they follow him :D
Steer with GPS, that way you are only listening.
I wouldn't rely on Starlink, it seems like something that could be discovered easily. Any authority that had a map of where legit ships are could filter down to the mysterious Starlinks that are in the middle of the water, but near a remote coast, having traveled from Colombia, not on a known vessel.
Maybe if you need the comms, you rely on radio. Whatever the ham radio people use could perhaps be made into something. You don't need a lot of bandwidth anyway.
I guess the question is economics, then. How many trips could you get on a little boat that has a solar panel, electric engine, a battery, GPS, and a radio? And what would that cost?
It's the same reason it makes no sense to put solar panels on a car: the solar panels would add minutes of driving daily.
You would need massive area of solar panels to power a sub which is obviously not workable if you want to be stealthy.
The math doesn't work out.
Why wouldn't they track it and wait until it rendezvoused with people they could arrest?
Also, today I learned it's illegal to operate a semi-submersible in Colombia.
Miguel Uribe is in the minority conservative party and was shot three times at campaign event by an underage youth who was hired for this purpose. A number of arrests have taken place.
The leftist president Gustavo Petro has not strongly reacted against this event, and the U.S. recently recalled their ambassador for somewhat confusing reasons (Columbia did the same).
https://thecitypaperbogota.com/
It’s a pretty batshit story that focuses on what became of the right wing death squads (they run the start of the cocaine supply chain it turns out among many other things) that’s extremely well researched and has amazing access. A strong recommendation from me https://insightcrime.org/audio-from-the-ground-up/the-shadow...
So yeah, South America is still a main hub of the drug trade.
[1]: https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/06/26/the-gold-b...
When you have accumulated so much power you can demand cash from the world around you.
There's no substitute for the margins you can get in the illegal drug trade. Take away the primary source of funding and you make it much easier to break the gangs. We've already gone through this. Just legalize it already.
Illegal goods have better margins but extortions provide a platform for power and money with less effort.
Finance wars. Like with the "Ten Cents War": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific
I would agree that letting black market bs continue will eventually lead to groups that could threaten global control on random other commodities but that's no reason kick the can further down this road.
I think controlling municipalities like they are is working fine for them. No need to mass produce weapons when you can just buy them.
- Problem? What Problem? I don't see no stinkin' Problem!
We really did not learn anything from the alcohol prohibition.
Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that?
In other words, it was the enforcement of prohibition that ultimately caused more societal and health issues than the quasi-legal sales of hard drugs. It definitely wasn’t the doing of ”humane and sensible” policies!
So you see, it is actually a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption.
The system can only regulate drugs when they are legal.
Illegal drugs combined with enforcement of prohibition pits producers, traffickers, dealers and users against the police and ultimately the army, which are usually the only groups of people who have a state-sanctioned mandate to use violence against other people.
How could violence not result, when it is an integral part of the alleged ”solution”?
Just add pervasive income inequality, throw in some general lack of future prospects mixed with widely publicized lies about the billionaire class being entirely self-made through hard work, and baby, you got a stew going, and the people getting thrown in the hot water are already boiling over.
> The opioid epidemic is not a great example
You think the issue of regulating heroin and fentanyl is comparable to alcohol prohibition, but not the opioid epidemic?
> The problem blew up when authorities started cracking down on those prescriptions
The problem blew up when pharmaceutical companies deceitfully advertised addictive pain killers as safe and aggressively prescribed them to even those who didn't need it. It would've been prevented if the government adequately stepped in before it happened. It was already too late when authorities started cracking down, and to frame that time as the starting point of the problem is blatantly disingenuous.
> It definitely wasn’t the doing of ”humane and sensible” policies!
It's you who's framing the deregulation of OxyContin, heroin, and fentanyl as "humane and sensible," not me.
> So you see, it is actually a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption.
No, you haven't presented a single supporting argument that stands the test of logic and common sense.
> The system can only regulate drugs when they are legal.
What kind of logic is that? The only way to regulate something is to not regulate? What kind of mind games are you playing here?
> Illegal drugs combined with enforcement of prohibition pits producers, traffickers, dealers and users against the police and ultimately the army, which are usually the only groups of people who have a state-sanctioned mandate to use violence against other people.
Just because the US tries to solve every social issue with over-policing, police militarization, and mass incarceration doesn't mean that it's the only solution.
> Just add pervasive income inequality, throw in some general lack of future prospects mixed with widely publicized lies about the billionaire class being entirely self-made through hard work, and baby, you got a stew going, and the people getting thrown in the hot water are already boiling over.
