9 ms·

Old civil GPS receivers had limitations that would prevent their use on ballistic missiles. Why Starlink does not have such limitations? It would be very easy t

Old civil GPS receivers had limitations that would prevent their use on ballistic missiles. Why Starlink does not have such limitations? It would be very easy to detect receiver is flying on some airplane. Such use should require special permissions and licencing! I find it very hard to argue Starlink is not a military technology! At least its satellites are low, so debris wont stay on orbit forever!

philipkglass 2y ago
Shahed drones are so slow that the civilian GPS receiver limits wouldn't affect them either. GPS is limited to receivers moving slower than 510 meters per second and below 18 km altitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Multilateral_Export_Controls#GPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Mul... The Shahed-136 flies at low altitude and around 185 km/hour, well below the 1836 km/hour speed CoCom limit on GPS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136
Ancapistani 2y ago
> Why Starlink does not have such limitations? Who is to say it doesn't? At least some GPS receivers have those limitations set in firmware, and it's not too difficult to modify the firmware to change those values. > I find it very hard to argue Starlink is not a military technology! Sure it is. It's clearly "dual use", at least to some degree. Not all dual use technologies are export controlled. For that matter, not all strictly military tech is export controlled. The legal/regulatory environment is designed to prevent potential adversaries from bridging the divide between their current capabilities and ours. I could definitely see it being reasonable to place Starlink in that regulatory bucket, but it isn't necessarily a good idea. While it's convenient for long-distance communications, if there are alternatives that can serve the same use cases with similar investment (cost and complexity) then restricting it wouldn't really help anyone. > At least its satellites are low, so debris wont stay on orbit forever! I agree, but don't really see how it's relevant here.
- throw73737 2y ago
  With military technology, I did not meant US export controls, but other countries. Any weapon used by an enemy is a fair game. What would happen if US went to war with Iran, and Iran would destroy Starlink constellation? They already have rockets that reach such heights, and Kessler cascade effect would destroy all satellites on LEO! Couple that with undersea optical cable disruption... We have global communication blackout! I really feel we need stronger separation for military/non military infrastructure!
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > US went to war with Iran, and Iran would destroy Starlink constellation? > They already have rockets that reach such heights, and Kessler cascade effect would destroy all satellites on LEO! Then that would be a very convenient MAD threat for Iran, such that the US wouldn't do that. But it would only be a thing they could reach for if they felt there was an existential threat: If Iran survived it would be on the hook for all the damage it caused in space due to the Space Liability Convention, which it has ratified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention
    - throw73737 2y ago
      Why would Iran pay anything? If USA decides to launch unprovoked full scale invasion, they have a right to defend themselves! And US army could not even conquer Afghanistan after 20 years. There is no way they would win.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > Why would Iran pay anything? If USA decides to launch unprovoked full scale invasion, they have a right to defend themselves! I already told you why: They ratified a treaty saying so. (Also: 'unprovoked'? The US isn't seeking reasons for that right now, even currently trying to lower tensions between them and Israel, and the two even had a brief period where they agreed to stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework) Furthermore, the right to self defence doesn't give countries free reign to do anything, it has to be done with consideration to the harms done to non-combatants, both in the sense of "civilians" and "neutral countries". > And US army could not even conquer Afghanistan after 20 years. There is no way they would win. They conquored Afghanistan in a few months; they didn't want to run the place, so they tried to build a democracy. That didn't do what they were expecting, but it doesn't matter if the threat is "does XYZ have nukes and ICBMs?"
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
486sx33 2y ago
This is why Ukraine shouldn’t have access to starlink either. A truly global system should either be open to everyone or disabled in all countries at war.
- polotics 2y ago
  Seriously? Being subject to an unprovoked imperialistic invasion makes its victim ineligible for internet access?

philipkglass 2y ago

Shahed drones are so slow that the civilian GPS receiver limits wouldn't affect them either. GPS is limited to receivers moving slower than 510 meters per second and below 18 km altitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Multilateral_Export_Controls#GPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Mul... The Shahed-136 flies at low altitude and around 185 km/hour, well below the 1836 km/hour speed CoCom limit on GPS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136

Ancapistani 2y ago

> Why Starlink does not have such limitations? Who is to say it doesn't? At least some GPS receivers have those limitations set in firmware, and it's not too difficult to modify the firmware to change those values. > I find it very hard to argue Starlink is not a military technology! Sure it is. It's clearly "dual use", at least to some degree. Not all dual use technologies are export controlled. For that matter, not all strictly military tech is export controlled. The legal/regulatory environment is designed to prevent potential adversaries from bridging the divide between their current capabilities and ours. I could definitely see it being reasonable to place Starlink in that regulatory bucket, but it isn't necessarily a good idea. While it's convenient for long-distance communications, if there are alternatives that can serve the same use cases with similar investment (cost and complexity) then restricting it wouldn't really help anyone. > At least its satellites are low, so debris wont stay on orbit forever! I agree, but don't really see how it's relevant here.

throw73737 2y ago
With military technology, I did not meant US export controls, but other countries. Any weapon used by an enemy is a fair game. What would happen if US went to war with Iran, and Iran would destroy Starlink constellation? They already have rockets that reach such heights, and Kessler cascade effect would destroy all satellites on LEO! Couple that with undersea optical cable disruption... We have global communication blackout! I really feel we need stronger separation for military/non military infrastructure!
- ben_w 2y ago
  > US went to war with Iran, and Iran would destroy Starlink constellation? > They already have rockets that reach such heights, and Kessler cascade effect would destroy all satellites on LEO! Then that would be a very convenient MAD threat for Iran, such that the US wouldn't do that. But it would only be a thing they could reach for if they felt there was an existential threat: If Iran survived it would be on the hook for all the damage it caused in space due to the Space Liability Convention, which it has ratified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention
  - throw73737 2y ago
    Why would Iran pay anything? If USA decides to launch unprovoked full scale invasion, they have a right to defend themselves! And US army could not even conquer Afghanistan after 20 years. There is no way they would win.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > Why would Iran pay anything? If USA decides to launch unprovoked full scale invasion, they have a right to defend themselves! I already told you why: They ratified a treaty saying so. (Also: 'unprovoked'? The US isn't seeking reasons for that right now, even currently trying to lower tensions between them and Israel, and the two even had a brief period where they agreed to stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework) Furthermore, the right to self defence doesn't give countries free reign to do anything, it has to be done with consideration to the harms done to non-combatants, both in the sense of "civilians" and "neutral countries". > And US army could not even conquer Afghanistan after 20 years. There is no way they would win. They conquored Afghanistan in a few months; they didn't want to run the place, so they tried to build a democracy. That didn't do what they were expecting, but it doesn't matter if the threat is "does XYZ have nukes and ICBMs?"

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

486sx33 2y ago

This is why Ukraine shouldn’t have access to starlink either. A truly global system should either be open to everyone or disabled in all countries at war.

polotics 2y ago
Seriously? Being subject to an unprovoked imperialistic invasion makes its victim ineligible for internet access?