Russia May Have Just Put Elon Musk's Starlink On Notice:
It seems like Elon Musk's Starlink initiative might have been given a stern warning by Russia in a statement that could come with grave implications. The Starlink map shows that its coverage had spread out to most parts of the globe, with support in some countries already planned for years ahead. However, Russia appears to be the biggest country not on Starlink's waiting list, and that might not change any time soon. In March, Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov asked Musk to give his country access to Starlink's services amid the ongoing Russian invasion.
The SpaceX founder later responded to Ukraine's pleas in an expeditious and amicable manner. Within just two days, Ukraine received satellite internet access, but not without Musk warning users of the potential dangers of utilizing Starlink in wartime. While this might not have directly placed SpaceX in Russia's crosshairs, Musk's swift compliance might have exacerbated the issue even further. The question now is, does Russia see Musk's indirect involvement in aiding its opposition as somewhat of a military threat that needs to be addressed, or is it all simply water under the bridge?
Now, it appears that the Russian Delegation is giving SpaceX a similar treatment by addressing its actions indirectly in a warning against the use of private satellites and their intervention. In a translated statement earlier this week, the Russian Delegation spoke out regarding the "extremely dangerous trend" of using civilian and commercial space technologies for military purposes, claiming that this had "become apparent during the events in Ukraine." Although the statement didn't mention any space company in particular, it did remind the "United States and its allies" about the repercussions of having the privatize sector involved in the country's military activities.
Related Stories
Starlink Activated in Iran
Elon Musk activates Starlink for Iranian citizens after US Sec of State issued a General License
Elon Musk announced that he was activating Starlink in response to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's tweet announcing the issuing of a General License to provide the Iranian people with access to digital communications.
"We took action today to advance Internet freedom and the free flow of information for the Iranian people, issuing a General License to provide them greater access to digital communications to counter the Iranian government's censorship," Secretary Blinken said.
Currently, in Iran, massive protests are happening as a result of the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who was detained by the morality police for her head scarf not being properly worn. Although she had no known heart-related health problems, the police said she suddenly died of heart failure.
[...] Elon also responded, "OK," to @agusantonetti who asked if he could do the same for other countries under a dictatorship such as Cuba.
Has some entity been gathering Starlink terminals and smuggling them into Iran in the weeks or months prior to this announcement?
See also: U.S. Treasury Issues Iran General License D-2 to Increase Support for Internet Freedom
Musk says he will activate Starlink amid Iran protests
Starlink Benefit "Literally Zero" For Iranian Protestors Says Expert
Iran protests: UK and Norwegian ambassadors summoned over 'interference'
Previously: Starlink Will Ask for Exemption to Iran Sanctions, Says Musk
Related: Ukraine Asks Musk for Starlink Terminals as Russian Invasion Disrupts Broadband
Russia May Have Just Put Elon Musk's Starlink on Notice
(Score: 4, Funny) by driverless on Monday September 19 2022, @01:40PM (46 children)
Will Musk fall out of a window multiple times? Will Putin threaten to invade California once he's got Ukraine sorted out? Will he try and crash one of his duct-tape drones into Musk's home?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday September 19 2022, @02:00PM (15 children)
Maybe Putin mistook Musk for one of his own businessmen and thought he could just get rid of him [cnn.com], too.
Erh... of course I mean that he could have an accident as well.
(Score: 4, Informative) by gnuman on Monday September 19 2022, @02:17PM (5 children)
If there is one thing to know about Putin, is that he doesn't care who you are. If you stand in his way, you may just end up dead. At this point, I don't believe it matters for him if you are Russian or not.
So, I think Musk has made a mistake by trumping up Starlink in this case. For his own sake.
As to what will they do? The only things they can do are "not good" for anyone. Like testing a nuke in low-orbit to see how many they can take out, if any. Probably unlikely but things are not going well for Putin so who knows.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday September 19 2022, @02:45PM (4 children)
At some point he'll just tangle with the wrong person and that guy will rid us of that petty little troll.
(Score: 3, Funny) by liar on Monday September 19 2022, @05:31PM (1 child)
Sorry but... which one is the petty little troll ?
