How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[MikeyD]

50 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

There's a steady beat of future-looking news from British defence establishment/MoD.

I like to think its at least partially due to their proximity to 'CM Pro' 

[Chibot Mk IX]

copy paste from subsim hq

[dan/california]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is almost no precedent for the US government "nationalizing" a private company since, probably, WW2.  I'd have to research if that even happened then.  Nationalizing resources?  Yes, but off the top of my head I can't think of nationalizing private corporations (though it would not surprise me if it did to some extent).  I don't think there's anybody in Washington that has any appetite for being the first.

Now, what the government DOES have some, in fact a lot, of history with is regulating with a purpose.  Laws could be passed that stated that any space based communications company must agree to certain conditions in order to receive launch permission.  Such laws already exist for anything with military capabilities (we discussed this a million pages ago in some detail), so for sure creating new regulatory conditions is absolutely doable.  Theoretically.  Politically?  We might not have a functioning government in couple of weeks because a handful of extremist lawmakers.  Increasing regulations is generally frowned upon by the GOP out of knee-jerk habit, but going after a MAGA folk hero?  Dead on arrival for sure.

That said, no small part of Musk's workforce skews left on the political spectrum.  So does Musk's primary customer base.  It takes a lot to get someone to give up a good paying job or to not buying something they think is super sweet, but as other job openings and products come onto market it is indeed possible that a Tesla might be the next My Pillow

Steve

Quote

 

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/steel-strike-1952

It is within the president's power to put people back to work through strikes, but there are different ways to go about it. For instance, in 1917 President Wilson nationalized the railroad industry to keep workers from striking during WWI. Truman could do something similar via Executive Order, but he had other options as well. In 1947 Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which banned strategies to help workers organize unions and limited the president's power to seize industries during times of labor unrest. Instead, it offered the president the power to force workers back to work for 80 days while negotiations continued between labor and management. This option would keep wartime industries running uninterrupted. In 1948, an amendment was added to the Selective Service Act, allowing the president to seize industry facilities that were unable to fill their government orders for wartime products. The steel industry was not defaulting on its order obligations; however, as commander-in-chief, the president can make all military decisions for the United States, including mobilization efforts.

In the end, Truman issued Executive Order 10340 to seize control of the steel industries on April 8, 1952. The companies sued, resulting in a Supreme Court case to determine whether or not Truman overstepped his Constitutional powers in the steel seizures.

 

The Korean war steel strike is by far the clearest test of the governments powers in this area. Not saying Biden could get a away with outright seizure, but he has enough leverage to get Musk's attention if he really wants to, and Musk dragging twitter into the right wing fever swamps, and getting directly and publicly praised by Putin mean he is going to get most of the downsides whether he acts or not. Again I think a "voluntary" sale is by far the best option.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Quote

In the end, Truman issued Executive Order 10340

On June 2, 1952, in a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court declared in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that the President lacked the authority to seize the steel mills. Writing for a heavily-divided majority, Justice Hugo Black held that the President had no authority under the Constitution to seize private property on the grounds of national security. Since Congress had not otherwise authorized the president to seize the steel mills, the President could not do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike

Who wants to put odds on Congress authorizing Biden to nationalize SpaceX?

[Teufel]

Could say that again!

 

[dan/california]

17 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

On June 2, 1952, in a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court declared in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that the President lacked the authority to seize the steel mills. Writing for a heavily-divided majority, Justice Hugo Black held that the President had no authority under the Constitution to seize private property on the grounds of national security. Since Congress had not otherwise authorized the president to seize the steel mills, the President could not do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_steel_strike

Who wants to put odds on Congress authorizing Biden to nationalize SpaceX?

Perhaps not, but if they pulled the security clearances and launch authorizations wholesale they would be closed in a week. I assure if that if you or I  call up the Russian Ambassador and ask him how we can make Putin feel better, negative consequences will ensue. There is absolutely no reason Musk should be any different.

Edited September 13, 2023 by dan/california

[Teufel]

Donetsk Airport, here we come!

Couldn’t phrased it better myself, ze German very own Scooter performs ”Fire”!

 

[Harmon Rabb]

Those Storm Shadows seem to be a real crowd pleaser...I think the AFU should be sent some more.

[Teufel]

Speaking of fire, T-90 BBQ!

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

copy paste from subsim hq

Wow.  Looks like several levels of deck in the central section collapsed and pretty much everything collapsed into the hull.  Yup, that ship is headed for the scrap yard for sure.

