Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    577 points mooreds | 15 comments | | HN request time: 0.265s | source | bottom
    Show context
    toss1 ◴[] No.42172902[source]
    Substantial Russian activity also near UK, raises concerns that Russia would cut off UK. [0]

    Russian ships ‘plotting sabotage in the North Sea’ [1]

    [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-undersea-...

    [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ships...

    replies(5): >>42173238 #>>42177248 #>>42177849 #>>42182288 #>>42186586 #
    1. whythre ◴[] No.42173238[source]
    Do these nations not have navies? Can’t they tell the Russian non-combat ships (or pressure them) to get lost?
    replies(6): >>42173834 #>>42174580 #>>42176139 #>>42176695 #>>42176821 #>>42182695 #
    2. 2OEH8eoCRo0 ◴[] No.42173834[source]
    And risk escalation!? /s
    3. toss1 ◴[] No.42174580[source]
    Just because it is not publicized does not mean it is not happening. Most military operations do not take along journalists, and are not reported to the press. Some are even secret.

    That said, there is a limited amount that can be done in international waters without creating an international incident. Law Of The Seas, Freedom Of Navigation, etc.. It is to our advantage for example, when we want to prevent CCP's from denying access to international waters around Taiwan or Phillipines, but to Russia's advantage when scouting undersea cables in international waters.

    They can field more "research" vessels than we'd typically field mil vessels, but I'd bet real money that that ratio just changed a lot in the past few weeks, as it hits the press.

    replies(2): >>42174700 #>>42174757 #
    4. bell-cot ◴[] No.42174757[source]
    > They can field more "research" vessels than...

    Back during the cold war, there was very often a Soviet "fishing boat" trailing after any substantial US Navy fleet. Said fishing boat may have had far more antennas than any fisherman would expect, but far less interest in catching fish.

    Fast forward - what would be the cost of having cheap western drones hanging around nearby, when suspected Russian assets were close to undersea cables, pipelines, and such?

    replies(2): >>42180400 #>>42195905 #
    5. heraldgeezer ◴[] No.42176139[source]
    We do but ocean and air is big :)

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-jets-in...

    Also with cables, they can be destroyed with "innocent" ships that have a right to be there actually :)

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309687

    Russia has a programme to sabotage wind farms and communication cables in the North Sea, according to new allegations.

    The details come from a joint investigation by public broadcasters in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.

    It says Russia has a fleet of vessels disguised as fishing trawlers and research vessels in the North Sea.

    6. taneliv ◴[] No.42176695[source]
    Who says they don't do that constantly, but missed it this time?
    7. lxgr ◴[] No.42176821[source]
    > Can’t they tell the Russian non-combat ships (or pressure them) to get lost?

    Not in international waters, which is where submarine cables are largely located.

    And even if they could: The oceans are... kind of big. If it were that easy to "just patrol" shipping lanes/submarine cable tracks etc., why would piracy still be a concern?

    replies(2): >>42177797 #>>42179598 #
    8. ◴[] No.42177797[source]
    9. willy_k ◴[] No.42179598[source]
    Would relatively cheap AI-piloted satellite connected ships with sensor equipment work as a solution?
    replies(1): >>42179668 #
    10. lxgr ◴[] No.42179668{3}[source]
    I doubt it. It seems to be a similar problem to missile defense: When you have a lot of ground to cover and can only be in one place at a time, the defender will always be at a huge cost disadvantage compared to the attacker. That's only in one/two dimensions – add a third (submarines) and the cost imbalance shifts even more.

    And even if it works, this will only give attackers pause that are deterred by attribution.

    replies(1): >>42180392 #
    11. XorNot ◴[] No.42180392{4}[source]
    Basically if mass produced something makes defense "cheap" it likely makes offense even cheaper.
    12. XorNot ◴[] No.42180400{3}[source]
    Fuel costs I suspect, which is where those continuous flight high altitude solar powered planes NASA was experimenting with really come into play.

    That said, satellite tracking shipping is pretty easy - It's interdicting ina timely fashion which is not.

    replies(1): >>42182867 #
    13. rsynnott ◴[] No.42182695[source]
    They do: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...

    However, another one will be along soon.

    I'd assume, at the moment, that the primary goal is intimidation rather than anything else.

    14. bell-cot ◴[] No.42182867{4}[source]
    Agreed that interdicting - if that means a naval or coast guard ship, or a submarine - is far more difficult and expensive.

    But cheap drones can transmit "don't do that!" warnings. And also video footage of the situation. Which would seriously change both the maritime law and political situations.

    15. mrguyorama ◴[] No.42195905{3}[source]
    >Fast forward - what would be the cost of having cheap western drones hanging around nearby, when suspected Russian assets were close to undersea cables, pipelines, and such?

    If the suspicion is high enough, it's pretty standard for a US submarine or surface group to shadow whatever it is. It's free practice for the submarine crew.

    This happened when the Russian ships visited cuba earlier this year.