[once_inc]

> I’m reminded of when Musk had the Ukrainian sea drones disabled in the middle of an attack because they were using Starlink terminals.

The Russian ambassador had contacted him and had told him an attack on Crimea “could lead to a nuclear response,” according to a biography of Mr. Musk by the historian and journalist Walter Isaacson.

Please note that the Ukrainian military heavily relies on starlink for communications, and that Musk thus has an outsize influence on the war. So far as is made public, he doesn't generate any profit doing that, and he's been the target of slam pieces at the slightest hickups in service.

Musk is far from spotless, but your one-sided viewpoint here is in dire need of nuance.

[Pigalowda]

I do need nuance. Just as a curiosity and maybe I’m off, but do you have a long position in Tesla?

[nonrandomstring]

Last I read that story the Ukrainians simply switched to a different link and successfully re-ran the operation the next day. No nuclear response. Musk was played. Or rather, Elon Musk is playing at games above his pay grade. This is a danger of megalomaniac billionaires. He needs a quiet tap on the shoulder and remind him that his toys can be taken away.

[inemesitaffia]

The Ukrainians complained about the pricing and quality of the alternatives according to Economist.

The Pentagon has taken responsibility as they should have since February 2022. And now the Russians have seemingly taken advantage.

You forget after Crimea. There was active blocking across the entire black sea

[foverzar]

> No nuclear response.

Just because something obscure was bombed and erased in Ukraine (that you don't really care about) instead of shooting Starlink satellites off the sky, doesn't mean there was no response and that it wouldn't trigger a disastrous chain reaction otherwise.

> This is a danger of megalomaniac billionaires

That is assuming that allowing the use of civilian communications infrastructure for war and high-profile military operations is a norm that should be endorsed, and not just as a megalomanic war profiting as we see with military industrial complex fat purses.

> He needs a quiet tap on the shoulder and remind him that his toys can be taken away.

Can they? And what exactly would be the legal framework behind this threat?

[nonrandomstring]

> Can they? And what exactly would be the legal framework behind this threat?

I think it's already happening/happened. Space-X is "working much more closely with US military from now on" - what exactly that means or what went down you or I will likely never know. But I am not surprised at this turn of events.

[inemesitaffia]

It means it's getting more contracts as opposed to less as many advocated