News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by dkdk8283 on Monday December 07, 2020 @04:37PM (#25337926)
I wouldn’t characterize defense spending as waste. China is a significant threat, for example, and maintaining superiority over them is of national importance IMO.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by rurp on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:15PM (#25338414)
I can't think of a single scenario where having more tanks or fighter jets would be decisive in a full scale conflict between nuclear powers.

Suppose the US and China get into a direct conflict. How does the US having a 10x advantage in the number of traditional arms vs only, say, 2x stop China from threatening to obliterate humanity with nukes the minute their leadership is facing an existential crisis?

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by dQw4w9WgXcQ on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:23PM (#25338523)
Nukes have pretty much ensured via MAD that there is no future "full scale direct conflict" between major powers. No matter how narcissistic some despot might be, their overwhelming self-interest still realizes there's not much power held over an empty parking lot or when vaporized into the side of a building. It's proxy wars from here on out.

Given that, you can't think of a single scenario where having multiple floating runways would possibly benefit wartime?

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by unexpected on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:37PM (#25338671)
Does something like Starlink prevent direct conflict, though?

Imagine a world where anyone can get unfettered internet access. Instead of the great Firewall of China, citizens can just access a starlink satellite. How does that help with spreading democractic ideals? How does protesting and information dissemination look different? What if citizens in Iran, Middle East, Myanmar, etc. could all do the same thing?

I hope Starlink is thinking about these Big questions.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by CrazyStat on Monday December 07, 2020 @07:42PM (#25339943)
Accessing a starlink satellite requires a bulky and expensive piece of equipment that emits electromagnetic waves and so can be tracked and confiscated and the operator fined, imprisoned, or killed.

It doesn't seem like a very promising route for bypassing authoritarian government restrictions on the Internet.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by slim on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @02:17AM (#25342752)
it's for waging proxy wars. for example US could deploy it's army in Nigeria to protect freedom and democracy
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by Retric on Monday December 07, 2020 @04:41PM (#25337963)
Some defense spending is reasonable, but we could get a lot while limiting things to say 200 - 300 Billion per year. That’s 4-6 times what the UK spends for example and they have 2 aircraft carriers etc.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by aroch on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:04PM (#25338261)
Calling the British navy a battle ready fleet would be rather a positive attitude. Their submarine and surface ship captains don't know how to navigate, running aground and into other boats. And their aircraft carriers don't even have enough crew/planes and will deploy US Marine Corp units to meet their full complement. It will likely take the UK 15-20 years for the two new Carriers to be at full operating capability (2009-TBD, probably 2024 at the earliest).

That being said, the US could stand to spend less on military funding.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by saberience on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:11PM (#25338350)
What are you saying about UK ships not knowing how to navigate? The US navy is far, far worse in that respect, the British navy hasn't had anything near as bad as this happen anytime recently:

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

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by aroch on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:24PM (#25338529)
Over the last few years there have been several (4-5) instances of British subs nearly striking surface ships in their home waters. Also running aground right outside their home port in 2010. Not exactly reassuring.

The US Navy is much bigger and has global operations. They're just as guilty of being careless but they also have proven war fighting capabilities. No one is asking the British to sail by as a show of power and solidarity.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by Retric on Monday December 07, 2020 @07:02PM (#25339537)
Near misses are fairly common in all large navies, that says little about the British capacity for warfare. For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world.

Similarly, military aircraft crash vastly more often than their civilian counterparts, but consider extreme safety simply isn't what militaires optimize for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by dragonwriter on Monday December 07, 2020 @07:12PM (#25339634)
> For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world.

The series of four accidents including those two in a short period in the US 7th Fleet was considered a sign of very significant problems. It is not at all typical of large, capable navies.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by Retric on Monday December 07, 2020 @07:39PM (#25339913)
I agree that these incidents where a sign of significant issues. My point what they said little about the US Nacy’s overall capacity for warfare. Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by dragonwriter on Monday December 07, 2020 @09:55PM (#25341122)
> My point what they said little about the US Navy’s overall capacity for warfare.

The reason for the fairly significant consequences, the global stand down, etc., is because, as many experts wrote at the time, they said a lot about the US Navy’s capacity for warfare.

> Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war.

Sure, because war results in change in priorites in which the same skill and capacity will produce a much higher accident rate than peacetime.

But a high peacetime accident rate, even if lower than the accident rat that would be acceptable in wartime, demonstrates an institutional incapacity to operate as directed successfully, which is a severe warfighting liability.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by Retric on Monday December 07, 2020 @10:59PM (#25341596)
> But a high peacetime accident rate, even if lower than the accident rat that would be acceptable in wartime, demonstrates an institutional incapacity to operate as directed successfully, which is a severe warfighting liability.

Or simply a vastly different set of priorities. Navy ships are generally supposed to operate as a unit as their threatened by a host of over the horizon missiles, supersonic aircraft etc. In a very real way crashing into unknown ships isn't something that’s considered as a meaningful risk.

The root cause of these safety issues is however deeper. Militaries are constantly cycling both technology and people through positions. The specific implementation of training and UI where at fault for these crashes which is directly addressable. However, the institutional approach of using new people and technology has huge upsides in war. You need to be able to quickly replace losses in warfare so you need to rely on training not experience, and you need to test that this training is effective. Similarly, you can’t rely on proven technology and it’s proven training because new threats are constantly arriving.

That's directly going to cause accidents and while minimizing them is important, the long term tradeoff is considered worth it.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by onion2k on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:12PM (#25338375)
Their submarine and surface ship captains don't know how to navigate, running aground and into other boats.

The USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain are US Navy ships that have both had serious collisions recently that lead to loss of life. Ships having accidents is not a particularly good measure of battle readiness.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by sneak on Monday December 07, 2020 @04:42PM (#25337985)
This view presupposes that nations themselves are important, and that preserving the existence and concept of nations, and their superiority over other nations, isn't wasteful.

I doubt very much that the children born on Mars will share your view about the value of Earth nations.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by mlyle on Monday December 07, 2020 @04:51PM (#25338103)
It would be nice if we could get away from nations, but I'm not really ready to cede the game and entrust China with supremacy or even parity and hope that it all works out OK.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by octopoc on Monday December 07, 2020 @04:52PM (#25338120)
Do you think nations are a bad thing? What's your alternative? City states? Planet-wide government?
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by sneak on Monday December 07, 2020 @04:55PM (#25338148)
I left it intentionally ambiguous about my own opinions on the topic, as I am not interested in a nationalistic debate about my own views, as they aren't relevant here. (If you'd like to take an easy guess at them and discuss further, my email's in my profile.)

I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that whether something is wasteful or not is a value judgement in a lot of ways, and that there aren't usually one size fits all answers for all members of a society when it comes to value judgments, especially for a potentially multiplanetary society.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by dkdk8283 on Monday December 07, 2020 @04:57PM (#25338182)
Nations are great. Not everyone agrees on all policies. My personal opinion is that I do not want to live in a censored or communist country (Such as China). Having borders and different countries allows multiple ideas to exist and folks can choose where to live.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by sneak on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:04PM (#25338268)
> folks can choose where to live.

This is absolutely not true in practice, even for rich people fortunate/lucky enough to be born in a place where they receive a passport with lots of options.

For the 99% of the other humans, it's even worse.

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by pharke on Monday December 07, 2020 @05:29PM (#25338590)
That doesn't appear to be a defect inherent to nations since there seems to be a pretty even split between free and non-free nations[0] Rather, it seems to be a problem of bad governance, corruption, ineffective or non-existent institutions, etc. My reason for favouring a world with many nations is that failures of those varieties are generally limited by the borders of the nations in which they occur. A world with a single governing body is a world with a single point of failure.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices#:~:tex....

Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by 2OEH8eoCRo0 on Monday December 07, 2020 @07:26PM (#25339762)
The government seems to pay $100 for $1 of work. I work in defense.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by dkdk8283 on Monday December 07, 2020 @09:58PM (#25341155)
You want defense contractors well paid. It’s a industry rife for corruption and bribery. I want my defense workers well paid so they won’t even think about trying to profit by selling information.
Re:SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 st... by bawolff on Monday December 07, 2020 @04:40PM (#25337953)
I guess we are in cold war 2.0!