Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mexican Cartels Build Mad Max Narco Tanks

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the i'm-holding-out-for-the-narco-space-shuttle dept.

The Military 343

Hugh Pickens writes "Not content with building their own submarines, using bazookas, rocket-propelled grenades or land mines, drug cartels are now building armored assault vehicles, complete with gun turrets, inch-thick armor plates, firing ports and bulletproof glass. The monsters look like a cross between a handmade assault vehicle used by a Somali warlord and something out of a post-apocalyptic Mad Max movie, and have already appeared in several confrontations with Mexican authorities. A look inside a captured 'monster' truck (YouTube video) reveals that in addition to swiveling turrets to shoot in any direction, they have hatches and peepholes for snipers, their spacious interiors can fit as many as 20 armed men, and they are coated with polyurethane for insulation and to reduce noise. Still Patrick Corcoran writes that the armored vehicles are not a game changer. 'While the "narco-tanks," as the vehicles are often called, make for great blog fodder and provide entertaining videos, seeing their rise as a significant escalation in Mexico's drug war would be wrongheaded,' writes Corcoran. 'In the end, the "tanks" are a sexy narrative, but these mistaken notions about the criminals' "military might" not only inflate the power of Mexico's groups far beyond any reasonable assessment, they also obscure the problem, and its potential solutions.'"

cancel ×

343 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

solutions... (4, Insightful)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410182)

"its potential solutions."

What, you mean like ending the hideous and utterly failed drug 'war'?

Re:solutions... (4, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410200)

It hasn't failed at all. It's providing a tidy profit for all those who intended to gain from it.

Re:solutions... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410300)

It hasn't failed at all. It's providing a tidy profit for all those who intended to gain from it.

Truer words couldn't be said.

Just looking at the lobbying by the prison industry just shows me that privatization is not always a good thing. And the complete and udder corruption by the politicians just sickens me.

But what really kills me is the uncritical acceptance by the general public of the propaganda against drugs - while they sit in front of their TVs smoking tabacco and downing their beer, wine, and anything else the liquor industry produces.

Re:solutions... (2)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410554)

udder corruption

That sounds kinky.

Re:solutions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410366)

Where do you think all that money they confiscate goes ;)

Re:solutions... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410514)

Where do you think all that money they confiscate goes ;)

What money?

You're not one to ask questions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410618)

When you run from those put to you http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2225174&cid=36390518 [slashdot.org]

Why'd you run away from answering a simple question there, troll?

Answer = Because it's clearcut proof drinkypoo's nothing but a damned troll, because he runs from answering a simple question that shows clearcut evidence drinkypoo is nothing but another "ne'er-do-well" slashdot troll.

Re:solutions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410632)

Ya know the money that they take from the drug dealers when they go to jail .... That money.

Re:solutions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410314)

To end the drug war. Two things have to be done.
a) Drugs can legally be sold to adults. And the state is organizing the distribution.
b) The criminals are arrested (which can be difficult in Mexico and the USA). However, a) results in an drop in income for the drug cartels. They most likely switch to other illegal activity. The real solution is to improve the integrity of states. To do so, we need social security to make people individually independent from the more powerful 1% of the population. Secondly, corruption has to be reduced and democratic practices have to be fostered.

Re:solutions... (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410346)

What failure? Private prisons funnel tons of dollars straight from the tax payers to the multinational cartels, a single drug bust can ensure you have a large underclass ready for exploitation for everything from booze and smokes to lotto tickets and check cashing places, it helps to keep the population under control while giving a nice excuse to make the police more and more like a military operating on home soil, while also helping to get rid of those pesky little things like the fourth amendment...oh...were you actually thinking it was about stopping drugs? Silly peasant it is about profits for the megacorps, just like everything else.

After all if it was about "The People" then pot would be legal, we wouldn't be fighting three wars while funneling ever more money to Wall Street and the MIC, nobody would touch Medicaid and Medicare, the military would be less than half the size and not building new aircraft carriers and superweapons like we had a war planned with the Ruskies for next Tuesday, but where is the room for massive profits and corruption in that? That is why your "vote" is a choice between "Rich corporate ass kisser in a blue suit" or "Rich corporate ass kisser in a slightly darker blue suit". Any choice that might actually listen to the people would cut into profits! Mustn't have that now, can we?

