Underwater Cables in Red Sea Damaged Months After Houthis Threatened To Do Just That (theregister.com) 131
Undersea data cables in the Red Sea have reportedly been damaged, months after Yemeni Houthi rebels threatened to do so. From a report: At least 15 submarine cables pass through the Bab al-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea, a body of water just 26km wide at some points. Yemen is the Strait's northern shore. The first reports of damage to submarine cables off the coast of Yemen began emerged on Monday morning, with Israeli news outlet Globes claiming that four cables (EIG, AAE-1, Seacom and TGN-EA) had experienced damage. Seacom has reportedly confirmed damage to a cable it operates on a stretch between Kenya and Egypt.
"The location of the cable break is significant due to its geopolitical sensitivity and ongoing tensions, making it a challenging environment for maintenance and repair operations," Seacom said. "The team is currently working towards restoration timelines and will communicate these plans with our clients." Globes attributed the outages to the Iran-backed Houthis, and claimed the damage was "significant, but not critical," because several other undersea cables serve the region. Seacom has already reassured customers it has re-routed traffic onto other cables. While the world has a decent supply of cable repair ships, they are booked up well in advance so finding one ready to work is not always possible. Nor are cable repairs easy: it takes time to find and retrieve a damaged segment and reconnect it.
"The location of the cable break is significant due to its geopolitical sensitivity and ongoing tensions, making it a challenging environment for maintenance and repair operations," Seacom said. "The team is currently working towards restoration timelines and will communicate these plans with our clients." Globes attributed the outages to the Iran-backed Houthis, and claimed the damage was "significant, but not critical," because several other undersea cables serve the region. Seacom has already reassured customers it has re-routed traffic onto other cables. While the world has a decent supply of cable repair ships, they are booked up well in advance so finding one ready to work is not always possible. Nor are cable repairs easy: it takes time to find and retrieve a damaged segment and reconnect it.
Eh (Score:1, Insightful)
Let Allah fix the cables
Re: (Score:3)
These guys are luddites up until the point where technology can make them have strength over other warlords in the region, then it's "Let's get an AI SAM system from China!"
Re: (Score:2)
Let them cut themselves from the world and simply re-route packets via a safer route. A few milliseconds won't hurt anybody IMHO.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is something called BGP which takes care of exactly that easily, it's not like you have to manually change routing tables:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Some links might have their capacity upgraded simply with fiber light transmitter upgrades or using dead "black" fiber already present in those links. Also, maybe invest in new links instead of fixing the ones that are going to be repetitively attacked and disabled.
Anyway, re-routing around Internet traffic is much easier than re-routing a gas pipel
Re:Eh (Score:4, Informative)
There was absolutely nothing "racist" about his post. Anti-Muslim maybe, but certainly not racist.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd even call it more anti-religion than specifically anti-Muslim; it's just that the religion in control of the area in question is Islam. All religions have this fantasy that their deities can just Fix Things, though, but somehow we never see examples of this occurring in daily life.
Re: (Score:3)
Anthropologists estimate that humans have worshiped at least 18,000 things over the years./
My advice to my child is to carefully examine the prospectus for each one before making a final spiritual investment selection.
Re: (Score:2)
Great advice.
In the Quran, God gives the same advice, to read, research, and examine, and that anyone who truly seeks God, God will eventually lead them on the straight path especially those with a soft/clean heart.
Re:Eh (Score:4, Informative)
Every day, my God, the Sun, fixes the darkness by bringing light. Also banishes winter every year. Unluckily the God tires out and gets lazy and then has redo the miracle. Loves the sacrifices of burning stuff, makes it stronger.
Then there are the tree Gods, supply heat for when the Sun slacks off, just have to cut the tree up. Also supplies shelter with a bit of work by the faithful.
Compare to the loser Gods, especially the Desert ones who can't even write a book with a consistent story.
Re: (Score:2)
All religions have this fantasy that their deities can just Fix Things, though, but somehow we never see examples of this occurring in daily life.
I don't think any religion claims that?
