China Unveils a Powerful Deep-sea Cable Cutter That Could Reset the World Order (scmp.com) 125
schwit1 writes:
A compact, deep-sea, cable-cutting device, capable of severing the world's most fortified underwater communication or power lines, has been unveiled by China -- and it could shake up global maritime power dynamics.
The revelation marks the first time any country has officially disclosed that it has such an asset, capable of disrupting critical undersea networks. The tool, which is able to cut lines at depths of up to 4,000 metres (13,123 feet) -- twice the maximum operational range of existing subsea communication infrastructure -- has been designed specifically for integration with China's advanced crewed and uncrewed submersibles like the Fendouzhe, or Striver, and the Haidou series.
act of war (Score:5, Insightful)
The trick to attacking infrastructure is to have plausible deniability. If you want the South China Sea filled with subhunters, then go ahead and cut cables.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick to attacking infrastructure is to have plausible deniability.
Why? What if Europe could prove it was Russia that did cut the last cables as everyone suspects? Diplomacy doesn't exist with Putin so what are we supposed to be doing? Nuke Russia?
guess nothing can be done then (Score:5, Insightful)
Sanctions, arm rebels, blockade ports, capture military personal, sink ships, etc should be attempted before global thermonuclear war. We shouldn't be in a hurry to jump to the ending.
Obviously a war with either China or Russia is not desirable for planet Earth.
But what kind of argument are you trying to make? Is this a "well they have nukes, so nothing can be done!"
The world should be ruled by whatever country has a nuke and is willing to violate international law and treaties? That's certainly a possible future, but not one I would promote we work towards.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Obviously a war with either China or Russia is not desirable for planet Earth. But what kind of argument are you trying to make? Is this a "well they have nukes, so nothing can be done!"
The world should be ruled by whatever country has a nuke and is willing to violate international law and treaties? That's certainly a possible future, but not one I would promote we work towards.
Just so people here understand, currently in America we're hearing the Cult Of Donald Trump people make this very argument, right now for the Ukraine-Russia war. Basically it's "We don't want WW3, so just give Russia EVERYTHING they want!" So it wouldn't be difficult to see those same people make the argument twoards China. Although if Trump gets pissed off against China (very likely) and/or Russia (less likely but not impossible) they'll also be the loudest voices arguing to blow those people off the p
No, we're at "don't call Putin names" stage (Score:3)
Basically it's "We don't want WW3, so just give Russia EVERYTHING they want!"
No it's not. We are at the "don't call Putin names" stage so we can get him to the negotiating table.
Plus let's threaten Putin with addition sanctions if he continues fighting. This warning coming from the President who told Germany not replace pipelines through Ukraine with a direct connection to Russia (Nordstrom) thereby removing a response that Ukraine had against Russian aggression. The President who first authorized lethal weapons for Ukraine, only blankets and MREs from Obama/Bident, Javen anti-ta
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to the president who humiliated himself and the US at Helsinki? The president who had a negotiation regarding the Ukraine war without including Ukraine? The president who admires Putin? That president?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to the president who humiliated himself and the US at Helsinki? The president who had a negotiation regarding the Ukraine war without including Ukraine? The president who admires Putin? That president?
Those negotiations were about a cease fire and Russia and Ukraine meeting for peace talks. Trump was not negotiating the peace agreement itself, just how to get the two sides talking. In particular getting Putin to the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically it's "We don't want WW3, so just give Russia EVERYTHING they want!"
Actually that's not the argument. The argument is Ukraine has lost its war with Russia and the only way to avoid that defeat is for the United States to get directly involved. As Reagan and Gorbachev agreed 40 years ago, a direct war between Russia and the United States is unacceptable because it will inevitably escalate into a nuclear war. The solution is to find an end to the war other than Russia occupying Ukraine and imposing its terms of surrender.
What is interesting is the extent to which the opponent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what we think about that, they will eventually win because no number of armaments given can magically create more Ukrainians than Russians.
Denying this is denying reality at this point.
Though, how serious are you about this conflict? Are you willing to send your children, or yourself, there to fight?
Re: (Score:2)
Future?
Re: (Score:3)
Sanctions, arm rebels, blockade ports, capture military personal, sink ships, etc should be attempted before global thermonuclear war. We shouldn't be in a hurry to jump to the ending.
Putin has explicitly said, several times, that Russia will retaliate with a first-strike nuclear attack, if the USA (or anyone else who is capable) were to engage in a direct military action. His military commanders have echoed his warnings and they are more than ready to start nuking.
If you believe Russia's officially stated current posture, following any of your suggestions will initiate global thermonuclear war.
