Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna • Hacker News Board

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#161

Post by AngryData » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 8:37 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #31

stickfigure wrote: post #10

Just legalize it already. This is stupid.

Which drugs exactly are you proposing to be legalized? All?

I would say yes, but I would 100x more say yes to cocaine. Cocaine usage is statistically less deadly than alcohol usage, and the vast majority of cocaine deaths are due to mixing depressive drugs with cocaine to keep them awake and able to take more depressive drugs until the cocaine wears off and they die from the heroic doses of pills or heroin or alcohol they consumed. And a lot of that problem can be mitigated with education, knowledge, and clean source material that doesn't have other cheaper drugs mixed in already.

Despite the strong effects cocaine has on users, it isn't really especially dangerous or damaging except to people with heart problems who would have similar issues with other stimulants like caffeine. The most dangerous thing about cocaine might just be how obtaining it involves interacting with such serious and expensive criminal markets and the legal problems of getting caught with it. The War on Drugs has propagandized it seem to like some super-drug of the most dangerous order that drives people mad and turn into cannibals or some outlandish shit, but it is a huge mischaracterization; basically the same kind of thing they tried to do to marijuana in making people think it turns you into a rapist or makes you a drooling idiot.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#162

Post by AngryData » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 8:55 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #23

stickfigure wrote: post #10

Just legalize it already. This is stupid.

Cocaine, I could maybe see the argument. But the article also said there was another submarine seized with 4.5BN worth of meth aboard. And I really hope you aren't suggesting legalising meth. I could see the argument that if other amphetamines were legal no one would use meth, but.....I don't think that's necessarily true. All the illegal meth would have to do to keep existing is to be cheaper than legal speed.

If amphetamines were legal we could get a lot of people to switch away from black market meth into cleaner and safer amphetamines in better controlled doses though. With most amphetamines being illegal and the fewer medical amphetamines being highly controlled and restricted to limit supply, you guarantee people are going to be taking black market street meth of unknown quality and type. There is a reason prescribed adderall has 4 different amphetamine salts in it and not just one random one, and is a large reason why problems with adderall abuse are so less common and severe than problems with unregulated meth abuse.

If your goal it to have zero bad effects from people using drugs, and you think you can achieve atleast close to that, then prohibition does seem like an ideal policy. But if you believe a decent number of people will find or produce and consume drugs regardless of the law or enforcement capabilities, as evident by the last 60+ years of failed strong illegal drug policies, prohibition drug policies for any drug is silly and leaves you almost no room to educate people about drug usage or how to minimize harm and addiction and limites their choices in being able to pick the safest versions of a drug.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#163

Post by hugoromano » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

rozhok wrote: post #129

hugoromano wrote: post #106

Wrong antenna choice—should've used Starlink Mini to avoid motor damage from oscillation and salt exposure. Some suggest fiber optics instead of satellite comms, but these aren't submarines—they're boats, and autopilot technology is already reliable. Not sure why real-time communication is necessary; a "fire and forget" approach would suffice to reach the intended target.

Starlink dish does not require "leg" with motors for proper operation.

"Actuated Starlink models are not recommended for in-motion use due to safety risks."– Starlink note on oceanic operation. https://www.starlink.com/support/article/952e770f-570e-d984-...

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#164

Post by crackrook » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 9:48 PM UTC

LorenPechtel wrote: post #155

crackrook wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in my circles I'd have a much harder time getting access to meth or heroin than I would a product that can be bought from a special store. I imagine there are many individuals like me, but I'm not sure, which is why I ask for data. There's no doubt in my mind that addicts know how to find dealers, and don't have trouble finding new dealers when their former dealer gets arrested. What I'm worried about and as…

Most people have the common sense to avoid using the stuff without very good reason. Availability isn't going to be a big factor. And decriminalization of possession doesn't really do much. Cops don't focus on possession in the first place. It lets people be more open about possessing (which is a good thing for opiate users--much more likely to get Narcan if needed) but does nothing about the quality problems from th…

> Most people have the common sense to avoid using the stuff without very good reason

I agree that most (not all) people have the common sense to avoid the stuff most of the time. I think things would get dangerous if these substances were to be available at all times to just about anyone; that would mean them being available to people who are at their lowest or least-rational, as well as the intersection of people with an innate lack of self-preservation and those who previously lacked ready-access to drugs. If someone just lost a loved one or had a few too many drinks I think they're a lot more likely to make reckless decisions - I think policy should protect our most vulnerable.

> And decriminalization of possession doesn't really do much. Cops don't focus on possession in the first place. It lets people be more open about possessing (which is a good thing for opiate users--much more likely to get Narcan if needed) but does nothing about the quality problems from the supply chain.

If I were to believe these claims I'd need to see some evidence, it doesn't align with my intuition. My sense is that drug users would be more likely to test their drugs if they didn't have to fear the law and I haven't seen any reason to believe otherwise - of course the government ought want to ensure that drug-testing solutions were more readily available before decriminalization policy went into effect.

