Slashdot Mirror


Drug Catapult Found At US-Mexico Border

suraj.sun writes "According to a Fox News report: 'Drug smugglers trying to get marijuana across the Arizona-Mexico border apparently are trying a new approach — a medieval catapult, capable of launching 4.4 pounds of marijuana at a time. National Guard troops operating a remote video surveillance system at the Naco Border Patrol Station say they observed several people preparing a catapult and launching packages over the International Border fence last Friday evening. The 3-yard tall catapult was found about 20 yards from the US border on a flatbed towed by a sports utility vehicle, according to a Mexican army officer with the 45th military zone in the border state of Sonora.'"

225 comments

  1. Angry Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is an iPhone game waiting to happen.

    1. Re:Angry Drugs by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's more of an android game ;).

    2. Re:Angry Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is an iPhone game waiting to happen.

      Angry Coyotes?

    3. Re:Angry Drugs by camperslo · · Score: 2

      One of these days someone, in the quest to trim federal spending, fight drugs, and patrol borders, is going to go a few steps beyond remotely controlled web cams.

      Imagine if you will a parallel universe, where handling crime is a game. There the government sells "hunting" licenses to website operators that provide cameras and weapons remotely operated over the web by paying players. The war on whatever turns profitable?
      Not sure what happens to any captured drugs, maybe the government could auction those off or give them away either to raise money or drive prices down.

      The may or may not become an official part of the Game and Party party-platform.

    4. Re:Angry Drugs by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Imagine if you will a parallel universe, where handling crime is a game.

      Oh you mean like the USA currently in the War on Drugs?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    5. Re:Angry Drugs by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The war on whatever turns profitable?

      It's quite profitable for some people, and all that's required is keeping 3mm people in prison, about 12000 murders per yer, drug gangs running roughshod over central/south america, and the erosion of our civil liberties. But hey, drugs are bad, m'kay?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Angry Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Angry BUDS"

    7. Re:Angry Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can hardly wait for the Clown Cannon.

      ICBW - Intercontinental Ballistic Winnebago (gallagher)

      jr

    8. Re:Angry Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think it would be pretty easy to keep 3mm people wherever the hell you want to... regular sized people are a bit trickier.

  2. Next you will see by Krojack · · Score: 2

    people being launched using this.. Just wait.

    1. Re:Next you will see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see the "fail" videos of that...

    2. Re:Next you will see by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
      "people being launched using this.. Just wait."

      I was thinking the same thing..but that they could kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

      Get an illegal to hold the drugs and shoot them BOTH over the fence at the same time!!!

      Now...if we just had our sharpshooters ready it would be like shooting MX skeet.

      "PULL".....bang....[sombrero goes spinning up in the air]

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Next you will see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get an illegal to hold the drugs and shoot them BOTH over the fence at the same time!!!

      "PULL".....bang....[sombrero goes spinning up in the air]

      Hahaha!!

      Shooting poor people is funny!

      And you're an asshole.

    4. Re:Next you will see by muindaur · · Score: 2

      Ok Pablo, just hold this large bag tight; then, once you're over the border hold onto the handles tight.

      GOOD LUCK SON!

      *pulls lever*

      AIEEEE!!!!

    5. Re:Next you will see by sglewis100 · · Score: 3, Informative

      people being launched using this.. Just wait.

      MythBusters already covered that.

    6. Re:Next you will see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel that the poor have a negative worth since they endure tremendous amount of suffering. I sometimes think we should kill homeless people by giving them high dose of fentanyl mixed with some alprazolam, that way they die happy.

    7. Re:Next you will see by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      google it. There are already 1 or 2 vids of human trebuchets.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    8. Re:Next you will see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough. What I see is that this catapult is supposedly outside of the US, yet the last pictures in the video show US military uniformed playing with the catapult.

      On the bright side, 4lbs only? really?

    9. Re:Next you will see by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Shooting poor people is funny!"

      No...shooting poor people is not funny.

      However, shooting invading foreigners while not funny...makes sense I think. We need to do something to protect our borders, hell it is one of the FEW enumerated powers the federal govt. is supposed to have and do per the Constitution.

      I have no problem with immigrants who come over through legal channels. Like Dennis Miller once said....I don't care if you want to come over, just sign the fucking guest book on the way in..

      We can regulate, and ensure we are getting good people, and keep the criminal element out. I'm for streamlining the immigration policy and laws. But I think we need to have a serious deterrent to people illegally crossing our borders and invading our soil. I'd have no problem with having a no man's land section, and let our military sharpshooters get practice taking out anyone coming across where they shouldn't be. In lieu of that...lets put land mines all along the border.

      I mean...anyone not crossing at the designated checkpoints, can't be up to any good...so, lets deter their asses. If we can't build a fence, lets mine it or put up snipers to guard it. I'll be after criminals trying to cross illegally see some head shots and people blowing up...that'll stop that illegal crossing real fucking quick.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Next you will see by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It has already happened - people were paying money for a "ride". Someone miscalculated a customer's weight and he landed a few dozen feet short of the safety net that was there to catch him. The owners of the catapult went to jail for manslaughter.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Next you will see by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      However, shooting invading foreigners while not funny...makes sense I think.

      So you're on the side of the Taliban, then. Good to know...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:Next you will see by intellitech · · Score: 1

      There was a Mythbusters episode dedicated to a border catapult for people. I think it was busted, but don't quote me on that.

      --
      vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    13. Re:Next you will see by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "So you're on the side of the Taliban, then. Good to know..."

      Not really, as far as Iraq and Afghanistan...we're still there as legal 'guests' so to speak.

      The governments there have yet to tell us to leave.

      That makes a difference.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Next you will see by praxis · · Score: 1

      In the case of Iraq, we did not enter as legal guests but made sure to empower a new government that did feel that way.

    15. Re:Next you will see by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      No land mines. Not ever. They don't discriminate, they don't decide, and they don't go away if you change policy or the location of the border or no man's land. As much as I also hate your sharpshooter idea, the sharpshooter in question is at least responsible for his/her actions, and can make a decision based on observable facts, such as "Are these people likely to be drug runners/terrorists/criminals, or are they just people stupidly trying to run the border? Do they have children with them? Should I shoot the kids if they do?" (by the way, the answer to that last one is always "No". Whatever you think of illegal immigrants, the kids don't make the decision to immigrate illegally, the parents do).

      Land mines can't make choices. Land mines can't take responsibility. They just blow the legs off of anyone or anything walking over them.

