DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: U.S. Navy Names Littoral Combat Ship

DTN News - DEFENSE NEWS: U.S. Navy Names Littoral Combat Ship

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by K. V. Seth from reliable sources U.S. DoD Release No: NR-133-15 Dated April 17, 2015
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - April 17, 2015: Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today that the next Freedom-variant littoral combat ship (LCS) will be named USS St. Louis.

The future USS St. Louis, designated LCS 19, will be the seventh ship to bear the name. The first St. Louis, a sloop of war, was launched in 1828. It spent the majority of its service patrolling the coasts of the Americas to secure interests and trade. In addition, it served as the flagship for the West Indies Squadron working to suppress piracy in the Caribbean Sea, the Antilles and the Gulf of Mexico region.

“The name St. Louis holds a strong naval legacy,” Mabus said. “In this era when our country is faced with similar challenges as our forefathers, it’s important that all who encounter this ship are reminded of the history of our Navy’s bravery and sense of duty.”

The LCS is designed to defeat littoral threats, and provide access and dominance in coastal waters. A fast, agile surface combatant, LCS provides war fighting capabilities and operational flexibility to execute focused missions close to the shore, such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare, and surface warfare. 

St. Louis will be built with modular design incorporating mission packages that can be changed out quickly as combat needs demand. These mission packages are supported by detachments that deploy manned and unmanned vehicles, and sensors in support of mine, undersea and surface warfare missions.

The ship will be 388 feet long, have a waterline beam length of 58 feet and make speeds in excess of 40 knots. The construction will be led by a Lockheed Martin industry team in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Additional information about littoral combat ships is available online at: http://www.navy.mil/local/lcsfreedom/

The Lockheed Martin Team
The U.S. Navy’s current Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) are designed to defeat growing littoral threats and provide access and dominance in the coastal water battlespace. A fast, maneuverable surface combatant, the LCS provides warfighting capabilities and operational flexibility for focused missions including mine-clearing, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare.

A flexible and reconfigurable seaframe, LCS derives combat capability from rapidly interchangeable mission modules and an open architecture command and control system. Modularity maximizes the flexibility of LCS and enables commanders to meet changing warfare needs, while also supporting spiral development and technology refresh.

The Lockheed Martin-led team producing the Freedom-variant LCS includes naval architect Gibbs & Cox and ship builder Marinette Marine Corporation, as well as domestic and international teammates. The team’s design, a proven semi-planing steel monohull, provides outstanding agility and high-speed maneuverability.  Its common combat system provides commonality with the U.S. Navy’s fleet and allows unprecedented interoperability, while making training more cost effective. The ship’s design also provides flexibility – its shallow draft and narrow beam allow greater access to global ports given existing infrastructure, which is essential for this ship’s missions.

The Lockheed Martin team has designed and delivered two ships for this new class, while another six ships are under construction. The first ship, USS Freedom, was delivered to the Navy in 2008 and successfully completed its first deployment in 2010, two years ahead of schedule. Then, the ship deployed to Southeast Asia in 2013, a journey to be followed by USS Fort Worth in 2014.

USS Fort Worth, the team’s second LCS, was delivered two months early and incorporates improvements from lessons learned on USS Freedom. These includedifferent air compressors, fixes to cooling systems, a 15 percent increase in fuel capacity, and cosmetic changes.

The team’s third LCS, the future USS Milwaukee, was launched and christened in 2013 into the Menominee River at Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC), followed by Detroit (LCS 7) in 2014. The Freedom-variant LCS industry team continues to produce ships at MMC.

Designs provided by the Lockheed Martin industry team are based on configurations marketed to navies around the globe. These configurations, known as the Multi-Mission Combat Ship and Surface Combat Ship, are adaptable and can include proven  capabilities such as the Aegis combat system with the SPY-1F (V) radar and the MK 41 Vertical Launching System.