Yes, and you think having more would-be Sacklers selling highly addictive drugs without anyone to stop them is a solution to that? Give us a break. Libertarianism doesn't stop billionaires and their exploitation of everyone else.
If an opiate addict could get their daily heroin legally for $10/day, there would be no black market filled with poorly dosed fentanyl pills that kill people.
The amount of overdose deaths is caused by enforcement forcing the market to select an inferior product, fentanyl
I’m not advocating for making opiates legal, for what it’s worth. I’ve been addicted to heroin, suboxone got me clean.
As hyperbole, you can stop all court cases, assume everyone is guilty if they're arrested, and give everyone capital punishment. That would most likely end cartel issues rather quickly, but it would absolutely mess with society to a dangerous level. El Salvador took a (less hyperbolic) extreme approach, and it dramatically reduced crime, but it's not clear that citizens are actually happy with this outcome as.
Of course, it could be possible that leaders are corrupt, but it could simply be that the cost to fixing things is very high.
Everyone agrees that no-one should do meth. But the solutions presented so far by prohibition are not just conceptually flawed - they demonstrably don’t work. We literally have 50+ years of data that shows it.
We need to a) legalize drugs, b) provide proper treatment to addicts, and c) get unsafe drugs off the streets.
I’m speaking as someone who lost a close family member to an overdose. What we’re doing now is not working.
I finally managed to quit vaping a year ago after starting as a teen. To be honest, if I could get a dime bag at the corner store, I'm not certain that I would be able to resist the temptation to do so for the first time or umpteenth time. Speaking only for myself, I suspect I would be a happier and more productive member of society if it continued to be the case that these chemicals were inaccessible to me. I'm interested to know if there's data suggesting that I'm mistaken or just an outlier.
Just given what I know about the issue (which, admittedly, isn't a lot), I feel decriminalizing possession and keeping distribution illegal would be my first choice. I want people to be able to test their drugs for fentanyl without fear of legal consequences, but I'm reluctant to trust corporations or individuals not to push addictive poison into the hands of the vulnerable when there are profit incentives and no legal boundaries.
Now that I can get weed at a legit store, I have no clue where to get the harder stuff. My dozens of hookups have all left the field.
Also, I think the specific drug we're talking about legalizing matters a lot. There's a clear case for making non-addictive psychedelics and weed legal, at least for medicinal use. Even drugs that are more frequently abused, like ketamine, still seem to be worth administration in controlled settings. You'll have a much harder time convincing me that society would be better for it if recreational opiates could be obtained as easily as recreational weed.
It never worked. Not even a little bit.
Are they?
I have the feeling they are easier to obtain than if they were only sold at dedicated stores and teenagers had to show an ID, or similar to casinos addict trying to get out could ask to be put on ban list.
Having said that, legalizing would not get rid of cartels, who are very diversified and also operate illegally on legal products by taxing producers and controlling transport and distribution. It would merely allow us to spend the same amount of money on health care and prevention so that less people get addicted and those who are have more chances of rehab.
If war on drug worked, you would see addicts accross the country in the news complaining that their dealers are all in jail and they can't find a new one. Or saying that their dealers do not have any stock so they have to travel to get their fix. Has this ever happened?
There's no doubt in my mind that addicts know how to find dealers, and don't have trouble finding new dealers when their former dealer gets arrested. What I'm worried about and asking for data about is the possibility of legalization creating a new cohort of addicts who would start to use hard drugs if they were to be as conveniently-obtained as liquor.
I'm not advocating for the war on drugs, to be clear, I'm dubious about treating hard drugs like alcohol, tobacco, or weed (in some states). I still lean towards decriminalization of possession and harm-reduction as being better policy, but I recognize it doesn't solve all the issues.
If you pair these with the other harms and expenses of general drug prohibition (organized crime, disproportionate criminalization of minorities, etc) it becomes very hard to justify the prohibition of alcohol, in my mind.
Some of those things apply to tobacco too but to a lesser degree, so the case for illegalizing it might have some legs, although I suspect it's not worth it either. I might argue that burning tobacco products, specifically, should be illegalized due to the fact that there are several known, practical, and less destructive nicotine delivery methods. Lozenges, patches, and vapes work, and so far seem to be much less catastrophic for one's health. It's not clear to me that you'd get murderous tobacco cartels who lace their product with fentanyl.
When people discuss "legalizing drugs" in the context of ending the war on drugs, they don't necessarily mean it should be sold at corner stores. Generally the exception to this is Cannabis which has its own legalization movement, but not hard drugs.
