3 ms·

I hate the guy as much as anyone, but using commercial sats for warfare could make them legitimate targets. What’s a corporations obligations? Will the US reimb

I hate the guy as much as anyone, but using commercial sats for warfare could make them legitimate targets. What’s a corporations obligations? Will the US reimburse Starlink? Will the Space Force protect them? What happens when an errant bomb guided by Starlink kills a bunch of kids? Is it Elon’s fault? Seems like someone should draw up Codes of War for commercial orgs if you want them fighting them.

zzzeek 3y ago
that's actually a great point, though I dont think the Russians threatened to shoot down his satellites in this case, and we dont know at this point what assurances if any the US was willing to give him, since this is just his side of the story, apparently. more importantly, this is not the reason Musk himself offered. The reason he himself offered was that he wanted to affect the direction of the war itself (which he feared would lead to "nuclear war"), and his claims that he "doesn't want to be involved in the war" seem a little hollow when he directly confers with the country that has gone to war with his customer and he then acts directly on their recommendations, not those of his actual customer. I think if his concern is that Russia would down his own satellites leading to financial loss for his business, he should make that the reason. I'm pretty sure that's not the reason.
sanderjd 3y ago
Personally, I do agree that enforcing a general policy (which they do have written in their terms) forbidding military use is a good thing, but that a single individual making discretionary decisions case by case is a bad thing.
Zigurd 3y ago
Re "but using commercial sats for warfare" GPS? Or uing terrestrial signals for drone navigation? The people quoting the TOS are being disingenuous. That caveat is in a lot of click-through licenses for CYA. Enforcing it selectively in Ukraine is a hostile act against what most NATO leaders see as preventing further aggression in Europe.
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  Not the same. GPS is operated by DoD.

zzzeek 3y ago

that's actually a great point, though I dont think the Russians threatened to shoot down his satellites in this case, and we dont know at this point what assurances if any the US was willing to give him, since this is just his side of the story, apparently. more importantly, this is not the reason Musk himself offered. The reason he himself offered was that he wanted to affect the direction of the war itself (which he feared would lead to "nuclear war"), and his claims that he "doesn't want to be involved in the war" seem a little hollow when he directly confers with the country that has gone to war with his customer and he then acts directly on their recommendations, not those of his actual customer. I think if his concern is that Russia would down his own satellites leading to financial loss for his business, he should make that the reason. I'm pretty sure that's not the reason.

sanderjd 3y ago

Personally, I do agree that enforcing a general policy (which they do have written in their terms) forbidding military use is a good thing, but that a single individual making discretionary decisions case by case is a bad thing.

Zigurd 3y ago

Re "but using commercial sats for warfare" GPS? Or uing terrestrial signals for drone navigation? The people quoting the TOS are being disingenuous. That caveat is in a lot of click-through licenses for CYA. Enforcing it selectively in Ukraine is a hostile act against what most NATO leaders see as preventing further aggression in Europe.

hindsightbias 3y ago
Not the same. GPS is operated by DoD.