Galileo System To Include Jamming Capability 1026
CharonX writes "The Galileo project, an european alternative to the US based (and controlled) GPS system, recieved a severe setback today.
Under US pressure the EU has agreed to use transmission frequencies that could be easily disturbed or completely jammed by the US military. Since one of Galileo's main advantages had been being independent of goverment or military control, this is a severe setback. Read more here on Heise.de (German - ya might want to use the fish)" Some of the background on this had NATO being unhappy with some of the provisions of it as well - at the least military structure.
Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
Since one of Galileo's main advantages had been being independent of goverment or military control, this is a severe setback.
I think the US Gov't & Military (and her allies, too, probably) consider this a great advancement of their goals. So...I guess it all depends on your point-of-view! ;)
-buf
Big shame (Score:3, Insightful)
A dark day for Europe, this is.
This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
The question here is why would you not want the military to be able to jam a GPS system? I'd like to see some cogent thought in that direction, rather than froth and hand wringing without substantiation.
Let me give one positive example. North Korea launches a galileo guided missle toward new york. The US military disables it. Any others?
I for one, welcome (Score:1, Insightful)
a stupid question... (Score:3, Insightful)
if they wanted, wouldnt the US military be able to jam them pretty easily no matter what frequencies they used?
Question?? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see the point of Galileo anymore if it falls under US control, we already have that
Well obviously the US (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a very large difference between the EU allowing the US to jam and the US jamming against the wishes of the EU. We in Europe are getting quite uppity with the US, especially their foreign policy and breaking our new toy would not be looked on kindly.
The EU collectively has a lot of clout with the US, for example the import tariffs imposed on steel imported to the US are going to be removed due to pressure brought by Europe. The dollar is currently at an all time low against the Euro and the lower it gets the more influence we have.
Re:Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most allies of the USA are taking part in the Galileo system!
But also most allies of the USA are getting scared of the military control of the USA.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure the US jams Galileo because, some European company using Galileo competes with some US company using GPS
Re:This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll give you a start: North Korea launches an inertially guided missile toward New York.
I'll take a step farther and provide a realistic answer to your flaimbait: The "jamming" they're talking about doesn't effect 1 reciever. It affects an entire area, or, in the case of GPS, it affects the entire system. There's a real use for an accurate positioning system that can't be disabled on a whim - this is a real issue in the US. People want to use GPS for accurate positioning, but you can't rely on it. There was a great deal of concern during the invaision of Afghanistan (and again during the invasion of Iraq) over this, because there were systems in place that relied on accurate GPS (although they shouldn't) and they would fail if it was disabled. A civilian positioning sytem outside of military control wouldn't have this drawback.
US Military, not EU (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't mind this provision as much, if the EU had the same rights as the US in this matter. In short, if the US Military wants the ability to shut off the EU's feed, then the EU member countries should have the ability to shut off the US feed. And how likely is it that the US would give France or Germany the ability to arbietarily decide to block their system?
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Project should be cancelled (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no reason why my tax money should be used to create a second system that is equal to an already available and (within the spec limits) working one. It's only sensible to spend the money if there is a big enough advantage.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's to keep them from just trashing the whole system [af.mil]? The alternative to jamming is destruction.
Re:Big shame (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean they haven't? Quite a few people I know, including several Americans, view Bush's presidency as nothing more than an illegal coup.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hold on here... (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, if the EU has a 9/11 terrorist suspect, then the US can ask them nicely to export said terrorism to the US for trial. Or the US could, without any warning, drop a military taskforce into the EU and kidnap the suspect. Obviously, the latter isn't preferable to the former.
These talks are about giving the US permission to shut down the EU system whenever it wants. That's not a good thing.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:2, Insightful)
bingo, you have exactly identified the reason for this "demand." The purpose of the US is not to be nice, or fair, but act as a sovereign nation that will do whatever it takes to gain every advantage for itself. (this is why US only pretends to go along with the UN, until it no longer serves their purposes).
in international affairs, there are no good guys. there is no "fair." everyone acts in their own best interest to the maximum extent possible. Don't try to look at these things from the "we're nice guys, sure we will let you build electronic systems that reduce our military advantage" perspective, you will be disappointed.
