US threatens Europe over Starlink restrictions

Posted by mraniki 3 days ago

Comments

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

Seems to me that Starlink is de facto an organ of the US government at this point. Should just be nationalized so a demonstrably unstable foreigner doesn't control something of such vital importance.

Comment by DennisP 3 days ago

The Starshield portion of Starlink is already controlled by the government. It was Starshield that restricted access to Ukraine, and the decision reportedly came from the White House.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/order-limit-starshield-...

OP's article of course is about spectrum allocation in the US and potential trade retaliation, which isn't all that related to Musk's control of Starlink.

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

Current reporting is that Musk approached the White House with the idea of slowing down Starshield.

And the situation here is that Musk's instability is causing Europe to want to not depend on Starlink, and by extension not depend on the US. So now we're using other organs of the state to essentially coerce them into using a system that is de facto controlled by an unstable foreigner, but is part of the US defense apparatus.

Comment by alpha_squared 3 days ago

That is what sources told The Telegraph[0]

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/16/musk-appro...

Comment by DennisP 1 day ago

Wall Street Journal is now reporting that Musk ordered the restriction.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/10/20/trump-musk-starlink-ukra...

Comment by miohtama 3 days ago

It was cut off, not slowed. Maybe Musk tried to lessen the impact of raging Cheetos?

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

I think "slowed down" is a strange description of what happened, which is that it was cut off above a certain speed limit. As in a terminal physically traveling faster than (IIRC) 100 miles per hour would shut off.

Comment by throw0101a 3 days ago

Perhaps also worth noting that Starlink is used only for defensive purposes, specifically against "Shahed" drones, which have top speeds of 340 km/h (210 mph). Restricting the speed is effectively helping Putin/Russia murder civilians.

Comment by dzhiurgis 3 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

What? I genuinely don't understand your theory. Can you re-state it?

It seems like you're saying the reporting "Elon Musk approaches White House with proposal to add travel speed limit to Starshield in Ukraine, which severely degrades Ukrainian defense" cannot possibly be because Musk and/or the White House want to damage Ukraine?

Comment by dzhiurgis 3 days ago

Are you taking the telegraph reporting seriously?

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

Oh! I get it.

Musk didn’t do this, therefore the reporting is wrong.

The reporting is wrong, therefore Musk didn’t do this.

We don’t even need countervailing evidence. The whole perfect circular structure is right there for all to see.

Makes total sense!

Comment by estearum 21 hours ago

Wall Street Journal is now reporting that not only did Musk SUGGEST doing this, but he actually did it himself and then spoke with POTUS after the fact.

Ready to update your priors?

Comment by Lio 3 days ago

> and the decision reportedly came from the White House.

That looks like outdated information. The request to slow Starshield came directly from Musk.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/16/musk-appro...

Comment by thisislife2 3 days ago

Which sounds more plausible - that Musk is able to bypass the US government to do whatever he wants with Starshield in Ukraine or that the US administration did this to comply with Trump's wishes to remind the Ukrainians that they are dependent on the US and cannot ignore the wishes of the US President?

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

Nothing says Musk bypassed the government. The currently reported story is that Musk (presumably seeing Trump was throwing in his lot with Russia), approached the White House with an idea, and the White House agreed to it.

Comment by jjav 3 days ago

> The Starshield portion of Starlink is already controlled by the government.

How do you suggest this is implemented, in a way that Musk has no way to control it?

Comment by 3 days ago

Comment by CamperBob2 3 days ago

Should just be nationalized so a demonstrably unstable foreigner doesn't control something of such vital importance.

Yes, clearly a demonstrably unstable chief executive is the right man for the job.

Comment by lincon127 22 hours ago

If not just to get out of the hands of an unstable corp, then at least to distance it from an unstable man...

Not that the US government is much better. Maybe they should wait 20 years before that, after they go through their looming depression. You always get half decent policy after a depression.

Comment by gonight 3 days ago

The idea of a drug addicted undocumented immigrant being in charge of our space program and sat comms does seem incredibly unwise.

Comment by usrnm 3 days ago

Wait till you hear about Wernher von Braun

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

Oh god did he disrupt active US/allied military operations?

