12 ms·
Although his was a defensive move by SpaceX we have to be careful private industry doesn't pull us into WWIII. We are not sending heavy armament to Ukraine for
by sschueller 5y ago
Although his was a defensive move by SpaceX we have to be careful private industry doesn't pull us into WWIII. We are not sending heavy armament to Ukraine for a reason and the government needs to make sure that their policies also apply to companies like SpaceX.
By the way how will we "feel" when the Chinese or some Russian billionaire launches their own "Starlink" which will also be operating over the US? From what I have read there are several such systems in the pipeline in China.
- plehoux 5y agoIf a private corporation releasing an update to its code base to allow its own service to keep working brings us into WWIII... the root cause of the WWIII is definitely not the code update.
- blenderdt 5y agoAnd that is the point. Elon sent starlink terminals to the Ukraine because of the war.
- pmorici 5y agoThey had been trying to launch Starlink service there since before the war and the government was dragging their feet on regulatory approval. The war caused the government to rethink that.
- blenderdt 5y agoRethink as in: "@elonmusk , while you try to colonize Mars — Russia try to occupy Ukraine! While your rockets successfully land from space — Russian rockets attack Ukrainian civil people! We ask you to provide Ukraine with Starlink stations and to address sane Russians to stand." https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1497701484003213317 https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/14977014840032133...
- LeifCarrotson 5y agoRoot cause analysis in software postmortems and in business is important, but knowing the root cause that initiated WWIII is only really useful to understand in hopes of preventing WWIV. It's irrelevant whether a private corporation software update or the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand causes a world war to break out, it must be avoided.
- johnthewise 5y agowith that reasoning, everything can cause ww3.
- throwaway1492 5y agoExactly, this bizarre blaming the victim for provoking more violence from the aggressor is pernicious and ill conceived imo. But they might go nuclear or attack the NATO/US! Maniacs will do what maniacs do, that genie is out of the bottle. Countries have a right to control their airspace, countries have the right to acquire military equipment as they please. Invaders do not get to dictate that.
- candiodari 5y agoWe should be careful of outright demonizing Putin. He's not just a monster and he can be reasoned with. Maybe he even has some legitimate grievances (or at least things we might choose to accomodate to avoid ...) Perhaps we can to have systems, like the "we're testing an ICBM" system we have in place, to avoid escalations that will draw us into WW3. There must a way to get a reasoned, thoughtful and cooperative answer to this question. For example, let's say we place 5 test satellites in orbit and if you shoot one (?) of those down, you get to request blocking internet service in a geographical region, without escalating things into a space war.
- jacquesm 5y agoThat may have been the case in the past, but today he's just a monster. He had his chance at statesmanship and royally messed it up and the sooner the mad dog is put down the better and then we have to hope that the next dog won't be madder. I wonder if we'll ever see a world where Russia plays nice and stays nice.
- radmuzom 5y ago
- dang 5y agoYour recent comments have broken the site guidelines so badly that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- paganel 5y agoWe'd still be in WWIII.
- rosndo 5y ago
- sschueller 5y agoPlease provide a source. What tanks specifically are they sending and how are they training the Ukrainians to operate them? The Ukrainians do not own any US tanks and do not have any infrastructure to operate or maintain such tanks. If the US were to send such equipment it requires a lot more than just the tank. This is also why the US and others do not want to do this as it involves sending US personnel to train/coordinate etc.
- mannerheim 5y agoUS has not sent over any tanks to Ukraine. It is, however, sending tanks to Poland to replace their tanks sent to Ukraine, and has sent artillery to Ukraine.
- sschueller 5y agoYes, exactly, this is very different than directly sending such weapons to Ukraine. It also has to be seen from the Polish view, free upgrade to US tanks. They also tried it with their aircraft hoping for US fighter jets in return.
- mannerheim 5y agoEither way, heavy armaments have been sent to Ukraine, some of them directly from the US.
- bryanlarsen 5y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/19/world/europe/us-ukraine-weaponry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/19/world/europe/us-ukraine-w...
- rosndo 5y agoPoland sent tanks to Ukraine, it’s not a big secret even if you’d like to pretend that it is. I’m not sure why you’re getting caught up on the US, that’s just weird and makes it seem like you might have some ulterior motives. US is sending other kinds of heavy armaments to Ukraine.
- deanc 5y agoThey are operating over Ukraine, not Russia. Very different circumstances. Much like supplying missiles for Ukraine to use is very different to supplying men.
- JasonFruit 5y agoI'm not sure the difference is as obvious as you imply. Care to elaborate?
- lazide 5y agoEvery major conflict since WW2 has some degree of ‘proxy’ to it - with the US and Russia arming or supporting one or both sides to some degree. Sometimes even providing direct troop support. It’s been accepted that as long as troops from one of the side are not directly shooting at uniformed troops from the other side (sides here being US/Russia!), it’s a proxy conflict, not a direct one. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korean War being some of the larger versions of this. With Russian troops on the ground right now, adding any NATO or US troops would mean it isn’t a proxy conflict anymore once someone from the US or NATO side shoots at someone in a Russian uniform. But providing weapons to Ukrainians has a lot of precedent as being ‘not a war’ between them. Even if the Ukranians use them to shoot Russians.
- JPLeRouzic 5y ago> With Russian troops on the ground right now, adding any NATO or US troops would mean it isn’t a proxy conflict anymore So is it a strategic move to be the first to attack?
- jacquesm 5y agoThat depends on whether you like to see your metal objects glow in the dark.
- lazide 5y agoYou’d be staking out the ground first as ‘your fight’ - so in general maybe. In this case for instance, if NATO had moved in before Russia into Ukraine however, that would be really, really bad. A big factor behind this war already is Russian insecurity about NATO strength and being frozen out of traditionally Russian territory. It would be a bit like Russia occupying some of the Aleutians all the sudden. Not likely to go well. Sudden double flashes not well.