In Islam anyway, we're told to strive for good, to bring order to chaos, and to supplicate (put trust in God), but the reward may be in this worldly life, or more likely, a greater reward in the afterlife - such that those who suffered much in this life, will earn the greatest reward.
In the end, God does whatever He wishes in this worldly life.
Re: (Score:2)
In Islam, prayer (supplication) is not necessarily answered in this world.
However, since "supplicating is the essence of worship", God will reward those who put their trust in Him with a greater reward in the afterlife.
In the end, God does whatever He wishes in this worldly life.
So...seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
How difficult could it be?
At this point, isn't even much/most of the arabic world except Iran tired of the trouble these fucks are causing?
This is hurting their incomes too....
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't agree more, this needs to be handled as expediently and efficiently as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just carpet bomb the whole area. 24 hrs/day for a month.
Re:So...seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Use bigger guns.
Re: (Score:3)
This entire business started off as a revolt against the Yemeni government around 10 years ago. I never worked out what the revolt was about, if it was along tribal or religious lines (or quite possibly both), the Saudis have been bombing whatever they feel like for those 10 years and some of the Gulf States have also got themselves involved - afaik on both sides. The US and the UK have been the ones supplying the Saudis with their bombs and also training them, the Houthis have no reason to be friendly wi
Re: (Score:3)
The Saudis are playing nice with the Houthis because they see a threat to their own nation. It is real.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that had a hope of working (it doesn't), right now is not the best time to start mass civilian casualties. War crimes are a hot topic, and the whole area is a powder keg ready to go off.
Any sustained campaign would give other countries an opportunity to defend the civilian populations, and escalate the war. That's why the US and UK like to just send some missiles/drones in as a one-off attack, which is over before anyone can respond.
Re: (Score:2)
This means dealing with Iran.
Iran would last as long as Iraq did if the west put their mind to it. Would eliminate a source of arms for Putin as well. It has a lot to recommend it.
Re: So...seriously... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The Saudis were bombing them after Houthis started making asses of themselves by firing rockets at Saudi oil fields. The Saudis were widely criticized for their bombing campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Why hasn't someone "smoked" the houthis already?
Well, there are these things called the Geneva Conventions...
Re: So...seriously... (Score:2)
Yeah but the US doesn't believe in them. Every president since Carter has supported war crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Why hasn't someone "smoked" the houthis already?
How difficult could it be?
At this point, isn't even much/most of the arabic world except Iran tired of the trouble these fucks are causing?
This is hurting their incomes too....
Why hasn't anyone "smoked" these Taliban already... Said a Russian commissar in 1978.
I can tell you're an American because you think that you can just waltz in there with bombs and everyone will just surrender to you.
Awaken from your dreamy state, if it were that simple the Yemeni government would have done so ages ago as they've been around since the 90s. Yes, the current govt of Yemen is no friend of the Houthis of course, and the Yemeni government isn't exactly the most western friendly to begin wi
Re: (Score:2)
The Saudis were trying to do just that. Biden nixed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A weakling in the White House, advised by a Cabinet full of Anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Arab Leftists.
This is the same administration that are supplying the bombs, planes, etc., to Israel, providing military support with warships, sending envoys to arm twist & intimidate neighbouring countries, & repeatedly vetoing UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire.
The last time I looked, the USA were signatories to the International Court of Justice which is currently hearing apparently credible cases brought against the Israeli regime for genocide.
Just how deeply do you want the USA to
Re: So...seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
GP is clearly in the cult of nuke them until they glow. That worked once on a nation which was already defeated and looking for a good face saving excuse to surrender. It will not work on people who do not expect the terms of their surrender to be honored.
Re: So...seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuking a non-nuclear country would go over like a fart in church. The limits of US power have already been convincingly demonstrated. This would be very foolish indeed to get directly involved. The US is already in mortal danger of losing the entire MIddle East in the near term - any intervention in Yemen would make the process near-immediate.
