>Being able to completely turn off the Internet in your country seems to be a non-negotiable capability to develop for any non-democratic state.

Which technologically advanced democratic countries DON'T have this capability already developed and deployed?

Do you think the 3 letter agencies in the likes of UK, Israel, Australia, Canada, Germany, Finland, Sweden, etc don't know how to turn off the internet in their countries? They'd be really incompetent if they don't.

Switzerland even had all its bridges wired with explosives from like the 19th century and all the way through the cold war to blow them up inc ase of an invasion.

Do you think the internet infra is somehow spared this kind of strategic planning?

My guess is that in Ukraine the Russian EW systems are deployed tens of kilometers back from the line of contact to protect them from artillery strikes and fiber optic drones. These Russian EW systems are likely used to protect command posts and logistics bases but not the line of contact.

But because Iran is not yet an active war zone the Iranians can deploy those systems close to the cities.

Also, Starlink terminals can be located via their RF emissions. So using a Starlink terminal in Iran seems to come with a high risk that security forces can locate and arrest you.

In addition to jamming the radio signals directly, Starlink terminals use GPS, so jamming GPS can hurt connectivity. Iran has been jamming GPS in an effort to reduce the effectiveness of foreign military attacks, but maybe they've stepped it up a notch in the past week. People in Ukraine are probably so accustomed to GPS jamming that they've all gone to Advanced -> Debug Data -> "Use Starlink positioning exclusively".

Ukraine has one other advantage: The jamming tends to come from one direction. If you set up a barrier on that side of the antenna, the signal from the satellites is less likely to be drowned out. People in Iran have no idea where the jammers are in related to themselves. If they're in a city, they might be surrounded.

Starlink terminals also require a clear view of the sky and they broadcast on certain frequencies, so it's quite possible for governments to find the terminals and confiscate/destroy them. Still, it's a lot more difficult to shut down than a few fiber optic lines.

> Still wonder how exactly they are interdicting Starlink…

It's an active transmitter actively shouting "I'm here!" to the right gear.

IIRC, the Ukrainians found it's best to have a nice long wire between you and the terminal for this reason.

To be fair though, the web can heavily and easily be flooded by foreign actors like the US in case of Iran.

It's naive to think that our countries don't play the influence and propaganda war online.

> Still wonder how exactly they are interdicting Starlink

a good cyberwarfare attack would be disabling whatever is being used to prevent Starlink from working. Even if it only lasts for 12 hours the flood of images, video, and just general communication from inside Iran to the world would be a blow to the regime.

To be fair, shutting down all communications and power are our only defense against a runaway AI system.

This is a capability that makes sense to have to use when absolutely necessary.

I think the differentiator is always when governments choose to employ these things.

Frankly, we need to get to a place where it is impossible to do shut down the internet in a country like this. P2P and distributed networks might see a resurgence here

The west would cut the internet the second shit got real. No question.

Europe is already flirting with it. Look at their draconian internet speech laws. If you think that ISPs would try to stand up to the government you should read about how quickly they bent over after the PATRIOT act.

[flagged]