Starlink Digitally Controlling the Skies for Military Supremacy

The second description reveals that it is not just a communications foundation, but a geopolitical paradigm designed to wield power and control while encompassing digital supremacy in space.

The skies have been militarized through privately owned satellite networking which radically changes how war and politics operate. The term “private” can only be used to loosely describe the situation, as developmental business models are so heavily subsidized by government contracts. Then there’s the related classified military defenses…

Thus, Starlink is not publicly controlled. Space satellite operations are confined to centralized control stations based in the USA through software operations via servers. Unlike the old paradigm, these headquartered control stations are not obligated nor accountable to international, multi-lateral rules or any regulations. There isn’t a single country in the world that is privy to these centralized control stations and their operations.

Starlink used as a testing ground

The hidden ulterior motive, Starlink as a modern political power play was revealed during the Ukraine war in 2022 when Starlink terminals had suddenly swarmed over Ukraine. They were used to connect to satellite networks during the Ukraine’s war with Russia. Showing up at Ukraine military bases, sanctioned through Pentagon officials, it had brought much conflict, threatening peace with Russia.

Elon Musk was ordered to shut-down satellite communications operations after Russia deployed anti-satellite missiles.

The Ukraine war had been used as a testing ground for Starlink. Out of this StarShield was born, the military version of Starlink.

Put simply, through U.S private networks, Starlink’s communications have changed the way war operates: The new reality is that the military operations of an entire state are now dependent on corporate entrepreneurship. Elon Musk and his company’s technology operates this way; not traditionally through generals or defense secretaries affecting the control of armies and the related infrastructure.

-Understandably, the absence of state control has sent shockwaves in certain circles… It has not been legally or politically ascertained whether the state or the operators are in charge of deployment, targeting and cessation.

Geopolitical leverage

Space is no longer neutral territory. In truth, whoever controls the skies with its communications infrastructure will use it for military supremacy. All done under the guise of touting it as a mere digital technology for civilians.

As already mentioned, no country, no government or regulatory body can track what is going on during operations. Starlink with its militarization has replaced military presence with digital presence.

States that choose this digital supremacy must abide by its orbit-to-ground American-dominated owner controllers. For example, a number of African countries have opted to choose this infrastructure. They have boldly chosen to rely on its strategic dependence.

-Entire areas or countries could be disconnected from the system through a few button presses if there is a fall out with their digital owner controllers. Consider, for example, digital disconnection instead of sanctions. Wouldn’t digital disconnection be much more subtle, more effective?

Countries who choose not to opt in will have to find their own alternative models. This could take years to develop running up a cost in billions.

Realizing the implications, both China and Russia are developing their own alternatives. China has a network of some 12,000-plus low-Earth satellites in development; national security project “Guowang.” While Russia’s answer is project “Sfera” which plans to combine civilian and military operations.

Both projects are engineered to compete with SpaceX’s Starlink. However, they will differ from Starlink in that each will be controlled by their respective state.

Europe’s version, IRIS, has suffered a number of setbacks. Budget problems, authority-related disputes and political inexperience have caused project IRIS to be relegated to the sidelines for now. However, the EU still plans to be a competitive sovereign player in the quest for control of the orbit by 2027.

There is also Amazon’s Kuiper system (now called Leo). 

Dependency

When a country relies on the rights to digital control via a foreign agency it has lost its sovereignty as a nation. Welcome to the new dependency care of Starlink! Profound, silent and well tucked away from public discernment.

Consider these 3 dependency-related aspects.

1.Due to the nature of the technology, when a country opts to connect with Starlink there is no turning back.

Patented encrypted software with its frequencies during operations are closed systems. Not even those at the highest level of government who had sponsored (taxpayer money), signed up for this technology are privy to Starlink’s controls. -No law; contract or treaty exists to unlock the system if ever Starlink chose to shut down. 

2.The costs.

Following on from 1, using Starlink’s communications system, paying for hiring infrastructure, licensing  and technical support is not just costly. Subscribers, the states, are entrapped in a digital dependent system, to which they have no ownership of.

3.Device for political control.

The political aspect reflects on how American-based Starlink has access to military decision making, tactical operations and ahead planning… making it a tool for political leverage. In relation to this, non-US states may not be privy to any insights.

For instance, if the U.S detects another state acting against their interests, then the response could be to restrict its data flow. -This subsequent restriction could in theory put much pressure on the state in question, have military restrictions, social and economic implications.

Ultimately, it’s about western-world technological domination, pending on how the rules are set.

Ecology environmental Impact

As this silent militarization continues to expand in the skies, the resulting environmental impact is largely ignored. As new satellites get added in sizable numbers, it comes with an increasing ecological cost.

To begin with, manufacturing these satellites requires many kilograms of aluminum, copper, lithium, silicon and other more rarer earth elements. -This contributes to the making of a 260-kilogram satellite, requiring some 20-odd megawatt hours of energy required for production. Then there’s the specialized manufacturing techniques and requirements needed, such a those used in a cleanroom.

Rocket launches of these satellites in their numbers require further large amounts of energy.

-There are plans to put well over 10,000 of these units orbiting in space. Other countries will also want to make such sizable provisions. Consider the further costs for launching and installation…

A new satellite will last for just 5 years. After that, the satellite is taken out of orbit, involving a recycling process that is far from clean.

One of the byproducts is aluminum oxide whereby several hundred tons could accumulate in the atmosphere by 2030 from the many expired and recycled satellites each year. -This has been observed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration based at British Columbia University (NOAA).

As you’ve probably guessed, these atmospheric particles are potentially harmful. It could, for example, affect the ozone layer, Earth’s temperature and goodness knows what else as there is insufficient research on the effects of the debris. -That, in effect, makes the sky an uncontrolled dumping ground. Pure lunacy.