• @takeda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    881 year ago

    That’s a bullshit excuse used by Melon’s fan boys.

    Whether the technology is restricted by ITAR isn’t based whether it was ever used as a weapon, but whether the US government thinks it can be used as a weapon.

    • @AssPennies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      351 year ago

      And the US government was left scrambling to get a formal contract in for Ukrainian access after Musk started to publicly spout pro kremlin shit. So there’s no way an ITAR argument could fly: the DoD wanted a contract to help ensure starlink availability for fucks sake, especially since Musk proved unreliable and a useful idiot for Putin’s wildest assplay desires.

      • mcgravier
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        DoD wanted a contract to help ensure starlink availability for fucks sake

        Contract for civilian use mind you. Strapping starlinks to kamikaze drones is a whole different story

        • Flying Squid
          link
          fedilink
          391 year ago

          Why would the DoD negotiate a contract for civilian use? That’s not their job.

        • @YeetPics@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          17
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ah yes, the Department of Defense.

          Famous for overseeing many civilian contracts including Netflix accounts, Comcast accounts and my subscription to Highlights magazine (I like the word searches).

    • mcgravier
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      but whether the US government thinks it can be used as a weapon.

      That’s even worse because US government can change it’s stance on starlink any time - which would be disaster for SpaceX