14 ms·

Anything preventing Musk from building these for other countries?

itsoktocry 3y ago
The fact that he's domiciled (and seems to enjoy his life) in the US, and that the government has the ability to take everything you own and lock you up if they so decide. Probably.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  The $5 wrench can be a pretty big motivator
- pohl 3y ago
  That works so long as the government still has more power than a gang of bajillionaires with similar interests. Does it? Seems like we're near a tipping point in that regard, if we haven't already crossed it.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    Yes, it does. The government, indirectly or directly can indefinitely owe any entity money, or even print money on demand if really necessary and ultimately, Musk is just a person.
  - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
    I think US defense blob is actually the entity at the top of the entire global power food chain. Probably the actual last entity you'd want to meaningfully fuck with.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    > Seems like we're near a tipping point in that regard, if we haven't already crossed it. Sure... As long as the army is following the government it's a non-issue. Billionaires are political/industrial/&c. power if you want but they're one "go get them" order away from disappearing forever. It just so happens that for now their goals are somewhat aligned with the gov's. And even if the gov falls a lot of US three letters agencies are already semi or fully autonomous, and from the few things we know about them they don't fuck around. Corruption exists, probably on a large scale, but it's not a single coordinated effort, it's more like an army of rats fighting for the crumbs. If even Mexico didn't completely fold against their drug cartels it's not the soy boy Musk & lizard man Zuck dream team who'll destroy the USA
  - science4sail 3y ago
    As Mao once noted, at the end of the day, political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Billionaires certainly have significant influence over policy decisions, but the tools of violence are still controlled by the politicians. Money can't protect you from the army or the secret police, as Jack Ma discovered in China.
    - pohl 3y ago
      Even were it the case that the US military could be used against a US citizen, your observation would still be cold comfort in our world where billionaires can buy politicians. Worse, the Citizens United SCOTUS decision equates such control with speech, and is tacitly protected by the government.
      - science4sail 3y ago
        Billionaires aren't a monolithic block though (beyond core issues like low taxes). If you sell out your country, then other oligarchs can use that as an excuse to order their pet politicians to confiscate your fiefs^H assets. Just see all the speculation about nationalizing SpaceX in this discussion. The only way money can protect you is if you literally buy out the entire government, in which case you're basically a monarch. But yes, that is cold comfort to us plebians.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Elon Musk has firing control of 16 rockets that are trivially convertible to ICBMs. It's not a standing army, but it's one helluva gun.
baz00 3y ago
I suspect the US gov will just take SpaceX off him if he does anything objectionable.
- agloe_dreams 3y ago
  Like own a social network that could allow anti-mao speech but has taken covert steps not-to and have a Chinese car factory that makes up a large percent of his auto profits? I'm kinda shocked that they allow such a leveraged person have contracts like this where other countries have levers they can turn.
  - baz00 3y ago
    He's a useful idiot at the moment. Once he is no longer useful, he's collected a very long rope. I suspect the end game will be Tesla's collapse when his hype train hits a wall and other manufacturers perfect low cost vehicles, Twitter/X is already dying and SpaceX will get involved in an ITAR violation or conflict of interest and suddenly end up in the hands of Lockheed Martin or someone similar and him in front of the SEC for one last time. The US gov would not want to look like they're intervening. They don't need to.
tw04 3y ago
The same thing preventing Lockheed from building F-35's for other countries: national security interests. I'm sure they'll be allowed to build commercial satellites for other countries that contain a kill switch the military has access too. Military hardened satellite networks will be a non-starter other than maybe for some close allies like the UK.
dotnet00 3y ago
Defense technology export restrictions would get in the way, so at most I guess they might be able to sell this to particularly close allies like the UK and Japan.
BenoitP 3y ago
ITAR [1] Not that the Chinese are perfectly capable of building the same network on their own. Albeit with electronics' performance a transistor node older. Which is to say: almost the same. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
bryanlarsen 3y ago
ITAR
Ajay-p 3y ago
Maybe. It would depend on how the government classifies it for export controls. The fact they've signed a contract leads me to believe that satellite communications in use by the government will be an ITAR control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
asah 3y ago
I fully expect this will happen. USG has more control if it's done by Starlink vs some other country's tech.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
0xDEF 3y ago
A US federal employee with a $5 wrench.