BTW how's that "Hope and Change" thing working out? Turned out to be nothing but Dubya dipped in chocolate huh? I'm afraid the late Bill Hicks [youtube.com] nailed it more than 20 years ago. How sad is it the man has been gone for two decades and if anything his words are even more true now?

Re:solutions... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410404)

Or we could do like other nations that care about drug use and start executing people for drug smuggling. It's not going to solve the problem, but giving up is hardly the only possible answer.

Personally, I don't like the idea of caving in because a lot of self entitled brats don't feeling like obeying the law. We caved in on prohibition and alcohol keeps killing more than pretty much any other single cause out there. Now, if somebody can propose a way of keeping the drug use from affecting people that aren't using, then we can consider legalization, until then it's typical libertarian clap trap about not wanting to think about others.

Re:solutions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410556)

You have to be a troll, right? It's a bold approach but it's working on me. In the event that you happen to be sincere: kill yourself. You're a worthless piece of shit.

Re:solutions... (0)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410540)

It failed only because your side of your war is fighting it like sissies.

But ... (-1, Offtopic)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410192)

... do they run Linux?

Re:But ... (1)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410250)

No, but Human Sacrifice is definitely Open-Source... just not free.

Plus, it's been in the current release version for thousands of years, bug-free--none of the issues you see with the more popular OS's.

Re:But ... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410538)

No, but they look like they would run over a penguin with no problem.

drinkypoo the troll ran himself over? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410772)

By evading a simple question here http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2225174&cid=36390518 [slashdot.org]

The funniest part is that when you search google for slashdot site queries on drinkypoo, all of these questions drinkypoo runs from show up, exposing you for what you are - a troll.

(Hilarious: You're exposing yourself to the planet as a troll, drinkypoo, just by running away from that question in the link above).

bullshit. (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410196)

the person who wrote the article apparently doesnt know shit about military technology and history.

an armored personnel carrier is an armored personnel carrier. the fact that these are produced, and used means that the party using them has the means to produce them and use them. this shows an escalation of the situation.

Re:bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410308)

Makes a change from the Apple shilling on this site, no?

Re:bullshit. (4, Insightful)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410326)

Except that this is not an APC. It's a truck with shit bolted and welded on, not much more than a glorified technical [wikipedia.org] . It's just like Marvin Heemeyer's armored bulldozer [wikipedia.org] , only constructed not for defense, but offense, and are only proof against small arms, as the officer said, not heavy weapons or anti-materiel/anti-tank rifles.

The fact that the drug lords are deploying these means they're desperate: smuggling operations fail, so the only way for them to make money is to try and bust through the border. It's certainly an escalation, but not a very dangerous one if handled correctly.
These things, judging by the looks of them, are not cheap to make, despite being improvised. If the military makes one big push now, ramps up Predator patrols, deploys Barret M82-s/XM109-s (if they're completed, the 25mm HE round should certainly prove adequate to defeat the weaker portions of the armor while remaining man-portable) and other heavy weapons, possibly even tank patrols along the border and MLRS units stationed at regular intervals, they might bankrupt the drug lords, or at least convince them that trying to assault the US border will keep costing more than it makes for them if they keep losing technicals at the same rate.
However, if they don't man up and replace jeep patrols with something that packs more punch, these things are going d what they were made to do, and will befeat the border guards, returning the revenue to the drug cartels.

Re:bullshit. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410362)

That would hurt the banks, nothing is going to be allowed to slow flow of clean cash.

Re:bullshit. (2)

GNious (953874) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410378)

Are they really using these against the US border? More plausibly, they are using them against other drug-cartels...

Re:bullshit. (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410430)

Looking at the video again, they are. I must have misheard something with the presenter's accent, and surmised they were assaulting the border, not each other.
Although I don't find it implausible for them to try and break through with one or two to deliver...

