Imagine if during peace-time, N. Korea decided to do just this for kicks and giggles and to "flex it's muscle"?
Rich people have submarines, what's stopping some rich dude from doing this and betting against the markets? (Other than jail time if caught)?
Now, that makes me think. What, if any law would you be breaking presuming this was done in international waters?
I mean, I'd assume you'd probably just cause an armed response from /someone/, but I imagine it'd probably be a extra-judicial process.
The tools employed can be blunt and destructive.
Most "evil plans" are subverted by the fact that it's literally easier to just become rich and powerful in traditional/corrupt ways than to try to execute some elaborate scheme with espionage and robotic inventions.
Britain cut the telegraph cables to Germany at the start of WWI, it lead to being able to intercept the Zimmermann Telegram [1].
For more localized conflicts this is also already routine, lots of countries in civil war order ISPs under their jurisdiction to start blocking websites or the entire Internet whenever blocking it benefits the incumbents (which is always).
In any case there are counter-measures and counter-counter-measures for such situations. It's why Starlink has always been presumed to be a financial success even if civilians don't get behind it; every government in the world (and especially the DoD) would want a satellite network that can provide Internet connectivity to any part of the world, and you would have to literally shoot down dozens of satellites to impact its availability.
I'm not a satellite engineer, but I'd be surprised if this is true. What's preventing jamming a small, distant satellite signal with a big strong local transmitter?
It's trivially easy to jam GPS [0] and GPS is a much less complex signal than internet traffic.
[0] https://gizmodo.com/jamming-gps-signals-is-illegal-dangerous...
Anti-radiation missiles which home on the strong local transmitter.
I'm not saying this flippantly. Obviously not all Starlink consumers have access to such a thing. The scenario I'm talking about here is when a country is trying to choke the military communications of an other one.
The big benefit of these LEO satellite constellations is that they have hundreds of satellites in them which makes anti-sat weaponry not cost effective. (Or at least that's the hope.)
This is the castle and invader problem; the castle builders must guarantee that there is no hole anywhere in the castle, and the invaders only have to find or make one hole to render the castle useless. Whereas you could cut an underwater cable and guarantee outages for at least a few days or weeks, an adversary only needs to move to an un-jammed area in order to resume communication with the greater world.
First of all they have no interest in doing such.
Secondly, Attacking cable infrastructure using submarines is in effect a declaration of war (or act of terrorism). I understand this world gives you this illusion that money = power, but just remember who prints the currency, who owns the army. Only because this sort of things are not in your daily life so often like the rich people are doesn't mean they don't exist.
The last but not the least, they likely won't be rich at all when the governments of countries affected freezes their assets, which should be the least of their concerns if that actually happens.
The 2007 attacks on Estonia [1] and the cyberattacks before the actual attacks on South Ossetia [2] are generally believed to be a Russian test of its capabilities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_cyberattacks_on_Estonia
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_during_the_2008_S...