*Link for This article compiled by K. V. Seth from reliable sources U.S. DoD Release No: NR-133-15 Dated April 17, 2015
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - STRATFOR: U.S., Mexico - The Decline of The Colorado River

Defense News: DTN News - STRATFOR: U.S., Mexico - The Decline of The Colorado River

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Stratfor
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 14, 2013: An amendment to a standing water treaty between the United States and Mexico has received publicity over the past six months as an example of progress in water sharing agreements. But the amendment, called Minute 319, is simply a glimpse into ongoing mismanagement of the Colorado River on the U.S. side of the border. 

Over-allocation of the river's waters 90 years ago combined with increasing populations and economic growth in the river basin have created circumstances in which conservation efforts -- no matter how organized -- could be too little to overcome the projected water deficit that the Colorado River Basin will face in the next 20 years.

ANALYSIS

In 1922, the seven U.S. states in the Colorado River Basin established a compact to distribute the resources of the river. A border between the Upper and Lower basins was defined at Lees Ferry, Ariz. The Upper Basin (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico) was allocated 9.25 billion cubic meters a year, and the Lower Basin (Arizona, California and Nevada) was allotted 10.45 billion cubic meters. Mexico was allowed an unspecified amount, which in 1944 was defined as 1.85 billion cubic meters a year. The Upper and Lower basins -- managed as separate organizations under the supervision of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation -- divided their allocated water among the states in their jurisdictions. Numerous disputes arose, especially in the Lower Basin, regarding proper division of the water resources. But the use of (and disputes over) the Colorado River began long before these treaties. 

As the United States' territory expanded to the west, the Colorado River briefly was considered a portal to the isolated frontier of the southwestern United States, since it was often cheaper to take a longer path via water to transport goods and people in the early 19th century. There was a short-lived effort to develop the Colorado River as the "Mississippi of the West." While places like Yuma, Ariz., became military and trading outposts, the geography and erratic flow of the Colorado made the river ultimately unsuitable for mass transportation. Navigating the river often required maneuvering around exposed sand banks and through shallow waters. The advent of the railroad ended the need for river transport in the region. Shortly thereafter, large and ambitious management projects, including the Hoover Dam, became the river's main purpose.

Irrigation along the river started expanding in the second half of the 19th century, and agriculture still consumes more water from the Colorado than any other sector. Large-scale manipulation of the river began in the early 20th century, and now there are more than 20 major dams along the Colorado River, along with reservoirs such as Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and large canals that bring water to areas of the Imperial and Coachella valleys in southern California for irrigation and municipal supplies. User priority on the Colorado River is determined by the first "useful purposing" of the water. For example, the irrigated agriculture in California has priority over some municipal water supplies for Phoenix, Ariz.

Inadequate Supply and Increasing Demand

When the original total allocation of the river was set in the 1920s, it was far above regional consumption. But it was also more than the river could supply in the long term. The river was divided based on an estimated annual flow of roughly 21 billion cubic meters per year. More recent studies have indicated that the 20th century, and especially the 1920s, was a time of above-normal flows. These studies indicate that the long-term average of flow is closer to 18 billion cubic meters, with yearly flows ranging anywhere from roughly 6 billion cubic meters to nearly 25 billion cubic meters. As utilization has increased, the deficit between flow and allocation has become more apparent.

Total allocations of river resources for the Upper and Lower basins and Mexico plus water lost to evaporation adds up to more than 21 billion cubic meters per year. Currently, the Upper Basin does not use the full portion of its allocation, and large reservoirs along the river can help meet the demand of the Lower Basin. Populations in the region are expected to increase; in some states, the population could double by 2030. A study released at the end of 2012 by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation predicted a possible shortage of 3 billion cubic meters by 2035.

The Colorado River provides water for irrigation of roughly 15 percent of the crops in the United States, including vegetables, fruits, cotton, alfalfa and hay. It also provides municipal water supplies for large cities, such as Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, San Diego and Las Vegas, accounting for more than half of the water supply in many of these areas. Minute 319, signed in November 2012, gives Mexico a small amount of additional water in an attempt to restore the delta region. However, the macroeconomic impact on Mexico is minimal, since agriculture accounts for the majority of the river's use in Mexico but only about 3 percent of the gross domestic product of the Baja Norte province. 