Re:bullshit. (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410444)

it IS an apc. doesnt matter how you name it, doesnt matter what you compare it with. it is an armored vehicle that stands firearms, carries heavy weaponry. the drug cartels can field it.

and as you say - it stands against small arms - not anti tank rifles or heavier weapons - the point is, it DOES stand against the majority of weapons on the scene.

most of combat in world war ii was fought with similar, even weaker vehicles.

you cant put predator patrols over a city and start shooting suspicious vehicles with anti tank ammunition. that is the real deal here. you are joking when you say MLRS. what are you going to use MLRS against ? neighborhoods ?

this is city warfare. you are not fighting in open desert. predators, mlrs are out of question unless you want to destroy entire neighborhoods.

Re:bullshit. (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410526)

Yes, yes, someone already pointed this out, I misunderstood the video commentary, and thought they were being used to breach the US border to deliver drugs. In which case, my arguments stand.
As it is, intervening in Mexico is not the US military's job, unless Mexico specifically requests help.

As for the MLRS, do you know what soldiers call it when it packs guided missiles? "The 70-km Sniper Rifle". Those missiles are accurate enough to take out one building and leave the rest undamaged on the block, I think taking out a garage housing one of these is not beyond its capabilities.
Or they could use the Paladin System (and I can't resist linking this [wordpress.com] image), which is accurate enough to be fired through a window from 15 miles or so away. I believe that makes it good enough to hit a truck at, say, 5-10 miles.
The Predator can accurately target a running man from above, why on Earth would it miss a big honkin' truck like this one? No need to take out a neighborhood, these weapons are accurate enough to pick off the truck itself.

Re:bullshit. (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410492)

MLRS??? Uh, just a bit overkill - this is a couple of drug runners with armored trucks, not a Warsaw Pact invasion...

Javelins or similar manportable weapons are probably the most economical solution, assuming a 50 cal doesn't just take it out. If the drug runners build a thousand of these then maybe we'll need to lean on the Mexicans to control their side of the border or just annex a few hundred miles and turn it into a no-man's land - a much more economical prospect than turning the entire Mexican border into the Korean DMZ.

Of course the real solutions are as everybody points out ending the stupid war on drugs, or leaning hard on the Mexicans to get their act together...

Re:bullshit. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410600)

The article mentions cops just shooting out the tires and disabling it that way. I really don't think you'll need explosives to break these things.

Re:bullshit. (2)

Abreu (173023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410504)

Bullshit, the drug cartels in Mexico are being armed and funded by the US. The cartels have zero motivation to alienate the US.

70% of guns seized from the cartels were purchased in the US: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375961350290734.html [wsj.com]

Even the US government has admitted to smuggling guns to the cartels: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0309/Mexico-lawmakers-livid-over-US-Operation-Fast-and-Furious [csmonitor.com]

The US is the cartels #1 customer and main source of income.

So, if you do drugs or if you buy firearms in gun shows where identity checks are minimal, surprise! you are funding the cartels.

Re:bullshit. (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410656)

Your tinfoil hat must be cutting off circulation to your head. The government wasn't smuggling guns for the cartels, they were engaged in a sting. A poorly conceived of and executed sting, but a sting no less. It's just plain dishonest to suggest that the US is funding and arming them.

Yes, they are making most of their money here and they are using that money to pay people to buy them weapons, but you make it sound like there's some sort of conspiracy going on. Whereas what's really going on is typical of organized crime and requires no additional paranoia to explain.

Re:bullshit. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410698)

Obviously you don't remember the 80s and Iran-Contra.

--
BMO

Re:bullshit. (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410796)

Sorry idiot, but us in Latin America remember the crap the CIA pulled here (and still does).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_Massacre [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas [wikipedia.org]

Re:bullshit. (2)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410548)

You say desperate, but I'd argue that they have actually demonstrated a high level of creativity. It's not like the traditional routes of drug smuggling are going to stop - the US market is just as well supplied now as it has always been. The submarines, the armoured vehicles etc., are just attempts at finding a better smuggling method.

Re:bullshit. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410588)

Isn't it pretty much an armored car? The .50 Browning should do the job.

The article mentions gang vs gang battles, I guess these aren't meant for border crossing.

Re:bullshit. (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410598)

Get the troops from Afghanistan and send them to Mexico and Columbia.

Hey, as long as there's a steady supply of... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410224)

Wetbacks to trim the lawns and babysit the brats of our CongressDouches, then not a damned thing will ever change. Hope and change my ass!

mistaken notions about ... "military might" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410234)

Yep, and handwaving makes the threat go away.

