←back to thread

Yi Peng 3 crossed both cables C-Lion 1 and BSC at times matching when they broke

(bsky.app)
499 points perihelions | 3 comments | 20 Nov 24 06:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.636s | source
Show context
nabla9 ◴[20 Nov 24 08:15 UTC] 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 ◴[20 Nov 24 09:27 UTC] 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 ◴[20 Nov 24 14:58 UTC] 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 ◴[20 Nov 24 18:10 UTC] 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 #
zelphirkalt ◴[20 Nov 24 20:12 UTC] No.42197662[source]▶
Inofficially Europe is already at war, whether it wants to or not. Maybe someone needs to inofficially keep a close eye on those cables and take inofficial countermeasures against inofficial sabotage acts.
replies(1): >>42197796 #
delusional ◴[20 Nov 24 20:29 UTC] No.42197796[source]▶
No we're not. Nobody in the EU has transitioned to a wartime economy. We are helping out a strategic ally. If Ukraine falls tomorrow an cedes add territory to Russia, the EU is not going to continue fighting, because the war will be over.

That of course assumes that Putin stops at Ukraine. The point is that this isn't our war.

replies(3): >>42198124 #>>42198831 #>>42199115 #
groby_b ◴[20 Nov 24 23:12 UTC] No.42199115[source]▶
Yes, we are. Outside of Poland, everybody's closing their eyes to it, but war is coming.

We might be able to stop it before it becomes a hot war, but the ambition is there, the indicators are there, the opportunity is there. Assume it's a war. (Unless you're German. I guess our national sport is now making excuses for Russia)

replies(1): >>42200704 #
1. K0balt ◴[21 Nov 24 03:06 UTC] No.42200704[source]▶
I grew up in Fairbanks, Alaska, near a strategic Cold War military base. I still remember seeing the TU-95 “bear” bombers flying overhead being escorted and turned around by our fighter jets.

It makes it pretty real when 7 year old me is wondering if this one has any nukes on board, and if this will be the day that they drop.

Russia is not to be trusted, imho. They do not honor their international commitments in good faith, and they will expand their territorial claims if they are allowed to do so. Europe, like a frog in a pot, is in peril and they need to take steps to make sure that Russian war fighting capabilities are destroyed through exhaustion in Ukraine.

This of course is tragic for Ukraine, because it means that she will be utterly razed in the process. But if Russia prevails or backs down with strength, it will happen again. And again.

Russias ability to project force in a strategic way must be destroyed. They are not trustworthy stewards of coercive force.

replies(1): >>42200818 #
2. nradov ◴[21 Nov 24 03:29 UTC] No.42200818[source]▶
I don't trust Russia either, but are you certain that's a real memory? I'm not aware of any confirmed incidents in which USSR bombers actually flew within sight of Fairbanks. They routinely tested our defenses but they didn't penetrate that far into US airspace.
replies(1): >>42201095 #
3. K0balt ◴[21 Nov 24 04:23 UTC] No.42201095[source]▶
I wish I had a photograph. I’ve been told before that this was impossible by others. I’ve also been told by others that were there that yes, it happened. It may not have been , however, an aggressive incursion, I have no way of knowing that part for sure.

Having fighters scramble from Eilison was not unusual at all, and when hunting out in that area with my father we saw a few of those. It was pretty distinct from the training and combat training they did, so it wasn’t that hard to distinguish the intentionality and risk tolerance that was reserved for that kind of urgency.

Anecdotally, I’m pretty darn sure that I saw a bear flying overhead just a few miles east-southeast of Fairbanks. I watched it be turned by 3 F4 phantoms. I was with my father and a few of his friends, as well as my brother that would have been 13 at the time. Everyone there remembers the event, and it was talked about for days in Fairbanks, we even had a subsequent training the next week in my elementary school on survival in the event of a nuclear attack lol.

Perhaps it was some kind of clandestine fuckery, perhaps it was an authorized flight, or perhaps it would have been to embarrassing / inflammatory to make it an event of record? I’m sure the answers are quietly sitting somewhere in a musty filing box.