      By the way, when you think of the border and landmines/snipers blowing up/murdering people crossing them, are you just thinking of the US/Mexico border, or the US/Canada one as well? Land mines on the US/Canada border would blow up any number of deer/wolves/moose/bears/etc.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    16. Re:Next you will see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tried and works just fine:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67fFDiPRsrk

      Just because Mythbusters can't do it, doesn't mean that no-one can. That show would probably conclude that nuclear fission is a myth just because they can't manage it.

    17. Re:Next you will see by swilly · · Score: 2

      That would be the Mexican Army that you see. The uniforms are slightly different.

    18. Re:Next you will see by alexborges · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay... protecting your border would actually be very easy, you know?

      You need to LEGALIZE DRUGS in the US NOW. The groups that "import" mexicans and latinamericans to the US are the very same that have caused oh just about 30,000 dead here in México, and they manage their logistics precisely by coke trafficking in the US.

      If you guys were to legalize drugs Mexico would too and we would have a legal export that would be enough to feed everyone here.

      Understand the following:

      1) Mexico COMPLIES with whatever policy the US sets on drug control.
      2) We pay for it in OUR blood and you guys give us about a couple billion dollars to "help", in about 3 years.
      3) Now the market of drugs for import in the US is close, by conservative estimates, to 11 billion dollars....

      How the FUCK do you expect us to mess the cartels up, if you pay them 11 billion, but help out only by 20% of that?

      Like it or not, geography is not going to change: we are neighbors. Believe me, id like it if we were argentina, where Cannabis is legal in Buenos Aires, and not your neighbor that, being a sensible "thing" in the list of shit about your national security, is doomed to bend to your HUGE pressure to do irrational things like the war on drugs.

      Remember this: MEXICANS ARE FOR LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS. We dont do it, because it makes no sense to legalize here (we have 5% incidence on first-or-only-time drug consumption as opposed to your 50%), if you shitfucks dont do it up there.

      We are getting very, very much fucked up by cartels that get their money from you,.

      --
      NO SIG
    19. Re:Next you will see by russotto · · Score: 2

      I have no problem with immigrants who come over through legal channels. Like Dennis Miller once said....I don't care if you want to come over, just sign the fucking guest book on the way in.

      The waiting list for a relative of a legal US resident from Mexico to immigrate to the US is ten years long. For many other categories of immigrant it's essentially impossible. Forgive me if I find claims like yours to be more than a little disingenuous.

    20. Re:Next you will see by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Racism meter reading 7 decigibsons!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:Next you will see by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You do know it's practically impossible for a Mexican to immigrate legally, right?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:Next you will see by Jbcarpen · · Score: 1

      Ok, so it works over a couple hundred feet. Come back when you find a video where it works over a couple hundred yards. Oh, and it'd have to be without a catch net the size of a house.

      --
      GENERATION 667: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation
    23. Re:Next you will see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, that a gameshow can make one in an afternoon that makes it to about 60 yards isn't a good enough indication that someone trying a bit harder can't add a few more yards onto that?

      Oh, and the border fence isn't 200 yards wide. This distance would work fine. The net could be quickly strung out for a catch (less than a minute if you know what you're doing).

      But hey, move those goalposts when I point out that you're wrong.

    24. Re:Next you will see by Illicon · · Score: 1

      "Are these people likely to be drug runners/terrorists/criminals, or are they just people stupidly trying to run the border? Do they have children with them?"

      I hate to be pedantic, but if they are trying to "run" the border, they are not likely to be criminals. They ARE criminals. Okay, I lied. I LOVE being pedantic.

    25. Re:Next you will see by Drugmath · · Score: 1

      No need to wait, the failing has already been done: Deadly Human Trebuchet

    26. Re:Next you will see by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I watched your video, and your right, it works. Seriously look at that video and ask yourself if they could get it set up on both sides of the border, get a reasonable number of people across, and get it put away and get away before the border patrol runs across the whole operation. Personally I dont think so. I think for this type of operation they would need at least a few hours to make it worthwhile.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    27. Re:Next you will see by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1

      "people being launched using this.. Just wait."

      I was thinking the same thing..but that they could kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

      Get an illegal to hold the drugs and shoot them BOTH over the fence at the same time!!!

      Now...if we just had our sharpshooters ready it would be like shooting MX skeet.

      "PULL".....bang....[sombrero goes spinning up in the air]

      Ah, Cayenne8. I have missed you, sir! (I've been gone -- don't know about you). PULL!

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
  3. Trebuchet by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 2

    If the video for the story is correct, then that's not a catapult, it's a trebuchet! (Albeit it replaced the counterweight with some sort of elastic cabling.)

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Trebuchet by jdastrup · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wonder if MS is going to sue the drug lords for infringing on their font

    2. Re:Trebuchet by lgw · · Score: 2

      While definitions have varied over time, in modern usage the distinction is: a catapult uses tension, while a trebuchet uses a counterweight. Catapults have used quite a few forms of elastic tension to store energy over the centuries: twisting rope was just the most common.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Trebuchet by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your attempt at being pedantic fails. A trebuchet is just a specific type of catapult. The device is in fact a catapult.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Trebuchet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A trebuchet is a type of catapult

    5. Re:Trebuchet by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      If the video for the story is correct, then that's not a catapult, it's a trebuchet! (Albeit it replaced the counterweight with some sort of elastic cabling.)

      Get your eyesight checked. Maybe you'll get some of the MJ prescribed...

      Anyway, a trebuchet would have a counterweight, not a bungee-rope to pull the arm.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    6. Re:Trebuchet by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      You're almost right. The most common spring wasn't twisted rope, it was twisted rawhide. Rope loses its elasticity almost immediately, rawhide doesn't.

      (Scientific American, ca.1971 iirc)

      The trebuchet we used in SCA combat (I was baron of Stormhold at the time) was a traction trebuchet; instead of a counterweight, it had four large ropes that people hauled down on, on command. Ours had a 6 metre (18') throwing arm. It was fairly well researched, and could throw a couple of kilograms worth of softballs the length of a football field on a fairly flat trajectory (when it didn't throw them directly up, which was too often).

      I transported it to and from events duct-taped to the top of my VW van (the duct tape was for authenticity :P)

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    7. Re:Trebuchet by fahlesr1 · · Score: 1

      Wait a few hundred years and they'll be using cruise missiles!

