E.U. Agrees To Launch Galileo Satellite Location System

waimate writes "The European Union today decided to go ahead with Galileo, the constellation of 30 satellites which will compete with the U.S. GPS system. The U.S. abolished selective availability three years ago partly to make GPS more useful for all mankind, but also to dissuade other countries from developing their own navigational satellite system, and thus be dependant on the U.S. for both peaceful and military purposes. Since the demise of the Russian GLONASS system, GPS is the only game in town. Evidently recent events make Europe feel less comfortable about such things, and so they're building their own. Good thing for commercialization of space, or bad thing for world peace?"

Comments

Plans started long before "recent events"

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been in the works for many years. It has to do with American power in general, and not any specific recent actions.

Re:Plans started long before "recent events"

[brejc8]

Im not sure what's better.
Europe being a set of quite sepperate countries, and the US ruling the world with its rough hand and feeling good about it self.
Or the EU creating a super country to equal that of the US and not relient on the US investment, army or technology. Unfortunately in 20-50 years it might just take someone shooting a turkey to create a nasty global war.
Im in favour of the satelite system but I hope we dont get too big headed about it.

I think it's a good thing

[LoztInSpace]

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but the US really showed it's true colours in this last war. They rode roughshod over every international organisation when the consensus didn't go their way and ultimately staged an invasion rather than liberation. I think under these circumstances the world needs another option.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Sanity]

The Eurocrats are jealous of the fact that the U.S. has the power to act in its own interest with or without anyone's help

Yeah, just like the allies went to war with Hitler because they were "jealous" of him. Get out of the playground politics and into the real world pal!

No, I don't equate Bush with Hitler, but I am making the point that just because you disagree with the schoolyard bully doesn't imply that you are "jealous" of their strength.

Most Europeans (and many Americans) are concerned because they want to live in a world where nations obey the rule of law, not a world where the sheriff is whoever has the biggest gun, which is the world the US is rapidly creating. And lets remember that the UN was created by those brave Americans and Europeans who fought and won the Second World War, and it is being demolished by people who for the most part never risked their own lives at war, nor those of their family.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[jabberjaw777]

FUD? Talk about FUD.

In 1990, the coalition consisted of 34 countries, the vast majority of whom sent troops, including Arab states like Afghanistan (funny enough), Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, as well as nations such as the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, and France.

The vast majority of this support was in troops, material, and cash.

In 2003, the "Coalition of the Willing" was comprised of a varied number of states, depending on what you consider "support" -- in the case of a number of states listed by Powell, their only constributions were public statements of support; no material, no troops, no money.

Prominent "Coalition of the Willing" members include the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Iceland, Palau, and the Solomon Islands -- none of which even have enough of a military complex to defend their own borders, much less contribute to a massive undertaking as this. Colombia, totally dependant on the US for military aid against the insurgency that controls a third of it's territory, is also listed -- another "political support only" membership. Turkey was also listed by Powell as a coalition member. Japan, another member, promised only post-conflict support.

Other luminaries of the coalition include Uzbekistan, a totaltarian dictatorship; Eritrea and Ethiopia, both dependant on the US for the cease-fire between their nations (and both utterly destitute); Uganda and Rwanda, ah to be in THAT company; and various eastern european nations again dependant on the US, the IMF, and the World Bank to finance their economies.

Pretty telling that the only arab country involved is Kuwait, eh? Oh, I forgot -- Afghanistan, of course! We must have pulled some Special Forces off of Karzai's security detail for that one...

all a big stretch from '91 when even Italy was sending thousands of troops. "Coalition" my ass.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[dackroyd]

However, I agree with one of the previous posters that this has more to do with American power in general. The Eurocrats are jealous of the fact that the U.S. has the power to act in its own interest with or without anyone's help, which makes them feel particularly irrelevant.

Irrelevant is a complete understatement. A more accurate picture would be scared and appalled.

Most people in Europe generally perceive that the war in Iraq was for the benefit of the US companies that will be given access to the oil in Iraq, and for the benefit of Dubya, who gets a war that satisfies his need for revenge and to distract from the fact that the war on terror isn't going too well (Bin Laden still free, Afghanistan fucked and on the edge on tribal warfare again, all sympathy for US from 911 having been dissapated by American agresssion).

We're also scared and appalled by the arrogance that the US administration has shown with it's mistreatment of France and Germany. These are countries that have been strongly allied with America for fifty years on most global issues. Now because of a single issue that they 'dared' disagree with the US on, the Bush administration has been making noises about how they no longer consider them to really be allies.

