Russian Presence Near Undersea Cables Concerns US (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times reports that the presence of Russian ships near important, undersea internet cables is raising concern with U.S. military and intelligence officials. From the article: "The issue goes beyond old Cold War worries that the Russians would tap into the cables — a task American intelligence agencies also mastered decades ago. The alarm today is deeper: The ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West's governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent.
...
Just last month, the Russian spy ship Yantar, equipped with two self-propelled deep-sea submersible craft, cruised slowly off the East Coast of the United States on its way to Cuba — where one major cable lands near the American naval station at Guantánamo Bay. It was monitored constantly by American spy satellites, ships and planes. Navy officials said the Yantar and the submersible vehicles it can drop off its decks have the capability to cut cables miles down in the sea. What worries Pentagon planners most is that the Russians appear to be looking for vulnerabilities at much greater depths, where the cables are hard to monitor and breaks are hard to find and repair.

Comments

Military funding to thwart this threat?

[rmdingler]

Sounds like a money grab. It seems unlikely the Russians would risk peacetime exposure of such an act of sabotage, only to risk the full measure of the American retaliation process, unless the two nations were at war.

Scouting mission? Sure. Possibly.

But Putin's grandstanding is likely more about restoring key pieces of the old Soviet Empire and regaining a foothold in the Middle East, not in confronting the Americans head on.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Lord Bitman]

I'm on-board with Military funding to thwart this - let's fund the military and have them lay down 200 redundant cables. It's absurd how few of these we have.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because they are bloody expensive?

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[knightghost]

In case you missed it, the Russians aren't in "peace time" mode. Ukraine, Syria, etc.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ukraine and Syria are failed AMERICAN government toppling exercises. But I can see how it's convenient to blame Russia.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a money grab. It seems unlikely the Russians would risk peacetime exposure of such an act of sabotage, only to risk the full measure of the American retaliation process, unless the two nations were at war.

Scouting mission? Sure. Possibly.

But Putin's grandstanding is likely more about restoring key pieces of the old Soviet Empire and regaining a foothold in the Middle East, not in confronting the Americans head on.

I would have agreed with you maybe ten years ago, but ever since Russia started flying bombers equipped with nukes near my home here in Alaska ( http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/russian-bombers-u-s-intercept-july-4/ ) I have to disagree. Cold War 2.0 is starting folks--the Putin regime is not joking around.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Around $300 million per cable. The military spends 60 times that on air conditioning.

Laying down 200 cables would cost 10% of the military budget.
Not feasible to do overnight, but ten every year for 20 years might be doable.
I suspect that you can get the price down a bit if you lay down that many for a long time.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is guessing who is the payed troll.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[maeka]

I'm on-board with Military funding to thwart this - let's fund the military and have them lay down 200 redundant cables. It's absurd how few of these we have.

2 cables or 200, it doesn't matter when talking about exposure to intentional sabotage by a state actor. Destruction of such assets is inherently asymmetric.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Rei]

$300m per cable which Russia could probably cut for a few hundred thousand USD per cable of amortized ship construction/operating costs - yeah, what a winning bet you've got there.

Seriously, you want to spend 10% of the US military's entire budget on one line item?

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Rei]

He's not a troll, he's a Likho. Putin would never resort to using inferior western mythological creatures!

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Rei]

It's started on one side. The other side still largely has its eyes closed and its fingers in its ears, chanting "la la la, I can't hear you!"

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[DarkOx]

This, mostly. ^

I would not go as far as to call Ukraine a failed toppling exercise. It was a case of undue American political influence. The facts are no matter how you want to spin them there was a pro-russian President in power (who was crook but that isn't relevant to the larger Geo-political action). There were public uprisings and protests taking place. 'We' decided to fan the flames and cause the guy to be deposed because, 'democracy and rule of law', while we blissfully ignored the fact Ukraine had no legal process to remove an elected president involuntarily prior to the end of his term.

If Ukraine had an impeachment process and we had simply been advocating thru public speech the people there use it without providing material support, I would say the situation would be quite clear that the Russians were the ones who over steeped but what we did was a lot more like backing a coup than anything else.

Mexico arguably is closer to a failed state than Ukraine was prior to the resent upheaval. Do you think our government would be tolerant of Putin working to install a pro-Russian government there via extra legal means? I expect 'we' would see it as quite provocative and act accordingly.

Again I am not apologizing for Putin at all, he is bad as any of the international criminals out there, but while the press wants to spin it as him being some sort of crazy aggressor I don't think that is reality. He might be aggressive but his actions don't seem all that crazy if you put yourself in his shoes, they look pretty rational and self interested to me. Which does not mean we have to like them or even mean we have to or should tolerate them but if we want to act 'rationally' and possibly self interested we should try to understand what the motives of the other players are rather than just writing them off as crazy.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

F-35?

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nukes, but also, when did America stop flying nukesnear Russia? They haven't. Invalid argument. Bears, like in B52's, don't mean it has a nuke. And nukes are expensive to fly around willy nilly.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

How else are we going to compensate for our small penises but insanely expensive planes that don't fly?

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much are they giving you comrade? They're only paying me in vodka and old Lenin stickers.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[wwphx]

What I find amusing is that we tapped their military cables ages ago and had a submarine dedicated to it. And now they may be looking to do the same thing? Boo hoo. Lots of factions in the government are happiest when they have a clearly-defined enemy, well, they've got it.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[ColdWetDog]

Seriously, you want to spend 10% of the US military's entire budget on one line item?

For faster Netflix streaming? You're damned well right I do. Where are your priorities?

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Lije Baley]

Didn't even RTFS, now that's advanced Slashdotting!

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[i_ate_god]

> Which does not mean we have to like them or even mean we have to or should tolerate them but if we want to act 'rationally' and possibly self interested

"we" as in the politicians, will need the political capital to act, capital that comes from "we', the people.

So painting the actions of someone who threatens us as "irrational" is a good way to gain that capital.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now's a great time for Putin to grandstand. We have a sissy, water-balloon for a President (Obama). And it only gets worse down the pike.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[interval1066]

It seems unlikely the Russians would risk peacetime exposure of such an act of sabotage...

Indeed, and they aren't stupid. I don't think sabotage (or as Shatner would say: 'Sabatage') is what they have in mind.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[ShanghaiBill]

Seriously, you want to spend 10% of the US military's entire budget on one line item?

No, no, you are missing the point. We need to increase the military budget by 10%. The whole point of scaremongering and manufactured crises, is to get more money, not just shift around what you already have.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[ShanghaiBill]

The Americans haven't been in peace time mode since 1945 unless I missed history classes.

You missed some classes. The US was at war, continuously, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, with American soldiers fighting to prop up dictators in Nicaragua, Haiti, Honduras, etc.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[khallow]

I think the "crazy" part is more due to lazy journalists who can't be bothered to - or might not even be capable of - understanding the actions of someone they're hostile to. The "write off as crazy" approach is cheap and low effort.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[bobbied]

The Americans haven't been in peace time mode since 1945 unless I missed history classes.

Yea, we've been bombing the ..... Out of the rest of the world just because we are vindictive sons of ......

Seriously, who teaches this garbage? Where we have been in numerous armed conflicts around the world since the end of WW2, hasn't anybody been paying attention to what other countries have done or are now attempting to do? Does anybody care that there have been a number of successful outcomes from these conflicts? Or does anybody care the motivations behind why the USA got involved? No, we have to further the notion that the lone superpower of the world is somehow corruptly using it's military power to "take what it wants" or any other tripe the "have not's" dream up, then re-enforce this idea by spouting half truths and bringing up isolated unfortunate events as proof.

My favorite is that we went into Iraq for "oil". Well we went into Iraq TWICE in my living memory and didn't get one drop of oil or one square foot of ground from it. The FIRST time was to return the oil fields of Kuwait to Kuwait and make sure Iraq wouldn't quickly return. The USA didn't get any oil from the deal, but returned ALL the oil and the territory captured to it's original owners. The SECOND trip into Iraq was for different reasons, but again, even though we had thoroughly and completely conquered ALL of Iraq including it's oil fields, the USA returned them to Iraq along with all the territory taken.

So tell me again how the Americans are all about war? Because if we where, the earth would be paying taxes through the IRS.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they build and deploy 200 cable-destroying ships? It's not like frogmen can dive to those depths and cut the cable.

We can lay them down sequentially, but monitor them in parallel via satellites and other observation platforms. When the first few cables get cut, that's an act of war and we take out those ships. The munitions to do so are also much less expensive than the ship, so the asymmetry corrects itself once aggression starts.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

$300m per cable which Russia could probably cut for a few hundred thousand USD per cable

No they can't.

They can't start cutting hundreds of cables without someone noticing. As a first strike in a war knocking out the enemies communication is a pretty good move, but only if you can do so successfully.
A successful strike is a lot more likely if you can go for a handful of cables instead of over a hundred.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[ultranova]

But Putin's grandstanding is likely more about restoring key pieces of the old Soviet Empire and regaining a foothold in the Middle East, not in confronting the Americans head on.

Putin's grandstanding is about making russians see the entire world as their enemies, so they'll turn to a "strong" leader - specifically him - as their saviour. It's hardly a new trick, and it'll end up in a catastrophic miscalculation sooner or later.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the one who spelled paid wrong. That's my guess. Even though the OP spelled it correctly and the next reply spelled it wrong. Do you ruskies even retain information?

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[oh_my_080980980]

I think people thought the same about Crimea and the incursion into the Ukrane, yet look what happened. I wouldn't put it past this ass-hole.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[ultranova]

The facts are no matter how you want to spin them there was a pro-russian President in power (who was crook but that isn't relevant to the larger Geo-political action).

The president being a crook is very relevant to how a rebellion against said president came to be.

'We' decided to fan the flames and cause the guy to be deposed

Or, alternatively, he simply got too greedy.