    8. Re:Trebuchet by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your attempt at being pedantic fails. A trebuchet is just a specific type of catapult. The device is in fact a catapult.

      You are being insufficiently discriminating, sorry. They weren't classed as such, and medieval distinctions between catapults and trebuchets were quite distinct. You had catapults (also called "Onagers", or "rocking donkeys"), ballistae (God's very own crossbow, generally with two distinct arms, from which we derive the term "ballistics") and the various forms of trebuchets, the largest of which could throw a boulder the size of a small cottage. You would no more call them all "catapults" then you would say a strip-miner's Terex load carrier "just a form of car".

      So there! (insert Bronx cheer>

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    9. Re:Trebuchet by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      In the same way as a tornado is a type of wind.

      We do not say "It was windy yesterday" when we actually mean "a freaking tornado leveled my whole town."

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    10. Re:Trebuchet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think a trebuchet is not a catapult?

      You statement is the equivalent of "That's not an animal, it a cat!"

    11. Re:Trebuchet by jnaujok · · Score: 1

      A tension trebuchet is commonly called a Scorpion. (Sometimes spelled skorpion.)

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    12. Re:Trebuchet by msauve · · Score: 1
      Catapults preceded medieval times, and we're in modern times, so your appeal to middle English as a language authority fails.

      The term 'catapult' is often used as a generic label for all throwing machines. In modern times it describes any system that launches an object from a platform. Military historians and reference works are not in agreement when the term 'catapult' is used to label a specifically configured medieval non-gunpowder weapon.

      -Medieval Mechanical Artillery

      See also
      "The art of the catapult : build Greek ballistae, Roman onagers, English trebuchets, and more ancient artillery." Gurstelle, William (2004)
      and
      "Greek Catapults and Catapult Technology: Science, Technology, and War in the Ancient World"
      Barton C. Hacker, Technology and Culture, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jan., 1968), pp. 34-50

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    13. Re:Trebuchet by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Can't be a catapult. They were tossing drugs, not cats.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    14. Re:Trebuchet by ChinggisK · · Score: 1

      See also this other reliable source

    15. Re:Trebuchet by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the elastic tension make it an onager?

      Can't believe I'm having this discussion on Slashdot in a thread about drug importation.

    16. Re:Trebuchet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't they use a potato gun style? Then they could have done it from much further back and perhaps avoided detection. Even better, if they'd used a rail gun design, they could shoot them straight from the drug plantations into the urban centers they want to ultimately deliver to.

    17. Re:Trebuchet by meerling · · Score: 1

      Guess you'd say there's no difference between a battle axe and broad sword, they both have sharp slabs of metal used to cut up somebody you don't like...

    18. Re:Trebuchet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Trebuchet is a type of Catapult.

      For some people, it seems the term catapult has been so strongly associated with certain types, that is has entrenched views of what a catapult is. By a general definition a catapult is "a military machine for hurling missiles" and its Greek etymology is more general still. However it is not illogical either (as was in the middle ages), that a catapult and trebuchet were labels given to different types of objects, since there may not have been more specific version names for the particular object considered to be a catapult.

      We can use the term catapult to categorize more specific types of catapults like a trebuchet. In the same way a "F-117 Nighthawk" is a type of "fighter aircraft", but I could also call an "F-117 Nighthawk" a "fighter aircraft", which doesn't mean the new "J-20" isn't a type of fighter aircraft. It is not the same problem as trying categorize a "Terex load carrier" as a "car" which have mutually exclusive properties.

    19. Re:Trebuchet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move 'em on, head 'em up,
      Head 'em up, move 'em out,
      Move 'em on, head 'em out Rawhide!
      Set 'em out, ride 'em in
      Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
      Cut 'em out, ride 'em in Rawhide!

    20. Re:Trebuchet by rgviza · · Score: 1

      A trebuchet is a type of catapult ;-)

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  4. It's a trebuchet by ThePangolino · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that catapults are all but medieval.

    --
    My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
    1. Re:It's a trebuchet by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      A catapult is a catch-all for a siege weapon that tosses something without explosives, making a trebuchet a type of catapult. It is a catapult that was used in medieval times making it... a medieval catapult!

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:It's a trebuchet by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      A catapult was basically a giant crossbow.

      A ballista is what most people think of as a "catapult". IT's where the modern word ballistic comes from.

    3. Re:It's a trebuchet by by+(1706743) · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to mention that catapults are all but medieval.

      I'd say that launching rotten tomatoes in a catapult would be mid-evil. Launching pillows would be low-evil, and launching nails and rocks hi-evil. But that's just me.

    4. Re:It's a trebuchet by crashandburn66 · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's the other way around. A ballista looked like a giant crossbow, whereas a catapult used a swinging arm to launch projectiles. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista

    5. Re:It's a trebuchet by gparent · · Score: 1

      You're the one who is confused, FYI. It's the other way around.

    6. Re:It's a trebuchet by Punto · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that catapults are all but medieval.

      No, but it's 3 "yards" tall and can launch 4.4 "pounds" or payload. That's pretty medieval.

      --

      --
      Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    7. Re:It's a trebuchet by wings · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that catapults are all but medieval.

      I'd say that launching rotten tomatoes in a catapult would be mid-evil. Launching pillows would be low-evil, and launching nails and rocks hi-evil. But that's just me.

      I guess then if you launch bad music it would be midi-evil?

    8. Re:It's a trebuchet by Hatta · · Score: 1

      And launching pot is non-evil. Thanks smugglers!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:It's a trebuchet by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      I'd say that launching rotten tomatoes in a catapult would be mid-evil. Launching pillows would be low-evil, and launching nails and rocks hi-evil. But that's just me.

      What would you say to a large wooden badger?

  5. Why stop it? by Lithdren · · Score: 1

    I'd just keep a bunch of officers near where you expect all these packages to land.

    1. Re:Why stop it? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      You realize that the aim can be adjusted on these things, right? The people manning the trebuchet and the people picking up the package are probably in cell phone contact.

    2. Re:Why stop it? by swanzilla · · Score: 2

      Most likely, the catapult operators would notice a bunch of police downrange. Five hundred yards with a 40 - 50 foot trebuchet and 4 - 5 pound pumpkin earns you bragging rights.

    3. Re:Why stop it? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Ah... but we will be cleverly disguised as Badgers!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    4. Re:Why stop it? by plopez · · Score: 1

      Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers.....

