3 ms·

More troubling for American officials is their belief that these vessels could be used by terrorists to transport attackers or weapons One more reason to legal

More troubling for American officials is their belief that these vessels could be used by terrorists to transport attackers or weapons One more reason to legalize and regulate drugs. The independent contractors making these subs would fold without their primary clients: the drug cartels. No more money for R&D.

apendleton 14y ago
Yes, that was my sense, as well: firstly, the terrorist fear tactics are ridiculous, but secondly, if terrorists ever were to use these things to smuggle weapons into the US, our drug policy would be at least partly to blame: drug producers and distributors are the best-funded organizations in global organized crime, they're probably the only ones well-enough-funded to develop this kind of technology, and they owe their wealth to demand induced by America's idiotic war on drugs. Now, though, it's too late -- the technology is out there for anyone to buy.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  Well, not really too late, since the technology has been around for ages. Legalizing drugs and dismantling the cartels would go a long way toward removing the infrastructure that's been built up to support this kind of project.
jrockway 14y ago
I doubt anyone intends to transport attackers or weapons in this manner. The 9/11 hijackers had valid visas and Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh were Americans. They didn't need a submarine to bring bombs or terrorists to the US. They are already here. The line in the article is just a way to spread fear, justifying the outlay of millions of dollars to patrol for drug boats. Nobody is scared of drugs anymore, so I imagine funding is harder to come by. Terrorism, though, is still scary apparently. (Look at the TSA. The thought of what incompetent government agency will be created after the next attack is frightening.)
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I agree with you. My point still stands, though. If we are concerned about terrorists having access to this, shut off its R&D money and gain other societal benefits (I say as a non-drug user). Of course, why choose a method that would reduce the police state and its associated costs when we can choose one that will increase them. :(
  - andreasvc 14y ago
    What makes you believe that legalizing drugs would automatically cause the cartels to stop doing what they do? Instead of being smugglers they'll be tax evaders; they won't stop overnight, if at all. In general, in poorer countries there will always be an incentive to get rich by illegal means, simply because there's not much else. Also, you could hypothesize that, conversely, the subs builders would re-purpose them for more nefarious ends if the drug smuggling incentive is taken away.
    - pyre 14y ago
      The thought is that legal suppliers of drugs should be able to undercut illegal suppliers. The illegal suppliers are in a high-risk / high-reward business. The prices are high because the risk is high.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      ..the subs builders would re-purpose them for more nefarious ends if the drug smuggling incentive is taken away. I suppose the subs could be sold "on the cheap" if the cartel business went away. There is probably some danger there, but probably not as much danger as 1) a lot more of these getting built and 2) the US strengthening its police state to protect us from these subs. The second is my real concern. Our rights have already been ludicrously eroded anywhere near a border. I really don't want added to that "anywhere near a waterway that can be reached by ocean." I guess that those of us in northern Utah and Nevada would be OK, since our water goes into the Great Salt Lake. I'll tolerate some risk of a terror attack that I'm less likely to be involved in a terror attack than I am to drown in my bathtub[1] rather than the degradation of my civil liberties that the police state engenders. 1. http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terroris... (using the numbers that assume attacks would have succeeded if we weren't in the semi-police state we are)

apendleton 14y ago

Yes, that was my sense, as well: firstly, the terrorist fear tactics are ridiculous, but secondly, if terrorists ever were to use these things to smuggle weapons into the US, our drug policy would be at least partly to blame: drug producers and distributors are the best-funded organizations in global organized crime, they're probably the only ones well-enough-funded to develop this kind of technology, and they owe their wealth to demand induced by America's idiotic war on drugs. Now, though, it's too late -- the technology is out there for anyone to buy.

bluedanieru 14y ago
Well, not really too late, since the technology has been around for ages. Legalizing drugs and dismantling the cartels would go a long way toward removing the infrastructure that's been built up to support this kind of project.

jrockway 14y ago

I doubt anyone intends to transport attackers or weapons in this manner. The 9/11 hijackers had valid visas and Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh were Americans. They didn't need a submarine to bring bombs or terrorists to the US. They are already here. The line in the article is just a way to spread fear, justifying the outlay of millions of dollars to patrol for drug boats. Nobody is scared of drugs anymore, so I imagine funding is harder to come by. Terrorism, though, is still scary apparently. (Look at the TSA. The thought of what incompetent government agency will be created after the next attack is frightening.)

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I agree with you. My point still stands, though. If we are concerned about terrorists having access to this, shut off its R&D money and gain other societal benefits (I say as a non-drug user). Of course, why choose a method that would reduce the police state and its associated costs when we can choose one that will increase them. :(
- andreasvc 14y ago
  What makes you believe that legalizing drugs would automatically cause the cartels to stop doing what they do? Instead of being smugglers they'll be tax evaders; they won't stop overnight, if at all. In general, in poorer countries there will always be an incentive to get rich by illegal means, simply because there's not much else. Also, you could hypothesize that, conversely, the subs builders would re-purpose them for more nefarious ends if the drug smuggling incentive is taken away.
  - pyre 14y ago
    The thought is that legal suppliers of drugs should be able to undercut illegal suppliers. The illegal suppliers are in a high-risk / high-reward business. The prices are high because the risk is high.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    ..the subs builders would re-purpose them for more nefarious ends if the drug smuggling incentive is taken away. I suppose the subs could be sold "on the cheap" if the cartel business went away. There is probably some danger there, but probably not as much danger as 1) a lot more of these getting built and 2) the US strengthening its police state to protect us from these subs. The second is my real concern. Our rights have already been ludicrously eroded anywhere near a border. I really don't want added to that "anywhere near a waterway that can be reached by ocean." I guess that those of us in northern Utah and Nevada would be OK, since our water goes into the Great Salt Lake. I'll tolerate some risk of a terror attack that I'm less likely to be involved in a terror attack than I am to drown in my bathtub[1] rather than the degradation of my civil liberties that the police state engenders. 1. http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terroris... (using the numbers that assume attacks would have succeeded if we weren't in the semi-police state we are)