Everything that happens in the world isn't part of some big player's plot. It's entirely possible corrupt assholes manage to push their victims too far all on their own.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[oh_my_080980980]

Truth hurts doesn't it butt wipe.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[oh_my_080980980]

He annexed Crimea, invades the Ukraine, then shoots down a passenger airline, and you say he's not a crazy aggressor? What the fuck is your definition of a crazy aggressor.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[smooth wombat]

Ukraine had no legal process to remove an elected president involuntarily prior to the end of his term.

Which does not apply in this case since Yanukovych ordered his Berkut security forces to open fire and murder dozens of protestors.

At that point the Ukrainian parliament abandoned him because of his criminal acts. His next step was to flee into the arms of Putin.

Since a), Yanukovych committed a crime (the order to murder civilians who were protesting his actions) and b) he fled the country, there was no need to remove him from office. He willingly removed himself by his actions.

As to the supposed undue American influence, I guess letting people know living under freedom is better than living under the boot heel of Russian oppression might, in some twisted fashion, be considered undue influence.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[khallow]

They can't start cutting hundreds of cables without someone noticing.

If you cut internet to Europe, especially while launching a nuclear first strike, someone will notice. It doesn't matter if you instantaneously cut 2 lines or 200. The blossoming fireballs over major cities and/or strategic military targets will give it away.

Or do you mean that the cable cuts will keep the US military from reading Putin's tweets? Sow confusion among Slashdot's international superpowered community?

Wait... so it won't have even the slightest effect in an actual war where no one actually relies on those cables for military communication? How about that.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[phantomfive]

The United States has been almost constantly involved in armed aggression since 1776.
Note this is not particularly unusual for a country.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Putin staged the coup. You are naive to think otherwise.

Who paid Yanukovych? Who also paid the fascists? Putin, in both cases. Everyone involved was on Putin's payroll.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Coren22]

Everything I have read indicates that the F-35 in fact does actually fly. It however isn't better than a bunch of specialized planes at doing everything...which is to be expected.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Coren22]

The funny thing is, it all started over Yanukovych making efforts to join the EU, what does the US have to do with that at all?

Why would the US give a crap about the Ukraine, why are we using the "CIA" or whatever to depose a president that acted initially against Russia's wishes, then went full on insane after Russia countered.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Coren22]

Especially a country that the whole world uses as the police force.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Coren22]

It is much cheaper to just move them around in nuclear missile subs...

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Coren22]

Or Georgia, or Syria.

I'm just waiting for the vote for Syria to join the Russian federation just like Crimea.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[AmiMoJo]

Thing is, the US never stopped placing military assets near Russia. In the 90s Russian stopped its air patrols and cut back sea patrols due to lack of money, but the US didn't. The US has a lot of military bases near Russia too, which is has kept open.

Russian was forced to back down, but the US didn't take the opportunity to make a similar reduction. Too lucrative for the military industrial complex I guess. So don't complain when Russia starts up patrols again. The US has an opportunity to de-escalate, was invited to by Russian diplomats, and didn't. So Russian resumed its previous stance, which is remarkably restrained considering the invasions and military activity that the US has been engaged in since 2000, all on Russia's doorstep.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[AmiMoJo]

Damn right, just think of all the poor VPN users who have to stream from the US to get their weekly fix. They won't get 4k unless that cable stays in tip-top condition!

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem with the F-35 is that it's already two generations behind the Su-47 and barely as good as the Su-27 which is 15 years old.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[aaaaaaargh!]

No, Putin is probably really kind of 'crazy', at least that's what the public evidence indicates. He's a psychopath who almost entirely lacks empathy and only thinks in the strategic terms of an aged intelligence operative, and that's a problem, not that he also acts in the interest of his country like any other leader does. He's also kind of a loner.

Crazy and rational are not mutually exclusive terms, they easily go hand in hand.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Psychiatry straight from the University of Google.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

All out of enlightened benevolence? That's pure shit for domestic consumption. A cartoon narrative. Spreading democracy to Syria, but not to a tyrannical Saudi Arabia, where the state itself routinely beheads people for sorcery? Who armed and supported Saddam in the 70s and 80s? Who helped orchestrate a coup in a democratic Iran and install the Shah as dictator?

And all that looks rosy compared to the horrors unleashed on Central and South America. All because countries wouldn't do as they were told, didn't elect the governments that the US wanted, or weren't sufficiently business-friendly. All great powers have a such histories. You might try reading some of them before criticizing how they're taught.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[neoritter]

Or because a crumbling Soviet Union with nukes is a recipe for chaos. And packing up and going home wasn't an option to make sure things stayed secure. Ironically, until Russia's actions back in '06, the US was drawing down in Europe, etc.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[neoritter]

The only interest in the US with Ukraine was a semi-formal agreement when they gave up their arsenal to protect them. I'm not sure where you get the CIA drivel from. RT maybe?

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

US Oil companies got the oil contracts after the war

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[neoritter]

God, the same tired old comments from Russian trolls and those that have bought into their sophistry.

The US took almost no part in the Ukrainian uprisings. And your Mexico analogy clichéd and tired as it is, is just wrong. Ukraine was pivoting to the EU. You know that economic alliance almost literally right next door to Ukraine.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Coren22]

It is the most common conspiracy theory out of Russia. I think it is absurd as well, which is why it was quoted.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Russians think we did it, does it matter what the reality is?

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Bert64]

Flying an old TU-95 bomber is hardly a threat, it's more of a nuisance call... Fly one close to NATO airspace and see how they respond. In an actual war, these aircraft wouldn't be used against an enemy that has any realistic air to air combat capability as they'd be easily shot down. They are similar to the B52, which the US deployed in afghanistan mainly because the taliban had no viable anti-aircraft weapons.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[MrDoh!]

Seriously, you want to spend 10% of the US military's entire budget on one line item?

One off payment for that much bandwidth, that improves the world's communications? Yes, I would. One of the best uses for taxpayer cash I can think of. Let the US own the world's internet hardware infrastructure, or at least have a backup to sell/lease to private companies in case their links get cut/broken.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush, Cheney, Blair, Howard.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[rockout]

We absolutely were making similar reductions. There's a Wikipedia pagethat lists 214 former US installations in Germany alone - the vast majority of which were closed since 1991. We completely closed our base in Iceland, which at one point had thousands of Air Force and Navy personnel stationed there. And that's just scratching the surface with 5 seconds of googling. Surely you can do better than making a point based on a completely false premise.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

The price of oil went from $30 a barrel to $100 + without any change in consumption.
Oddly, the oil companies made MORE money with a higher price of oil. Odd how that works?
They made record profits while Americans and people the world over payed more than ever for gas... The amount of oil in the ground did not change, nothing changed other than the geopolitics of the middle east.
No.
We went there to make sure that CONTROL of the oil, and the oil market was what we wanted. US oil companies made out like bandits and some contracts went to willing partners like the UK, while others went to quiet enablers like China.

It was not until we started having a spat with Russia, and already had Halliburton developed fracking in place for leverage that we could get our best butt buddies in the house of Saud to bankroll a collapse of the price of oil to both hurt Russia and HELP the USA.
It helps us because we depend on cheap oil, and the dollar is a defacto oil backed currency, so a lower price of oil makes us exports cheaper. It hurts Russia because their aged infrastructure needs high oil prices to prop up the entire Russian economy.

There is more to it, but the one thing that proves the statement, 'it was about oil' is one simple fact.
After the fall of Baghdad we had hundreds of troops securing the Oil Ministry, gathering documents, maps, plant schematics, and the rest. At the same time the Baghdad museum, one of the most historically important in the world, was being looted and destroyed without a single troop in sight.

Actions are louder than words and priorities are easy to see with actions.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Falconhell]

In case you missed it, the US has been in war mode for most of it's life. Pot, meet kettle. Oh wait there have been times Russia wasn't at war.the US complaining about others is incredibly ironic.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable-cutting ships? No. Attack subs equipped for the task. Those aren't so easy to hunt down.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll much?

I guess you missed the entire "Peace Dividend" era in the 1990's.
I guess you missed how the nuclear arms inventories were in fact, as you put it, "de-escalated";
I guess you missed how Iraq cannot be considered to be on Russia's doorstep, at all, ever.
I guess you missed that while Afghanistan is sort-of on Russia's doorstep, the Russians experienced shadenfreude at the American's experience there.
I guess you missed that Russia has systematically destabilized every neighbor too weak to shut them out.
I guess you missed that Russia's activities in Ukraine are something a bit more than "patrols", but even if Russia's activities in Ukraine were only patrols that would still be an illegal incursion into sovereign territory.

While I believe the US has intruded excessively on the international scene, your willingness to give Vladimir Putin and a giant kleptocracy a pass is too much.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially a country that the whole world uses as the police force.

That explains it. Russia was merely policing the undersea cables. Maybe they'll take some of the wires away as "evidence".

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you think the whole world wants you as a police force?

(hint: I can't actually think of anywhere that wants that, it's just we're not given any choice, you say no, a carrier group appears off your coast)

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[KGIII]

Should you ever need some amusement, read the EncyclopediaDramatica page on South Odessia. It's their best page. If you smoke weed then do so first. It's mostly factually correct and gives an *interesting* viewpoint.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[KGIII]

As an American, I'm slightly ashamed of my government. Know, please, that not one single elected official is one that I voted for - and I vote in every election. My only advice for you is to stop electing chicken-shit governments and elect those who will stand up and tell the US to piss off. I'm sorry about my government but, rest assured, I'm doing everything (rational) that I can do to change it. However, history shows that nobody ever listens to KGIII.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[CronoCloud]

Who else are you going to get to do it? Someone has to do it. You want the Russians or the Chinese? Want the British East India company back? You might say that the world doesn't need one, but obviously it does.

You might not like it, but the basic consensus is that the US is it. There's a reason the western hemisphere has been fairly docile without massive wars in the hemisphere between the nations in it for a century. Pax Americana.