Comment by usrnm 3 days ago

Dude, he was a literal German Nazi, the weapons he made were killing US and allied soldiers and civilians during the WWII

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

Wait you mean he was doing that while he was employed by or claimed loyalty to the US?

That’s crazy. We didn’t charge him with treason?

Comment by CrimsonRain 3 days ago

who stopped you from catching rockets and sending up thousands of sats? can only rage and take, never make. Typical.

Comment by lincon127 22 hours ago

People still defending Musk in 2026 is something I would have only expected from Y Combinator news and their lackeys. So congrats on marking that square for a day.

Comment by mcphage 3 days ago

Not everybody inherits millions of dollars from daddy.

Comment by skeledrew 3 days ago

TBF he didn't waste it. He did stuff that continually surprised the public, and the world is generally better off for it. No comment on his politics.

Comment by throw0101a 3 days ago

> He did stuff that continually surprised the public, and the world is generally better off for it. No comment on his politics.

How does the good things he may have done commercially weighed against his help and support to get Trump getting elected a second time? Is "the world generally better off" with Trump in Whitehouse now?

Comment by skeledrew 3 days ago

As I said, can't comment on his politics. And Trump would've been in regardless IMO. What I can say is I've been a very happy user of Starlink since I bought my kit a few years ago (other internet solutions in my area are crap in comparison), and Musk made it happen. And there's still nobody else close even today.

Comment by mcphage 3 days ago

I never said he wasted it. The person I responded to said “why don’t you do what he did”.

Comment by CrimsonRain 2 days ago

If you can't do it (create massive progress for society), don't complain when someone else does it.

Comment by gavin-1 3 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by tormeh 3 days ago

Unfortunately Trump is worse than Musk. And it's Trump who's to blame for the Ukraine speed restrictions.

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

Current reporting is that Musk approached the White House with the idea. Of course in reality the White House holds all ultimate responsibility, but that doesn't mean Musk is without guilt (especially if he proposed the idea for... some reason...?)

Comment by thisislife2 3 days ago

Why should Musk feel guilty about an administration's decision that he has no influence over?

Comment by estearum 2 days ago

I don't care whether he feels guilty. He is guilty. And as described above (as well as in many ways not described above), he does have influence over it.

Comment by majorchord 3 days ago

You think Trump wouldn't immediately promote Musk to General?

Comment by andrewflnr 3 days ago

I would be a bit surprised, actually, just because they did have a giant public spat around the end of Musk's weird temp job in DOGE.

Comment by CamperBob2 3 days ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe

Comment by andrewflnr 3 days ago

I don't think either of them are that deep.

Comment by ted_bunny 3 days ago

Then that would be why you're continually baffled that they keep winning.

Comment by andrewflnr 2 days ago

What makes you think I'm "baffled"? It's not that hard to figure out.

If they were actually 5d chess players, you would expect their governance decisions to be less calamitously stupid, to at least achieve their evil goals if not their stated policy goals. The only thing they actually do well is enrich themselves, and that's just not that hard.

Comment by ted_bunny 2 days ago

Calamitous for everyone but them. If you oppose them, avoid underestimating them. Playing dumb is the oldest trick in the book because it invites your adversaries to sabotage themselves by aiming low.

Comment by andrewflnr 2 days ago

No it's pretty often calamitous for them too.

Comment by ted_bunny 2 days ago

Trump will not be successfully impeached. Musk will not be bankrupted. And neither is going to jail. A calamity for their office, nation, or stakeholders is not their concern, unless you take them at their word. What calamities are you referring to?

Comment by andrewflnr 2 days ago

I already acknowledged they were good at enriching themselves. But it really beggars belief to think that Iran, ICE murdering random civilians, the economy, etc are going exactly as Trump et al wished they would. That's borderline flat-earth conspiracy logic. They're just idiots making idiot mistakes and having idiot spats.

Comment by cindyllm 2 days ago

[dead]

Comment by estearum 3 days ago

Lmfao. No one is confused about how billions of dollars, shallow populist “policy”, and the largest news outlets in the country literally knowingly regurgitating false propaganda could win elections.

It’s not some brilliant “kayfabe,” it’s just retard populism, same as it ever was. Now it’s just come to a country with 1) virtually no controls on private political funding and 2) extreme wealth inequality. It would be utterly shocking if it didn’t result in corrupt retards getting elected.

