From tech companies enabling war to a push for corporate patriotism and "new national champions", companies must measure their exposure to legal risk from wars they didn't choose to fight.
It's an interesting point, though many more countries than just the US rely on Starlink. I suspect governments will make sure they can achieve interception/jamming and destruction, giving themselves some strategic optionality. The West Point article I cited leans more toward the former than the latter likely being permissible. But nowadays permissibility is less of the concern than advantage.
Would a Starlink satellite be treated like a ship if if had a USA Flag painted on the side?
Historically, neutral ships carrying materials that could be called "war materials" would have their cargos confiscated, but were rarely sunk.
Satellites can have their data transmissions disrupted without destroying the satellite, but in war time intercepting the data and using it against the enemy may be more valuable than jamming it.
It's an interesting point, though many more countries than just the US rely on Starlink. I suspect governments will make sure they can achieve interception/jamming and destruction, giving themselves some strategic optionality. The West Point article I cited leans more toward the former than the latter likely being permissible. But nowadays permissibility is less of the concern than advantage.
Would a Starlink satellite be treated like a ship if if had a USA Flag painted on the side?
Historically, neutral ships carrying materials that could be called "war materials" would have their cargos confiscated, but were rarely sunk.
Satellites can have their data transmissions disrupted without destroying the satellite, but in war time intercepting the data and using it against the enemy may be more valuable than jamming it.