Not to get into the root causes, but having these kinds of weapons is a threat to any government's sovereignty, and only weak governments can't address it.

And a weak and useless Mexican government is not a good thing for anyone except the drug lords.

The war on alcohol ended before this (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410236)

When alcohol was prohibited, the US saw all kinds of organization and arming of people in the alcohol trade. It got so bad that it was decided that alcohol should no longer be prohibited. Now it is just tightly controlled.

The war on drugs is a different story though isn't it. I guess the main reason why might be that all this stuff isn't quite so visible to the public.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (1)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410262)

This isn't about Drugs anymore. This is just a matter of the Mexican government's complete inability to handle this problem and the U.S. government's unwillingness to help deal with it.

The industry has grown so huge that it's more cost-effective to fight off the Mexican government than reach any potential solution with commercialization/taxation (even though that would never happen anyway).

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (2)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410306)

How is it cost effective? It's desirable to the powers that be to have continual war and military involvement in law enforcement, but cost effective for the American tax payer? I don't think so.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (1)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410414)

Cost effective for those running the industry, not the American tax-payer. The American tax-payer is still buying their Latin American weed as an out-of-pocket expense that can't really be written off anywhere in our anti-progressive income taxes.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (2)

splatter (39844) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410516)

Thats why I always buy American!! It's the only thing to do as its my patriotic duty to keep jobs and money here in the states.

Rememeber to check that made in america lable, or dont be afraid to ask your local dealer, "am i funding mexico cartels with this purchase?"

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410602)

If you have your money deposited in a major US bank, you are funding the drug cartels.

If you buy a firearm from a major US manufacturer, you are funding the drug cartels.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410348)

This isn't about Drugs anymore. This is just a matter of the Mexican government's complete inability to handle this problem and the U.S. government's unwillingness to help deal with it.

Um... If the Mexican government can't do anything, and the US government won't do anything, then why are the drug lords building tanks? Are they fighting amongst themselves?

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410384)

Um... If the Mexican government can't do anything, and the US government won't do anything, then why are the drug lords building tanks? Are they fighting amongst themselves?

Yes, they are.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (1)

moortak (1273582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410562)

While the governments on both sides are doing some things all evidence suggests that these tanks are aimed at rival cartels.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410668)

A large part of it is the continued turf war as the Mexican government makes progress in various areas. The Mexican government hasn't been able to make enough head way to keep it that way, but they have managed to do well enough that the gangs are fighting amongst themselves as they lose, usually temporarily, some portion of their turf.

The James bond gear is primarily for use against each other though.

This is similar to what Columbia went through when they were cleaning themselves up after years of being owned by the narcomafia. And ultimately, Mexico is primarily about smuggling routes, in order to fix it they'll also have to ensure that there's little demand to move things through the country. I can definitely envision the traffickers bypassing them mostly to go via sea in those subs.

Re:The war on alcohol ended before this (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410612)

The war on drugs does not intersect with "legalizeit" movement because it does not make much sense to transport cheap hashish over the border when you can do it with more expensive heroin and cocaine.

War in Mexico have nothing to do with the legalization of marihuana.

Problem? (5, Insightful)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410240)

they also obscure the problem, and its potential solutions.

The problem is prohibition and the solution is to stop it. Difficult to grasp?

Re:Problem? (2)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410324)

Legalize coccaine?

Re:Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410418)

Would you prefer legal, cheap, and regulated cocaine or illegal, expensive (a major motive in crime is to aquire drug money) and unregulated crack (cut with some of the nastiest shit known to man).

Re:Problem? (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410486)

I dont want cocaine. wtf are you talking about?

Re:Problem? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410502)

I dont want cocaine. wtf are you talking about?

Crack is cheap. Poor people use it because they can afford it. Crack kills. The war on drugs is an assault on the poor, not that this is a shocker. It's not like the rich politicians who brought us prohibition stopped drinking.

Y R U running from a simple question, troll? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410580)

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2225174&cid=36390518 [slashdot.org]

Why'd you run away from answering a simple question there, troll?

Answer = Because it's clearcut proof drinkypoo's nothing but a damned troll, because he runs from answering a simple question that shows clearcut evidence drinkypoo is nothing but another "ne'er-do-well" slashdot troll.

