Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#241

Post by jonplackett »

Hamuko wrote: post #210
johnisgood wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.

Surely if the US was actually in a situation where it was attacked and had to defend itself, they’d be able to do that. If nothing else, the civilians have a whole lot of guns too and attacks on the US (think Pearl Harbor, 911) have a massive rallying effect. As far as I know, the biggest thing preventing a civilian semi-automatic from being converted to an automatic firearm is the risk of a long prison stint.

The USA is a giant ocean away in any direction from any meaningful threat. No-one is invading the USA. Everyone will be nuked to oblivion before that would ever come to pass.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#242

Post by Etheryte »

staplung wrote: post #63

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 figur…

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.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#243

Post by jonplackett »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #191
CapricornNoble wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? The entire Western world doesn't produce enough Patriot missiles to meet Ukraine's air defense needs, just as one critical example. We are aiming for a global production target of 750 missiles/year ( https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15354795 ).... Russia has fired about 6,000 missiles and large drones per year ( https://kyivindependent.com/defense-ministry-ove…

> What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? More long-range offensive weapons and clearance to hit sites in Russia. Let Israel know that we wouldn't mind them taking out the Iranian drone factories supplying Russia.

Even the pentagons own assessments say this won’t make much difference.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#244

Post by aguaviva »

PKop wrote: post #180
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What business is that of ours? We are enabling it. They clearly want to fight! This is like arguing giving someone chemo is enabling their cancer.

Who is "they" and what is "clearly"? They are running out of men they can find to fight, and for quite a while the government and military used very aggressive methods to force men into service. There is a huge desertion problem, in the military and the country itself. A whole lot of Ukrainians do not want to fight. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ukraine-running-out-s...

A whole lot of Ukrainians do not want to fight.

A whole lot of people don't want to fight in any war.

What matters is the relative portion. Though they my differ in the views as to whether the lost regions can be regained, or on what terms a cease-fire may be acceptable -- by all indications, a very solid majority of the society in non-occupied Ukraine supports the fight.

Who is "they" and what is "clearly"?

About 60-80 percent of the population. "Clearly" as in according to reliable polling data I can pull up later. Or by spending any amount of time talking to Ukrainians.

There is a huge desertion problem,

It is obviously a significant problem, but a better source is needed on the "huge" part. The link you provided does not support that view.

If I hear "desertion is a huge problem", what comes to mind it the situation in Afghanstan after the notorious Trump-Biden pullout. The situation in Ukraine is nothing like that, not even remotely.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#245

Post by maxglute »

stackskipton wrote: post #64
VyseofArcadia wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read reams of rhetoric regarding relations with Russia rehashed as "don't poke the bear". No one ever seems to want to discuss what to do about the bear going around poking everyone else.

Those discussions are had all the time. One of downside of this bear is bear strapped with explosives that could kill us all if bear gets angry enough. Also, once you are 12 miles offshore, technically you are in international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there is UN Sanctions. If NATO Countries decided to violate that, it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could impa…

High Seas "international water" start at after 200 nautical mile EEZ. There's a few explicit articles dealing with malicious submarine cable damage.

But IIRC the TLDR is it has to do with indemnities and putting a vessel/person up for prosecution after the fact. And it doesn't apply if cable damaged while trying to prevent injury, which RU can always claim.

More broadly I think you're correct on paper... RU damaging subsea infra is under UNCLOS is technically punishable, but after the fact. And they're not going to lol pay damages to countries that sanction them. NATO kinetically trying to prevent RU damaging subsea infra (especially in highseas), in lieu of formal UN policing mission against such acts, is closer to act of war.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#246

Post by jonplackett »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #186
petre wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best course of action at this time would be to properly arm Ukraine.

What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? The entire Western world doesn't produce enough Patriot missiles to meet Ukraine's air defense needs, just as one critical example. We are aiming for a global production target of 750 missiles/year ( https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15354795 ).... Russia has fired about 6,000 missiles and large drones per year ( https://kyivindependent.com/defense-ministry-ove…

Can’t believe I had to scroll so for the first comment based on reality and not wishful thinking.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#248

Post by graeme »

gweinberg wrote: post #247

I'm surprised there's such a cable in the first place, it seems it would be easier to go on land through Denmark and Sweden. Is it for some reason easier to have an undersea cable than a land one?

You can see an undersea cable map here. I don't know about cables specifically but:

1. Anything sea based tends to be cheaper than land based, both in terms of sea transport and also lack of other interfering infrastructure, homes etc along the way

2. Shorter distance means lower latency

3. There surely is a land cable too. There's a lot of redunancy in the system

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#249

Post by dragonwriter »

maxglute wrote: post #245
stackskipton wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those discussions are had all the time. One of downside of this bear is bear strapped with explosives that could kill us all if bear gets angry enough. Also, once you are 12 miles offshore, technically you are in international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there is UN Sanctions. If NATO Countries decided to violate that, it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could impa…

High Seas "international water" start at after 200 nautical mile EEZ. There's a few explicit articles dealing with malicious submarine cable damage. But IIRC the TLDR is it has to do with indemnities and putting a vessel/person up for prosecution after the fact. And it doesn't apply if cable damaged while trying to prevent injury, which RU can always claim. More broadly I think you're correct on paper... RU damaging…

NATO kinetically trying to prevent Russia from damaging subsea infrastructure WITH a formal UN policing mission is also an act of war, its just more clearly not an act of aggression.

Of course, that would also be true of NATO doing so as part of a broader collective defense operation reported to the Security Council, directed against Russia and explicitly aimed at rolling back the Russian (UNGA-condemned) aggression in Ukraine under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Post reply on HN