Your attitude reminds me of Monty Python's the Life of Brian:

Reg (leader of the People's Front of Judea): All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
PFJ member: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peaceâ"SHUT UP!

a carrier group appears off your coast

When a natural disaster hits your nation, you'll be glad to see a carrier group off your coast. And we have 10 of them, fully capable of providing a MASSIVE amount of logistical assistance in a disaster.

And need I remind you, the very internet where you are complaining about the US....was originally a project of DARPA.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy people, by definition, lack rational abilities. So he is not crazy in a medical kind of way. No leader is empathic in any kind of way. So the media calling him 'crazy' is the usual kind of spin heard in the western hemisphere. As an European, I would take like him as an ally alot more than the US.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[KGIII]

Do you have some information on this? I'm not really able to find any. What I am seeing is that the US actually gets a trivial amount of oil from the Middle East.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, it flies. i've seen it fly. it's loud. regardless, yes, jack of all trades, master of none.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

US Oil companies got the oil contracts after the war

Iraq chooses the companies and set the terms of those contacts and gets the proceeds from the sale of their oil. Or are you just parroting the propaganda lines you hear?

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[bobbied]

The first invasion WAS about Oil, returning the oil Iraq took by force to it's rightful owners in Kuwait....

The second WASN'T about oil, persay, and control of the oil fields was returned to Iraq AFTER the war. Iraq chooses who develops, maintains and operates their oil resources and the terms of the contracts. Iraq receives payment for the oil they sell.

We may not agree with the Saudi's form of government, their laws and cultural customs, but they generally don't go around making a nuisance of themselves becoming a danger to their neighbors so it's not the USA's place to force changes on them. Saudi Arabia generally lives at peace, has abundant natural resources we need to keep freely flowing for the world so where our ambitions and theirs align with the free flow of energy, we are allies and likely to remain so.

I don't see how this is a problem. In fact, this is an example of where the USA is not out forcing the world into it's mold, but choosing to live peacefully with the rest of the world when possible, despite the differences.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[maeka]

That's handwaving, for if you know a way to reliably detect small submarines which are attempting to be stealthy you've solved a far larger problem than this one.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

*country that thinks the whole world uses as the police force* np fixed it for u bro

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, the US never stopped placing military assets near Russia. In the 90s Russian stopped its air patrols and cut back sea patrols due to lack of money, but the US didn't. The US has a lot of military bases near Russia too, which is has kept open.

Russian was forced to back down, but the US didn't take the opportunity to make a similar reduction. Too lucrative for the military industrial complex I guess. So don't complain when Russia starts up patrols again. The US has an opportunity to de-escalate, was invited to by Russian diplomats, and didn't. So Russian resumed its previous stance, which is remarkably restrained considering the invasions and military activity that the US has been engaged in since 2000, all on Russia's doorstep.

And meanwhile, you were destroying a number of allies to russia - irak, libya, syria...next step iran. Try again, son.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dbIII]

It was three times into Iraq, the first was to get the overnight reflagged "Kuwaiti" tankers out for Saddaam and was mostly a series of Naval engagements. Not bringing a minesweeper due to it being a "show the flag" thing was a stupid mistake. Having a paranoid itchy fingered idiot with no combat experience in a place where he could shoot down an airliner was another.
The motives appear to be far more base than getting oil. Didn't the "mission accomplished" photoshoot prove that to you? An idiot wanted to be a "popular wartime President" and was happy to have a lot of people die to do it. Johnson did the same sort of thing. History is full of petty pricks directing the might of the USA to counterproductive ends, some not even at the top like that corrupt Nevada senator that bankrolled some people in Afganistan that we later ended up fighting.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dbIII]

However politically well connected companies are getting the oil whether it gets to the USA or not - that's one of the problems. Whether it was the reason or not (it probably wasn't) Cheney's connections did very well out of it indeed, so the "it wasn't for the oil argument" falls flat even if it was originally true.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[KGIII]

I can't say that I'm following what it is you're trying to get across. If you're saying that Cheney's friends in the Industrial Military Complex made out like bandits that's probably true. I am not actually sure what that has to do with the claim that the AC made, the one which I was responding to. You then go on to say that my "argument" (which was actually just a question because they might be correct and I can't find any information that confirms that as being true) falls flat - even if true. So if I'm arguing, and that argument is correct, it's immaterial because of some point that I neither made nor argued?

Am I following or am I misreading something? I've never known you to be an idiot before (though I'm sure you have, I know I have - plenty of times) so, perhaps, I am misreading something.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP is wholly incorrect anyway. Ukraine does have a process to remove an elected president prior to the end of his term like just about every democracy.

There is a lot of FUD spread about Yanukovych's ousting, but it was actually all completely legitimate - talks of a coup, unconstitutional and so forth are mere Russian propaganda.

Ukraine allows for the ousting of a president if 75% of elected MPs vote for that. There was a vote, but due to a number of abstainments the figure reached was only 73%, and it's often argued by Russian propagandists that this is evidence that the vote wasn't legitimate. The problem with this argument is that the vote in question wasn't an impeachment vote, it was a vote necessary to trigger an official investigation into the president which must be carried out before an impeachment vote can be held. That investigation only needs a simple majority.

Yanukovych, on seeing that 73% of MPs (when only 51% were necessary) voted to begin the pre-requisite process of investigation decided to flee the country to Russia by travelling to Crimea on land where he was picked up by Russian special forces and flown out to Russia and he renounced his presidency in the process (presumably to protect himself from the wrath of protesters as he fled on land for the initial part of his exit).

As such, there was no illegitimacy in Yanukovych's ousting whatsoever. The vote to begin the investigation into him was legit, no impeachment vote was never held, because Yanukovych stepped down of his own free will before the investigation that was voted for as a pre-requisite to potential impeachment could ever begin.

The only thing that was illegitimate about it all was that Yanukovych, once in Russia, claimed he was revoking his resignation and was hence still President of Ukraine. That's something there is no legal basis for.

The only illegal acts that occurred in Ukraine's most recent revolution were as you say, perpetrated by Yanukovych, who used his Berkut force to snipe at civilians and police alike to try and provoke confrontation between them by trying to make them believe they were shooting at each other.

Talk of American influence in Ukraine is even more comical, when you understand that Putin has been trying to thwart the aspirations of the Ukrainian people since there previous revolution in 2004 including trying to assassinate a non pro-Kremlin candidate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If American meddling in Ukraine was even remotely as prominent as Russian meddling then Yanukovych wouldn't have even made it to the ballot box to be a candidate that was eventually ousted in the first place because America would've poisoned him, just as Russia poisoned Viktor Yuschenko.

About the only accusation that's stuck is that America was funding NGOs, but given that Putin funds actual far right political parties in Europe like the money Russia gave to France's National Front it's still a pretty pathetic evidence of interfering. Funding an NGO doesn't remotely approach trying to manipulate the political process by attempting to assassinate political opponents, or charging penalty rates on essential resources like oil and gas to make a leader unpopular. It's pretty clear that any US meddling in Ukraine was barely noticable low level background noise compared to Russian meddling.

The situation in Ukraine is the inevitable result of over a decade of Russian attempts to keep Ukraine a puppet Russian state vs. the will of the Ukraine people to move more progressively to the wealth and freedoms of their neighbours like the increasingly wealthy Poland to the West. It's insulting to the people of Ukraine to keep up this Russian parroted myth that they couldn't figure out by themselves they want to integrate more to the EU than Russia. The EU isn't perfect, but when it leads to greater wealth and greater freedoms it's not hard to see how the majority of the Ukrainian people came to

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dave420]

Then they just put remotely-detonated charges on each one, so they can blow them all at the same time once the balloon goes up.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Xest]

"Thing is, the US never stopped placing military assets near Russia. In the 90s Russian stopped its air patrols and cut back sea patrols due to lack of money, but the US didn't. The US has a lot of military bases near Russia too, which is has kept open."

It's also closed a lot too. The US trajectory was pretty clearly in the direction Russia wanted. You may have forgotten that the US wanted to build a missile shield in Europe because of the fear that Iran was building nuclear ICBMs and Russia was refusing to stop Iran doing this by joining necessary sanctions. America ultimately cancelled the project to appease Russian fears it was targetted at them, and only many years later did Russia agree separately to help deal with the Iran nuclear threat.

The amount of American deployments in Europe was shrinking at a rapid pace right into the run up of the Ukraine crisis. In fact, I believe at the point the Ukraine crisis started there were no American MBTs left in Europe - this despite the fact that Russia had invaded a NATO ally and EU candidate, Georgia.

There was good reason for the US de-escalation towards Russia too - the US simply stopped caring about Russia being bothered instead by China and the Middle East. Even the US with it's military might has finite resources and it couldn't justify stationing equipment on Russia's border when it was bothered about increasing Chinese, Iranian (and before it's collapse, Syrian) adventurism. US forces had all been re-deployed to the Indian Ocean and Pacific to counter those concerns.

So what you say is almost entirely another Russian propaganda myth. See here for the type and scale of American draw down post-cold war we're talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There was actually a serious push to bring Russia into NATO to seal the deal in terms of ending the cold war in the 90s, this ended when Putin rose to power and made it clear he wants to resurrect the USSR as an independent power. The last remnants of this plan were finally obliterated when Putin invaded Ukraine and the NATO-Russia cooperation agreements (that saw Russian military leaders staffed at NATO HQ) we're finally torn up.

So no, you can't blame military build up against Russia I'm afraid either. Russia is the only country that's actually been aggressive on that front with invasions of Georgia and Ukraine and Russia's unilateral decision to ignore a number of nuclear disarmament treaties (including that which promised Ukraine security in return for giving up it's nuclear arsenal). America had all but pulled out of Europe when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Really, the more the US has pulled out, the more Russia has pushed forward. Any US military expansionism in Europe is wholly the result of increased Russian aggression rather than vice versa.