Re:Problem? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410624)

I would prefer no cocaine on the Main street and no crack on the 114th street.

American government have no problem stomping on rights of citizens because of the "war on terror" (read: against us, Muslims), surely, they would have no problem restricting them in order to suppress the culture of drugs in US.

Re:Problem? (2)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410654)

Not much worse than alcohol IMHO. Also once legal you can provide information and warning about it, medial surveillance, counseling, all paid by the users. Basically acknowledging that drugs are part of human nature and actually deal with it. What's wrong with realism?

Re:Problem? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410714)

It was legal before. Some people couldn't handle it. Most didn't try it. Same as now, really, except that you can't regulate for purity what you prohibit entirely.

Re:Problem? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410740)

Yes, legalize cocaine. Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it, just like coffee, alcohol and tobacco are currently regulated. Do you think that throwing the word "cocaine" around is going to scare us? Cocaine used to be legal in this country, until a bunch of southern cops began to complain about "cocaine niggers" and how "the cocaine nigger sure is hard to kill."

Re:Problem? (2)

dachshund (300733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410564)

At very least, we need to target these cartels based on their level of violence and threat to government control. Pick the nastiest one with the most weapons and devote all of our resources to destroying it. Then move on to the next one on the list, and so on and so forth.

Yes, this means we'll have to take resources away from some of the lesser cartels, but the point is to reduce violence not drug shipments. It needs to be made clear that being the biggest, baddest, most threatening organization is a death sentence for a cartel. Right now these organizations are building jerry-rigged military weapons, but it's only a matter of time before they're doing more, and before they spread over the US border and become entrenched.

The current US & Mexican policy is terrible, bordering on suicidal.

Re:Problem? (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410692)

No, the problem is that people are willing to pay and look the other way when it comes to the consequences. Ending prohibition set a really bad precedent in that it gave people the idea that if they refuse to obey the law that they can get it over turned. Now that wasn't such a bad thing when it came to human rights, but alcohol is still a very serious social problem, killing and hurting more than pretty much anything else. But, it's going to be legalized perpetually because people are more OK giving their money to the mob than giving up the hooch.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp that there are people out there that don't give a damn what their drug habit is doing to the people in Mexico. What's difficult to grasp is that if we bow to the pressure that things will be OK and that they won't start demanding other anti-social things. There's a reason why the constitution doesn't include the right to do whatever drug you might want to do.

Re:Problem? (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410804)

There's a reason why the constitution doesn't include the right to do whatever drug you might want to do.

Funny how over a century passed between the constitutional convention and the beginning of the drug war. I suspect the constitution does not explicitly grant the right to use drugs because the founding fathers could not envision a world in which the US government would try to outlaw the use of hemp/marijuana, coca, or opium, let alone the broad classes of plants and chemicals that are illegal to possess in this country.

Invincible my butt. (2)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410242)

http://www.anzioironworks.com/20MM-TAKE-DOWN-RIFLE.htm [anzioironworks.com]

This rifle would easily take down a vehicle like this, they are not as invincible as they claim to be. I am sure that they are proof against a Kalashnikov or a .223 caliber rifle, but a good sniper rifle like the Anzio would take it out with one shot. Is this the start of the Mexican border war as depicted in the Robocop movie?

Re:Invincible my butt. (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410264)

You don't need a 20mm, you can use a .50 cal with HE rounds. One of them well-placed will put some crap like this out of commission. A .50 with HE can take out a REAL APC, let alone this toy crap. One IED rolled under the vehicle would do it, too.

Re:Invincible my butt. (2)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410368)

Even an M1 Abrams isn't un-immobilizable (is that a word?). The point behind these things is to make the drugs + the men inside it a hard target. They look like they would work admirably.

Re:Invincible my butt. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410436)

It's certainly harder than having no armor. It does point to things continuing to spiral out of control in Mexico. Of course, that's how our government likes it. To the North you have snow and trees, to the south you have a drug war. It prevents citizens from fleeing overland. Only the rich may depart.

Only trolls like drinkypoo run (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410524)

From a SIMPLE QUESTION put to he here http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2225174&cid=36390518 [slashdot.org]

Why'd you run away from answering a simple question there, troll?

