6 ms·

In neal stephensons 1996 classic wired article Mother Earth Mother Board theres a bit in there about why cables are not attacked. " There is also the obvious t

In neal stephensons 1996 classic wired article Mother Earth Mother Board theres a bit in there about why cables are not attacked. " There is also the obvious threat of sabotage by a hostile government, but, surprisingly, this almost never happens. When cypherpunk Doug Barnes was researching his Caribbean project, he spent some time looking into this, because it was exactly the kind of threat he was worried about in the case of a data haven. Somewhat to his own surprise and relief, he concluded that it simply wasn’t going to happen. “Cutting a submarine cable,” Barnes says, “is like starting a nuclear war. It’s easy to do, the results are devastating, and as soon as one country does it, all of the others will retaliate. " Are we now in the retaliation stage? https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/ https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/ paywalled Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20151107094324/https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151107094324/https://www.wired...

N19PEDL2 3y ago
Retaliation will be when someone cuts the cables connecting Kaliningrad to Russia.
tpmx 3y ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-says-moscow-now-has-free-hand-destroy-enemies-undersea-2023-06-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-says-m... (June 14) Russia now has free hand to destroy undersea communications cables, Putin ally says
- lenkite 3y ago
  Well, Biden did say he would destroy Nordstream-2 and followed up, so Medvedev can deliver threats too. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-ukraine-there-will-be-no-nord-stream-2-biden-says-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-uk...
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Look up the history of Medvedev's statements; there is a lot of extreme stuff.
beretguy 3y ago
[flagged]
LunaSea 3y ago
Couldn't you say the same about undersea pipeline which did get attacked?
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGk1si6dOKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGk1si6dOKU
  - dmix 3y ago
    Attempting to stop an incomplete pipeline commercial deal that the US was already protesting long before the war is different than bombing an existing pipeline involving one of NATOs most important members, on sea territory of another NATO member, just because a war started. It’s plausible but highly unlikely. The evidence points to Ukrainian saboteurs on a rented yacht anyway.
    - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        > Biden literally said on camera that if Russia invades Ukraine, the US would blow up the pipeline. This is a lie. The actual quote is: "There will be no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will put an end to it." They successfully did so well before the explosions; its certification was suspended in February, and the company was insolvent by March. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/exclusive-nord-stream-2-owner-considers-insolvency-after-pipeline-halt-sanctions-2022-03-01/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/exclusive-nord-stream... Blowing something up isn't the only way to get rid of something (just ask the mice formerly inhabiting my basement); the actual quote can easily be read as "we'll sanction them and anyone else who does business with them into the stone age".
        miroljub 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
MichaelZuo 3y ago
Well except any country on the Eurasian landmass doesn't need submarine cables at all to have direct fiber optic links with the majority of the world's population.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  All you need to take out a land-based fiber optic link is a backhoe. Arguable less equipment than taking out a sea-based link. I don't think long-distance network cables are surveilled in their entirety.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  > with the majority of the world's population I'm having trouble getting past 4B with terrestrial links. China + India + Pakistan + Bangladesh + Russia (ignoring spanning the country) + Egypt + Vietnam + Thailand + Turkey + Myanmar + South Korea + Iraq + Afghanistan = 4.002 That's a lot of gnarly land to link.
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    You're counting Egypt but not everybody else in Africa?
    - bilbo0s 3y ago
      Maybe the poster believes the other Africans don't use internet?
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Maybe poster was trying to see the feasibility of the post he was replying to. >> any country on the Eurasian landmass doesn't need submarine cables at all to have direct fiber... There's a big difference between Nigeria and Egypt, via terrestrial links, to east/south Asia.
      - Two4 3y ago
        Of course we don't - this comment is being relayed via ham radio from South Africa to the Antarctic, where thankfully the German research team has a satellite uplink.
miohtama 3y ago
European countries won’t retaliate against Russia because - They are too civilised - They have already done everything with “sanctions” they can - It is benefit for West for Russians to access free information, instead of Putin’s propaganda only
- rjzzleep 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - hef19898 3y ago
    First, there is no proof it was Ukraine (but they are a top contender based on motive). Second, if it was Ukraine, an about face, or even tacit approval, of other NATO members would make pwrfect sense. Third, NS2 was never used and no impact on any gas shortages or gas prices Europe.
    - rjzzleep 3y ago
      What are you talking about? You basically agreed on the bombing matter. NS1 was destroyed along with it, which was the biggest Gas valve to Europe. The EU subsidized the energy market with 400 billion last year. The industries sure felt it and so did many consumers. "The deindustrialization of Germany: If Europe’s economic motor stalls, the Continent’s already polarized political landscape will shudder."[1] July 13, 2023 "Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy. What happened?" [2] Sep 2023 "Is Germany once again the sick man of Europe?" [3] [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-deindustrialization-of-germany/ https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-d... [2] https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/global-ideal-germanys-economy-struggles-energy-shock-exposing-103300208 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/global-ideal-germa... [3] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/08/17/is-germany-once-again-the-sick-man-of-europe https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/08/17/is-germany-once...
      - hef19898 3y ago
mcpackieh 3y ago
Nuclear attribution is probably easier than undersea sabotage attribution. For one, the list of possible suspects is much smaller with a nuclear attack. This is particularly now that covert undersea sabotage using cheap undersea drones is technically feasible for countries without a traditional submarine force. Undersea sabotage may also be carried out in a plausibly deniable way, using fishing trawlers to "accidentally" snag a cable. Probably this has already happened numerous times already, but it's very difficult to prove intent with this sort of thing. The traditional delivery mechanisms for a nuclear weapon are easily traceable. Even using an SLBM is relatively traceable; if an SLBM comes from the Barents Sea, there will be little doubt who sent it. And the chance of the launching boomer being actively monitored by an oppositional SSN when the launch occurs is too great to ignore. The ballistic properties of the SLBM probably reveal the make and model anyway. The greatest risk is from a nuke smuggled into the target area. However the risk of discovery is very high relative to the risk of discovery for undersea sabotage and there's no plausible "just an accident" excuse. Furthermore you have the serious risk of forensic evidence from the blast and fallout revealing the manufacturer of the bomb. And what's the point of nuclear terrorism if not to send a message, and how can that message be sent if nobody can guess who did it? With pipe or cable sabotage, the point may be to directly inflict economic damage. Using nukes to inflict economic damage is complete overkill when alternatives exist (such as undersea sabotage, hacking attacks, etc) that don't put the aggressor nation's leadership personally at risk from a retaliatory nuclear strike.