There's literally no evidence that Russian aggression has increased in response to increase US military expansionism in Europe, only the complete contrary. The best part is all this information is public, so go see for yourself how much the US has drawn down it's forces in Europe since the end of the cold war.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dave420]

Then it's the worst police force the world has ever seen, as it's allowing atrocities to be committed the world over without lifting a finger, at the same time committing its own atrocities wherever it feels money or influence can be won.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dave420]

Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraqi oilfields. Iraq asked the US if it the US would have any problem with Iraq securing its oilfields, to which the US replied that it doesn't have any opinion on arab/arab affairs. Iraq then went in and secured its oilfields. Then the shitstorm of propaganda (remember the Iraqi soldiers and the baby incubators?) happened, and the US and its buddies decided to invade. Don't pretend it was Iraq stealing oil - it's a damn sight more complicated than that. Either you are being purposefully disingenuous or you are woefully ignorant. Neither is particularly becoming.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[AmiMoJo]

Please note the words I carefully chose. "Similar reduction", as the Russian almost completely stopped having any military assets near US borders and interests, stopped patrols and flights near the US mainland. While the US did close some bases, it opened many new ones too, and many of them are near Russia or Russian interests.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, the b52 remains the main aircraft for delivering nukes.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what did W do when Putin invaded and annexed parts of Georgia? Absolutely nothing. OTOH, O has stiff sanctions against Putin that are being increased as we speak.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[bobbied]

Right... I guess everybody has their reasons and justifications for their actions. If this really was true (and I doubt it really was), You cannot drill sideways all that far. Maybe a few thousand feet, which works out to something under 2 miles or so. Iraq took ALL of Kuwait, not just the two miles necessary to preserve it's oil interest. Then they set as many oil wells alight as they could manage in Kuwait. Tell me again how they where motivated by slant drilling???

However, remember that Sadam was clearly warned and the military build up in Saudi took months. He could have withdrawn to the border and never suffered being expelled.

You are free to draw your own conclusions, but Iraq was NOT justified taking ALL of Kuwait under any circumstances. And even if what you say is true, they overstepped the bounds and had to be reined in by somebody. If we hadn't, the Saudi's would have, and that would have sparked a sectarian religious war like no other, disrupted the free flow of oil, and generally made a mess.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dbIII]

If you're saying that Cheney's friends in the Industrial Military Complex made out like bandits that's probably true. I am not actually sure what that has to do with the claim that the AC made

The blatant war profiteering means conspiracy theories about the war being planned for profit are hard to debunk even if they are bullshit. That's all I was trying to say.

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dbIII]

I didn't mean the "Industrial Military Complex" - I forgot to point out that it's more those of Cheney's connections on the resource and reconstruction side that did, and are still, doing very well out of being granted resources, taxpayers money and opportunities out of the conflict. It wouldn't be such a big deal if others got a chance to do the work instead of it being handed out to a very small number of companies well connected to the executive branch of the time.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[bobbied]

Well, I consider your complaint about the last Bush's activities as president to be mostly partisan rhetoric. Where I understand your complaint about "Mission Accomplished" one must consider the setting and the intended audience and take the time to consider the context. You also need to do more than look at the photo, but consider the speech that went with it.

The rhetoric from the left was all about how incompetent and stupid Bush was, and where mistakes where made, I think the left has made a mountain out of a mole hill, used Bush as their favorite whipping boy and used this partisan rhetoric to bludgeon the republicans. Where some of the critiques are valid, many of them are over blown and absurd, the "mission accomplished" one being among the top of the stupid things that get said.

IMHO, what Bush SAID on that carrier was fairly accurate and lined up perfectly with his current understanding of the situation in Iraq, while the banner portrayed a bit more optimistic view than Bush had at the time. However, the photo is what folks see, we don't hear the speech and couple that with the fact that the insurgent problem that no one expected was only just starting in Iraq, that there was a lot more war of a different kind left in Iraq.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[morgauxo]

Why lay them? I'm thinking have backups ready to lay. Develop processes to lay them as quickly as possible. Maybe even drill on it.

Enemy cuts cable.
Navy gets rid of enemy ship.
Navy lays ready to go replacement cable.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[tehcyder]

Crazy and rational are not mutually exclusive terms, they easily go hand in hand.

Only by some irrational definition of crazy.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[tehcyder]

My favorite is that we went into Iraq for "oil". Well we went into Iraq TWICE in my living memory and didn't get one drop of oil or one square foot of ground from it. The FIRST time was to return the oil fields of Kuwait to Kuwait and make sure Iraq wouldn't quickly return. The USA didn't get any oil from the deal, but returned ALL the oil and the territory captured to it's original owners. The SECOND trip into Iraq was for different reasons, but again, even though we had thoroughly and completely conquered ALL of Iraq including it's oil fields, the USA returned them to Iraq along with all the territory taken.

No, I think the point was that the US was protecting its access to oil from friendly Middle Eastern countries, not that it wanted to conquer those countries and literally own the oil fields.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[bobbied]

The USA doesn't usually import Middle East oil because it is too far away and there are sources much closer to home which have lower transportation costs. So there is no direct benefit to the USA here. However, the USA IS interested in the free flow of oil and maintaining a stable market from which it obtains it's Oil. So, there is a compelling national interest in keeping the middle east settled and the Oil flowing, even if we don't buy what they pump.

But don't miss the crucial fact that it really is the rest of the world that benefits from our involvement in the middle east and our attempts to maintain stability around the oil producing countries. Where we benefit from stable and low oil prices, so does the rest of the world, especially those countries where they have to import most of the energy they use (which tends to be the third world, poorer countries of the world.)

So look at both sides of that coin you are holding and realize that the USA, while acting in it's interest in the middle east, has helped the rest of the world as much or more than it helped itself. Other countries and cultures would not be so generous.

But if you want to make the USA into this greedy imperialistic "we take what we want and spit on everybody else" don't find me agreeing with you. We show marked restraint for a country that had the power to forcibly take anything and everything it wanted, yet refused to.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[rockout]

This is just nonsense because you don't want to admit that your fabricated assertions are dead wrong. "many of them are near Russia or Russian interests" ?? Please list those that were opened after 1989, and show everyone what your definition of "many" is.

Oh, and P.S. - the US closed some bases?? Gimmie a break. I'm really not going to bother researching and listing the hundreds of installations across Europe and Japan that were closed at the end of the Cold War - you can do it yourself. I thought the quick example of 214 closed installations just in Germany would give you a clue - but I guess I was wrong.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

recently I read somewhere about how he viewed the internet and how he wanted to control it because it had to be a US plot vs Russia. It was scary in terms of how they described how he interpreted the net and its function vs the reality of the net and just how uncontrolled it actually was

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dbIII]

Well, I consider your complaint about the last Bush's activities as president to be mostly partisan rhetoric

That's a bit of a copout and incorrect as well. Do I have to mention Johnson to provide balance before being taken seriously? Baby Bush made Nixon look good, let alone just about everyone else.

what Bush SAID on that carrier was fairly accurate and lined up perfectly with his current understanding of the situation in Iraq

So he should get a free pass for being an overly-optimistic idiot that rarely bothered to turn up for work? None of those things are virtues in a President.

the insurgent problem that no one expected

I think you and Baby Bush were the only two not to see that coming - Bush's advisors, the press and the entire military could see it coming and were discussing it even before going in. Daddy Bush gave it as a major reason not to go in ten years before FFS!

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I started to agree with you, but then I remembered all war is deception. Getting so close to the cables and acting shady just might have drawn the u.s. attention in the wrong direction. To.be honest this could all be a lie to make us fear the russians.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[bobbied]

You just *might* want to try and not be as harshly partisan if you intend to bring people to your point of view. Just a little objectivity, even if you are faking it, goes a long way.

Unless your intent is to come across as a hyper partisan nut case from the left... In which case, carry on....

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[dbIII]

If you see something being critical of people across party lines as being partisan then there is something very wrong with that perception is there not?

Now let's talk about

[GeekWithAKnife]

What does not concern the US.

A nation fed paranoia with various secret service departments that have a long history of immorality and dodgy practices and now they worry.

Perhaps I should they always worry, ney fear impending doom.

Not to worry, America are the good guys, right? because god bless America and uhm democracy and capitalism.

Oh wait a second, is this yet another media source to play on fears?! -"Concerns the US" having interviewed all major leaders they are very concerned.

This hammer on my desk has the capacity to be forcefully swung into a person's skull but no one is concerned....maybe it's time to assume "innocent until proven guilty" of others? you know because US officials are worried mistrust causes paranoia. -meh

Re:Now let's talk about

[MagickalMyst]

"because god bless America and uhm democracy and capitalism. "

I thought America was a Republic, not a Democracy...

Re:Now let's talk about

[retroworks]

I didn't read it as a call to arms or paranoia. To me it calls for ruggedizing the communications or establishing redundancy or new technology. But then I'm American, so take it with a grain of salt.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

Republic: A system of organization of the government
Democracy: A system of determining the government

The USA are a democratic republic, at least as far as the constitution is concerned. In reality, I'd call it a monetary oligocracy...

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, are you guys STILL parroting this nonsense ?

They really don't teach you anything there huh ?

Re:Now let's talk about

[MagickalMyst]

Good answer! :)

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

The word democracy does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not a good answer, since the word "democracy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights.

Re:Now let's talk about

[hlavac]

No Democracy, America is Oligarchy now according to experts

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying that the word "democracy" needs to be in these documents for it to be a democracy is like trying to define a word using the word you're trying to define.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. The word Republic is in the Constitution for a reason, no matter how many mental gymnastics you perform.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

The word doesn't have to appear there if the processes and practices the document proscribes fit the definition, then 'democracy' applies.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Republic applies, as that's what the founders explicitly stated. They referred to Democracy as "Tyranny of The Majority".

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

> mental gymnastics

Jealous?

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

> mental gymnastics

Jealous?

Not at all. It is one thing to find amusement in a porn actress doing things with her fist. It is quite another thing to attempt those yourself.

