Drug Trafficking in Submersibles

[blackhawk211]

Drug traffickers have been using self propelled semi-submersibles to transport their drugs. They’ve figured out ways to transport millions of dollars of drugs in an almost, ALMOST, undetectable way. They've caught a bunch of them, but the drug traffickers find ways around it. For example if they know they're about to be caught they sink the sub. The drug trafficking raises a big concern, but a bigger concern could be the potential transporting of WMD in submersibles by terrorists. There’s an interesting article explaining all of this in more detail titled “What the Semi-submersibles Mean”. I would like to see what people think about this idea as a whole, so please post your thoughts!

I'm not allowed to post the link yet, but if anyone is interested let me know I'll guide you to the article.

 

[My2Cents]

You mean this one? What the Semi-submersibles Mean | Defense Media Network

 

[blackhawk211]

Yup, that's the one. What'd you think about it?

 

[My2Cents]

Nothing new.

One thing that people should not put so much faith in is the ability of one of these drug submersibles to deliver a WMD to a target in the USA. These vessels are hard to spot at a distance, but very obvious as to what they are close up. Consequently they stay as far away from traffic and harbors (cities) as practical.

Also, while the drug submersibles can deliver several tons of supplies, it all has to be packaged so that they can be manhandled through some fairly small hatches to unload. And the conditions on board are below acceptable limits, any terrorists arriving on one of these would need several days on shore to recuperate before they would be combat effective.

Lastly, drug submersibles are EXPENSIVE. That is why they have never been used to smuggle people. Mounting a terrorist operation using one would cost millions to purchase (it is a one way vehicle), and the backlash would probably shutdown the entire drug submersible industry. People in the drug industry are not stupid, and the personnel implications for a contractor selling his product to a terrorist group will be harsh.

As for a terrorist group building their own, there has been a steep learning curve for these vessels, without an experienced builder on site, in South or Central America, the prospects for a successful operation drop to nearly nothing.

 

[Tomte47]

Shipping containers seems like an easier way to get stuff into a country, if the ship is loaded in some 3rd world country it cant be that hard to bribe a few people, easier then building a submarine atleast ?

 

[My2Cents]

Shipping containers seems like an easier way to get stuff into a country, if the ship is loaded in some 3rd world country it cant be that hard to bribe a few people, easier then building a submarine atleast ?

Correct.

You should also bribe the person who sets up the loading schedule to get the container into the middle of the pile so it cannot be inspected before entering the port.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Drug traffickers have been using self propelled semi-submersibles to transport their drugs. They’ve figured out ways to transport millions of dollars of drugs in an almost, ALMOST, undetectable way. They've caught a bunch of them, but the drug traffickers find ways around it. For example if they know they're about to be caught they sink the sub. The drug trafficking raises a big concern, but a bigger concern could be the potential transporting of WMD in submersibles by terrorists. There’s an interesting article explaining all of this in more detail titled “What the Semi-submersibles Mean”. I would like to see what people think about this idea as a whole, so please post your thoughts!

I'm not allowed to post the link yet, but if anyone is interested let me know I'll guide you to the article.

I suppose its possible...

Does anyone know if this "Semi-Submersible's" give off a decent RCS? The kind that the coast guard destroyers can spot?

If any terrorists are able to build a WMD, it will NOT be a tactical WMD that is small and portable, but likely a very large and outdated type of weapons platform.

 

[Juramentado]

Does anyone know if this "Semi-Submersible's" give off a decent RCS? The kind that the coast guard destroyers can spot?

If any terrorists are able to build a WMD, it will NOT be a tactical WMD that is small and portable, but likely a very large and outdated type of weapons platform.

No - SPSS provides a very low RCS and also a very low IR/Visible Spectrum profile. It is difficult to detect from a distance. As proven in several studies and real-world CIT (anti-drug) operations, the best way to detect targets like this is persistent ISR - meaning more off-shore patrol aircraft equipped with multiple sensors. You put that together with a patrol strategy based on where most SPSS are known to originate from and the likely destination points. You calculate most likely routes that avoid regular maritime traffic who could report them. That becomes your hunting grounds.

The challenges for SPSS are range, capacity and reliability. Most of these boats are not built for multiple trips. The investment strategy is more of a one-shot deal. It's built well enough to carry a cargo of several tons of illicit material then dumped at the destination. It's also becoming a cheap and accessible enough technology that multiple attempts will be made - knowing that most of them will fail, but that only one or two need to get through in order to make back the expense plus profit. The other factor is the crew quality. These are desparate people who may have some mariner skills but do not have the benefit of having trained intensively with the equipment they're handling. As SPSS becomes more automated, that factor may level off, but not enough that the cartels can count on a reusable cadre of skilled sub handlers. Thank Goodness.