Comment by ted_bunny 2 days ago

They don't have to be brilliant. They only have to outplay the rubes, which seems to keep happening. And it's correlated with them being consistently underestimated. But if you feel like you're winning in some way, by all means stay the course.

Comment by estearum 2 days ago

Yes, they consistently "outplay" in the same way that a mobster who injures a rival's horse before a race is "outplaying" the rival.

I love this goofy pseudo-intellectual aloofness. "Ah yes, I as an enlightened fellow can sit above the fray and commentate objectively on the degradation of the norms and laws that have kept our society operating for centuries."

Unfortunately in addition to "outplaying" people by just lying to the public, they must also govern. And they can't. So they're going to get smacked in the midterms, functionally crippled until 2028, and then likely many of them will be thrown in prison for their various crimes.

Comment by ted_bunny 2 days ago

Glad that's all figured out! Back to brunch.

Comment by estearum 2 days ago

It’s going to be so funny when your grandchildren have to learn that you were one of the rationalizers. Even as late as 2026! They’ll be ashamed of you.

Comment by ted_bunny 1 day ago

I think it's a little crazier to think that the DNC is going to save us than to think that maybe these people have some kind of plan.

Comment by estearum 1 day ago

You’re the only one here who’s acting like any of these people have elaborate plans or any effective method of pursuing them lmao.

Comment by ted_bunny 1 day ago

You're right about that - the herd has had its head in the sand since 2016. Sorry for being rude but the mentality that brought you here is not the one that's going to get you out of it. "Lmao."

Comment by CamperBob2 2 days ago

It would be utterly shocking if it didn’t result in corrupt retards getting elected.

Not wrong, but also not helpful.

Comment by jacquesm 3 days ago

He would if he could. And let's not give him any ideas. Musk can do enough damage as it is.

Comment by ktosobcy 3 days ago

Awww... more threats from Usania. This will definitely help... the EU move to more independence. More and more governments are dropping US made stuff as much as possible and pushing for local alternatives... way to go!

Comment by DataDive 3 days ago

If I understand this correctly the Europeans hope that by banning the spectrum where Starlink operates, they will spur the development of home grown operators that provide the same service ... is that realistic?

Comment by ArnoVW 3 days ago

The europeans reserve strategic resources so that they can manage supply chain risk, since they consider the US one.

The US (dependably) proves them right, by threatening their supply lines.

Comment by ben_w 3 days ago

Even if we don't spur the development of home grown operators (and IMO launch on the scale of Starlink is somewhat unrealistic any time soon), it will at least prevent us getting get another incidental dependency on US systems which we can be threatened with loss of access to at any point.

Comment by potatototoo99 3 days ago

Of course, why wouldn't it? There's nothing unique about SpaceX's sattelites, or about putting them in orbit.

https://ioplus.nl/en/posts/these-are-the-six-european-altern...

Comment by _diyar 3 days ago

The internal cost per tonne to low Earth orbit differs vastly between SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Ariane’s best offer:

  Vehicle                       Cost / tonne
  Falcon 9 (booster recovery)   ~$2 million
  Ariane 64                     ~$5 million
  Starship (projected)          <$500,000

To meaningfully compete, European launch providers must try to match these costs, then spend a decade putting these vehicles into orbit. That’s no easy task.

Comment by Timon3 3 days ago

No better time to start than now, right?

Comment by thisislife2 3 days ago

They should just outsource the launches to ISRO - one of the world's cheapest.

Comment by _diyar 2 days ago

Source? Quick search did not reveal any internal cost per tonne to orbit numbers.

Either way, if they did outsource these launches, they would not be paying the cost, but the price (meaning cost + margin). And that is much more expensive then just buying it from SpX.

Comment by baxuz 3 days ago

Remind me, which starship?

Comment by CrimsonRain 3 days ago

nothing unique about it but they come in last and own the market from companies in this field for decades. EU rulz!!11

Comment by JumpCrisscross 3 days ago

> they will spur the development of home grown operators

It’s already funded and scheduled to start launching in 2029 [1]. (Bit nerfed given Europe hasn’t yet gotten serious about launch…)

[1] https://www.grosswald.org/european-commission-spacerise-iris...