There is an imbalance of power along the international border. The United States controls the headwaters of the Colorado River and also has a greater macroeconomic interest in maintaining the supply of water from the river. This can make individual amendments of the 1944 Treaty somewhat misleading. Because of the erratic nature of the river, the treaty effectively promises more water than the river can provide each year. Cooperation in conservation efforts and in finding alternative water sources on the U.S. side of the border, not treaty amendments, will become increasingly important as regional water use increases over the coming decades.

Conservation Efforts Along the Colorado

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation oversees the whole river, but the management of each basin is separate. Additionally, within each basin, there are separate state management agencies and, within each state, separate regional management agencies. Given the number of participants, reaching agreements on the best method of conservation or the best alternative source of water is difficult. There are ongoing efforts at conservation, including lining canals to reduce seepage and programs to limit municipal water use. However, there is no basin-wide coordination. In a 2012 report, the Bureau of Reclamation compiled a list of suggested projects but stopped short of recommending a course of action. 

A similar report released in 2008 listed 12 general options including desalinization, vegetation management (elimination of water-intensive or invasive plants), water reuse, reduced use by power plants and joint management through water banking (water is stored either in reservoirs or in underground aquifers to use when needed). Various sources of water imports from other river basins or even icebergs are proposed as options, as is weather modification by seeding clouds in the Upper Basin. Implementation of all these options would result in an extra 5 billion cubic meters of water a year at most, which could erase the predicted deficit. However, this amount is unlikely, as it assumes maximum output from each technique and also assumes the implementation of all proposed methods, many of which are controversial either politically or environmentally and some of which are economically unviable. Additionally, many of the methods would take years to fully implement and produce their maximum capacity. Even then, a more reasonable estimate of conservation capacity would likely be closer to 1 billion-2 billion cubic meters, which would fall short of the projected deficit in 2035.

The Potential for New Disputes

Conflict over water can arise when there are competing interests for limited resources. This is seen throughout the world with rivers that traverse borders in places like Central Asia and North Africa. For the Colorado River, the U.S.-Mexico border is likely less relevant to the competition for the river's resources than the artificial border drawn at Lees Ferry.

Aside from growing populations, increased energy production from unconventional hydrocarbon sources in the Upper Basin has the potential to increase consumption. While this amount will likely be small compared to overall allocations, it emphasizes the value of water to the Upper Basin. Real or perceived threats to the Upper Basin's surplus of water could be seen as threats to economic growth in the region. At the same time, further water shortages could limit the potential for economic growth in the Lower Basin -- a situation that would only be exacerbated by growing populations.

While necessary, conservation efforts and the search for alternative sources likely will not be able to make up for the predicted shortage. Amendments to the original treaty typically have been issued to address symptomatic problems. However, the core problem remains: More water is promised to river users than is available on average. While this problem has not come to a head yet, there may come a time when regional growth overtakes conservation efforts. It is then that renegotiation of the treaty with a more realistic view of the river's volume will become necessary. Any renegotiation will be filled with conflict, but most of that likely will be contained in the United States.

Read more: U.S., Mexico: The Decline of the Colorado River | Stratfor 
*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Stratfor
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - OBAMA IN MEXICO: US President Obama Agrees Trade Boost In Mexico Visit

Defense News: DTN News - OBAMA IN MEXICO: US President Obama Agrees Trade Boost In Mexico Visit

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources BBC News
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 3, 2013: US President Barack Obama and his Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto have agreed to boost trade and create jobs on both sides of the border.

After talks in Mexico City, Mr Obama said illegal immigration to the US was at a historic low due to the strength of the Mexican economy.

He also pledged to continue co-operation in combating drug-trafficking despite a shift in Mexico's policy.

Mexico wants to end the widespread access the US has to its intelligence.

This is Mr Obama's first visit to Mexico since Mr Pena Nieto took office in December 2012.

'No clash'
"I agreed to continue our close co-operation on security, even as the nature of that co-operation will evolve," the US leader said at a joint news conference.

Washington is planning to further boost security at the US-Mexico border
For his part, President Pena Nieto played down notions that the recent shift meant less co-operation between the two countries.