This is completely insane behaviour - If the US doesn't consider the countries of Western Europe to be it's natural allies, then it suggests the US will follow a path of having no allies in the world (apart from Mr Poodle Blair) and using it's sheer economic and military might to get whatever it wants.

It appears that the only way to even be allowed to negotiate with the US, is to have enough economic or military clout to resist the US directly. And that's one good reason for the Galileo system to go ahead.

Two other points, Europe is not jealous of the ability of the US to wage war anywhere in the world against any country - after having so many wars waged across Europe we are broadly opposed to all wars. This really is a cultural difference between the citizens of the US and the EU, probably because apart from the American Civil war, the US has not seen or had to bear the horrors of wars at close hand, and with the 'patriotic' news coverage of the Iraq war, you still won't.

Finally, France opposed the war both for it's own economic reasons and because it thought that the US was trying to manipulate the UN with false intelligence on the WMDs, massively overestimating Iraqs capabilities. Remember Colin Powell telling the UN how many thousands of litres of Anthrax the Iraqis had, and that they could assemble a nuclear bomb in a few hours ? Well turns out France was right and Colin Powell was either lying, or just repeating bullshit concocted by people in the US intelligence agencies that wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.

End result of the US decision to invade ? Thousands of Iraqi civilians dead (not to count tens of thousands of Iraqi army personnel), no WMDs found and the chances of terrorist attacks have increased as people see the US as invading and subjugating another muslim country.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[fruity1983]

Who else is around in that country to make that decision?

The Shiite Muslim majority who have been protesting for the US to leave since 3 days after capitulation?

Hey, we don't want to spend our tax dollars to rebuild a country that got fucked up on account of the stupidity of its former leader.

Oooh, boy. Do you really think it was Saddam's fault? Yes, he was a fairly cruel (not even particularly cruel) leader, but remember that he was also the only Iraqi leader, and in fact the only leader in the entire Middle East to cast aside all the blind Muslim law and doctrine, and established a very prosperous welfare state. They had health care that rivalled your own.

Then came Iran, and he mistakenly thought he could attack amidst the new Islamic threat rising, and expand his Pax Arabia vision (a good one, in my opinion. Much better than the "so weak you cant do shit" version the US prefers). He was wrong.

All his neighbors had lent him large sums, and he had to repay, but all the oil derricks were destroyed. Then, Kuwait and the Sauds sold his debts to the IMF (or maybe World Bank, I dont recall which one), resulting in huge interest hikes. Basically, he was sold out by his neighbors.

And here's the best part. His country was weakened, but he knew he could take Kuwait, and utilize their oil to rebuild. Note that they had previously destroyed his credit. If you don't think revenge is a sufficient cause, I suggest you take a look at all the French's mustard unsold at the supermarket next time you go shopping, and think a bit harder.

So, he was planning to attack Iraq, and the US knew this. April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq, greenlighted the fucking invasion. She basically said "We won't do a thing, have your way." Link.

So, who is stupid? Saddam for taking the word of the people who had so far been his good allies (billions of dollars worth of chemical, biological and conventional weapons), or the US for basically backstabbing him, for reasons unclear. I personally think it was an example. Of what the US could do to any Arab nation there, but, that's just me. You no doubt of course think that Saddam sealed his own fate when Satan inhabited his body and shot fire from his arse, igniting the Shiite neighborhoods of Basra.

May as well buy their oil and let them use the money to rebuild their own shit the way they want it.

Hahahaha, the way they want it!? LMAO!

In case, you haven't noticed, American firms have been getting all the contracts, and they are more expensive than hiring local, or even Uzbecki firms to do the same work. They can spend it the way they want, of course. As long as they spend it in America.

So, instead of spending xxx million to repair all of Iraq, they have to shell out xxx million to repair the sewage system. Brilliant. Could corporate welfare be any better than this?

("Free to turn in their previously legal firearms ") For the protection of our troops/liberators (or SS/Occupiers whatever you would like to believe).

Hmmm. Apparently then, they dont have the choice to, in your own words, "make a choice" on their government.

Tell me, if they appreciate your imposed democracy, why would you worry about those guns?

I agree with the other stuff. You do need to enforce law while the transition takes place. However, I doubt that America will allow a transition to another Shariah government to happen easily.

I'm just hoping that Iraq doesn't turn into another Afghanistan. Forgotten, abandoned, exploited. Hopefully, and doubtfully, the media has a longer attention span.