      Extra nerd points if you can ID where that quote first came from. No fair using google.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:Why stop it? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers.....

      Extra nerd points if you can ID where that quote first came from. No fair using google.

      Treasure of the Sierra Madre. In the original it was badges.

    6. Re:Why stop it? by plopez · · Score: 1

      Yep, the pun was intended. Great Bogart film.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  6. Anyone else have this idea? by Umuri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean surely i'm not the only engineer who's joked that all they really need to do is catapult and parachute to get over the border, with no need for a parachute if they're launching hard projectiles. I mean the range on old catapults and trebuchets was quite well, and could be scaled as a simple matter of physics.

    So I suppose next we might find a tunnel that is one mile down and 40 miles under the border to breach the "castle walls" of the united states?

    --
    You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
    1. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

      Tunnels have already been found... not a mile deep, but crossing the boarder, yes.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

      So I suppose next we might find a tunnel that is one mile down and 40 miles under the border to breach the "castle walls" of the united states?

      I was thinking more along the lines of a pack rat with a stomach full of packages as a drug mule. Wow, that is an odd combination of analogies once written. Of course the droppings might rat them out.

    3. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we just found the decoy tunnels meant to get the border patrol wasting it's time with mutual back patting.

    4. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      Or an RC plane...

    5. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they were decoy tunnels, they sure had a shitload of "decoy" drugs in them.

    6. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by jasno · · Score: 1

      Or a weather balloon with a GPS transponder...

      or an air canon shooting small packages onto the roof of a friendly warehouse on the US side...

      or autonomous boats/submarines...

      I saw an MTV documentary one time where they showed how kayaks and sailboats would carry packages of drugs underwater attached to a weighted rope. If the authorities approach, just cut the line and let it sink.

      I think if I were a drug kingpin I'd be paying lots of money to some poor graduate students to investigate modifying some native US plant into producing cocaine and morphine, thereby avoiding the border altogether.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    7. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Any organization that can just fling drugs over the wall and hope agents on the other side find most of them can easily afford to stock a decoy tunnel with enough to make it look real.

    8. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by intellitech · · Score: 2

      There was actually a MythBusters episode on it, if anybody remembers.

      --
      vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    9. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 1

      They'd be avoiding the profit that the grad students would then keep...

    10. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by turing_m · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the next technology they will adopt will be underground pneumatic tubes like they have at banks, hospitals etc. e.g. a massive underground length of PVC pipe, using compressed air to shoot drug packages to the other side.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    11. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As Penn and Teller pointed out on their show Bullshit!, the border "wall" that conservatives keep on talking about building would be completely ineffective. A reasonably enterprising illegal immigrant could breach or bypass said wall in approximately 2 minutes (either climbing over, digging under, or busting a hole in the middle), and given that they've likely traveled for days just to get to the border, the extra 2 minutes aren't going to stop them. Heck, even the Berlin Wall didn't stop people trying to escape from East Berlin to West Berlin - people got past it with balloons, tunneling, and crashing border stations among other methods.

      On the upside, I view those as proof that human ingenuity can beat oppression.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by korgitser · · Score: 1

      So I suppose next we might find a tunnel that is one mile down and 40 miles under the border to breach the "castle walls" of the united states?

      Weeds already did it.

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    13. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea I had this same idea!

    14. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Being drug kingpins, they'd likely just kill the researches when they were done, or send them to New Reno.

    15. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Grad students are trained to work extremely hard for little or no pay and even less credit. Perfect hire for this kind of work.

    16. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Some of the Columbian narco gangs actually have used RC cars, and by that I mean the sort that is a real car with a RC steering mechanism. Granted their rare and mostly for bombings, but it does happen. Or at least it has happened.

    17. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by cusco · · Score: 1

      The Newfoundland booze smugglers would toss their cargo overboard in wooden crates weighted with rock salt when they got raided. As the salt dissolved the crates would float to the surface where fishermen would just "happen" to be casting nets nearby. They got quite good at judging how long it took for x-many kilos of salt to dissolve.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    18. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Heck, even the Berlin Wall didn't stop people trying to escape from East Berlin to West Berlin - people got past it with balloons, tunneling, and crashing border stations among other methods.

      It was not the Berlin Wall that stopped them. It merely slowed them down so the bullets could stop them. The point of the Berlin Wall was not to be an infallible method of keeping people in, but just a to make it incredibly dangerous, time consuming, and generally resource intensive effort to bypass it.

      My idea to protect the border is quite, quite, simple:

      Snipers - Everybody dies from the smallest, to the largest, from the young to the old. If we can find you in our sights... you die.

      That would absolutely make a huge impact on illegal crossings as much as the Berlin Wall did, for the same exact reasons. Threat of impending death.

      Now before anybody gets really upset, I also support the elimination of quotas. If a Mexican (or Canadian) wants to come in this country I say we just let them. If they can meet some immediate criteria such as family, cash resources to sustain themselves for 90 days, job waiting for them, etc. we give them an immediate visa, identification, and whatever else is required and let them in with a smile.

    19. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      Or? Why not shot the drugs to the RC plane, which uses gps to fly to the weather balloons for inflight refueling, then drop them into a kayak being towed by a sail boat.

    20. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'd rather not institute a zone of death in the US. Besides, this won't stem the flow of drugs, and now you've got several hundred snipers shooting people (and armadillos when they get bored)

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    21. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that the crime of going from point A to point B without the proper paperwork warrants a death sentence.

      Then again, I don't believe the government has the right to prevent any non-criminal from traveling where ever they damn well please, renting or buying a place to stay when they get there, and getting any job an employer is willing to pay them for there. As such, the whole notion of visas, much less quotas, seems rather silly to me. I don't have the right to prevent you from going to Los Angeles and getting a job if you want. It's absurd to agree that I don't if you happen to be from San Francisco, but that I do if you were born in Mexico City. What the hell does that have to do with it? If you're a free person, I have no right to dictate where you can live or work, regardless of where your mother decided to live when you were born.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    22. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Jojie_T · · Score: 1

      That's brilliant, if you want to start a border war.

    23. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      We would win.

      This is not about people either, or immigration. It is about border security. We always shove to the two together which is a mistake when we speak about either one.

      I am merely pointing out that if we really wanted border security we could achieve it at a fraction of the costs that have been proposed. As for immigration issue, getting rid of the quotas makes it significantly easier to convince those crossing the border to do so at checkpoints and just let us know they are coming in. It's better for them too since the potential for them to be abused due to their status when they get here is much less.