I wonder how much of the damage was done from the strike and how much came from the fire afterwards.  Judging from the pics of the fire it seems like the fire might have done the trick.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

That said, no small part of Musk's workforce skews left on the political spectrum. 

It’s continually surprising to me in the big tech companies how many people skew right, vs the popular perception of these companies. When I worked at one popular social media company in 2016, IIRC all but 2 guys on my team voted for Trump, and the 2 of us who didn’t was because we felt he was a conman. My team was quite diverse racially, and this lent some credence to the fact that Trump got 50% of the black male vote.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

It takes a lot to get someone to give up a good paying job or to not buying something they think is super sweet, but as other job openings and products come onto market it is indeed possible that a Tesla might be the next My Pillow

Steve

Mmmm, if people want to work on rockets, get great pay and not work hard, you have Blue Origin. Or Boeing. There are all sorts of other cool rocket startups like Stoke and RocketLab. But the thing is, SpaceX is probably 20-30 years ahead in every area (compared to RocketLab or Stoke, not Boeing which won’t progress past 60s tech). If you want to work on the cool stuff right now, or be part of the cool stuff there’s only one choice, and that becomes rapidly less cool with nationalization.

That said, the nationalization stick isn’t needed. Starshield is the proper solution, and if you want Musk to stop attention whoring and go back to doing useful things (or interfering with them), promise him a nuclear reactor for his mars colony, or butter him and give him money to build a 100sqm solar plant in Texas and praise him for helping achieve energy independence and whatnot hippies like.

[Maciej Zwolinski]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

About Musk.  Since the US is not at war with Russia there are only limited direct actions the US Gov't can take to get Musk to stop helping Russia.  Violations of the StarLink contract is likely toothless because Musk can always threaten to pull the plug on it.  Such are the major downsides of attempting to conduct a public-private partnership.  Free enterprise is what it is.

Looking from outside of the US, I must say that I do not get the Musk hate/presumption that Musk must be doing bad stuff.  Apparently in November 2022 Musk believed Russian propaganda that they will nuke the Ukraine if Crimea is attacked, got scared and refused to extend StarLink coverage to Sevastopol. With hindsight, that was a bad call and unnecessary.

However, the US governement with its intelligence apparatus, satellites, gazillions of security advisers also belived all sort of tall tales about Putin's "red lines" and dragged its feet disgustingly over each additional couple of km of range in the next batch of weapons. Artillery, HIMARS, tanks, cluster ammunitions, ATCMS, planes - each time there was a huge discussion over whether this will finally prod the Russian bear into its mighty rage, which always ended with a whimper, but the discussion never goes away. Sure, Musk bottled it that time, but so did the United States of America and the rest of NATO on a number of times. He may be the richest man on the Earth, but still he is a private individual and surely should not be held to a higher standard than the most powerful military alliance in history and its constituent governments.

[Battlefront.com]

31 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

It’s continually surprising to me in the big tech companies how many people skew right, vs the popular perception of these companies.

I've seen more than a few demographic studies and you are not wrong that it isn't all one sided.  Buuuuut... on social issues, the demographic studies in the US time and time and time and time again show that the more educated, younger, urban, and less white the person is the more likely they are on the left side of the middle.  Compared to previous time periods it is even more pronounced.  High tech is not some magical exception, but of course when looking at any one company and any one group within that company the general trends might not apply.

We're getting off topic, but the point is that there is no company in the US (and I presume other high earning, high tech economies) that is immune from worker retention challenges.  SpaceX and Tesla might be ahead of the others in their respective fields, but there are thousands of employees at those companies that could go to any number of other high tech companies.  The number of positions at SpaceX that are unique to putting rockets into orbit is very small.

Musk is already alienating customers (I sure as F won't buy a Tesla as long a he is in control) and I'm sure the luster of working for him is not what it used to be.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Looking from outside of the US, I must say that I do not get the Musk hate/presumption that Musk must be doing bad stuff.  Apparently in November 2022 Musk believed Russian propaganda that they will nuke the Ukraine if Crimea is attacked, got scared and refused to extend StarLink coverage to Sevastopol. With hindsight, that was a bad call and unnecessary.

However, the US governement with its intelligence apparatus, satellites, gazillions of security advisers also belived all sort of tall tales about Putin's "red lines" and dragged its feet disgustingly over each additional couple of km of range in the next batch of weapons. Artillery, HIMARS, tanks, cluster ammunitions, ATCMS, planes - each time there was a huge discussion over whether this will finally prod the Russian bear into its mighty rage, which always ended with a whimper, but the discussion never goes away. Sure, Musk bottled it that time, but so did the United States of America and the rest of NATO on a number of times. He may be the richest man on the Earth, but still he is a private individual and surely should not be held to a higher standard than the most powerful military alliance in history and its constituent governments.