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday September 19 2022, @07:40PM
The wannabe-Hitler in Russia.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilsa on Monday September 19 2022, @05:32PM (1 child)
I really can't tell which person you're talking about.
(Score: 2) by liar on Monday September 19 2022, @11:03PM
I figured it was an apt description of either/both of them...
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 19 2022, @02:28PM (8 children)
>he could just get rid of him, too.
I have no doubt, whatsoever, that if Putin wanted Musk to expire within the next 3 months he absolutely could make that happen - the question is: at what cost to Putin? Even now I doubt that Musk is worth it to Putin, not by a wide wide margin.
Much much more valuable would be a Musk that cooperates with Putin, even if only under the table while appearing to, or actually, working against him in areas that are widely publicized while working with him in other ways more important but less visible.
Even the Starlink favor to Ukraine could still be helping the Russian war effort in many ways...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday September 20 2022, @01:25AM (7 children)
What exactly could be done to Putin which was not done already? Could you spell it out? I really don't understand.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 20 2022, @09:59AM (6 children)
I am assuming that Putin has agents which could carry out the deed, but probably not without getting caught somehow, so the first cost is the loss of those agents.
The U.S. has an established and more or less globally accepted policy of proportionate response. If the attack on a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil can be reasonably proven/traced to Russia, an open drone strike on an important asset within Russia would be a possibility. If the attack cannot be proven, the U.S. also has covert agents...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday September 20 2022, @02:40PM (5 children)
Today four districts of Ukraine - Donezk, Lugansk, Herson and Zaporojie - declared referendum for joining Russia. By the end of the month the process will be completed and the war will be fought on Russian territory. Putin is about to address the nation today.
Separately, Russian parliament adjusted laws related to mobilization.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 20 2022, @04:37PM (4 children)
4 of 136? And what would you do with a gun to your head, repeatedly striking you for 7 months?
I would be much more impressed had they declared this referendum in response to the mere threat of invasion, not after the actual invasion has decimated the population - possibly selectively sparing those politically aligned to the desires of the invaders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raions_of_Ukraine [wikipedia.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday September 20 2022, @10:06PM (3 children)
My only point here was that once the regions are Russian, your schema of things described earlier will work the opposite way too. If an American consultant kills a Russian on Russia's territory, the measured response will happen such as killing an American on American one.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 21 2022, @12:46AM (2 children)
Proportionate response would differ, significantly, between mercenaries killed in a war zone and public figures killed deep within the home country. Musk dying with unwanted assistance in California or Texas would be tantamount to Konstantin Ernst falling out a high window in Moscow, but only US agents were in the building with him at the time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday September 21 2022, @05:53PM (1 child)
Just an FYI - not for the subject, but I did not find a better place - it appears that Putin changed nuclear doctrine during his mobilization speech today.
The use of nukes used to be - written in the doctrine - in response to a weapons of mass destruction attack or in case of existential threat to Russia.
Today, as far as I understood, Putin said that nukes would be used if Russia's territorial integrity were in danger. I guess islands disputed with Japan and Crimea qualify as well as four new regions in a month.
Just making sure we know as I haven't seen any news about it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 21 2022, @06:04PM
I saw something in a headline to the effect of "We will not bluff about the use of nuclear weapons." - Putin, which for some reason instantly brought to my mind the various threats made by Kim-Jong-il/un over the years...
Meanwhile, around here the only thing people are even vaguely aware of is that their monthly electric bills have roughly doubled due to "fuel charges" which the local utility attributes to "various global factors in the natural gas markets, including (a handful of things I forget what they said...) and the war in Ukraine." An awful lot of people here don't even read that far and just bitch that their electric bill is "sky high" without even knowing it is due to the spike in natural gas prices.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Monday September 19 2022, @02:02PM (27 children)
Anti-satellite weapons is the obvious option.
They've already demonstrated that they have them, and that they don't much care about the long-term orbital hazards they create. And given the density of the Starlink constellation, the debris from destroying just one satellite could be devastating to the rest.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Monday September 19 2022, @02:18PM (11 children)
They've demonstrated they can do it, but like so many other Russian Wunderwaffen they could be little more than hot air. In particular they shot down their own satellite, Kosmos-1408, in very carefully controlled conditions. To affect Starlink they'd have to shoot down a large number of satellites under non-controlled conditions, which is both not an easy feat and may not even be possible if their ASAT weapons were just one-off demonstrators like a lot of their stuff is.
