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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#721

Post by ValentinA23 »

CrazyCatDog wrote: post #583
Moru wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hint: The cables are often very close. If one breaks, the otherone also breaks :-)

Right, if it’s a case interview, then higher accuracy ought to prompt the interviewee to ask: (1) Do the 200 cuts typically occur in clusters? (2) What’s the typical density, eg are they usually collocated? (as an alternative to the above) (3) Are there pathways that avoid the sea but connect Europe and North America (getting at density in the sea in question) Etc. That’s what makes this one so good—lots of opportuni…

I was surprised to see so many upvotes this morning and was disappointed when I realized it wasn't for another comment I made about the Anthropic Principle.

My take is that in face of coincidences supporting the emergence of intelligent life, we should expect to observe coincidences unnecessary for the emergence of life too.

An analogy: imagine you have lost the key to your mansion and try to cut one at random out of a metal sheet. If it can unlock the door, then chances are that you cut unnecessary notches (the analogy only holds for warded locks and the key you crafted is a master key).

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42178306

I'm wondering where I'm wrong in my reasoning because the implication is weird.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#722

Post by dgfitz »

aguaviva wrote: post #520
teractiveodular wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the man himself claiming this in his inimitably eloquent style: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-putin-no-way-ukraine-mu... "No way." "Way."

If all we have to go on is the man himself -- that means it's a lie of course, like nearly everything else he says.

Least they posted a source. Credit where it is due.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#723

Post by toss1 »

pitaj wrote: post #238
toss1 wrote: post #5

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...

Are there not cables run through the Channel Tunnel? Seems like a no-brainer.

Yes, there is fiber infrastructure in the Channel Tunnel [0]. I'm pretty sure that while any one good link is vastly better than zero links, no one link is sufficient to carry all traffic from/to the British Isles?

[0] https://www.colt.net/resources/colt-successfully-completes-t...

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#724

Post by air3y »

numeric83 wrote: post #657
air3y wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Weapons hitting places deep inside Russia that haven't been hit before is escalation. Whether one favors the act or not isn't how a step is considered as escalation. Now the Russians might or might not take steps that the other side considers escalation.

Ukraine has been hitting targets "deep" inside Russia for a long time now - further than ATACMS or the export Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG can reach. Whether Ukraine use their own weapons or those purchased/gifted from others seems irrelevant. This is Russia saying "we can hit you with weapons provided by other nations, but you cannot be allowed to hit us likewise" - it's pathetic. As for what Russia may do, they've been to…

Earlier hits were using Ukrainian drones, while the Atacms are reported as needing to be programmed by US military to hit the targets. So while it is Ukraine that supposedly fires them, it is the americans who will reportedly get them to their intended targets. I don't think there is any moral debate in Ukraine hitting Russia with missiles. After all it is a war fought by Russia against an Ukraine which has Nato proxy support. But it is an escalation nevertheless.

It is now up to Russia on how to respond. And as you noted, one scenario being talked about, at least in social media, is some groups houthis, hezbollah or others getting Russian missiles and those being fired at western targets, ships or others. And I assume it would be Russian military who would control the targetting in that case depending on the missiles used. Or the Russians don't go for direct escalation with the intent of not jeopardizing the chances of Trump ending support to Ukraine in few months from now.

But either way Russia's deterrence against Nato has been challenged yet again, and the chances of escalations and counter-escalations going out of hand remains a more nearer scary possibility in the unfolding scenario in process.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#725

Post by Svoka »

VyseofArcadia wrote: post #61
tetrisgm wrote: post #60

The constant Russian interference, combined with the regular escalation from the jets patrolling, and the radar jamming, really needs to be dealt with. We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation. This feels like constant creep.

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.

time to cut its paws off, tbh

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#726

Post by dotancohen »

db48x wrote: post #637
dotancohen wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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... >

Yes, and Russia had similar "we won't be the first to be aggressive" language for many years as well. You can see that with new leadership comes new interpretations of when "peaceful means" are no longer sufficient.

From Russia's perspective, NATO has been infringing on both Russia's sphere of influence and on her buffer states. Russia has _twice_ been invaded by the Europeans, she hasn't forgotten that. And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia.

Need I remind you how the US responded when the USSR set up missile positions in Cuba?

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#727

Post by cwassert »

belter wrote: post #579
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…

"Germany’s defense minister says damage to 2 Baltic data cables appears to be sabotage" - https://apnews.com/article/germany-finland-baltic-data-cable...

He just wants more funds for his department.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#728

Post by dotancohen »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #675
dotancohen wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia, if it comes to pass. NATO has never and will never be an aggressor, see article 1 as someone pointed out. If anything, Russia has put themselves in serious shit for invading Ukraine. If they hadn't started this, over 600.000 of their people wouldn't be dead or wounded. How many countries has NATO invaded?

  > NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia
Exactly. Russia views NATO as an anti-Russian entity. And both sides have phrases that amount roughly to "the best defense is an effective offense".

Would you feel threatened if your neighbours set up weapons right outside your property line, ostensibly to defend in case you attack? And especially if they've already invaded your property twice (France and Germany both invaded Russia).

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#729

Post by dotancohen »

esarbe wrote: post #631
dotancohen wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Russia's "concerns" are not valid. It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so. No nation has extra-territorial security interes…

  > Russia's "concerns" are not valid.
Dismissing Russia's concerns is exactly what led to this war.

  > It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so.
NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that "Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance" and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn't even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine.

> No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor.

Then you know nothing of US doctrine. The Central Americans will tell you how the US will even invade just to lower the price of bananas - no joke.

  > You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.
No, I really don't have a side in this. I'm simply presenting Russia's viewpoint as I understand it. I also understand the Western viewpoint as well, but there's no need to defend it in present company, we all agree about NATO, European, and US positions on the matter.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#730

Post by patmorgan23 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #660
belter wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Germany’s defense minister says damage to 2 Baltic data cables appears to be sabotage" - https://apnews.com/article/germany-finland-baltic-data-cable...

English isn't my first language, but isn't "appears to be" inconclusive? It is or it isn't, "appears to be" is still too vague for my liking.

In this case the phrase likely means "we think it was sabotage but can't prove it yet"
Post reply on HN