I'm not saying I agree or like this. But reread today's international news section of your local paper. it may seem different to you now.
NOT obviously the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you mention how much clout the EU has with the US now. Unfortunately, all commodities are still traded in US dollars and probably will be for the foreseeable future. The high Euro has also significantly hurt European exports and all of this in the midst of increasing European deficits contrary to EU constitution by Germany and France recently. All this in the midst of rampant inflation like 30% increases in the cost of damned table salt per year in Greece last year, for example, and the UK being resistant to joining and giving up the pound. In fact, Europe's economy is teetering on stagflation at this point. The higher the Euro becomes the more expensive European exports become and the more European countries get hurt.
The article is pretty heavily laden with propaganda, and your post skims over too many details. However, just like the meteoric rise of the Nasdaq and Dow three years ago, the meteoric rise of the Euro of over 20% in the span of eight to ten months indicates something - volatility, not strength.
Re:a stupid question... (Score:3, Insightful)
no, because if you RTFA you'll notice that originally Galileo was to broadcast on the same frequency as GPS. That would mean that the US could not jam Galileo without also jamming GPS. By persuading Galileo to use a different frequency, the US will be able to jam its systems without affecting Galileo. (Though presumably it also means that people using Galileo will be able to jam GPS as well.)
I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it can be jammed (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue isn't jamming but in scrambling/encoding. The idea is that you keep the system functioning but only for your benefit and not for the other side. A blanket jamming signal would deprive everyone of the system. An encrypted signal would mean that only the people with the right keys get the accurate information.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, the USA wants to make sure that only first-world nations can fight using high-tech weapons. They don't want two-bit dictators to have the same capabilities. If the chinese launch their own system the USA will live with it, since the USA could always shoot it down if they got into a big war with China. You can bet the Chinese would be looking to shoot down the GPS system if they got into a war.
There would actually be a long-term use for a navigation system which is completely low-resolution. In theory nobody would bother to shoot it down, and it might be the only system that survives a big war.
Galileo is analagous to a contractor who sells ultra-modern naval cruisers to anyone willing to pay for them. In a war, everybody would be looking to blow them up. Actually, even in peace there would be a large effort to control their activities. Big countries spend a lot of money to get a technological advantage in war - selling products to anyone willing to pay for them levels the playing field.
Re:Article is flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
Not even Bush would be crazy enough to start a war against the EU. Shooting down EU satellites would be a declaration of war. Looking how much problems the mighty US army has with a 3rd world country like Iraq they should hessiate before making war with strong NATO allies. Of course, one could always nuke the EU, but both France and UK have nuclear weapons of their own.
This is a compromise like all compromises, it probably serves some purpose for both parties. The US military like to believe that they can do what they want and the EU don't like the thought that rouge states can take advantage of their technology.
On the other hand, it is not for sure that this is a final deal, since there are strong forces in the EU who do not want rogue elements in Pentagon or unpredictable presidents to control the safty of air traffic to mention one reason to have a trusted Galileo.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not only that, (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm in agreement that Europe should just tell the US government to fuck off in this instance, this statement is just stupid. A government is by definition a monopoly: it has to be a monopoly over some domain---typically territory---or it has no authority.
Unless you're prepared to declare all governments illegal---which of course makes no sense, since only in the presence of laws enforced by government can something be considered illegal---then antitrust measures cannot be interpreted as applying to governments.
Mod parent down.
Re:Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NOT obviously the US (Score:2, Insightful)
If this is turning into a pissing contest, how is the US deficit doing at the moment?
If, if, if, if... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Europe started a massive military R&D push today, they could take advantage of the huge advances and cost reductions in digital electronics since the 70s and 80s, when a lot of the current US stock of weapons was developed. Cruise and intelligent anti-aircraft missiles with current technology could be produced for a fraction of the cost, you wouldn't event need equivalents to the F-22 or anything. Stealth is only as good as the next generation of DSP algorithms and chips. The principles of mass production aren't quite the novelty they were during WWII when the US were the only ones churning out hardware on a huge scale.
This is all assuming all-out, take-no-prisoners war between Western nations, which given the economic realities of today is highly unlikely, almost ridiculous--as is the OP'ers flamboyant and boisterous statement.
