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

It serves us right

[jkauzlar]

I guess we Americans can't blame anyone for not trusting us after the whole Iraq thing. Somebody's got to police the police!

Re:It serves us right

[Ken@WearableTech]

"Americans can't blame anyone for not trusting us after the whole Iraq thing"

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

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:It serves us right

[plalonde2]

I seem to recall the US wasn't too interested in helping France for quite a while during that conflict.

Jingoism continues to cloud people's thinking.

Re:It serves us right

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, you lot didn't lift a finger in WW2 until the Japanese buttfucked you at Pearl Harbor.

Re:It serves us right

[Rumagent]

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

You mean liberated of course.

Re:It serves us right

[javiercero]

"while the U.S. accounted for less than 1% of all arms sales to Iraq."

Haaha hahha hahah hahaah buuahahaha hahhahah. Good one mate. I needed a laugh, of course you have to ignore the massive quantities of nerve and biological agents funneled into Iraq by US sources. And well if you want to talk about providing training and technology to roge states, we can alaways ask who trained and armed Mr. Osama Bin Laden. Was it the French? Hum... nope.

As late as 1998 Mr. Chenney was doing business with Iraq for over $25M via his beloved Haliburton. Quite interesting that one of the guys that claimed Saddam was such a scum bag that needed to be stopped did in fact help that douche bag to rebuilt Iraq infraestructures (well oil producing sturctures anyways... which is what the US was interested in after all). I guess Mr. Cheney just decided to cut the middle man and get the oil directly.

Oh, right... the Frenchies are the evil ones. Because the US has never sold weapons to nobody, rigth? The US is the largest weapons manufacturer in the world, who do you think they sell their tock to the girl scouts?

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.

Re:It serves us right

[fenix down]

Prediction: Liberals will hysterically blame this on Bush, conservatives will hyserically defend whatever the liberals attack on the grounds that the liberals are attacking it, and libertarians will celebrate this healthy competition and continue to remain confident that the demand created by an incoming space-laser strike will allow for the quick roll-out of a planetary defense shield in the .005 seconds before the lasers hit the ground.

Don't even need to read the rest of the thread.

Re:It serves us right

[javiercero]

And never mind that it was the French who helped us in getting rid of the British. Oh, yeah that whole statue of Liberty thing.

Oh, right... so basically we are trying to bring democracy to Iraq, but we do not tolerate dissent on such decision. Yup, it sound totally democratic to me!

BTW. All those people who were laughing at the French, have no idea of how much we owe to them (in the same manner they owe to us), they have never purchased French products (no French fries are not actually made in France, duh!), and at the same time they laugh at French courage... their little bitch asses have never experienced a war (no, playing FPS on your computer doesn't count as actual battle experience)... and I would like to see them laugh at French courage in front of a platoon of French Legionaires... yeah, see how much fun those "surrender monkeys" have kicking your ass. Remember who rescued all those American school children a few years ago from central Africa, no it was not the super duper US special forces... it was *gasp* the French.

Re:It serves us right

[mookoz]

I mean, if we start another war against an enemy that uses the EU system we can block it without blocking our own GPS units.

..or vice versa.

Re:It serves us right

[thumperward]

It has been quite a while since I've heard any Frenchman use "my country could kick your country's ass" as a debating point. Whether meant as a self-deprecating jibe at one's own nationalistic arrogance or actually meant in all seriousness, almost every international policy argument one has with a bative of the United States manages to drag that one out eventually. It's almost getting to the point of needing an extension to Godwin's Law.

- Chris

PS hi moderators. Don't bother.

Re:It serves us right

[WindBourne]

Dr. Germ and Dr. Death were both educated in Texas And Misourri. When I obtained my Microbio degree in 1984, I watched my groups funding coverted from Civilian purpose to Military purpose. More important, we took on International students (iraqi's) becuase it was strongly suggested that it was tied to the grants. they later went on to receive additional training from the US government prior to returning home in 1986. I would say that since Desert Storm, no we have not sold too many weapons, but prior to that we trained them on biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare and I would suspect sold them the equipment.

Re:It serves us right

[freeweed]

Already happened, see: D-Day.

Re:It serves us right

[cperciva]

You mean liberated of course.

No, France doesn't have any oil reserves. When France is invaded it will be for the purpose of disarming them.

