5 ms·

Ukraine asked Starlink to increase coverage so they could do an attack on Russian occupiers. It's not hard to see what this sort of coordination looks like. T

Ukraine asked Starlink to increase coverage so they could do an attack on Russian occupiers. It's not hard to see what this sort of coordination looks like. This is more than Ukraine using a service that happens to be there. While I happen to agree with the goal of pushing Putin out of Ukraine, can I blame a private individual for not wanting to take that step. Musk is a private individual, and Starlink is a private company. They are not in business to fight wars.

superchroma 3y ago
I don't think you get to claim to be a private individual when you're the richest man in the world running a (different) firm that is a defense contractor for US space operations. Maybe you should be able to, but I just don't think you can. What's more puzzling is that he thought that he thought he could dabble in geopolitics and matters of war and come away cleanly.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  Sending the equipment was dabbling in the first place
Someone 3y ago
> Ukraine asked Starlink to increase coverage so they could do an attack on Russian occupiers. FTA: “Elon Musk secretly ordered his engineers to disable Starlink satellite communications near the coast of Russian-occupied Crimea last year to sabotage a planned Ukrainian drone strike” I don’t think both of those can be the full truth, and am inclined to give Walter Isaacson’s claim (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/07/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-russia-invasion https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/07/elon-musk...: “Allowing the use of Starlink for the attack, he concluded, could be a disaster for the world. So he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast”) more value, but that’s a gut feeling, not one based on facts. > Musk is a private individual, and Starlink is a private company. They are not in business to fight wars. That’s true, but nevertheless, they can’t avoid being in a war. They can’t close their eyes and ignore that war. Even not doing anything is a choice. Other subject: what would you do if you were one of those engineers being ordered to disable Starlink?
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  Isaacson has walked back elements of his claim
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ogn3rd 3y ago
Then why did he take sides?
toomuchtodo 3y ago
It’s likely this is a sign the US government needs to regulate Musk and StarLink more aggressively for national security reasons. While Musk is wealthy, the US government’s resources are effectively limitless. Edit: To be clear, in this instance, it isn't "Elon Bad!" It's that no one person should be able to wield nation state power without all of the governance that goes with a nation state.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Yep, this was my first thought: too much power concentrated in a single person; regulation needed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
justin66 3y ago
> Musk is a private individual, and Starlink is a private company. They are not in business to fight wars. Thank God private individuals and private companies don't fight wars. It is difficult to imagine a world where that happens.

superchroma 3y ago

I don't think you get to claim to be a private individual when you're the richest man in the world running a (different) firm that is a defense contractor for US space operations. Maybe you should be able to, but I just don't think you can. What's more puzzling is that he thought that he thought he could dabble in geopolitics and matters of war and come away cleanly.

inemesitaffia 3y ago
Sending the equipment was dabbling in the first place

Someone 3y ago

> Ukraine asked Starlink to increase coverage so they could do an attack on Russian occupiers. FTA: “Elon Musk secretly ordered his engineers to disable Starlink satellite communications near the coast of Russian-occupied Crimea last year to sabotage a planned Ukrainian drone strike” I don’t think both of those can be the full truth, and am inclined to give Walter Isaacson’s claim (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/07/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-russia-invasion https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/07/elon-musk...: “Allowing the use of Starlink for the attack, he concluded, could be a disaster for the world. So he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast”) more value, but that’s a gut feeling, not one based on facts. > Musk is a private individual, and Starlink is a private company. They are not in business to fight wars. That’s true, but nevertheless, they can’t avoid being in a war. They can’t close their eyes and ignore that war. Even not doing anything is a choice. Other subject: what would you do if you were one of those engineers being ordered to disable Starlink?

inemesitaffia 3y ago
Isaacson has walked back elements of his claim

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ogn3rd 3y ago

Then why did he take sides?

toomuchtodo 3y ago

It’s likely this is a sign the US government needs to regulate Musk and StarLink more aggressively for national security reasons. While Musk is wealthy, the US government’s resources are effectively limitless. Edit: To be clear, in this instance, it isn't "Elon Bad!" It's that no one person should be able to wield nation state power without all of the governance that goes with a nation state.

sanderjd 3y ago
Yep, this was my first thought: too much power concentrated in a single person; regulation needed.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

justin66 3y ago

> Musk is a private individual, and Starlink is a private company. They are not in business to fight wars. Thank God private individuals and private companies don't fight wars. It is difficult to imagine a world where that happens.