Skip to main content
Catalog
I005
Infrastructure

Submarine Cable Geopolitical Chokepoint

HIGH(85%)
·
February 2026
·
4 sources
I005Infrastructure
85% confidence

What people believe

“The internet is decentralized and resilient to physical disruption.”

What actually happens
+2ppIntercontinental data via submarine cables
+200%Cable repair time (average)
+60ppTech giant share of new cable capacity
+500%Suspected state-sponsored cable incidents
4 sources · 3 falsifiability criteria
Context

The internet feels decentralized and resilient. In reality, 97% of intercontinental data flows through approximately 550 submarine fiber optic cables laid on the ocean floor. These cables are concentrated in a handful of geographic chokepoints: the Strait of Malacca, the Suez Canal corridor, the English Channel, and a few landing stations on each continent. A single cable cut can reroute traffic for millions. Coordinated cuts at chokepoints could sever entire regions from the global internet. Nation-states are increasingly aware of this vulnerability, and submarine cable sabotage has moved from theoretical risk to documented reality, with multiple suspected state-sponsored cable cuts in the Baltic Sea and Red Sea since 2023.

Hypothesis

What people believe

“The internet is decentralized and resilient to physical disruption.”

Actual Chain
→
Traffic concentrates through geographic chokepoints(80% of EU-Asia traffic through 3 corridors)
└
Single cable cut causes measurable latency spikes across regions
└
Repair ships are scarce — 60+ vessels globally, weeks to deploy
└
Insurance costs for cable operators rising 30% annually
→
Nation-states weaponize cable vulnerability(12+ suspected state-sponsored incidents since 2023)
└
Submarine cable sabotage becomes gray-zone warfare tactic
└
Military cable protection programs divert defense budgets
→
Cable ownership concentrates among tech giants(Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon own or lease 70%+ of new capacity)
└
Private companies control critical public infrastructure
└
Developing nations depend on foreign-owned cables with no redundancy
└
Geopolitical leverage shifts to cable owners during disputes
→
Satellite alternatives create false sense of redundancy(Starlink handles <1% of global bandwidth)
└
LEO satellite bandwidth is orders of magnitude below cable capacity
└
Satellite links have higher latency, unsuitable for financial and real-time systems
Impact
MetricBeforeAfterDelta
Intercontinental data via submarine cables95%97%+2pp
Cable repair time (average)1-2 weeks3-6 weeks (contested areas)+200%
Tech giant share of new cable capacity10% (2010)70%+ (2025)+60pp
Suspected state-sponsored cable incidents~1/year (pre-2022)6+/year (2024-2025)+500%
Navigation

Don't If

  • •You're building critical infrastructure that assumes always-on intercontinental connectivity
  • •Your disaster recovery plan doesn't account for regional internet partitioning

If You Must

  • 1.Design systems for graceful degradation during cable outages, not just data center failover
  • 2.Maintain multi-region deployments that can operate independently during partitions
  • 3.Monitor submarine cable status feeds for early warning of latency changes
  • 4.Diversify CDN and DNS providers across cable-independent paths

Alternatives

  • Multi-path routing with cable diversity — Ensure traffic uses cables through different geographic corridors
  • Regional data sovereignty architecture — Keep critical data and compute within regions that share cable paths
  • Hybrid satellite-cable failover — LEO satellite as degraded-mode backup for critical control plane traffic
Falsifiability

This analysis is wrong if:

  • Satellite networks achieve >10% of intercontinental bandwidth capacity, providing genuine redundancy
  • No major internet disruption occurs from submarine cable damage in a 5-year period
  • Cable ownership diversifies away from tech giants back toward telecom consortiums
Sources
  1. 1.
    TeleGeography Submarine Cable Map

    Comprehensive database of all 550+ active submarine cables and their routes

  2. 2.
    Atlantic Council: Undersea Cables and Geopolitics

    Analysis of submarine cable vulnerability as geopolitical risk vector

  3. 3.
    CSIS: Invisible and Vital — Submarine Cables

    97% of intercontinental data transits submarine cables

  4. 4.
    Reuters: Baltic Sea Cable Sabotage Investigation

    Multiple submarine cable cuts in Baltic Sea attributed to state-sponsored activity

Related
I001I016I011
Tags
submarine-cablesinternet-infrastructuregeopoliticschokepointcybersecurityresilience

This is a mirror — it shows what's already true.

Want to surface the hidden consequences of your infrastructure bets?

Try Lagbase