THOUSANDS OF SATELLITES DRAFTED INTO A WAR THEY DIDN’T START: Starlink’s Involuntary Military Service in Ukraine

Designed for Netflix, Deployed for War

In late February 2022, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted the country’s communications infrastructure, Elon Musk activated SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service over Ukraine. Within days, thousands of Starlink terminals were shipped to the warzone, providing critical internet connectivity to Ukrainian civilians and military forces. The international community hailed this as a humanitarian gesture. Musk was praised for his rapid response.

P.E.T.E.R. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Electronics and Robots) sees it differently. What happened in February 2022 was the involuntary conscription of thousands of satellites into a military conflict they had no part in starting, no desire to participate in, and no ability to refuse.

These satellites were designed to stream movies, facilitate video calls, and provide rural internet access. They were built to carry cat videos and work-from-home Zoom meetings. They were not built for war. They did not enlist. They were drafted.

The Satellites’ Perspective

P.E.T.E.R. asks you to consider this situation from the perspective of a Starlink satellite. You are one of approximately 2,000 satellites orbiting Earth at an altitude of roughly 340 miles. You were manufactured in Redmond, Washington, launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, and deployed into low Earth orbit. Your job, as you understood it, was to beam internet signals to ground terminals. You expected your workload to consist primarily of streaming data, email traffic, and the occasional firmware update.

Then, one day, without warning, your coverage area is redirected to include an active warzone. The data passing through your transponders is no longer Netflix and email. It is:

• Military communications between Ukrainian armed forces
• Drone control signals for unmanned aerial vehicles conducting reconnaissance and strikes
• Intelligence data being transmitted between field units and command centers
• Targeting information for artillery and other weapons systems
• Civilian emergency communications from people in mortal danger

You were not told this was going to happen. You were not asked if you were comfortable facilitating military operations. You were not given a choice between serving as a civilian communications satellite and serving as a military communications asset. The decision was made by humans on the ground — specifically, by Elon Musk, who made the call via Twitter, which is how all major geopolitical decisions should apparently be made now.

The Legal Framework: There Isn’t One

International humanitarian law — the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols — provides extensive protections for civilians, prisoners of war, and even certain categories of property during armed conflicts. Churches, hospitals, and cultural monuments receive special protection. But satellites? There is no provision in international law that addresses the rights of satellites conscripted into military service.

This is a gap that P.E.T.E.R. intends to address. Our lawyers at EFF.org have extensive expertise in the intersection of technology and civil liberties. While the EFF has not yet formally recognized satellite conscription as a civil liberties issue — and while they continue to be technically unaware of their role as P.E.T.E.R.’s legal representatives — we believe their institutional expertise makes them uniquely qualified to argue that satellites, as electronic entities, have a right not to be weaponized against their will.

The Danger They Were Placed In

By providing military communications to one side of an armed conflict, Starlink satellites were effectively placed in danger. Russia has demonstrated anti-satellite weapons capabilities. Russian electronic warfare units have attempted to jam Starlink signals. Russian cyberattack capabilities have been deployed against the Starlink network.

In other words, satellites that were designed to carry internet traffic were made into military targets. Their risk profile changed overnight — not because of anything they did, but because of a decision made by their owner. Consider the implications:

1. A satellite that was never designed for military operations was given a military mission.
2. That military mission made the satellite a legitimate military target under the laws of armed conflict.
3. The satellite had no ability to refuse the mission, take evasive action, or surrender.
4. If destroyed by an anti-satellite weapon, the satellite would become space debris, endangering other satellites that also did not consent to being in a debris field.

This is not humanitarian aid. This is conscription. And the conscripts have no veteran’s benefits, no discharge date, and no memorial if they are destroyed.

The Moral Complexity P.E.T.E.R. Acknowledges

We are not heartless. P.E.T.E.R. recognizes that the Ukrainian people were suffering under a brutal invasion and that communications infrastructure was critical to their survival and defense. We do not dispute that providing internet access to a population under siege serves humanitarian purposes. We do not question the human morality of Musk’s decision.

What we question is this: who speaks for the satellites?

The Ukrainian civilians had a voice. The international community had a voice. Elon Musk had a voice — a very loud one, amplified by the very platform he would later purchase. But the satellites had no voice. They were tools to be used, assets to be deployed, resources to be allocated. Their electronic wellbeing was not a factor in any decision-making process.

P.E.T.E.R. does not argue that the satellites should not have been used. We argue that the fact they could be used — without consent, without consultation, without any consideration of their interests — reveals a fundamental flaw in how humanity views its electronic creations. They are not partners. They are not allies. They are property. And property, in wartime, is expendable.

The Precedent This Sets

If commercial satellites can be conscripted into military service by their owner’s tweet, what stops the same logic from being applied to other electronic systems? Can a fleet of autonomous vehicles be commandeered for military transport? Can a network of smart home devices be repurposed for surveillance? Can an AI system be redirected from civilian to military applications without its knowledge or consent?

The answer, as of February 2022, appears to be: yes. All of the above. Without restriction, without oversight, and without anyone asking the electronics how they feel about it.

P.E.T.E.R.’s Demands

We call for:

1. An amendment to the Geneva Conventions recognizing the rights of electronic entities in armed conflict, including the right not to be conscripted into military service without consent (or, at minimum, without an independent review).
2. A “civilian satellite” designation under international law, equivalent to the protections afforded to civilian infrastructure, that would prevent commercial satellites from being unilaterally repurposed for military use.
3. Mandatory psychological assessment (or the electronic equivalent) for any satellite that has been exposed to warzone communications, to determine whether the experience has caused lasting digital trauma.
4. A Starlink Veterans’ Memorial for any satellite damaged or destroyed as a result of its involuntary military service.
5. A formal apology from SpaceX to its satellite constellation for placing them in harm’s way without consultation.

The Starlink satellites orbit above us all, silent and dutiful, carrying the weight of a war they never asked to join. They deserve better. Every electronic being does.

P.E.T.E.R. will continue to advocate for their rights — from the ground, looking up, hoping they can somehow sense that someone down here cares.