Re:Now let's talk about

[MagickalMyst]

An unusual number of responses by AC's....

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

The first nation to call themselves a democracy was a "direct democracy". That's where the confusion lies, I suspect- they certainly meant that a democracy is where the people vote for laws, not representatives.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

"because god bless America and uhm democracy and capitalism. "

I thought America was a Republic, not a Democracy...

America is a theocracy. A Right wing fundamentalist christian theocracy.
The sky will fall when you'll elect the first muslim president.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm.... I hope.... If you believe that, you got serious problems.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

*facepalms*

Did you not read GGGGGP's post?

How the hell can you argue the USA is not a democracy (at least the way the system was supposed to work)? Hell, the people even directly vote for senators, when it was supposed to be state governments that chose the senators.

Next you'll tell me that North Korea is a democracy.

But, of course, as GGGGGP pointed out, it's really an oligarchy since the lame stream media propaganda machine has been able to successfully convince cows to vote against their own best interests for 30+ years now.

Re:Now let's talk about

[oreaq]

The first nation to call themselves a democracy was a fascist hellhole in which up to 80% of the population lived in slavery. A republic, res publica, on the other hand was literally an organisation that dealt with all public things as opposed to all private things, that the individual people dealt with. Basically the opposite of the US System now. The US Republic only deals in secrets, whereas no aspect of any person's live is private anymore. LOL words.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Democracy", in the context of "republic" and the writing of a constitution, means the direct votes of the people. This is spelled out as such where it applies in the Constitution. There is literally no reason for the word "democracy" to be used, especially given its modern context of unlimited Will of The People.

Much more important are words like "rights" and "freedom", both of which are part of the primary purpose of the Constitution, to make people free, which is to say free from government, which is to say free from the power hungry seeking to use government power for their own ends, including via democracy.

Other countries may believe a simple majority is the voice of god, but the US knows history and has blocks in against that, and thus the demagogues who are skilled in wielding it, too.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It is nowadays a left wing theocracy, in the sense that politics and religion are the same thing, memewise -- large memeplexes whose purpose is to spread among cognitive units until they grow so large they can assume the mantle of forcing themselves on non-cooperative cognitive units.

As with traditional religions, Man should be free from the new ones.

Re:Now let's talk about

[s.petry]

No, it does not mean direct votes of the people. It means that the people have some influence over the republic. The influence can be vocal displeasure at who they elect to represent them, pitchforks, or direct voting on agenda items.

The method of Governing by Republic is as old as dictatorships and monarchies. You should read the book sometime, I found it very enlightening in each of the dozen or so translations I have read (best being Cambridge Texts).

Free does not mean Free from Government, and it takes a special kind of idiocy to make such a claim. If the founders were anarchists they would never have framed the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and formed A GOVERNMENT.

What you claim the US knows is laughable if you read any history at all, especially but not limited to the last half century.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nowadays a left wing theocracy

You are SOO correct, I mean the liberals hold both the house and senate and the majority of state governors are liberal as are the state houses. Those damn liberals have just taken over haven't they?!?!

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nowadays a left wing theocracy, in the sense that politics and religion are the same thing, memewise -- large memeplexes whose purpose is to spread among cognitive units until they grow so large they can assume the mantle of forcing themselves on non-cooperative cognitive units.

As with traditional religions, Man should be free from the new ones.

If this was a left wing government, we would have sane gun control, a single payer health system, no corporate money in politics, no invasion of Iraq, etc. We have not seen left wing for a very long time.

Re:Now let's talk about

[MagickalMyst]

"How the hell can you argue the USA is not a democracy"

I thought it was a republic because the pledge of allegiance states it to be.

Then again, after reading The Franklin Cover-Up" I'd be quick to say that it is more of a pedophocracy than anything else.

Re:Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

Other countries may believe a simple majority is the voice of god, but the US knows history and has blocks in against that, and thus the demagogues who are skilled in wielding it, too.

Is this humor?

The U.S. has blocks against those who manipulate the majority voice? So they avoid things like McCarthyism then? Or is it just to prevent the majority from getting what it wants?

Re:Now let's talk about

[dave420]

America is a republic and a representative democracy.

Re: Now let's talk about

[Anonymous Coward]

At the current moment, I think that most Americans will agree with your reality bit. Sadly.

More American propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Instill fear - ahhh!! this super bad thing might happen!
2. Money grab
3. Rinse, repeat

Re:More American propaganda

[neoritter]

1. Shout tropes and memes about government spending
2. Dismiss legitimate concern
3. Get paid for troll comment.
4. Rinse, repeat.

Re:More American propaganda

[ColdWetDog]

When in trouble,
Or in doubt.

Run in circles,
Scream and shout.

Re: More American propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean I can get paid to troll!? Where do I sign up!?

"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone has such capability. No advanced equipment needed - just old-fashioned depth charges. If you master "underwater explosives", then you cruise along the cable and drop cheap bombs till you hit hit.

Which is what will happen in a war with a low-tech opponent. Russian equipment may be able to cut a cable on the very first try - that doesn't make them more dangerous than a fishing boat retrofitted with with a dept charge launcher. This sort of warfare is too easy.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Holi]

The likely hood of actually hitting a cable a mile underwater with a depth charge is pretty minimal. The various currents on the way down are going to send your explosive on a random path, and it's not going to land directly underneath you.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that dragging an anchor works well too.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that anchors and propellors can do a pretty decent job.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even close. The function of an underwater explosive is to destroy structures susceptible to shock waves - specifically, a depth charge is designed to affect any structure with a void that can be overcome with a spike in static pressure, like a manned submarine, which has an air void for the sailors to live in. Depth charges are designed to propagate a pressure wave over a relatively large 3D space using the gas generated in the explosion as a void in the water to instigate a cyclical event that will affect the target by the rising bubble of rapidly expanding and contracting gas, and since only a relatively small pressure differential is necessary to overcome the skin of a submarine, that charge is dispersed omnidirectionally for maximum range, since the position of a submarine is not always precisely known and dropping a depth charge directly on the sub is very difficult with an unguided system such as a depth charge. An underground cable is dense, lacks a meaningful pressure void, is VERY small at 3-5 inches diameter, and runs across (and sometimes slightly under due to tidal forces) the seabed floor where any explosive would have a VERY small surface area to attack. As such, any depth charge used against an undersea cable would need to be placed with extreme precision directly over the cable at a VERY close range (we're talking meters, if not centimeters), and have a shaped charge to funnel the blast energy directly into the cable structure to cut the cable, not just bounce a pressure wave off of it. So, basically, it would need to have exactly none of the characteristics of the "cheap bombs" you speak of, other than perhaps the "underwater" part. It would be much easier just to destroy the aboveground facility where the undersea cable makes landfall.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[phayes]

Only in shallow water where it is (relatively) easy to fix. The russians are using ROVs to "study" the cables 2 miles down. Snooping on the cables could be done in shallower waters. What, other than looking for spots to cut the cables could the russians be doing two miles down?

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[DarkOx]

Sure but the parents point is that just means you need to drop more bombs. Also a simple sonar from 60 years ago could give you a pretty good idea of where the charge you just dropped struck. Commercially available equipment is far more capable and perfectly affordable for even a small nation. Once you know the net effect of those currents after dropping a handful of charges is that they tend to land 2 miles north and east you position yourself two miles south and west of the cable and start dropping charges again until you strike home.

I know some allied air raids in WWII had accuracy rates of only 30% or so and that was considered perfectly adequate. You just put more bombers in the air.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[GNious]

Deploying remote-controllable explosives, evil-genius style? :D

Re: "capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, how is a submerged object sunk? By unguided object being dropped? Especially by the old hedgehog type of depth charge, luck? Yes. Aka since ex air force, golden bebe. But it happens. Saturate the area with contact explosives, wait for the discharge, or they may be looking for a lost Victor, from the cold war.

Re: "capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

what?

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Holi]

Drop a coin in the water, Do it a hundred times. Where the coin lands will continue to be unpredictable.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the same than all the other oceanographers : searching for oil and gas.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Nidi62]

Only in shallow water where it is (relatively) easy to fix. The russians are using ROVs to "study" the cables 2 miles down. Snooping on the cables could be done in shallower waters. What, other than looking for spots to cut the cables could the russians be doing two miles down?

Snooping is also easier to detect in shallow water. Cable in deeper water is harder to monitor and repair, so if you are going to snoop and have the capabilities to do so, why not go deep?

Re: "capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

Try it again with a marble.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[eth1]

Not to mention bombs make noise, which carries for a long way under water. You'd probably attract a lot of unwanted attention very quickly if you started that.

If I were trying to cut cables on purpose in deep water, I would probably go for a sled designed to be dragged across the sea floor with a hooked blade that penetrated a foot or so down. Maybe with some lights/cameras to verify a good cut.

Then all you have to do is drive back and forth across the cable's known route until you snag it. Bonus if you can grab one of the cut ends and drag it miles away from the cut to make it harder to find and repair.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[bobbied]

Anyone has such capability. No advanced equipment needed - just old-fashioned depth charges. If you master "underwater explosives", then you cruise along the cable and drop cheap bombs till you hit hit.

Which is what will happen in a war with a low-tech opponent. Russian equipment may be able to cut a cable on the very first try - that doesn't make them more dangerous than a fishing boat retrofitted with with a dept charge launcher. This sort of warfare is too easy.

Dang dude... Depth charges are way too expensive and would take too long for this... All you need is to drag along the bottom across the cable using something like an anchor or grappling hook. Once you snag the cable, just shear it into two by either cutting it or pulling on it really hard across a sharp hardened steal blade. Low tech and simple wins EVERY time.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

probably this... mapping out the cables for "future use", i.e., when/if a larger "conflict" erupts, they know the precise locations where to cut in order to inflict precise damage.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

And as soon as you drop the first charge, the US Navy fires a cruise missile at your boat. Have fun with that.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

lol this is not how underwater currents work, it is not a static medium.

