3 ms·

> For example, with Starlink, SpaceX got to decide whether or not it could be used for attack missions across the border into Crimea--they decided no. I'm pret

by _ea1k 3y ago

> For example, with Starlink, SpaceX got to decide whether or not it could be used for attack missions across the border into Crimea--they decided no. I'm pretty sure the US Government could have decided that for them as well. I haven't seen any evidence that they tried.

GMoromisato 3y ago
Not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying the US could compel SpaceX to let Ukraine use Starlink to attack Russia? I don't think they could do that--certainly not without a Federal law passed for that purpose, maybe like Eminent Domain. Or are you saying that the US could have stopped Starlink from being used to attack Russia (in the event SpaceX had agreed)? Again, I suspect that would have to be done via some new export control law. Either way, the US military doesn't want to deal with the inevitable delays of the legal system. Much faster to just own the asset so you can do whatever you want.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  maybe it is just a shallow statement of relative power. If the US government wanted, it could murder Musk, take the SpaceX staff hostage, and force them to do what they want. There is a big difference between what people CAN do, what they can do without consequences, and what they want to do. Any US adult can go on a killing spree with their car. What people CAN do is pretty useless information in a vacuum.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    Sort of. At the very least the government can make the request officially. If that request is rebuffed, congress would have every right to attach political or purchasing consequences in order to make inaction undesirable. Regardless of ability to compel one can always cajole. I have seen zero evidence that the US government made such a request.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  What I'm saying is that it is a bit complicated. There were lots of articles saying government had requested that they support the effort, but the government involved was the Ukrainian government. They have zero authority to compel, whether they pass laws or not. Lots of US politicians made noises on television but that is not an official request. The actual laws involved were actually fairly murky. SpaceX is required by US law not to service the Russian held parts of Ukraine (eg, Crimea) and Starlink itself doesn't want to find Starlink being regulated as a munition which has broad potential impacts w/r/t ITAR. Were those just excuses? It is hard to say. But what is clear is that the US executive branch made no effort to remedy the situation. Instead they left SpaceX in a position where they could be clearly condemned for either decision. The decision that SpaceX took was the one least likely to land them in court or jail. It's hard to blame them.

by _ea1k 3y ago

GMoromisato 3y ago

Not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying the US could compel SpaceX to let Ukraine use Starlink to attack Russia? I don't think they could do that--certainly not without a Federal law passed for that purpose, maybe like Eminent Domain. Or are you saying that the US could have stopped Starlink from being used to attack Russia (in the event SpaceX had agreed)? Again, I suspect that would have to be done via some new export control law. Either way, the US military doesn't want to deal with the inevitable delays of the legal system. Much faster to just own the asset so you can do whatever you want.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
maybe it is just a shallow statement of relative power. If the US government wanted, it could murder Musk, take the SpaceX staff hostage, and force them to do what they want. There is a big difference between what people CAN do, what they can do without consequences, and what they want to do. Any US adult can go on a killing spree with their car. What people CAN do is pretty useless information in a vacuum.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  Sort of. At the very least the government can make the request officially. If that request is rebuffed, congress would have every right to attach political or purchasing consequences in order to make inaction undesirable. Regardless of ability to compel one can always cajole. I have seen zero evidence that the US government made such a request.
_ea1k 3y ago
What I'm saying is that it is a bit complicated. There were lots of articles saying government had requested that they support the effort, but the government involved was the Ukrainian government. They have zero authority to compel, whether they pass laws or not. Lots of US politicians made noises on television but that is not an official request. The actual laws involved were actually fairly murky. SpaceX is required by US law not to service the Russian held parts of Ukraine (eg, Crimea) and Starlink itself doesn't want to find Starlink being regulated as a munition which has broad potential impacts w/r/t ITAR. Were those just excuses? It is hard to say. But what is clear is that the US executive branch made no effort to remedy the situation. Instead they left SpaceX in a position where they could be clearly condemned for either decision. The decision that SpaceX took was the one least likely to land them in court or jail. It's hard to blame them.