6 ms·

... and Ukraine could bomb those they didn't operate. Providing such strike intelligence data might land Starlink even more squarely in the "military supplier"

by e12e 2y ago

... and Ukraine could bomb those they didn't operate. Providing such strike intelligence data might land Starlink even more squarely in the "military supplier"-basket - making it subject to stricter export regulations.

ben_w 2y ago
I think Musk may be more worried about Russian nukes than export controls. Personally, I think Russian nukes and their missiles are likely to be a Potempkin force, but I have no special intelligence to back that up, it's just based on what I see of Russian corruption and them accidentally sinking one of their own subs and separately setting their only aircraft carrier on fire about one year after their largest drydock sank and dropped a crane onto the deck. And that was before one of their missile silos exploded.
- rolph 2y ago
  one nuke in orbit, will disrupt satellite service, duration dependent on design.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Yes, but Starlink is designed to be cheap and rapidly replaced anyway. One nuke in space would also be a continental scale EMP, which is why, despite my expectation that the Russian stuff is probably more paint than metal, it's still not a good idea to bet the farm (everyone's farm) on that.
    - rolph 2y ago
      it isnt only about EMPing satellites, it can also be about persistent inhibition of RF propagation with radionucliide chaf, as a deliberate feature.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        I meant EMPing the ground from orbit. I'm not convinced that radionucleotide chaff will do anything persistent in orbit; bombs have been detonated there before (hence why we know about HAEMP), the extra radiation belts don't last long.
        rolph 2y ago
        in that case, the effect was hypothesized, later observed and understood. a deliberated RF denial involving munitions salted for the purpose is quite do-able. w/o specifics, an enduring denial munition may be engineered, however the perp would also have to endure the effect, as well as any response from the rest of the planet.
- throw73737 2y ago
  US nukes used floppy disks until very recently, but are quite functional.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    So?
  - Ancapistani 2y ago
    That's why they were functional, though. US nuclear forces have extremely strict procurement and change control processes. You don't just swap out an 8" floppy drive for a 3.5" drive in a missile silo; the change has to be considered, components procured, a migration strategy defined, and the change implemented. ... more importantly, if it's working without issue, why change it? They're also not going to be using the latest-and-greatest tech at any point. Why should they? It's much better to use older tech that's well-proven, tested, and for which replacements don't rely on foreign industry. 8" floppy drives may be old, but they worked. We may not make them in the US, but the tech is so old that I'm sure it was cheap and easy to buy and store enough to last multiple human lifetimes. Hell, the F-14's last flight with the Navy was in 2006. As far as I know, it still used one of the very first truly modern digital computers to control the wing sweep angle. It worked. Why change it, and risk it not working the same way?
    - throw73737 2y ago
      OP claimed Russia has a Potenkin force, because it is not shiny enough. My point is their nukes and subs, are quite modern compared to US force.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        I didn't say it wasn't shiny, I said it sunk, caught fire, and exploded. This is different in a very important way.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  You don't need special knowledge to know Russia hasn't been maintaining the tritium in all their nukes, or even a majority of them
  - ben_w 2y ago
    That's my bet too, but I'm not confident enough to say that I could "know" that.
- rasz 2y ago
  Musk admitted meeting Putin before cutting off Starlink incident. There is no doubt Putin sold him "I will nuke low orbit and destroy your toy if you cross me" lie.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    Met as in travelled to Russia? Or at some conference?
    - rasz 2y ago
      Re-checked. Spoke, not met. [Elon Musk Told Pentagon He Spoke to Russia's Putin] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told-pentagon-staff-he-spoke-to-putin-before-starlink-call https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told... [Putin called SpaceX founder Elon Musk an “outstanding person,” days after Musk acknowledged he blocked off internet access from his Starlink satellites during a Ukrainian raid last year.] https://thehill.com/policy/international/4200236-putin-calls-musk-an-outstanding-person-after-starlink-revelations/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/4200236-putin-calls...

by e12e 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

I think Musk may be more worried about Russian nukes than export controls. Personally, I think Russian nukes and their missiles are likely to be a Potempkin force, but I have no special intelligence to back that up, it's just based on what I see of Russian corruption and them accidentally sinking one of their own subs and separately setting their only aircraft carrier on fire about one year after their largest drydock sank and dropped a crane onto the deck. And that was before one of their missile silos exploded.

rolph 2y ago
one nuke in orbit, will disrupt satellite service, duration dependent on design.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Yes, but Starlink is designed to be cheap and rapidly replaced anyway. One nuke in space would also be a continental scale EMP, which is why, despite my expectation that the Russian stuff is probably more paint than metal, it's still not a good idea to bet the farm (everyone's farm) on that.
  - rolph 2y ago
    it isnt only about EMPing satellites, it can also be about persistent inhibition of RF propagation with radionucliide chaf, as a deliberate feature.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I meant EMPing the ground from orbit. I'm not convinced that radionucleotide chaff will do anything persistent in orbit; bombs have been detonated there before (hence why we know about HAEMP), the extra radiation belts don't last long.
      - rolph 2y ago
        in that case, the effect was hypothesized, later observed and understood. a deliberated RF denial involving munitions salted for the purpose is quite do-able. w/o specifics, an enduring denial munition may be engineered, however the perp would also have to endure the effect, as well as any response from the rest of the planet.
throw73737 2y ago
US nukes used floppy disks until very recently, but are quite functional.
- ben_w 2y ago
  So?
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  That's why they were functional, though. US nuclear forces have extremely strict procurement and change control processes. You don't just swap out an 8" floppy drive for a 3.5" drive in a missile silo; the change has to be considered, components procured, a migration strategy defined, and the change implemented. ... more importantly, if it's working without issue, why change it? They're also not going to be using the latest-and-greatest tech at any point. Why should they? It's much better to use older tech that's well-proven, tested, and for which replacements don't rely on foreign industry. 8" floppy drives may be old, but they worked. We may not make them in the US, but the tech is so old that I'm sure it was cheap and easy to buy and store enough to last multiple human lifetimes. Hell, the F-14's last flight with the Navy was in 2006. As far as I know, it still used one of the very first truly modern digital computers to control the wing sweep angle. It worked. Why change it, and risk it not working the same way?
  - throw73737 2y ago
    OP claimed Russia has a Potenkin force, because it is not shiny enough. My point is their nukes and subs, are quite modern compared to US force.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I didn't say it wasn't shiny, I said it sunk, caught fire, and exploded. This is different in a very important way.
Zigurd 2y ago
You don't need special knowledge to know Russia hasn't been maintaining the tritium in all their nukes, or even a majority of them
- ben_w 2y ago
  That's my bet too, but I'm not confident enough to say that I could "know" that.
rasz 2y ago
Musk admitted meeting Putin before cutting off Starlink incident. There is no doubt Putin sold him "I will nuke low orbit and destroy your toy if you cross me" lie.
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  Met as in travelled to Russia? Or at some conference?
  - rasz 2y ago
    Re-checked. Spoke, not met. [Elon Musk Told Pentagon He Spoke to Russia's Putin] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told-pentagon-staff-he-spoke-to-putin-before-starlink-call https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told... [Putin called SpaceX founder Elon Musk an “outstanding person,” days after Musk acknowledged he blocked off internet access from his Starlink satellites during a Ukrainian raid last year.] https://thehill.com/policy/international/4200236-putin-calls-musk-an-outstanding-person-after-starlink-revelations/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/4200236-putin-calls...