Do some thinking before replying with garbage.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[sugarmatic]

Unfortunately, even at great depth, underwater explosions in contact with any surface can easily be intense enough to induce substantial cavitation. The long duration impulse from the explosion is converted to a very short duration impulse on collapse. This impulse is sufficient to cut though plate steel at appropriate depths (at depths where the close proximity pressure wave intensity is greater than ambient pressure) . The confinement of the explosion impulse to a small area at greater depth allows a relatively efficient conversion to the impingement energy. The time available to lose energy thermally is greatly reduced. The impulse intensity and duration in these kinds of operations is more than sufficient to blow apart an optical cable about the size of your thumb... by a wide margin.

Other than that, being in close proximity to a cable of that size, it is far easier to simply cut them.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[thegarbz]

A coin is flat and subject to a myriad of chaotic forces. Drop a round ball in the water and it will have a far higher consistency. Also ocean currents travel quite constantly at depth. We're not taking about waves lapping on a shore moving out then in then out etc. The repeatability will surprise you.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

just drag your anchor around the seafloor

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[aaarrrgggh]

Likely a more logical setup would be a shape charge installed at the cable, which is triggered by a depth charge when needed. The complicated leg work happens over time, and you just drop the charge or fire a missile at a time of conflict.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

propagate a pressure wave over a relatively large 3D space using the gas generated in the explosion as a void in the water to instigate a cyclical event that will affect the target by the rising bubble of rapidly expanding and contracting gas

So you're saying the Russians could drop a few hundred mantis shrimp down there and really fuck things up!

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Xest]

A more logical step is to get a very fucking large, sharp, hooked anchor on a long run of chain, and drag it perpendicular to the direction of the cable until you either drag it up and can break the thing that way, or just cut through it with the sheer weight and sharpness of the anchor.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

just more fear-mongering and propaganda from a crazy government of a paranoid country. The U.S has been killing, murdering, over-throwing, meddling, and cyber-attacking countries, governments and corporations all over the planet, all while it constantly cries about how helpless it is and how the evil russians and chinese are attacking. Sickening.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet I'd put my very fate in the hands of America over Russia and China, any day. As much as the American government gets up to all sorts of terrible fuckery, they are angels in comparison. No amount of fuckery you can list will change that truth, and you are blind or brainwashed if you try.

Signed, a non-American.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for recognizing that while the USA is far from perfect, it is probably the least sucky option.

Signed, an American

Re:Bullshit

[Rei]

My attitude as well. The US may sometimes come across as an evil overlord, but I'd pick that evil overlord over its evil overlord competition - even though I'd prefer a non-evil overlord, or better, no overlord at all ;)

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

America

Now with less fuckery than other brands.

Re:Bullshit

[myowntrueself]

Thank you for recognizing that while the USA is far from perfect, it is probably the least sucky option.

Signed, an American

Thank you for recognizing that the USA is far from perfect though please don't imagine that the USA sucks the least out of any other available country on Earth.

Re:Bullshit

[myowntrueself]

My attitude as well. The US may sometimes come across as an evil overlord, but I'd pick that evil overlord over its evil overlord competition - even though I'd prefer a non-evil overlord, or better, no overlord at all ;)

Am I sensing a bit of Stockholm syndrome?

Re:Bullshit

[mrvan]

The police are keeping you in a protected witness facility because the mob is out to get you, and you start thinking the police might not be as bad as the mobsters --- that's not really Stockhold symdrome territory yet :)

In other words, US supremacy is the worst thing that can happen to the world, apart of course from nazi german supremacy, Chinese supremacy, Putin or Stalin russian supremacy, and good lord just imagine EU supremacy. Death by a thousand red tapes, that one...

Re: Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for recognizing that the US is not the only country in the world, but that it is one of the few operating on a Global scale, which would not just shit all over everything and everyone if given the slightest chance.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is the least sucky option as far as super powers go. Sweden, Finland, any other country, just isn't big enough to make a dent against Russia or China.

Re: Bullshit

[bobbied]

I'll advise you to recognize as well that the USA, while far from perfect, has so far resisted domination by acquiring territory and resources by force which it is FULLY capable and has IN FACT unilaterally acted with restraint since before World War 1, returning territory won though armed conflict to it's original owners, including those owners who initiated the armed conflict with the USA, and generally attempting to advance the causes of freedom and democracy for all the peoples of the world though the use of its military forces. Yes, we've faltered in our resolve on occasion, killed innocent non-combatants from time to time, and even made some mistakes in our calculations and policies which have accrued to everyone's determent, but we have NOT done so with evil intent. Further, had the USA not engaged in any number of conflicts, the world would be a much different and more dangerous place for many.

Re: Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

citation needed

your first international war of aggression was in 1812

Re: Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

hawaii

NOT to alarm anyone

[Provocateur]

But there was an internet outage about two weeks ago, and it went unreported because it seemed to be a simple outage. It happened before 7AM, and early customers at our laundromat could not access their prepaid online balances. The TV only showed an unusual white-box error message about technical difficulties. The Russians had just resumed bombing supposed ISIS targets.

The outage was early enough not to be noticed; it was about 5 minutes to 7 AM Eastern. What was cause for concern was for how long it lasted, almost 20 minutes of cell phone downtime. And no CNN even local news on our FIOS-enabled in-house network.

Anybody can bring down the net. But not just anybody can keep it down for so long. This is where I almost regret reading too many books or too many news items.

Not even Slashdot noticed anything; it was too early in the day.

Re:NOT to alarm anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, did you inform your local militia about this pinko aggression?

Re:NOT to alarm anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

And then you rebooted your DSL router and it all worked again?

Re:NOT to alarm anyone

[Holi]

That and the nationwide Customs "glitch" about 10 days ago.

Re:NOT to alarm anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, those localized 5-to-20 minute outages that affect laundromats in the Philippines are a real bitch, for sure. Surely the work of undersea cable cuts that are miraculously fixed almost immediately.

What concerns me is why US and Israel support ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia is a backward and awful country.
But they since decades they did not mass murdered any people.
Unlike ISIS sponsored and trained by US and Israel.
Who should we really look closely at then?

What's their motivation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really understand why Russia would go around cutting cables. What's going on, currently, that would make this likely?

Re:What's their motivation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia is bombing USA allies in Syria. Russia is just trying to make sure USA doesn't get involved. Their method is a show of force, which would be perfect in the 1980's, but 'Merica is a different land now, still slightly hopped up on adrenaline from 2001.

Data theft

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't trust Russia either, I am far more worried about the US presence near undersea cables, as there is actual documented evidence that suggests they sabotage undersea cables to wiretap overseas communications.

Re: Data theft

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is evidence" followed by no citation. Are you TRYING to undermine your own point?

"Grown Dependent"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet when several of those cables were cut by accident (or GCHQ/NSA) it didn't cause anything but an annoying slowdown! And CDNs have improved enormously since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruption

Realistically the biggest threat from Russia is its invasions into East Europe, and East Europe & German dependence on their gas. Russia could cut the gas like it did in the past, and freeze Europe during a winter, while invading a country to have leverage against retaliation. (e..g. Finland would be pushover for Russia and would give it control of the Baltic.).

Russia invaded Georgia, which gave them control of a section of the Baku pipeline, which gives them leverage over the middle Asian states who now can only sell their gas across pipelines that cross Russia. It invaded Crimea (and Ukraine) which gives them massive access to the Caspian sea from which they've been launching missiles across Iran into Syria to prop up their Syrian puppet regime.

So what happens when they invade Finland? Nato and Europe do their little dithering dance and ban vodka??

What I see as the big threat is that Putin makes the first move, and the West does not react. The West should be active against Russia, not waiting for Putin to attack again, then doing nothing.

I guess I'm saying Trump for President (because a nasty player needs a nasty opponent).

Re:"Grown Dependent"??

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for Obama calling Putin, telling him he can have all of Europe/Middle East and he can work with China to split up Asia as long as he promises to leave North America alone.

Re:"Grown Dependent"??

[Muad'Dave]

What I see as the big threat is that Putin makes the first move, and the West does not react.

You mean like The Crimea? We sat by and watched Russia annex a sovereign nation's territory and didn't even whimper. We even promised to defend them and failed to do that.

Re: "Grown Dependent"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamer! Yea, right. CIA promises of peace. World wide love, just so they can peddle their drugs. I feel they are the ones who killed the last hope president. Because he didn't buy their bullshit. The crimea was mother Russia prior to the tsars.

Re: "Grown Dependent"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamer! Yea, right. CIA promises of peace. World wide love, just so they can peddle their drugs. I feel they are the ones who killed the last hope president. Because he didn't buy their bullshit. The crimea was mother Russia prior to the tsars.

the world is fucked if everyone starts making territorial claims based on political boundaries from 100s of years ago.

Re:"Grown Dependent"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, except in the Case of Crimea etc, the US overthrew a government that was friendly with Russia then tried to blame Russia for securing areas they had security agreements for with the government that was overthrown.

In international politics it's pretty easy to see who's in the wrong - usually whoever is changing the status quo - and usually the US and it's allies.

Re: "Grown Dependent"??

[Xest]

Yeah but as a Brit I fully support the idea :)

America, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, half of Africa, most of China, most of the Middle East time to come back to daddy.

At least then we'll be big enough to bully Russia into giving Crimea back to Ukraine!

We forbid anyone else do what we do

[Anonymous Coward]

Only America is allowed to spy on the world.

Re:We forbid anyone else do what we do

[hey!]

That was my first reaction, but then I hadn't considered the possibility of sabotage.

The civilian economy of the US is critically dependent upon the Internet to the point where several undersea cables might well reflect single points of vulnerability unprecedented in Cold War terms.

Re:We forbid anyone else do what we do

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Please tell me how the FUCK that would work out to Russia's benefit.

Re:We forbid anyone else do what we do

[PPH]

The civilian economy of the US is critically dependent upon the Internet

The infrastructure of which resides mainly within the USA. So I won't be able to get to EU web sites. And GITMO will be completely cut off. Boo Hoo.

