US government tells Elon to do this.
Elon says no, I won’t build actual weapons.
US government nationalises SpaceX.
Now SpaceX is as effective as the US government (ie not at all) and can no longer produce anything useful.
China wins. The end.
There is simply no need to.
a) Mr Musk is unlikely to say no.
b) SpaceX won't be building "actual weapons" just ... ah, "payload delivery systems for the military"
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department."
says Wernher von BraunOT: He ends with "[I can launch in] German and English, and am learning Chinese.. " - even 75 years ago it was understood by many that the upcoming superpower is China and not Russia.
I'm sure that this applies to Mr Musk as well.
Specifically Mr Musk has met on good terms with the administrations of both of last 2 US presidents. He's not taking sides or avoiding anyone on some principle.
That's why I think he would not say no to a big US government (military) contract.
Mr Musk is a multi-billionaire. In the US system that class does not pledge allegiance to a political party, rather the other way around.
Russian Oligarchs are "made" by the ruling party, and owe their wealth entirely to that. The US system is, however, more flexible in which way the loyalty flows.
For "Oligarch" outside of the compound "Russian Oligarch" - you tell me who matches, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say above.
Look, if the question is "is Roman Abramovich a Russian Oligarch" then the obvious answer is "of course, yes" Check the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs
This _describes_ how the term is used.
As I understand it, the "Russian Oligarchs" aren't allowed to question the power of Mr Putin and his circle. Outside of that, they're free to do what they want.
This doesn't meet your prescriptive technical definition?: Ok, well done. Cool. No-one cares.
Also as I understand it, definitions are as much descriptive of common language usage as they are prescriptive of what you can "really call" that (1). Perhaps more descriptive than prescriptive: You know what I mean by "Russian Oligarchs", so does everyone else. Nit-picking otherwise is pointless, the agreed usage us not captured by the definition.
You may say "they aren't _really_ oligarchs" and I shrug. Sure, it seem that you care about that distinction. I know I don't. Again, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say. Do not derail the topic.
1) https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials...
I think what was said was used to denote that he will comply with State mandates in regards to what the DoD may need; moreover SpaceX and Tesla are big proponents of hiring Veterans and have several in key positions.
It's sad reality, but people need to realize that aerospsace has and will likely remain an appendage of the military; it's an incredibly patriotic, borderline nationalistic, Industry: ITAR compliance of any and all workers in aerospace being critical for weeding out possible threats to the Industry is one critical reason why it's there.
With that said, Musk is doing business with the CCP in China. I'm wondering that if in time it will be a bigger threat that they demand they breach his security in order to retain his company and not be nationalized.
My opinion: The US DoD can just use continue to use Raytheon or Boeing to make all the murder-devices they need, there is really no need to have SpaceX involved at this point.
Then why don't you clarify things?