Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

interpret.csis.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 263 posts

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#171

Post by stinkbeetle »

cwillu wrote: post #34
modeless wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the first sentence? > In this piece, two researchers from PLA-affiliated National University of Defense Technology argue that

When you were a kid, did you stop listening when your parents said “Santa”, or did you keep listening in order to glean useful information from their propoganda, even knowing that Santa isn't real?

Were you under the impression the Chinese Communist Party has been telling you sweet lies only because they find joy in seeing your childlike naivety and wonder?

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#172

Post by inemesitaffia »

realityking wrote: post #132
nradov wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European and Asian allies would have to start by investing in low-cost launch capabilities. So far they're making approximately zero progress in that area. The reality is that all US allies except for maybe France no longer have the capability to project power much outside their own territory without active US support. It's not only satellites. They're also missing just about everything else such as logistics, specia…

Most European countries (except France and the UK) are not interested in projecting power outside of a fairly narrow geographic area (mostly the European continent and adjacent seas). These “military starlinks” will be much smaller systems than actual Starlink. The German one plans for 100 satellites. Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-07/airbus-te...

I'm betting on every single implementation costing $10B minimum

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#173

Post by PeterHolzwarth »

GorbachevyChase wrote: post #65
anovikov wrote: post #20

While there is a massive US advantage in space launch, it should be used to the maximum. It's not going to last forever (while perhaps, sufficiently long that China fizzles out demographically before it's gone).

To be honest, I think US demographic trends are a lot worse than whatever is going on with China.

Oh my goodness, this is deeply untrue. China is facing a massive population implosion. A lot of their global strategy can be understood through that lens: they are racing to accumulate power, standing, and wealth before the implosion starts to kick in.

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#174

Post by stinkbeetle »

RobotToaster wrote: post #25
modeless wrote: post #7

Why is Chinese army propaganda on this site? It's not news that the PLA will oppose technology that gives the US military an advantage.

It makes a change from the US Military propaganda I suppose.

No no, American media corporations are virtuous courageous freedom fighters intent on "speaking truth to power" and "standing up for democracy" and "science". To suggest otherwise makes you a something something denier, a dangerous conspiracy theorist, a puppet of fascism, etc.

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#175

Post by PeterHolzwarth »

lm28469 wrote: post #142
santiago-pl wrote: post #104

Si vis pacem, para bellum. Just because I have a knife doesn't mean it affects the stability of my neighborhood. Even if I use my knife to kill a killer, that doesn't necessarily affect the stability of my neighborhood. It could even improve it. All in all, I would rather live in a somewhat free America than in communist China.

Get yourself a plane ticket from your """free""" America to visit """communist""" China one day, you might be surprised by what you see

I've done so. I saw a country that is a mix of third and first, full of wonderful people who the government fear so much they have to cut them off from the rest of the world and run the place as a police state.

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#176

Post by throwup238 »

redgridtactical wrote: post #156
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> simply because the commercial stuff is more usable and gets updated faster. And this isn't a new pattern by any means. Decades ago the UK military had a plan to replace their old analog centric radio gear with a system that integrated voice, data, gps blue force tracking etc. They called it BOWMAN. The initial versions were so bad everyone started calling it Better Off With Map And Nokia. The defense establishment…

Had no idea about that, went down a rabbit hole researching it. It's a pattern that keeps repeating: by the time mil-spec hardware ships, the commercial equivalent is two generations ahead.

There’s a structural reason for that. Mil-spec hardware requires years of data on the failure modes of components to properly design. NASA has the same problem and in the last decade or two they’ve been relaxing that requirement for less critical missions because technology sped up so much.

For the military that won’t change until there’s an existential threat.

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#177

Post by PeterHolzwarth »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75
blondie9x wrote: post #6

[flagged]

> If they can build a peaceful relationship with Taiwan without military involvement Xi fucked this up because he’s a dictator. Taiwanese polling on national identity was mixed until the 2010s [1]. Left at peace, it would have probably voted for reintegration in our lifetimes. But then Xi decided the post-Mao system of political competition within the CCP was inconvenient, launched his wolf warriors on all of China’s…

"annexed Hong Kong prematurely" ? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Reports I've read are that China was surprised when the UK got in touch a few years before 97, wanting to start the prep work for the handover of HK. China, it seems, just assumed the UK would call HK a historical legacy whose lease agreement was made with a now-defunct country, and leave it at that without a handover.

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#178

Post by inemesitaffia »

wavefunction wrote: post #12
modeless wrote: post #7

Why is Chinese army propaganda on this site? It's not news that the PLA will oppose technology that gives the US military an advantage.

I haven't read it fully but it doesn't seem to be promoting any sort of falsehoods. As an American I consider any reliance on Starlink and the thoroughly compromised Elon Musk to be a weakness rather than a strength.

So, you disagree with the paper and think what the Pentagon did with Anthropic is right.

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#179

Post by Erem »

oscaracso wrote: post #49
modeless wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the first sentence? > In this piece, two researchers from PLA-affiliated National University of Defense Technology argue that

Thanks; I missed that and almost sullied my mind reading an argument formulated by a potential adversary to the United States of America.

Isn't sully your mind a bit harsh?

As long as you read with the article's authorship in mind, it's useful to learn what thoughts your adversary wishes to influence and why.

Re: Starlink militarization and its impact on global strategic stability (2023)

#180

Post by jmpman »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #170
tw04 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No that Russia collusion conspiracy theory rubbish has been debunked.

“Just left Ukraine. What I saw proved to me we can’t give up on the Ukrainian people. Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine’s security and can’t be a giveaway to Putin. Let me tell you about my trip and why it’s important we stand with Ukraine.” - Mark Kelly

Musk replied directly to that post: “You are a traitor.”

Kelly fired back the next day: “Traitor? Elon, if you don’t understand that defending freedom is a basic tenet of what makes America great and keeps us safe, maybe you should leave it to those of us who do.”

Musk later doubled down in media appearances, stating that putting “the interests of another country above America” makes someone a traitor.

I don't see Musk making those statement about US helping the interest of other countries.

It seems like stopping Russia from being an aggressor is in the direct interest of the US. Why would Musk think otherwise?

Post reply on HN