Answer = Because it's clearcut proof drinkypoo's nothing but a damned troll, because he runs from answering a simple question that shows clearcut evidence drinkypoo is nothing but another "ne'er-do-well" slashdot troll.

Re:Only trolls like drinkypoo run (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410790)

Troll? That's rich. I only see one troll here, and he has 'Coward' in his name

Re:Invincible my butt. (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410542)

It sounds more like it would make them an easy target. It sticks out like a sore thumb, has paramilitary qualities more likely to result in a shoot-to-kill order, and puts a dozen or more men all enclosed in a small space prone to spalling and shrapnel.

drinkypoo - why'd you run from a SIMPLE question? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410456)

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2225174&cid=36390518 [slashdot.org]

?

LMAO! Proof he's nothing but a damned troll, because he runs from clearcut evidence he is nothing but another "ne'er-do-well" slashdot troll.

Re:Invincible my butt. (1)

jambarama (784670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410328)

You don't even need that. Just shoot the the exposed tires and it won't be protecting anything except the piece of dirt it is stuck on.

Re:Invincible my butt. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410708)

You don't think that they can get their hands on run flat tires? Sure they're hardly prefect, but they do pretty well in terms of coping with that situation.

Re:Invincible my butt. (2)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410726)

Unless the tires are filled with tire foam instead of air...

So? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410272)

What's the next step? Reinforcing the border by arming patrol units with Vulcan cannons?

Re:So? (1)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410294)

Drug-sniffing zombies.

Re:So? (3, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410450)

"Authorities in Awe of Drug Runners' Jungle-Built, Kevlar-Coated Supersubs"
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/ff_drugsub/all/1 [wired.com]
5.5 tons of cocaine on a American-registered DC-9
http://www.madcowprod.com/07152010.htm [madcowprod.com]
As for the US border, expect to see a huge roll out of face, cell phone data and optical character recognition systems deep into the USA on all public roads.
Your car might make it over, but your face will be recorded. You can change cars, papers, times, but over time a database will try and build some face based watch list for people who make repeated trips .....
Is the driver new to the US, looking stressed, been seen before on back roads .... next "random" Border Patrol interior checkpoint, expect a "random" Border Patrol check - somewhere within 100-miles of the US land and coastal borders is legal.

Re:So? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410674)

Your car might make it over, but your face will be recorded.

Sounds like you figured out a new use for Facebook's face recognition feature.

Re:So? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410520)

The border patrol has always wanted some A-10 Thunderbolts [wikipedia.org] . Even the toys [youtube.com] are deadly.

The Good News (2)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410274)

So they seat 20. Well that means that your Hellfire equipped drone can now take out 20 narco-terrorists at a time.

Re:The Good News (1)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410302)

I like your approach to the problem, I'm sure it would work magic. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

Re:The Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410376)

because that would be killing 20 more people that are only in drug trade because they NEED to earn money to survive.

only the high ranks, which really, wont be driving a truck like this, ever earn lots of money. the rest is in it because they need to earn money and have no other way.

killing 20 people will make a higher up drug dealer accept 20 more people.

you may as well go to any poor neighborhood and kill 20 people there, it will probably take 5 people out of drug trading.

Thank you Wachovia (5, Informative)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410330)

This was all made possible because Wachovia laundered a sum of money equal to 1/3 of Mexico's GDP for the drug cartels [guardian.co.uk] .

Of course as soon as this was discovered the Justice Department sprang into action and initiated a RICO takedown of the entire institution and all its executives (in an alternate universe). What they actually did was politely request that the company pay a fine equal to 2% of their profits which was then refunded to them by the Treasury Department via a $54 billion bailout.

It makes sense because laws don't apply to the aristocracy like they apply to us peasants - they're doing God's work [businessinsider.com] after all.

Re:Thank you Wachovia (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410744)

Well, what would you expect, really, from a bank that could pronounce it's name as the slightly creepy, but eerily comforting, "Watch Ova' Ya'" but instead chose to pronounce it, "Walk Ova' Ya'"....

MAD MAXicans (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410340)

Didn't you knew, MAD MAX stood for MAD MAXicans?

Re:MAD MAXicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410390)

LOL DUDE UR FUNNEH

The government is the biggest drug cartel (3, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410398)

What do you think it's doing in Afghanistan [bbc.co.uk] ?? You think they're going to let a bunch of sheepherders strangle the family business?

