3 ms·

I'm quite confused as to your post. Are you suggesting that Musk is obligated to promote the US' foreign policy goals? If he never decided to provide Starlinks

I'm quite confused as to your post. Are you suggesting that Musk is obligated to promote the US' foreign policy goals? If he never decided to provide Starlinks dishes to the Ukrainians would you think he is obligated to provide them or is it once he provided them he has to do everything the current administration wants? Do you hold this position with other wars? If Musk provided Starlinks in Afghanistan (pre pullout) would he be obligated to allow the Afghan government use them to attack the Taliban? What if he gave it to the Israeli government. Should he be forced to allow the use in attacking the Palestinians?

justinclift 3y ago
It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader. And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing). The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on. A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. I'm not sure I'm quite that cynical personally though. ;)
- stephenr 3y ago
  > A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. I think that's probably just medium level cynicism. There's a whole bunch of other angles to consider here: - Ukraine was previously a supplier of rocket parts to his competitors; if Russia succeeds that's unlikely to resume; if Ukraine succeeds they're likely to resume and be more closely aligned with the US (than previously) - he has a habit of supporting whatever the dictator says, to further his business interests (see: comments on Taiwan, and his car business in mainland China) - he has become increasingly cozy with Republicans, a number of whom apparently think Ukraine should be left to fend for itself.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader You didn't answer my question in my previous post. Do you hold this view with Israel? Israel is a US ally. Israel retaking the Palestinian land would be considered driving out an invader by both the US and Israel. Should Musk be forced in using Starlink in those attacks against the Palestinians? If not, then you aren't being consistent. You only support forcing Musk to help Ukraine because you support Ukraine, not because of some greater principle that you seem to be espousing. >And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing). Agreed. >The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on. Perhaps, but we can't really know that. >A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. That could explain it, but frankly, we don't have any proof. It is just conjecture. The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view. Funny you say that considering they are trying to launch a government version of Starlink (Starshield) that would likely be used to kill people.
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      I haven't seen any evidence that Star shield will be used to kill anybody. Also, to be clear, Musk isn't opposed to using it for killing people. If he was he wouldn't allow it in defensive military actions in Ukraine. Defensive actions require killing after all. Using it for the US military doesn't mean offensive killing either. From what I have seen the purpose is for "additional high-assurance cryptographic capability to host classified payloads and process data securely". Not necessarily offensive killings. This is my problem with this whole thread. Everybody is just making assumption after assumption. Maybe Musk is being a hypocrite on Ukraine using Starlink. I don't know, but the available evidence doesn't show either way.

justinclift 3y ago

It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader. And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing). The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on. A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. I'm not sure I'm quite that cynical personally though. ;)

stephenr 3y ago
> A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. I think that's probably just medium level cynicism. There's a whole bunch of other angles to consider here: - Ukraine was previously a supplier of rocket parts to his competitors; if Russia succeeds that's unlikely to resume; if Ukraine succeeds they're likely to resume and be more closely aligned with the US (than previously) - he has a habit of supporting whatever the dictator says, to further his business interests (see: comments on Taiwan, and his car business in mainland China) - he has become increasingly cozy with Republicans, a number of whom apparently think Ukraine should be left to fend for itself.
ImJamal 3y ago
>It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader You didn't answer my question in my previous post. Do you hold this view with Israel? Israel is a US ally. Israel retaking the Palestinian land would be considered driving out an invader by both the US and Israel. Should Musk be forced in using Starlink in those attacks against the Palestinians? If not, then you aren't being consistent. You only support forcing Musk to help Ukraine because you support Ukraine, not because of some greater principle that you seem to be espousing. >And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing). Agreed. >The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on. Perhaps, but we can't really know that. >A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. That could explain it, but frankly, we don't have any proof. It is just conjecture. The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view. Funny you say that considering they are trying to launch a government version of Starlink (Starshield) that would likely be used to kill people.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    I haven't seen any evidence that Star shield will be used to kill anybody. Also, to be clear, Musk isn't opposed to using it for killing people. If he was he wouldn't allow it in defensive military actions in Ukraine. Defensive actions require killing after all. Using it for the US military doesn't mean offensive killing either. From what I have seen the purpose is for "additional high-assurance cryptographic capability to host classified payloads and process data securely". Not necessarily offensive killings. This is my problem with this whole thread. Everybody is just making assumption after assumption. Maybe Musk is being a hypocrite on Ukraine using Starlink. I don't know, but the available evidence doesn't show either way.