Comment by schleck8 3 days ago

It is, there are lots of European launch companies that will have their first launches in 2027 and all target cheap launch services which is the key to Starlink. Isar Aerospace has already put a payload in orbit, but they are only one of many.

Comment by bryanlarsen 3 days ago

Europe doesn't need the same service. A far higher percentage of homes in Europe have access true high speed internet over fiber or wires than the US does. Europe can get itself the same capability with far fewer satellites.

Comment by miohtama 3 days ago

We need equivalent service to guide our drones to Moscow when Putin comes to the rest of Europe

Comment by bryanlarsen 3 days ago

You don't need many satellites for that. Starlink is designed for millions of homes, not hundreds of drones.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 3 days ago

You need a production pipeline to replace the ones that get shot down.

Comment by M95D 3 days ago

1) Putin won't come for the rest of Europe.

2) Even if the does, why attack Moscow? Russian civilians have nothing to do with the war and we're not barbarians.

3) Even if we wanted to, Moscow as a target is so big that dead reckoning starting from Portugal is probably enough to hit it. There are also a lot of other means of guidance, including sun/stars, Gee and public FM radio stations.

4) And why dones instead of ballistic missiles?

Comment by CrimsonRain 3 days ago

It is a pipe dream like Von der Layen's tweets https://x.com/vonderleyen

Comment by BoardsOfCanada 3 days ago

https://archive.is/9GrWd

Comment by surgical_fire 3 days ago

> Ambassador Andrew Puzder warns about ‘devastating’ retaliation if Brussels goes ahead with plans to limit spectrum access for non-EU companies

Please do.

The more the US shows that it is an enemy to Europe the better.

I hope the leaders on this side of the pond grow cojones and start to treat the US and its companies as a threat to EU and the countries within.

Comment by Betelbuddy 3 days ago

Nobody is afraid of the US anymore. You lost a war with Iran and they did not even put forward a Navy or an Air Force...

Comment by 1718627440 3 days ago

More like being afraid of the US is independent of your own decisions, because they just hit you regardless.

Comment by QuiEgo 3 days ago

I mean you could say something similar about Russia in its asymmetric conflict with Ukraine. Both still have scary capacity.

Comment by stasomatic 3 days ago

That's brave, friend. I, living here, am annoyed of geriatrics in the wheelhouse.

Comment by customguy 3 days ago

It's not about age. Compare Sanders and Trump; their politics aside, just take being able to hold a conversation and have honest arguments, listen to advisors when they really are right, that sort of thing. Or Mamdami and Thiel. And hey, I'm sure there's some young-ish, bright, yet very capitalistic people who also have a good head on their shoulders, too. I just really like Mamdami, partly because how even the Dems shirked him before he won, and then Trump was like "I like that guy". He probably also likes Thiel. Which shows anybody can do anything, it's totally... random! :D

Comment by stasomatic 2 days ago

I am not talking about ageism, I am familiar with that myself. Once you hit 60+ or so, there is cognitive decline and retardation, you are less flexible and too set in your ways.

Calvin Coolidge 1923–1929 51

Herbert Hoover 1929–1933 54

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933–1945 51

Harry S. Truman 1945–1953 60

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953–1961 62

John F. Kennedy 1961–1963 43

Lyndon B. Johnson 1963–1969 55

Richard Nixon 1969–1974 56

Gerald Ford 1974–1977 61

Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 52

Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 69

George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 64

Bill Clinton 1993–2001 46

George W. Bush 2001–2009 54

Barack Obama 2009–2017 47

Donald Trump 2017–2021 70

Joe Biden 2021–2025 78

Donald Trump 2025–present 78

We need younger blood at the wheel. The geezers can golf.

Comment by ranger_danger 3 days ago

That doesn't make their treatment of other countries go away.

Comment by hparadiz 3 days ago

[flagged]

Comment by objclxt 3 days ago

> Inability to project power beyond a few random pot shots at neighbors that aren't even the US.

This is a very funny way of saying “has de facto control of one of the world’s most important shipping lanes”.

Comment by ArnoVW 3 days ago

Nobody said Iran was winning.

