You can bury them deeper after being laid in trenches created using undersea ploughs or water jets. They will always be vulnerable where they came to shore though, unless you're going to bury them deep all the way to the equipment hut on the shore. There is undersea concrete available for vulnerable paths (both articulated blocks and a mix that can be grouted and will set underwater), but I believe that likely draws more unwanted attention to the asset's route without providing much more protection.
Those seem like a defense against accidental damage, but I don't see how burying a cable in a shallow trench or covering it with a few blocks of concrete will protect it from a "bad actor."
Absolutely, boils down to your threat model. If you are defending against a nation state actor, you are probably going to want to deploy underwater surveillance across the cable's length and station folks who can respond when someone nefarious shows up to chop chop. No security is absolute, you are either dissuading or slowing down an attacker based on their resources and available window of time. It's 42 miles/67km from Finland to Estonia across the Gulf of Finland, which does not seem challenging to defend vs cables crossing oceans. Sweden to Estonia is definitely a bit further.
Finland and Estonia share a 1GW electrical interconnector (composed of two HVDC submarine cables, with a signed MOA for a third) Estonia is using to consume power from Finland's recently turned up nuclear generator. I am unaware if it is buried, but it is a strategic critical infra asset that likely requires defense.
Its easy to overthink these problem spaces (imho), but I propose that Russia's current geopolitical posture adds an element of a wildcard necessitating the thought exercise. This infra can take months to build or repair, but only hours to cripple.
The bad actors aren't down there with shovels and robots digging down into trenches. They are just like any other ship dragging an anchor across the bottom close to the cable.
These cables are often deliberately laid far enough apart that, should they need to be serviced, they can be hauled up by dragging an anchor/hook until it snags the correct cable. So it is equally not difficult to attack a chosen cable with nothing more complex than an anchor, a long chain, and a handheld GPS.
The places where these cables come to shore are rightfully rated as high-priority military targets. You can't just walk up to them, nor go poking around in a yacht.
They don't. Damage happens all the time. There is an entire industry for repairing these cables. The answer is to have multiple redundant lines to redirect traffic onto other paths, which is largely what the internet does.
Up until now there were silent rules of engagement of not touching this sort of infrastructure. All that probably went out the window with the NS2 bombing, but it's still doubtful that Russia would have anything to do with it. They've been meticulously avoiding escalation with any NATO country. Even when Lithuania tried to block Kaliningrad they solved it through diplomacy.
> They've been meticulously avoiding escalation with any NATO country.
Except for the constant threats of nuclear Armageddon, the sabotage of the Bulgarian munitions factory, ramming into a US drone over the Black Sea, shooting a missile at a British jet over the Black Sea, threatening to invade Gotland, threatening to invade Poland, violating Finnish, Swedish, and Norwegian airspace. I’m probably forgetting some things, it’s been a long war.
You don't need "bad actors" when you already have plenty of idiots in captain chairs doing damage by dragging their anchors where they aren't supposed to etc.
You can't; a while ago, there were Russian ships hovering near an important undersea cable (iirc between Ireland and the US). But since that's international waters, they can't do anything.
I'm 99% sure that all the cables have been identified and if the order is given, they will be cut. Along with all other infrastructure.
It's a great choice for higher budget applications too. At my job (public tech company, former startup), we use Postgres as our source of truth for just about everything that should go in an OLTP database (e.g. not analytics). I don't think there's another database product that would work as well for us as Postgres.
It is by reputation very online, very judgy, and very left, so its pronouncements are perceived as cliquish and insubstantial. That's probably the case; it's probably a mistake to just go click around that site and draw conclusions according to what it says. But it is also a useful link aggregator, so when it claims something, like "this person earnestly believes that the Earth isn't round and that there is not an atmosphere but instead an atmosflat", it's worth checking the links to make sure that isn't clearly the case. Oftentimes it is.
I wouldn't call it "trash", but it comes with some political bias and personal vendettas.
The reason for both is that the entire wiki probably has about dozen editors, some of them way more powerful than others. So you might think that "wiki = something edited by lots of people", but for many topics there was one person who decided whether something was okay or not and wrote the article accordingly, and everyone else only added details afterwards (or disagreed and was banned).
From my perspective, the greatest problem is the local cultural norm that once you decide that someone is a bad guy, it is allowed (even encouraged) to exaggerate about them, and complaining about exaggerations can get you banned. Which means that when a mistake is made, it becomes very difficult to fix it, because of course after the exaggerations anything can look stupid.
You can just follow the links in this case. I don't know much about RationalWiki and am disinclined to "trust" it, but often when that site makes claims, the links they provide to primary sources are more than sufficient to support them. That's the case here.
All the information about them is cited and backed up by evidence, the fact the website is left wing (according to you) shouldn't get in the way of the factual information contained within.
At least half of "information" is just guilt by association, sometimes taken to ridiculous levels:
"Winegard clarifies his above comment and concern is specifically only countries below sub-replacement fertility (2.1 TFR), meaning (excluding a few countries in East Asia i.e. Japan, Singapore and Korea), the whole of Europe.[33] This a key obsession of white nationalists (such as Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, whose manifesto called for white Europeans to increase their fertility rates above 2.1)."
Winegard says make more babies, you know who said that too? Christchurch terrorist! Ridiculous.
Just associating is not enough. You need to explain why something is wrong, some things are obvious some are not. There is article about this on Rational wiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism) where they present their opinion on Race realism.
By linking those two things (association with Racialism and debunking Racialism) you can "present a case" against Bo Winegard (although in imperfect way, the best proof would be to debunk his words, not associate him to the theory debunked in another article).