N19PEDL2 3y ago

Retaliation will be when someone cuts the cables connecting Kaliningrad to Russia.

tpmx 3y ago

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-says-moscow-now-has-free-hand-destroy-enemies-undersea-2023-06-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-says-m... (June 14) Russia now has free hand to destroy undersea communications cables, Putin ally says

lenkite 3y ago
Well, Biden did say he would destroy Nordstream-2 and followed up, so Medvedev can deliver threats too. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-ukraine-there-will-be-no-nord-stream-2-biden-says-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-uk...
wolverine876 3y ago
Look up the history of Medvedev's statements; there is a lot of extreme stuff.

beretguy 3y ago

[flagged]

LunaSea 3y ago

Couldn't you say the same about undersea pipeline which did get attacked?

ImHereToVote 3y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGk1si6dOKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGk1si6dOKU
- dmix 3y ago
  Attempting to stop an incomplete pipeline commercial deal that the US was already protesting long before the war is different than bombing an existing pipeline involving one of NATOs most important members, on sea territory of another NATO member, just because a war started. It’s plausible but highly unlikely. The evidence points to Ukrainian saboteurs on a rented yacht anyway.
  - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > Biden literally said on camera that if Russia invades Ukraine, the US would blow up the pipeline. This is a lie. The actual quote is: "There will be no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will put an end to it." They successfully did so well before the explosions; its certification was suspended in February, and the company was insolvent by March. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/exclusive-nord-stream-2-owner-considers-insolvency-after-pipeline-halt-sanctions-2022-03-01/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/exclusive-nord-stream... Blowing something up isn't the only way to get rid of something (just ask the mice formerly inhabiting my basement); the actual quote can easily be read as "we'll sanction them and anyone else who does business with them into the stone age".
      - miroljub 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Well except any country on the Eurasian landmass doesn't need submarine cables at all to have direct fiber optic links with the majority of the world's population.