Think back 20 years. Imagine a Russian ally in Syria directly fighting a US-backed militia openly. Imagine Iran striking a more-or-less occupied Iraq, as happened recently. Imagine China brokering a deal where Saudi Arabia aligned against the US and the West and that deal standing because the West is powerless? I could keep on listing stuff that would be unthinkable in 2004 or so.
The world is already multipolar. Time to adjust our understanding to this reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuking a non-nuclear country...
They still haven't apologised for the last time they did it. Apparently, the US chiefs of staff were unanimous in warning Harry S. Truman against doing it but he went ahead anyway.
It's those kinds of festering wounds that never heal & that build up & eventually make turning away from the empire so much easier to do when feasible alternatives emerge. There's a lot of festering wounds in the world today.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we?
It was war, we had a new weapon....the war ended VERY quickly after that.
I find it hard to find a downside to this action at the end of WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So...seriously... (Score:5, Informative)
No, the then-current JCS did not protest. However, most of the other senior commanders did not buy into it. [wikipedia.org]
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
—Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [99]
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
—Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [109]
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
—Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [110]
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
—Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [111]
Re: (Score:2)
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
â"Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [111]
That's the bottom line. Not just the scientists, some in the military wanted to try it out. They expected atomic warfare to become a thing they might have to deal with, and wanted to know what the effect of dropping one on a civilian city would be. Even the aid rendered afterwards was given in order to learn how to treat potential American victims of atomic warfare.
Anyway, a nuke in the Middle East right now would just escalate things to the point where Israel or Iran might be tempted to lob one too. Israel
Re: (Score:2)
Leahy didn't do much fighting. Mostly sitting in an office in the US. LeMay was the guy responsible for the actual drops on the cities in Japan. He had at least as much reason to claim that as the reason for the surrender as to argue against it. Nimitz perhaps could have been colored in the other direction by his efforts during the war, as could Halsey. But we then assume these guys had no integrity. I don't believe that.
Re: (Score:2)
From the perspective of someone like LeMay in 1945 or Halsey in '46, it probably looked that way.
Halsey was not a very intelligent guy, let's start there. He demonstrated that at Leyte Gulf, if not on many occasions before. LeMay was brighter, but not a rocket scientist. To the actual mlitary, Groves and his science project (their perspective) had _way_ too much influence on the conduct of the war, particularly at that juncture when victory was fairly assured. This was a case of civilian control reachin
Re: (Score:2)
And about questioning their integrity, these are not modern people. I question everyone's integrity today. In WWII? It was long before the modern news cycle. These people had to actually lead other people. I believe they more or less meant what they said.
Re: (Score:3)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff wasn't quite as official in WWII as it was after, but the nuclear bombing was opposed by
Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Eisenhower,
General of the Army MacArthur,
Fleet Admiral / Chief of Staff Leahy,
Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet Nimitz,
Commander US Third Fleet Halsey, and
General LeMay, commander of the strategic bombing of Japan.
Some pretty legendary names, and pretty much all of the top command in the area. Leahy, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was particularly unenthusias
Re: (Score:2)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff wasn't quite as official in WWII as it was after, but the nuclear bombing was opposed by Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Eisenhower, General of the Army MacArthur, Fleet Admiral / Chief of Staff Leahy, Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet Nimitz, Commander US Third Fleet Halsey, and General LeMay, commander of the strategic bombing of Japan.
Some pretty legendary names, and pretty much all of the top command in the area. Leahy, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was particularly unenthusiastic.
Why all true, what you're missing here is the political bent of each person. You will note that each of them with the exception of LeMay is not a member of the Air Corp/Air Force. They Navy in particular but the other service as well were not happy with the loss of prestige to the Air Force that was inevitable in modern warfare. They opposed almost anything that would benefit the Air Force's appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, that must be it. Inter-service bickering. Couldn't be the nuking cities.
And LeMay, of course. He's famous for being a bit of a pansy when it came to destroying cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was wishing for the laugh emoji for the LeMay comment.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unfortunate that pointing out the excesses of a hegemon doesn't affect how the next hegemon will behave.
