A new study undertaken by a group of researchers from the UAE, Canada, Japan, and Taiwan collates a range of statistics and expert opinion to address an urgent puzzle: Where and under
A new study undertaken by a group of researchers from the UAE, Canada, Japan, and Taiwan collates a range of statistics and expert opinion to address an urgent puzzle: Where and under what conditions do states prioritize cable security?
The researchers focused on three contrasting cable systems: Unity/EAC Pacific (Japan–U.S.), Asia-America Gateway (Guam–Hawaii), and Tata TGNTata Indicom (India–Singapore).
The risk to such cables varies predictably with geopolitical tension, peaking during ambiguous periods between peace and overt conflict. During these times, adversaries exploit unclear attribution and uncertain response thresholds to employ “gray zone” actions such as sabotage that disrupt but don’t trigger direct retaliation.
Cable landing sites present likely targets for sabotage due to their accessibility on land. However, some experts believed that they only become more vulnerable during wartime when states no longer seek plausible deniability.
The survey’s findings include that territorial seas and EEZs are more vulnerable than high seas, because sabotage is easier in shallow waters and on wide continental shelves. However, some experts emphasized proximity to the saboteur and level of tension rather than bathymetric considerations.
One interviewee said: “As geopolitical tensions rise, your appetite for risk also goes up.”
The aim of the
Content Original Link:
" target="_blank">