Re:It serves us right

[cperciva]

Thank God!!! Maybe next time France is invaded they will call somebody else.

At the rate things are going right now, the next time France is invaded it will probably be *by* the USA.

Re:what a phenominal waste of money

[RollingThunder]

I don't see that it does anything other than keep Europes high tech industry working and sucking Europes taxpayers dry.

Of course, when the US goes and dumps huge amounts into the military-industrial complex, doing the same bloody thing, that's "encouraging growth" and "creating jobs", both of which are generally considered good.

Sorry, its necessary

[gad_zuki!]

>Unnecessarily duplicating a very expensive piece of infrastructure that the world needs only one instance of.

I think its common knowledge that the US uses all its muscle when it wants something, and we're not just talking military here, but trade. Perhaps the EU believes this will be a boon for them during negotiations with American corporations when discussing stickly matters. No one wants to hear, "So how many GPS devices are you using in Europe right now?" from a high-level American office holder.

On top if it, and probably the main reason for this is control. The EU is going to connect all their expensive toys to GPS and have no control over it. What if its a bad "GPS day" in that part of the world? The Americans have priveledged information on how well GPS is working.

Also, this will create a Galileo market which will help offset the cost. Sure, the Europeans could be buying GPS toys, but after this thing is working guess who will be selling the Galileo toys first and how brand/country loyalty will play out in this multi-billion(?) dollar industry.

The final argument and I think this stands on it own, is autonomy. The EU is not the US-lite. They're their own association and if they want to get off the US teat, the better. Heh, I'd love to see a poll on how Europeans feel about paying for this. I think many wouldn't mind just to be that much less attached to Uncle Sam.

Whatever happens, it could not be a bigger failure than iridium, so lets not cry "financial crisis in the EU" just yet.

So are the EU's space programs "unnecessary" too?

I think we should be glad for redundency and competition right now while most of space program is in dry dock.

Bad for world peace.

[yoder]

Right now we (the US) are bad for world peace. Anything that will help level the world playing field is good for world stability and peace. The EU just needs to get their ducks in a row so they can truly be a world superpower.

Re:It serves us right

[javiercero]

Nope Rumsfeld visit was state funded, he was Mr. Reagan envoy to the area. Basically to let him know how much the US was enjoying the little Iran-Iraq conflict... and what did Iraq need to keep the "good" fight. Remember in those days Saddam was a good guy, much like Osama Bin Laden.

Begging the question or what?

[NickFitz]

Good thing for commercialization of space, or bad thing for world peace?

I appreciate that this question is intended to provoke a debate, but it seems to me to narrow that debate through its phrasing. The implication seems to be that the US are the Guardians of World Peace (TM), and that we pesky Europeans have no business sticking our noses in when it makes the Yanks feel a little less in control.

Given the assumption that any removal of absolute control of some useful technology from the US is potentially "a bad thing for world peace", can anybody possibly point us to the evidence for Iraq's possession of WsMD, given that the Guardians of World Peace (TM) used them as their sole justification for starting a war?

Or could it be that the US should have listened to what the European states (with the sorry exception of my own nation) were trying to tell them about making unjustified assumptions? Might it not be a good thing if more than one kid in the playground has control of the baseball bat?

Re:Peace?

[SETIGuy]

I think the "bad thing" is that it's being seen by many as a big "Fuck you" to the US - essentially "We don't trust you cowboy arseholes, so we're building our own system, so :-P" or something ...

I think the "bad thing" is that the rest of the world hasn't been saying "fuck you" loud enough. Unfortunately my fellow countrymen and women apparently don't seem to see there is a difference between saying it to the U.S. versus saying it to the current administration.

Even worse, my fellow citizens apparently haven't paused long enough in handing over their freedoms to consider that they should be saying the same thing.

Re:Too expensive

[n3k5]

Even if I try really hard I can't imagine a scenario where Europe really needed satellite navigation but the US would block GPS from them.

Actually, it's very easy to imagine the US to switch of half or all of GPS because they're combating some 'rogue state'. It's even easier to imagine that they continue to use the encryptet military channels, but switch off or degrade the accuracy of the civilian channels again.

