> That said, depending on a single piece of tech is not a good idea
Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure is not a good idea either.
Yes and putting a CEO of a tech company in command of strategic infrastructure is not a good idea either.
The U.S. government and the Pentagon own and control Starshield,
You can't nationalize another country's business, especially when their assets are floating in space disconnectes entirely from your country.
If they want to regulate it, they need to build it first. Ukraine has no ability to regulate Starlink. It's not theirs to regulate.
But the United States has that level of control and Musk is either using it to benefit putin or he's using it to benefit trump. Both of these could be fixed and could be fixed in relatively short order if there was the will to do so.
The rest of your comment is just restating the obvious so I won't respond to that.
the EU is a HUGE market that Musk will not want to piss off and loose ...
They don't really have a leg to stand on.
What point is there in trying to get sources to leak things when decisions are made at the top on a whim, versus policy options being analyzed video position papers and reports.
It's the same as the current White House: there's no point in trying to cultivate sources as decisions come from one place, with no consensus seeking, often in the middle of the night, and can be changed a few hours later.
What's so radical about this anyway?
Starshield is litteraly a US gov project which this is about. Not the public network at all. The title is clickbait honestly.
They use both.
And it's not uncommon, many public utilities may be operated by companies but they are bound by laws and regulations.
Maybe he bought Twitter for access to data to train bots to stroke his own ego.