Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw73737 | Hacker News Reader

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!

View on HN

> 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