←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
585 points mooreds | 4 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.844s | source
Show context
staplung ◴[18 Nov 24 20:22 UTC] No.42176496[source]▶
It's worth mentioning that cable breakages happen quite often; globally about 200 times per year [1] and the article itself mentions that just last year, two other cables and a gas pipeline were taken out by an anchor. The Gulf of Finland is evidently quite shallow. From what I understand, cable repair ships are likely to use ROVs for parts of repair jobs but only when the water is shallow so hopefully they can figure out whether the damage looks like sabotage before they sever the cable to repair it. Of course, if you're a bad actor and want plausible deniability, maybe you'd make it look like anchor damage or, deliberately drag an anchor right over the cables.

Cable repairs are certainly annoying and for the operator of the cable, expensive. However, they are usually repaired relatively quickly. I'd be more worried if many more cables were severed at the same time. If you're only going to break one or two a year, you might as well not bother.

1: https://www.theverge.com/c/24070570/internet-cables-undersea...

replies(11): >>42177868 #>>42178949 #>>42179789 #>>42181124 #>>42181825 #>>42182141 #>>42182166 #>>42182377 #>>42183002 #>>42184314 #>>42187800 #
Etheryte ◴[18 Nov 24 22:38 UTC] No.42177868[source]▶
This is a misleading framing. The two cables last year were not taken out by an anchor as an accident, it was literally a ship putting down its anchor just before the cable and then dragging it over the cable. In other words, sabotage. There's no point in trying to color any of this with rose tinted glasses when it's clear who's done it and why.
replies(11): >>42178728 #>>42178764 #>>42178921 #>>42179627 #>>42181556 #>>42181978 #>>42182013 #>>42182512 #>>42182826 #>>42182949 #>>42198088 #
stoperaticless ◴[19 Nov 24 10:38 UTC] No.42181978[source]▶
Well, you never know 100%. There is a small (really small) chance it was an accident. Just like there is a small chance that Al Capone was innocent man.

(But really, it clearly has “Russia” written all over it)

replies(2): >>42182151 #>>42195744 #
pelasaco ◴[19 Nov 24 11:03 UTC] No.42182151[source]▶
just to be honest, the Pipelines explosion, had "Russia" written all over it, except after investigation, and a possible culprit, i.e not Russia, then nobody wanted to discuss about it anymore. I think the hysteria is too high, people are thirsty for War, looks like..
replies(4): >>42182183 #>>42182237 #>>42182451 #>>42182612 #
mciancia ◴[19 Nov 24 11:09 UTC] No.42182183[source]▶
> people are thirsty for War, looks like

Russians, yes

replies(1): >>42182243 #
vasco ◴[19 Nov 24 11:19 UTC] No.42182243[source]▶
I wish I lived in a world where it's so easy to know who is good and who is evil and to pinpoint them so well.
replies(6): >>42182338 #>>42182342 #>>42182469 #>>42182601 #>>42185498 #>>42188753 #
esarbe ◴[19 Nov 24 12:14 UTC] No.42182601[source]▶
It is easy; nations that attack other nations unprovoked are "evil" (at fault).

Ukraine has never infringed on Russia's sovereignty or territorial integrity before it was attacked. Therefor this war is entirely Russia's fault.

The world is mostly shades of gray. But this case it black and white.

replies(2): >>42182825 #>>42182849 #
dotancohen ◴[19 Nov 24 12:45 UTC] No.42182825[source]▶
Are you aware of why NATO was founded? Are you aware that NATO expansion into Ukraine seemed very likely at the time of Russia's invasion?

I am neither Russian nor European, so I don't have any horse in this race. But Russia's concerns sure seen valid from the outside.

replies(5): >>42182939 #>>42183014 #>>42183033 #>>42183822 #>>42185778 #
db48x ◴[19 Nov 24 13:12 UTC] No.42183033[source]▶
The whole idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is ridiculous. Read Article 1 again. <https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...>
replies(2): >>42183876 #>>42185050 #
aa-jv ◴[19 Nov 24 14:36 UTC] No.42183876[source]▶
Do you know whether a Tomahawk missile is nuclear-tipped, or not?

No, you don't.

And neither do the Russians.

So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?

replies(2): >>42185568 #>>42188617 #
mopsi ◴[19 Nov 24 16:57 UTC] No.42185568[source]▶
What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then unfortunately none of them have Tomahawks, or anything close to them, or anything at all beyond the domestic conventional forces, so this entire comparision bears no resemblance to reality.
replies(1): >>42202512 #
aa-jv ◴[21 Nov 24 09:24 UTC] No.42202512[source]▶
NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons.

I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself.

Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

replies(1): >>42203550 #
mopsi ◴[21 Nov 24 12:14 UTC] No.42203550[source]▶
> NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past.

Not true.

> Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...

Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?

replies(1): >>42204213 #
1. aa-jv ◴[21 Nov 24 13:42 UTC] No.42204213[source]▶
>Not true.

Yes, true:

https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co...

Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026

>That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad

Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference?

>Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?

That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast?

Because that's how you die in a thermonuclear blast.

replies(3): >>42204355 #>>42206015 #>>42206130 #
2. mopsi ◴[21 Nov 24 13:59 UTC] No.42204355[source]▶
> Yes, true

No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources says that Tomahawks have ever been given to Eastern Europe nor that there is any intention to. Ukraine has requested them, but your own source says that Ukraine is "unlikely" to receive them.

> Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia

They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. In worst massacres, more people were killed by Serbs over a single weekend than died in the entire NATO aerial bombardment campaign that lasted several months.

> Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference?

Again, nothing you say is true. No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, but Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus: "Putin confirms first nuclear weapons moved to Belarus" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700

> That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast?

That's the question Russians should ask themselves when they keep pushing westwards with their nukes and attacks on European countries. Do Russians want to die in a thermonuclear blast that they act so recklessly?

3. ◴[21 Nov 24 16:36 UTC] No.42206015[source]▶
4. aguaviva ◴[21 Nov 24 16:46 UTC] No.42206130[source]▶
Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory,

You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, and it's really quite silly.