Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mad_marble_madness t1_iu35lis wrote

Reply to comment by mtarascio in Russia Terms Western Commercial Satellites 'Legitimate' Targets, US Vows 'Appropriate' Response If Attacked by Heavy-Ad6366

An “appropriate” response might be for the US to partially sponsor the next StarLink launch - with every launch bringing up dozens of new StarLink satellites.

Would be a perfect way to mentally show Putin the finger - shooting down enough StarLinks to make any real impact would require way more satellite-busting rockets than Russia has. “Go on, Putin. Ruin your finances and resources all on your own”…

11

mtarascio t1_iu366gn wrote

That's assuming Starlink wants to align with the US.

That's a big 'if' at the moment.

−15

Toph_is_bad_ass t1_iu3bpkq wrote

Homeboy, read up on the American space industry. Elon Musk requires security clearance to be CEO of SpaceX. You're literally not allowed to work on space technology without the approval of the DoD. Everyone has to have clearance, everyone has to be a US citizen. Musk had to get a license form the FTC for Starlike, he has to get approved by the FAA for launches. SpaceX's biggest (and really only notable client) is the DoD.

SpaceX has no choice in the matter. They can be compelled to do anything the DoD asks. It's the nature of the business. We don't just let companies build rockets, which are basically ICBM's, whilly nilly.

23

wastingvaluelesstime t1_iu37zj9 wrote

Not at all. The defense production act can compel compliance.

6

mtarascio t1_iu38hdq wrote

US is not at war.

That requires legal reasons and even COVID was controversial use of it.

Who's to say the control of these satellites could be hijacked anyway? Not like they're on US soil and command structure could be backed up overseas.

−6

wastingvaluelesstime t1_iu3911d wrote

Starlink and SpaceX are US companies deeply embedded in US space industry. Their national loyalty is not Musk's decison. Also, the defense production act does not require any declaration of war and was used to deal with covid production needs.

9

mtarascio t1_iu399ug wrote

The guy who controls the key, controls the car.

We literally found out it was turned off in Ukraine (disputed territory) on his whim.

Like I said the engagement of the defence production act on this, which would by itself be unprecedented. Doesn't guarantee any control of the system at all.

−9

wastingvaluelesstime t1_iu39ruj wrote

Source?

If he wants to defy US law over use of US assets in a war, there are ways to remove him from control of the company. I'm sure the treasury can cut him a check for the book value of the assets ( not the stock lol). It was done in WW2 in some cases with right wing nuts who had companies or left wing nuts running unions who though it meant they could have their own foreign policy.

7

mtarascio t1_iu3a5ot wrote

They're satellites not factories.

Sheesh.

You're jumping to the conclusion that that are deemed US war assets already too.

−2

wastingvaluelesstime t1_iu3baiw wrote

They are controlled from ground stations and by engineers located in the US. Anyway, Musk has lawyers who can explain his actual role to him, before or after the government takes some overt action.

4