• FlowVoid@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If we had a policy of nationalizing contracted military infrastructure, then nobody would make a contract with the military.

    And while this may sound good to some, it sure wouldn’t be in Ukraine’s interest. Unreliable Starlink access is better than no Starlink access at all.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t have to be nationalized, but it doesn’t make any sense for a civilian to be able to unilaterally make decisions like that while under military contract. At the very least, any decision to change or influence the contracted service while the contract is active should require some sort of review and approval. Maybe there’s a good reason it’s the way it is, I’m just a layman, but every time I hear about this it just baffles me why it was even allowable for Elon to make the call he did, or any call for that matter.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A key issue, often overlooked, is that US law imposes significant restrictions on the export and sale of military hardware.

        Starlink is currently not considered military hardware. SpaceX is desperately trying to keep it that way, their ultimate goal is to sell subscriptions to civilians. Thus they get anxious when it is openly used for military purposes.

        In this regard Starlink is somewhat similar to civilian GPS receivers, which automatically shut down at 1200 mph so they can’t be used in missiles.