"There is no clash between these two goals."

Mexico's Deputy Foreign Minister for North America, Sergio Alcocer, announced on Monday that an arrangement allowing US security agents unprecedented access to Mexican intelligence would come to an end.

All requests by the US security agencies would now have to be channelled through Mexico's interior ministry, which controls security and domestic policy.

Mr Alcocer insisted the new policy would improve co-operation rather than hamper it, but US analysts said the move could put an end to ties forged between agents on the ground.

Reversing trend
In Mexico City, Mr Obama also highlighted that an overhaul of the US immigration system was important for US-Mexican trade, which totalled $500bn (£322bn) in 2012.

Mexico is the third largest trade partner of the US.

Getting Mexico's backing on securing the 3,200km-long (2,000 miles) border could prove key for President Obama as he tries to sell his immigration reform to US politicians, analysts say.

Bipartisan senators currently debating the reform have insisted that tough border security be in place before undocumented immigrants can gain legal status.

A strong Mexican economy could also help cut down on emigration from Mexico, as workers do not feel the need to seek employment abroad.

Last year, for the first time in four decades, about the same number of Mexican migrants returned home as arrived in the US, bringing net migration to zero, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

The trend has been ascribed to tougher border controls and immigration laws on the one hand, and the US recession and a growing Mexican economy on the other.

President Pena Nieto said the two leaders had agreed that the bilateral relationship be multi-themed - an inference that in recent years security concerns have dominated at the expense of economic and trade issues, the BBC's Will Grant in Mexico City reports.

Mr Pena Nieto said a deal had been reached to create a joint commission for the economy and bilateral trade, which would include US Vice-President Joe Biden and other senior officials.

A working group was also announced to support young entrepreneurs on both sides of the border as well as agreements on university education.

To underline the strength of the bilateral relations, Mr Pena Nieto used former US President John F. Kennedy's saying: "While geography has made us neighbours, tradition has made us friends."

However, the new tack on security combined with comprehensive immigration reform in the US will provide a strong test of that friendship, our correspondent adds.

*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources BBC News
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*Photograph: IPF (International Pool of Friends) + DTN News / otherwise source stated
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - FINANCIAL NEWS: Global Markets Jump After Greek Vote Eases Fears

Defense News: DTN News - FINANCIAL NEWS: Global Markets Jump After Greek Vote Eases Fears
*Global markets jump as Angela Merkel tells election victor Antonis Samaras she is confident Greece will abide by bailout pledges, and world leaders gather in Mexico for the G20.
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources The Globe & Mail
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - June 20, 2012: Asian stock markets were up sharply Monday after elections in Greece eased fears of global financial turmoil, but analysts warned that the economic crisis shaking the 17 nations that use the euro was far from over. Stock markets rejoiced at the narrow victory by Greek conservatives who favour upholding an austerity program that their recession-mired country entered into in exchange for a financial bailout from international lenders.

Tokyo’s benchmark Nikkei 225 index was up 1.9 per cent at 8,731.57. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rose 1.6 per cent to 19,548.83. Australia’s S&P/ASX200 added 1.8 per cent to 4,129.20 and South Korea’s Kospi rose 2.1 per cent at 1,897.62.

On Wall Street, Dow Jones industrial average futures were up 62 points on Sunday night, suggesting the market could open higher Monday. The euro rose to $1.2700 (U.S.) from $1.2637 late Friday in New York. The U.S. dollar rose to 79.22 yen from 78.71 yen.

The New Zealand and Australian dollars were also higher. Both currencies typically rise when investors have more appetite for risk. The Australian dollar was trading above $1.01 and the New Zealand dollar was trading above 79 cents.

Masahiro Yamaguchi, a manager at Mizuho Securities Co. in Tokyo, said the perk in Tokyo stocks came from a sense of relief that the worst had been avoided in Greece.

“There’s is a rebound simply because the risks are now reduced,” he said. “There’s a sense that, at least, things are okay for now. The solution is far from basic.”

On Sunday, pro-bailout parties in Greece won enough seats to form a coalition government.