As for what they can smuggle in, the latest AQD asymmetric attacks using low-profile cargo (ink toner) is reflective of the latest "tit-for-tat" phase - they've learned (sadly) that low cost small attacks can bring as good results as 9/11 style planning. I wouldn't worry about a working tac nuke at all. I'd be worried about a relatively low-cost dirty bomb that doesn't even damage twenty houses but makes the entire 50 square mile area unliveable for the half-life of the materials used. Do that once or twice and watch your target country drown under a sea of increased security measures.

 

[My2Cents]

As for what they can smuggle in, the latest AQD asymmetric attacks using low-profile cargo (ink toner) is reflective of the latest "tit-for-tat" phase - they've learned (sadly) that low cost small attacks can bring as good results as 9/11 style planning. I wouldn't worry about a working tac nuke at all. I'd be worried about a relatively low-cost dirty bomb that doesn't even damage twenty houses but makes the entire 50 square mile area unliveable for the half-life of the materials used. Do that once or twice and watch your target country drown under a sea of increased security measures.

50 square miles would take a lot of radioactive material and a very well engineered dispersal system, including a rocket to boost it to a couple hundred feet of altitude.

A better target would be a subway station or shopping mall. Public hysteria over radiation would never allow them to be reopened, no matter how small the bomb was or how good the cleanup is. A smaller, lower cost, attack as you so wisely stated.

However, there have been rumors for several years that Homeland Security has installed radiation detectors in the subway stations to stop such an event.

 

[blackhawk211]

Now that I'm reading a little more into this I have a question for the people with knowledge on the subject. It says "the crew of a semi-submersible drug-trafficking vessel attempt to abandon their boat before being intercepted and detained by the Coast Guard approximately 150 miles northwest of the Colombian/Ecuador border". Take a look at what I underlined and bolded. I never understood the rules of the waters or air. How could the US Coast Guard detain something that's off the coast of Columbia or Ecuador? I thought we had jurisdictions. Can someone please explain why we were able to something like this in that territory?

 

[SASWanabe]

the columbians/equadorians like drug smugglers just a much as everyone else, i imagine there are deals and such in place with the US in matters like that

 

[Todjaeger]

Now that I'm reading a little more into this I have a question for the people with knowledge on the subject. It says "the crew of a semi-submersible drug-trafficking vessel attempt to abandon their boat before being intercepted and detained by the Coast Guard approximately 150 miles northwest of the Colombian/Ecuador border". Take a look at what I underlined and bolded. I never understood the rules of the waters or air. How could the US Coast Guard detain something that's off the coast of Columbia or Ecuador? I thought we had jurisdictions. Can someone please explain why we were able to something like this in that territory?

As I understand it, due to international treaty (or perhaps multiple treaties) the US Coast Guard has the power to stop and search a civilian/commercial vessel on the high seas and the seize the vessel if it contains contraband, regardless of which country the vessel is flying the flag of. This is specific to the US Coast Guard, not the US Navy, and the right to search does not extend to searching military and/or governmental vessels of other nations, or allow for searchs in the home waters of other nations.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

As I understand it, due to international treaty (or perhaps multiple treaties) the US Coast Guard has the power to stop and search a civilian/commercial vessel on the high seas

San Remo Manual? Does not apply here. There is no way the USA can claim that what the DEA is doing in Colombia is an application of Article 51 of the UN charter, or even that the USA is in a declared armed (military) conflict with the cartels (that's the only way the USA could claim to be a belligerent in a related conflict, and therefore be able to apply San Remo).

I thought we had jurisdictions.

That... hasn't stopped people before.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

San Remo Manual? Does not apply here. There is no way the USA can claim that what the DEA is doing in Colombia is an application of Article 51 of the UN charter, or even that the USA is in a declared armed (military) conflict with the cartels (that's the only way the USA could claim to be a belligerent in a related conflict, and therefore be able to apply San Remo).

The law of armed conflict at sea (ie San Remo) is not the only law that applies to board and search of non-own-flaged ships on the high seas. For one it is very unlikely that a drug smuggling, semi-submersible vessel is actually flagged and therefore is stateless without any legal protection from anyone. Other law is national law. If you suspect that a ship is en route to your land to commit a crime (ie smuggle drugs) then you can board that vessel under your extra-judicial powers (assuming you have law to cover this).

The state of art of drug smuggling submarines is so advanced that their makers are offering them on the commercial market for legal uses:

Submarine yacht, yacht submarine, affordable, concrete submarine (concretesubmarine.com)

 

[kato]

For one it is very unlikely that a drug smuggling, semi-submersible vessel is actually flagged and therefore is stateless without any legal protection from anyone.

Unflagged ships may only be stopped by warships (as per UNCLOS article 110). Not sure whether the USCG has warships (combatant status) in peacetime. Doubt it.

UNCLOS Article 108 would give the USA the power to suppress narcotic trade at sea if the offending vessel was flying the US flag, or if the flag state of the vessel asked for assistance. Not the case here.

Other law is national law.

See UNCLOS Article 89: No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

The USA has actually made it illegal to operate or embark in a nationality-less (semi-)submersible in International Waters (§70508 U.S.C.), which is rather obviously in opposition to the above article.

