U.S. billionaire Elon Musk has agreed to sell a portion of Starlink assets to the U.S. Department of Defense, removing himself from decision-making regarding geofencing Ukraine’s access to the satellite internet service
Somebody had some REAL uncomfortable conversations over the past 7 days, richest man in the world got threatened so hard knocked his dick in the dirt, ahahahahahahaha
“Here is every illegal thing you’ve done since you were conceived, including the ones in countries that the US has an extradition agreement with. Also, here is how much we will pay you to be our bitch. Would you like to continue this discussion?”
Musk says that he never had turned Starlink on in Crimea, but had denied Ukraine's request to turn it on. But that doesn't add up. Why would Ukraine go through with the attack if the request was denied, as the Musk says it was? It is just more plausible that Musk cut off service, causing the marine drones to flounder and wash up onshore in Crimea.
I wonder how this is portioned out? To be completely hands free, Musk would need to sell a portion of his fleet and the control systems that operate it. This would also include relaunching replacement satellites. Since this is an orbiting system (not geostationary) he’d have to sell enough in a band around the earth to keep Ukraine covered.
After hearing of the story I wondered if Elon could be charged under Ukrainian law as some sort of accomplice / aid to enemy operations and potentially detained and extradited by a country more actively supportive of anti-Russian operations should Elon go on vacation to such a country. (do I have to say Poland? Because I’m thinking Poland.)
Did Starlink and SpaceX not already receive a lot of government funding for their rockets etc? You could argue that the taxpayers should own x% because they paid the bill for it…
He can’t be court martialed, and he can’t be convicted of treason either. He isn’t a member of the military and Russia is not officially an enemy of America. To put it into perspective, even in the Cold War, when the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage for giving the Soviet Union information on radar, sonar, jet propulsion, and nuclear secrets, they still weren’t convicted of treason, because technically the USSR was not an enemy of America, which historically has been interpreted as “Congress has actually declared war on them” something we haven’t done since WW2. If you were to look up a list of people convicted of treason in America you will note it largely stops after 1945.
And that is a very good thing, especially from the perspective that many nations still consider mild criticism of the head of state treason.
He can, however, suddenly be subjected to much, much more scrutiny than even an actually innocent person would be comfortable with for interfering with American… “Interests.”
This is the way. Musk should never have had such responsibility. Then again, perhaps due to not being a government official, he got those things into Ukraine pretty fast (just 8 days after Russia started the invasion!), and they were successfully used in many places.
I didn’t say they lost them, I said they couldn’t account for them: they were audited a bunch of times and failed by billions every time, probably for the reason you mentioned AND because they get so much money that they don’t feel a need to make an effort to track it all
Not usually, but due to decades of successful gaslighting and other propaganda, the military is a holy cow that gets ridiculous amounts of leeway compared to everyone else, especially the people who need government assistance the most.
Simply seizing his shit would trigger a hostile response from the world's most powerful people, realising that the government could easily do the same to them.
Don't underestimate what they can do. We've already seen one particularly moronic specimen try to seize power in the Capitol Riots and almost succeed. Imagine if it was led by someone competent who could put armed mercenaries in the crowd
You do realise there are a million different approaches in between 'total appeasement' and 'total seizure', yes?
We do with them what they do with the rest of the population; give them just about enough that it doesn't look like a raw deal to people outside this deal, in exchange for taking away their power to destabilise countries. Meanwhile, set up an execution plan for if they step out of line.
Individually, they can still be a danger (see Donald Trump) but you do not want to see these people coordinate.
Sounds like it’s time to “set condition 1SQ” on some civilians who think they can get away with that. Literally and unironically, I welcome the order to fucking launch. Or do it smaller scale and send a few flying razors through windows like with the Iranian general, except through penthouse windows and estates. Then keep going with all their relations and relatives and acquaintences. Hooyah. That’s one battle stations missile I wouldn’t mind rigging ship for.
Maybe because it's easier. There are probably quite a few steps before the US government can just take your shit. Don't think the Americans are very huge fans of nationalisation and the government just taking from the rich.
And yet, empirically, they bought, not seized it, which was the distinct point of the question. Even with all he did, pressuring him to sell was the thing they did.
Most of the drafters owned no slaves. Regardless of the source of the document, generally discussion of government focus around the law. I guess if we’re ignoring the law, sure a populist totalitarian government can do whatever you want. There’s not much to discuss then.
Personally, I’m a fan of the rule of law. I guess even if there wasn’t a specific law, I would still want to respect unalienable human rights anyway though.
Personally, I’m a fan of the rule of law. I guess even if there wasn’t a specific law, I would still want to respect unalienable human rights anyway though.
We're probably closer in opinion than you think, but I don't think billionaires have an "inalienable right" to the stolen efforts of workers.
Add comment