Talk:Narco-submarine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sri Lankan subs?[edit]

The article mentions the January 2009 discovery of semi-submersibles being built by Tamil rebels. Were these actually intended to transport drugs? Their presence in this article suggests it, but the reference I saw gives the impression that they were the same design but intended to transport people instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.76.225 (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference suggests they were used for military purposes (maybe to smuggle people? small arms?) past the Fed navy. The most interesting aspect that pushed me to include it in this article is that it seems it was the same origin/technology as the Colombian narco subs, but intended not for drug trafficking but as a military marine transport vehicle. I have not come through any other reference on that sub. If you do , please let me know. Thanks. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

I thought that overall this was a good article, but maybe some design points should be added. I doubt any of us will get our hands on schematics but maybe we could have a diagram for a typical Narco Submarine. Though the article did make it a point that the subs are Fiber Glass and steel and pointed out their stealthy capabilities, I was quite impressed with that. I'm just thinking we could maybe draw up a diagram on it for the more visual learners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeonos (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a simple and comprehensive diagram, also the page where this image is from is very informative: Covert Naval Blog: Narco submarines, torpedoes and semi-submersibles.

How do you prove that it actually was a narco sub?[edit]

This article is a little confusing. I assume there must be proof that it was a narco sub? Or does the law make it illegal to merely be aboard a low lying boat at sea? If so, how will it affect mini subs and other crafts used by researchers for exploration. Must they have a permit? 93.161.106.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Did you actually read the article?:
"...make it illegal to be aboard an unflagged semi-submersible, regardless of seizure of narcotics inside their scuttled vessel. The Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008 was enacted in September 2008. The bill makes it a "felony for those who knowingly or intentionally operate or embark in a self-propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) that is without nationality and that is or has navigated in international waters, with the intent to evade detection."[30] The bill does not impact researchers, explorers or others who may be operating a flagged semi-submersible. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought upon reading the article. They could just add a flag which is on a hinge, as soon as they think they are spotted they simply raise the flag and scuttle the boat. cba to sign in sorry --90.199.226.239 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a vessel is "flagged" it means that it is registered in a nation and flies that nation's flag. Simply flying a flag changes nothing unless there is documentation which shows what the flag state is. New Hampshirite (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What this discussion makes clear is that talk of "unflagged" is lazy newspaper jargon that is confusing; we mean unregistered, not unflagged. Pol098 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "flagged" is a maritime-legal term which is sometimes misunderstood by the those not involved in maritime law or commerce. New Hampshirite (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead shielding[edit]

While there's a reference, it doesn't make any sense to me that lead shielding reduces the sub's infrared signature - this depends upon the temperature of the structure. Lead would be shielding against nuclear radiation, which is not relevant (unless they're nuclear-powered!?). While there shouldn't be any risk of detecting radio emissions, copper would be better than lead if there were. Any views or references that explain or refute this? [Later: incorrect bit about magnetic field deleted - what was I thinking?] Pol098 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would make more sense it they reported asbestos or even ceramic as thermal shield. A quick Google search did not show any use of lead as thermal shield. I am tempted to delete that entry even if it is referenced.--BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Tigers are an NGO?[edit]

The article currently describes the LTTE as an NGO. Although they are technically an organisation which happens to be non-governmental, the term NGO usually implies something else... the references cited for this statement don't actually describe the Tigers as an NGO, but only as "terrorists". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.115.64 (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE not exactly "first" non-state force to develop underwater weapons.[edit]

The artical states that "In late January, 2009, a Sri Lankan Army task force found three semi-subs being built by the LTTE Tamil rebels in the jungles of Mullaitivu, making them the first non-governmental organization to develop underwater weapons.[2][41]"

This statement apparently comes from someone in the Sri Lankan defense ministry, but does not seem to have been historically researched. The Fenian Ram, created for the Irish Republican Brotherhood and intended to be used against the British predates this greatly by over a century. The Turtle (submersible) can be argued to have fit the bill too, even earlier than that, as the American patriots/revolutionaries were not controlled by a recognized or complete government at that time.

Earlier examples may exist also... Any idea on how to fix this?--Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Units[edit]

This article is a giant mess with short tons, long tons and real tons. I'll be changing all of them to metric units - mega grams - as appropriate, and encourage someone to include "tons" if desired under quotation marks. The entire narco issue is in metric countries, and even the US is using metric in all their dealings. The entire article is unnecessarily complicated with three different versions of units in every number. Please discuss here - I'm willing to accept that non-standard measurements ((i.e. non-metric) in brackets might help those in the two countries (USA and Liberia) that don't use it, but the article is unnneccesarily unreadable just to cater to those two.Cpt ricard (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes. All metric please! --BatteryIncluded (talk)
The Guardian source for the largest seizure seems confused; they say both "more than eight tonnes" and "7,650kg" (which is obviously less than 8 t). I suspect that since this was a US Navy seizure the original amount was "over 8 tons" (which would be about 7.3 t) and some clueless editor at the Guardian "corrected" the spelling to "tonnes." Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Narco-submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Narco-submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish 2019 interception[edit]

I'm not sure where this latest news report fits into the article: Spain seizes submarine with 2,000kg of cocaine - police sources JezGrove (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article neutrality[edit]

Hello,

It seems that this article has a slight problem with neutrality – the language and wording in a few sections suggests a slight point-of-view agreeing with smugglers. It's most noticeable in the Legal section:

Colombia's Congress passed a law to threaten builders of semi-submersible vessels

The word "threaten" definitely seems non-neutral here.

their increasing risks to the military-based authority of officially-recognized governments... with the troublesome increasing questioning of their legitimate authority in the first place.

This one is probably obvious enough to not need comment.

If anyone else has any thoughts on this, please reply here. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the whole article, and the whole of that section, I am not sure "passed a law to threaten builders..." affects the neutrality of the article. Adopting the position that drug smuggling is immoral or unethical is, in itself, an ideological position. So is viewing law enforcement activity as inherently desirable. Wikipedia articles should not be siding ideologically with law enforcement or drug smugglers.
I agree the word "threaten" is probably an inappropriate tone for the article, although not because it appears to side with drug smugglers. See WP:EPSTYLE.
I think the Legal section probably needs to be written in a more dispassionate style. I would suggest moving the tag to cover only that section, perhaps posting to the NPOV Noticeboard for guidance. Would this be acceptable? ExoticViolet (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:ExoticViolet: I would suggest posting it to the NPOV Noticeboard only if the problem doesn't get resolved for a while. Hopefully someone who can figure out how to reword it will come along and see this; if not, then the noticeboard would be a good place to try. Thank you for your response, and sorry for not responding sooner. Please ping me if you reply again, as I often forget to check the talk pages I've posted to. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Exigent interrogation methods"[edit]

These are mentioned twice in the article, neither hot-linked to anything. Insofar as this bit of military jargon is a euphemism for torture, I think it's incumbent upon WP to provide readers elaboration on what's being said here. (That is, the matter is noteworthy.) To that end, at least the first mention should contain an embedded link to a relevant WP article. Laodah 19:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narco-submarine&oldid=1213142392"