A 13yr old kid (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410406)

could take it out with an RPG

TOW or Javelin would be overkill,And Predator with Hellfire would be expensive.

Maybe I'm missing something (3, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410506)

But if I were Pres. Calderon, I'd just authorize the use of ordnance on sight when the Mexican Army encounters one of those...

It practically screams "I'm a safe target to destroy on a shoot first, ask questions later" basis.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410530)

But what happens when they start using these to carry children to school? Won't you think of the children!?!

Re:Maybe I'm missing something (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410644)

Basically, the idiot has ordered to shoot on sight. The gangs respond in kind.

It has resulted in over 40,000 dead mexicans

Legalize DRUGS (2)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410560)

Seriously, we can not win the drug war. All this is doing around the world id funding these kinds of ppl. Taliban and AQ make loads of money from drugs. So do American gangs.
The only real solution is for America to legalize ALL drugs, and then allow NO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of drugs. In addition, the production and sale of such is also heavily regulated. A whiff of a connection with ANY gang and you can not do anything. Get caught using illegal drugs? Not a problem. The state provides housing for 5 years. Get caught bringing in, or selling drugs? Again, not a problem 20 years.

Re:Legalize DRUGS (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410672)

By making importation of drugs illegal, you spring a closet underground market for doing so. Legalizing all drugs is not the answer either. Some drugs are very, very harmful: even marijuana, when abused has some long-lasting side effects. It would be enough to legalize marijuana because that accounts for close to 56% of the cartel's gross trafficking.

Re:Legalize DRUGS (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410770)

They are ALL harmful. Post is just least harmful.
However, consumption continues even with the neo-cons war on drugs. Basically, this is unwinnable, and it is funding gangs, drug lords, etc. The best way to stop them is to deny them money. THat solve this.
Without supplies, yes, that DOES create an underground market. HOWEVER, when the gov. supplies it cheaper than what illegal drugs can be brought in for, AND the penalty for USING illegal drugs is high, you pretty much destroy the illegal drugs. At the least, you make it trivial to wipe them out. Case in point is that in the 20's, the gangs were fueled by illegal alcohol (moonshine). How much moonshine do you see around the USA? Do you see gangs involved in illegal manufacturing of alcolhol? I do not. I am sure that there are small small groups involved, but nothing major. More of a local variety. It is just not worth it to ppl to get busted for producing something that you can BUY.

And just doing pot is not enough. The drug lords/gang would simply switch to other drugs and then push it here. OTH, if we legalize all drugs, provide enough tax as to cover the social costs, we wipe out nearly all gangs, most of the gun running, and much of the theft (gangs are fencing by trading drugs for stolen goods; very lucrative). We also see 1/2 of our crimes disappear, though new ones will spring up. But this time, we simple tax the new drug users and have that cover the costs of enforcement as well as addicts costs.

Re:Legalize DRUGS (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410778)

even marijuana, when abused has some long-lasting side effects.

[citation needed]

Some drugs are very, very harmful

I assume you mean drugs like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco [wikipedia.org]

Re:Legalize DRUGS (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410750)

Taliban and AQ make loads of money from drugs.

The Taliban money comes from protection rackets, they hate drugs and alcohol and wiped out the Afgan poppy fields when they were in control. Apparently OBL smoked the occasional joint, but he funded his activities from personal wealth.

and then allow NO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of drugs

Isn't that what they're having trouble enforcing now?

Re:Legalize DRUGS (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410828)

The taliban fully backs the poppy fields at this time. They simply get a cut and that is funding them. [google.com]

As to import/export, no. It is the fact that the west has LARGE demand, and no supplies that lead to illegal imports. We need to quit trying to provide a LOCAL supply of all drugs, heavily regulate it, and allow ZERO IMPORTS and ZERO EXPORTS. Once we have driven out the illegal trade, then raise the taxes on these. I am not certain what tax on ethOH is, but back in the early 80's, at a lab that I worked at, we paid $.97/gal, for what the open market was 20/gal. IOW, there was a tax of 19/gal. ANd yet, we do not see illegal imports of ethOH.

