8 ms·

Inside Seized Drug-Smuggling Submarines

59 points by rfreytag 16y ago

jamesshamenski 16y ago
Ahead of the curve back in 2009, Vice Magazine did a humorous and brilliant mini-documentary on this very story. It's a very revealing look into exactly what was going on. http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs
Semiapies 16y ago
I wonder how much it costs to build one of those semi-submersibles. I presume they're at least using the hull of a manufactured boat, judging by the pictures.
hjrnunes 16y ago
VBS made a piece on this a while ago: http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs
Nanofied 16y ago
That's pretty crazy that they are able to construct such complex vessels, but yet they still resort to trafficking drugs.
- arethuza 16y ago
  I would suspect that the people who build these vessels might be smart enough to avoid actually traveling in them.
  - Nanofied 16y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if the people who build them don't actually go inside of them.
- icegreentea 16y ago
  I think it's the other way around. It's pretty crazy that trafficking drugs allows/drives them to construct such complex vessels.
- JonnieCache 16y ago
  For the people comissioning the subs, it is not a question of "resort." The margins in the drugs trade would make your eyes water. Cocaine and similar substances are practically worthless at source compared to their retail value in the US/EU.
redacted 16y ago
The phenomenon of drug-smuggling submarines should be required study for anyone who preaches total prohibition of drugs. There is so much demand for this product that its suppliers were willing to build and travel in several homemade submersibles to smuggle it. And yet harsh jail-time and zero-tolerance are supposed to stop the trade?
- adsr 16y ago
  It's a difficult problem. The alternatives to prohibition isn't any better in my opinion. Edit: I'll add this, much of the root cause comes down to poverty as well. Edit: OK down voter, it's an easy problem. It has nothing to do with the poor conditions in the countries where the drugs are produced.
  - jaysonelliot 16y ago
    That's a very sweeping and unsupported generalization. Legalizing drugs: -raises tax revenue -raises the quality of drugs (eliminating one of the greatest dangers--people ingesting unknown and even more deadly substances) -lowers costs, meaning addicts don't have to turn to a life of crime to support their habit -allows society to have responsible, adult discussions about the personal risks of different drugs -reduces prison crowding and eases the load on law enforcement, costing taxpayers less -destroys less young lives over stupid mistakes -lets the focus be on harm prevention rather than punishment Maintaining drug prohibition: -is safe and easy for politicians -makes people feel better when they moralize at others (I'd like to point out that I don't personally do any drugs, nor do I want to. That's my choice. It should be a choice.)
    - adsr 16y ago
      Yes, however free supply will drive down prices. The current street price that people are perfectly willing to pay for 1 gram of cocaine tells a lot about the demand, and just how addictive the drug is. There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society? I've seen the argument before, mostly applied to lighter drugs like marijuana though. In my view it's your argument that is a sweeping generalization. It's also unsupported, where have cocaine legalization been applied successfully? >It should be a choice. That's so naive. We are talking about an addictive substance, if it is a choice then why don't crack/cocaine addicts just quit. Someone is down voting my comment, yet this person doesn't have counter argument, it just happens to not be in alignment with their view.
jschuur 16y ago
I wonder if they make remote controlled ones.
- philthy 16y ago
  Why spend more money on robotics when you have an almost unlimited supply of patsies. A 2 weeks trip originating in narrow Jungle swamps and transiting deep ocean water would require serious robotic control. But if they keep making so much money I wouldn't be surprised if they went all Mars rover on the subs. Hell when I first saw these things a few years back they were just fiberglass boats with no top, that Feb 1st craft was a legitimate submarine.
  - jschuur 16y ago
    Valid point. Although, maybe a remote controlled one could be made smaller or dive deeper and thus be less easy to detect. It could be made more solid through and through, thus be less likely to be crushed at lower depths, thus become smaller. Most of the space is probably due to life support and the driver being able to move around in it, and not to store the goods.
  - hjrnunes 16y ago
    Actually, they only load the vessels once they're on the ocean already. In the VBS.tv piece mentioned before, a guy that purportedly was involved in making and presenting a kind of towed torpedo to the cartels, said he wouldn't be surprised they'd have such a remote controlled device already, and that he was sure they we're already looking into it. You can watch it. And I remember seeing something in the news, not long ago, that they we're already doing it for shipping cocaine directly to Europe.
philthy 16y ago
I'd be so scared to make that 30 foot dive in the deep ocean in a homemade sub. I wonder how many have gone to 30 feet and just kept sinking.
brndnhy 16y ago
I was surprised to read in the caption of one photo that the Colombian Navy actually piloted one of the subs rather than transport it by lift or tow!
GDH 16y ago
These Columbian cocaine runners are entrepreneurs and damn good ones at that. They are innovative with their marketplace and have many barriers to overcome. I'm not saying that their product is a good product. I'm saying that if more startups ran with the intensity of cocaine smugglers, never giving up even when the competition is more advance and instead developing innovative, fast and simple methods to beat the competition, that many of the tech startups today would succeed instead of failing at the first large hurdle. Maybe we can learn from these cocaine smugglers.
zeteo 16y ago
I wonder why they need to put a crew in it. Building a robotic submarine should be easy in this age of GPS, pressure sensors and satellite phones. It would also decrease cost, while increasing cargo (no life support or living quarters needed for the crew).