We are about an hour from sterilizing the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
We are about an hour from sterilizing the planet.
Good. The way I see it, nothing of value to this planet will have been lost. Humanity had a good run, but hey, even the dinosaurs didn't go on existing forever. To be fair, humans are, if anything, the only entity to consider the rammifications of, and continue to still, cause war for individual gain without respect for their own survival, and it's not like humanity is going to die out from asteroid. So we might as well kill ourselves off with the largest stupid single action, and let the planet recover qu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to give myself another chance.
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear detonation in our lifetime (Score:2)
Putin has explicitly said, several times, that Russia will retaliate with a first-strike nuclear attack,
That's how Putin wants it, it sucks, but I don't see why we should accept that death threats a valid settlement of disputes on international law.
This may be nihilistic realpolitik on my part, but first-strike nuclear attacks are inevitable from Russia. Regardless if we(the West) play by their rules or not. Because Russia will also reach for the nuclear button every time they face an existential crisis, including the one that they are creating for themselves. Do nothing against Russia, and they would still b
Re: (Score:2)
"Obviously a war with either China or Russia is not desirable for planet Earth."
I have two observations for you. First both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have a vote in whether there will be war. Second as I read the evidence neither one is afraid of what the results of said war would be. (Hint, there are not enough nukes in the world to turn even a modest size country like Iraq into a glassy lake. I did the arithmetic on that while Shrub was in office. Israel maybe. Iraq, no. And that math presumed it was
Re: (Score:2)
Deny taking part in maritime spaces and practices until terror tools are disposed for good.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's not an option but increasingly it's becoming more likely. One of the only good things about the US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was that it horrified the world (including the US) once it happened. Results were 80 years of nobody nuking anyone else. Ever larger and more deadly weapons kept the fear up but now they're becoming commonplace. More countries join the club every year and sooner or later someone is going to use one. China's making a great case for being the inevitable t
Re: act of war (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China's making a great case for being the inevitable target.
What planet are you on? The most likely target is the United States. We have a huge nuclear arsenal. If anyone believes were going to use it striking first will reduce that arsenal by beating us to the punch. One of the largest dangers of the arms race during the cold war was that someone came to believe they could take out the other countries arsenal with a first strike or that the other country could take out their arsenal.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that a response to someone breaking the rules should actually follow the rules. If you play underhanded games you should expect a reply in kind.
Re: act of war (Score:2)
Targeted misinformation campaign against low hanging fruit, proxy wars, fundingnof dissidents, and economic interference. Plausibly den I able military operations âoecoincidencesâ against high value targets. The CIA has a handbook I am sure.
Re: act of war (Score:2)
Re: act of war (Score:2)
Do the Russian nukes still work?
No tests have been performed since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:2)
No tests have been performed since the fall of the Soviet Union.
We *really* don't need any more testing.. .thank you.
Oblig: Boom Time Rats [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Submarine warfare is stupidly expensive, and the Pacific is stupidly huge. When people talk about logistics in the Pac
Re: act of war (Score:2)
Drone sub hunters are becoming a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Drone sub hunters are becoming a thing.
I think the cable cutters might be drones too. Probably no Chinese flag on the hull either.
More new artificial reef than landing craft (Score:2)
China has also developed a fleet of boats intended to land on Taiwan, basically these ships have giant support poles that they jam into the seabed and they connect together, so that transport ships can connect at sea and dump their troops and vehicles onto the beach very quickly.
Sounds like a great Japanese animated movie. Tell me what depth the waters are at Taiwan's internationally recognized territorial waters? Tell me about how the lead tank dead on exit way does not block all those behind it, while the ship is on fire. This is just a small scale version of how Russian tank columns got destroyed in Ukraine on narrow roads. The highway of death between Iraq and Kuwait. The hulks of these ships acting as a new barrier to follow up waves like all the logistics the troops ashore ne
Re: (Score:2)
One could claim all they advertised is a better repair tool... which is kind of what the article says: "While it was created as a tool for civilian salvage and seabed mining, the dual-use potential of the tool could send alarm bells ringing for other nations..."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like the usual anti-China BS. If you want to cut a cable you drag an anchor over it, or toss some explosives onto it. Fancy submersibles are for repair or spying.
The US has been cutting undersea cables in war for over a century, and spying on them for at least half of one.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb (Score:5, Informative)
Seems kinda dumb for China to announce this.
I get making a threat, but it seems like it would be more useful to have plausible deniability.
Re:Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
No lie. To repost a comment I saw on this when I saw it a few days ago:
"China openly announces a technology that every world power (including themselves) has had for years now but wasn't stupid enough to admit to having."