Greece has been dependent on rescue loans to operate since May 2010, after it was shut out of international markets following years of profligate spending and falsifying financial data.

The country is mired in a fifth year of recession, with unemployment spiralling above 22 per cent and tens of thousands of businesses shutting down.

Greece had to agree to austerity measures to get its bailout. Measures included deep spending cuts on everything from health care to education and infrastructure as well as tax hikes and cuts in salaries and pensions. Anger at the measures has sent Greeks into the streets in frequent strikes and protests, some of them violent.

Some analysts said the election results could overstate the willingness of Greeks to embrace austerity.

“Overall, the Greek election result, while welcome, does not imply that the Greek people are embracing the tough reforms tied to the bailout package. It merely meant that fear overruled anger,” analysts at DBS Bank Ltd. in Singapore wrote in a market commentary.

No one is sure how bad a Greek exit from the euro would have been. Greece would almost have certainly defaulted on its debt, triggering losses for European banks that own its government bonds. The outcome of the election, however tenuous, gives Greece a chance to breathe life into its moribund economy.

“It will be tough, but Greece will survive because I think the tourist industry and the agriculture sector will help it recover from its dire straits right now,” said Francis Lun, managing director of Lyncean Holdings in Hong Kong.

Japanese vehicle makers soared on hopes that Europe, a huge export market, would avoid deepening economic turbulence. Mazda Motor Corp. jumped 4 per cent and Yamaha Motor Co. gained 4.5 per cent.

Steelmakers and shipyards also gained ground. South Korea’s top shipbuilder, Hyundai Heavy Industries, rose 3.1 per cent. Japan’s JFE Holdings Inc. added 4 per cent and Kobe Steel rose 3.3 per cent.

Samsonite International SA rebounded 5.8 per cent after it issued a statement saying its luggage is safe, following a Hong Kong Consumer Council report last week that found carcinogens in the handles of some models, which caused its shares to dive 16 per cent.

But stock market operator Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd. fell 2.8 per cent as investors worried a $2.2-billion bid announced last week for the London Metal Exchange was too high.

Benchmark oil for July delivery was up 91 cents to $84.94 per barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract rose 12 cents to end at $84.03 a barrel in New York on Friday.

  DTN STOCK MARKET


*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources The Globe & Mail
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS 

DTN News - MEXICO DRUGS WAR: Meth In Mexico - A Turning Point In The Drug War?

Defense News: DTN News - MEXICO DRUGS WAR: Meth In Mexico - A Turning Point In The Drug War?
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Ben West - Stratfor
 (NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - February 16, 2012: Mexican authorities announced Feb. 8 the largest seizure of methamphetamine in Mexican history -- and possibly the largest ever anywhere -- on a ranch outside of Guadalajara. The total haul was 15 tons of pure methamphetamine along with a laboratory capable of producing all the methamphetamine seized. While authorities are not linking the methamphetamine to any specific criminal group, Guadalajara is a known stronghold of the Sinaloa Federation, and previous seizures there have been connected to the group. 

 Methamphetamine, a synthetic drug manufactured in personal labs for decades, is nothing new in Mexico or the United States. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has led numerous crusades against the drug, increasing regulations on its ingredients to try to keep it from gaining a foothold in the United States. While the DEA's efforts have succeeded in limiting production of the drug in the United States, consumption has risen steadily over the past two decades. The increasing DEA pressure on U.S. suppliers and the growing demand for methamphetamine have driven large-scale production of the drug outside the borders of the United States. Given Mexico's proximity and the pervasiveness of organized criminal elements seeking new markets, it makes sense that methamphetamine would be produced on an industrial scale there. Indeed, Mexico has provided an environment for a scale of production far greater than anything ever seen in the United States. 

But last week's methamphetamine seizure sheds light on a deeper shift in organized criminal activity in Mexico -- one that could mark a breakthrough in the violent stalemate that has existed between the Sinaloa Federation, Los Zetas and the government for the past five years and has led to an estimated 50,000 deaths. It also reveals a pattern in North American organized crime activity that can be seen throughout the 20th century as well as a business opportunity that could transform criminal groups in Mexico from the drug trafficking intermediaries they are today to controllers of an independent and profitable illicit market. 