      As for a border war, we are already at war with the drug gangs in Mexico. Mexico is at war with the drugs gangs in Mexico. Taking it up a notch and killing those fuckers by the thousands is hardly going to make a difference. Do you really think Mexico will invade us for doing so, or thank us for killing the same people that terrorize them on a daily basis?

      Also keep in mind that if the people crossing the border for a better life, or better opportunities to support their family all went through checkpoints due to how easy it was, then those left crossing the borders illegally are a lot easier to identify as "enemy combatants" and treat them accordingly.

    24. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      The whole thing is ridiculous, I agree, but maybe not to the extent you do.

      It's absurd to agree that I don't if you happen to be from San Francisco, but that I do if you were born in Mexico City

      I am merely approaching it from a border security context. If all we want to achieve is the inspection of all items and person coming across the border, which I do find to be reasonable, then the solution is to make it so highly dangerous and resource intensive to skip the checks that no reasonable person would even consider it.

      It does make a difference that somebody is coming from Mexico City. There are a lot of reasons why we would want to know the nationality and location that a person came from when entering our borders. Health and Security come to mind very quickly and these are not unreasonable or oppressive concerns for us to have.

      I do absolutely agree that quotas and visas are silly. Let's just give them whatever identification is required, or verify theirs. That is as much for their safety as it is for ours. It would hands down prevent the abuse of illegal immigrants in this country if they had no fear of identifying themselves and complaining to the proper authorities.

      Now, it is an unfortunate fact of life that there are many countries and areas of the world where there are tremendously less fortunate people than those in the U.S. I don't think we could handle an influx of uneducated, starving, and poor people in the hundreds of thousands or millions. We just can't do that. Our compassion can allow us to send aid, resources, and otherwise attempt to raise their standard of living where they are, but we can't bring them all home with us. To that end, it is not unreasonable to demand proof of their sustainability when coming into this country either.

      In an ideal world we would not need papers or borders, but our world is far less than ideal isn't it? We have to deal with the fact that we need border security yesterday, and at the same time, make it reasonable giving our current resources.

    25. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, antipersonnel mines are much more effective. Just ask Kim Jong-il.

    26. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Penn and Teller pointed out on their show Bullshit!, the border "wall" that conservatives keep on talking about building would be completely ineffective. A reasonably enterprising illegal immigrant could breach or bypass said wall in approximately 2 minutes (either climbing over, digging under, or busting a hole in the middle), and given that they've likely traveled for days just to get to the border, the extra 2 minutes aren't going to stop them. Heck, even the Berlin Wall didn't stop people trying to escape from East Berlin to West Berlin - people got past it with balloons, tunneling, and crashing border stations among other methods.

      On the upside, I view those as proof that human ingenuity can beat oppression.

      Some will cross still yes. It would severly hamper thier efforts. Slowing the tide.

    27. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Tony Hillerman used this idea in a mystery novel several years ago. He used a "pig" that is blown thru oil pipelines.

    28. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Apocros · · Score: 1

      On pain of torture + death...?

      --
      "onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
    29. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in favor of a US border wall at all, but I'd like to point out that the Berlin Wall did in fact stop 99.99+% of all unauthorized traffic, when compared to the daily traffic across the wall both before and after its creation.

    30. Re:Anyone else have this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but how is keeping drugs and illegals from crossing INTO the US oppression in any way shape or form?

  7. Old prison trick applied to border wall. by Lashat · · Score: 1

    Tossing drug packages over prison walls and into the yard has been around for years with hit and miss success. (intended)

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  8. How they found it by Fauxbo · · Score: 5, Funny

    The national started looking for the device when they found a giant baseball glove mounted in the Arizona desert

  9. Yards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    What the fuck is a yard? Some attempt at medieval humor?

    Aha. 0.0136 furlongs tall. Thank-you, Google.

    1. Re:Yards? by lgw · · Score: 1, Informative

      A yard is a perfectly cromunlent extension to the Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight system (the One True Sytem of measurement). While a "link" (or millifurlong) is the preferred unit for formal surveying and land measuement, a "yard" (or 1/220th of a furlong) is fine for casual use.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Yards? by craash420 · · Score: 1

      Your use of the word "cromulent" embiggens my heart!

      --
      Extra medication for all!
  10. A friend lives nearby in Bisbee... by swb · · Score: 1

    ....and I've been down to visit a couple of times.

    When we go hiking in the Coronado National Forest, it's staggering the number of Border Patrol officers/vehicles/activity we see along 92 between Bisbee and Sierra Vista.

    I don't know how you could get away with anything on that stretch of the border, but given the close proximity of Naco, MX and Naco, AZ, maybe just getting over the fence is all that matters, since the fence is pretty much the width of the border there.

  11. Medievil Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NEIL... is that you buddy?

  12. Pro-Catipult by redemtionboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Normally I'm pro-legalization, but I'm much more pro-catapult. So if anti-drug legislation can bring us the catapults of our dreams, then may it is the answer. Then again, we could legalize and then just require all distribution to be done via catapult. It's a win/win.

    1. Re:Pro-Catipult by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I think I agree here.... even more so with revelations that it was a trebuchet.

      Hmmm you know, it is a siege weapon. Actually, I think they should be charged with waging war on the United States. Why? Because that way they could go down in History as the most recent use of a trebuchet in a battle.

      And that... that would almost be worth the time.

      I, for one, welcome the invasion of our trebuchet weilding enemies, and tell them to bring it on! We should meet them on the field of battle... and... twist up a doober.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Pro-Catipult by JoeRandomHacker · · Score: 1

      Quiet! You're legitimizing the War On Drugs! After all, if we are literally under assault by drug smuggling then we have to respond with military action, right?

    3. Re:Pro-Catipult by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes but, we can totally win the drug war. All we have to do is respond in Kind. We have much better ammo to load into our drug trebuches! We lob over a few bales of the sticky icky from Humbolt county, Vermont, or even some of that canadian shit, and I garauntee, the battle will be over quickly...even quicker if we slip some papers in.

      This battle is totally winnable.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Pro-Catipult by jovius · · Score: 1

      Just wait when their technology advances to modern artillery!

  13. Pumpkin Chunkin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, anyone who watches Pumpkin Chunkin knows that Air Canons are much better than catapults.

    http://science.discovery.com/tv/punkin-chunkin/

    1. Re:Pumpkin Chunkin by thehostiles · · Score: 1

      Air cannons are a Canadian thing. I wouldn't be surprised if that got built north of the border.