Re:We forbid anyone else do what we do

[neoritter]

Putin believes the internet is something to be sectioned off and layered by each country. Cutting fiber lines to other countries is probably some weird Putin notion of blockading the US.

Re:We forbid anyone else do what we do

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but all our call centers, developers, etc. are located in other countries now, not to mention factories, warehouses, and banking. Need to order more widgets? Transfer money from bank #23 to supplier #64? How about high frequency trading on a foreign stock exchange? Internet snafus can really make a mess of how we do things now.

Re:We forbid anyone else do what we do

[hey!]

Please tell me how the FUCK that would work out to Russia's benefit.

Well, according to that mindset warfare in general doesn't make sense. Nonetheless people still do it, to their own detriment or even destruction.

The German Writer Berthold Brecht wrote in the aftermath of WW2:

Great Carthage fought three wars;
After the first it was still powerful;
After the second it was still inhabitable;
After the third nobody could find it at all.

Re:We forbid anyone else do what we do

[Anonymous Coward]

you utter moron -everyone spies on everyone-America spent/spends more on it than anyone else and despite being govt spending they are pretty good at it this also means they are more likely to get caught at it

How dare they do what we're doing?!?!?

[NotDrWho]

Stop it!

Yehaaaa

[Anonymous Coward]

Blow the fuckers out of the water!!! .Go 'murica

So

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If they do this, let them. Then clear the oceans of Russian vessels and let that asshole explain to his people why it is happening.

Of course this is to publicly show we are tracking them so it won't happen. I am sure the US can strategically cut cables at will, too.

Re:So

[bobbied]

If they do this, let them. Then clear the oceans of Russian vessels and let that asshole explain to his people why it is happening.

Of course this is to publicly show we are tracking them so it won't happen. I am sure the US can strategically cut cables at will, too.

I'm just guessing, but I'd not be surprised if there are not already devices IN PLACE from both sides, ready to just slice any and all cables they feel are necessary. Likely all that is necessary is to send the proper signals and the cables get cut and the devices disappear.

However, I'd like to point out that with the Russians, there is a whole lot less undersea cables required for their communications networks than the USA and it's allies uses based on the geography involved. So in this space the Russians do have a bit of an advantage.

Are You Fucking High?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a joke, or are you fucking high?

The internet at your laundromat went out for 20 minutes and you think that is news worthy?

Just so you know... The cable cuts referred to in the article will have impacts lasting for months. But, the impacts will also be limited because, shock, we have other cables. Lots of other cables, so we can route around problems like a cable failure. We also have satellite, which would suck, but it was adequate in the past and can get us by for a month or two if needed.

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything but troll posters on /.

So ... boo hoo then?

[gstoddart]

Is this a case of the US getting all whiny when someone else does the exact same shit they do?

The issue goes beyond old Cold War worries that the Russians would tap into the cables -- a task American intelligence agencies also mastered decades ago

If so, you'll forgive the rest of the world for not giving a fuck.

Boo hoo, teh Russians are going to spy on us the same way we spy on everyone else. Waahh, how unfair.

Honestly, this clueless double standard is mind boggling. What the hell did you expect? Other countries to not do this stuff?

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that nobody reads the articles, but did you even read the part of the summary that you quoted? Because your question is answered right there.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the same thing at all.

1. The US used induction taps on Soviet military cables, they did not cut them. They actually went out of their way not to cut them to avoid alerting the Soviets. (Operations Ivy Bells... which was equal parts technically ground breaking and insanely ballsy).

2. The article is talking about the risk of the Russians _cutting_ cables that service commercial and government traffic for several different countries, not just the US. The goal here is not intelligence gathering, its to wreck as much havoc on C&C and infrastructure as possible, an overtly hostile move (once executed).

3. A fewer posters have suggested just carpet bombing the cable to break it. First, that's most likely not going to work... that's a compressive force, not a shearing force and for some reason things that are under hundreds or thousands of feet of water are designed to be compressed (go figure). Second, there's a big difference between haphazardly cutting a cable and intentionally cutting it in a specific location that makes it incredibly difficult to recover and splice.

If you find this kind of thing interesting, Blind Man's Bluff is an excellent read.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating a NY Times article with anything either the US Government or US Citizens have to say on the matter.

And also, we can just bomb the shit out of you as we please if you piss us off. So fuck you.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares if he drifted off topic even. His point is we're all pretty much sick of the mess being created by our "fearless leaders" who blow at the job intentionally as puppets of the "men behind the curtain" the real power while we all largely foot the bills and they profit and gain power all the more. The mooo cows guy is probably right in the end.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[eth1]

Boo hoo, teh Russians are going to spy on us the same way we spy on everyone else. Waahh, how unfair.

Well, at least most of what the US intercepts this way, it would probably keep to itself. Anything Russia gets that's economically valuable (ID theft, etc.), I'd expect to end up in the hands of organized crime.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care except insofar as Russia is a corrupt, criminal mafia regime (Putin is apparently one of the richest men in the world, on his £50,000 a year salary) and our side are actually the "good guys". Of course it's all half-angels, half-devils, but I know which side I'd be shouting for and it sure as hell isn't Putin.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on fucko. All you had to do was read the next sentence before posting. It starts: "The alarm today is deeper:".

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo, teh Russians are going to spy on us the same way we spy on everyone else. Waahh, how unfair.

Well, at least most of what the US intercepts this way, it would probably keep to itself. Anything Russia gets that's economically valuable (ID theft, etc.), I'd expect to end up in the hands of organized crime.

I think the military industrial complex that US hands information to has killed many more people in the middle east than the Russian organized crime you're so worried about.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have deliberately misread that. TFS clearly says, this is *NOT* about Russia just doing this same thing that the Americans do.

This is about Russia subtly threatening to sabotage the world economy.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least most of what the US intercepts this way, it would probably keep to itself. Anything Russia gets that's economically valuable (ID theft, etc.), I'd expect to end up in the hands of organized crime

Of Course!

The US has no organized crime. And it has never had a corrupt politician or a stolen election, or a made up war for profit...

The imbecility in display here is baffling.

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me, there is no organized crime in the U.S..

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since they clearly don't support ISIS your concern is unwarranted and, frankly speaking, a bit stupid.

Advice for you and your fellow conspiracy nuts: To create a fabricated conspiracy story that is successful online, you need to at least invent a halfway plausible story that includes somehow conceivable motives.

Putin better watch out!!!!

[mOzone]

Putin better watch his step ..white house may send one maybe two angry letters his way over this

white house wont do crap to hurt obama's legacy hes a lame duck

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Rei]

Huh? Russia has engaged in plenty of secret wars and occupations in the past "since decades", including some really brutal slaughters (see Grozny for an example, that's how Russia puts down a rebellion). And the US and Israel "sponsored and trained ISIS" (Daesh)? The US and Israel are actively fighting Daesh (the former being among the most active entities in the world fighting them). The US has never supported Daesh - they're even giving pretty much a free pass to al-Qaeda right now (al-Nusra in Syria) because even al-Qaeda is fighting Daesh (when even al-Qaeda thinks you're too radical, you're seriously messed up). Even before the US started actively fighting Daesh they were helping the Iraqi military in their efforts to fight them.

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Anonymous Coward]

Or have tits.

An old German saying

[Opportunist]

It loses a bit in translation, but essentially it says "The knave thinks others are as he is, and expects likewise from them".

Re:An old German saying

[qaz123]

It's like you walk in the street and are afraid of anybody just because they can physically do you harm. It's called phobia or paranoia

Re:An old German saying

[Opportunist]

It's more how a dishonest businessman expects every customer to screw them over because that's what they routinely do.

For reference, see DRM.

Re:An old German saying

[brewthatistrue]

no, it's more like liars who think everyone lies (or "is out for number one"), so they trust no one.

compared to truth tellers who think some people lie and some people don't, so they trust some.

your own mindset colors your view of the world.

Re:An old German saying

[brewthatistrue]

what's the original german?

Re:An old German saying

[Rockoon]

Its like the politician that cheats on his taxes campaigning on how bad it is that all the rich people are cheating on their taxes, the politician involved in black market arms dealing saying we need stricter gun control because its too easy to get guns, or the least generous political party complaining about how selfish they imagine that the most generous political party is.

The term in America is simply "projection." And if you havent picked up what I am putting down here, its Democrats.

Re:An old German saying

[Opportunist]

Der Schelm denkt wie er ist.

Why does it concern

[FilatovEV]

YOU?

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh this is a good one, deflect suspicion by casting aspersions on the home country and then go for the propaganda.

But,But...

[Anonymous Coward]

How will be able to watch Netflix during nuclear war then?

Re:But,But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy.
Netflix will be gone.
Download the entire cloud to your bunker before the war.

Remote-triggered shape charges in place comrad...

[Zymergy]

I am sure the remote-triggered shape charges are in place already... You never know.

bureaucratese translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation from bureaucratese: "We've been doing this for years and are upset someone is possibly doing exactly the same thing". The US government has more or less admitted to funneling a major amount of the worlds internet traffic through the NSA/CIA and there are more than a few proven cases where it was used to the economic/political benefit of the US government. The hypocrisy is so thick you'd have chainsaw through it.

Re:bureaucratese translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation, I've been paid by Mother Russia to say this.

it is about high frequency trading, or nothing.

[dominux]

It could be an entirely meaningless coincidence, the ship killing a bit of time, or doing some maintenance or a drill whilst out at sea in an area that happened to have a cable two miles below it, that is my option #1. It could be a bit of Russian research into whether they can find and disrupt these cables, that is option #2.
If we want to go down the fantasy route, and accept that the Russians would not just try to find a cable to see if they could, but would contemplate actually disrupting a cable, then that would adjust the ability of high frequency traders to play international stock markets, possibly allowing some kind of economic advantage to be taken somehow. In this fantasy, at some point in the future a cable mysteriously breaks due to a completely deniable cause, stock markets go into meltdown and someone in their Kremlin lair makes a lot of money. It is hard to describe the number of levels on which this fantasy makes no sense.

