Comment by PhasmaFelis
14 days ago
In this particular case, it seems like the attackers were trying for plausible deniability (making it look like an accident with an anchor). A comprehensive series of "accidents" wouldn't fit that goal.
(And if they decide they don't care about plausible deniability, they could use sub-deployed timed mines to take out every cable at once.)
Even if these "accidents" are a state sponsored (or at least condoned) action, it seems certain states have realized they can happen over and over again without consequences[0].
The frustrating part of this kind of petty tactic is that bullies can do just enough to annoy and inconvenience their targets, while never quite doing enough to make it worth expending the political capital to hold them to account. From the bully's perspective there's no downside. And if legitimate accidents or rogue actions get portrayed as deliberate then all the better - that just reinforces the bully's reputation as an actor to be feared while further eroding trust in the international institutions that may one day challenge it.
[0] https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/5677668
Wouldn’t the ship insurance company be responsible for the costs?
At some point insurers are going to increase their costs to these Chinese companies to the point that sabotage does not become viable anymore.
Hence the solution of needing a bigger bully on your side.
And then once they are fixed take them out again
> once they are fixed take them out again
In an actual war, you hit the repair equipment and personnel [1].
(As to the Geneva Conventions note, we're discussing a hypothetical war with Russia. The status quo, including rules of war, are going to be rewritten by the victors.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tap_strike
If you are planting one cutting device (small bomb etc), you could do the same thing 10 miles down the line and blast it again without having to revisit the area.