Economic consequences of covert military actions
February 6, 2008 5:02 PM
If the (US?) government cuts undersea fiber optic cables to disrupt enemy communications, who pays for the repairs?
During the last week, four undersea fiber optics cables have been cut in the Middle East (some unconfirmed reports say five). Internet access has been affected for some tens of millions of users. Early reports indicated that Iran had been taken completely offline; that is not true.
Conspiracy theorists believe that this is due to covert / military action on part of the US government. Four undersea cable cuts in a week is an amazing coincidence, so there may be some merit to these theories (for once).
Assuming for a minute that the conspiracy theorists are right, and that the US government (or some other government) cut these cables in order to disrupt enemy communications, who pays for the repairs? These cables are usually owned by international consortiums (and, in this particular case, two of the cables are owned by Reliance, an Indian company). Are these companies supposed to pay up to support the US military? Do they have a choice? Will their insurance carriers pay up, assuming that, without any proof to the contrary, this is an (unlikely) accident? Or will the US government make the money somehow materialize in the bank accounts of the affected companies?
I'm interested in the speculation of wise MeFites, but more interested in:
1. Opinions from people in the know (people with experience in the rather secretive international telecommunications industry, if they're willing to share), and
2. Historical references to the economic consequences of other covert actions in the past. (obviously, from a long time ago -- long enough to be declassified -- but I'll read some more speculative material as well).
Thanks!
During the last week, four undersea fiber optics cables have been cut in the Middle East (some unconfirmed reports say five). Internet access has been affected for some tens of millions of users. Early reports indicated that Iran had been taken completely offline; that is not true.
Conspiracy theorists believe that this is due to covert / military action on part of the US government. Four undersea cable cuts in a week is an amazing coincidence, so there may be some merit to these theories (for once).
Assuming for a minute that the conspiracy theorists are right, and that the US government (or some other government) cut these cables in order to disrupt enemy communications, who pays for the repairs? These cables are usually owned by international consortiums (and, in this particular case, two of the cables are owned by Reliance, an Indian company). Are these companies supposed to pay up to support the US military? Do they have a choice? Will their insurance carriers pay up, assuming that, without any proof to the contrary, this is an (unlikely) accident? Or will the US government make the money somehow materialize in the bank accounts of the affected companies?
I'm interested in the speculation of wise MeFites, but more interested in:
1. Opinions from people in the know (people with experience in the rather secretive international telecommunications industry, if they're willing to share), and
2. Historical references to the economic consequences of other covert actions in the past. (obviously, from a long time ago -- long enough to be declassified -- but I'll read some more speculative material as well).
Thanks!
This post was deleted for the following reason: this looks like a FPP posing as a question. It's hypothetical as stated and starting from the position of "what if the conspiracy theorists are right..." rarely works well. Possibly try BBQ for this? -- jessamyn
You go to your government, and they talk to the US through diplomatic channels and demand compensation.
This would only really apply if it could be proved to be the fault of the US and it was an accident. And it would be called an accident regardless of whether it was or not.
posted by smackfu at 5:11 PM on February 6, 2008
This would only really apply if it could be proved to be the fault of the US and it was an accident. And it would be called an accident regardless of whether it was or not.
posted by smackfu at 5:11 PM on February 6, 2008
For example, when NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.
posted by smackfu at 5:13 PM on February 6, 2008
posted by smackfu at 5:13 PM on February 6, 2008
Wired article. "Cable cuts happen on average once every three days.'"
posted by smackfu at 5:16 PM on February 6, 2008
posted by smackfu at 5:16 PM on February 6, 2008
who pays for the repairs?
Each cable is owned by a telecom company not some mysterious consortium as you suggest. Each cable has a company owned boat attached to it that travels up and down the length constantly doing maintenance and repairs. They also dispatch other repair ships to repair cuts if the maintenance ship is too far away. Yes, they are heavily insured.
So, no, these cables arent dropped by some mysterious multinational and left. They are constantly being worked on, constantly being monitored, and these companies are more than prepared to perform repairs.