While the trafficking groups in Mexico are commonly called "cartels" (even Stratfor uses the term), they are not really cartels. A cartel is a combination of groups cooperating to control the supply of a commodity. The primary purpose of a cartel is to set the price of a commodity so that buyers cannot negotiate lower prices. The current conflict in Mexico over cocaine and marijuana smuggling routes shows that there are deep rifts between rival groups like the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas. There is no sign that they are cooperating with each other to set the price of cocaine or marijuana. Also, since most of the Mexican criminal groups are involved in a diverse array of criminal activities, their interests go beyond drug trafficking. They are perhaps most accurately described as "transnational criminal organizations" (TCOs), the label currently favored by the DEA.

Examples from the Past

While the level of violence in Mexico right now is unprecedented, it is important to remember that the Mexican TCOs are businesses. They do use violence in conducting business, but their top priority is to make profits, not kill people. The history of organized crime shows many examples of groups engaging in violence to control an illegal product. During the early 20th century in North America, to take advantage of Prohibition in the United States, organized criminal empires were built around the bootlegging industry. After the repeal of Prohibition, gambling and casinos became the hot market. Control over Las Vegas and other major gambling hubs was a business both dangerous and profitable. Control over the U.S. heroin market was consolidated and then dismantled during the 1960s and 1970s. Then came cocaine and the rise in power, wealth and violence of Colombian groups like the Medellin and Cali cartels. 

But as U.S. and Colombian law enforcement cracked down on the Colombian cartels -- interdicting them in Colombia and closing down their Caribbean smuggling corridors -- Colombian producers had to turn to the Mexicans to traffic cocaine through Mexico to the United States. To this day, however, Colombian criminal groups descended from the Medellin and Cali cartels control the cultivation and production of cocaine in South America, while Mexican groups increasingly oversee the trafficking of the drug to the United States, Europe and Africa.

The Mexican Weakness

While violence has been used in the past to eliminate or coerce competitors and physically take control of an illegal market, it has not proved to be a solution in recent years for Mexican TCOs. The Medellin cartel became infamous for attacking Colombian state officials and competitors who tried to weaken its grasp over the cocaine market. Going back further, Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel is thought to have been murdered over disagreements about his handling of the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas. Before that, Prohibition saw numerous murders over control of liquor shipments and territory. In Mexico, we are seeing an escalating level of such violence, but few of the business resolutions that would be expected to come about as a result. 

Geography helps explain this. In Mexico, the Sierra Madre mountain range splits the east coast and the west from the center. The Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean coastal plains tend to develop their own power bases separate from each other. 

Mexican drug traffickers are also split by market forces. With Colombian criminal groups still largely controlling the production of cocaine in jungle laboratories, Mexican traffickers are essentially middlemen. They must run the gauntlet of U.S.-led international interdiction efforts by using a combination of Central American traffickers, corruption and street-gang enforcers. They also have to move the cocaine across the U.S. border, where it gets distributed by hundreds of street gangs. 

Profit is the primary motivation at every step, and each hurdle the Mexican traffickers have to clear cuts into their profit margins. The cocaine producers in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia can play the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas (as well as others) off of each other to strengthen their own bargaining position. And even though keeping the traffickers split appears to create massive amounts of violence in Mexico, it benefits the politicians and officials there, who can leverage at least the presence of a competitor for better bribes and payoffs. 

For Mexican drug traffickers, competition is bad for the bottom line, since it allows other actors to exploit each side to get a larger share of the market. Essentially, everyone else in the cocaine market benefits by keeping the traffickers split. The more actors involved in cocaine trafficking, the harder it is to control it.

The Solution 

Historically, organized criminal groups have relied on control of a market for their source of wealth and power. But the current situation in Mexico, and the cocaine trade in general, prevents the Mexican groups (or anyone) from controlling the market outright. As long as geography and market forces keep the traffickers split, all sides in Mexico will try to use violence to get more control over territory and market access. We assume that Mexico's geography will not change dramatically any time soon, but market forces are much more temporal. 