Finally, I doubt very much that shooting down another country's satellites is going to pass unchallenged...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 19 2022, @02:35PM (5 children)
>I doubt very much that shooting down another country's satellites is going to pass unchallenged...
I agree completely, and I also wonder how capable the Anti-sat tech is against targets which actively attempt evasion? Yes, it costs maneuvering fuel which ultimately shortens the service life of the attacked satellite even if it is never touched, but it's not nearly as devastating as a bunch of scraps on an orbit that used to be "crowded" with valuable assets.
By the way, a "crowded" orbit would be one which, if you were flying at an altitude of 10,000ft, you might just barely be able to see your nearest neighbors at the horizon- if they were flashing bright beacons.
What I would be most impressed with is not a slow-capture satellite killer, but (a stealthed) one that navigates a retrograde orbit at 35,000mph relative velocity and steers clear of its targets, until it is time...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Monday September 19 2022, @03:08PM (4 children)
Remember the X-37B doohicky? That can manoeuvre on orbit and stay up for a very long time. What could that be used for?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 19 2022, @03:55PM
>What could that be used for?
Chucking beer cans out the window at just the right time and place....?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by DannyB on Monday September 19 2022, @04:47PM (1 child)
One purpose of X-37B could be to rapidly deploy things that the US has previously agreed, by treaty, not to develop. Such as space based nuclear ground attack weapons.
Hey, no, we don't have any space based nuclear weapons in orbit. At least not an hour ago when I checked.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday September 20 2022, @01:27AM
I am reminded of an Iron Sky scene [youtu.be]...
(Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Monday September 19 2022, @05:54PM
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 [wikipedia.org]
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday September 19 2022, @02:47PM
Given that it's Russia, I wouldn't put it beyond them that their target sat had a built-in self detonation system to make it look like a success even if it was a dud.
Pontemkin can build more than villages, ya know.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 19 2022, @04:38PM (2 children)
I'll disagree with that. I suspect that violently and catastrophically destroying as few as a dozen sats would have a snowball effect, or domino effect if you prefer. I'll not venture an opinion whether Russia can successfully target a dozen satellites.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 19 2022, @04:49PM
That might work, in one orbital plane.
It might be necessary to strike vehicles in multiple orbital planes to do more than degrade service.
I would welcome comments from anyone who knows.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday September 20 2022, @10:00AM
That would also be a really bad idea, because triggering the Kessler syndrome, even if it's limited to one orbital plane, is going to to upset pretty much the entire planet, including Russia's few remaining allies, or at least the few countries not yet openly opposed to them.
No matter how much the bluster and threaten, there's really nothing they can do that won't blow back on them a hundred times worse. A far better approach to this would be to totally ignore the problem rather than openly letting the world know how impotent they are.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday September 19 2022, @07:15PM
Carefully controlled conditions = hitting a satellite on an unpowered ballistic trajectory. Exactly the same as normal conditions for any satellite that doesn't see you coming. And any trajectory adjustments for commercial satellites are generally publicly announced as far beforehand as possible to avoid accidental collisions.
And no, they wouldn't necessarily have to shoot down more than one satellite - Starlink has such a dense constellation that the debris from the first satellite has a very high chance of setting off a chain reaction, and it's high enough that atmospheric drag won't deorbit the debris, so it'll be there providing orbit denial for years or centuries to come. One stray bolt hitting a satellite on an intersecting orbit and it's done for - anything bigger and you likely create a cloud of secondary debris to increase the odds of future collisions. Best case scenario SpaceX would likely have to scramble to raise their entire constellation above the resulting debris ring, significantly reducing their propellant stores (aka operational lifespan). And that's assuming they can get regulatory approval to do so.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by XivLacuna on Monday September 19 2022, @02:19PM (9 children)
The satellite constellation is only 550km up so the chances of initiating a Kessler Syndrome scenario is very unlikely. The damaged satellites will deorbit pretty fast and clean up the skies for astronomers.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday September 19 2022, @07:20PM (8 children)
How fast are the undamaged satellites currently deorbitting? And they've got a huge solar panel "sail" providing a huge amount of drag - chunks of debris will likely stay up there considerably longer. Years? Decades? Maybe not centuries, but plenty long enough to have a good chance of hitting a few more satellites that pass through the debris ring several times per day.