Re:It serves us right

[maxpublic]

Well, they *do* have weapons of mass destruction. Several hundred of them, in fact.

Max

Re:It serves us right

[mark2003]

I can't believe you mentioned the Rumsfeld picture. What a dope. Cripes, we have million of photos of clinton and arafat, what does that tell us?

That Rumsfeld is prepared to do business with the devil to make a buck and that Clinton was interested in the peace process in the Middle East?

Small point: Outside of Chile, most of those regimes were very Communist and very anti-US. The areas where the U.S. played a direct role like Panama, Costa Rica and, before the Communists, El Salvador, tended to have better track records than the Communist regimes that tended to spring up.

I'm sure they thank the US for sponsoring (generally) facist revolutions to remove the communists that led to civil wars in those countries as well. After all, we can't have a communist state suceed can we?

And the next time you want to make a point, avoid reactionary, demagogic, ANSWER-sponsored tripe that sounds trite on the handout, but lacks factual basis or grounding in reality.

Are Americans vacinated against spotting their own hypocrisy at birth or does the constant rewriting of history by Hollywood cloud their ability to reason based on fact rather than patriotic fervour?

Re:It serves us right

[den_erpel]

This is typical of a teenager responding. If you're not a teenager, you still didn't grow up. You have to remember that the ties between the US and the 'old' continent were much stronger than they are now.

Back then, a large percentage of the ppl in North America had (close) relatives living in Europe, so what happened in Europe affected lots of people personally. By now, I guess most family ties have been broken (I have uncles, aunts and cousins in MN, but time seems to dissolve family contact).

I think that the 'we saved them at the cost of our lot of American blood' is therefore a bit too simple a statement to correctly reflect the US situation, immigration and the (past) interdependency and ballances on poor taste, and probably aimed at the 'internal' public that only understands simple retorics. In Europe, it creates even more resistance to the US whose politics seem to many Europeans illogical and ununderstandable how the domestic public swallows it (e.g. Iraq is a threath).

Re:It serves us right

[Ed_Moyse]

Ahem. Not sure I want to get involved in this slagfest, but WHAT threat? Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that iraq was a danger to the west? I saw no evidence of this before the war (the british government even had to doctor an old PhD thesis because of the lack of real proof), and more importantly I see none now.

Re:It serves us right

[mark2003]

Who do you think was making the most money off of the Iraq oil-for-food program?

The oil-for-food programme was a UN run initiative that US companies had as much right to particpate in as the French. However, Elf won the business fair and square. Are you suggesting that competing with an American company is wrong?

Do you think they were more interested in oil-money than ending a threat?

There was no threat to the west from Iraq and it now seems that there were no WMD. Maybe (like almost everyone outside the US) they did not believe the "evidence", after all it did look very amateur and tenuous. Using an ethical argument to attempt justify the replacement of French and Russian oil companies with American ones through an invasion is not a good position...

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.

Re:Plans started long before "recent events"

[squaretorus]

I doubt that this is absolutely the case. In the recent Eurovision song contest the UK got zero points in a vote of european nations. The song was crap, it was performed in an out of tune, hyperactive frenzy by a pair of market tinkers from Liverpool. That aside - the recent stance of the UK in relation to the Gulf has REALLY pissed off most of Europe, both politicians and regular chaps in the street.

Next year the UK will get mediocre votes as always - but the recent events meant that even Israel got more than us!!! Thats just because Israel behaves like a murderous shit all the time - the UK is more of a part time hobbiest war monger. Every one hates inconsistencies.

Re:Plans started long before "recent events"

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

I can't imagine that comment was meant very seriously, and where it got it's 'insightful' from I cannot imagine.

As to Israel, they are in the West Bank as an occupying power and are simultaneously trying to 'colonise' it. This is an unpleasant policy which is (in Sharon's case, deliberately) asking for trouble.
Sharon came to power in the wake of Barak's failure and the unrest generated by his walk on the Temple Mount. Since he came to power, the Israeli military has tended to attack something whenever Palestinian militancy looked like dying down. If peace broke out, Israel would not need him so peace has to be avoided.

All this is very off-topic and also is not at all comparable with the way the Nazis behaved, more like how the Germans behaved in what they had previously taken from Poland in the years leading up to WW1.