    2. Re:Pumpkin Chunkin by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Man, there is so much unprotected border with Canada they don't need anything crazy to cross. They can just pack it onto ATV's and drive it across at night.

      I grew up in Maine and we used to joke that getting drugs across the border was the easy part. The only problem is that once you get into Maine it's still hundreds of miles to get the drugs to anybody that wants it and isn't already growing their own.

    3. Re:Pumpkin Chunkin by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      No no, those are _chicken_ cannons! We have chicken cannons up here, not air cannons.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  14. You say "catapult" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say "trebuchet"

    Let's call the whole siege off...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:You say "catapult" by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Definitely not a trebuchet, this uses an elastic spring as the power source. A trebuchet uses a counterweight.

    2. Re:You say "catapult" by magarity · · Score: 0

      Ah, but it should be a trebuchet! They have a much higher trajectory arc than a mere catapult and that's a more desired feature since the smugglers are trying to get payload over a fence.

    3. Re:You say "catapult" by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Honestly I prefer my illegal narcotics to enter the country via trebuchet as well.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:You say "catapult" by rishistar · · Score: 1

      Either way, its got to beat being stashed up someones a**e.

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    5. Re:You say "catapult" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They totally should have used a trebuchet, they're way cooler than catapults.

    6. Re:You say "catapult" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Instead of mounting it on the bed of a pick-up, you use the pick-up as dropping mass.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:You say "catapult" by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      This is the internet. We can say ass here. Asshole even, if necessary.

    8. Re:You say "catapult" by meerling · · Score: 2

      I can't get the stupid video to run, but if they are using an elastic spring, to spin a launching arm, then yes, definitely catapult.
      For those that don't know the difference, it's simple:
      A Catapult uses torsion to impart momentum to a swinging launch arm which flings the projectile.
      A Trebuchet uses a counterweight to do the same thing.

      And just because there are stupid reporters that can really get things wrong, a ballista or arbalest is a direct fire siege engine sized freaking crossbow! (Ok, there's actually a lot more to it than that, but so many of the reporters are so ignorant they apparently think a siege engine might be the new ultra horsepower replacement for the hemi, that I'm not going into those details... )

    9. Re:You say "catapult" by meerling · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incorrect, they can easily have the exact same firing characteristics. The difference is it's easier to build more powerful trebuchets than catapults, and they can often be readied faster as well if the designers planned for it.

      The height of the "trajectory arc" is completely based on the release angle and force. The method used to impart moment to the swinging launch arm has no bearing on the trajectory. It could be a freaking hydraulic ram swinging that launch arm, so long as the release angle and force are the same, you get the exact same result.

    10. Re:You say "catapult" by Doggabone · · Score: 1

      This is the internet. We can say ass here. Asshole even, if necessary.

      A**e is arse, clearly. Or, I should say, obfuscated.

    11. Re:You say "catapult" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooosh!

    12. Re:You say "catapult" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no?

      http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/152/152294/15229467/jpg/active/729x.jpg

    13. Re:You say "catapult" by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      I find that process imparts a certain flavour that can't be replicated by other means. Similar to this.

  15. How long until used for immigration purposes? by Scootin159 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who pictured this being expanded upon in a Simpsons episode to include an immigrant launcher as well?

    1. Re:How long until used for immigration purposes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already been done by MythBusters. Unfortunately, Buster (their crash-test dummy) died.

    2. Re:How long until used for immigration purposes? by swilly · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to be pedantic, but Mythbusters tried a giant slingshot, not a catapult.

  16. Lame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I was picturing some massive contraption with a range of significant fractions of miles, not a rinky-dink little device to sling a package over a fence. As someone said... scaling it is just a matter of physics. Why go small? With a heavy enough payload wind wouldn't be too much of a factor - you could pretty well calculate where it would land, even over fairly lengthy distances. Just make sure it doesn't show up on nearby radars...

  17. Counter Battery Fire Time by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I believe the role of responding to artillery falls to the MRLS, so the Army should just return fire with a couple rockets of cluster bomb submunitions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLRS

    1. Re:Counter Battery Fire Time by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the government could argue that this was terrorists engaging in chemical warfare....

    2. Re:Counter Battery Fire Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me and some friends rented a stretch limo version of that for our Jr prom at Juarez High. We had a blast.

  18. Units by Bantha+Fodder · · Score: 1

    capable of launching 4.4 pounds of marijuana

    While I appreciate the conversion for those of us north of said border, this is marijuana we're talking about, so "2 kilos" works just fine.

    1. Re:Units by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      Damn, drugs are so European.

    2. Re:Units by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      not exactly, you will see
      weed is usually sold in a multiple of the following quantities:
      1g
      3.5g (1/8oz)
      7g(1/4oz)
      14g(1/2oz)
      1oz
      1lb
      500g
      1Kg

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    3. Re:Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here are the price from a reputable crack-house in Montreal:
      1g = 10$
      3.5g = 20$
      7g = 35$
      14g = 70$
      28g = 135$
      1lb = 1200$
      500g = 1225$
      1Kg = 2200$
      If you want it delivered it is about 15% more expensive

    4. Re:Units by praxis · · Score: 1

      The markup for 1 kg sure is steep. 220% the price of a thousand individual grams.

    5. Re:Units by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      The markup for 1 kg sure is steep. 220% the price of a thousand individual grams.

      Math: you fail it. 1g @ $10 x 1000 = 1kg @ $10,000.

      Bulk buy and save!

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    6. Re:Units by cusco · · Score: 1

      Old 1980s stoner joke: Good news! The ten dollar bag is back! Bad news? It only weighs a gram.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:Units by toastar · · Score: 1

      Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system. -P.J. O'Rourke

  19. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder when they will try drones next? Some of those model airplanes are huge, easily big enough to carry a small payload. With the right kits, available on the internet, you could make one of the drones able to fly to a GPS destination potentially dozens of miles past the border.

    Making the drone able to land on it's own would be tough, but you could have an operator at the landing area take control of it and land it. The autopilot would be a simple one capable of level flight only.

    1. Re:Hmm by toastar · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to land it? just crashing it in a specific spot should work.

