Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

[dphantom]

Elon made the very best decision possible. The expectation anyone could coerce a USA private entity into engaging in war with a State in an overt act of war is reprehensible. Those who think Elon should have done such should be tried for subversion or even treason and subject if convicted to the very harshest punishment.

 

[Leeea]

Even if ATACMS has an anti-shipping role under what scenario do you see the USA putting ATACMS in Taiwan prior to a PRC attack?

The same one where the US rushed weapons to Ukraine just prior to Russia attacking Ukraine.

Remember the plane loads unloading in Kyiv full of armaments? The US was just gifting everything at that point just prior to the invasion.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Muskrat is already in a war, up to his extendable Martian antennae.

 

[Brainonska511]

Elon made the very best decision possible. The expectation anyone could coerce a USA private entity into engaging in war with a State in an overt act of war is reprehensible. Those who think Elon should have done such should be tried for subversion or even treason and subject if convicted to the very harshest punishment.

SpaceX isn't engaging in a war. Do you think we should run missions by Lockheed Martin before we use planes made by them?

 

[cytg111]

I don’t know - he certainly sounds like a native English speaker to me. I think he might just be a useful idiot.

Yea he was the same idiot back in 2014 when Crimea happened.

 

[dphantom]

SpaceX isn't engaging in a war. Do you think we should run missions by Lockheed Martin before we use planes made by them?

Logic is not your strong suite.

 

[kage69]

Elon made the very best decision possible. The expectation anyone could coerce a USA private entity into engaging in war with a State in an overt act of war is reprehensible. Those who think Elon should have done such should be tried for subversion or even treason and subject if convicted to the very harshest punishment.

So you are completely ignorant of what constitutes coercion, subversion and treason. Hat trick.

Compelling argument as usual phantom. Brief, but pointless.

I'm sure you're just distracted, just so happy to see the insurrectionists of 1/6 face the music and all.

 

[Perknose]

Elon made the very best decision possible. The expectation anyone could coerce a USA private entity into engaging in war with a State in an overt act of war is reprehensible. Those who think Elon should have done such should be tried for subversion or even treason and subject if convicted to the very harshest punishment.

Overt act of war? What the fuck are you on about? They were already AT war, a invasion of their sovereign territory started by the imperialist terrorist state of Russia. Ukraine was already using Starlink to DEFEND themselves. Taking out naval assest used to hurl missles that killed Ukrainian civilians and vital Ukrainian infrastructure would have been yet another preemptive act of defense of their country.

 

[Puffnstuff]

It’s good, but giving them a dozen isn’t meaningful and I worry that’s what Biden will do. A hundred a month would be more like it.

They need enough to cleanse Crimea of the scourge that besieges it.

 

[brycejones]

Logic is not your strong suite.

Every accusation is a confession

 

[dphantom]

Overt act of war? What the fuck are you on about? They were already AT war, a invasion of their sovereign territory started by the imperialist terrorist state of Russia. Ukraine was already using Starlink to DEFEND themselves. Taking out naval assest used to hurl missles that killed Ukrainian civilians and vital Ukrainian infrastructure would have been yet another preemptive act of defense of their country.

You should calm down and engage in discussion. If you actually understood what I said and the reason Musk did not allow an extension of Starlink to a place it is not currently available, I believe you would at least grasp why he did what he did. You may still disagree but at least you could generate a coherent response rather than the tirade you are known for.

UKR with likely tacit approval of US asked Musk to provide Starlink coverage over Crimea where it is not currently available for UKR use in an act of war. This means a foreign state actor is demanding a private US entity actively participate in an act of aggression against another foreign state actor.

Bryce above fails to understand the difference here. His example of Lockheed fails on logic grounds. Lockheed builds military equipment and sells to US (and others). Starlink is proivately owned. The key failure of Bryce and others is that Starlink is privately owned. Now if UKR or other state bought Starlink and owned the product in its entirety, then that State could do what it wants with its property as in the case of Lockheed building an airplane and then selling it to the US. I do not believe UKR owns Starlink so his example fails.

