The Starlink satellites, a project launched by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, have become a topic of discussion in Italy, raising concerns about their influence on national security. Starlink is a satellite system aimed at providing high-speed internet to every corner of the world, and it is expanding rapidly.
However, this innovation, while valuable for connecting remote areas and improving the quality of digital services, raises important questions about who controls such a critical infrastructure.
Lucio Caracciolo, director of the Limes magazine and a geopolitical expert, recently raised a significant issue in an interview: “A private entity cannot decide the fate of a state’s security.”
Caracciolo’s reflection focuses on the growing influence that large private companies, such as Musk’s SpaceX, exert on infrastructures vital for communication and security. While Starlink is a private initiative, it is a resource that many countries, including Italy, might rely on in emergency scenarios or as an alternative communication system.
However, its management and control remain in the hands of an individual, Musk, a private entrepreneur, whose goals might not always align with those of a national government.
Caracciolo’s concern is centered on the centralization of power that a technology like Starlink could lead to. If a critical system for international communications and national security were in the hands of a private entity, the risk is that vital decisions could be influenced by private and economic interests rather than public ones.
In a geopolitical context where national security also depends on the management of communications and the defense of vital infrastructure, control over a global satellite network by a private entity could raise issues related to sovereignty and security.
Italy, like other countries, might find itself in the difficult position of having to rely on a private communication system in times of crisis, without the ability to exercise direct control over its operations. Dependence on private technologies in the realm of security could reduce a state’s strategic autonomy, as Musk, or any other private actor, could decide to interrupt or limit access to these resources if it aligns with their economic or geopolitical interests.
In this context, Caracciolo’s analysis highlights an important governance issue: how can we ensure that critical technological resources are under the control of public entities, so that decisions related to national security cannot be influenced by private logic? His reflection calls for a necessary discussion about how to integrate and regulate global technologies like Starlink without compromising state sovereignty.
Caracciolo’s interview thus sparks a debate that involves not only Italy but the entire international system, as Starlink satellites could become, in the not-too-distant future, a crucial resource not only for communication but also for the security of nations. The question then arises: is it right to leave the management of such a vital technology in the hands of a private entity, or do mechanisms need to be put in place that allow states to maintain control over critical infrastructure in an increasingly interconnected and technology-dependent world?