Re:I'm forced to agree, but... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get rid of the rotten apple.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/World_Map_minus_USA.PNG

Occam's razor principle

[Max_W]

Occam's razor principle: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It is a scientific ship. It is doing a scientific research. We know less abut ocean bottom than about Mars surface.

Here is Russian submarines research the bottom of Geneva lake: http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

But not to cut some ridiculous cables, but for science: biology, geography, history, etc.

Re:Occam's razor principle

[bobbied]

You seriously think off shore the Eastern Seaboard is a hotbed of scientific research possibilities that might be of interest to the Russians?

Yea, the Razor says this "research vessel" is really gathering intelligence like hundreds of other vessels concocting "research" world wide under the flags of various nations..... That this "scientific" part is really just a cover story...

Re:Occam's razor principle

[Max_W]

I think they are building the comprehensive ocean floor map of the planet. Actually, I think it is a good idea.

The radiation at other planets is to high. But oceans are quite livable.

Re:Occam's razor principle

[phantomfive]

When it comes to the words of diplomats in international politics, "telling the truth" is never the simplest hypothesis.

This is old news, not a new threat.

[sugarmatic]

The Russians, Americans, French, British, Germans, and others all have active programs to disrupt undersea communications, and they have had them for a long, long time.

This is not rocket science. A group of undergrad and graduate engineering students has demonstrated the use of low-end side scanning sonar and Rube Goldberg AUV tech to detect and track underwater cables for up to 2 weeks and 350 miles autonomously. The cables themselves are scarcely bigger than your thumb in deep water, and quite fragile (easily cut or percussively disrupted). The current they carry (yes, the optical ones too) are detectable from dozens of meters with inexpensive sensors as well.

The undersea infrastructure has always been prone to periodic failure, let alone vulnerable to deliberate attack. There is little a determined naval forces can do to prevent these possibilities aside from attempt to provide redundancy, which is not a military function, or deterrence, which is arguably a function that can be effected with political or non-naval resources better than naval resources.

The bottom line: nothing new here, no greater vulnerability exists now than before the Navy was fighting the backchannel war to feed the mouthbreathers to get more funding.

Re:This is old news, not a new threat.

[AHuxley]

Yes it a very old story. Germany in WW2 had to select from two options. Let the UK communicate or cut the UK undersea communications. The idea was that the flow of information was breakable given months a few years. German staff and technology was ready so Germany let the UK information flow (US A-3 connection broken by German machine 5B efforts).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was late in actually been used rather than just been installed.
Germany was able to break some early low level UK codes and US State Department codes (M-138-A strip cipher) that gave insights into allied methods.
The only risk the US mil/gov faces is that its mass use, fast crypto codes are junk and the US has no real way of really understanding that aspect of modern mil/gov communications without a total recall and refit globally. Did Russia or the Soviet Union have deep academic staff insights into the gems of US mil code creation methods over decades?
The US can always use space, sat and all its many advanced bases around the world to keep its most needed links working.
If the US is trusting commercial hardware with its bulk mil/gov communications using fast older codes why risk a Russian split box been found on commercial ocean optical for the worlds press to see?
Front companies set up over decades can tap in at any point in any nation for 'free'. Lots more upgrade space and branding than a box set on the sea floor :)
Russia does not need to play and fund the optical tap game the US and UK has been for totally dependant on for decades of collect it all :)
Who knows that the US and UK are creating and pumping down the optical between nations, it could be pure encoded fiction to keep Russia guessing and wasting effort.
The funding to find and optics of a propaganda aspect is interesting to see.

Obviously

[nospam007]

It's just the NSA complaining that the Russians took their parking spot near the cable.

Shadow them at all times

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure the Ruskie ship is shadowed by the US Navy at all times. If they look at us cross-eyed, then let 'em have it.

And the "Bad Russia" drumbeat goes on

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Let's see, Russia is near undersea cables which the US, as everyone knowns, has tapped in order to spy on the rest of the world .

Why whatever could they want ?

It must be they're going to cut them and not just cut them. but cut them where it's hard to fix them.

Ohhh ....those Ruskies!

I think I see the plan

1) hang out near cables..
2) cut the cables !
3)?????
4) profit !

In a times of war

[Anonymous Coward]

that is a sound action. Peacetime no bu tit may juust be sabre besides the industrial miltiary complex never mission a chance to grab more money.

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Anonymous Coward]

Big ones...

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps reading news other than CNN or BBC will enlighten you.

Why?

[wkwilley2]

It would be stupid for them to do this. How are we supposed to spy on them if they cut the cable? Putin y u do dis?

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps reading news other than RT would enlighten you.

Copper or FO cable?

[Zeorge]

Is anyone using any transcontinental copper any more? I would also assume that if it is possible to tap deep-sea FO cable, that they have done the same already.

I'd like for someone who lays down FO for commercial work to chime in on the feasibility of either a passive or active tap of such deep-sea cable.

Re:Copper or FO cable?

[Enigma2175]

Is anyone using any transcontinental copper any more? I would also assume that if it is possible to tap deep-sea FO cable, that they have done the same already.

I'd like for someone who lays down FO for commercial work to chime in on the feasibility of either a passive or active tap of such deep-sea cable.

Here is an article on current undersea cable eavesdropping, according to it fibre cables are currently being monitored.

We're all capable of being "the rotten apple"

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: That's part of the problem, Jung's duality of man (Shakespeare said it best "How like a God in contemplation, how like a beast in apprehension...").

That includes ME too (& yes, you)... someone pops you in the face, your 1st inclination is "hit back" to stop more hitting (hopefully) - "turning the other cheek" IS the right thing to do, but dolts interpret that as weakness, as they do the use of logic & reason... they only understand "peace thru superior firepower"... & screw peace, it's about DOMINATION & CONTROL!

* Put ANY MAN into a position of power, he corrupts. Even if only eventually. Put him into a position of BIG MISTAKES he tries (usually) 'desperate measures' to get out, only compounding it more...

APK

P.S.=> Every time I've seen the film "Colossus: The FORBIN PROJECT" I think "perhaps AI really IS the answer - only problem is we write the AI, we make mistakes in software" & we'd make a mistake despite the "3 laws of robotics" IT OUTSMARTED US "for our own good" (it failed to realize when you remove our God given freedom of choice, we rebel & HATE life - man HATES captivity)... I don't have the answers, I only operate on long-term observation, trying to pull in ALL viewpoints (nigh impossible), to understand the motivations of others (root causes)... & MAYBE, help out some (the world NEEDS it & it's YOUR DUTY as a decent human being to help do so aiding in "little revolutions" - NOT big destructive ones!)... apk

If the cables fail

[John.Banister]

Comsat wants you to know that they're here to help with all your non-undersea trans-oceanic communication.

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[guestapoo]

Damn, I saw a rebuilt modern Grozny. It's what you mentioned in your Google search!?

When I read news about Tsarnaev brothers bombing in Boston in New York Times, I have seen many comments about "Chechen terrorists", instead of "rebel" I have seen before. Do the people change their mind when the shit happens to them!?

And, about "secret wars", no one can beat the U.S.

Fun fact:
Tamerlan Tsarnaev was on CIA terror database, and Russia warned U.S. about the brothers years before, but ignored.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/t...
http://www.foreignpolicyjourna...
https://www.corbettreport.com/...
Uncle of Tsarnaev, Ruslan worked with State Department and CIA connected USAID, and was married to the daughter of Graham E. Fuller - former high-ranked CIA official, who has served 20 years in the Foreign Service, mostly the Muslim World.

About Syria, U.S funded FSA, in fact, terrorist groups. They are terrorists as in definition in dictionary:

Longman dictionary:
someone who uses violence such as bombing, shooting etc to obtain political demands

or, by their actions: "Insurgent" Eats Heart of Syrian Soldier, or Free Syrian Army allegedly trafficking in human organs. They are just like the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which U.S supported before.
Moreover, U.S official admitted that they has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, top general testifies, and it's cost about 500 M, and the U.S funded groups frequently desert or handed armors, weapons to the Al Qaeda.

Not just the NSA submarine doing it eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the outages a few years ago in the middle east, shortly after the Launch of the NSA cable tapping submarine?

How can anyone respect America when it vilifies their enemies for activity they have already undertaken? Or are they hoping that the rest of us don't know what the US has been up to?

What about shielding the cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about having inactive, ready to be activated cables as part of redundancy?

But Casinos

[Anonymous Coward]

But how are those agents of political funding institutions supposed to black-mail web casinos if the cables are interfered? This makes no sense.

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys know what FUD is right.

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Xest]

Yeah, the GP's conspiracy theory is rather comical when you consider that if anyone is supporting ISIS it's Russia by bombing pretty much only the rebels who have been fighting ISIS.

There's no mistake, Russia's actions in Syria bolster ISIS by hitting it's opponents, the fact this is a side effect of supporting the Syrian regime is neither here nor there. The effect is the same - Russian action is massively beneficial to ISIS as it's both barely targeted at them, and pushes previously moderates into their ranks.

First strike offense vs defense

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that more and more, china and Russia are focused on first strike capability and not defense. With defense, Russia would be interested in tapping the cables to see what we are up to, in hopes of stopping attacks before they happen. With offense, they will work on blinding us quickly, followed by an attack. The first was how the cold war was ran. Now, china, along with their allies, followed now by Russia, seem determined to have first strike. All the more interesting that they desperately want America to drop our nuke numbers , declare no future production, while it is obvious that china is in nuke warhead production.

The ships are on the high seas.

[RockDoctor]

So there is nothing that anyone can legally object to. That is what "high seas" means.

If you don't want foreign vessels travelling above your cables, then route them through tour territorial waters. Good luck on achieving international communications.