By Benjamin Chait
Science & Technology
Good liberals tend to be finely attuned to the evils of monopolization. Regarding Starlink, they fell asleep at the switch.
It’s hardly an overstatement to describe Elon Musk’s Starlink as one of the key defense technological innovations of the 21st century. The ability to provide ubiquitous high-speed internet anywhere in the world, including up to the front lines of the battlefield, is a key advantage. Yet unlike previous geopolitically important technologies, we’ve allowed a single person— one of questionable judgment and murky intentions— to dominate the landscape.
As the war in Ukraine rages on, and with tensions across the Taiwan Strait higher than ever, the US needs to reconsider the status quo and take control of Starlink.
Launched in 2019, “SpaceX now flies more objects into orbit than all other companies and countries combined,” according to an analysis by The Economist. Their basic approach is instead of large traditional satellites that orbit very far from Earth, Starlink flies extraordinary numbers of smaller satellites much closer to Earth. This approach allows for significant increases in internet speeds and renders the prospect of attacking the system futile due to the sheer power in numbers of Starlink satellites, as well as the speed at which they can be replaced.
This has dramatic results on the battlefield. In Ukraine, Starlink has allowed soldiers to communicate, identify targets, and upload videos, as well as controlling drone strikes. Ukrainian leaders have described the technology as vital to their operations. “More than 42,000 Starlink terminals are now used in Ukraine by the military, hospitals, businesses and aid organizations,” per an analysis by The New York Times.
But because Starlink is a commercial product rather than a traditional defense contractor, Musk has a much broader degree of control over the Starlink's use— and he has used that control in ways that call into question his interests and judgment. Musk has restricted Starlink access to Ukraine multiple times during the war. Notably, he declined a Ukrainian military request to enable Starlink up to Crimea to attack Russian warships. He has also denied Starlink use for long-range strikes by Ukraine, and SpaceX has taken steps to curtail Ukrainian use of Starlink to control drones.
Musk says he restricts this use in order to contain the conflict. He might even be right. But it’s absurd to implicitly grant Musk the authority to decide if and how Ukraine fights in Russia. Clarifying his worldview, Musk floated a peace plan on Twitter in the fall of 2022 that aligned with Moscow’s interests, drawing widespread condemnation. Some have even gone as far to say that the plan was a message from Putin and that Musk met directly with Putin before proposing the plan, which Musk denies.
Musk clearly sees himself as a visionary leader who has a right to shape world developments as they unfold. In democratic societies, we don’t just cede these sorts of powers to billionaires. And we certainly don’t give these powers to figures like Musk.
Musk’s business ties to China have raised concerns in Taiwan, where Starlink could be of critical importance to maintaining the island’s defense. Analysts think that in the event of an invasion, China might start by “severing the 14 undersea internet cables that connect the island to the world,” according to The Economist. Starlink could be of crucial importance to Taiwan’s defense.
China has a reputation for cracking down on dissent in businesses, especially foreign ones, and Musk has a lot to lose in China. Roughly 50 percent of new Teslas are estimated to be produced in China, and Musk has lavished the CCP with praise. In one instance, he went so far as to publicly back a PRC takeover of Taiwan a day before Tesla received a critical Chinese tax break. As a result, Taiwanese leaders are understandably concerned about relying on Musk’s goodwill in the case of a war in the South China Sea.
Starlink has also proved an extremely powerful tool to allow internet access for pro-democracy groups in Iran so that the government can’t monitor and stifle their communication. Beijing has expressed disapproval of Musk’s provision of Starlink to Ukraine and has sought assurances that Musk would not offer the service in China. It is entirely possible that Musk made the right decisions here, but they aren’t his to make.
We don’t need to accept this status quo. As the Pax Americana gives way to a messier world order, America shouldn’t concede strategic geopolitical decision-making to a capricious billionaire. The US government has tools at our disposal to secure our interests— namely, the Defense Production Act (DPA). Passed in 1950 to aid mobilization for the Korean War, the Act gave the President broad powers to establish and tightly regulate the defense-industrial complex. The most recent version of the law allows the president authority to require people and businesses to prioritize and accept contracts, “allocate materials, services, and facilities,” bolster domestic production, among other provisions.
Henry Ford, a figure many have compared Musk to, was known generously as an isolationist and less generously as sympathetic to the Nazis. But when America revved up its war machine to enter WWII in full force, the US didn’t wait for Ford to provide facilities out of the kindness of his heart. It used executive powers to make that decision as a country.
Broadly speaking, the government should refrain from punishing businesses for the political views of their leadership. But when the business provides a service key to national defense, and when its leader is clearly undermining American interests, intervention is necessary.
Elon Musk seems to be good at making cars and bad at aligning his business interests with American ones. Let’s let him stick to the cars.
Photo: Gonzalo Fuentes
Comments