The increased use of semi-submersibles to bring drugs into the United States has raised the specter of similar craft being employed to transport terrorists, explosives, and elicit funds into the country. But the likelihood of terrorists going that route is extremely unlikely.
Writing in The Washington Post (6 June), William Booth and Juan Forero said, “U.S. law enforcement officials say that more than a third of the cocaine smuggled into the United States from Colombia travels in submersibles.” These craft, manned by a crew of four or five, and carrying up to ten tons of cocaine, are being produced in the jungles of Colombia. They transit with their decks awash or just below the surface, employing snorkel-like tubes for air for the crew and the diesel engines. Habitability is spartan, with simple bunks and stocks of food being provided. There are no sanitary facilities.
Employing GPS for navigation, the craft sail northward-up to 3,000 miles-to rendezvous points off of the Central American coast to transfer their cargo to fishing craft or pleasure boats, which will bring the drugs into the United States. Radios are provided, but are used infrequently and then for brief, coded transmissions. There are reports that unmanned, radio-controlled craft of this type are under development for use in cocaine smuggling.
Up to 100 of these craft may have departed Colombian waters in 2008; about ten percent of the known or suspected semi-submersibles were intercepted that year. Some of their successes may have been due to being escorted by counter-surveillance vessels-fishing boats that sail with them to provide warning of the approach of U.S. or other search ships or aircraft. Upon warning the semi-submersible will stop its engine and drift noiselessly until the danger is past.
The construction of the semi-submersibles — which are built in ones or twos at specific sites — are changed after use to avoid detection and are relatively expensive to build. Estimates are about one to two million dollars for construction of a semi-submersible and to pay the crew.
Writing in the Naval Institute Proceedings (October 2008), Navy Captain Wade F. Wilkenson observed:
Experts conservatively estimate that each [semi-submersible] costs roughly $1 to $2 million to build, equip, and crew, so a ten-metric ton [craft], fully loaded, is a $20 million investment. Deploy five vessels at a combined total lay out of $100 million, successfully deliver one, and you double your investment. Having all five successfully reach their destination nets a nine-fold return on investment.
Yet, despite the success of these craft in smuggling drugs into the United States, there is little likelihood that they will be used for terrorist activities. Terrorist organizations do not appear to have the funds to construct such craft. Faced with the increasing probability of detection or even accidental loss in rough seas, would such organizations be willing to risk carrying funds or operatives in semi-submersibles?
And, people or explosives that are sent by semi-submersible must first be transported to Colombia or another starting point in South America. Also, arrangements must be made to procure the semi-submersible and man it, and then to arrange transfer to another craft for the run into the United States, and possibly arranging for an escort vessel for the semi-submersible. All of these actions would involve contacts with non-terrorist individuals, increasing the likelihood of a “leak” and possibly even blackmail in an effort to obtain more money from the terrorists for the arrangements even after a contract was made.
Rather, the availability of explosives in the United States, the porous U.S. maritime borders and the lengthy border with Canada, and the potential for terrorist sympathizers within the United States all argue against the use of semi-submersibles. Meanwhile, the extensive cocaine traffic using semi-submersibles argues for stronger efforts by the U.S. and allied governments to detect and stop such craft.
– Norman Polmar
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
How else would the NORKS destroy LA?
They probably couldn’t even get an airdropped nuke to detonate. But, a minisub like this could be dropped off outside the territorial waters and surface in Santa Monica.
It’s illicit, not elicit funds.
The NORKs would use a freighter as a delivery vehicle for their nuke.
Good Morning Folks,
The interesting thing about these semi-submersibles is the rapid evolution they have taken in the three or so years that they have been active. They have gone from home made converted boilers into a designed craft that is pretty seaworthy. With Latin American countries getting into weapons manufacturing in a big time way, it must be assumed that these vessels will evolve into full submarines in the not to distant future.
One of the things seldom noted is the development an evolving technologies of the “bad guys”. The “narcos” have money, management skills and can support R&D and manufacturing. As the United States ramps up it efforts to interdict drugs sea and up the ante the narcos can be expect to keep pace and sometime be ahead of the curve.
The same thing is happening right now in the other war, Iraq and Afghanistan. Watching the DoD daily casualties report is showing more multiple deaths in a single IED attack. Since all the vehicles in the war zones are up armored an 16K are now MRAP’s it appears that the IED/EFP technology has caught up or suppressed the ability to protect troops with armor. This should open the debate of much protection can be provided and at what cost. It appears that the anti-armor capabilities of the bad guys has kept up with or as of now gone ahead of the U.S’s. efforts.
