SpaceX chief executive Elon Musk reportedly caused a geopolitical crisis last year, when Ukrainian forces—which have relied heavily on the company’s Starlink satellite communications—were on the verge of striking Russian naval vessels off the coast of Crimea with submersible drones. Concerned that the attack would provoke Russia into using nuclear weapons, Musk unilaterally opted to sever the submarines’ satellite connection, throwing a wrench in the entire assault.
The incident—shared by CNN based on an adapted excerpt from an upcoming book by Walter Isaacson—demonstrates Musk’s increasing unwillingness to lend his satellite network to offensive maneuvers waged by Ukraine. “How am I in this war?” “Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes.”
After foiling the attack, Musk reportedly received a desperate text from a Ukrainian deputy prime minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, who asked that Musk reinstate the Starlink connection to the drones. “I just want you—the person who is changing the world through technology—to know this,” Fedorov wrote. But Musk refused to reverse course, telling Fedorov that Ukraine “is now going too far and inviting strategic defeat.”
Apparently he was worried that the assault would provoke nuclear war. Musk showing actual thought for the first time in ever.
That's not remotely comparable. They are at war. Are you saying Ukraine just can't attack Russian ships?
Using nukes is never justifiable. Anyone who even thinks of using nukes should be held far away from power and authority.
this is all i'm saying
And what exactly does that mean in relation to what we are talking about? Are you sayin any future use is justified because it was done in the past? If thats the case then I'm just gonna have to strongly disagree.
morality be damned history has a funny way of rhyming
Ok... still not justified.
This is not about justification but expectation. I do not think anyone here is trying to justify nuclear armageddon. The Japan bombs, along with numerous nuclear weaponry incidents in the past that humanity barely evaded, merely show that the patience of nuclear powers about such incidents is much, much shorter than commonly expected, and that crossing red lines said powers have long been making very explicit could reasonably turn out to have been a bad idea in hindsight
If it's about expectations, then anyone who even thinks of using nukes first should expect their nation to not exist afterward, and those personally responsible will go down in history (if there's still a world to record it) as the dumbest most evil pieces of shit to ever live.
Sorry but somehow I really don't think the people handling nuclear weapons are awfully concerned about the consequences such an action will have on their street cred
Then why do they greedily hang onto power. They could retire and live lives of luxury beyond what most could imagine. I don't really see any other explanation beyond insatiable egos.
The problem is, what if they don't? You do realise the enormity of the trust such an argument demands of the civilian population if you want them to be on board with military adventurism against nuclear powers? We don't know for sure what goes on in the mind behind the button, and at least if you ask me, the risk of them having other motivations such as blind national pride, belief in conspiracy theories, or mental illnesses seems already great enough to demerit any such ideas from the start
I'll tell Putin that School_Lunch@lemmy.world thinks that he and the entire Russian military command shouldn't be in charge. I'm sure they'll all resign within the hour.
We shouldn't look at the world as we would like it to be, but we need to look at it as it actually is. Russia has stated that they will use nukes if they deem it necessary for the preservation of their nation. Is this a good thing? Of course not. But it being an awful thing doesn't mean we can just wish it out of existence.
I wouldn't even say it's an awful thing. It's neither good nor bad, it is what it is. I think more Westerners need to think about when Putin asked: "What good is a world without Russia?" and what that means. I assure you he is by far not the only one in Russia who thinks that way, in fact it may even be the majority opinion in Russian society and in the Russian leadership as a whole. It is also not unique to Russia, most countries with a strong sense of self-identity think the same way. Ukraine certainly does and it has repeatedly shown and pretty much said that it would have no compunctions over triggering WW3 by dragging NATO into a direct war with Russia if that means staving off their own defeat. If Russia is ever under serious threat of being destroyed as a nation, for instance through the kind of balkanization that the West dreams of achieving, they will opt to take the entire world with them. For Americans especially this should be easy to understand as many in the US would do the same. It's the Europeans who i am much more worried about as they may be unable to grasp this concept since most of them have no such strong attachment to their own countries (myself included) and as a result will make the catastrophic mistake of pushing Russia too far.
If even one nuke is used, it would be likely that everyone would use them. I'm sure you've heard of MAD. Anyone who threatens to use them should be immediately removed from power. That is a principle every citizen of every nation should hold. Unfortunately russians seems not to. There are too many people who support authoritarians. Any nation that uses nukes first will likely be obliterated in response. Putin has to know that, so when Russia says they will use nukes, I don't believe them.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that using nukes is a good thing, or that they should ever be used. I'm saying that it doesn't matter what you or I think about it, we aren't the ones making these decisions. So we instead should try to understand the positions of the people making these decisions instead of smugly dismissing them as "evil authoritarians."
Anyone who greedily holds onto power is an evil authoritarian in my book, and anyone who thinks nukes are an option is much much worse. There is nothing to understand. There is no position where nukes are justified. They were used when they were first made, and luckily they haven't been used since. As soon as they are it will give everyone else the excuse to use them too. Using even one nuke runs the risk of leading to the destruction of the world. No one willing to take that risk should be allowed power, and it should be the obligation of each nations citizens to enforce that.
Oh wow, a lib and insisting trying to understand things is a waste of time, what a shock. I thought I said this to you earlier, but it was someone else. So I'll say it to you as well. Go away, you're obviously not happy here and your refusal to understand things is not the strength you think it is, being proudly ignorant isn't a good thing. So shoo, go somewhere where you can spout nonsense and be praised for it instead of bothering us.
No I think I'll stay. I don't like to put myself in a reassuring bubble, and I never said I refuse to understand, just that there isn't anything to understand. There is no situation where risking the destruction of the world is a reasonable action.
You're right, it's not comparable. Japan had not even declared war on the US!
Technically it had, but the damn declaration was stuck in translation for too long.
It would be better for them if they didn't, and it would be better for the whole world if the West didn't help them do it. Because every action has a reaction, and Russia has escalation dominance in Ukraine. Thus the more provocative attacks that the Kiev regime undertakes the worse the consequences of the Russian proportional response will be for Ukraine. And the more the West tries to hurt Russia the worse the backlash on them will be, as we can see with the failure of the sanctions that have devastated Europe while just making Russia stronger.
The smartest thing Ukraine could have done would have been to not start this war in the first place. The second smartest thing would be to stop fighting, else it will just get more and more destroyed.
Whether or not you or i consider the use of nukes justifiable does not change the fact that many states around the world including Russia and the US have a different view on this. We need to deal with reality not with wishful fantasies or moralistic grandstanding. And in reality nuclear states faced with an existential threat will very likely use every weapon at their disposal.
And don't think that we can push Russia just up to the nuclear threshold and then simply stop there. It doesn't work that way. An escalation spiral has its own momentum. So far Russia has been extremely patient and restrained in terms of retaliating against the West for its participation in planning and facilitating attacks on Russia and Russian forces. But the West's involvement in this is already at a level that Russia would be fully justified in viewing as a declaration of war against them.
Don't be surprised and don't cry "unprovoked attack" when Russia one day decides to respond accordingly. Again, it would be in the West's best interests to not gamble on Russia's patience lasting forever while we continue to escalate. Russia doesn't need nukes to inflict significant damage on NATO and the US's assets in and around Europe.