Re: (Score:2)
I was laughing while I wrote it. I almost put a footnote to explain to the historically challenged, but decided that would ruin it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Found that historically challenged guy.
Re:So...seriously... (Score:4, Interesting)
"A weakling in the White House, advised by a Cabinet full of Anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Arab Leftists."
Is this the same weakling who has expedited $billions to Israel while cutting off all aid to the Palestinians?
Re: (Score:2)
Cabinet full of Anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Arab Leftists.
It's so pro-Palestinian of these cabinet members to deny aid to Palestinians and to go along with their genocide.
And shamefully anti-Israel for these US cabinet members [ifamericansknew.org] to be sending only $10 million of US taxpayer money to Israel [ifamericansknew.org], per day.
Funny (Score:2)
Remember when the Saudis were accused of targeting civilians in Yemen?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/... [hrw.org]
Guess what, now we get to do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure, you're right - the thing to do is indiscriminately slaughter everyone there - including innocent civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
It will certainly put an end to a lot of problems.
Re:Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said anything about indiscriminate slaughter? If you attack Houthis, you're going to hit civvies since like many ragtag terrorist militia types, they store military hardware and house "freedom fighters" in the same locations as civilian infrastructure. Or you warn them in advance of strikes to like civilians get out of the way which means you spend millions on ammon blowing up abandoned, empty buildings.
Take your pick.
Re: (Score:2)
Let, not like.
Re: (Score:2)
Ammo, not ammon. Sigh.
Re: (Score:3)
"innocent civilians" -> the biggest lie of the late 20th century.
Even the Iranian Revolution was at least at one point popular. With the few exceptions of places that are truly still ruled by Monarchs/Dear leaders - the civilians bear responsibility for the actions of the their leaders.
Palestine is a good example. They elected those people, even if it was 20 years ago. Their leadership decided to wage total war on Israel, they are now being collectively curb stomped. Is that good? No! Its horrible, bu
Re: Funny (Score:2, Flamebait)
""innocent civilians" -> the biggest lie of the late 20th century."
True. Every American for example is complicit in the holocaust occurring in Gaza.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a justification for genocide.
"If you are not willing to break the enemies ability to make war - that means targeting things like manufacturing plants, fuel supplies, yes food production, etc you should evaluate you justification for going to war in the first place, and ideally chose F'ING PEACE instead. You are killing and maiming people, uniformed or otherwise that should be to actually achieve some end or it is just EVIL."
civilians grow the food the feed the armies
civilians pay the taxes that
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It's why the 9/11 attacks were justified. No civilian is innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
No war is ever justified for the point of view of one belligerent considering the actions of the other.
At least not in any modern conflict. Even the earliest tribes fighting over territory probably would have said, some form of we would not fight them if they would just go and forage on the other-side of the mountain; why must they be here.
Re: (Score:3)
civilians are often complicit in being human shields, even if its just treating combatants in hospitals
Whoa, whoa, whoa, back the truck up here. The issue with e.g. Hamas and hospitals isn't that their wounded are treated there, it's that Hamas uses the hospitals themselves for activities that result in their protected status being compromised.
There is absolutely, positively, nothing at all wrong with combatants being treated at civilian hospitals, period, full stop. Hospitals, even military hospitals, hospital ships, etc, are protected from being legitimate targets regardless of who is being treated there
Time to deal with Iran (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This likely wouldn't be a problem today had the US and Britain not overthrown the elected government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't get me wrong. It's in the past, and we have to deal with the present. Iran is absolutely hostile and the US is not gonna be a pushover because of 50-year-old mistakes. But the US needs to remember past errors in order to avoid repeating them in the f
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's a doozy?
Ponder what happened after the Ayatollah overthrew our guy in 1979 and who we hired to do our dirty work back then. Wonder how many people in the US know.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much everyone knows. What isn't often discussed is:
1). The American effort to overthrow Mossadegh was likely ineffective. Mossadegh was on his way out with or without American intervention.
2). The Ayatollahs initially backed the Shah.