To DC2. The ability to move drugs across Mexico is a very expensive proposition for the Latin America narcos, there are to many people to pay off and the very high risk of having your product stolen. By sea or air is much safer, and more dependable, all you have to deal with is the U.S. Military. One last point DC2, don’t believe all that you see. hear or read in the “Elite Media” especially regarding the U.S./Mexican Border.
For my friends who are “gun Nuts”. Yesterday the Navy place a rather large $49 million order for Winchester 300 Mag. ammo, it’s in the DoD Contracts of 6/8/09. I don’t think all this is for the Marine marksmanship teams, It appears that marine snipers will be going into Afghanistan with the more powerful weapons.
Now all they have to do is develop a barrel that doesn’t wear out after 12-15 hundred rounds of this high powered ammo.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I think it could be a viable weapon for the terrorists. I am sure if one was packed full of explosives, it would cause some problems.
I don’t think it would be as much a threat though if the US adopted Israeli policy for ship protection.
Once, A young Israeli Captain opened up on, and sank, a suspicious Palestinian craft that approached his ship.
When questioned by his superiors afterwards he said that he did not know if they had explosives on board and he feared for the lives of his crew. The young Officer was promoted on the spot.
I am sure if it was a US Captain, he would have been court-martialed or at least reprimanded.
These things are essentially the CSS Hunley with a diesel instead of a hand crank. Not exactly a new idea.
The fix for mini-subs is more surveillance. I like the idea of long endurance UAS like a zeppelin, which could stay out for weeks and handle (or dodge) a little weather. Also, we likely have need of some small submarines for littoral warfare, and these could be fitted for Coast Guard duty. Just adding to the USCG fleet would help.
Best answer for the drug smuggling, though, is to fix our brain-dead drug policy. End the war on drugs, and dry up their funds. There’s no way that will be easy, but there’s no way to win the drug war, either.
One big problem the IDF has and will probably always have is that a big majority of it’s forces are conscripts. When the fighting gets tough those are usually the ones that perform the worst since most of them don’t even want to be there in the first place. Reports of IDF ground forces refusing orders and troops using their cell phones to call their mothers or girlfriends when in combat are just a few of the problems you have with conscripts. Maybe one day they will realize an all professional force is the way to go. Although I doubt they’d get enough volunteers for that.
Nuts. I was unclear, earlier… We need to build our own class of small submarines, which could be used to guard against these makeshift smuggler boats.
Long as I’m here, I’ll add something to Byron’s point. The only kind of “narco-terrorism” I can imagine right now, would be larger-scale retaliatory attacks against law enforcement. It could create a big mess for us, but would also likely be terrible for the drug business. Need to keep one foot on reality when playing what-if.
I don’t know how possible this is but one potential solution to these mini-subs is lay down a new line of sensors like the SOSUS somewhere along the way from South/Central America to here. If we can do that then we could have maybe a Virginia or an old LA conduct a little live fire exercise on them. Of course that wouldn’t happen, we’d try to have the DEA or Coast Guard intercept and arrest them but sinking them would be much easier, especially if the sub was being used for a terrorist attack.
Good Morning Mike,
I agree with you that the “narco” problem is law enforcement issue and not a military problem. The drug trade is a business and businesspeople avoid taking on any additional overhead. The semi-submersibles of the article are nothing more then the cost of transportation of good to market. My guess would be that after a successful transit the vessels would remove and fly back the crew, and scuttled semi-submersible because it would be to costly to return them in ballast for a second trip.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Subs and terrorist in this case do not mix. Let me give you a realistic example:
Lets say that I am a Mexican National attempting to walk across the southern border illegally. A well placed terrorist in Mexico can convince me that I would need an injection of a special medicine that saves me from snake bites and hot weather, while I am crossing the border and for $5.00 USD, the terrorist gives sells me on this injection.
What he has actually done is to inject a serum into my vains and I become comtaminated and I can carry a lethal decease to all the people I become exposed too. Those exposed to me will die within 48 hours.
Now this is realistic and cost our very low to get this serum, inject it into Mexicans crossing the border.
Hell subs are out dated, and can not kill as many people as lets say 100 illegal Mexicans injected with this serum can accomplish.