I think decriminalizing the sale of all drugs, without a great deal of research supporting the conclusion that it wouldn't catastrophically increase the rate of drug abuse, would be highly reckless from a policy perspective. Decriminalizing possession seems like a good first step to precede more research, I think we agree about the harms and immoral motives behind the war on drugs - I don't yet have reason to believe that the war on drugs is a loose Jenga piece that we can freely remove.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#165

Post by jrflowers » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 9:50 PM UTC

philipallstar wrote: post #121

mdhb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just came across this podcast in the last week after wondering what ever happened to the FARC and AUC (right wing death squads) after the peace deal. How did things end up playing out relative compared to what was expected and feared at the time. It’s a pretty batshit story that focuses on what became of the right wing death squads (they run the start of the cocaine supply chain it turns out among many other things…

FARC was left-wing death squads; AUC far right counter-death squads.

What is a counter-death squad? A ragtag band of obstetricians?

Unless there’s a type of killing that doesn’t involve death, looks like the AUC was a far right wing death squad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapirip%C3%A1n_massacre

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#166

Post by reactordev » Sun, Jul 06, 2025, 10:35 PM UTC

AngryData wrote: post #160

reactordev wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think weapon production is in their wheelhouse. Arms dealing maybe but not manufacturing. Facilities like those are permanent locations. Permanent locations tend to get raided and attacked. I think controlling municipalities like they are is working fine for them. No need to mass produce weapons when you can just buy them.

Ehh, im not sure I agree that arms production is that difficult. Yes you need machine shop equipment, but machine equipment from any time in the last 75 years would be more than capable and there is plenty of unused equipment sitting around and new cheap chinese equipment you can buy that would be workable even if it isn't great. Even the US where guns are about as legal as they get, there are illegal gun manufacturi…

There’s making a gun and making weapons. I’m sure they are capable of making AR style rifles. Can they manufacture mortars? RPGs? IEDs and Landmines and drones are about as sophisticated as they can get.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#167

Post by l0ng1nu5 » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 2:33 AM UTC

vineyardmike wrote: post #41

l0ng1nu5 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only conclusion i can draw from all this insanity is that the powers that be want things to be this way.

Of course, "the powers that be" can want things to change, but not want to pay the cost required to truly change it. As hyperbole, you can stop all court cases, assume everyone is guilty if they're arrested, and give everyone capital punishment. That would most likely end cartel issues rather quickly, but it would absolutely mess with society to a dangerous level. El Salvador took a (less hyperbolic) extreme approach…

What costs are you talking about? By just about every humanist and economic metric there are only benefits to decriminalisation.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#168

Post by Polizeiposaune » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 2:38 AM UTC

idiotsecant wrote: post #135

Polizeiposaune wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One cubesat launched as a rideshare payload wouldn't cut it. Those typically get dropped off in a highly inclined low earth orbit -- around the world, roughly pole to pole, in 90 minutes. Any given satellite in that sort of orbit will only be useful to a ground station when it has line-of-sight for maybe 5-10 minutes every few days. At the very least you'd need a few dozen. Iridium manages to get coverage from 66. Th…

Isn't iridium way higher, though? At LEO geometry is not your friend.

Not way higher. wikipedia says Iridium satellites orbit at 781km altitude. Starlink satellites are a little lower -- mainly at around 560km (but there's some variation).

Way higher would be O3B at around 8,000km, GPS at 20,200km and geosynchronous at around 35,800km.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#169

Post by m463 » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 4:51 AM UTC

whatever1 wrote: post #17

stickfigure wrote: post #10

Just legalize it already. This is stupid.

Even if they do, the cartels already own huge man & firepower. They will just move on to the next thing, maybe coffee, avocados, oil whatever. When you have accumulated so much power you can demand cash from the world around you.

high tariffs could make every commodity an opportunity.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#170

Post by soraminazuki » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 5:59 AM UTC

LorenPechtel wrote: post #147

soraminazuki wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. Sure, the way the US cracked down on drugs did more harm than good. But that doesn't mean there should be no regulation for drugs whatsoever. Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that?

No. The drug warriors are neither humane nor sensible. Opioids are actually not all that dangerous, but the range between high and dead is not all that great. When you know what you're getting (chronic pain patients) the problem rate is low. But with the street you get varying purity. And the drug war has caused the manufacturers to move to more concentrated products to make smuggling easier. And fentanyl has a very…

> No. The drug warriors are neither humane nor sensible.

I never once advocated for the war on drugs approach, and I made that crystal clear in my comment. Proper policy != war on drugs. It means making sure that drugs get properly certified and its distribution controlled. It means focusing on treatment rather than aggressively punishing those who get addicted. It means addressing the underlying social issues that pushes people towards drugs rather than pouring all money into militarizing the police.

> Opioids are actually not all that dangerous

Victims of the epidemic would beg to differ. The epidemic highlighted the need for proper control of drugs through certification and prescription. It showed how far the pharmaceutical industry will go if left unregulated.

> But with the street you get varying purity.

I never advocated for this either. It should be illegal to sell drugs without a license.

> There is no question as to the most deadly recreational drug: tobacco. Yet it's legal.

Which is why regulation has increased for tobacco all around the world. We could do more to limit the exploitation of people by tobacco companies.

> I can see no reasonable justification for the low-addictive stuff not to be legal.

Yes, the specifics of regulation should vary depending on the dangers of each drug. I'm against all drugs being unilaterally legalized.