The problem is, if you tell everyone that you are a superpower, but then go on to not only not achieve your strategic goals (during a conflict of your choosing), but get to an unconfortable stalemate (that you cannot forcibly break) where you get to the point that you have to throw allies under the bus (not just Ukraine).. that's losing.

Comment by hparadiz 3 days ago

I don't think anyone in Ukraine is losing sleep over Iran getting bombed.

Comment by ArnoVW 3 days ago

They are?

The war in Iran has meant that the military resources of many actors are getting used for that conflict and are no longer available. Think patriot missiles to protect against balistic missiles.

It also means that the eyes of the world are distracted.

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration is now getting anxious about the economical damage that Iran is inflicting, and has been forced to cut a deal with Russia.

But as said, that is just Ukraine.

The US has also been forced to reposition assets in Asia, to make up for the ones lost or expended in the Iran theater. They have shown to their allies in the middle east that having a US base is not a protection, but rather an invitation to be attacked.

Despite extensive military investment, Iran's neighbours are now realizing that the US presence and weapons they bought don't work.

The fact that a "muslim NATO" was recently created is not a coincidence. The world has taken notice.

Iran have been utterly destroyed, but they can still hurt the US. When your're a superpower, not winning when fighting a regional power IS losing.

Comment by lsaferite 3 days ago

I mean, they could break it, but the devastation would be immense and then everyone would hate us even more. Getting involved was always a losing strategy.

Comment by mijoharas 3 days ago

brent crude futures are trading above 109$/barrel right now. America didn't want that to happen, Iran did. They won that one.

Comment by lejalv 3 days ago

You're wrong about intervention in Iran, it started far earlier, with the coup to Mossadegh

Comment by hparadiz 3 days ago

That's actually a fair point.

Comment by _diyar 3 days ago

Note that the comment you’re replying to does not claim Iran is winning.

Comment by TacticalCoder 3 days ago

> Note that the comment you’re replying to does not claim Iran is winning.

Well the comment literally says "you lost a war with Iran". If the US lost a war with Iran, the Iran won a war with the US.

But maybe that was an old war, from a few months ago, that Iran won. And now there's a new war and Iran ain't winning that one?

Comment by xethos 3 days ago

If America had launched nukes during the cold war, the USSR would retaliate. Maybe via submarine-launched ICBM, maybe using a dead man's switch; methodology is irrelevant, because the question is this: If both countries end up radioactive desert, which country would be declared the winner? Or is it possible for neither country to be the definitive winner of a war?

Comment by bryanlarsen 3 days ago

A pyrrhic victory and a loss are colloquially synonyms.

Comment by Timon3 3 days ago

Right - the US didn't just win. They've achieved victory at least 20 times so far!

Comment by jm4 3 days ago

I was born in 1979. We have always been at odds with Iran and have had a few skirmishes, but this notion that we have been at war with them for 47 years only became a thing several months ago. There was never a time we were "at war" with them until Trump started one. You should stop consuming propaganda and learn more history.

Comment by hparadiz 3 days ago

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1989/may/air-view...

I agree. History is important. What would you call this?

Comment by redwall_hp 3 days ago

"We've always been at war with Eurasia." - Republicans

Comment by hparadiz 3 days ago

Not a Republican. They tend to pussy out instead of getting the job done. Not a fan.

Comment by rebolek 3 days ago

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Comment by majorchord 3 days ago

I thought it was Starshield that was restricted, not Starlink, which was already restricted like all civilian tech?

Comment by jjk166 3 days ago

Europe is putting economic restrictions on Starlink; the technical restrictions the US placed on Starshield are unrelated.

Comment by dzhiurgis 3 days ago

And Rubio says Ukraine never had Starshield, which is interesting.

Comment by Havoc 3 days ago

Administration is no longer a reliable narrator - not even on their own position

Comment by toomuchtodo 3 days ago

The video clip of Rubio saying this is on C-SPAN for those interested.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=T2ZEMRKjTz8

Comment by dzhiurgis 3 days ago

If you listen carefully - it sounds like they do have Starshield, but only for internal access (not enabled for deep strikes)?

Comment by jacquesm 3 days ago

And they weren't using it for deep strikes. They were using it to enable the anti-Shahed drones which need very fast updates because their targets moving at a clip that is just manageable. Any kind of delay and they'll miss and that means another one of these crap machines lands on a Ukrainian city.

