349
Big Brain Billionaire War Policy
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
349 points (94.4% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3529 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think not wanting something you created to be used to kill people is fine.
Edit: Jesus Christ, I did not think the idea that a corporation would want to stay out of a national conflict would be such a controversial idea!
If I had invented something that I had designed to improve and benefit the world and I found out that it was being used for the purpose of killing, I'd be absolutely horrified, regardless of my allegiance to any side.
Downvotes away I guess!
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-buys-starlink-ukraine-statement-2023-06-01/
It would appear he had a DoD contract for the service depending on the actual contract he may be in violation.
That said this sub has a serious war hawk problem. Non-interventionism isn't some evil philosophy.
Musk intervening is not non-interventionism.
Musk seeking the contract and providing starlink certainly isn't but the broader concept of not providing a good or service of benefit to one side in a conflict is emblematic of non-interventionism. The most true incarnation of non interventionism in this kind of situation would have been to never get involved in the first place.
I'm in no way implying musk isn't and idiot without consistent guiding principles or beliefs.