Russian Presence Near Undersea Cables Concerns US (nytimes.com) 273
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.
...
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.
Military funding to thwart this threat? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
$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? (Score:4, Insightful)
F-35?
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you missed it, the Russians aren't in "peace time" mode. Ukraine, Syria, etc.
Re: Military funding to thwart this threat? (Score:5, Funny)
He's not a troll, he's a Likho. Putin would never resort to using inferior western mythological creatures!
Re: (Score:2)
> 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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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 vic
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, 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.
Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Note this is not particularly unusual for a country.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially a country that the whole world uses as the police force.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Military funding to thwart this threat? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It is much cheaper to just move them around in nuclear missile subs...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Military funding to thwart this threat? (Score:2)
Didn't even RTFS, now that's advanced Slashdotting!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"capability to cut cables" (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.
Re:"capability to cut cables" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"capability to cut cables" (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "capability to cut cables" (Score:2, Insightful)
Try it again with a marble.
Re: (Score:2)
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" (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ca
Re: (Score:2)
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 rela
Re: (Score:2)
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" (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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" (Score:4, Insightful)
Deploying remote-controllable explosives, evil-genius style? :D
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Bullshit (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 u
NOT to alarm anyone (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Data theft (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
We forbid anyone else do what we do (Score:3, Insightful)
Only America is allowed to spy on the world.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
How dare they do what we're doing?!?!? (Score:3)
Stop it!
So ... boo hoo then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this a case of the US getting all whiny when someone else does the exact same shit they do?
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
An old German saying (Score:4, Interesting)
It loses a bit in translation, but essentially it says "The knave thinks others are as he is, and expects likewise from them".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Remote-triggered shape charges in place comrad... (Score:2)
it is about high frequency trading, or nothing. (Score:2)
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 t
Occam's razor principle (Score:4, Interesting)
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... [spiegel.de]
But not to cut some ridiculous cables, but for science: biology, geography, history, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The radiation at other planets is to high. But oceans are quite livable.
Re: (Score:2)
This is old news, not a new threat. (Score:2)
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 (e
Obviously (Score:2)
It's just the NSA complaining that the Russians took their parking spot near the cable.
If the cables fail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought America was a Republic, not a Democracy...
Re:Now let's talk about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 tak
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was a republic because the pledge of allegiance states it to be.
Then again, after reading The Franklin Cover-Up" [wikispooks.com] I'd be quick to say that it is more of a pedophocracy than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Grown Dependent"?? (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 [vox.com] and failed to do that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Shout tropes and memes about government spending
2. Dismiss legitimate concern
3. Get paid for troll comment.
4. Rinse, repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
When in trouble,
Or in doubt.
Run in circles,
Scream and shout.
Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I (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 [google.is] 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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [independent.co.uk], and Russia warned U.S. about the brothers years before, but ignored [reuters.com].
http://www.g [globalresearch.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
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 Russian