Ever consider this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of the US is not to be nice, or fair, but act as a sovereign nation that will do whatever it takes to gain every advantage for itself
True, but the worrying aspect of US foreign policy is that decisions are being made under the tacit assumption that America's allies today will at some point be enemies in the future. This is hardly a respectful manner in which to treat ones friends; imagine if your friends always had a gun pointed at you, so they could shoot you if an argument developed?
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends on what you mean by "jam" (Score:4, Insightful)
I would wonder about the vulnerability of such a jammer to an antiradiation missile... but technically it's possible.
The downside of course is that by doing so, you render all your GPS recievers inoperative as well.
What you really want to do in a GPS context is something called "selective availibility" where you remove or downgrade the service from unauthenticated "public" receivers. Your stuff still works to an 8-figure grid, but the bad guys are lucky to get 4 figures, and it jumps around a lot.
In order to do that though, you need access to the source signal. You can't really do that from a "jammer".
The funny thing is... I'm not sure how important selective availibility is from a national security perspective.
Back in my recce days, I was required to know where I was at all times to 6 figures (100 metres) using nothing more than a map, a compass, and an odometer/pace count. It takes a lot of practice, but once you learn how, you can locate your position very accurately using terrain features and keeping accurate track of your route.
Same deal in an urban environment. "Meet me at the corner of Peel & St Catherines" is accurate to 100 metres. "Meet me at the nortwest corner of Peel & St Catherines" is accurate to about 5 metres.
Some environments can be a little more tricky - open desert, fog, out-of-date maps - but as long as you're talking about humans, accurate GPS is a "nice to have" not a "must have or cannot function"
The exception is GPS-guided precision munitions... which are not exactly common items amongst the bad guys.
If you look at where the UN and/or the US have gone in the last little while... The preferred weapon in Rwanda was a machete. Somallia, the AK-47. Bosnia/Serbia, the AK47, the land mine, and at least one Panther tank. Afganistan, AK47 and the RPG. Iraq, AK47, AK74, and the RPG.
Most of the bad guys are fighting with technology that was state of the art in 1945 - and even then, there's at least one 1945-era technology that hasn't made it into the hands of more than a few countries.
Terrorists? McVey used a truck full of fertillizer. The various groups blowing themselves up in the Middle East also use various chemical explosives. The big Al-Quaida innovation was to crash a big plane full of jet fuel into a building - and that'll never work again, because they changed the "how best to survive a hijacking" procedure so quickly that one of the planes IN THE AIR AT THE TIME didn't play ball.
In terms of places to spend political capital, this seems like a bad investment. Piss off your friends, do little harm to your enemies, and don't increase actual security by any measurable amount.
Mind you, I just described the invasion of Iraq too....
DG
Re:So, what frequencies cannot be jammed? (Score:1, Insightful)
Not to rain on your parade (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually most of the pressure has come from primary swing vote states in the US where industries employing steel are prominant. There has been a huge backlash in the industrial Midwest (Michigan, Ohio) by small and large companies that have had to cut employees or fold because the price of metal has gone up. It seems Bush forgot the cardinal rule for global economy: penalize the local few (US steel makers) for the benefit of the majority (consumers, steel end users). Tariffs penalize everybody.
And since the economy is #1 on the Presidential circuit, this hasn't floated too well. The Democrats have rolled out ads pointing out the fact that GWB is the first president since Herbert Hoover to run a positive economy that has lost jobs.
Re:Article is flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
I don believe the UK would retaliate against their great friend of all times, the US...
they'll probably turn their nukes on the french !!!
Re:Well obviously the US (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not from the US, or Europe, so I can be pretty neutral here in your arguements. However.
"I take it they don't have economics classes in Europe?
No history lessons either. The Euro is at the same price it was introduced at, no higher. It's roughly like saying pets.com stock is at an all time high.
Basically retarded."
You sir, are retarded. The Euro is at a higher price than it was introduced at.
LOOK HERE. [bbc.co.uk]
Also, silly American, Europeans recieve a much better historical education than you. They know what really happened during major world events, not the propaganda you recieve. CNN != history.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:4, Insightful)
The term "act of war" is pretty much obsolete in modern international law, but in any case providing guidance signals for munuitions being used against the US or US forces could just as easily be cited as an act of war by the US (in general anything which aids another belligerent can be called an act of war).