Of course, no one should _rely_ on GPS, because it can fail and drop out any time. In aviation, for example, where a high degree of fault tolerance and backup systems for everything are needed, GPS plays only a tiny role. But still, millions of people depend on it. Rescue teams use GPS-based navigation systems to get somewhere fast without getting lost, but can only fall back to paper maps if it fails because they don't have the resources to set up a backup system, et cetera et cetera. If you can't imagine a scenario in which someone in Europe needs sattelite navigation, but the US is blocking it, you must be an idiot.

Even if Europe had had this Gallileo that would not have enabled them to stop US action in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You're hitting straw men there. Europe did not take any actions, besides diplomatical ones, to stop US action in Iraq. The majority of people over here are still asking themselves whether it was really justified to liberate the Iraqis against their will (where are the weapons of mass destrucion, by the way?), or if it was just a PR campaign for Dubya, so it was the duty of their official representatives to give their opinion a voice. Galileo has absolutely nothing to do with interfering with US actions, it is not, and was never, intended to get in the way of US forces. The only relation to recent events is that the USA are waging wars and threatening to switch off civilian GPS every few years, so it became apparent that it's a bad idea to make onself depend on their goodwill.

If Europe would have taken a more of a leadership role in world politics ...

You're confusing politics with war mongering there. Besides, Europe doesn't raise the claim to be the _leader_ of the world.

... I am sure the US would be delighted and more the willing to let them use GPS.

I don't think that the US would be delighted if Europe would compete for their role as world police. Besides, they're letting the whole world use GPS anyway. This only changes when they fear the system could be helping some 'rogues' to do evil things, and in this case, they don't care about Europe or anyone a bit, as we saw again recently.

This sounds like a very expensive French idea.

Expensive? Why do you care? It's not going to cost the US anything; to the contrary, Europe will probably import some parts from the US. And it's certainly not as expensive as certain US activities which arguably have less merit.

Re:It's not just about challenging the US military

[egburr]

Survey grade GPS can require sub-centimeter accuracy that is only available with post-processing at present.

What is the point of surveyors knowing the latitude and longitude to sub-centimeter accuracy? Continental drift, measured in centimeters per year, will invalidate the reading in only a few months.

One hypothetical case: On My 26, 2003, at 10:55pm EDT, this "x" on this marker was located with super-accurate GPS to be at precisely XX.xxxxx North and YY.yyyyy West. Continental drift at this location is estimated to be 2.7503 cm/year toward 289.57 degrees (approximately WNW) from true north. Calculation of the current location of this marker is left as an exercise to the reader.

Another hypothetical case: Your honor, when I bought my house ten years ago, I had the property lines surveyed to sub-centimeter accuracy with super-accurate GPS. I had it re-surveyed last month and discovered that my neighbor has moved his fence 45 cm (or 18.5 inches) onto my property. I can't figure out how he did it; he covered up all signs of the move very well. However, I have had both surveys validated and authenticated, and I want you to order him to move his fence back where it belongs.

Re:Still creating jobs

[Sanity]

US at its worst, it better than Europe at its best.

Yeah, if your entire measurement of a nation's success is the unemployment rate. Tell that to the 50 million Americans without healthcare (many of whom are employed). Tell that to the numerous people I know who work hard for eight hours a day and are still worse off than an unemployed European. Tell that to the well-off Americans who pay taxes comparable to those in Europe, but whose money is spent on taking lives rather than saving and improving them.

Re:Peace?

[maxpublic]

You say it, brother. Every day I see the creeping evangelism of Orwellian doublespeak advancing through the ranks, where you only want privacy if you have something criminal to hide, where safety can be bought at the expense of rights, and where Big Brother *really does* know what's good for you.

The eyes of Americans glaze over, citizen by citizen, getting that glassy fanatic's look. If this continues, we will soon be the number one threat to world peace - if we aren't already there.

Why, today I heard a senator describe Canada as a 'safe haven for terrorists', demanding that something should be done to 'force' the Canadians into taking their 'duty to world peace and security' seriously. Goddamn if it didn't sound like some asshole prepping the ground work for a fucking invasion...if Americans could accept *that* then I'd say the world is well and truly screwed.

Max

Re:It's not just about challenging the US military

[SerpentMage]

It is amazing how one sided news can be. Ask yourself this question. Would you rely on the European GPS if it were the only game in town? Would you rely on the European GPS for your military if it were the only game in town?

I am almost willing to bet yes for the first question, but no for the second. Maybe even no for the first. But then I turn the tables and say since you might answered the questions in that fashion why should you expect that we do otherwise? Seriously! As sad as it sounds right now there is a President that has done nothing more than make the hawks of any government happy!