Re: (Score:2)
"China openly announces a technology that every world power (including themselves) has had for years now but wasn't stupid enough to admit to having."
It's not about stupid or not. It's about the benefit of the information. Cutting undersea cables isn't rocket surgery. They've been doing it by dragging anchors for god sakes. This isn't some gotchya that puts China on the back foot because they admit to having something, this is a subtle threat, a clever game of information warfare, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like several countries announced and demonstrated anti satellite weapons?
Re: (Score:2)
No lie. To repost a comment I saw on this when I saw it a few days ago:
"China openly announces a technology that every world power (including themselves) has had for years now but wasn't stupid enough to admit to having."
Which tends to indicate they don't actually have it but want everyone to think they do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe - I don't know.
Perhaps the cat was out of the bag anyway, maybe they know some foreign drone spotted a test, or some foreign agent ex-filed the data. At that point maybe they think the intimidation factor is more useful than an 'open secret' and sketchy deniability. Maybe they even see it as more distabilizing for all the various parties and their populations to see just exactly how cowed they have everyone?
Maybe they think after COVID it does not matter. After all world leaders all basically colluded
Intimidate rather than Use (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems kinda dumb for China to announce this.
Not if the aim is to intimidate instead of actually use the device. It would only be stupid to announce it of you were actually intending to use it to cause massive distruption which they probably want to avoid since it would distrupt China too. This is China doing the "big stick" part of diplomacy by letting everyone know they have a big stick that they can use, sending the signal that when they "speak softly" we had better listen.
A secondary purpose might be to persuade governments to start relying le
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree, I mean we clandestinely lifted up a nuclear sub from the seafloor in at a depth of 5000m back in 1974 [wikipedia.org], cutting cables shouldn't be beyond reach for China or the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that another country couldn't figure out how to do such a thing- the "what is reasonable" math is just different between countries.
Re: (Score:2)
What I mean more is that it's not a technology or logistics problem it's simply a matter of political will, there is no technical reason most countries can't get down there are start fucking up cables, special sub like this or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, technically speaking, there's no reason some billionaire Kenyan can't do it.
Re: Intimidate rather than Use (Score:2)
Cutting cables is a standard part of repairing them. If thereâ(TM)s a fault in the cable, itâ(TM)s not like thereâ(TM)s enough slack to pull it up to the surface to repair it. Instead, they grapple it, cut it, then haul up one end. Splice on a long patch, then lay it back down until they get back to where the other end is, haul that up, splice the patch on, then lay the whole thing down on the sea floor in a big horseshoe shape.
Re: (Score:3)
I get making a threat, but it seems like it would be more useful to have plausible deniability.
Why? Under what circumstances would they cut a cable and then want to "plausibly" deny it? And plausible to who? They are making clear that they have the capacity and its likely other countries do as well or at least soon will. Making the threat plausible is probably more important than making it deniable. People on Taiwan now know that the mainland can cut off their fiber optic communications in the event of a blockade. That likely will influence public enthusiasm for declaring independence. And it clearly
Re: (Score:2)
"Seems kinda dumb for China to announce this."
It's an ad for Elon Musk.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a great ad for deep sea salvage and cable repair services.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems kinda dumb for China to announce this.
Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
Ambassador de Sadesky: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.
Re: (Score:2)
Not news or interesting (Score:3)
All China is really doing is continuing to unveil just how stupid they are.
Re: (Score:2)
It's neck and neck.
Re: (Score:3)
Decent attempt at a joke, but Americans aren't even in the top 10 fattest countries per capita.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Depending on which chart [wikipedia.org] you look at [worldobesity.org], the U.S. has over 40% of its population designated as obese which puts it either 13th or 10th on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Switch to both, and we're then 19th.
So, 13th and 19th.
Still far from great, lol, but parent is correct- we're not even in the top 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Second list, US is in the 10th for *Men*. Switch to both, and we're then 19th. So, 13th and 19th. Still far from great, lol, but parent is correct- we're not even in the top 10.
Maybe. The first link uses BMI to measure obesity, and the countries above us are mostly polynesian. Polynesians tend to be very muscular, and BMI isn't a good measure of obesity for people with a lot of muscle. Bodybuilders with extremely low body fat percentages often get rated "obese" according to BMI. Not that most polynesians are bodybuilders but they do tend to have a lot of muscle so it takes quite a bit less additional fat to put them over the line.
It's not clear what measurement the second link
Re: (Score:2)
I went to school with many polynesians. Pretty large demographic here in the west coast.
