3 ms·

I did a little digging around a little more than a year ago when I had read about the narcotics submersibles. With this step up to full submarines I'm thinking

I did a little digging around a little more than a year ago when I had read about the narcotics submersibles. With this step up to full submarines I'm thinking that the people using these can now have them built in almost any location next to the sea around the world. Somalia would seem to be a good place to build, no government to sieze them.

demallien 16y ago
Well, yes and no - you need a decent chink of infrastructure to build a submarine - you know, not having your engineering staff murdered, important supplies stolen, that sort of thing. It's hard to supply the sort of protection needed to guarantees these basic conditions when you're a long way from your support base. Of course, if a Somali warlord wanted to get in on the submarine-building business, he'd probably be able to make a decent amount of money. But I bet you could get the same service from a shady shipyard in Shanghai or somewhere similar for a lower price...
- BerislavLopac 16y ago
  "a shady shipyard in Shanghai" Thank you for giving me the title of my next novel. ;)
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Why not just buy one? They have the money.
avar 16y ago
What I find odd is that they're hiding their construction efforts at all. Why not start a company and build them out in the open? It's not like it's illegal to construct submarines.
- jws 16y ago
  It is illegal under US law to use unregistered vessels to evade detection anywhere in the open ocean.[1] I'm pretty sure the US government would extend "conspiring" to include your smuggling yacht company's owner and employees. [1] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3598 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3598
  - avar 16y ago
    In the U.S. yes, but this is in Ecuador. Such a company would operate wholly outside the U.S., and only sell the submarines in kit form, ready for assembly. Here's the full text of the law b.t.w.: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ407/html/PLAW-110publ407.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ407/html/PLAW-110pu...
    - jws 16y ago
      As soon as a sub comes into international waters the law applies. I see no reason why the interpretation of "conspiring" would be hindered by kit-form subs or sovereignty of the manufacturing location. If there was a thriving market for cargo submarines for non-covert haulage, maybe. I suppose if the shipyard owners don't do too many subs, don't travel internationally, and the country doesn't extradite to the United States, then the shipyard owner would be relatively secure. You'd have to make a fair number or be otherwise interesting for a forcible extraction.
      - GFischer 16y ago
        Erm... an US law applies in international waters? It's not like Ecuador will go to war with the US if the US decides to arbitrarily enforce their rules on the open waters, but Venezuela might... (I'd try Venezuela if I were a drug smuggler) Edit: the US law intends to apply to vessels "without nationality", but I'm pretty sure the crew has a nationality which might want to object. Most other nations would at least release a statement against such practices by the US (I know mine would, heck I'd draft it myself)
        jws 16y ago
        Strange isn't it. And the crew can read that statement for 15 years while they "pay their debt to society". I don't think this law has been used yet, at least it didn't make any news that I've seen. I expect there to be challenges and appeals the first time someone gets defended in court. Hopefully it will gut the law. In case the back story is missing, the law was passed in reaction to semi-submersible smuggling boats that would travel in deep water and if confronted by US forces, the crew would just scuttle the boat and then wait for the coast guard or navy to rescue them. No evidence, no crime, plus now the task force has to return the crew they just rescued.

demallien 16y ago

Well, yes and no - you need a decent chink of infrastructure to build a submarine - you know, not having your engineering staff murdered, important supplies stolen, that sort of thing. It's hard to supply the sort of protection needed to guarantees these basic conditions when you're a long way from your support base. Of course, if a Somali warlord wanted to get in on the submarine-building business, he'd probably be able to make a decent amount of money. But I bet you could get the same service from a shady shipyard in Shanghai or somewhere similar for a lower price...

BerislavLopac 16y ago
"a shady shipyard in Shanghai" Thank you for giving me the title of my next novel. ;)
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Why not just buy one? They have the money.

avar 16y ago

What I find odd is that they're hiding their construction efforts at all. Why not start a company and build them out in the open? It's not like it's illegal to construct submarines.

jws 16y ago
It is illegal under US law to use unregistered vessels to evade detection anywhere in the open ocean.[1] I'm pretty sure the US government would extend "conspiring" to include your smuggling yacht company's owner and employees. [1] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3598 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3598
- avar 16y ago
  In the U.S. yes, but this is in Ecuador. Such a company would operate wholly outside the U.S., and only sell the submarines in kit form, ready for assembly. Here's the full text of the law b.t.w.: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ407/html/PLAW-110publ407.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ407/html/PLAW-110pu...
  - jws 16y ago
    As soon as a sub comes into international waters the law applies. I see no reason why the interpretation of "conspiring" would be hindered by kit-form subs or sovereignty of the manufacturing location. If there was a thriving market for cargo submarines for non-covert haulage, maybe. I suppose if the shipyard owners don't do too many subs, don't travel internationally, and the country doesn't extradite to the United States, then the shipyard owner would be relatively secure. You'd have to make a fair number or be otherwise interesting for a forcible extraction.
    - GFischer 16y ago
      Erm... an US law applies in international waters? It's not like Ecuador will go to war with the US if the US decides to arbitrarily enforce their rules on the open waters, but Venezuela might... (I'd try Venezuela if I were a drug smuggler) Edit: the US law intends to apply to vessels "without nationality", but I'm pretty sure the crew has a nationality which might want to object. Most other nations would at least release a statement against such practices by the US (I know mine would, heck I'd draft it myself)
      - jws 16y ago
        Strange isn't it. And the crew can read that statement for 15 years while they "pay their debt to society". I don't think this law has been used yet, at least it didn't make any news that I've seen. I expect there to be challenges and appeals the first time someone gets defended in court. Hopefully it will gut the law. In case the back story is missing, the law was passed in reaction to semi-submersible smuggling boats that would travel in deep water and if confronted by US forces, the crew would just scuttle the boat and then wait for the coast guard or navy to rescue them. No evidence, no crime, plus now the task force has to return the crew they just rescued.