So why does the EU feel the need to maintain this sort of technology independently of the US? I suppose it is *never* a bad idea to be independent, if you can afford it. There are also sound reasons based on recent history which indicate that total reliance on another country is a dangerous course:
Back in the 80's, West Germany started buying Gas (Methane I think, not Benzine) from the Soviet Union. Reagan was appalled. US Govt sources started claiming that the pipelines were being built using slave-labour from the Gulags, and the US started imposing trade sanctions on certain related essential products needed by the Germans and their suppliers. One of the side-effects of this was to make the Europeans push Airbus Industries that much harder. The pipeline was built anyway.
This US Govt. sees itself as the successor to the Reagan administration so Iraq did not need to be a direct cause of this decision, the mere ideological similarity would enough to set the alarm bells ringing.

Peace?

[Scrameustache]

or bad thing for world peace?

Er, I you mean good thing for world peace.

Unless you want to imply that the USmilitary is going to attack europe to stop them from lauching its satelittes...

Re:Peace?

[JonMartin]

Unless you want to imply that the USmilitary is going to attack europe to stop them from lauching its satelittes...

Um yeah, that's a valid concern.

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: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:Peace?

[BJH]

I guess you don't know classical Greek either, because "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" is Latin.

Re:Peace?

[lysium]

How about members of our government openly debating whether or not Iran's government should be "destablized?" God help any Arabs who say the same thing about OUR government.....

Combined receivers

[yet another coward]

A receiver compatible with both systems could provide increased accuracy over either alone. Even though current GPS is accurate enough for my practical demands, I want more for nerd reasons. I remember speculation on using both GLONASS and GPS signals several years ago with the idea of improving both reliability and accuracy.

Re:Combined receivers

[BitterOak]

But errors go down when you combine independent results. That's why doing an experiment 100 times gives you smaller error bars than doing it 10 times. (Assuming statistical errors dominate the systematic ones. If GPS and the Galileo are based on independent satellites, there should be no systematic error common to both.) A properly designed combined receiver would know how to combine the two results and report the results and error bars correctly.

Re:Combined receivers

[JohnFluxx]

I strongly suspect that systematic errors would dominate, from changes in air pressure etc that would affect both units.

This is why differential gps is more accurate - it tackles the systematic error.

Re:Combined receivers

[GigsVT]

Trains somehow live with this limitation. It's not like they can stop or steer around a hazard.

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

[RandomCoil]

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.

Clearly a system of satellites that provide location data will be an excellent counter to US military supremacy. After this coup, no doubt the EU will look into building the 'Euronet' (aka the 'Information Autobahn') to futher counter US hegemony. Rumsfeld is likely shaking in his boots.

Note that I'm no fan of the current US administration, but to suggest that creating a European version of GPS is some great step towards making the EU a 'relevant' force in world politics (by which I mean a force capable of doing ~anything~) seems a tad laughable.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[aggieben]

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this...

Maybe because you're wrong? There are all kinds of arguments I could make regarding the war. 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. Their response to this irrelevancy is to form a more federal E.U. with a common foreign policy and a single currency, with the ultimate goal of being a superpower counterweight to the U.S.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Pall Agamemnides]

...unilateral US action (with its lackey GB, Spanish, and Aussie friends holding pom-poms)...

Well, in Europe alone, the US was supported by Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These are just from the "Gang of Eight" and the "Vilnius Group". There was also some support from other countries as well, I think (Ireland and the Netherlands?). Among European governments, at any rate, there was more of a consensus for the US than against.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the Americans showed their true colors..... Everywhere they go, people dance in the streets. When was the last time that happened when the German Army marched through a town?

The American Army *dug up* the mass graves in Iraq, we didn't put anybody there. Amercians stopped the Iraqi government's mass murder of its own people. Can Europe say that? Europe was too busy signing oil contracts with Sadam Hussein to notice the mass murder (or perhaps they did notice, but didn't care). By the way, I can name several European armies that have historically put people *into* mass graves (and its not just the Germans).

