Comment by Ancapistani | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ancapistani | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Why Starlink does not have such limitations?

Who is to say it doesn't? At least some GPS receivers have those limitations set in firmware, and it's not too difficult to modify the firmware to change those values.

> I find it very hard to argue Starlink is not a military technology!

Sure it is. It's clearly "dual use", at least to some degree.

Not all dual use technologies are export controlled. For that matter, not all strictly military tech is export controlled. The legal/regulatory environment is designed to prevent potential adversaries from bridging the divide between their current capabilities and ours.

I could definitely see it being reasonable to place Starlink in that regulatory bucket, but it isn't necessarily a good idea. While it's convenient for long-distance communications, if there are alternatives that can serve the same use cases with similar investment (cost and complexity) then restricting it wouldn't really help anyone.

> At least its satellites are low, so debris wont stay on orbit forever!

I agree, but don't really see how it's relevant here.

>and it's not too difficult to modify the firmware to change those values

as in impossible. Either you feed Starlink terminal firmware real coordinates or you lose downlink beam sync. Since you feed it real coordinates mothership knows where terminal is at all times = knows its speed, direction and where it came from.

With military technology, I did not meant US export controls, but other countries. Any weapon used by an enemy is a fair game.

What would happen if US went to war with Iran, and Iran would destroy Starlink constellation?

They already have rockets that reach such heights, and Kessler cascade effect would destroy all satellites on LEO!

Couple that with undersea optical cable disruption... We have global communication blackout!

I really feel we need stronger separation for military/non military infrastructure!

> US went to war with Iran, and Iran would destroy Starlink constellation?

> They already have rockets that reach such heights, and Kessler cascade effect would destroy all satellites on LEO!

Then that would be a very convenient MAD threat for Iran, such that the US wouldn't do that.

But it would only be a thing they could reach for if they felt there was an existential threat: If Iran survived it would be on the hook for all the damage it caused in space due to the Space Liability Convention, which it has ratified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Liability_Convention

Why would Iran pay anything? If USA decides to launch unprovoked full scale invasion, they have a right to defend themselves!

And US army could not even conquer Afghanistan after 20 years. There is no way they would win.

> Why would Iran pay anything? If USA decides to launch unprovoked full scale invasion, they have a right to defend themselves!

I already told you why: They ratified a treaty saying so.

(Also: 'unprovoked'? The US isn't seeking reasons for that right now, even currently trying to lower tensions between them and Israel, and the two even had a brief period where they agreed to stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework)

Furthermore, the right to self defence doesn't give countries free reign to do anything, it has to be done with consideration to the harms done to non-combatants, both in the sense of "civilians" and "neutral countries".

> And US army could not even conquer Afghanistan after 20 years. There is no way they would win.

They conquored Afghanistan in a few months; they didn't want to run the place, so they tried to build a democracy. That didn't do what they were expecting, but it doesn't matter if the threat is "does XYZ have nukes and ICBMs?"

In a few months US will have an anti-islamic version of Putin. He is the one who withdrew from treaties you linked.

> consideration to the harms done to non-combatants, both in the sense of "civilians" and "neutral countries".

Knocking down Starlink is perfect version of no-harms strike. Nobody dies, only person negative affected is Musk and some techno bros.

I'm here. I'll be affected along with 4 million others

> In a few months US will have an anti-islamic version of Putin

With 45% probability, assuming he isn't assassinated.

The tie with Musk would make your hypothetical very convenient for Iran as an empty threat though, so there's that.

> Nobody dies

Loads of people die from communication failures.

More importantly, this would only even be a threat if it could actually cause a kessler cascade, because there's too many Starlink satellites to target directly even if you own SpaceX.

This matters because such a cascade will also mess up everything else in close orbits regardless of nationality.

It's like hypothesising someone might use CFCs as a chemical weapon: sure, if they want to make enemies with basically everyone all at the same time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com