  20. Original intention by undecim · · Score: 1

    This wasn't the original intention of this device. There was some confusion because the word "high" wasn't translated properly from English to Spanish

    --
    The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
  21. Must not have been any French in their group.. by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2

    No broken giant wooden rabbits were found on the US side of the border.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:Must not have been any French in their group.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next up: Migrating swallows carrying packages of mj over the border.

    2. Re:Must not have been any French in their group.. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      What about badgers?

  22. False advertising by Jesus_666 · · Score: 0

    When I read the heading I was excited but it turns out that the Mexicans are just using some kind of launching device instead of a 65-ton fire support 'mech. That would've been way cooler and it would also deter border patrol officers from interfering - you never know if that LRM-20 that just acheived a lock on you carries drugs or explosives.

    Then again, wouldn't a Gauss Rifle make for a much more effective delivery system?

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  23. UAVs?? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    I always wondered why the cartels haven't invested in UAVs. It must be pretty simple now days to build a GPS guided device with enough payload to make the more expensive drugs worthwhile to ship

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:UAVs?? by plopez · · Score: 1

      That's and idea. How about model rockets stuffed with heroin or cocaine? Elastic launched gliders? Kites? Potato cannons?That may work.

      Tunnels and subs are old news.
      Those plucky Mexicans are so innovative.

      Here's a nice potato cannon link:
      http://www.spudtech.com/

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:UAVs?? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why the cartels haven't invested in UAVs. It must be pretty simple now days to build a GPS guided device with enough payload to make the more expensive drugs worthwhile to ship

      Might work for cocaine / heroin but marijuana is pretty bulky. You'd want a UAV the size of a DC-3. And it really isn't 'easy' to build large UAVs - even ones with just, say, 10 kg payloads. Easy is a semisubmersible. Interestingly, even though they have capacities of several tons, they appear to be used more for high value cocaine that plain old pot.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:UAVs?? by tiptone · · Score: 1

      Turns out that several tons of cocaine is worth quite a bit more than several tons of plain old pot. :)

      --
      Please don't read my sig.
    4. Re:UAVs?? by plopez · · Score: 1

      I think Hellfire missiles are a bit heaver than 10 kg...

      http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/predator5.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_missile

      at about 300 to 400 USD per 28 g, it may be feasible.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:UAVs?? by plopez · · Score: 1

      Oh, here's a High times price chart....

      http://hightimes.com/lounge/ht_admin/6894?utm_source=rss_home

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re:UAVs?? by cusco · · Score: 2

      Cargo containers and semi trailers are much more efficient, that's how most drugs have entered the US ever since the Reagan bAdministration packed Customs with their cronies. There are several reasons why to this day only five percent of cargo containers entering the US are inspected, even though ports like Hong Kong and Dubai can inspect 100 percent, and the chance of accidentally uncovering someone's benefactor's shipment is one of them. Operations like this, the tunnels, the mules and the sailboats are all small-time operators hoping to get a toehold with a few kilos here and there, in the market dominated by the big boys who ship a ton or five at a time.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:UAVs?? by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why the cartels haven't invested in UAVs. It must be pretty simple now days to build a GPS guided device with enough payload to make the more expensive drugs worthwhile to ship

      Especially because many of these cartels have cash and valuables on hand to rival the GDP of smaller second and third world countries. Hire an engineer and use some off the shelf components. GPS is cheap now.

    8. Re:UAVs?? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      A cruise missile with a 10kg payload cost about $5k each, last I checked.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:UAVs?? by nanospook · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they were testing the feasibility of the aerial delivery concept with a cheap catapult to see how border defenses reacted. Seems like they reacted fairly quick if they caught the catapult. Another method might not work out any better..

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    10. Re:UAVs?? by plopez · · Score: 1

      Using the high times price charts, lets say 28g of pot is worth $300. that would mean 35 28g packages (ounces) per kilo. or about 10,500 USD per kilo. 105,000 USD per UAV at 10 kg per, so if you use a UAV which can carry a 40 kg Hellfire missile that's over 400K USD per UAV. Note however those are street prices.If wholesale is 50% of street prices then that's only 200K per UAV.

      Not too shabby for a 5K USD UAV. And they are reusable.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    11. Re:UAVs?? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      A cruise missile with a 10kg payload cost about $5k each, last I checked.

      Couldn't find any on Amazon. Got any good sources? At that price, I've got a couple of ideas....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:UAVs?? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Found some plans a few years back from a guy in Oz - it uses a pulse jet and is launched from a pickup truck. He published everything but the avionics, so you'd have to come up with that on your own.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  24. Coming in October by sjames · · Score: 1

    DEA infiltrates annual "Pun'kin Chunk'in" event claiming they traffic in drug paraphernalia Video crew jailed on suspicion of not respecting their authoritay

  25. Counter measure by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

    What's important is the counter measure. Here is something for the US border patrol to bear in mind:

    When faced with enemy trebuchets, cavalry work best due to their high speed and good damage. A small group of Knights make short work of a group of trebuchets. Cavalry archers also work well, especially the Mongol Mangudai due to its bonus damage vs. siege units. Infantry and foot archers are also acceptable but are less desirable due to their lack of speed; this weakness allows the user to spot them early and respond to the situation by unpacking the trebuchets and/or retaliating with an army of his/her own.

    1. Re:Counter measure by angelbar · · Score: 1

      Aaah, those nights of Age of Empires

      --
      -no sig today-
    2. Re:Counter measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And knights upgrade into helicopter gunships, which lose the bonus for attacking trebuchets but have a much higher move and attack value. Now if you had gotten the blitz promotion, you are talking a lot of dead trebuchets

    3. Re:Counter measure by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the high speed of cavalry, with a base move of at least 7", does help to close the difference. But the main reason knights are more useful against trebuchets is because they have 25mmx50mm bases, so fewer of them are touched by the small blast template. Infantry have either 20mm or 25mm square bases, resulting in considerably more (19 or 13, respectively) being hit.

      Flying cavalry or other units of flyers are ideal, though. With their high speed (marching 20") they can get across the field in only one or two turns, and with their skirmishing formation and large bases, you could get by with only one or maybe two of them being hit by the template.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:Counter measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good advice, but might I suggest comparing the damage vs. siege units value of the Mongol Mangudai to that of a group comprised of Warjacks and Orc Shamans before sending a recommendation to the US border patrol.

  26. Catapults are for stones ... by 517714 · · Score: 1

    Not Stoners!

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    1. Re:Catapults are for stones ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering they're selling not toking...