Re:Legalize DRUGS (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410764)

Seriously, we can not win the drug war. All this is doing around the world id funding these kinds of ppl. Taliban and AQ make loads of money from drugs. So do American gangs.

The only real solution is for America to legalize ALL drugs, and then allow NO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS of drugs. In addition, the production and sale of such is also heavily regulated. A whiff of a connection with ANY gang and you can not do anything. Get caught using illegal drugs? Not a problem. The state provides housing for 5 years. Get caught bringing in, or selling drugs? Again, not a problem 20 years.

That still sounds fucking illegal to me. FYI: It's now legal to brew your own beer and make your own wine (at least in Texas, you know, one of those Mexican border states...) Guess what? The "Microbrewery" industry took off -- Big watered-down (corn/cheap) beer companies are now emulating some of the more flavorful beers. Imports of foreign beers are on the rise as many people discover that variety is the spice of life instead of only drinking X brand.

Since alcohol was decriminalized, I've not seen a single gangster pedaling booze. Since home production and use, and local distribution (within reason) is now permitted so long as you're not selling the brew, the American beer market has been revolutionized, creating opportunities for small business owners and hobbyists alike.

I think recreational drug use should be legal in all forms. Before you rebut, please take a moment to consider how strongly regulated the addictive substance Caffeine is. Caffeine has been proven much more addictive than marijuana, yet no one bats an eye when people give it to children or even babies! (Caffeinated carbonated drinks). For many people the first thing they do each day is partake in a little recreational drug use (Coffee).

It's hard to find a store that sells multiple forms of food, that doesn't also distribute the recreational drug Caffeine in some form. Even in concentrated forms as "Energy Drinks" or pills, it's still acceptable for a minor to purchase. o_O

As a race we've been using "drugs" for thousands of years -- Some might say it's in our nature to do so. Making laws against human nature is folly, and the primary tool of a police state. We are also beings of communication -- now that we have powerful communication machines we've never had more restriction on our abilities to communicate. See: copyright laws. It's all part of the same process...

Want to stop this? (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410662)

If any politician was serious about stopping this, the answer is real simple: take the monetary incentive for the existence of the cartels out of the equation by legalizing marijuana in the United States. Arguably, the cartels would collapse overnight. However by doing this, a politician risks career suicide because she or he will lose campaign dollars as a result of lost support from industries such as: defense, pharmaceutical, paper products, etc. It would take politicians with balls, not those seeking re-election, to effect change. An entire industry has sprung up around this war on drugs that employs people in a shitty economy so another unfortunate consequence would be more people without jobs as a result. However, both Mexicans and Americans would be ultimately safer without the existence of the cartels: maybe even happier because they could smoke or eat pot without interference and not worry about the harmful anti-depressant drugs out on the market. I digress ....

Fucking great (1)

ndogg (158021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410742)

This is what our tax money in the fucking drug war is doing? Awesome. That's just fucking awesome. Civil war in Mexico is such a fantastic fucking American dream.

The drug lords are scum, but there are better ways for dealing with them, such as using harm reduction [harmreduction.org] principles to lessen the demand for their products, and thus hurting their income.

There will always be people using drugs, whether they should or not. Decriminalizing their use does not imply an endorsement of the behavior. It's still valid to tell someone that cocaine use is a stupid fucking idea, and to tell them what it will do to their health, but arresting them as though they were just common criminals--instead of getting them help--most definitely doesn't help.

The solution is straight forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410814)

Provide cheap drugs to addicts anonymously - and only to addicts. That way drug dealers will have no recurring business. The moment someone becomes addicted, that's when they now become a lucrative business for the drug dealer, and this policy would take that away. They can't give you the first one for free if you won't be coming back even if you do become addicted. This puts the drug dealers out of business thus reducing the availability of the drugs thus creating fewer first-time addicts. It also gives the addicts as good of a chance at as good of a life as they can have while being addicted, as opposed to robbing and stealing their way to the next fix. When there are no more dealers and the addicts are no longer going to jail, perhaps law-enforcement, courts and jails can spend their resources on things that actually should have been crimes in the first place. Instead, the policies of the US are creating violent crime, creating addicts and funneling billions of dollars into the pockets of organized crime both inside and outside the US. The War on Drugs is doing exactly the opposite of its stated goals.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>