I wouldn't categorize them as "tending to be very muscular."
Tending to have a good bit of muscle? Ya, I'd say that- but I'd say most of that muscle comes from carrying around several of my body weights in fat.
Bodybuilders with extremely low body fat percentages often get rated "obese" according to BMI.
Indeed. And those people are not skewing the statistics for polynesians.
Not that most polynesians are bodybuilders but they do tend to have a lot of muscle so it takes quite a bit less additional fat to put them over the line.
Sure, I'll grant you th
Re: (Score:2)
Cord cutting overkill (Score:4, Funny)
Look, I get that TV cable bills are out of control, but ...
Re: (Score:2)
I cut that cable decades ago and never looked back.
But it's reassuring that I have several shelves full of books if all cables around Europe are cut. Also, I suspect the average quality level of what's still available is of higher level.
Re: Cord cutting overkill (Score:2)
You may still hsve OTA HD TV in your area.
Everyone has these. Welcome to the party, pal. (Score:2)
And everyone does biological weapons research. The only difference is they don't pay for themselves, the silly Americans pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Everyone has these. Welcome to the party, pal. (Score:2)
We fed the monster (Score:2)
The world fed the monster for years allowing corporations to take advantage of slave labor. Now the world has to deal with the monster that it has created. Let this be a lesson, communist and other extreme countries need to be isolated so their governments can wither and die on the vine.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that would have slowed their development, but unless we outright embargo them and get everyone else to do so as well
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems the rest of the world views the Donald Trump administration the same way, they fed the monster, and are dealing with the huge ego of Donald Trump. With any luck, Trump will be removed before the rest of the world sees a need to invade the USA to remove him, in much the same way the USA has done to smaller countries.
How is this hard? (Score:2)
Undersea cables are not hard to find, they are public knowledge. What's more, they are not buried. All you'd need to cut one would be a single depth charge or torpedo. Not sure I understand why special gear is required.
Re: (Score:2)
Undersea cables are not hard to find,
Is this really true? The lateral position of a 4,000 meter deep cable may not be known precisely enough to ensure damage with a depth charge. But if you know roughly where it is, then crossing it at right angles with some sort of hook has a pretty good chance of snagging it.
The depth charge might need to be steerable, making it more complex. Assuming you know where to steer it.
Re: How is this hard? (Score:2)
Undersea cables are not only publicly mapped, they have locator beacons, as they are necessary to find them to repair.
Re: (Score:2)
Cables on continental shelves are indeed easy to cut. But the problem with continental shelves, is that they're generally near continents.
Some of those continents may or may not host a country that has the world's largest submarine navy.
Out in the deep blue, the numbers game makes it virtually impossible to protect the entire cable.
That's why they advertise this as being operable up to 4000m.
You drop a depth charge from 4000m above the surface, you're going to hit something 30 m
Re: How is this hard? (Score:2)
Are you trying to tell me a subs torpedo can't hit a fixed unmoving target a measly couple of miles away?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to tell me a subs torpedo can't hit a fixed unmoving target a measly couple of miles away?
You clearly have no fucking idea how a torpedo works.
Torpedos use sonar to track their target.
Let's say you fire one straight down.
What's the radar return on a cable, vs the ground 12 inches away from it? What's teh difference, say, 900 feet to the left since the radar return is identical in every direction facing downward?
Yes, I'm telling you subs don't torpedo unmoving targets from miles away without guidance, neverminding the fact that subs don't stand vertically on account of having to keep the pe
Subs on secret missions sometimes don't come back (Score:2)
Leave it next to the cable as a warning
Saber Rattling. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah somehow I suspect Americans won't be as quick to give up their lifestyles by not depending on China as you think. I mean look at the shitshow that the price of eggs has become.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you really use this destructivly? (Score:2)
If you wanted to break an undersea cable or pipe or something wouldn't a dragged anchor, sub placing explosives or explosives attached to a dragged anchor be a heck of a lot easier?
A cutter of this sort to me sounds like something that would be used constructively rather than destructively and if you use such a device most likely there would be notable markings on the thing that was cut that would give away the source.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you make an anchor long enough? Yes. But you'd need to make it ~3x that depth, so you're looking at 6000-12000m of chain.
Starts getting pretty hard to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
Anchors are notoriously ineffective at 2000-4000m on account of them not touching the seafloor.
Could you make an anchor long enough? Yes. But you'd need to make it ~3x that depth, so you're looking at 6000-12000m of chain.
Starts getting pretty hard to hide.
