Information Warfare enabled by Undersea Sabotage of Internet Cables

Undersea Cables ... backbone of interconnectivity 

Undersea cable sabotage and information warfare carry profound global conflict implications, highlighting vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure. These systems, which underpin much of the global internet and data communications, are increasingly recognised as strategic targets in geopolitical struggles. So, from the Shadow of a Doorway, consider these 6 aspects ...

Strategic Vulnerabilities

Undersea cables transmit over 95% of global internet traffic, making them a linchpin of modern economies and military communication. Incidents like the recent Baltic Sea cable damage, suspected to involve the Chinese freighter Yi Peng 3, raise questions about the intersection of espionage, sabotage, and global power projection​

 Historically, undersea cables have been targeted during conflicts, such as in World Wars I and II, when severing communication lines was a key military tactic​

Modern reliance on these cables intensifies their strategic value. Disruptions not only compromise economic activities but also impede intelligence sharing and military coordination among allies, potentially destabilising entire regions.

Gray-Zone Tactics

"What is clear now, is that the character of warfare is changing, with more options for pursuing strategic ends just below the threshold of traditional armed conflict – what some experts like to call grey zone tactics or hybrid warfare."

Australian Minister for Defence, 2019 

Incidents involving alleged sabotage, such as those in the Baltic Sea, fit into the framework of "gray-zone" operations / activities below the threshold of open war designed to undermine adversaries. These actions are often difficult to attribute, as in the Baltic Sea cases, where responsibility remains uncertain between accidental damage and deliberate sabotage​

Gray-zone tactics enable states like Russia and China to pursue strategic objectives while maintaining plausible deniability.

Global Escalation Risks

The deliberate targeting of infrastructure risks escalation. If cable disruptions are attributed to state actors, they could provoke retaliatory measures, escalating into broader conflict. The 2024 Baltic incidents echo warnings from NATO about the potential for hybrid warfare, combining physical attacks on infrastructure with cyberattacks to disrupt or confuse adversaries​

Economic and Technological Warfare

The economic implications of cable sabotage are vast. Financial systems, reliant on high-speed internet, suffer immediate setbacks. Prolonged disruptions could impact global markets and trade. Additionally, by targeting cables, adversaries can disrupt technological advancements dependent on seamless global data flow, such as AI development and cloud computing.

Policy and Defence Responses

Global responses to these threats include increased investment in undersea cable security, cooperation among nations to monitor suspicious activity, and development of redundant systems. Multinational agreements like those formed after the Baltic Sea incident illustrate efforts to align investigative and preventive measures​

Implications for the Future

The likelihood of undersea cable sabotage as a tool of geopolitical strategy will rise as nations vie for influence in an increasingly interconnected world. This highlights the urgent need for international frameworks addressing both the physical and cyber dimensions of infrastructure security. Failure to adapt could make nations increasingly vulnerable to an era where conflict may not be declared but is waged in the shadows of global networks.