This is all very fair.  But it has to be viewed in context with his general behavior and shift towards peddling conspiracy theories, gutting safeguards against Russian (and other) influence campaigns, and generally promoting whacky people.

Someone said it above, it is understandable that a private company might say "we don't want our products to be used for killing people".  But Starlink is being used for exactly that purpose 24/7/365 and is earning truckloads of money for it.  To then say "well, it's OK to use Starlink to kill people here, but not here" doesn't really seem to be all that defensible a position.  Especially when withholding that access only harms one side and double especially because it's the one that has a just cause for fighting.

Steve

[Kraft]

Not to drag this Musk guessing game on but I think besides him being a massive turd and whatnot, he is also a money hungry egomaniac and a third of total Tesla sales come from the chinese EV market. The Russians may be exerting real pressure there

[Maciej Zwolinski]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To then say "well, it's OK to use Starlink to kill people here, but not here" doesn't really seem to be all that defensible a position. 

Absolutely. I merely would like to point out that it is exactly the same rule that is (allegedly) imposed by the US government on the Ukrainians in connection with deliveries of US weapons - they are not to be used e.g. in Briansk oblast over the other side of the uncontested Russian border. I remember the traditionally anonymous US government officials getting their collective panties in an anonymous twist when the Russian Legion drove some Lend Lease Humvees or MRRAPs over the border. Same stupid principle, just different geographical direction.

If the US governement is getting away with such idiocy, why Musk is getting a harsher treatment?

[Harmon Rabb]

Musk confronted by British reporter on the street.

[Beleg85]

57 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

However, the US governement with its intelligence apparatus, satellites, gazillions of security advisers also belived all sort of tall tales about Putin's "red lines" and dragged its feet disgustingly over each additional couple of km of range in the next batch of weapons. Artillery, HIMARS, tanks, cluster ammunitions, ATCMS, planes - each time there was a huge discussion over whether this will finally prod the Russian bear into its mighty rage, which always ended with a whimper, but the discussion never goes away. Sure, Musk bottled it that time, but so did the United States of America and the rest of NATO on a number of times. He may be the richest man on the Earth, but still he is a private individual and surely should not be held to a higher standard than the most powerful military alliance in history and its constituent governments.

There will be books written about this topic undoubtedly, so I wouldn't judge too harsh yet- we know very little what was happening in cabinets during last two years, and little on how Russia and US reacted to each other. For now we don't know what US government believed to be frank, and how much of weapon delivery lag was done byother factors like too stiff roadmap, boiling frog strategies, general "overthinking" entire issue, extreme internal political pressures (a fact Musk must not take into account in his company) nor sole fact that leading a country, especially superpower, burdens you with devilish sense of responsibility that Musk does not have slightest idea about. I don't see a lot of sense in comparing a job as some CEO and leader of any state either. If so, recognized political organizations should behave much more cautiously than business companies; they have so much more to loose. Unless one is Russia, of course.

The problem with Musk is what Steve said- he jumped the line of his competence. Smart, responsible person knows limits of his power- this guy does not.

Also I don't buy this "end of the world" explanation for a moment- Musk is not stupid. Care for his satellites and, less romantically, factories in China that other users put forward seem like much better explanations.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Beleg85

[Maciej Zwolinski]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

But it has to be viewed in context with his general behavior and shift towards peddling conspiracy theories, gutting safeguards against Russian (and other) influence campaigns, and generally promoting whacky people.

From my experience the inference from general behaviour is always a bit suspect because people just like to judge others wholesale and avoid the unpleasant cognitive dissonance, so they rely on it too much and end up in non sequiturs. So as in other cases, I try not to jump on the bandwagon of "Musk's fault"  - funnily enough, in Polish politics, we have an ironic saying "Tusk's fault" as the former PM Tusk is blamed  by the current governement for all wrongs, including those he could not have any connection with. Another ironic Polish saying underlining the dangers of such reasoning can be translated as "He is a drunk. And a thief. Because every drunk is a thief".

