This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published this past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over crimea based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise attack. Starlink - and that author - now state that (  https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700345943105638636 ) 

The onus is meaningfully different if I refused to act upon a request from Ukraine vs. made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart Ukraine. At no point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over Crimea. Moreover, our terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for offensive military action, as we are a civilian system, so they were again asking for something that was expressly prohibited. SpaceX is building Starshield for the US government, which is similar to, but much smaller than Starlink, as it will not have to handle millions of users. That system will be owned and controlled by the US government.

Quote

Walter Isaacson

@WalterIsaacson

·

Sep 8

To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a… Show more

Furthermore, Musk stated yesterday that had the request come from the us government, he would have complied.

I will refrain from editorializing.

I guess this is a lesson on diversity which every military should pay attention to. I had forgotten about other wireless options that Bill pointed out, though I'm not sure if geostationary latency would fit their requirements. But is trying to reclaim your territory "offensive" after being invaded? How would other providers interpret that? Or maybe this is just a unicorn.

Mike