• takeda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a bullshit excuse used by Melon’s fan boys.

    Whether the technology is restricted by ITAR isn’t based whether it was ever used as a weapon, but whether the US government thinks it can be used as a weapon.

    • AssPennies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And the US government was left scrambling to get a formal contract in for Ukrainian access after Musk started to publicly spout pro kremlin shit. So there’s no way an ITAR argument could fly: the DoD wanted a contract to help ensure starlink availability for fucks sake, especially since Musk proved unreliable and a useful idiot for Putin’s wildest assplay desires.

      • mcgravier@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        46
        ·
        1 year ago

        DoD wanted a contract to help ensure starlink availability for fucks sake

        Contract for civilian use mind you. Strapping starlinks to kamikaze drones is a whole different story

        • YeetPics@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ah yes, the Department of Defense.

          Famous for overseeing many civilian contracts including Netflix accounts, Comcast accounts and my subscription to Highlights magazine (I like the word searches).

    • mcgravier@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      but whether the US government thinks it can be used as a weapon.

      That’s even worse because US government can change it’s stance on starlink any time - which would be disaster for SpaceX