If you are in a place where the anchor is too short lower a long chain or pipe or something. Or just use a submersible and have it place explosive charges. I don't understand why someone would bother attaching a dedicated cutting tool to a submersible when dropping explosives is way easier and has the same effect.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are in a place where the anchor is too short lower a long chain or pipe or something.
Because you need around ~3x the length to reliably drag across the floor (it's a long way, and water has drag)
Or just use a submersible and have it place explosive charges.
Couple problems.
1) Submersible. You aren't doing this with a submarine. You're doing it with a bathyscape.
2) Explosive charges? Water pressure at 2000m is 200 atmospheres. You'd need to light off a nuke to do much damage.
I don't understand why someone would bother attaching a dedicated cutting tool to a submersible when dropping explosives is way easier and has the same effect.
Well, as mentioned, you can't drop from the surface. You'll simply never hit it.
Dropping from a bathyscape seems possible, but then we branch into:
1) Is there any explosive a b
Cutting off buiness (Score:2)
There are alternatives (Score:2)
There are alternatives to tools to cut undersea cables. For example, a cruise missile that destoys the stations where the cables terminate. If the cruise missile is considered an act of war, why wouldn't the cable cutter also be considered an act of war? In terms of crippling an adversary's communications channels, the undersea cutter is analogous to a missile that cuts/destroys a communications satellite. These are all acts of war.
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't see the difference between firing a cruise missile at a country and definitively blowing up a piece of infrastructure in their territory vs a cable being severed in an unattributable way in international waters?
Nobody needs an undersea cable cutter. (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, really. There are reasons for such a device (like undersea tapping of cables), but you'd never deploy a bespoke surface support ship, and a 4000m capable ROV to cut a cable. First of all, there's no deniability - everyone knows where that ship has been, and when. Second, there's no scalabilty - there are dozens of cables connecting the US to Asia and Australia, dozens more connecting the US to Europe, dozens more connecting Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Will you build that many ROVs and support ships so you can cut them all at once? Or are you expecting your ship to be able to sail from one, to the next, to the next, unimpeded?
A cut cable normally means that traffic gets re-routed. Cut enough cables, and congestion will mean that
low priority traffic starts getting dropped, but high priority traffic gets through. As a result, a very large percentage of cables would need to be cut to have a militarily significant impact (although you'd probably piss off Facebook and YouTube long before that). So there's no real military significance to a cable cut - other than in very local areas (for example, around the island of Taiwan).
This is a message to people who know things that we don't. It's unclear to me what the message is, but it's meant to be clear to them. And the message isn't "we can cut a deepwater cable".
Re: (Score:2)
Why use a ship when you can use submarines and underwater drones. They could place explosives on every important cable weeks ahead of time.
China's Taiwan plan is to slowly strangle the island. Cutting every cable to the island is a way to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. There's no reason for your ROV to cut a cable, but there are plenty of things (like tapping, or placing explosives) that ROVs are good for. The question is, why announce an offensive capability that isn't particularly useful?
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, why announce an offensive capability that isn't particularly useful?
Maybe to divert attention away from a capability that is useful?
That's nothing (Score:2)
Seems silly, other than domestic propaganda. (Score:2)
I don't understand what this is supposed to achieve.
The US decided early that cutting cables is pointless, whereas tapping cables was often very informative.
If China or India or Japan or Korea wanted to curtail cable traffic across the Pacific, they all could easily damage the key cables with plausible 'accidents', no need for fancy deep diving RoVs.,
It may simply be an effort by China's NOAA equivalent to gain stature (plus funding) in China's more militarized political environment by showing that their ge
Activate ACTIVE sentry mode... (Score:2)
The obvious counter is to set up a huge network of autonomous sentry drones, if the cable is cut, sink the ship towing the cutter.
Well then don't make them deep sea (Score:2)
Use neutral buoyancy and make it like kelp, above the sea floor but below the thermocline.
Then have it sway around a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
It was just a legend, until now...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
China also has a satellite-stealing satellite...
Star link outnumbers those by magnitudes.
Re: (Score:2)
Which helps explain why China has worked so hard to turn Musk into a Chinese asset.
Re: (Score:2)
Which helps explain why China has worked so hard to turn Musk into a Chinese asset.
And failed. All they have is Hunter Biden and Tim Waltz. No threats there anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Have they? He's got a record for traitorous actions. Seems pretty in with the Chinese Communist Party.
https://www.taipeitimes.com/Ne... [taipeitimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Have they? He's got a record for traitorous actions. Seems pretty in with the Chinese Communist Party.
Just the required performance to do business in China. Nothing more that what all the multinational CEOs do for the photo ops.