yencabulator 3y ago
All you need to take out a land-based fiber optic link is a backhoe. Arguable less equipment than taking out a sea-based link. I don't think long-distance network cables are surveilled in their entirety.
ethbr1 3y ago
> with the majority of the world's population I'm having trouble getting past 4B with terrestrial links. China + India + Pakistan + Bangladesh + Russia (ignoring spanning the country) + Egypt + Vietnam + Thailand + Turkey + Myanmar + South Korea + Iraq + Afghanistan = 4.002 That's a lot of gnarly land to link.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  You're counting Egypt but not everybody else in Africa?
  - bilbo0s 3y ago
    Maybe the poster believes the other Africans don't use internet?
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Maybe poster was trying to see the feasibility of the post he was replying to. >> any country on the Eurasian landmass doesn't need submarine cables at all to have direct fiber... There's a big difference between Nigeria and Egypt, via terrestrial links, to east/south Asia.
    - Two4 3y ago
      Of course we don't - this comment is being relayed via ham radio from South Africa to the Antarctic, where thankfully the German research team has a satellite uplink.

miohtama 3y ago

European countries won’t retaliate against Russia because - They are too civilised - They have already done everything with “sanctions” they can - It is benefit for West for Russians to access free information, instead of Putin’s propaganda only

rjzzleep 3y ago
[flagged]
- hef19898 3y ago
  First, there is no proof it was Ukraine (but they are a top contender based on motive). Second, if it was Ukraine, an about face, or even tacit approval, of other NATO members would make pwrfect sense. Third, NS2 was never used and no impact on any gas shortages or gas prices Europe.
  - rjzzleep 3y ago
    What are you talking about? You basically agreed on the bombing matter. NS1 was destroyed along with it, which was the biggest Gas valve to Europe. The EU subsidized the energy market with 400 billion last year. The industries sure felt it and so did many consumers. "The deindustrialization of Germany: If Europe’s economic motor stalls, the Continent’s already polarized political landscape will shudder."[1] July 13, 2023 "Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy. What happened?" [2] Sep 2023 "Is Germany once again the sick man of Europe?" [3] [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-deindustrialization-of-germany/ https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-d... [2] https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/global-ideal-germanys-economy-struggles-energy-shock-exposing-103300208 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/global-ideal-germa... [3] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/08/17/is-germany-once-again-the-sick-man-of-europe https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/08/17/is-germany-once...
    - hef19898 3y ago

mcpackieh 3y ago

Nuclear attribution is probably easier than undersea sabotage attribution. For one, the list of possible suspects is much smaller with a nuclear attack. This is particularly now that covert undersea sabotage using cheap undersea drones is technically feasible for countries without a traditional submarine force. Undersea sabotage may also be carried out in a plausibly deniable way, using fishing trawlers to "accidentally" snag a cable. Probably this has already happened numerous times already, but it's very difficult to prove intent with this sort of thing. The traditional delivery mechanisms for a nuclear weapon are easily traceable. Even using an SLBM is relatively traceable; if an SLBM comes from the Barents Sea, there will be little doubt who sent it. And the chance of the launching boomer being actively monitored by an oppositional SSN when the launch occurs is too great to ignore. The ballistic properties of the SLBM probably reveal the make and model anyway. The greatest risk is from a nuke smuggled into the target area. However the risk of discovery is very high relative to the risk of discovery for undersea sabotage and there's no plausible "just an accident" excuse. Furthermore you have the serious risk of forensic evidence from the blast and fallout revealing the manufacturer of the bomb. And what's the point of nuclear terrorism if not to send a message, and how can that message be sent if nobody can guess who did it? With pipe or cable sabotage, the point may be to directly inflict economic damage. Using nukes to inflict economic damage is complete overkill when alternatives exist (such as undersea sabotage, hacking attacks, etc) that don't put the aggressor nation's leadership personally at risk from a retaliatory nuclear strike.