Unlike radios, which can be easily jammed by adversaries, Starlink’s signals point straight up from ground stations to space and are relatively robust. And because receivers are cheap, they can be issued to small military units and even used on remotely operated ground and aerial drones.

But in a world where global tensions are ratcheting up and states are seeking sovereignty in everything from computer chip manufacture to nuclear deterrence, relying on a foreign service like Starlink to coordinate troops is considered increasingly risky. Especially when it is controlled by a mercurial figure like Musk.

Both Ukraine and Russia have used Starlink since the 2022 invasion, with reports suggesting that Russia has guided attack drones with it. But in February, the company restricted access to registered users and effectively shut Russian troops out of the service. The move is reported to have had serious repercussions for Russia’s ability to coordinate its military and provided Ukraine an advantage, at least in the short term. No other nation wants to find itself in the same boat.

The European Union is building its own version called Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS²), which will have around 300 satellites, but isn’t due to begin operating until 2030. China is also building the Guowang network, which will have 13,000 satellites, but currently has fewer than 200, and the Qianfan constellation, which is also still in the early stages of construction. Russia’s planned Sfera constellation has encountered delays.

Even European states are working to develop their own versions separate from the EU. Germany is in talks to create its own network, which is still on the drawing board, and the UK retains a stake in satellite internet provider Eutelsat OneWeb, having saved its precursor from bankruptcy because the technology was so important. A British start-up called OpenCosmos is also working on a similar system, ironically with backing from US intelligence agency the CIA.

Anthony King at the University of Exeter, UK, says it is “striking” that a private communications company can hold such a powerful position on the world stage today, able to allow or deny an advantage in future conflicts, but that affluent superpowers will catch up given time. “Of course, the Chinese will have one, and do have one [of current lesser size], so they will have secure satellite digital communications in any future conflict,” he says.

Although Starlink is a private company, Barry Evans at the University of Surrey, UK, says it was heavily funded for strategic reasons by the US government and even offers a more secure militarised version called Starshield.

“You’ve got governments relying on an individual, which is one of the things that worries Europe,” says Evans. “[Musk] turns it off in various countries at various times. There’s a lot happening and, for the UK, it’s quite worrying because we don’t have the funding, really, to launch our own system.”

Evans says that even Russia and China are well behind Starlink, which has the advantage of being wholly owned by rocket company SpaceX and therefore able to launch its satellites more cheaply and on its own schedule.

Creating these vast networks isn’t a one-off cost, but requires costly maintenance and the continual launch of new satellites to replace older units as they fail or run out of the fuel they need to maintain a stable orbit. Because the UK lacks a launch capability of its own, it would always have to rely on another country to some extent, even if it were to create its own satellite constellation.

Ian Muirhead at the University of Manchester, UK, who served in military communications for over two decades, says that armies once used radio, then later began to deploy what was essentially a temporary mobile phone network when they went into battle, allowing soldiers to communicate over distance.

But as militaries shrank after the cold war, this became prohibitively expensive and difficult, says Muirhead, so militaries began using satellite communications instead. However, doing so relied on small numbers of proprietary satellites and required expensive and bulky hardware on the ground. Starlink offers even greater ability, at far lower cost and complexity, at least on the ground.

Muirhead says it also offers an advantage when space warfare with an adversary is considered. “Because there are lots of them, they can’t just destroy a satellite and call it done – they’re always overhead,” he says.

SpaceX didn’t respond to a request for comment.