
Russia May Be Targeting Undersea Internet Cables - vinnyglennon
http://time.com/5223237/russia-targeting-undersea-internet-cables/
======
eesmith
If the US does something, then the US must regard it as legit international
practice, right?

So, are the Russians doing anything worse than what the US has done for
decades?

Eg, Operation Ivy Bells -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells)
.

~~~
TomMckenny
The US tapped wires 50 years ago so it's ok to target Argentine cables for
cutting today?

An alternative theory: Putin his driving his people into poverty and leading
them to unnecessary and catastrophic conflict with the west to maintain his
popularity.

~~~
eesmith
It feels like you believe that I only mentioned one example, from 50 years
ago, that that's all the US did.

To the contrary, this article even points out "British and American
intelligence agencies have eavesdropped on fiber optic cables".

Do you think the US does not now tap undersea cables? If so, when did we stop?
Why aren't we calling for an international ban on the tapping and deliberate
cutting of undersea cables?

What does it mean "to target" a cable for cutting? I mean, the US has
certainly mapped out the cables and almost certainly visited them by sub to
tap them. What more does the US need to do before we can say those cables are
targeted by the US?

And why do we think Russia has gone beyond the stage where the US has been for
decades?

Plus, this article gave no real reason for _why_ Russia would want to cut the
cables. It seems the best case situation for them is to "create an environment
of misinformation and distrust". Look at the effects of the 2008 submarine
cable disruptions -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruptio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruption)
. They weren't all that disruptive. So the benefits of cutting the cable don't
seem that high.

It's easier to think that Russia would want to tap the cables (like the US
does), and therefore _not_ want to cut the cable, because it would mean
cutting off an information source.

While on the other hand, if you're in the military (sorry, "military-
industrial complex"), and want to get more funding, then the best way to do it
is to present the worst-case movie scenario of what a potential enemy might
do.

An alternative theory: the US wants to ensure that there are no challengers to
its hegemony, and by threat of military force hypocritically condemns actions
which it itself has no qualms doing.

Why else did we triple the effective power of our nuclear arsenal through
'super-fuze', then turn around and complain when Russia responds with
something like the Sarmat ICBM - exactly as one might predict from the MAD
doctrine?

~~~
TomMckenny
Today's comically poorly run US is spinning up huge pork barrel spending on
pointless weapons while the Russians have a dictator who thrives on stories of
imminent danger. It's quite symbiotic. Thus the super-fuze vs Sarmat issue. It
is not because Putin thinks the current US administration is going to fling
nukes at him at any second.

Similarly, if the US has an administration so biddable that you can sail into
Chesapeake bay and poke around with impunity, why not do so? It will sure look
good in Russia when you're caught.

And just as with this rather mild news story, I'm sure there is some tu quoque
justification for the invasion of Ukraine and the poisoning of Sergei Skripal
that we would hear should those stories get posted.

So regrettably, as long as the Russians have Putin they will get poorer every
day and to distract them we all will edge closer to another cold war. If the
US and UK dropped of the planet tomorrow then he would rail against Germany
and the Baltic States instead.

~~~
eesmith
I do not share your belief that the US, which is currently involved in
numerous wars, will never use its "pointless weapons."

Nixon, for example, thought about nuking Vietnam:

> We’re going to do it. I’m going to destroy the goddamn country, believe me,
> I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapons if
> necessary. It isn’t necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, what shows you
> the extent to which I’m willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we
> will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody
> interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapons.
    
    
      Nixon: I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that ready?
      Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
      Nixon: A nuclear bomb, does that bother you?… I just want you to
       think big, Henry, for Christ’s sake! The only place where you and
       I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You’re so goddamned concerned
       about civilians, and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care.
      Kissinger: I’m concerned about the civilians because I don’t want the
       world to be mobilized against you as a butcher.
    

I see no reason to believe that the US in the future will not ever make that
step.

The US "huge pork barrel spending" also make us poorer every day.

My complaint here is to point out the hypocrisy and weakness of US claims, not
the use of that hypocrisy to justify Russian behavior.

~~~
TomMckenny
Which again is a quote from 50 years ago and about Vietnam. And Vietnam
clearly no longer feels like it's going to be nuked at any second. Instead it
is increasingly friendly to other nations. As was Russia until Putin took over
making his country slowly but steady more and more like North Korea every day.

If the Russians wish to ruin their lives by having an economy destroying and
soul crushing dictator, that is their business. But Putin's internet puppets
are not going to make the outside world comfortable with having military grade
poisons released in their country or arms sent to the Taliban or extremest
candidates clandestinely supported just by endless repeating "Look what Nixon
did"

~~~
eesmith
Despite your implications, I am not an apologist for Russian state behavior,
and I don't see why you seem to bring it up. What, of what I wrote, has
implied otherwise?

I am calling out American hypocrisy.

Is it possible to do that without being called an internet puppet?

We look at history to see what the US does and how presidents think does
because newer records are still secret, and increasingly so.

Why are we spending billions on nuclear weapons we'll never need? How much do
we spend on making plans to take out the undersea cables of other countries?
Does that spending improve our economy?

~~~
TomMckenny
When a criticism of the US (or any free country) is raised, the discussion is
multifaceted. The conversation is never overwhelmed with by "calling out
Russian hypocrisy" implying both that the post is from them and no one
anywhere should object.

To your other point, I agree money should not be wasted on unnecessary
military spending nor should any nation cut or spy on under sea cables.

------
jimrandomh
Tapping undersea cables used to be a thing, but these days, encryption is
extremely cheap; tapping cables can only work if the owner of the cable is
negligent. And if the cable isn't encrypted properly, updating the equipment
on both ends is much cheaper than running a new cable.

(Installing devices to enable quickly cutting cables during a crisis, on the
other hand, is something that would work and that they might plausibly be
doing.)

~~~
dogma1138
Encryption isn't extremely cheap in fact it's rather expensive (especially on
the scales were talking about) and none of the infrastructure providers
provides any encryption of their own they just route traffic.

------
drb91
This seems ridiculous. Of course they’re tapping the wires. I’d be more pissed
if I found out my country didn’t watch the internet like this. Use encryption
already!

------
bitumen
Of all the things Russia does, this has to be one of the most expected and
universal. What major power isn’t going to have plans to tap or cut cables?

Nerve agent and polonium poisoning is unusual and reprehensible, this is not.

