Yes, it’s more likely it’s an accident than someone coming up with an idea to cut one of many undersea cables using an off the shelf anchor – something undersea cables are hardened against depending on the company that produced them. We’ve had undersea communication lines for more than a hundred and fifty years now, we’ve had anchors for longer than that. The former was designed to withstand the latter.
Also the attack serves no purpose as many have pointed out. There are literally hundreds of routes, dozens of other cables under water. At most this costs a random company — not country, company a few hundred thousand euros worth of replacement cabling for such a short distance… What’s the literal point? It’s not particularly expensive venture, it’s not going to cripple anything, it doesnt affect the countries involved just entities within them… What is the motive?
Yes, it’s more likely it’s an accident than someone coming up with an idea to cut one of many undersea cables using an off the shelf anchor – something undersea cables are hardened against depending on the company that produced them. We’ve had undersea communication lines for more than a hundred and fifty years now, we’ve had anchors for longer than that. The former was designed to withstand the latter.
Also the attack serves no purpose as many have pointed out. There are literally hundreds of routes, dozens of other cables under water. At most this costs a random company — not country, company a few hundred thousand euros worth of replacement cabling for such a short distance… What’s the literal point? It’s not particularly expensive venture, it’s not going to cripple anything, it doesnt affect the countries involved just entities within them… What is the motive?