NATO outlines Internet doomsday plan — researching tech to reroute subsea Internet traffic via satellite in case of attack

NATO flags
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Researchers from the U.S., Iceland, Sweden, and Switzerland are working with NATO to build a system that will automatically reroute subsea internet and data traffic to satellites if communication is severed by hostile action, natural calamity, or an accident. According to Bloomberg’s report, most of NATO’s internet traffic uses undersea cables, and their disruption could result in a disaster, especially during the opening days of any attack.

NATO has already been investing in protecting its communications cables, setting up a center that focuses on this mission ever since the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was destroyed by a mysterious explosion in September 2022. NATO’s Science for Peace and Security Programme also allocated over $400,000 to the Hybrid Space and Submarine Architecture project to Ensure Information Security of Telecommunications, or HEIST. It will formally launch at Cornell University in New York in late July 2024.

This project comes at a time when global stability is affected by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s threat to Taiwan, and its provocative and violent actions in Southeast and East Asia. NATO leaders say that Russia is mapping critical US and EU assets, and they fear that undersea cables will be among the first targets during a military crisis.

HEIST’s primary focus is to detect disturbances in undersea cables and automate the rerouting of the data through them to other cables or via satellite if any issues are encountered. Currently, undersea cable companies can detect disturbances to their underwater infrastructure to the nearest kilometer, but the researchers want to narrow this down to the nearest meter.

This system will ensure that communications will not be disrupted even if any of Europe’s subsea communications cables are cut, damaged, or moved. HEIST is also not limited to military applications, as undersea cables could also be affected by natural and artificial events, like earthquakes or wayward ship anchors.

However, NATO’s primary concern is still the integrity of its internal communications. “You would need three or four bombs to just cut off Iceland and its communications,” said Professor Bjarni Már Magnússon, who teaches law at Iceland’s Bifröst University and is also a part of the HEIST project. We could also remember how thousands of Viasat modems were disabled across Europe when Russian state actors hacked them as part of its coordinated effort during its initial push into Ukraine in February 2022. HEIST will help ensure that even if one or another communications cable is compromised, NATO could still function and be able to coordinate its actions.

Aside from protecting the reliability of its communications, NATO should also be worried about the security and integrity of these undersea cables. After all, if the U.S. could tap into the U.S.S.R.’s underwater communication lines during the 1970s with Operation Ivy Bells, then the Russians could do the same today. Even though the messages sent through these cables are usually secured and encrypted, quantum computers could threaten even the most advanced encryption.

Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • ThomasKinsley
    I'm not clear on the intended capabilities. Will this reroute all consumer Internet or only military communications? If it's the former, then I wonder how HEIST will handle the traffic.
    Reply
  • Blastomonas
    ThomasKinsley said:
    I'm not clear on the intended capabilities. Will this reroute all consumer Internet or only military communications? If it's the former, then I wonder how HEIST will handle the traffic.

    I suspect that this is NATO traffic only. Interestingly, i would have thought that they would already have a back up in place.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    Blastomonas said:
    I suspect that this is NATO traffic only. Interestingly, i would have thought that they would already have a back up in place.
    Back during the Cold War, NATO had dedicated high elevation narrow beam and line-of-sight transmitters and receivers in each NATO nation to serve as a backup communications system but they have all been decommissioned by now.
    https://www.subbrit.org.uk/features/ace-high-nato-communications-system/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Command_Europe_Highband
    NATO also had a command and control bunker network but all the known locations have also been decommissioned.

    All I can say for certain is that either NATO no longer has equivalents to these Cold War projects, or they do but are classified so no one knows about them.
    Reply
  • Blastomonas
    The Historical Fidelity said:
    Back during the Cold War, NATO had dedicated high elevation narrow beam and line-of-sight transmitters and receivers in each NATO nation to serve as a backup communications system but they have all been decommissioned by now.
    https://www.subbrit.org.uk/features/ace-high-nato-communications-system/
    NATO also had a command and control bunker network but all the known locations have also been decommissioned.

    All I can say for certain is that either NATO no longer has equivalents to these Cold War projects, or they do but are classified so no one knows about them.
    This makes sense. It makes less sense to advertise these weaknesses to your enemies, unless of course, one already has good backups in place.
    Reply
  • Avro Arrow
    While it's probably a good contingency plan, I don't really see this as being the prime target that the author thinks it is. Any nation with the technology necessary to carry this out would also be a nation that uses the internet itself and they would be crippling themselves just as much as they'd be crippling their target(s).
    Reply
  • bit_user
    For commercial internet traffic, satellites can't serve as a viable substitute for transoceanic cables. Therefore, the focus should be on:
    bury sections on continental shelves.
    camouflage - some kind of jacket that makes it harder to locate by sonar, which is probably how you're going to find it in the deep sea.
    prepositioned repair vessels, to rapidly repair damaged sections, following an attack.
    redundancy - stage excess capacity, on multiple paths.
    monitoring - maintain underwater monitoring stations & robotic patrols, near key points of vulnerability.
    retaliation - prepare measures to cut off links to any nation that has the capability & motive to do something like this.
    Also, satellites can be taken out by satellite-to-satellite and (I assume) ground-based beam weapons. So, they're really not an ideal fallback. Perhaps maintain a fleet of high-altitude drones that can rapidly deploy a mesh network, as a fallback to that (i.e. for military communications).

    BTW, none of this addresses undersea pipelines. Just sayin'

    P.S. Does anyone know the tensile strength of these cables? I'm just imaging the kind of stress and strain they must be under, due to ocean currents, their own weight, and all the crud that probably sticks to them.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Avro Arrow said:
    While it's probably a good contingency plan, I don't really see this as being the prime target that the author thinks it is. Any nation with the technology necessary to carry this out would also be a nation that uses the internet itself and they would be crippling themselves just as much as they'd be crippling their target(s).
    I can think of several nations with the capability and motive to do this that are already sufficiently isolated that they wouldn't be nearly as crippled as their adversaries, by such a move.

    MacZ24 said:
    At the UN, Russia proposed to outlaw any weapon in space (not just WMD) but was rejected (Link)
    Seems like a way to shift the blame onto others for what you're doing. If they don't trust Russia not to adhere to the treaty, then signing it would just put them at a disadvantage.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Avro Arrow said:
    While it's probably a good contingency plan, I don't really see this as being the prime target that the author thinks it is. Any nation with the technology necessary to carry this out would also be a nation that uses the internet itself and they would be crippling themselves just as much as they'd be crippling their target(s).
    If, over a decade, you've prepared your military to operate without the commercial "internet", you are better prepared to exist if it goes away.

    Would some of your ops be degraded? Sure.
    But if you've already laid out basic workarounds, your vulnerability is lessened.
    Reply
  • Avro Arrow
    USAFRet said:
    If, over a decade, you've prepared your military to operate without the commercial "internet", you are better prepared to exist if it goes away.

    Would some of your ops be degraded? Sure.
    But if you've already laid out basic workarounds, your vulnerability is lessened.
    I hadn't thought of that but it does make perfect sense. (y)
    Reply