[mmooss]

> Attacking key infrastructure is an act of war.

You can say what you like, but nobody with expertise or authority agrees either that it's strategic infrastructure (if that's what you mean) or that it's anything like an act of war or casus belli.

I'm willing to bet that nobody has ever started a war over a cut cable.

[jarito]

Man, you have a love of arguments to authority. Just saying that everyone else thinks something isn't an argument and condescending to everyone isn't compelling, especially when you are incorrect.

US definition of critical infrastructure includes Communications (https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security...).

The EU lists digital infrastructure as well - https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security....

Two seconds. That's how long that took. It _is_ strategic infrastructure and is declared so by everyone with expertise and authority. Since there are plenty of examples of wars caused by damaging / interrupting infrastructure - see any sort of blockade, you would lose that bet.

People and countries go to war for lots of reasons - sometimes even pigs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)).

You have a reasonable argument on the basis of proportional response. I don't buy it, but it is a think that people can have a reasonable discussion about. If you engage in that discussion in good faith and stop condescending to everyone, you might have a better time and actually learn something.

[mmooss]

Your attacks on me are just a poor substitution for having much to say, and violate HN guidelines. It's hard to imagine why you think it's appropriate, or why you can't discuss things without ad hominim attacks.

I'm not sure how they define 'critical'. My cell phone is 'digital communications' and yet the Russians could take it out without causing a war. Hacker News could be taken down without risking a war. Look at all the hacking attacks by nation states, for example, which have been far more damaging and threatening than the submarine cable damage.

I do understand the word 'strategic', that is, 'it significantly affects the security of the country'. Seizing Crimea is strategic; some nuclear weapons are strategic; cutting one cable is not strategic - the people and land of Finland are just as safe.

> Since there are plenty of examples of wars caused by damaging / interrupting infrastructure - see any sort of blockade, you would lose that bet.

My bet was, not from cutting a cable. It's just not that important.

> arguments to authority

I rely on people who know what they are talking about.