Messing with that is roughly the same as enabling Germany to bomb London more effectively using V2s.

Comment by amelius 3 days ago

Ban Teslas in Europe then. Being selective works both ways.

Comment by HarHarVeryFunny 3 days ago

Not a bad idea - could couple it with further reducing European tariffs on Chinese EVs, which already outsell Tesla there.

Comment by panick21_ 2 days ago

We could even shock invest in railways and bikes and restrict all cars.

Comment by ktosobcy 2 days ago

Actually banning facebook/instagram/twitter|x/tiktok would make so much more sense.

On the one hand - financial loses, on the other - more social sanity in the EU…

Comment by dzhiurgis 3 days ago

Yea pay for Putin's oil instead lol

Comment by fmobus 3 days ago

There are other EV brands here. Tesla's share of BEV Market in Europe is like 9%.

Comment by dzhiurgis 2 days ago

Hey grok, whats the best selling EV in Europe?

Comment by 1718627440 3 days ago

There are tons of other vendors for electric vehicles.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 3 days ago

The baller move would be tariffing new sales of Tesla and Starlink unite (and a lower tariff on subscriptions paid by owners at the time the law id proposed) as long as Musk controls either and letting in a number of Chinese cars in exchange for China quitting it with helping Russia in Ukraine.

Comment by dzhiurgis 3 days ago

Imagine being this naive. Reading this hurts me physically.

Comment by bnteke 3 days ago

lmao

Comment by sega_sai 3 days ago

It is the same starlink that was disabled on request of either WH or Musk to bully Ukraine.

Comment by DennisP 3 days ago

That's Starshield, which is not under Musk's control. Reportedly the WH did make the decision.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/order-limit-starshield-...

It's the same tech but after Musk took flack for making a decision on Ukraine's military use, they split off a portion for the US government to control.

Comment by Lio 3 days ago

Again, as repeated elsewhere in the thread, Musk requested that Starshield be slowed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/16/musk-appro...

Comment by CrimsonRain 3 days ago

Anonymous source can say anything and telegraph can fully make it up also. And it also doesn't matter if Musk suggested it.

The fact is Starshield is controlled by US Govt and they decide what happens with it. Not Musk.

Starlink is controlled by SpaceX, Musk decides what happens with it. It is not allowed to use Starlink for most military purposes. Nothing changed now.

Comment by Timon3 3 days ago

Complaints about anonymous sources might be legitimate when there are legitimate protections for whistleblowers, but an autocratic regime like the US' current government does not deserve any benefit of the doubt - they literally keep openly threatening dissenters and whistleblowers!

Until the rule of law has been re-established and participants have been prosecuted, the standard you're holding sources to is unreasonable.

Comment by SauciestGNU 3 days ago

Before the execution livestream was called off, Trump said that people who leak to the press should be shot. It doesn't take a big leap to see where this is going and what the stakes are.

Comment by CrimsonRain 2 days ago

that's just your opinion; biased opinion at that. When the autocratic regime of Obama ruined Snowden's life, where was your outrage?

Comment by Timon3 2 days ago

No, it's pretty universally accepted that blowing the whistle is not safe under autocratic regimes.

You're not asking in good faith, so I won't dignify your whataboutism with a discussion.

Comment by CrimsonRain 1 day ago

Say a truth and mix it with some lies. Good job calling democratic government as autocratic. Remember it when your democratic govt is called communist.

Comment by DennisP 2 days ago

That seems an uncharitable assumption. I for one strongly object both to today's abuses and the treatment of Snowden, and GP may well feel the same.

Comment by CrimsonRain 1 day ago

Uncharitable assumption? hello?

This whole thread started with uncharitable assumption saying Musk did it. The fact is Starshield is govt controlled and spacex/musk is not responsible for any change like this.

I object today's abuses and treatment of snowden assange etc too. That doesn't mean I have to have TDS/EDS and uncharitable assumption for people I don't like and charitable for the ones I like.

Comment by Timon3 2 days ago

"Uncharitable assumptions" are this user's whole MO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50154028

It's probably best not to feed the troll.