Contrary to all the Ron Paul kiddies telling us this is war with Iran; undersea cables get damaged all the time. This is nothing new and it is not a new type of legal case or some new type of international tort against whoever damaged the line. Not to mention considering most boats are only insured for the value of the boat minus cargo then it would be foolish to waste time and energy in a lawsuit as the bill for cable cuts would far exceed the value you would get from the insurance company.
posted by damn dirty ape at 5:20 PM on February 6, 2008
Each cable is owned by a telecom company not some mysterious consortium as you suggest. Each cable has a company owned boat attached to it that travels up and down the length constantly doing maintenance and repairs. They also dispatch other repair ships to repair cuts if the maintenance ship is too far away. Yes, they are heavily insured.
So, no, these cables arent dropped by some mysterious multinational and left. They are constantly being worked on, constantly being monitored, and these companies are more than prepared to perform repairs.
Contrary to all the Ron Paul kiddies telling us this is war with Iran; undersea cables get damaged all the time. This is nothing new and it is not a new type of legal case or some new type of international tort against whoever damaged the line. Not to mention considering most boats are only insured for the value of the boat minus cargo then it would be foolish to waste time and energy in a lawsuit as the bill for cable cuts would far exceed the value you would get from the insurance company.
posted by damn dirty ape at 5:20 PM on February 6, 2008
The thing I have yet to see is any sort of authoritative explanation for either where the cables are, or why they would all suddenly become damaged. If these cables are in fact in the same place, or some how bundled together than some sort of damage that causes them to fail seems less suspicious - if they are separated by thousands of miles, well, the conspiracy theories have more traction then don't they?
It seems like it would be pretty much public knowledge - these aren't military installations or anything top-secret after all, so the lack of clear information is either suspicious or typical of lousy reporting.
Further, middle eastern media outlets are orders of magnitude less reliable or trustworthy than our own (which ain't saying much to begin with!) so there isn't any clear consciouses on if these are in fact multiple damaged cables or just some overzealous reporters looking to stir the pot. It's a neat conspiracy theory ain't it?
Anyway, getting to your actual question as to who pays for it... well, ask yourself this: Who was making money having the cables there in the first place? Service providers, content providers, the cable owners, etc, etc... these entities, be they AT&T, MTV, or whoever will look to replace or repair them in order to restore their revenue.
I have read that sharks sometimes bite deep sea cables, though I'm not sure where I read this (it was year ago) or on what it was based upon...
posted by wfrgms at 5:23 PM on February 6, 2008
It seems like it would be pretty much public knowledge - these aren't military installations or anything top-secret after all, so the lack of clear information is either suspicious or typical of lousy reporting.
Further, middle eastern media outlets are orders of magnitude less reliable or trustworthy than our own (which ain't saying much to begin with!) so there isn't any clear consciouses on if these are in fact multiple damaged cables or just some overzealous reporters looking to stir the pot. It's a neat conspiracy theory ain't it?
Anyway, getting to your actual question as to who pays for it... well, ask yourself this: Who was making money having the cables there in the first place? Service providers, content providers, the cable owners, etc, etc... these entities, be they AT&T, MTV, or whoever will look to replace or repair them in order to restore their revenue.
I have read that sharks sometimes bite deep sea cables, though I'm not sure where I read this (it was year ago) or on what it was based upon...
posted by wfrgms at 5:23 PM on February 6, 2008
Lastly, you dont need "declassified insider knowledge." Cable cuts and repairs are public events that happen to publicly traded companies. You can read all about the FALCON cut on Flagg's own site.
Now if you are asking about reparations against a hostile military, well, thats fine and good but that has nothing to do with cable cuts.
posted by damn dirty ape at 5:24 PM on February 6, 2008
Now if you are asking about reparations against a hostile military, well, thats fine and good but that has nothing to do with cable cuts.
posted by damn dirty ape at 5:24 PM on February 6, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by cosmicbandito at 5:07 PM on February 6, 2008