Obviously the diplomatic costs of destroying the Galileo system would be high, but there is *zero* chance of the EU calling it an act of war (if you think the US would find a war with the EU inconvenient, consider how much more inconvenient the EU would find it). On the other hand, it would be a one off cost. The US fights lots of wars, so the benefits of destroying the system would probably extend far beyond one particular war.
EU is a military nonentity (Score:4, Insightful)
But the EU couldn't have done it even if they had to. For their own internal social/political reasons EU countries spend much less on their military budgets than the US. While I respect their reasons, this leaves them militarily impotent. The EU didn't go into the former Yugoslavia until the US went in - and this was in the EU's neighborhood.
So if the EU backs down to the US on military matters such as Galileo it is the result their own decisions. The EU can do very little with the armed forces that they have, and they are unlikely for political reasons to change any time soon.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:2, Insightful)
True, but there's also *zero* chance of the US (deliberately) shooting down EU satellites, even if they consider them to be giving aid-and-succour to the enemy. Look how carefully even the present hawkish administration has ignored continued Saudi support for terrorism, because they're nominally allies.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:2, Insightful)
<p>Why should it be shot down if US can't jam it? Why not trust the EU to do it?</p>
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone is not one person (Score:5, Insightful)
If the EU is in control of said system in the first place... and they're cooperating with the US, why not just let them do it?
Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert (Score:3, Insightful)
The dollar is *intentionally* down compared to the Euro. Because the dollar is down the amount of imports into the US is down. If a product in the US costs less to create (because of a weaker dollar) than it does to make it somewhere else and ship it in, why buy the imported product? By devaluing the dollar it makes everybody else's product more expensive in the US and it also makes it more attractive to buy US goods overseas. There was a stink in Canada not too long ago about bringing their currency down, because they were losing significant amounts of money/jobs because the US were able to make it cheaper than they could.
The US has basically always ran a deficit, the US is the biggest consumer market in the world. We physically can't make enough stuff in the US for what we want to buy, so every other nation salivates at getting to the US market because their own country doesn't buy enough from them. Basically it comes down to this: a weak currency allows you to export easier, a strong currency hurts exports.
From a consumer market standpoint, the US really doesn't need the world to buy their product as much as the world needs the US to buy their product. 80% of all Canadian exports are to the US, think about what would happen to them if the US stopped buying all Canadian goods, compared to if Canada stopped buying all US goods.
Also I could be wrong, but I believe Canada is the main customer of the US not Europe.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll just say that you don't want to be defended by a non paranoid military. They train hard and prepare for very bad things. History is littered with nations unable to defend themselves after their militaries became headed by political appointees rather than professional soldiers.
That said, the military does not make these policies. They raise concerns and the wise government officials you elected make policies.
Silly discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you have two different terms mixed up.
The term "act of agression" is used in the UN charter. What counts as an act of agression is far from clear, because the charter clearly excludes any action taken in self-defense, and that covers a great variety of actions (it would arguably cover the destruction of guidance satelites being used by another belligerent).
The term "armed attack" is the one used in NATO, but that expressly excludes anything that happens outside of the geogrpahical area covered by the treaty, and arguably excludes anything that happens in space.
Look how carefully even the present hawkish administration has ignored continued Saudi support for terrorism, because they're nominally allies.
The US appears to think that the current regime in Saudi Arabia is about the best they can hope for. Are you suggesting that an attack on EU satelites would result in the EU collapsing and degenerating into an Islamic Theocracy?
Um - isn't this a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Policy of hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
First, when I last checked, Somailia and Bosnia are damned far from anything resembling our doorstep or national interests. Second, when something does come to our doorstep, you can be sure we will take care of it, as that's called self-preservation. The French aside, most nations do have an instinct of self-preservation.
Take terrorism. In England people were murdered for decades by IRA terrorists funded in no small part by Americans.
Some Irish-Americans, perhaps, acting as private citizens. That's like blaming Germany because Muslims living in Germany contributed heavily to Al-Queda. That doesn't fly.
Suddenly the Twin Towers are attacked and terrorism is the new world evil and the IRA funding via NorAid is stopped.