God Help Us
Off-topic: North Korea HAS ICBM’s that can reach the East Coast of the U.S. But….. you can be very sure that those ICBM’s have “Made in China” or “Made in Russia” stenciled on the sides. Lets be honest,any nuclear warheads that North Korea has came from China,Russia,or Pakistan. China is secretly fronting North Korea(all the BS about China being our economic trade partner be damned) so that we’ll be tied up with North korea & then they can grab Taiwan.
Now back on topic,submarines are today the “battleships” & “aircraft carriers” of the 21st Century. What the Aircraft Carrier was for WWII,the submarine is today. Whether nuclear powered or diesel,the submarine can launch both ballistic & cruise missiles. They could also be modified to launch UAV’s. There is more potential with the submarine today than there is with other “surface” ships,including the aircraft carrier.
joe-
Your post leads me back to a point I made earlier. The best answer to the problem of terrorists profiting from and infiltrating narcotics networks, is to change our drug enforcement policy. They can’t profit, and there will be no smuggling routes to exploit, if the money is gone.
Additionally, there is benefit to our society in fixing drug enforcement policy and the way we deal with chronic drug abuse. It’s win/ win.
Something like what you suggest *could* happen, but as Norman Polmar points out, better and cheaper options already exist right here, no need for terrorists to smuggle anything but themselves.
Good Evening Joe,
Interesting response. Your first statement about terrorists and the narcos forming an allience is just something I don’t see. The terrorists, who I assume are mostly Muslims, are not by their religion favorable to drugs. You will of course counter with Afghanistan but I think it’s nothing more then an aberration of Islam, the crop is purely for export to generate cash income.
The other reason that would give me doubt is that the terrorists are a low budget, low rent organization. Although they have a great deal of talent and gaining expertise in tech. areas it’s not about the money. The narcos want the money and nothing else.
A submarine being uses for a nuclear suicide mission in the United States, I agree with you and would go even farther and predict that such a raid would be more likely in a foreign port especially one that hosts U.S. and NATO ships. The U.S. is to long of a distance from likely places that such a raid would be launched and the target are to hard, most foreign post are still soft targets with officials and guards etc. all to bribable.
The tri-state area of South America where the narco triangle is said to be is a large ungoverned region where there is no prevailing legal authority. Until such a time tat one country takes over, this would with out a doubt cause a major war or the are becomes self governing, which is to no one benefit, it will remain what it is.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Regarding a nuke attack, I also believe it more likely for a hit outside of the U.S. for example one of the 6th fleet bases in the Mediterranean. Naples Italy or Souda Bay Greece for example is easy access from North Africa. Nevertheless, that doesn
To reiterate a point,I believe that Submarines are the “Capital(or is it Capitol?) Ships” of the 21st Century,replacing the aircraft carrier in importance. The South American nations with the most modern advanced armies are alphabetically:Argentina,Brazil,Chile,& Peru(you might could add Venezuela to this list also). The most stable nations in South America seem to be:Argentina,Brazil,Chile,& Uruguay.
Our nation seems to have very warped priorities,we leave our borders open to illegal aliens & the illegal drug traffic,but we are going to deport an 11 year old girl back to Poland,even though her father is a naturalized citizen & her mother is a LEGAL alien resident,because a lawyer failed to file the proper paperwork when she was 2 years old when her parents immigrated to the U.S. No wonder nobody has any respect for our government or legal system.
I think that North Korea is going to do something that NOBODY will expect,they will fire a nuclear tipped ICBM at the east coast of the U.S.(it doesn’t matter that this would be a “reflagged” Chinese or Russian missile,because everybody knows that there is NO WAY in hell North Korea could have built this thing on their own). Maybe it will hit New York City. In between all of us who survive s**tting in our pants & our hearts failing us for fear(dying of heart attacks),we’ll finally realize that our government lied to us about North Korea’s true capabilities(again,never mind that those were really Chinese &/or Russian missiles that were actually fired).”A hair-raising nuclear confrontation in Korea may, towards the end of the period, threaten man’s very survival.”
I would like to make a suggestion to counter the so-called drug subs. The Navy has announced it is going to layup the USNS Henson a Pathfinder class survey ship. That ship with its HSLs could be used in anti-drug operations like a mobile SOSUS. I gather the “trade routes” are fairly limited so detection with sonar is a real possiblity. The Pathfinders have a sophisticated sonar and carry two 34ft Hydrographic Survey Launches which also have state of art sonar and other listening devices. Without the NAVO teams onboard there would be room for USCG LEDET and Sailor to conduct VBSS. There is a fore deck suitable for ScanEagle UAV launching.
Seems like a good use of an existing naval ship?