At best SpaceX would have to move their entire constellation to a different altitude to avoid collisions, costing them a big chunk of their operational life (aka propellant stores)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 20 2022, @01:05AM (7 children)
Unless, of course, the debris has even higher cross-section to mass (for example, when you half the dimensions of the object, you reduce the cross-sectional area by 4 and the mass by 8). Which incidentally would be a common thing.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @02:49AM (6 children)
Starlink are in almost circular orbits, any collision will make the orbits more eccentric greatly increasing drag at perigee. More importantly, an orbital collision will never raise an apogee but will almost certainly lower it, and is quite likely to lower perigee as well.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 20 2022, @03:33PM (5 children)
> an orbital collision will never raise an apogee
How do you figure? By conservation of momentum the center of mass of the debris after collision will be on same trajectory as the combined center of mass of the satellites before collision. If you assume a 90 degree collision between two equal-mass satellites with circular orbits, the center of mass will be moving at 45* to both of them, and ~1.414x faster than either one individually - raising the average perigee of the debris substantially.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @05:51PM (4 children)
You dropped a 2 somewhere in there. In your example (two equal masses at 90 degrees, fuse on impact) the combined momentum is indeed 1.41428 etc. of an individual impactor, but you have two of them so the mass is doubled. The velocity would be 0.70714
Basic science says that collisions are never perfectly elastic, they generate heat. That waste energy has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the kinetic & gravitational potential energy of the masses.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 20 2022, @06:15PM (3 children)
Let's see...
|mvi+mvj| = |mv(i+j)| = m|v|*sqrt(2)... You're right, I forgot to divide by the doubled mass when converting back to velocities. Though that's only the average velocity, assuming fragmentation, much less detonation (e.g. if either impactor is equipped with chemical rockets) you've still got a wide spread. But yeah, with the average taking that big a hit most of the fragments will slow down too. Barring explosions, etc. anyway.
Elasticity is irrelevant though - that's one of the reasons I went with conservation of momentum rather than of energy. Momentum is *always* perfectly conserved regardless of the details, while kinetic energy is only conserved in perfectly elastic collisions. Honestly, I try to avoid invoking conservation of energy whenever possible - there's too many non-obvious ways it can be converted to other forms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @10:58PM (2 children)
Try to visualize it. At the point of collision every fragment gets a new trajectory. It's new orbit must include that position at that speed. If the trajectory is upwards or downwards it is going to be an ellipse, and the more extreme the angle, the greater the eccentricity. Most of those orbits are going to intersect the planet in the next rotation. The only way a fragment could have its perigee not lowered is if its trajectory and speed was such as to leave it in a circular orbit at the height of the collision, basically the original orbit. There is no way to raise the perigee.*
..
* Theoretically, if something was in an elliptical orbit and was struck from "behind" at anywhere other than perigee, it would raise the perigee, but the striking object is going to lose more than the strikee gains. It's also going to be a very gentle collision, as the overtaking object won't be going much faster. Much more likely, that vector addition of momentum is going to drop both of them once again.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday September 21 2022, @01:08AM (1 child)
Keep in mind that to lower the opposite apsis by 100km requires a delta-V in the ballpark of 1500mph - and that would still put it well above the ISS. (I did the math for raising orbit in another comment - lowering it by the same amount requires even more delta-V since you're traversing a steeper gravitational gradient) The largest change in the opposing apsis will also not actually be bits thrown up or down, but those thrown forward or back, since speed up or down (or to the sides) only gets a orthogonal vector addition to the existing, much larger, orbital speed.
If the satellites stick together the resulting mass, having lost ~29% of its speed, might well be enough to deorbit it - but I wouldn't bet on it without doing the math. In reality though the shock of impact is likely to shatter at least the more fragile bits, leaving them traversing something much closer to the original satellite's path. And of course if you're talking an interceptor or debris strike it will likely impart far less mass to the equation, leaving the debris following paths quite close to the original CoM.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2022, @01:30AM
1500mph sounds fast when you put it like that, but it's only 0.67 km/s. Given orbital speeds that sort of delta V in a collision is quite possible, if not likely.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Monday September 19 2022, @03:37PM (4 children)
> Anti-satellite weapons is the obvious option.