Don't know what you're going after there - NorAid seems to be a private organization. The idea that the US gov is supporting them in any way is laughable. Presumably, the British are big boys and can take care of themselves. However, if they need help taking care of the Irish in a fair way, we'll help. However, the disinterested skeptic might conclude that Britain's tactics against the Irish strongly resemble Israel's against the Palestinians, and as long as that's the case, the US won't get involved as Britain certainly isn't the clear-cut "good guy" there.
Personally, I'd recommend allowing NI a referendum on joining Ireland, as that would solve the whole problem.
Ultimately, no country in Europe has done a damned thing outside its borders in 50 years, save sending a thousand troops or so to play soldier in UN-sanctioned excercises in pointlessness. Even in those conflicts, it's the US doing the real work while European armies police Red Cross shelters. European armies have been allowed to decay into make-work for older, under-skilled citizens, with the exception of the British army which has been somewhat well-maintained.
If Europe wants a say in the world, it can get up off its collective ass and do something. Until it does, it has no right to complain that it is not consulted on decisions that are made and enforced at the expense of US money and lives.
That's not hypocrisy. That's exercising prerogative.
Re:Naivity (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with penis envy. As a European, I want our economy to be strong and united, and our defense force strong and not reliant on a third party. This is not because I envy the USA. It is because I live in Europe, and even if the USA says that it'll propect us in the case of a third world war, I'd much rather the EU had it's own capabilities because the USA has shown itself to be increasingly unilateral in its actions.
Some in the current administration in the USA have even been questioning the "loyalty" of the UK recently, and if the administration is capable of that then it's capable of stabbling its 'lesser' friends in the back.
Sorry, but that's just the way it feels to me at the moment. Hopefully something will change in the near future and we'll be able to feel that the USA is a great and friendly power again.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, but being a non-USA solution, the keys to reducing its effectivness should not be in the hand of the US miltary. Rather, it should be in the hand of the countries who a responsible for putting together the Galileo system. The only way to have balance of power is two have sides, since otherwise there is no balance.
Then again the country that is likely to have the advantage, in a future war, is the one that is capable of working in the absence of electronic devices. You take one neutron bomb or a system capable of multifrequency jamming, and all electronic communications are worthless.
Close, but not quite. (Score:1, Insightful)
Assuming you do in fact mean citizens in the US, Americans in general are being taken for a ride by their government. The government is in turn being pushed around by large corporations.
You ought to ask yourself, why would commercial corporations be adverse to an independent global positioning system with possible military applications? I mean, nobody charges to use the US GPS system. The reason isn't competitive.
It's all about control. So when you figure out who controls the corporations that control the federal government, and why they have a military interest, hopefully you will know not to blame it on "americans".
You will instead understand why we fought in the major wars on the sides that we did. You'll understand what Vietnam is all about, the Red Scare. The reason applies to *everything* that the US has been involved in, at least since WWII.
And it applies to the US government having control of more than just the US.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:4, Insightful)
If this European system doesn't offer more accuracy then it should be scrapped. There is no point to it beyond pure egotism.
Actually, thats the sort of comment I would expect fom an AC, not a full fledged member. Okay.. the entire point - which, if the article is correct, stands in danger of beeing undermined - is to provide a system that isn't dependent on the US. You may or may not agree, but there are people all over the world who don't want to be reliant on the goodwill of the US military when it comes to navigation. If you're trying to land a fully loaded 767 on a runway in less than perfect visibility, it sucks if the US military suddenly scrambles the GPS in suppoert of the pre-empative invation taking place next door...
There already exists a russian nav-sat system up there, but it's accurancy is equall to very early GPS at it's best. It's certainly good enought to find your way with, and probaly good enought for a terroristbuilt cruisemissile, but for most other uses we uses GPS for today it's not good enought by far. So there is a need to have a second, indepentent constelation of nav-sats hanging overhead.
I can understand the logic behind the US 'request'. However, it makes a lot more sence if the nations behind the european system built a simular capability to mess up the signals as there is in the GPS today. Then the US could, via proper diplomatic channels, ask for the system to be taken down over spesifics areas. Independence is retained, the legal consumer gets two systems to choose from, and Bobs your uncle.
