←back to thread

499 points perihelions | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.425s | source
Show context
nabla9 ◴[] No.42191758[source]
October 2023 there was similar incident where Chinese cargo ship cut Balticonnector cable and EE-S1 cable. Chip named 'Newnew Polar Bear' under Chinese flag and Chinese company Hainan Xin Xin Yang Shipping Co, Ltd. (aka Torgmoll) with CEO named Yelena V. Maksimova, drags anchor in the seabed cutting cables. Chinese investigation claims storm was the reason, but there was no storm, just normal windy autumn weather. The ship just lowered one anchor and dragged it with engines running long time across the seabed until the anchor broke.

These things happen sometimes, ship anchors sometimes damage cables, but not this often and without serious problems in the ship. Russians are attempting plausible deniability.

replies(8): >>42191786 #>>42191808 #>>42191875 #>>42191880 #>>42192160 #>>42197213 #>>42197559 #>>42201843 #
cabirum ◴[] No.42192160[source]
After the Nordstream pipeline attacked and destroyed, its reasonable to expect shortened lifetimes for undersea cables and sattelites.
replies(5): >>42192401 #>>42194448 #>>42197215 #>>42198095 #>>42199025 #
nradov ◴[] No.42194448[source]
Yes, this is why having a prompt satellite launch capability to replace attrition losses is now a strategic imperative. We need to be able to put up new ones in a matter of hours, not months.
replies(5): >>42194640 #>>42194810 #>>42196625 #>>42196917 #>>42197964 #
littlecranky67 ◴[] No.42196625[source]
Why is that? Undersea cables makes way more sense - the issue is we have maritime law that allows any nation state to freely roam over important cables. During wartimes this is a complete different story - ships won't be allowed near the lines, and if they do get close they will be destoryed without prior warning. No more anchoring "accidents".
replies(5): >>42197587 #>>42197662 #>>42197706 #>>42198738 #>>42199375 #
amiga386 ◴[] No.42198738[source]
> maritime law that allows any nation state to freely roam over important cables.

I'd like to see your version of maritime law that doesn't allow freely roaming over important cables. Your country's enemies would gladly drop cables totally encircling you and say "uh uh uh, important cables!" if you tried to leave your perimeter

replies(1): >>42199165 #
1. thejazzman ◴[] No.42199165[source]
This assumes people are very stupid, no? Like, as if they wouldn't know what was happening and just had to let it happen?

I realize US politics may suggest otherwise but I can't imagine the military is just gonna stand by and entertain such a farce..

replies(1): >>42200655 #
2. amiga386 ◴[] No.42200655[source]
I think you therefore agree with my reductio ad absurdum argument against the GP's claim. Changing maritime law to prohibit free roaming over "important cables" would be a farce. Therefore, the absence of such a law is not "the issue"