politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That act literally sabotaged the operation. On purpose.
Except the network was already off, he refused to switch it on for a foreign country's operation without his own country's approval. On purpose.
I don't understand why Ukraine didn't ask the US government for this and instead asked Musk directly. Ofc he wouldn't do it unless pressured by the government.
Was the usage according the network terms of service?
Let's see... he allowed the Ukrainian military to use Starlink but put it in the ToS that they couldn't actually use it in any military operations.
Yes, that sounds very plausible. Very plausible indeed.
It's quite possible the internet was intended to be used for communication proposes. For instance, civilian GPS chips shut down themselves if high enough velocity is detected to prevent usage in rockets.
Feel free to present even a shred of evidence that supports this idea. Because as far as I can tell, all you have is "he didn't sabotage it because maybe they violated the TOS" when he admits to sabotaging the operation.
Evidence of what? I don't know what was the agreement between Musk and US military, but I'm sure if Musk violated it he'll be liable for it.
As long as you're sure.
ITAR look it up. Starlink cannot be used in military applications if it's being used in a commercial application. Musk didn't pull the plug on this, lawyers and the laws did. I don't care for the guy either but get your facts straight before believing what CNNs CEOs book tells you.
Do you have any actual evidence that Isaacson, in his authorized biography of Musk, is lying? Wouldn't Musk have something to say about that since he authorized the biography? Has he denied it? He's pretty quick to tweet all sorts of other things.
That tweet you posted to another person is literally that, ITAR. I'm guessing you still haven't even looked into what it is.
Please explain why the DoD negotiated a contract to use Starlink in Ukraine if the Ukrainians couldn't use it in a military capacity.
They specifically used it for civilian applications and communications. ITAR specifically forbids a company to allow their commercial products while they are supplying a service to be used in a military capacity.
Then why did the DoD negotiate a deal with them?
Because the DoD is using different panels. They're not using off the shelf stuff. This is normal for the military. Think of it like the hmmvws. Civ hummer is not designed to do anything the military one is. Completely different applicantions.
So you're saying that Ukraine wanted to use civilian Starlink for this operation even though they had the military Starlink?
They do not have the military starlink, the US military is still developing applications for it. The only widely available access to Starlink is via the commercial access. We've not provided Ukraine with anything cutting edge because we don't want it to fall into russian hands. It's why we're sending them shit from the 80s and 90s.