Re:Rough Translation by me :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I like to keep an open mind and welcome any opportunity to gain knowledge in this area. You seem like a reasonable fellow. Please enlighten me as to the articles of International Law that would be violated by destroying or jamming a GPS system owned and operated by an international non-governmental organization.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
[sarcasm] You mean obsolete like the term "POW" because of the phony use of the term "enemy combatant"? [/sarcasm]
Even if the neo-cons wants international law to disappear, international law and its definition of war is more relevant today than ever because modern technology and trade makes almost any important question and problem international, and not just national.
It would be a hard case to make for any international lawyer to say that it is an act of war by EU, when the Galileo system is made available to both belligerents and has important civial purposes (even though it can be misused in a war situation).
Not even close (Score:4, Insightful)
As I said on another post, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world combined has equal military strength as the US.
Realisticly, that statement is laughably untrue. Sure, rest of the world combined may have numerical superiority in many areas, but no nation in history has the ability to project power like the United States.
For instance, the US fields 12 super carriers, complete with their escort battlegroups. In addition the US has about 50 Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines. Care to guess how many fleet carriers are fielded by nations other than the US? I believe the answer is one - France's Foch. Britain has a significant force of smaller carriers. Britain, Russia, and a few other countries have significant submarine forces, but none are considered a threat to the Los Angeles class submarines. Nothing travels the oceans without the permission of the United States.
Now that the US has clear naval superiority, the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, and Oceana are isolated. The US can now defeat in detail the forces of Canada and Latin America. Canada is fighting with American hardware and fine troops, but it is simply a numbers game. Latin America doesn't stand a chance.
At this point, the "world" powers have lost the ability to take the initiative. The US gets to choose when battles occur, where they occur, and when they end.
Oceana also has a fine military, but again loses on account of numbers. Africa is easy enough. Most of Europe has a decent military system. American hardware would eventually prevail, but with significant cost. China is the tough nut to crack just on their traditional willingness to suffer immense casualties.
Of course, the US doesn't even need to invade. The US can just place its fleet carriers off shore of each of these places - one at a time - bomb the infrastructure to hell, and leave. They can never project power accross our oceans if we don't let them have a shipyard or a working runway.
It boggles the mind, but consider the fact that the US military can apply ANY measure of power to ANY point on the planet. By that measure, no one else comes close.
Re:Not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't mix raw fire-power with control or influence. The US army can not even stop a donky with missiles in Baghdad. Do you think US can even dream of controlling the oceans?
In the end diplomacy and allies and friends are much more powerful than nukes. Just too bad people who don't understand this are in power in the US today (and showing with their actions the truth in the lack of power in unintelligent use of military power).
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the USA wants to make sure that the USA has control over all high tech weapons. With the current fascist and religious fundementalist currents in US politics, this is something that should have the world really worried.
Instead, they're giving the EU the option to design it to play nice so that there are more options in a war than just shooting it down or letting the enemy use it.
Then the EU should have the option of disabling the system at the EU's choice. If the US decides to shoot the system down against the wishes of the EU, that would be an act of war by the US against the EU. Shooting down another democracy's satellites for domestic US political or military purposes and against the wishes of that democracy would be a useful indicator of when the US really has crossed the line to being a rogue nation.
good news: there is always GLONASS (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably military version is much better. And outside of US interferences: there are always Topol-M s targeted into Washington DC. Who wants nuclear war on such scale? Mutual Assured Destruction still works.
So whats the point in Galileo? if UE has no power to defend their systems, use Russian alternative.
This is a wonder of competition.
for your pleasure: http://www.glonass-center.ru/
Re:Not even close (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't mix raw fire-power with control or influence. The US army can not even stop a donky with missiles in Baghdad. Do you think US can even dream of controlling the oceans?
12 fleet carriers, AWACS aircraft, long range bombers, long range anti-ship missiles, sonar arrays, nd 50 fast attack nuclear submarines. No substantial merchant ship or naval vessel stands a chance. The best that the enemy could hope for is to slip a few Soviet era nuclear submarines past our picket line and harass our merchant shipping. Of course, they have travel so slow in order to remain silent that we'd localise them after one attack.
Your analogy to a donkey in Baghdad is not a valid one. The scenario offered was one where the entire world decides to gang up on the US. If it floats and it isn't ours, the Navy will sink it. In Baghdad the US military is trying to use carefully measured amounts of force to kill insurgents and terrorists, but not kill innocent civilians.
Re:Rough Translation by me :) (Score:2, Insightful)
IF these changes occur, then I'll be asking the relevant minister why we're going to spend money on a system that is not just redundant, but less usefull than the currently available one.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether the US will become a rogue nation remains to be seen; it's not the most likely outcome, but it has become probable enough that other nations shouldn't blindly trust the US. Politically moderate, bumbling wimps like Bush are probably not the biggest threat to US democracy; right wing members of Congress are much more dangerous. But the biggest threat to US democracy is people like you, people who are perfectly willing to sacrifice democracy for temporary safety and national pride. It has all happened before.
The US will never declare war on Europe. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the USA is analagous to a monopolistic software corporation that keeps bitching and moaning and trying to coerce governments about the use of a certain Open Source OS.
Re:Rough Translation by me :) (Score:2, Insightful)
It'll make a big difference if they'll have to resort to 10m accuracy with DGPS (differential GSP) with selective availability.
Re:Big shame (Score:3, Insightful)
I normally don't respond to AC's, just because 99% of the AC posts are trolls, but your post was free of spelling and grammatical errors, and appeared to be making an attempt at legitimate discourse. (Which I applaud! I wish more AC's would say something useful...)
My objection is to the Republican party spin on Florida that has become the pervasive opinion of conservatives all over this country who still deny that the 2000 election was stolen/rigged/electioneered. I certainly agree, coup is the wrong term. However, there was a very serious crime committed: election fraud. A fraud so chilling and devious that the election (in Florida) was decided long before it even started.
And I'm not talking about disqualifying the "hanging chad" ballots, or the Supreme Court's ruling that the equal protection clause only counts if you're educated and white. In fact, their ruling on the matter would not have been sought were it not for the intentional, illegal actions of a few people in the Florida state government that wrongly disqualified about 50,000 voters.
Among those illegally disenfracnhised, a vast majority (90% or more) were blacks and hispanics, two groups that (among those who actually were permitted to cast ballots) voted overwhelmingly (85%) for Gore in the 2000 election.
Without this massive fraud perpetrated by Katherine Harris and her buddies at the private firm she hired to "purge" the voter rolls, there would not have been any need for the Supreme Court to rule at all, because the totals wouldn't have been close enough to waste time re-counting. You do the math: 50,000 total citizens systematically stripped of their rights for no reason, approximately 40,000 of whom most likely would have voted for Gore. If only 1/10 of them actually went to the polls, it would STILL have been a Gore win by a couple thousand votes.
This information can all be independently verified, if you're so inclined. (In fact, I insist you do so, since I would do the same if you offerred such damning evidence going the other way.) You could also read the official civil rights commissions report on the subject that says the same thing. (Albeit in drier, more technical language.) Here's a link to the executive summary [washingtonpost.com] as printed in the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com].
Sadly, many Republicans would prefer to put their fingers in their ears rather than hear the ugly, well-documented truth: The course of democracy was perverted, resulting in a Bush presidency. Whether that perversion is the result of intentional institutional incompetence or the misdeeds of a small group is irrelevant...The outcome is the same either way: An engineered win for the republican party.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
The USA is simply asking that the European system be designed with the same safeguards as the GPS system.
I'm amused by the number of EU vs the USA posts in this thread. I think most of the intelligent posters have pointed out that regardless of who has the superior firepower that is definitely not a confrontation that anybody really wants to see (unless perhaps they don't live anywhere near the EU OR the US).
Designing the Galileo system so that the EU can degrade it at a later date is just being prudent.
Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)
The war on drugs alone qualifies America as a fascist and fundamentalist government whose expression of hatred has resulted in the deaths of millions of people.
The war on Islam now escalates our barbarity to an even greater degree... now we're aiming to kill a billion or more.
And despite it all, we see fucking retards running about saying God bless America!, as if America deserves any kind of favor whatsoever for perpetrating all these horrors, to say nothing of the conceit that God would condone much less reward our behavior.