Mexican criminal organizations can overcome their weakness in the cocaine market by investing the money they have earned (billions of dollars, according to the most conservative estimates) into the control of other markets. Ultimately, cocaine is impossible for the Mexicans to control because the coca plant can only grow in sufficient quantity in the foothills of the Andes. It would be prohibitively expensive for the Mexicans to take over control of coca cultivation and cocaine production there. Mexican criminal organizations are increasing their presence in the heroin market, but while they can grow poppies in Mexico and produce black-tar heroin, Afghanistan still controls a dominant share of the white heroin market -- around 90 percent. 

What Mexicans can control is the methamphetamine market. What we are seeing in Mexico right now -- unprecedented amounts of the seized drug -- is reminiscent of what we saw over the past century in the infancy of the illegal liquor, gambling, heroin and cocaine markets: an organized criminal group industrializing production in or control of a loosely organized industry and using that control to set prices and increase its power. Again, while illegal methamphetamine has been produced in the United States for decades, regulatory pressure and law enforcement efforts have kept it at a small scale; seizures are typically measured in pounds or kilograms and producers are on the run. 

Mexican producers have also been in the market for a long time, but over the past year we have seen seizures go from being measured in kilograms to being measured in metric tons. In other words, we are seeing evidence that methamphetamine production has increased several orders of magnitude and is fast becoming an industrialized process. 

In addition to the 15 tons seized last week, we saw a record seizure of 675 tons of methylamine, a key ingredient of methamphetamine, in Mexico in December. From 2010 to 2011, seizures of precursor chemicals like methylamine in Mexico increased 400 percent, from 400 tons to 1,600 tons. These most recent reports are similar to reports in the 1920s of U.S. liquor seizures going from barrels to shiploads, which indicated bootlegging was being conducted on an industrial scale. They are also eerily similar to the record cocaine seizure in 1984 in Tranquilandia, Colombia, when Colombian National Police uncovered a network of jungle cocaine labs along with 13.8 metric tons of cocaine. It was the watershed moment, when authorities moved from measuring cocaine busts in kilograms to measuring them in tons, and it marked the Medellin cartel's rise to power over the cocaine market.

A True Mexican Criminal Industry?

Anyone can make methamphetamine, but it is a huge organizational, financial and legal challenge to make it on the industrial level that appears to be happening in Mexico. The main difference between the U.S. labs and the Mexican labs is the kind of input chemicals they use. The U.S. labs use pseudoephedrine, a pharmaceutical product heavily regulated by the DEA, as a starting material, while Mexican labs use methylamine, a chemical with many industrial applications that is more difficult to regulate. And while pseudoephedrine comes in small individual packages of cold pills, methylamine is bought in 208-liter (55-gallon) barrels. The Mexican process requires experienced chemists who have mastered synthesizing methamphetamine on a large scale, which gives them an advantage over the small-time amateurs working in U.S. methamphetamine labs. 

Thus, while methamphetamine consumption has been steadily growing in the United States for the past two decades -- and at roughly $100 per gram, unpure methamphetamine is just as profitable on the street as cocaine -- it is even more profitable for Mexican traffickers. Methamphetamine does not come with the overhead costs of purchasing cocaine from Colombians and trafficking valuable merchandise through some of the most dangerous countries in the Western Hemisphere. Precursor materials such as methylamine used in methamphetamine production are cheap, and East Asian producers appear to be perfectly willing to sell the chemicals to Mexico. And because methamphetamine is a synthetic drug, its production does not depend on agriculture like cocaine and marijuana production does. There is no need to control large swaths of cropland and there is less risk of losing product to adverse weather or eradication efforts. 

For the Mexican TCOs, industrializing and controlling the methamphetamine market offers a level of real control over a market that is not possible with cocaine. We expect fighting over the methamphetamine market to maintain violence at its current levels, but once a group comes out on top it will have far more resources to expel or absorb rival TCOs. This process may not sound ideal, but methamphetamine could pick the winner in the Mexican drug war. 


*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources By Ben West - Stratfor
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News 
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News Contact:dtnnews@ymail.com 
©COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS