World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Looks like being in an international area doesn't actually make you immune to consequences. If Brazil doesn't want something broadcasting then the only way to keep them from shutting it down is to broadcast from inside a national area. If push comes to shove they can ban Starlink too, confiscate any receivers they can find, and even shoot down the satellites.
~~The satellites may be carrying starshields on them which are national security modules with the DoD. Shooting down the wrong satellite would be attacking US national defense infrastructure.~~
Nevermind starshields are whole DoD satellites.
I think when I read this, I replaced starshield with starlink
There are 6350 Starlink satellites in orbit. Dude launches 60 of them at a time, has FCC permission for 12,000, and plans to launch another 30,000.
Brazil has about 12. They can threaten to shoot down Starlink satellites, but they lack the capacity to actually do it.
That's not how that works? It's a missile. And they wouldn't be trying to shoot down the entire system. Just enforce the ban in their own country. Odds are Starlink folds pretty quickly when they start losing assets.
With what weapon system is Brazil going to pose a debilitating threat to a constellation of 6000 satellites?
"Shoot them down" is well outside the scope of Brazil's military capability.
Fighter jets and missiles. And before you go, oh no fighter jets don't go that high! Their missiles can go that high with a flying start. Everything after that is just targeting. This is 40 year old technology and it's available for sale.
And again. There are not 6000 satellites servicing Brazil, nor would they need to hit nearly that many before Starlink caved.
There is a serious lack of appreciation for the power and wealth countries command in this comment section. Brazil has an order of magnitude more wealth to use than Starlink.
I'm sorry. How do you expect a jet flying to get even close enough to a satellite to accelerate a missile to it?
Highest ever flow fixed wing "aircraft" is SpaceShipOne with rocket engines. Well above what a typical fighter jet might do: 112km height at 910m/s And a typical rocket will go what? Mach 2 or 3? So let's say Mach 4 at 112 km, which is 1096 m/s
A typical Starlink orbit is either around 340km height or more typical 550km at either 7726 m/s or 7613 m/s at the different heights.
That gives a minimum distance traveled of at least 228km and a speed gap of 6630 m/s or 23868 km/h that the missile still needs to close.
There are probably ways that Brazil could try and destroy satellites if they want to. But launching missiles from (rocket powered) jets definitely isn't one of them.
The actual launch process really is that simple. Here's a picture of an F-15 launching one.
The ASM-135A was fired once, and destroyed one test satellite. That satellite was the first and only satellite that mankind has destroyed with a missile.
How many of those missiles does Brazil have? How fast can they produce them?
The first operational batch of 60 Starlink satellites were launched 5 years ago. They now have well over 6000 aloft. Starlink has a demonstrated ability to produce and launch well over 100 satellites a month. They are launched in batches of 20 to 60, using any space available in any of SpaceX's launch platforms. After launch, they are deployed and scattered throughout the sky. Brazil would need 60 missiles to bring down just one launch worth of satellites.
They are planning a constellation of 12,000 satellites with 5-year lifespans. That's 200 satellites a month. Can Brazil produce ASM-135A missiles fast enough to actually put a dent in the Starlink constellation?
I'm sorry do you want them to fire it more often?
And no, a 2 second Google search would show you they successfully used an SM-3 from a Navy ship as well. It would also tell you that Russia, India, and China have done it too. At least one of which is willing to sell their missiles.
And as pointed out earlier, the answer is yes. A country can produce missiles fast enough.
Not even the US military has the capability of shooting down 200 satellites a month. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Yup, the military with an operating budget ten times Starlink and an ability to put it's own satellites up could do nothing...
That makes total sense.
You are truly ridiculous.
You don't seem to understand that it costs more to shoot down a satellite than it costs to launch one. It costs a lot more... Like, A whole lot more.
10 times, eh? That's the budget you're willing to give your anti-satellite program? 10 times is not even "a lot" more, let alone "a whole lot".
Each Starlink satellite costs about $300,000 to build and launch. That allows you $30 million per missile.
The ASM-135 program had a per-unit cost of $380 million (2024 dollars).
A budget 10 times as large isn't going to cut it. You're going to need a budget 127 times as large just to keep up.
Brazil spent $22 billion on its military last year. That would buy them 57 missiles. But, let's assume they can get the cost down to just 10 times (they can't) and say it costs $30 million to down a satellite. Their entire military budget gets them 733 missiles per year.
Again, Starlink can launch 60 in one launch. They have demonstrated an ability to launch over 1200 per year over a 5-year period. They are currently licensed for a constellation that will require production and launch of 2400 per year to sustain, and their next phase will require 8000 satellites per year.
Not even the US military has the capability of shooting down satellites at anything close to these rates.
Which makes sense until you remember how the USG budgets procurement programs. The "unit cost" includes all the R&D divided by the number of widgets bought. The actual cost to build is generally far lower. But you just keep going, don't let reality stop you from licking those billionaire boots!
I forgot to also mention, countries have access to debt financing based on their GDP. Pissing off even a medium sized one is not a big brain move.
Please elaborate. There are a lot of fighter jets and a lot of missile systems. Please show me one capable of even guiding itself outside the atmosphere. Please show me one capable of causing significant impact to Starlink operations over Brazil.
The missiles typically carried on fighters generally have some kind of rocket motor that burns out in seconds, and utilize aerodynamic fins to maneuver itself to the target. While such missiles are theoretically capable of achieving the altitudes you're talking about, they become unguided once they lose sufficient atmosphere to maneuver.
Very few missiles actually have an anti-satellite capability. Nothing in Brazil's arsenal has ever been demonstrated to have such an capacity.
I'll give you a hint: the total anti-satellite capability of the entire planet could shoot down maybe 50, and would take weeks to replenish. Starlink would replace its losses in one launch.
These aren't geosynchronous satellites. They don't sit still in the sky. They don't each serve a specific region on earth. They each complete an orbit every 90 minutes. Each and every satellite in the constellation passes over some part of Brazil multiple times a day, providing service to that area as it does. Yes, there are, indeed, 6000+ satellites servicing Brazil. Pick the right one, and you might be able to interrupt service in some part of Brazil for a few minutes a day, until the constellation adjusts itself to compensate.
If there are 6,000 then Starlink is again flaunting the rule of law. Brazil gave them a permit for a max of around 4,000.
And you're not getting the disparity in resources here. If Starlink can launch every day then Brazil can launch a similar size vehicle 10 times a day. Furthermore AS missiles are available on the market. It doesn't matter if they don't have one right now.
In all likelihood they'll go a different route but I don't get why you think Starlink can manufacture and replace delicate instruments in orbit faster than a medium sized country can launch explosives to yeet them. Starlink's revenue is around 2 to 6 billion a year. Brazil has 2 trillion in GDP to work with. Those number are different, because the way a country finances something and the way a corporation finances something are completely different. This isn't a fair fight.
Brazil didn't give them a permit for anything. The relevant permits are from the FCC, FAA, NASA. They have a permit for 12,000, and they have plans for a 3-layer constellation of 30,000.
Starlink deploys something like 60 satellites per launch, then scatters them. Brazil would have to launch a separate missile at each of those 60. Of course, this assumes they actually have a missile that can do job. Which they don't. Not even the US has the capability to destroy satellites at this scale.
It is not possible to accomplish what you are talking about. And even if it were technologically possible, it is entirely infeasible. It would be easier for Brazil to develop a manned Mars mission than to destroy Starlink satellites faster than they can be replaced.
Right... We're done here if you think the US solely controls the low orbit area above other countries and you don't understand capabilities versus stockpile. This has gotten entirely ridiculous.
Your sovereignty arguments should hold true no matter what sovereign nation we are talking about. Replace "Brazil" with "North Korea", and they devolve into absurdity: North Korea has no authority to dictate terms to Starlink, and no capacity to stop them. Their sovereignty does not convey them the power or authority to control low earth orbit.
Brazil firing on a Chinese satellite would be an act of war against China. Brazil firing on a Starlink satellite would be an act of war against the US, even if that satellite were in Brazil's sovereign borders at the time. Whether the US would respond to such aggression is an open question, but I doubt they would be interested in finding out.
Brazil has no direct, forceful route to compel Starlink to comply with the order. Their only real option is diplomacy.
That's not how that works, you can't just jam a commercial ship into a country and blow raspberries at them while you break all of their laws. That's the entire point of sovereignty. And sovereignty isn't dependent on might. So while N Korea objecting to stuff is funny, it's still their right.