Americans give ourselves too much credit (and blame) for the present situation in Iran.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that you have to mention that as an AC. More US citizens should study the consequences of the US overthrowing the Shah. It's the epitome of "the end justifies the means" and "we're not gonna think through the consequences of our actions".
Don't get me wrong. It's in the past, and we have to deal with the present. Iran is absolutely hostile and the US is not gonna be a pushover because of 50-year-old mistakes. But the US needs to remember past errors in order to avoid repeating them in the future. Forced regime almost never goes well. Last time it went as planned for the US was close to a century ago.
This.
We cant change the mistakes of the past but can we please, pretty please, with sugar on top... Stop trying to make the same mistakes over and over and over a-fucking-gain.
The very best we can hope for by attacking them is a repeat of Libya in 2011... which caused a wave of asylum seekers crossing the Mediterranean. Worse, we'll end up in another Iraq/Vietnam, fighting a war in a place we're not wanted to support corrupt arseholes.
Re: (Score:2)
I really wonder how long we can hold back a third wor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Time to deal with Iran (Score:2)
Re: Time to deal with Iran (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are saying that Iran's access to Russia's $2 trillion dollar economy is equivalent to Iran's access to the EU's $16 trillion economy. Ponder the reality for a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are saying that Iran's access to Russia's $2 trillion dollar economy is equivalent to Iran's access to the EU's $16 trillion economy.
How about we continue this discussion after you have passed kindergarten math?
Re: (Score:2)
That would just encourage more direct action from Iran. More attacks on shipping, and probably an attack on Israel in the name of defending the Palestinians. Create some demand for their oil, and try to gain the upper hand before it either escalates or Iran is so weak that Israel attacks them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Obliterate their puppet masters."
Oh boy, sounds just like the "kill the ringleaders" approach taken in Iraq and Afghanistan that made everything worse. The countries you call democracies all have leaderships that are overwhelmingly hated. A third of the US electorate doesn't even think the last election was legitimate. And who are the puppets? Not Ukraine or Israel?
It brings me some joy seeing conceited neocons watch in confusion as their shitty "rules-based order" crumbles in real time.
Replace Cables with Satellites (Score:2)
Slow internet (Score:3)
Before you marry a person, you should first make them use a computer with slow Internet to see who they really are.
— Will Ferrell
There is a corollary here involving the Houthis and nation-states.
Yay! The Adults are back in charge! (Score:2, Informative)
Not even 4 years ago we were looking at "peace" in the Middle East with The Abraham Accords thanks to a guy that is lied about nonstop by the corporate-war-pigs:
https://www.state.gov/the-abra... [state.gov]
WW3 will be made possible by stupid people who also suffer from TDS. Morons that will call for war with Iran, but can not survive without the state. According to the global elites, there are too many people. It just so happens that they are also pushing us into WW3 which fun fact, wars redu
Re: (Score:2)
But Orange Man Bad! Didn't you get the memo?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
The Abraham Accords thanks to a guy that is lied about nonstop by the corporate-war-pigs
The guy you claim is lied about, lies everytime he opens his mouth. You can't be serious here.
The Middle East (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So, the easiest transit route between western Asia and Europe is not important? I think Egypt might have an opinion there...
The ME is more than just oil and Ayatollahs.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the easiest transit route between western Asia and Europe is not important? I think Egypt might have an opinion there...
The ME is more than just oil and Ayatollahs.
There has to be a better solution than war... War rarely results in anything better, the last 100 odd years of western powers fucking about in the Arab world sure as shit hasn't.
Barbarians (Score:2)
It is so much easier to destroy than to create. Fscking barbarians.
What I don't get, is why Iran provides them with high-tech weaponry.
Re: (Score:2)
Undersea Ops Unnecessary (Score:2)
North stream (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Islamic terrorists destroying the planet (Score:2)
All of the Abrahamic religions are fucking trash now. Christianity is the only one of the three that even started well, but it's been fully co-opted for over a thousand years, and it's currently funding one of Judaism's greatest hits. They are all about dominion now, not love or peace.