Hold on - if I'm not mistaken, this is even sillier than the headline sounds. The primary complaint isn't even that other countries are imposing tariffs on Starlink; it's that other countries are requiring Starlink to comply with local laws, and SpaceX finds that unbearable.
(And who exactly are they hoping to have tariffs imposed on, anyway? The only other two satellite ISPs in the US - ViaSat and HughesNet - are both US-based.)
Remember when Starlink was released and people poured their tears over for Elon not spreading freedom of speech and instead censoring the access for the regime? Funny how times change...
I don't know about the details of this case (nor particularly trust SpaceX's judgment on it), but local laws as a trade barrier are a real phenomenon. The WTO calls them "technical barriers to trade" (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm).
Spectrum licenses aren’t global. If you’re going to make radio noise in someone’s territory you’re going to have to comply with their regulations. Broadcasting from space doesn’t magically solve radio interference.
Free trade has always been self serving for every entity in all of history. Those who have an advantage in trade advocate it and start putting barriers in place when they lose it.
Much has been made of how tariffs hurt the economy, and they certainly do in the short term. In the long term everything is uncertain, you may win the trade war and position your country favorably or lose everything invested in the effort along with the opportunity cost.
In some ways it's surprising that it took the USA so long to decide to play dice. China is extracting far more value and at far greater velocity from the world order the USA created. Need to perturb the system violently in a gamble to gain an advantage. Status quo will see China dominant.
Trade war is a set of trade related policies, winning a trade war is have a set of such policies which benefits your country. It doesn't even have to benefit your trade.
If you can cause more economic damage to your adversary than it can cause to you, then you can prevent the elevation of your adversary into a more significant threat.
So winning is certainly possible, especially because it can end in an actual war where one side will win.
This is true in the abstract. But finding an example would require calling Russia sanctions a "trade war." More correctly, it is an embargo, sanctions, etc.
I understand how you can win a trade war against a geopolitical adversary, sure. What I don't understand is how you can win one against a neutral or friendly country. Even if you can cause 10 or 100 times more economic damage than the other guys can cause to you, isn't the small bit of damage you receive strictly worse than not receiving it by not having a trade war?
The win condition in that case would be that the leverage that being able to cause more damage than you take allows you to negotiate a better deal. It's like winning any other war. Both sides take damage during the war, but the winner is able to achieve its objective at the end.
"The most prominent trade war of the 20th century was ignited by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act of 1930, which imposed steep tariffs on roughly 20,000 imported goods. Led by Canada, America’s trading partners retaliated with tariffs on United States exports, which plunged 61 percent from 1929 to 1933. The tariffs were repealed in 1934.
...
Professor Palen cited the late-19th-century trade wars between Canada and the United States, which caused a precipitous drop in Canadian exports to America and led Canada to seek export markets in Britain. 'The British Empire was the winner,' he said.
Another 'big winner' from a trade war it was not involved in, Professor Palen said, was Soviet Russia, which was largely shunned by Western trading partners after the 1917 revolution and the rise of communism, and was desperate for hard currency. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs, Professor Palen said, caused countries like Italy to abandon American imports and resume trading with the Soviets, forging trade links that persist today."
Hold on - if I'm not mistaken, this is even sillier than the headline sounds. The primary complaint isn't even that other countries are imposing tariffs on Starlink; it's that other countries are requiring Starlink to comply with local laws, and SpaceX finds that unbearable.
(And who exactly are they hoping to have tariffs imposed on, anyway? The only other two satellite ISPs in the US - ViaSat and HughesNet - are both US-based.)
I'm assuming the idea would be for the US to threaten mostly unrelated tariffs on some other country if said country doesn't open up for SpaceX.
It's not like the US hasn't strong armed stuff in the past (for oil companies, etc), but this seems a little different.
Remember when Starlink was released and people poured their tears over for Elon not spreading freedom of speech and instead censoring the access for the regime? Funny how times change...
I don't know about the details of this case (nor particularly trust SpaceX's judgment on it), but local laws as a trade barrier are a real phenomenon. The WTO calls them "technical barriers to trade" (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm).
If the local laws differentiate between foreign and domestic companies, which in this case they do, they are effectively tariffs.
Spectrum licenses aren’t global. If you’re going to make radio noise in someone’s territory you’re going to have to comply with their regulations. Broadcasting from space doesn’t magically solve radio interference.
What are the countries going to do? Launch missiles to remove the offending satellites?
SpaceX is Musks greatest source of real power.
https://archive.is/O6Z3s
"Rules for thee but not for me."
Free trade has always been self serving for every entity in all of history. Those who have an advantage in trade advocate it and start putting barriers in place when they lose it.
Much has been made of how tariffs hurt the economy, and they certainly do in the short term. In the long term everything is uncertain, you may win the trade war and position your country favorably or lose everything invested in the effort along with the opportunity cost.
In some ways it's surprising that it took the USA so long to decide to play dice. China is extracting far more value and at far greater velocity from the world order the USA created. Need to perturb the system violently in a gamble to gain an advantage. Status quo will see China dominant.
The US starting trade wars with all its allies will only accelerate China becoming the dominant economy.
Has anybody ever „won“ a trade war?
Trade war is a set of trade related policies, winning a trade war is have a set of such policies which benefits your country. It doesn't even have to benefit your trade.
If you can cause more economic damage to your adversary than it can cause to you, then you can prevent the elevation of your adversary into a more significant threat.
So winning is certainly possible, especially because it can end in an actual war where one side will win.
This is true in the abstract. But finding an example would require calling Russia sanctions a "trade war." More correctly, it is an embargo, sanctions, etc.
I understand how you can win a trade war against a geopolitical adversary, sure. What I don't understand is how you can win one against a neutral or friendly country. Even if you can cause 10 or 100 times more economic damage than the other guys can cause to you, isn't the small bit of damage you receive strictly worse than not receiving it by not having a trade war?
The win condition in that case would be that the leverage that being able to cause more damage than you take allows you to negotiate a better deal. It's like winning any other war. Both sides take damage during the war, but the winner is able to achieve its objective at the end.
> Has anybody ever „won“ a trade war?
Yes, third parties.
"The most prominent trade war of the 20th century was ignited by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act of 1930, which imposed steep tariffs on roughly 20,000 imported goods. Led by Canada, America’s trading partners retaliated with tariffs on United States exports, which plunged 61 percent from 1929 to 1933. The tariffs were repealed in 1934.
...
Professor Palen cited the late-19th-century trade wars between Canada and the United States, which caused a precipitous drop in Canadian exports to America and led Canada to seek export markets in Britain. 'The British Empire was the winner,' he said.
Another 'big winner' from a trade war it was not involved in, Professor Palen said, was Soviet Russia, which was largely shunned by Western trading partners after the 1917 revolution and the rise of communism, and was desperate for hard currency. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs, Professor Palen said, caused countries like Italy to abandon American imports and resume trading with the Soviets, forging trade links that persist today."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/business/tariff-trump-tra...
At 12k GDP per head, it’s pretty tough to argue that China is successfully extracting value for their people
For a country that was in poverty not long ago it's amazing. $318 in 1990 to $12k in 2025 is incredibly growth.