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

91–100 of 263 posts

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

#91

Post by [deleted] »

chhxdjsj wrote: post #86
throwaway5752 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy theories aren't very productive. But the one thing that continues to bother me is how there is no great explanation for why TSLA is still worth much. It's a shrinking car company that is failing to execute at FSD and says it's going to make humanoid robots instead of cars. There is no good reason TSLA should be valued any more than 10% of its current valuation, and even that would be rich. There is a fine…

The vision for the future elon gives us (exploring the stars, human augmentation, advanced AI likely leading to elimination of suffering) is a heaven-like vision in a western world where most people don’t believe in anything much, and many of our leaders and intellectuals are misanthropes who think having kids is selfish. I don’t care what tesla’s quarterly sales are, I’m supporting elon’s vision.

[deleted]

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

#92

Post by throwaway5752 »

chhxdjsj wrote: post #86
throwaway5752 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy theories aren't very productive. But the one thing that continues to bother me is how there is no great explanation for why TSLA is still worth much. It's a shrinking car company that is failing to execute at FSD and says it's going to make humanoid robots instead of cars. There is no good reason TSLA should be valued any more than 10% of its current valuation, and even that would be rich. There is a fine…

The vision for the future elon gives us (exploring the stars, human augmentation, advanced AI likely leading to elimination of suffering) is a heaven-like vision in a western world where most people don’t believe in anything much, and many of our leaders and intellectuals are misanthropes who think having kids is selfish. I don’t care what tesla’s quarterly sales are, I’m supporting elon’s vision.

That vision is a lie, and it's a distraction. It is taking advantage of the emptiness that they themselves created, and now they are making you angry to distract you while they rob you. I sincerely wish you well in life, don't pick the wrong heroes.

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

#93

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rainworld wrote: post #71
echelon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power is power. The US has due process, judicial transparency, and free speech. There are still rich people that operate above the system, but they're largely still accountable and the free press can crucify them. Authoritarian regimes have execution vans, no freedom of the press, no free speech, and a paranoid leadership that will jail or kill anyone who threatens their power. They lock citizens inside and prohibit…

> I'm no fan of the party in power in the US, but I can campaign and speak out against them. I can raise money to oppose them. I can band together with like minded individuals to protest. You can. Just not in any way that matters. And you won’t. Because that takes organization and all existing organizations that matter are captured by the system and novel ones would quickly be. Perfect example: The US just launched a…

> You can. Just not in any way that matters. And you won’t.

I’ve gotten language I wrote passed into state and federal law. The bottom line is a lot of people are too busy, lazy or nihilistic to call their electeds and show up to create political pressure. That’s unfortunate. But it also means that the payoff for relatively small amounts of effort are huge.

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

#94

Post by nine_k »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #89
nine_k wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that Starlink affects nuclear deterrence / the MAD doctrine in any meaningful way. But it does seriously affect "conventional" warfare. And China is rather visibly preparing for a conventional war.

I believe it's exactly that thinking that CSIS was trying to check when they chose to translate and publish this specific article. They are trying to get analysts and policy makers to think through, and make an active decision on if they believe that China will treat military/militarized mega constellations as destabilizing in a nuclear/strategic sense. It's fair to decide that that is not major factor, but it should…

Even the best space comms system does not make your ICBMs invisible to your adversary, and does not allow you to shoot down your adversary's return salvo of ICBMs. Hence the mutually assured destruction is not going away, and the side starting an all-out nuclear war still cannot win. I don't see how anything what's available now changes this; do you?

What might be destabilizing would be long-range hypersonic missiles that fly relatively low (30 km above the surface, not 1000 km), so they can't be easily detected until it's pretty late, and can arrive from multiple directions. This is exactly the kind of weapon that is China apparently developing, BTW.

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

#95

Post by nine_k »

conorcleary wrote: post #82
nine_k wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumer tech "exceeded" military tech when the first consumer-grade FPV drones started destroying tanks and bombing trenches in 2022. Exactly as cyberpunk books predicted, the technology is so advanced that all you need to create a weapon is sold in a toy store.

weren't the first instances of that. you could argue that places like /r/combatfootage are the consumer 'tech' that leads some of this, but it wasn't 2022.

This is footage of a drone strike against personnel in a building from July 2022: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/wbb1yh/ua_su...

This apparently has more footage from 2022: https://www.reddit.com/r/UADroneArchive/comments/11nxhh4/ua_...

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

#96

Post by notepad0x90 »

nradov wrote: post #38
notepad0x90 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're hardly a voice of reason, they criticize the US so everyone rallies around them, but they're just taking advantage of the situation like anyone else would. It's all optics. I think the era of the superpower is already over. They can't build a peaceful relationship with taiwan, it would hurt the PRC if they did that. They need an point of contention for political reasons there, but taiwan has seen what has bec…

BRICS isn't an alliance. They have never agreed on anything significant or taken any meaningful coordinated action.

It is similar to G8, and like I said, they're been building one, I didn't say they're completed the building. But current events are helping with that effort.

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

#97

Post by torginus »

iamtheworstdev wrote: post #61
siliconc0w wrote: post #22

It's not great that they found starlink terminals on Russian drones (they've since tried to lock them down more). These should be export controlled and geo-locked as they are arguably much more powerful than any missile.

Starlink recently implemented new rules for satellites that travel more than 100mph. Service is deactivated unless they have a valid government ID and an aircraft's tail number attached to the account. While both can be faked, you could arguably correlated a provided tail number with ADS-B data because anyone with a Starlink is likely also broadcasting ADS-B. But it also provides a bit of 1:1 correlation on satellite…

I thought Starlink doesn't allow you to move your terminal at all with the basic plan, and there's a premium plan where you can move it, but still can't use it, unless you stop?

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

#98

Post by nradov »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #96
nradov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BRICS isn't an alliance. They have never agreed on anything significant or taken any meaningful coordinated action.

It is similar to G8, and like I said, they're been building one, I didn't say they're completed the building. But current events are helping with that effort.

Nah, they're not building anything. China and India will never agree on substantive issues. South Africa is a failed state and Russia may be headed in the direction. BRICS is a total joke.

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

#99

Post by MarkusQ »

ftth_finland wrote: post #66
wmf wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a meme but for those at home the whole point of a war is to cross over the front line into the opponent's territory and capture it. If your comms are disabled when you cross the front you can't really fight. So "just disable Starlink within Russian territory" does not solve anything.

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...

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

#100

Post by mort96 »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #79
mort96 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Starlink terminal can't know based on only its position which side it's being used by. Equipment is often used in enemy territory.

That is a tiny minority of the use. The vast majority of Russian use has been on Russian controlled land.

Sure. But if you geoblock all use on Russian controlled land, you're also blocking Ukrainian use on Russian controlled land. I have no idea if that would cause issues or not, but it's not that far fetched to imagine it might.
Post reply on HN