Again, that does not appear to be the case here. IIRC, Musk made Starlink available to UKR gratis early on in the war. If UKR military is also using it, then if Starlink is withdrawn at Musks sole discretion since UKR does not own the Starlink network, then UKR is out of luck. I think that would be wrong but could see Musk doing that if his product is used in a way that furthers a war that needs to be ended.

At any rate, I rarely make any such long post trying to help others rationally understand a point of view different from their own. I know you would rather simply censor content you do not like but I hope you take this brief missive and find a way to be more productive in your respoinses in the future.

Moderator callouts are not allowed

esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Ajay]

Elon made the very best decision possible. The expectation anyone could coerce a USA private entity into engaging in war with a State in an overt act of war is reprehensible. Those who think Elon should have done such should be tried for subversion or even treason and subject if convicted to the very harshest punishment.

It would be the US gov't doing the 'coercion' not 'anyone'. Hence, the Federal gov't has legal rights over companies if they are deemed necessary to defend our country or any other friendly nation we choose to help. So, you can write your house and senatorial representatives and express your displeasure if you would like. But you are incorrect wrt to "expectations'.

 

[fskimospy]

You should calm down and engage in discussion. If you actually understood what I said and the reason Musk did not allow an extension of Starlink to a place it is not currently available, I believe you would at least grasp why he did what he did. You may still disagree but at least you could generate a coherent response rather than the tirade you are known for.

UKR with likely tacit approval of US asked Musk to provide Starlink coverage over Crimea where it is not currently available for UKR use in an act of war. This means a foreign state actor is demanding a private US entity actively participate in an act of aggression against another foreign state actor.

Bryce above fails to understand the difference here. His example of Lockheed fails on logic grounds. Lockheed builds military equipment and sells to US (and others). Starlink is proivately owned. The key failure of Bryce and others is that Starlink is privately owned. Now if UKR or other state bought Starlink and owned the product in its entirety, then that State could do what it wants with its property as in the case of Lockheed building an airplane and then selling it to the US. I do not believe UKR owns Starlink so his example fails.

Again, that does not appear to be the case here. IIRC, Musk made Starlink available to UKR gratis early on in the war. If UKR military is also using it, then if Starlink is withdrawn at Musks sole discretion since UKR does not own the Starlink network, then UKR is out of luck. I think that would be wrong but could see Musk doing that if his product is used in a way that furthers a war that needs to be ended.

At any rate, I rarely make any such long post trying to help others rationally understand a point of view different from their own. I know you would rather simply censor content you do not like but I hope you take this brief missive and find a way to be more productive in your respoinses in the future.

Ukraine uses and has always used starlink for overt acts of war against Russia and this has been explicitly acknowledged by Musk.

Did you not know this?

 

[Ajay]

My 'X' account is only showing about half the normal number of the Ukrainian-Russo war post. Weird.

 

[cytg111]

Holy Shit. I mean I knew Alex Jones was fucked in the head but…

Alex Jones compares U.S. to 9/11 hijackers on Russian TV

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has peddled further misinformation in a interview with Vladimir Solovyov.

www.newsweek.com

 

[kage69]

Bravo Sweden, and thank you Germany. Great to see Ukraine now has an alternative for goods and services apart from those of pathological liar and Space Karen Musk. Performance might not be the same, but they will still be of enormous help.

100 Satcube terminals on the way

"Ukraine will receive satellite communications aid from the Swedish company Satcube. It will send around 100 of its portable satellite internet terminals to Ukraine, the company’s CEO, Jakob Kallmer, told Swedish media. Germany will fund the aid. It will bolster Ukraine’s internet connection, including in the military, in addition to already used Starlink terminals."

Having only a single source for a critical service is a problem. Good to see Ukraine landing some extra capacity and redundancy, while avoiding the headache of more emotional poseurs being involved. Kyiv will have no issues with the Swedes regarding Ukrainian self-defense.

 

[K1052]

I think we need to consider the strong likelihood that Isaacson is not impartial and may be twisting (perhaps inventing whole cloth) facts at his subject's encouragement. The "Elon probably prevented a major war" ass kissing at the end is an egregious touch.