It is surely obvious but perhaps it is not actually an option. You see, there is a notable shortage of precise missiles recently at the russian side, and having to use hundreds of them to shoot down a constellation of mini-satelites does not make it any better. Unless they can make washing machines fly.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday September 19 2022, @07:22PM (2 children)
Completely different missiles - I guarantee you they're not using anti-satellite missiles in Ukraine.
Also, they only have to shoot down one - the resulting debris cloud will almost certainly destroy one or two more (creating new debris clouds) within a few years if not sooner, unless SpaceX changes the altitude of their constellation at great expense.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday September 20 2022, @01:34AM (1 child)
Changing altitude will not help much as debris cloud will be distributed vertically as well as horizontally and create new clouds. The only solution would be to wait till it all settles and start again which may take years or decades.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 20 2022, @03:06PM
Not really. Significantly changing orbital altitude requires a substantial change in speed - and you're simply not going to get that from an impact, or even a modest explosion.
You also won't really get a lasting debris "cloud" - the debris will all have a trajectory fairly close to that of the original center of mass (of satellite + missile), but every fragment of debris will have gotten a push in a slightly different direction, sending it on a different orbit - and within a relatively few orbits those differences will have spread the debris out through a ring around the planet - all passing through the original impact point on every orbit, but having slightly different orbital planes and eccentricities, so fairly rapidly it will be dispersed relatively evenly in a fuzzy ring around the planet.
The formula for orbital specific energy is Eo = -G(m1+m2)/2r (all orbital energy is negative by convention, with escape velocity being the common "0" reference point), which simplifies to -GM/2r for objects whose mass is much smaller than the planet.
To raise the semi-major axis of a 550km altitude orbit by 50km (=100km maximum change for debris with an apsis at the original 550km) requires a change in orbital energy of (+6,378km = Earth's radius to convert altitude to radius)
Eo = GM*[(1/2/(550e3m+6378e3m) - 1/2/(600e3m+6378e3m)]
Eo=(6.674e-11m^3/kg/s^2 * 5.9722e24kg) * [517e-12/m] = 206e3 m^2/s^2
Which can be converted to the required change in speed (=delta-V) using the formula for specific kinetic energy: Ek=v^2/2, which solving for v = 642m/s = 1436 mph.
There's not much debris that's going to get *that* big a kick, so raising the orbit by 100km should get you clear of the debris, and you could probably get away with a significantly smaller change.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Tuesday September 20 2022, @03:01AM
One Soyuz booster load of coarse sand in a retrograde 550km equatorial orbit. Put a stick of dynamite in the middle to spread it out a bit. It won't de-orbit the Starlink satellites much, but it will ruin their day.
Being so small the sand grains will clear out very quickly and as a side benefit will provide pretty night skies for a while.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2022, @03:12PM (1 child)
There's a lot of evidence of war crimes having been committed by the Russian Army in Ukraine. Despite the constant reassurances of AC over the last several years that Mr Putin is a very nice man, it's beginning to look otherwise. Mr Putin might find himself before an international war crimes tribunal having to answer some very difficult questions.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 19 2022, @04:42PM
Don't hold your breath. Do you think Putin is going to Disney World for vacation, so that the FBI, CIA, ATF, DEA, and a dozen other alphabet agencies can swarm him? I don't see him attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral, or much of anything else that might put him at risk.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday September 19 2022, @06:38PM (4 children)
If the message had to be translated it probably wasn't us they had in mind. So who was the message for? It could have been to their own troops that are probably just as silly as the next troops and keep using the internet while at their secret base etc to check their facebook/VKontakte status, call home, or use their fitbit as they jog around the perimeter of the base, or upload all those super cool selfies you took last night while polishing your rifle ... By doing any of the silly things mentioned, and others, they give away their own position of the enemy and paint a target on themselves for various artillery barrages and rockets.
