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).

[–] AlfredEinstein@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

At this point it makes the most sense for the US government to sieze Starlink as a military asset. Cut out the little man.

[–] Promethiel@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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