Likewise private American satellites do not enjoy any protection outside of the US.
Simply declaring any American's property as protected by the military is both incredibly naive and self centered. Americans and their property get seized all the time by foreign countries. And the State Department helps them get a local lawyer.
If you want to use a commercial ship in your analogy, you're going to have to place it in international waters, 200 miles off the coast. Brazil does not control a commercial ship in international waters; Brazil does not control a satellite passing overhead. Attacking either is, indeed, an act of war.
Sending and receiving radio communications with Brazil or North Korea is not an act of war. If Brazil has a problem with that, they can make it a diplomatic issue.
No. It's really not. And yes, the Navy can come get your ship. The OG pirate radio station got taken into port for not paying it's bills.
Your definition of an act of war would mean every American citizen, plane, and ship, carried a presumption of military action with them wherever they go. And they just don't. It can rise to an act of war but that takes something truly stupid like torpedoing cruise liners, Or attempting to block all trade through the Suez Canal. Seeing as how there's space and no civilians in the line of fire, Brazil might get a call from the state department but that's all.
No. Not "wherever" they go. Pay very close attention: Brazil controls only it's own territory.
An American going into Brazilian territory is expected and required to obey Brazilian laws. An American in international waters is not expected or required to obey Brazilian law just because a Brazilian warship shows up and threatens to sink them. A Brazilian naval vessel attempting to sink an American commercial ship in international waters is committing an act of war. And you damn well better believe there will be a military response to such an act. Don't touch our boats.
Starlink is not operating in Brazilian territory. They are operating over Brazilian territory. Downing a foreign spacecraft is an act of war; beaming a radio signal carrying the internet into a nation that doesn't want it is simply not.
Brazil can go after it's citizens for using Starlink, but it can't go after Starlink itself.
That's a nice fantasy but no. You can't sit in international waters while operating inside a national area and be immune to their laws. This isn't a playground and they aren't 10 year olds yelling, "I'm not touching you."
Again we know this because ships have absolutely been detained, raided, and sunk in international waters. You cannot just commit crimes and expect a lack of jurisdiction to protect you.
You can't do that for the same reason you can't sit in a corner of the oval office. It's a contradiction of terms. An oxymoronic proposition.
Starlink isn't operating inside a national area. Low earth orbit is not a national area.
Yes, ships have been sunk in international waters by national governments. Those are acts of war.
Sigh. I'm done here, again. You've again just settled into repeating something ridiculous. Americans and their property don't have some special protection just for being American. If you want to pretend everything is an act of war and it's impossible to operate at a distance you can do so elsewhere with someone else.
Strawman. Never claimed they did. Everything I said is valid for any person of any nationality. Shooting down a Chinese satellite is an act of war against China. Shooting down one of Brazil's dozen satellites is an act of war against Brazil, even if it is over the United States at the time.
Brazil does not have any authority to shoot down any satellites but it's own. To do so is an act of war.
Operating at a distance is, indeed, possible, but at a distance, legal compliance is not obligatory. Starlink doesn't have to follow Brazil's laws any more than it does North Korea's. Brazil can take legal action against its citizens if it prohibits them from using Starlink services. But it can't take action against Starlink itself, except through diplomatic channels or with Starlink's consent, because Starlink is not operating within Brazilian jurisdiction.
I don't know why you keep insisting that a company operating outside of Brazil needs to follow Brazilian law. Brazilian customers of that company need to follow Brazilian law, but the company is not obligated, regardless of what Brazil thinks about it.
Same thing with the GDPR. Yeah, they'll fine the European division of a company based on the company's worldwide revenue, but if the company has no European division to fine, European regulators can piss up a rope, regardless of whether the company is based in the US or Brazil.
I guess enjoy immediate war from the US?
The US is not going to go to war over SpaceX's private Internet satellites.
Lets assume they're not carrying DOD data (they are), do you really think the US will sit back and let some third world-
Destroy US Commercial property
Start a Kessler Storm
Without consequence? US destroyed Iran's navy over a single shipping vessel...
The DoD is not depending on starlink in South America. And dropping a few satellites is not going to create a Kessler effect. And Operation Praying Mantis was because they attacked a US Navy Frigate.
Are you done being dramatic?
I'm not sure you understand how Starlink works, it's not geostationary like you're implying.
I'm aware of that.