3 ms·
It's unfeasible to heavily armour undersea cables for the whole length. Heavy armour is already used on shallow sections where shipping lanes are known and acc
by retrac 2y ago
It's unfeasible to heavily armour undersea cables for the whole length. Heavy armour is already used on shallow sections where shipping lanes are known and accidents are anticipated.
This is a typical data cable: https://spectrum.ieee.org/media-library/img.jpg?id=25584721 https://spectrum.ieee.org/media-library/img.jpg?id=25584721 left to right is unarmored to double armoured. Roughly one to three inches in diameter.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoVersus constantly defending against Russia and China efforts to cut a cable, potentially for years? Agree it is technically challenging, but if the Baltics intend to rely on the cable after severing from Russia in February 2025, they’ll have to do better to defend this critical power infrastructure. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42509223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42509223 https://europacable.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Introduction-to-HVDC-Subsea-Cables-16-July-2012_.pdf https://europacable.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Introducti... (Start at page 13)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- retrac 2y agoThere have even been proposals for a rail tunnel between Finland and Estonia; the Baltics are shallow enough. A power/data tunnel could be done but it would not be cheap. But that won't address all the other cables which can't be replaced with tunnels. And tunnels are vulnerable in their own way. More proactive defense may be better.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoFair, I’m not partial to any particular solution, just something that’ll destroy the ship or its anchor and chain before it damages or destroys the underwater cables. I like the tunnel idea, but tunnels are expensive as you mention; certainly a solution to colocate if the digging will happen regardless.