Elon should release his comms with the Russians to help us sort things out lol.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700483178371133577

 

[Jaskalas]

ATACMS are long range supersonic ship killers. On a mobile, airliftable, easy to hide launcher. They are needed for Taiwan and the pacific islands.

I suggest we start mass production.
World War is here. We must arm ourselves for the death and destruction our enemies are both planning and executing.
It is not our choice. War is upon us whether we will it or not. All we can do is but chose our response.

 

[IronWing]

I am unconvinced either way at the moment. I know classic tankies and even they are just pretty much quiet about Ukraine. I'd think that to put that much effort into supporting Putin you either need to be in an information vacuum or being paid for it.

I still think he's Chinese, not Russian.

 

[IronWing]

You should calm down and engage in discussion. If you actually understood what I said and the reason Musk did not allow an extension of Starlink to a place it is not currently available, I believe you would at least grasp why he did what he did. You may still disagree but at least you could generate a coherent response rather than the tirade you are known for.

UKR with likely tacit approval of US asked Musk to provide Starlink coverage over Crimea where it is not currently available for UKR use in an act of war. This means a foreign state actor is demanding a private US entity actively participate in an act of aggression against another foreign state actor.

Bryce above fails to understand the difference here. His example of Lockheed fails on logic grounds. Lockheed builds military equipment and sells to US (and others). Starlink is proivately owned. The key failure of Bryce and others is that Starlink is privately owned. Now if UKR or other state bought Starlink and owned the product in its entirety, then that State could do what it wants with its property as in the case of Lockheed building an airplane and then selling it to the US. I do not believe UKR owns Starlink so his example fails.

Again, that does not appear to be the case here. IIRC, Musk made Starlink available to UKR gratis early on in the war. If UKR military is also using it, then if Starlink is withdrawn at Musks sole discretion since UKR does not own the Starlink network, then UKR is out of luck. I think that would be wrong but could see Musk doing that if his product is used in a way that furthers a war that needs to be ended.

At any rate, I rarely make any such long post trying to help others rationally understand a point of view different from their own. I know you would rather simply censor content you do not like but I hope you take this brief missive and find a way to be more productive in your respoinses in the future.

You make a strong case to nationalize StarLink until a suitable replacement can be deployed.

 

[zinfamous]

Elon made the very best decision possible. The expectation anyone could coerce a USA private entity into engaging in war with a State in an overt act of war is reprehensible. Those who think Elon should have done such should be tried for subversion or even treason and subject if convicted to the very harshest punishment.

are you allowed to post from prison?

 

[zinfamous]

Holy Shit. I mean I knew Alex Jones was fucked in the head but…

Alex Jones compares U.S. to 9/11 hijackers on Russian TV

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has peddled further misinformation in a interview with Vladimir Solovyov.

www.newsweek.com

It's understandable that he's a billionaire because we have our very own dphantoms and brandonbulls and tajs and compuwizs, et al, that quite clearly swallow his supplements down as if they were liters of cum from the very mushroom dick of DJ Trump.

 

[zinfamous]

You should calm down and engage in discussion. If you actually understood what I said and the reason Musk did not allow an extension of Starlink to a place it is not currently available, I believe you would at least grasp why he did what he did. You may still disagree but at least you could generate a coherent response rather than the tirade you are known for.

if this was a legitimate concern of his, then he wouldn't engage SpaceX as a defense contractor for the US, which it very much is. He's about to find out, quite hard, I think.

You should stop and ask yourself why Elon engages so dishonestly with the public like this, because it's almost certain that he understands any success that he has in life is at the behest of the US government. He is almost entirely owned by the US. You understand this, right?

Then again, you aren't really a legitimate person so you probably see a kindred spirit in raging cvnts like Elon.

 

[Artorias]

If the US military has any sense they would terminate all contracts related to Musk's companies immediately.

Hopefully Musk has already been on every watchlist imaginable, this guy isn't very far away from committing treason which would hopefully get him deported.

 

[you2]

Elon made the very best decision possible. The expectation anyone could coerce a USA private entity into engaging in war with a State in an overt act of war is reprehensible. Those who think Elon should have done such should be tried for subversion or even treason and subject if convicted to the very harshest punishment.

He sold a service then stuck his nose into something that was none of his business.