Hacker News Reader

Comment by infecto | Hacker News Reader

These kind of conversations are exhausting. I for one don’t know all the details, which I think there are many. I realize it is easy to make a blanket accusation and harder to provide details. Last time I looked this up it was pretty murky. Specifically on your point I believe there was a couple things at play but maybe I am wrong. 1) did not have approval by the state department 2) blanket rule that they could be used but not on weaponry. They were using these with drones to bomb a Russian fleet.

I don’t know what the right answer here is but it would be nice to explore the topic more than “Musk is bad”.

View on HN

> I don’t know what the right answer here is but it would be nice to explore the topic more than “Musk is bad”.

I mean, Musk has been on the vanguard of the "Ukraine's resistance is futile" push. You can call speculation on this line specious, unthinking "Musk is bad" rhetoric, but at some point negative criticism of a person is relevant.

It takes zero imagination to conceive of Musk turning a blind eye to Russia's use of Starlink, it would be consistent with the way he speaks on X/Twitter.

It may seem like bashing, but honestly it's easy to run out of good things to say about some people.

Actually it does take some imagination. As does thinking that somehow starlink does not have to answer to the state department.

My point being that no matter what narrative we want to use for Musk, ultimately there is some accountability to the state department for tools used in war.

> would be nice to explore the topic more than “Musk is bad”

Isaacson’s Starlink claims are muddied.

But Musk has tweeted Kremlin propaganda points, e.g. on its proximate nuclear red lines (which, for the record, we’ve since passed). I blame David Sacks for giving him bad advice. But whatever the reason, it’s fair to question whether this was intentional at some level.

Not to be overly defensive of musk, but musk is currently one of our most major diplomatic point of contact with Russia (SpaceX deal to send up cosmonauts to iss) so it's kind of in the US interest to ask musk to gas up putin a bit. Although I wouldn't find it hard to believe that musk is that clueless, I also have to consider that it might be a diplomatic task.

> musk is currently one of our most major diplomatic point of contact with Russia

Genuinely curious where you’re getting this. For what it’s worth, no, Musk is not a diplomatic contact for anyone in the West with Russia, though there is rising concern he sees himself as such, which leads to him e.g. leaking Ukrainian firing plans to Moscow’s envoys.

> it's kind of in the US interest to ask musk to gas up putin a bit

Not particularly. Though I can see him being used without knowing it.

I am a huge fan of SpaceX and Musk. But while Starlink is hugely relevant to the war, Musk per se is presently between irrelevant and mildly damaging to American interests.

> Genuinely curious where you’re getting this

it's in the text. SpaceX is a provider for Roscosmos. Pretty public knowledge:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-crew-dragon-launch-russi...

It would be crazy for the US state department to NOT use that as some sort of opportunity.

> SpaceX is a provider for Roscosmos..would be crazy for the US state department to NOT use that as some sort of opportunity

Sure. That doesn't make Musk a "major diplomatic contact," nor even a pertinent one (let alone "most major").

Also, these are NASA launches. NASA paid for them and handled the seat swap with Roscosmos [1], though there was no doubt coördination between the latter and Hawthorne.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/its-official-a-russi...

I'm sorry would it be helpful if I said "likely a major diplomatic contact"?

I'm not sure if you're being naive about international politics, obsessively pedantic, or knee jerk argumentative.

Point being if musk goes anti-russia or possibly even neutral-but-following-sanctions-too-carefully we absolutely risk losing the rideshare (diplomatic point of contact, beyond just musk) and upticking the risk of nuclear conflict. And I imagine the state dept. Is aware of this.

> would it be helpful if I said "likely a major diplomatic contact"?

No, this is still wrong.

> being naive about international politics, obsessively pedantic, or knee jerk argumentative

I'm telling you the reality from D.C. Musk is not a diplomatic asset. To the extent he might be, it's indirectly. His contacts in Russia are simply not unique and deep enough to merit that designation. (And the risks of blowback, given his public profile, too high.)

> we absolutely risk losing the rideshare (diplomatic point of contact, beyond just musk)

Roscosmos needs NASA more than the other way now. Due to SpaceX.

> and upticking the risk of nuclear conflict

This is a unique perspective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com