59 points by rfreytag 16y ago

Ahead of the curve back in 2009, Vice Magazine did a humorous and brilliant mini-documentary on this very story. It's a very revealing look into exactly what was going on. http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs

Semiapies 16y ago

I wonder how much it costs to build one of those semi-submersibles. I presume they're at least using the hull of a manufactured boat, judging by the pictures.

hjrnunes 16y ago

VBS made a piece on this a while ago: http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs http://www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs

Nanofied 16y ago

That's pretty crazy that they are able to construct such complex vessels, but yet they still resort to trafficking drugs.

arethuza 16y ago
I would suspect that the people who build these vessels might be smart enough to avoid actually traveling in them.
- Nanofied 16y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the people who build them don't actually go inside of them.
icegreentea 16y ago
I think it's the other way around. It's pretty crazy that trafficking drugs allows/drives them to construct such complex vessels.
JonnieCache 16y ago
For the people comissioning the subs, it is not a question of "resort." The margins in the drugs trade would make your eyes water. Cocaine and similar substances are practically worthless at source compared to their retail value in the US/EU.

redacted 16y ago

The phenomenon of drug-smuggling submarines should be required study for anyone who preaches total prohibition of drugs. There is so much demand for this product that its suppliers were willing to build and travel in several homemade submersibles to smuggle it. And yet harsh jail-time and zero-tolerance are supposed to stop the trade?

adsr 16y ago
It's a difficult problem. The alternatives to prohibition isn't any better in my opinion. Edit: I'll add this, much of the root cause comes down to poverty as well. Edit: OK down voter, it's an easy problem. It has nothing to do with the poor conditions in the countries where the drugs are produced.
- jaysonelliot 16y ago
  That's a very sweeping and unsupported generalization. Legalizing drugs: -raises tax revenue -raises the quality of drugs (eliminating one of the greatest dangers--people ingesting unknown and even more deadly substances) -lowers costs, meaning addicts don't have to turn to a life of crime to support their habit -allows society to have responsible, adult discussions about the personal risks of different drugs -reduces prison crowding and eases the load on law enforcement, costing taxpayers less -destroys less young lives over stupid mistakes -lets the focus be on harm prevention rather than punishment Maintaining drug prohibition: -is safe and easy for politicians -makes people feel better when they moralize at others (I'd like to point out that I don't personally do any drugs, nor do I want to. That's my choice. It should be a choice.)
  - adsr 16y ago
    Yes, however free supply will drive down prices. The current street price that people are perfectly willing to pay for 1 gram of cocaine tells a lot about the demand, and just how addictive the drug is. There is no reason legal cocaine would cost more than say, coffee. Now, what would cocaine at that price level do to a population, families and to society? I've seen the argument before, mostly applied to lighter drugs like marijuana though. In my view it's your argument that is a sweeping generalization. It's also unsupported, where have cocaine legalization been applied successfully? >It should be a choice. That's so naive. We are talking about an addictive substance, if it is a choice then why don't crack/cocaine addicts just quit. Someone is down voting my comment, yet this person doesn't have counter argument, it just happens to not be in alignment with their view.

jschuur 16y ago

I wonder if they make remote controlled ones.

philthy 16y ago
Why spend more money on robotics when you have an almost unlimited supply of patsies. A 2 weeks trip originating in narrow Jungle swamps and transiting deep ocean water would require serious robotic control. But if they keep making so much money I wouldn't be surprised if they went all Mars rover on the subs. Hell when I first saw these things a few years back they were just fiberglass boats with no top, that Feb 1st craft was a legitimate submarine.
- jschuur 16y ago
  Valid point. Although, maybe a remote controlled one could be made smaller or dive deeper and thus be less easy to detect. It could be made more solid through and through, thus be less likely to be crushed at lower depths, thus become smaller. Most of the space is probably due to life support and the driver being able to move around in it, and not to store the goods.
- hjrnunes 16y ago
  Actually, they only load the vessels once they're on the ocean already. In the VBS.tv piece mentioned before, a guy that purportedly was involved in making and presenting a kind of towed torpedo to the cartels, said he wouldn't be surprised they'd have such a remote controlled device already, and that he was sure they we're already looking into it. You can watch it. And I remember seeing something in the news, not long ago, that they we're already doing it for shipping cocaine directly to Europe.

philthy 16y ago

I'd be so scared to make that 30 foot dive in the deep ocean in a homemade sub. I wonder how many have gone to 30 feet and just kept sinking.

brndnhy 16y ago

I was surprised to read in the caption of one photo that the Colombian Navy actually piloted one of the subs rather than transport it by lift or tow!

GDH 16y ago

These Columbian cocaine runners are entrepreneurs and damn good ones at that. They are innovative with their marketplace and have many barriers to overcome. I'm not saying that their product is a good product. I'm saying that if more startups ran with the intensity of cocaine smugglers, never giving up even when the competition is more advance and instead developing innovative, fast and simple methods to beat the competition, that many of the tech startups today would succeed instead of failing at the first large hurdle. Maybe we can learn from these cocaine smugglers.

zeteo 16y ago

I wonder why they need to put a crew in it. Building a robotic submarine should be easy in this age of GPS, pressure sensors and satellite phones. It would also decrease cost, while increasing cargo (no life support or living quarters needed for the crew).