  27. Fire back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose we could use this tactic against them. Setup a catapult in each state capitol and fire illegal aliens back at them. It would reduce deportation costs significantly since the only real cost would be a parachute per illegal. Target CalderÃn's house.

  28. I wonder... by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    ...if I'm the only one that originally pictured this is how illegals would get in to this country as well. =P

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  29. return fire! by bluie- · · Score: 1

    To thank them for all these free drugs, we should catapult them some weapons... preferably catapults!

    --
    life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
  30. one does not simply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One does not simply walk across the US border...

  31. Hah, primitives by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1

    I see they haven't figured out our advanced potato cannon technology yet.

    --
    I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
    1. Re:Hah, primitives by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      I see they haven't figured out our advanced potato cannon technology yet.

      Funny, I wondered why they hadn't tried that. Seems it would be more efficient and quicker. Some compressed air, poof, and voila air mail delivery of the drug du jour.

  32. Railgun! by macraig · · Score: 1

    Pot via railgun, that's the next upgrade....

    1. Re:Railgun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blunt Ballista first, followed by hash harpoon gun, Then they qualify for the railgun upgrade.

  33. Reminds me of... by korgitser · · Score: 1

    a pipe for moonshine under the Estonian-Latvian border.

    --
    FCKGW 09F9 42
  34. How do they know? by malp · · Score: 1

    How do they know it's drug smugglers? Looks like Mexico's bombing us.

  35. Pumpkin by andoman2000 · · Score: 0

    I didn't know they had Pumpkin-Chunkin in Mexico?

  36. Mythbusters by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    In the near future Adam and Jamie will test the validity of catapulting a kilo of actual coke across the border.

  37. Getting High by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Naw, this is about getting high.... Higher than the fence anyway.

    1. Re:Getting High by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Naw, this is about getting high.... Higher than the fence anyway.

      So is the Mary Jane.

  38. ignorant americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "capable of launching 4.4 pounds of marijuana at a time"

    would it really fucking kill you to just say 2 kilos?

    1. Re:ignorant americans by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Even in Europe, marijuana is always bought by the ounce, and cocaine by the gram.

    2. Re:ignorant americans by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      You might want to revise that to "even in the UK". I live in Germany and we buy it by the gram. Germans don't even know what an ounce is.

  39. En Route... by XLR8DST8 · · Score: 1

    on their way to Burning Man?

  40. makeing marijuana legal will save alot of money an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    makeing marijuana legal will save alot of money and can make a lot of tax off of it.

  41. Weedapault by SavSoul · · Score: 1

    Tell me again why it was a bad idea to legalize weed?

    1. Re:Weedapault by moortak · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't have an awesome catapult story.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  42. interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The news here portrays the mexican people as being very much anti-legalization (for the US). And certainly Calderon is against it. How common would you say your opinion is?

    1. Re:interesting by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Calderon WILL do what the US tells him.

      --
      NO SIG
  43. Yet another way ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... to shoot up drugs.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Yet another way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very punny.

  44. Obligatory Python quote: by Mhtsos · · Score: 1

    Fetchez la vache!

  45. 5000 people crossed by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Well, only about 5000 crossed. 200+ died, that is the ones we know about.

    I would say the wall worked damn well. How many mexicans are in the US illegally? More then 5000? Somehow I don't think there would be such an issue of just a few thousand Mexicans. Then again, we are talking Republicans... 1 would set them howling.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  46. This is by Archeleus · · Score: 1

    pure win.

    --
    http://archeleus.com/blog
  47. Railgun shooting pellets filled with cocaine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or how about a railgun shooting pellets filled with cocaine?

  48. Attack against the US of A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that considered as an attack against the US?

  49. Death Toll by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

    This raises questions about the safety of such an operation. A bystander being accidentally hit by the package has a small chance of being knocked down and hitting their head on a rock. This could bring the worldwide death toll of this killer drug from 0 to 1, a massive increase, making the drug almost 1/10,000th as dangerous as aspirin. This is an unacceptable risk. We need to make this drug legal so it can be transported more safely, mitigating these risks.

    1. Re:Death Toll by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think this raises a legal question. There's probably enough case law covering this, but how do we handle a cross-border killing? Does Mexico extradite for manslaughter?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  50. While amusing overlooks deadliness of drug cartels by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    as evidenced by this story from the end of last year which unfortunately hasn't gotten much time:

    http://www.pittsreport.com/2010/11/don-alejo-garza-tamez-true-grit/

    (anyone know of an English language version of it from a major news source?)

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  51. We are just helping Fluffy get to heaven by ElGuapo2872 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live commercial called Yardapult. Cant seem to find it online though

  52. WTF, tards! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Ok, so the border patrol creates a catapult, that launches balls of wood engulfed in oil then lit....then sent to the exact x y position of the first said catapult, if history has taught us anything, is that you must retaliate in kind, in this case, with a catapult, but better ammo.

    Watch them burn baby!

  53. Re:While amusing overlooks deadliness of drug cart by MiniMike · · Score: 1

    Interesting. Too bad he didn't get all of them, or survive. He might have been better off leaving the gas on in the house and watching the hilarity ensue from nearby (preferably in range in case there were any left) since the house was going to be lost anyway.

  54. Immigration next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see this expanding to illegal immigration and a Warhammer trailer comes to mind :D

  55. So now the Mexicans by markana · · Score: 1

    are taking pot-shots at the U.S.????

    (thank you - I'll be here all week... :-)

  56. Fence it in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What needs to happen is they need to find someone like http:www.buettsfence.com to build a professional fence to keep the idiots out of our country.

  57. US Military Drug Launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It now appears that the US Army is launching drugs into mexico via catapult if you examine the the video. Otherwise why would you need a team of special forces on the US side of the border and why would the catapult be on the US side of the border. Either that or the soldiers are on the Mexican side of the border and are launching bricks into the US. Interesting...

  58. Metric measurements by juan2074 · · Score: 1

    4.4 pounds

    Is it really that hard to use the Metric system? Are Fox News consumers not savvy enough?

  59. Re:While amusing overlooks deadliness of drug cart by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Wow; congratulations to that guy for his guts, even though he paid for it.
    Don't see the practical point of the "I'll be waiting for you" announcement, though.
    Granted, he had the skill and equipment for it, I can see the less-skilled less-equipped trying and being even less sucessful

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  60. We have incoming! by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    We have incoming! Human wave tactics being supplemented with light artillery...

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.