The fact that he's domiciled (and seems to enjoy his life) in the US, and that the government has the ability to take everything you own and lock you up if they so decide. Probably.

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
The $5 wrench can be a pretty big motivator
pohl 3y ago
That works so long as the government still has more power than a gang of bajillionaires with similar interests. Does it? Seems like we're near a tipping point in that regard, if we haven't already crossed it.
- capableweb 3y ago
  Yes, it does. The government, indirectly or directly can indefinitely owe any entity money, or even print money on demand if really necessary and ultimately, Musk is just a person.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  I think US defense blob is actually the entity at the top of the entire global power food chain. Probably the actual last entity you'd want to meaningfully fuck with.
- lm28469 3y ago
  > Seems like we're near a tipping point in that regard, if we haven't already crossed it. Sure... As long as the army is following the government it's a non-issue. Billionaires are political/industrial/&c. power if you want but they're one "go get them" order away from disappearing forever. It just so happens that for now their goals are somewhat aligned with the gov's. And even if the gov falls a lot of US three letters agencies are already semi or fully autonomous, and from the few things we know about them they don't fuck around. Corruption exists, probably on a large scale, but it's not a single coordinated effort, it's more like an army of rats fighting for the crumbs. If even Mexico didn't completely fold against their drug cartels it's not the soy boy Musk & lizard man Zuck dream team who'll destroy the USA
- science4sail 3y ago
  As Mao once noted, at the end of the day, political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Billionaires certainly have significant influence over policy decisions, but the tools of violence are still controlled by the politicians. Money can't protect you from the army or the secret police, as Jack Ma discovered in China.
  - pohl 3y ago
    Even were it the case that the US military could be used against a US citizen, your observation would still be cold comfort in our world where billionaires can buy politicians. Worse, the Citizens United SCOTUS decision equates such control with speech, and is tacitly protected by the government.
    - science4sail 3y ago
      Billionaires aren't a monolithic block though (beyond core issues like low taxes). If you sell out your country, then other oligarchs can use that as an excuse to order their pet politicians to confiscate your fiefs^H assets. Just see all the speculation about nationalizing SpaceX in this discussion. The only way money can protect you is if you literally buy out the entire government, in which case you're basically a monarch. But yes, that is cold comfort to us plebians.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Elon Musk has firing control of 16 rockets that are trivially convertible to ICBMs. It's not a standing army, but it's one helluva gun.

baz00 3y ago

I suspect the US gov will just take SpaceX off him if he does anything objectionable.

agloe_dreams 3y ago
Like own a social network that could allow anti-mao speech but has taken covert steps not-to and have a Chinese car factory that makes up a large percent of his auto profits? I'm kinda shocked that they allow such a leveraged person have contracts like this where other countries have levers they can turn.
- baz00 3y ago
  He's a useful idiot at the moment. Once he is no longer useful, he's collected a very long rope. I suspect the end game will be Tesla's collapse when his hype train hits a wall and other manufacturers perfect low cost vehicles, Twitter/X is already dying and SpaceX will get involved in an ITAR violation or conflict of interest and suddenly end up in the hands of Lockheed Martin or someone similar and him in front of the SEC for one last time. The US gov would not want to look like they're intervening. They don't need to.

tw04 3y ago

The same thing preventing Lockheed from building F-35's for other countries: national security interests. I'm sure they'll be allowed to build commercial satellites for other countries that contain a kill switch the military has access too. Military hardened satellite networks will be a non-starter other than maybe for some close allies like the UK.

dotnet00 3y ago

Defense technology export restrictions would get in the way, so at most I guess they might be able to sell this to particularly close allies like the UK and Japan.

BenoitP 3y ago

ITAR [1] Not that the Chinese are perfectly capable of building the same network on their own. Albeit with electronics' performance a transistor node older. Which is to say: almost the same. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...

bryanlarsen 3y ago

ITAR

Ajay-p 3y ago

Maybe. It would depend on how the government classifies it for export controls. The fact they've signed a contract leads me to believe that satellite communications in use by the government will be an ITAR control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...

asah 3y ago

I fully expect this will happen. USG has more control if it's done by Starlink vs some other country's tech.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

0xDEF 3y ago

A US federal employee with a $5 wrench.