Ukraine tried for the first time to use uncrewed surface vessels against Russian vessels in Sevastopol Bay in September 2022, but 70 kilometres from the target, the connection with billionaire Elon Musk�s Starlinks was lost. It was not possible to persuade Musk to turn back on the connection, so Ukraine modified the drones.
The thing I don’t think many people are aware of, is that if something is exported from the US (like starlink) and is used for military purposes (like a surface attack vessel) it is subject to ITAR restrictions and regulations. Starlink does not have ITAR clearance. A breach of this means your company can be seized and shut down by the US government. I would expect this behavior from any US based company that does not have ITAR clearance.
This doesn’t make much sense…starlink was already available for military use by the Ukrainians. That was the whole reason Musk was “donating” use of the system to them.
Even if this were the underlying reason, the behavior I would expect from any US company that doesn’t have ITAR clearance would be to cite said lack of clearance for the decision instead of the CEO coming out and saying he did it for war strategy reasons (like being worried about a nuclear response).
It makes perfect sense if you consider two things:
Consider the reality of ITAR and the value assessment of actually breaking it versus being able to say whatever you want in a post truth society.
The CEO in this particular instance is, to put it charitably, not an example to be held and compared against if seeking a baseline “reasonable person”-esque standards in the self-serving (and self-editing) annals of corporate history.
No it wasn’t. There was never US government dispensation for direct UA military use. The original provisioning was for civilian usage. Starlink is definitely approved for US military, and a blind eye was turned to backend logistics use by UA, but as soon as your equipment is guiding bombs onto targets you’re running straight into ITAR. It’s being used for a weapon and that’s a major no no.
The thing I don’t think many people are aware of, is that if something is exported from the US (like starlink) and is used for military purposes (like a surface attack vessel) it is subject to ITAR restrictions and regulations. Starlink does not have ITAR clearance. A breach of this means your company can be seized and shut down by the US government. I would expect this behavior from any US based company that does not have ITAR clearance.
Except it was cleared for military use so it doesn’t add up, it also wasn’t the reasoning given by the guy who refused to provide connection.
He’s a crook and a snake.
This doesn’t make much sense…starlink was already available for military use by the Ukrainians. That was the whole reason Musk was “donating” use of the system to them.
Even if this were the underlying reason, the behavior I would expect from any US company that doesn’t have ITAR clearance would be to cite said lack of clearance for the decision instead of the CEO coming out and saying he did it for war strategy reasons (like being worried about a nuclear response).
At this point it makes the most sense for the US government to sieze Starlink as a military asset. Cut out the little man.
It makes perfect sense if you consider two things:
Consider the reality of ITAR and the value assessment of actually breaking it versus being able to say whatever you want in a post truth society.
The CEO in this particular instance is, to put it charitably, not an example to be held and compared against if seeking a baseline “reasonable person”-esque standards in the self-serving (and self-editing) annals of corporate history.
No it wasn’t. There was never US government dispensation for direct UA military use. The original provisioning was for civilian usage. Starlink is definitely approved for US military, and a blind eye was turned to backend logistics use by UA, but as soon as your equipment is guiding bombs onto targets you’re running straight into ITAR. It’s being used for a weapon and that’s a major no no.
Edit You’re vs your