If you are nuked for setting up a military camp during a war, then you're waaaaay past the point of playing "snap-snap" with internet cable.

Wifi may still exist via satellites. That may make undersea cable sabotage pointless unless wifi has already been removed/scrambled.

@TylerS.Loeper Satellite connections are slow not in bandwidth but in latency. Also satellites do not have the capacity of these undersea cables.

Also, if a nation is ready to cut undersea cable, he could also harm some satellite, or make them unavailable if htey control them.

@Nyakouai Nuking a military camp the size of a town/city is not a guarantee that the other side is gonna start nuking civillians or ramp up the amount of nukes being used (if I am not mistaken). Nuclear war doesn't necessarily have to be an all-or-nothing deal, there could be mutual understanding (basically MAD) that civilian casualties are not to be used simply for shock value, however selectively using nukes on military camps might be acceptable without destabilising the status quo further.

@Nyakouai Basically I'm talking of various levels of escalation of a nuclear war rather than an all-or-nothing scenario. Also slowing down the internet is a pretty serious threat (comparable to nuking millions of civilians) and I feel it's on par with other forms of warfare that could happen at the level of escalation I'm talking about.

The UK is busy implementing an unconventional solution: stop being a great power

@ghosts_in_the_code Thing is, if you throw a nuke, you'll receive a dozen back. Any action triggering a nuke strike might as well being you striking first: at least, you'd get the opportunity to harm your opponent and maybe damage their counterattack before it's launched. In a WMD standoff, the WMD-option is the ultimate step, cause it is synonym with mutual annihilation. So bombing a sabotage base? No problem. Nuking them? Not worth it. Never worth it.

@Nyakouai Why though? Traditional warfare has often in the past had rules of things that are unacceptable (war crimes) and countries abiding by these rules (or atleast giving the impression that they are). Levels of escalation is all playing on psychology, right? So why is nuclear binary? Two levels of escalation, level 0 being that any amount of civillian casualty via conventional weapons goes, but nothing nuclear, and level 1 being any amount of nuclear casualty is allowed.

If you ask me it makes more sense to define the level of escalation in terms of how many casualties are you willing to inflict and, how many civilian casualties are you willing to inflict. The method used to deliver those casualties (nuclear versus chemical versus explosives etc) shouldn't matter as much. Even warfare through bombs can inflict far more damage than a small nuke

@Nyakouai Lastly .. our discussion is only tangentially related to the question, we could maybe move to a chat thread or something?

We probably should, though I don't have the privilege to do so, nor did I expect to debate that point, since it's only partially relevant to the question. I'm only moderately aware of war laws, but afaik, nuclear defense system are rigged to go off on a detected nuke launch (validated by human) and just go all out. May be wrong on this point tho.

@Nyakouai Well it does make sense for the amount of counter-strike to depend on the amount of nuclear strike being detected. But I really don't know how things are right now. Also I guess it also depends on how much time is available. For instance if I'm guaranteed I'll be able to detect any major nuclear strike in region X two hours before it comes, and it takes me only 20 minutes to schedule a counter strike, that gives my nation 100 minutes of room to think over the decision, negotiate with allies, communicate with the general public etc. As opposed to having an automated response system

I'm not talking to you about how things should be, I'm talking about how they are right now (to the best of my knowledge, admittedly, this kind of protocols are not really being disclosed to the public)

So does that mean detection is indeed difficult or late?

Also my question deals with near future scenarios (rather than literally right now). The status quo can change in the time of war until it escalates to nuclear

When cables were copper wires, they could be easily manipulated. Fiber optic cables have built-in error correction, so an operator can know at the exact spot it was tampered with or severed.

Have a good read of Frank Herbert - The Dragon in the Sea en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_the_Sea

Interesting related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells

This isn't worldbuilding. It's storybuilding in the real world today. "When asking questions keep in mind that the goal of the site is to help you build your world, not to tell your story." (source: help center)