Again. The US government is not the Ukrainian government.
The most painful thing the government could do would be to sanction Musk and his companies for taking actions counter to US foreign policy prerogatives, but then Musk would just pull the plug on Starlink altogether. So nothing will be done.
Seeing as musk could unilaterally act in a fashion contrary to US foreign policy, in the interest of national security the government should take control of the company then.
Obviously that would be an extreme step but... how bad would that get?
That's basically a variant of eminent domain, but I suspect it would be a hard case to argue. Ukraine chose to use Starlink, and the US governments power to invoke eminent domain is based on the common good provided to the US public via the seized property. It's arguable whether the US public would see much if any value from the US government running Starlink unless they're going to start providing free service to US citizens. There's also the problem that there are plenty of other options that don't require seizing of property.
The US could just nationalise it. SpaceX is basically running on government money anyway, just fold it into NASA.
NASA is basically being forced by Congress to funnel SLS program money into select contractors against NASA's own assessments. I don't think you want any of their hands near SpaceX if you want it to stay operational.
Also no. Americans do not legally owe any loyalty to the Ukrainian government.
as EU members but somehow, they decided to mess with Russia and we, EU citizen, were taken in this sh*.
As an EU citizen, I fully support EU's "messing" with Russia to support Ukraine, and I thank our NATO allies for keeping us "in this sh*".
HAHA, nobody would say that, NO ONE except maybe if you have a relative in UA, still...
It's easy to argue on internet but IRL, this pseudo unconditional support does not exist.
Nope, he wasn't trying to overthrow the government of country he is a citizen of. He could be considered a non state actor though.
Enemy combatant? I’m running out of words here?
The Ukrainians can certainly call him that.
Notable examples of Non State Actors are: Blackwater(American security company) Wagner (Russian).
Weird "enemy" who's actively supporting 99% of one's war efforts.
By that rule of thumb, would the US be an "enemy" for being reluctant to supply latest gen weaponry to Ukraine?
Are you compelled by neurodiversity to be pedantic? Or do you just enjoy it?
How is the difference between "supporting in almost everything" vs. "attacking", a pedantic one?
Hold on. I’m not criticizing. I’m just curious. I’ve done it myself. I’m just curious about what leads us to be this way. Is it the need for details and facts, or does it concern communication in social media spaces?
Hm? If you mean why do we participate in discussions, personally my main goal is to learn (unless I get triggered by some stupidity... but I'm trying not to). Looking for details is an effective way to find differences between points of view, which means reviewing one's own, and comparing them to someone else's. Sometimes I can learn about myself, sometimes about someone else, sometimes about an actual fact. Either is fine by me. [disassembly reveals useful pathways...]
There are other uses for social media, other ways of communication. I'm not a fan of witch hunting though, or mob mentality, so that leaves either education, emotional support, or just goofing off.
This post in particular, I think only works for discussions or witch hunting, and I refuse to take part in the latter, so... 🤷
Thanks, this platform benefits from people like you
Sedition?
Again. The US government is not the Ukrainian government.
The most painful thing the government could do would be to sanction Musk and his companies for taking actions counter to US foreign policy prerogatives, but then Musk would just pull the plug on Starlink altogether. So nothing will be done.
Seeing as musk could unilaterally act in a fashion contrary to US foreign policy, in the interest of national security the government should take control of the company then.
Obviously that would be an extreme step but... how bad would that get?
That's basically a variant of eminent domain, but I suspect it would be a hard case to argue. Ukraine chose to use Starlink, and the US governments power to invoke eminent domain is based on the common good provided to the US public via the seized property. It's arguable whether the US public would see much if any value from the US government running Starlink unless they're going to start providing free service to US citizens. There's also the problem that there are plenty of other options that don't require seizing of property.
The US could just nationalise it. SpaceX is basically running on government money anyway, just fold it into NASA.
NASA is basically being forced by Congress to funnel SLS program money into select contractors against NASA's own assessments. I don't think you want any of their hands near SpaceX if you want it to stay operational.
Also no. Americans do not legally owe any loyalty to the Ukrainian government.
as EU members but somehow, they decided to mess with Russia and we, EU citizen, were taken in this sh*.
As an EU citizen, I fully support EU's "messing" with Russia to support Ukraine, and I thank our NATO allies for keeping us "in this sh*".
HAHA, nobody would say that, NO ONE except maybe if you have a relative in UA, still...
It's easy to argue on internet but IRL, this pseudo unconditional support does not exist.
Nope, he wasn't trying to overthrow the government of country he is a citizen of. He could be considered a non state actor though.
Enemy combatant? I’m running out of words here?
The Ukrainians can certainly call him that.
Notable examples of Non State Actors are: Blackwater(American security company) Wagner (Russian).
Weird "enemy" who's actively supporting 99% of one's war efforts.
By that rule of thumb, would the US be an "enemy" for being reluctant to supply latest gen weaponry to Ukraine?
Are you compelled by neurodiversity to be pedantic? Or do you just enjoy it?
How is the difference between "supporting in almost everything" vs. "attacking", a pedantic one?
Hold on. I’m not criticizing. I’m just curious. I’ve done it myself. I’m just curious about what leads us to be this way. Is it the need for details and facts, or does it concern communication in social media spaces?
Hm? If you mean why do we participate in discussions, personally my main goal is to learn (unless I get triggered by some stupidity... but I'm trying not to). Looking for details is an effective way to find differences between points of view, which means reviewing one's own, and comparing them to someone else's. Sometimes I can learn about myself, sometimes about someone else, sometimes about an actual fact. Either is fine by me. [disassembly reveals useful pathways...]
There are other uses for social media, other ways of communication. I'm not a fan of witch hunting though, or mob mentality, so that leaves either education, emotional support, or just goofing off.
This post in particular, I think only works for discussions or witch hunting, and I refuse to take part in the latter, so... 🤷
Thanks, this platform benefits from people like you