That said part of it was probably intended for us in the west to. That said it's kind of funny that they are complaining about the private sector engaging in the war considering that the Wagner Group appears to run mercenaries thru the Ukraine non-stop at the moment. So it's the right or wrong kind of privatization or something.
Perhaps also a not so veiled threat against Musk that accidents with the Polonium can happen or that businessmen in Russia have a disturbing tendency to fall out of windows or slipping on they yacht and breaking their neck.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday September 19 2022, @07:45PM (3 children)
He didn't say private, he said commercial and civilian - a.k.a. NOT military.
Mercenaries, like all other soldiers and military hardware, are perfectly valid targets in a war zone. Commercial and civilian targets are generally NOT - intentionally target them and you'll likely be facing international outrage. Not that that has slowed down Putin much within Ukraine... (or the US in the Middle East), but war is a game of posturing.
I read it as putting Musk on alert that continuing to make Starlink available to hostile militaries is likely to result in Russia reclassifying their network as a hostile military targets.
Which frankly, seems a perfectly reasonable position to take. Nobody would blink an eye at the destruction of a military communication or spy satellite operating in an active war zone - that's kind of what anti-satellite weapons are *for* (well, that and taking out the orbital nukes that we absolutely don't have. Nudge, wink.) A commercial player selling such services instead would seem to be declaring themselves a "mercenary" service, and thus declaring themselves valid military targets.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday September 19 2022, @09:27PM (2 children)
Yes, valid military targets indeed, but not only that. Starlink employees, including Musk himself, become valid military targets as well.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday September 19 2022, @11:44PM (1 child)
Not really. Generally speaking only people on the battlefield are considered valid targets. Otherwise generals, presidents, etc. become valid targets for assassination - and they make the rules, and are interested in buying strategic gains with other people's lives, not their own.
Of course Putin is born of a government steeped in centuries of (neo-)monarchy and intense corruption, where assassination is an accepted way to play the game, so I certainly wouldn't put it past him. But there'd be international uproar in response, "important" people are NOT valid military targets, unless they're foolish enough to enter the battlefield.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by legont on Tuesday September 20 2022, @01:16AM
When a guy in Texas - never-mind overweight and diabetic - flies a military drone in Afghanistan, he is definitely a legitimate target and his neighbors and drink buddies are human shields. Similarly, when Musk's employees provide services to the Starlink which is in use by a military in a war, they are legitimate targets for a military strike and their neighbors are human shields. Even if Musk manages to deploy an AI to do all the work, he and his engineers will be targets. It is different from your garden variety weapons sales.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Monday September 19 2022, @06:43PM
The difference between this and defense contractors is just the formation of a few new corporations, so that payments can go to a different entity. If Putin wants to help out a few lawyers and accounting firms in the USA, and possibly cause SpaceX to launch more satellites so that they can be dedicated to such an independent military-only service, it's a speed-bump. Everybody knows that though, so I suspect status quo to remain. Same deal as UA using Chinese-made drones to drop bombs on Russians, when China didn't really want to help the UA... but now even China is backing away from Russia.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 19 2022, @07:40PM (1 child)
I'm sure Elon Musk has a fully competent security detail, but it's still not comfortable to be targeted by a state actor for assassination.
Maybe he should rig up some of the Starlink satellites with death rays on a dead man switch that will vaporize Putin if anything should happen to him. That, or send a boring machine into his bunker to flood it with sarin gas.
Elon Musk is one of the few guys on Earth that has access to the tech to do that sort of thing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @01:57AM
> Elon Musk is one of the few guys on Earth that has access to the tech to do that sort of thing.
Um, where's my "reads too much science fiction" mod?
Neither of your fantasies are remotely possible for Musk at this point in time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JustNiz on Monday September 19 2022, @11:42PM (2 children)
Qoute from article: "Although the statement didn't mention any space company in particular..."
Apparently it's better to not actually read anything, and just jump on the paranoia bus and totally invent headlines that Putin hates SpaceX, and is likely to target Starlink satellites with killer robots.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 20 2022, @09:26AM
(Score: 2) by corey on Tuesday September 20 2022, @10:27PM
I came to see if others were saying this but your little +2 comment sits at the bottom of a long set of discussion chains on Putin vs Musk.
This is non news really. Nothing will happen. Move along.