> I feel decriminalizing possession and keeping distribution illegal would be my first choice
This is usually what legalization means in most practical policy discussions. They want to make possession legal or "de-criminalized", not distribution. Because they want addicts to feel safe seeking help.
Portugal had a big "legalization" push around 2000 which saw a huge uptick in rehab and addiction treatment cases, and it's often the program advocates point to. Oregon tried this in 2020, but didn't couple it with strong social support (recovery programs) and rolled it back a few years later. Oregon is often what detractors point to.
There isn't really a whole lot of difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine. Meth is, weight for weight, stronger due to the methyl- group enabling the molecule to pass through cell membranes / the blood-brain barrier easier, and at the effect-equivalent dose most people wouldn't notice any difference.
Meth is different, even though it's basically the same if you look at it reductively. Meth hits you fast, it's not slow release. It gives you mind melting sex and gives you psychosis if you use it a lot. In a world where Adderall is easily and legally accessible to everybody, meth will remain desirable and ruinous.
Check the weight then compare with wholesale prices
The black market can easily compete because they can sell a cheaper product without either of these things (and now that it's legal, it makes it easier to bring shipments into the country under the guise of a legal business) and it eventually drives the legitimate companies out of business.
This has now been seen in both Colorado and California.
Violence still drives the business and it only makes the cartels richer. I'm also tired of all the pot smoke you can smell everyone now in every US city where it's legalized.
The people like me, that didn't want drugs legalized, predicted all this would happen a decade or so ago.
Update: you know I'm right
That’s some level of confidence on the part of the Colombian military. I thought it was still customary to declare at least half otherwise nobody would believe you.
I think both conjectures are likely true.
Launch. Submerge. Drunkenly move in the direction of the destination. If N days since last check-in and/or uncertainty in location, ping mothership. Repeat. Only lean on communication channel for final handoff stage.
I thought they were smuggling cocaine, not acid.
(this is like the second time this week someone has spelled out LSD on HN and it's been relevant)
You also have to remember its not like they are building tons of identical subs and moved an entire fleet over to starlink. They could have a dozen very different setups running with just a few guys tinkering around with whatever devices are easy to obtain under the radar, and it prevents single design vulnerabilities from collapsing your entire sub delivery supply line at once. Even if it only evades enforcement a single time by being novel, the cocaine it delivers out values whatever hardware and work it took to setup in the first place.
This seems difficult. Even with two Starlinks: one to control it in Colombia, and one to control it at the destination coast, killing power to each. And make it autonomous on the way. This leaves the problem that there is a sudden (dis-)appearance of the link at sea, which might still make you light up like a lighthouse in analysis.
However, it would seem cartels could use a cubesat and make their own links?
At the very least you'd need a few dozen. Iridium manages to get coverage from 66.
Then there are the power/cooling/antenna size issues.
Starlink opens the possibility for remote command & control. It opens up the possibility to fully remote drone capabilities.
Starlink should probably be disabled except to rarely report sensor data and accept new routing commands, so law enforcement can’t use EM scanning to find the source.
You put in a cheap SIM card and it will pick up signal when you get close to the coast and send a message saying it reached its destination.
Sounds like a nightmare honestly.
They're earning however many tens of millions of dollars per successful shipment and it's way higher than what it actually cost them to produce. And I'd guess they send perhaps ten to fifty shipments per year. Having 50% shrinkage is balanced by a 9999% profit margin.
This one, if it truly had no drugs in it, might have been a test run (risk-reducing).
However the bigger draw is probably high bandwidth two way communication globally. No need for an obvious route as you can use GPS to get near US waters before turning it on, while still being in control of location of delivery or even meet up with it on the open ocean.
Sending the position only requires a few bits, let's say 48. A position update requires even less, depending on how far it could have travelled since the last known position. At such low data rates you could hide the transmission quite effectively.
Starlink needs to be detectable by satellites, but you can almost completely block the signal going in other directions.
SpaceX might already be sharing it’s data with coastguards though.
Speaking of which does Ukraine use weaponized RC vehicles and roaming unmanned anti-ship subs? I would think you would get a larger payload and better damage from the undercarriage.
Narco drone subs are delivery vehicles, just not for the “last mile” to the end user. They are more like self-driving long haul trucks that don’t care about international borders.
Drone submarine doesn’t require life support systems so it can be smaller, simpler, and stay submerged longer.
I guess the goal of automation here is like it always is: remove the cost of human labor.
But you could theoretically build a drone that would guide itself to a destination with just GPS right? It would potentially be even easier with water?
Do you even need the two way command and control?
Bokon Taylay!