Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the sean-connery-hasn't-defected-over-it,-so-we're-probably-OK dept.

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.

29 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Military funding to thwart this threat? by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by knightghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by maeka · · Score: 3

      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.

    4. Re: Military funding to thwart this threat? by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    5. Re: Military funding to thwart this threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      F-35?

    6. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by neoritter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? by rockout · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  2. "capability to cut cables" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:"capability to cut cables" by Holi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:"capability to cut cables" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:"capability to cut cables" by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:"capability to cut cables" by GNious · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    5. Re:"capability to cut cables" by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. We forbid anyone else do what we do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only America is allowed to spy on the world.

  4. Re:Now let's talk about by hlavac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No Democracy, America is Oligarchy now according to experts

  5. Re:"Grown Dependent"?? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  6. So ... boo hoo then? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
  8. An old German saying by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Bullshit by mrvan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  10. Occam's razor principle by Max_W · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I by guestapoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.