- mcv 5y agoI believe we are sending heavy armaments to Ukraine now. Also for a reason, of course. I don't really see the problem with having a foreign Starlink operating over your country. It just provides communication, doesn't it?
- Tepix 5y agoHere's an example: What if a chinese Starlink provides services in Afghanistan and the Taliban use it while the Americans attempt to control the country? Would you be ok with it?
- chasd00 5y agoif the Taliban militants were using it then it's a legitimate target and I would take out the antennas. I assume the same holds for Ukraine. If Starlink is being used by Ukraine military then I think Russia is perfectly within the rules of war to target the antennas. If a software update makes them harder to target then does that make SpaceX HQ a military target? idk, probably, but in the same way FedEx is a military target. I don't see it very feasible nor advisable to launch a cruise missile targeting Hawthorne CA...
- mcv 5y agoI'm no fan of the Taliban, but I'm not a big fan of the US trying to control other countries either. But I am a fan of regular Afghani people being able to communicate. He's the thing with these services: if they're controlled by a single government with the intend of using them as leverage over others, that means that at some point they're going to be denied to the people. I would strongly prefer redundancy in such systems to increase their reliability. Take GPS, for example. The US controls it, and at least initially, their goal was to be able to reduce the accuracy of GPS for other parties. Europe has its own competing Galileo satellites to increase reliability for ordinary citizens. I'm strongly in favour of that. I don't see military applications as a higher purpose than civilian use.
- fallingknife 5y agoIf a Chinese / Russian company wants to sell internet access to US customers, why would I want the government to be able to tell me I don't have the right to connect to it.
- politician 5y agoNeither of the electronic warfare officials referenced in the article - Brig. Gen. Tad Clark, Dave Tremper in the office of SecDef — raised any hint of concern.
- captainmuon 5y agoThere is no objective standard and no court that decides what action will 'pull is into WWIII'. Maybe German tank shipments will be too much, maybe Starlink terminals, maybe a bad Putin meme. What crosses the line is solely decided by the Russian government, and they do not care at all whether coming generations will deem their actions legitimate or not. In this case it is extremely dangerous to err on the side of caution, or Putin will be able to apply salami tactics and get whatever he wants.
- jacquesm 5y agoYes, god forbid private companies protect their assets. All this 'oh how will the dictator respond to perceived sleight 'x'' stuff really has to stop. It's the aggressor that is to blame not the (intended) victims.
- onion2k 5y agoThe Chinese government are building a 13,000 satellite constellation. https://spacenews.com/china-establishes-company-to-build-satellite-broadband-megaconstellation/ https://spacenews.com/china-establishes-company-to-build-sat...
- bryanlarsen 5y agoThe US has sent heavy artillery to the Ukraine.
- greedo 5y agoWe definitely are sending heavy armament to Ukraine. Long range artillery, extremely effective missiles, the list is quite extensive.
- fabian2k 5y agoThe US is sending artillery, those are heavy weapons by any reasonable definition. The main "red line" that has been repeated over and over is that NATO will not intervene with its own troops.
- jjtheblunt 5y agoI think you overlooked that Putin's Business Empire is itself private industry, funding itself via the work of the Russian people and land, and is trying to do just that.
- kkfx 5y agoYour advise came late... WWIII is already started few years ago, only most still haven't noticed. And yes large part of it was born out of corporate interest and their pernicious mix with the public. You fail to spot the real enemy though: it's not a WWIII between Russia, China and USA/UK. It's a war between a little oligarchy and the rest of the humanity. War between USA/UK +submissive allies and Russia is just a war between two oligarch cohort, war for Taiwan and south Pacific in general (perhaps Solomon and Chagos Islands (see Diego Garcia) just toward the Philippines will probably follow again for more practical purposes like the China desperate need for food vs the USA/UK desperate struggle to keep dominance of the seas. Those wars though are not much WW wars, they are just some big&powerful confronts to remain in power/increase it. The real global war is the classic élites vs the people. Time since first nazi-fascism series against socialism is enough to restart a new nazi-fascist era and that's precisely what happen now.
- paganel 5y ago> We are not sending heavy armament to Ukraine for a reason Unfortunately that is not true anymore [1]. Otherwise I 100% agree with the sentiment of your post. [1] https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/21-april-pentagon-says-new-800-million-military-aid-package https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/21-april-pentagon-says-new-800...
- xdennis 5y agoUnfortunately? How do you expect Ukraine to win without help?
- paganel 5y agoIf winning means more tens of thousands civilians dead then the logical thing is to not to want Ukraine to win. But, then again, most of the users from here are from half a world away, so those are only numbers for them, all that counts is the W.
- moistly 5y agoAnd if Z wins, we will be ruled by mafioso. You will not like it if/when Western Democracy falls.
- xdennis 5y agoSo apparently you claim to be Romanian. Just one question: what is wrong with you? It seems like you don't understand that the orcs will attack us next, or you're an orc yourself pretending to be Romanian.
- paganel 5y agoThe what now? They didn’t invade us in August ‘68, they definetly won’t do it now, with the Americans on our side. And I’d ease it down with the warmongering rhetoric (again, “orcs”, really?) if I were you, because last time we thought we were militarily better than them, the Russians, we had our grand-fathers and grand-grand-fathers die horrible deaths from Odessa all the way to Kazan. This is a former-USSR internal kerfuffle, it’s the “Yugoslav” civil war translated to the former Soviet space. Thankfully we’re a not a former Soviet republic. I wouldn’t want to live in Estonia or Lithuania right now, though.