Live data from Hacker News

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

interpret.csis.org

221–230 of 263 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Assuming you want one of the sides to win, why would you not want your side to use every (ethical) means available to do that?

War is not ethical.

Starting a war maybe not (depending on circumstances), but how is getting attacked and fighting a war to prevent invasion not ethical?

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably refering to his nazi salute, and support for far-right neo-nazi groups like AfD in Germany

That's what I thought. The "Nazi salute" was just a cringy rendition of the "my heart goes out to you" thing. I can find dozens of other famous people doing something similar. And the AfD isn't a neo-Nazi group.

As someone who literally grew up next to Auschwitz - the attempts to excuse Elon's Nazi salute as anything but exactly that are just sickening. Those who don't study history are bound to repeat it, indeed. "My heart goes out to you" - a man literally doing a sieg heil. Bloody hell.

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably refering to his nazi salute, and support for far-right neo-nazi groups like AfD in Germany

That's what I thought. The "Nazi salute" was just a cringy rendition of the "my heart goes out to you" thing. I can find dozens of other famous people doing something similar. And the AfD isn't a neo-Nazi group.

> I can find dozens of other famous people doing something similar.

The interpretation can be doubted, but you have to give credit to Elon Musk for being an actual techno-fascist coming from a family of pro-apartheid racists. Maybe it's not technically a nazi salute, but you can't argue it's not a fascist salute given his political inclinations.

> And the AfD isn't a neo-Nazi group.

Please read up on the AfD. They have nazi references in their propaganda, actual nazis in their ranks, and an actual nazi program. On that last point, when they plan secret meetings for deporting wrong-race german citizens, that's straight out of Hitler's playbook, and was his solution before the "final solution" (mass extermination).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're simply uninformed and not actually downplaying nazism. Happy to provide sources for a specific point if you can't find any.

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I thought. The "Nazi salute" was just a cringy rendition of the "my heart goes out to you" thing. I can find dozens of other famous people doing something similar. And the AfD isn't a neo-Nazi group.

As someone who literally grew up next to Auschwitz - the attempts to excuse Elon's Nazi salute as anything but exactly that are just sickening. Those who don't study history are bound to repeat it, indeed. "My heart goes out to you" - a man literally doing a sieg heil. Bloody hell.

I don't see that growing up next to Auschwitz makes you an expert in this area.

It wasn't a Nazi salute, and that should be obvious.

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

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who literally grew up next to Auschwitz - the attempts to excuse Elon's Nazi salute as anything but exactly that are just sickening. Those who don't study history are bound to repeat it, indeed. "My heart goes out to you" - a man literally doing a sieg heil. Bloody hell.

I don't see that growing up next to Auschwitz makes you an expert in this area. It wasn't a Nazi salute, and that should be obvious.

It absolutely is a Nazi salute, and it should be obvious to anyone.

>>I don't see that growing up next to Auschwitz makes you an expert in this area.

Something about being taught about this stuff endlessly at school and seeing it brought up all the time in your immediate neighbourhood makes you recognize when it happens - I guess that's just how it works.

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

#226
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple solutions: block all Starlink terminals that aren’t whitelisted upon entering Russian territory or Ukrainian conflict zones. This will prevent Russians importing Starlink terminals and then deploying them in Ukraine. Work with Ukrainians to whitelist all their terminals.

Which is exactly what they are doing. https://unn.ua/en/news/ukraine-launches-starlink-whitelist-i...

It’s missing the part that any non-whitelisted Starlink terminal entering Russian territory should automatically be blocked.

This would deny all Russians the use of Starlink.

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

#227
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that Russia collusion conspiracy theory rubbish has been debunked.

Yes. For example trump proved it wrong two days ago by /checks notes removing all russian oil sanctions https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/us/politics/trump-russia-...

That article does not say what you (and possibly the author) think it does.

> The United States on Thursday temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil that is currently at sea

This is weird phrasing, and for a reason. Oil at sea has typically already been sold! Lifting sanctions on it does practically nothing.

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

#228

The dual-use problem with Starlink is really just the most visible version of something happening across the military. Phones with civilian GPS chips are increasingly used alongside dedicated mil-spec hardware, simply because the commercial stuff is more usable and gets updated faster. The real strategic question isn't whether Starlink can be weaponized - of course it can - it's what happens when military operations…

> The real strategic question isn't whether Starlink can be weaponized - of course it can - it's what happens when military operations become dependent on commercial infrastructure that a single company controls.

This happens: Why the world's militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2517766-why-the-worlds-...

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that Russia collusion conspiracy theory rubbish has been debunked.

It was effectively quashed but not debunked: https://www.cato.org/blog/mueller-report-faqs https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/ I could go on and on but I don't think it would make a difference. It continues to boggle my mind that the GOP, a party that for all of my life had been an enemy of Russia turned around and embrac…

No it was debunked. It was always a conspiracy theory without evidence. I have read the Mueller report, it says no evidence was found of conspiracy (collusion). I can do better than regurgitating links at you and making handwaving claims about how I could go on and on, I can quote you verbatim passages which say just that.

Where is all that "ample evidence" that Adam Schiff, as chair House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, repeatedly claimed to have seen that provided Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election? He has seen it all, it's an open and shut case, so why did he go so quiet about it? Did Putin get to him too?

Obviously he has nothing and never did.

I've pressed people for specifics about this, and the only "evidence" they have been able to provide is Trump's "Russia if you're listening" speech, which is an obvious joke.

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

#230
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that Russia collusion conspiracy theory rubbish has been debunked.

Yes. For example trump proved it wrong two days ago by /checks notes removing all russian oil sanctions https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/us/politics/trump-russia-...

Did you collude with Putin today by not traveling to Russia to attempt to assassinate him or die trying?

Did Biden collude with Putin by not launching nuclear attack against Russia when he was President?

Did Obama collude with Putin when he secretly transmitted a promise to be "more flexible" with him after his election presumably in return for unspecified favors, then later meekly capitulating to Putin's annexation of Crimea?

Just because somebody does not take the most drastic or damaging action they possibly can against another, does not mean they are colluding with them or sympathizing with them. What an infantile worldview.

Post reply on HN