Comment by croes 3 days ago

> Asked whether European companies should fear retaliation, Puzder told the FT that they “should be wary that it could happen and it would be very devastating for those companies”

Devastated companies can’t buy US products.

So go on and hit your exports again

Comment by dddw 3 days ago

https://archive.is/9GrWd

Comment by jmclnx 3 days ago

And yet companies are wondering why the EU is moving to build their own tech sector, separate from the US. Another reason why.

And the big winner of this is China. I heard China is building its own starlink and I would not be surprised they will offer verifiable guarantees to the EU on "spying" should the EU want to use China's version.

China should be sending Trump all kinds of Thank You notes. Trump already gave China the lead in Medical Research, Trump is helping China to take over Chip Development and he just started handing China the lead in AI.

You get what you vote for. At least the US will be the leader in Bible Research.

Comment by ponector 2 days ago

EU will have IRIS, it's own version of starshield by 2030.

Comment by difosfor 3 days ago

> it’d be a lot easier if we were working with Europe instead of fighting Europe

Seriously? When will this shit show finally end?

Comment by vconnor 3 days ago

When the American empire finally crumbles. The final stages are always the most painful.

Comment by red-iron-pine 2 days ago

now we see who trump really works for

Comment by cjs_ac 3 days ago

> European companies face “devastating” retaliation from Washington if Brussels presses ahead with plans to restrict American rivals such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX from parts of the European market, the US ambassador to the EU has warned.

> Andrew Puzder’s warning comes after the European Commission this year proposed reserving part of its spectrum band that allows smartphones to connect directly to satellites for European players. That would limit the frequencies for Chinese and US companies such as SpaceX, which operates the Starlink satellite network.

> Asked whether European companies should fear retaliation, Puzder told the FT that they “should be wary that it could happen and it would be very devastating for those companies”, given the size of the American market.

Eh, this seems like a fairly even tit-for-tat, for once.

Comment by ben_w 3 days ago

Would this even be "devastating"? Would any of them been able to sell in the US anyway, given the position Starlink is in? I see occasional headlines that Starlink is forcing out other US providers, from the US, but even without that kind of thing going on, this doesn't even feel like much of a threat.

Comment by amelius 3 days ago

I wonder what history would be like if Trump had been president during WW2.

Comment by jacquesm 3 days ago

Mein Deutsch waere viel besser gewesen...

Comment by tialaramex 3 days ago

This forum in particular, but also our society in general is tremendously influenced by Grace Hopper's "compiler" (we would not call the thing Grace came up with a "compiler" today but we'd recognise her ideas). Grace appears to be the first person who noticed that the machine could be told to do the boring part where you turn your program into machine code to run on that machine. Grace's idea is meta-applicable, it applies not only to many other things but also to itself, things get out of hand very fast and that's how less than a century later we're here.

Grace was in the US Navy in World War II. Even in our real history where Donald Trump was not President, Grace did not meet their strict requirements for women and so she was only able to get in via a special exemption. Can you imagine in the "Make sure our Warriors look good on TV" world of Pete Hegseth that they'd ever accept Grace? No, the Navy is for big strong men.

Comment by UncleOxidant 3 days ago

The UK would most likely be speaking German now. Possibly even the US.

Comment by ben_w 3 days ago

The USSR would have taken over all of Europe, not just Eastern. What would have happened to the former British and French empires? Presumably they'd have been turned communist, but would their struggles for independence have gone the same way?

The Manhattan project would have been announced before it went anywhere, undermined during development and produced no real result. Japan would not have been nuked, but also would not have been invaded and the Pacific theatre would have in general developed in a completely different way. Without the American nuclear arsenal, the world may have skipped the cold war and nukes, or perhaps other states would have made them and used them in a heavy mutual bombardment without restraint.

Eventually in Europe, glasnost and perestroika would still have happened, and the USSR would still have fallen; but the geopolitical and economic importance of the USA would be little different to that of Brazil.

Comment by ponector 2 days ago

USSR couldn't do much without all western support. Lots of disposable soldiers but no weapons for them.

Comment by ben_w 2 days ago

It may have been limited, but the Axis forces were busy repeating Napoleon's classic blunder of freezing to death because Russia was too big to Blitzkrieg.