governments war on entrepreneurs!

If the boats full of drugs....sink the fecka with them onboard (smugglers) :arrgh!:

US Customs and the DEA have have been sinking ships off the coast of Miami and Ft. Lauderdale for some time now. They are turned in to artificial reefs for sport fishing ans SCUBA diving. It's a way to keep them out of the hands of drug runners (they are the only ones who want them) and helps the tourism economy in the area.

The process is quite involved all hazardous materiales including, Oil, Fuel, sewage, asbestos, etc. must be removed prior to sinking in order to prevent an ecological disaster. The US Army Core of Engineers is placed in charge of blasting and sinking.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2..._ecosystem.xml

I think this is a great way to get ships for target practice! The US should adopt their policies on this issue! We even get submarines around here that we can practice torpedoing! :up:

-S

yea, since a sub force really has nothin better to do it seems

Well, if we had a full strength sub force, there would be some time for practice! 40 or so subs is not going to cut it.

-S

yea it seems they may need them again- i mean with the way Russias been acting lately who knows what theryre up to. they need someone to keep an eye on them.

It satisfies emotions, yes, but after all it is not more than shooting the messengers. We'll need to bomb those bosses who sent the message. They kill our families, and raise their children in that moral spirit of egoism, and violance. That's why we need to kill their clans and families instead. So that there is nobody left who could carry on their businesses once they are gone.

Either you see it as war, or you have already lost. Currently, our superior and highly socialised and oh so morally high developed civilization has voted for the latter. So why bombing that single ship? It even is not symbolic. It is nothing than a drop of water on the hot stone.

Go all the way, or don't go at all. If you start, and then do not go on, you make ridicule of yourself.

There's an awful lot under the heading of 'Drugs', too much to claim you can have a war against them. There are hard arguments for and against legalisation, and that multiplies further as you consider indivudual substances.
That "drugs destroy lives" is a product of both physiological effects and the criminalised nature of said drugs.

That's a bit Keyser Soze, Skybird :-?

Is it (whatever that should be)? Let'S be precise: it is acceptance of more violant and martial action against gangsters and mobsters and cartel bosses than what an undifferentiated and unlimited well-meaning anti-authoritarian could bear. War against drug cartels? "But that is noisy! Not in my world! Better let people die in silence in dark corners, let families break apart, and junkeys locked away in closed hospital stations or steal and rob or prostitute themselves to strangers. Look how idyllic my world is!"

Some issue there are where i do not know any pardon, maybe because I had seen some of it from closer view. Torture is something like that, enforced prostitution - and drugs.

Those kinds of drugs that organized crime makes heavy profits with - usually is not of the kind of harmless consummation goods like Cannabis (careful when thinking it is harmless) you make it appear as in order to reject the need for more authoritarian countermeasures. Always unlimited tolerance for everything, right? Always rejecting hierarchies, eh? Where there is no power there can be no harm...

come over here, I can introduce you to a girlfriend of mine, she's still working in a psychiatric hospital. She can show you around a bit, then you learn in just one day what drugs of the sort we talk of really are: slow killers of social systems, and individual lives. Those making profits by selling them and destroying human life have given up civilization's protection of human rights. you can claim these rights only is so far as you respect them yourself. If you violate them to make a profit, you have no more demand to make to benefit from their protection, and as far as I am concerned it then is a question of "as little as possible but as much violance as needed to make you stop at all cost". - And if that kills you, I am not sorry, for you are no loss.

Yep. Banning half measures will solve a lot of problems, narcotics and more.

In a way they all ready do. When an US submarine receives a new MK-46 it doesn't have a war head. The torpedo must be test fired 2 to 3 times before it is made deadly. This ensures that all guidance and stacking are working property, don't want the thing turning back on you. At $52 million I don't see the need to be blowing them up.

i guess that makes sense. thats just hard to belive that a torpedo can cost $52 million. well and it would be a waste of our tax dolloars

The torpedo unit production costs from approximately $1.2-$1.4M million apiece. I can't see the warhead costing 40+ times the cost of a tomahawk though, even for a nuke configuration. A mk48 adcap with 650lb HE warhead only cost 2.5 million.

2.5 mil a fish huh? Maybe we should be arming our subs with a half load of old Mk 14s. That way they can still fight Ivan or whoever's SSNs and still have a cost effective time sinking Iranian patrol boats. :hmm:

or they could outsource the production to china but they mite need to get recalled for to much lead paint

Your right I miss read the data sheet in 1999 26 were purchased for 52.8 mill.
http://www.fas.org/man/docs/fy99/navy/osdp1_wpn_u.pdf

Bottom line is I think we need to bring back the deck gun.:-?

But the gun will cost $8 million and each shell $5,000 due to mark ups!:cry: Don't get me started on the increase in cost for insurance and OH&S training!:shifty:

yea and with todays technology im sure they can even have it conceled some where for when theryre underwater. and it probaly be more acurte to.