Actually on the basis of our domestic politics one can illustrate perfectly the fallacies arising from overreliance on this. The current POL governement is populist-nationalist. A lot of people of more liberal persuasion automatically chalk them up to the pro-Putin camp, whereas looking at the facts they demonstrably are in the most anti-Russian group, up there with the Baltics and Finns. While some foreign journalists or analysts just make such connection because they are weak on facts,  some Polish opposition radicals also try to argue so flying in the face of the facts. Imagine the mental hoops they have to jump through. It is literally painful to read.

But we have strayed far off-topic, like an USV in Severnaya Bay with its StarLink suddenly cut off.

 

[sross112]

So what happened with Musk? I believe I remember him being pro Ukraine in the beginning. Even think he challenged Putin to personal combat. He got the Starlink over there quickly and was publicly praised for that. At what point and why did he appear to do a 180?

[Battlefront.com]

32 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Absolutely. I merely would like to point out that it is exactly the same rule that is (allegedly) imposed by the US government on the Ukrainians in connection with deliveries of US weapons - they are not to be used e.g. in Briansk oblast over the other side of the uncontested Russian border. I remember the traditionally anonymous US government officials getting their collective panties in an anonymous twist when the Russian Legion drove some Lend Lease Humvees or MRRAPs over the border. Same stupid principle, just different geographical direction.

If the US governement is getting away with such idiocy, why Musk is getting a harsher treatment?

The US (and other Western allies) position is different.  It said to Ukraine "we are giving you things to take back your own territory.  Whatever damage you do to your own territory in the process is your business."

Musk's response was "I'll sell you something that you can use unless I unilaterally determine that I don't want you to do it.  I won't tell you when or where I'll cut your service.  It's really up to me. "

Then there are consequences.  If the US provides a weapon to Ukraine which Ukraine then uses to blow up the Kremlin, it is not unreasonable for Russia to decide this means the US is culpable.  Russia can then take action against the United States.

What will Russia do if they don't like what Starlink is doing?  Attack Texas?  Send out an assassin?  Whatever it is, guess who winds up defending Musk or his companies?  The US Government.

Then there's the underlying concept here.  The Western countries are, for the most part, GIVING Ukraine the means to fight.  There is no profit to be had from this.  Musk, on the other hand, is doing this to make a profit.

The differences are vast.  Musk is a for profit company operating under the guidance of a single individual who has, in no small part, shown that he is working at cross purposes with the governments that provide his wealth and safety.

Steve

[Maciej Zwolinski]

13 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Also I don't buy this "end of the world" explanation for a moment- Musk is not stupid. Care for his satellites and, less romantically, factories in China that other users put forward seem like much better explanations.

Fair enough. But also fair enough for Musk, were it the case - he is a private person after all. Not under a duty to conduct foreign policy in Eastern Europe. He is fully within his rights to have preference for his private business up to the boundaries of treason. And this is far away from treason.

17 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

The problem with Musk is what Steve said- he jumped the line of his competence. Smart, responsible person knows limits of his power- this guy does not.

I do not get this. What action of Musk you describe by the phrase "jumped the line of his competence"? Was that his lack of agreement to extend StarLink to the shores of Crimea at the request of the Ukrainians?  I mean, what other person would have that competence?

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, sross112 said:

So what happened with Musk? I believe I remember him being pro Ukraine in the beginning. Even think he challenged Putin to personal combat. He got the Starlink over there quickly and was publicly praised for that. At what point and why did he appear to do a 180?

He's a salesman and an egomaniac as well.  Starlink was just really getting a start when this war kicked off, so it was a perfect time to get a lot of attention.  I don't know what his other motivations might have been, but I am sure this was his primary one.

I just saw a report that Starlink this year is earning about 13% of what he promised investors it would be by this point in time.  He has a lot of incentives to be a salesman.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Fair enough. But also fair enough for Musk, were it the case - he is a private person after all. Not under a duty to conduct foreign policy in Eastern Europe. He is fully within his rights to have preference for his private business up to the boundaries of treason. And this is far away from treason.

Right, which is why people like me are calling him an arsewipe, not a traitor.  I also argued that he isn't breaking any laws that I'm aware of and that the US government is getting what it deserves for relying upon a private sector corporation that is run by a single man instead of one with a responsible board of directors (as flawed as they are).

Look, I have a lot of respect for what Musk has done as an business guy.  It's amazing what he's done.  I also have a lot of respect for Henry Ford, yet still think he was a miserable POS of a Human Being.  I also think Mel Gibson is a great actor, but I sure have some opinions about who he is as a person.

I can separate the man from the accomplishments just fine.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

Like we say go for the ball and not for the player.