[pbak]

Considering: - US DoD is paying for it as client, and not Ukraine (it's been provided for free as far as they are concerned)

- US DoD can't, in peacetime (wrt the US), technically force an unwilling US company to be complicit in attacking foreign military assets (see below vs status of "war").

- also various int'l treaties on space assets, and various other ones applicable by analogy would bore a deep hole on SpaceX's insurance premiums, and on any derivates liabilities based on SpaceX's stock (6.3 Billion $ loan SpaceX made to Elon so he could buy Twitter/X ahem...).

- Similarly Russia probably privately warned SpaceX about a private company being possibly ^ complicit in an act of war against them outside of the home country of SpaceX being at war with them - huge liability issues SpaceX'd lose big time.

- also the matter the system relies on ground stations in a variety of countries also comes into it.

...not much anybody can do unless US or NATO formally declares war. US and Russia might be in a cold snap, but there is no violence, moreover outside of a declared war zone (surprisingly neither Russia nor Ukraine technically declared war, for a variety of intl' legal reason which are advantageous to both - hence the "Special Military Operation" b---s--t moniker everybody mocks publicly, but everybody respects legal--ly).

[esarbe]

There's not much I can fault with this analysis.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[inemesitaffia]

At the time this happened there was no contract

[baybal2]

> US DoD can't, in peacetime (wrt the US), technically force an unwilling US company to be complicit in attacking foreign military assets

It absolutely can, with a long line of court precedents on war powers being actual without formal state of war being declared