 

[Todjaeger]

San Remo Manual? Does not apply here. There is no way the USA can claim that what the DEA is doing in Colombia is an application of Article 51 of the UN charter, or even that the USA is in a declared armed (military) conflict with the cartels (that's the only way the USA could claim to be a belligerent in a related conflict, and therefore be able to apply San Remo).

My understanding (and please note, I could very well be incorrect or only partially correct here) is the USCG, not the USN, DEA or other US government agency can stop and search/inspect non-US flagged vessels on the high seas. The agreement or agreements in place which allows this is separate and distinct from the UN, with the arrangement being country-to-country effectively.

I would like to be able to point out where, or which treaties cover this, so far I have this reference here,

Two notes are warranted here. The first relates to the phrase "waters subject to United States jurisdiction." This phrase encompasses more than United States territorial waters; it also extends to those waters where the United States, pursuant to an agreement with a foreign government, has been authorized to take law enforcement action involving United States or foreign vessels. Such waters could, and in actual practice do, include foreign territorial waters.

The last sentence indicates that the US government does have agreements in place with other nations, allowing the US/USCG to stop non-US flagged vessels.

-Cheers

 

[Juramentado]

My understanding (and please note, I could very well be incorrect or only partially correct here) is the USCG, not the USN, DEA or other US government agency can stop and search/inspect non-US flagged vessels on the high seas. The agreement or agreements in place which allows this is separate and distinct from the UN, with the arrangement being country-to-country effectively.

I would like to be able to point out where, or which treaties cover this, so far I have this reference here,



The last sentence indicates that the US government does have agreements in place with other nations, allowing the US/USCG to stop non-US flagged vessels.

-Cheers

All good suppositions folks. And the answer is that yes , the US CG can board a foreign-flagged vessel bound for the US in extraterritorial waters or if there is a cooperative treaty in place with the nation whose waters the seizure occurred in. Here'a an old article (2001!) from Slate Magazine. This is also why CG LEDETs (Law Enforcement Detachments) are used on active US Navy ships to conduct VBSS operations - in order to comply with Posse Commitatus.

As for agreements, the arrangements with Latin America and the Caribb originally started in the 70s as part of a dual-strategy funding to eradicate drugs and provide alternatives to drug crop growth along with a larger civilian aid package, all coordinated by the State Department. The current largest arrangements are Plan Columbia and the Merida Initiative in Mexico. Several of the bi-lateral arrangements are set to expire this year and need to be replaced. There is tons of detail in this CRS Study(PDF file) for those of you interested.

 

[Juramentado]

50 square miles would take a lot of radioactive material and a very well engineered dispersal system, including a rocket to boost it to a couple hundred feet of altitude.

A better target would be a subway station or shopping mall. Public hysteria over radiation would never allow them to be reopened, no matter how small the bomb was or how good the cleanup is. A smaller, lower cost, attack as you so wisely stated.

However, there have been rumors for several years that Homeland Security has installed radiation detectors in the subway stations to stop such an event.

It's a general scenario that I'm painting. Also, you need to account for the natural dispersion of the material through fleeing victims, unaware traffic passing through and first and second tier responders. Mother Nature could help as well depending upon WX effects at time of detonation. It's almost impossible to immediately cordon off any particular urban or suburban area - too many exits and never enough manpower to bear instantaneously. In the chaos that ensues, people will be moving away and if they are potentially contaminated, spreading the material further with them as they flee. A scrubdown could occur to allow temporary access/habitability but who would consciously take a chance knowing what happened? I am getting Off-Topic though.

 

[kato]

The last sentence indicates that the US government does have agreements in place with other nations, allowing the US/USCG to stop non-US flagged vessels.

Yes, but only for territorial waters, not the High Seas.

"those waters where the United States, pursuant to an agreement with a foreign government, has been authorized..."

In line with UNCLOS Article 89 (see above), this may never refer to the High Seas.

"The second point is that the Coast Guard may go aboard any United States vessel at any time, anywhere to conduct a documentation and safety inspection."

This is correct only in so far as the flag of a vessel may be challenged. The ship must then provide its registration documentation. Said challenge does not necessarily imply boarding.
Safety is a very iffy thing, as the USA has not signed any of the MOU regarding the Port State Control, and therefore is not in line with international standards regarding safety at sea in the first place.

 

[My2Cents]

Yes, but only for territorial waters, not the High Seas.

"those waters where the United States, pursuant to an agreement with a foreign government, has been authorized..."

In line with UNCLOS Article 89 (see above), this may never refer to the High Seas.

Please note that the High Seas is the area outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nm), or the Continental Shelf, whichever is greater, unless specified otherwise by treaty. Very few, in any intercepts occur on the High Seas, almost all coastal traffic (South America to the USA) travels exclusively in non-high seas zones. And the entire Caribbean is covered by them.

Also, any warship has the right in intercept, inspect, and seize a vessel on the high seas that is not flying the flag of its country of registry on suspicion that it is up to nefarious deeds (as piracy is no longer recognized in international law).