Can Europe or the UN be trusted in military matters? Remember back to 1995 and the joint European and United Nations mission to Bosnia. It led to the mass execution of 8000 civilians in one city alone. Ask the people of Srebrenica about Europe's and the UN's handling of military matters. The people of Srebrenica trusted Europe and the UN with their lives - they are now dead. Europe has the blood of innocents on its hands, but it is too arrogant and too busy pontificating about American power to bother to notice the blood on it own hands. Yes, Europeans love to pontificate about the evils of a world run by Americans, but the Europeans have done much worse when they are in charge. The war in Bosnia only can to an end when American intervened.

What is truly evil? American power or the lack of American Power? And who should conter-weight America? Somebody with an even worse record, like Europe?

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Rumagent]

I can only speak for Denmark. But there was minimal support for the war in the population. That the danish goverment joined the coalition of the willing (should really be the reluctant) was and still is a issue of great controversy. The fact that there isn't any weapons of mass destruction only makes things worse. There is a growing feeling of being tricked into war by a less-than-honest american administration.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Pharmboy]

I get tired of this FUD. In spite of all the claims, more countries were with us now than in the first Gulf war. Less soldiers, because frankly, if they are not trained the same, they will get in the way (quality is not an issue). This was only the 2nd time since the founding of the UN that we bothered to go to the UN, which is where all the controversy started. Keep in mind, that 1441 passed with nary a no vote. Its just when it got time to pay the tab, many backed away for their own reasons.

Its ok to be against the war, just take your FUD elsewhere. Have enough courage to develop a real reason to be against it, other than popular European sentiment.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[brsmith4]

Free to be forced to sell their natural resources

Who else is around in that country to make that decision? 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. May as well buy their oil and let them use the money to rebuild their own shit the way they want it.

Free to be forced to stage US-style elections (convince me that system isn't flawed)

Free to finally make a choice. Convince me that a system that gives a single man 100% of the popular vote isn't flawed.

Free to turn in their previously legal firearms

For the protection of our troops/liberators (or SS/Occupiers whatever you would like to believe). Whatever government that they establish during our occupation will be given the responsibility to allow their people to possess fire arms.

Free to be shot for not obeying their "liberators"

Ever been in a large scale natural disaster that requires martial law (I have)? Its pretty much the same thing. They set up rules that must be followed for A) the protection of the people and B) the protection of the troops who are A) bringing in food B) bringing in medical supplies C) trying to keep people from stealing shit from peoples homes D) enforcing what little law is still enforceable after the areas infrastructure has been incapacitated. The military saved our home and our lives with their style of law enforcement.

Fuck. Give us a break.

Ditto

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Sanity]

Note that I'm no fan of the current US administration, but to suggest that creating a European version of GPS is some great step towards making the EU a 'relevant' force in world politics (by which I mean a force capable of doing ~anything~) seems a tad laughable.

And to imply that 'relevant' political force is determined by military strength alone is typically American thinking, and sorely misses the core lesson of 9-11 (namely that you don't need to spend 3% of your GDP on your military to inflict suffering on your enemies, nor will it prevent them from inflicting suffering on you).

The EU is growing rapidly, its population already exceeds that of the US, and it won't be long before its economic strength does too (if it doesn't already). Most European countries have experienced first-hand the real meaning of war on their own soil (think 9-11 thousands of times over), and because of this they seek to create a world where justice doesn't have to be dispensed through Cruise missiles and Cuban concentration camps.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Chunky Kibbles]

That's the typical american attitude; "We're the biggest and the best, and country is not as good as us, and they know it."

In practice, American arrogance is altogether ridiculous, and given recent and past behaviour, the US is, I would say, more than likely to do things like break GPS leaving everyone else in the lurch.

Contrary to what you may believe, the interest in a common EU isn't in competing with the US. You never know, there's a danger it may be that it's the best for all of Europe, and Europe knows it, and that's why we're doing it.

We would all love to get together with the US, and provide various decent global systems... But the US simply keeps proving that it isn't trustworthy.

Flamebait, I'm sure. But The arrogance I've witnessed in the 8 months since I moved here is beyond anything I had ever been able to imagine it would be. And yes, I'm pissed and even embarrassed to be an American citizen.

Gary (-;

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

[Ian-K]

[flamebait]
You may mark me as flamebait or redundant, depending on your point of view, but most of the countries you mentioned are in deep poverty or have just come out of very conservative governments (or at least their new government wants to look more "modern") and their topmost priority is to feel that they're important in this new playground they just joined, so they'll just play sweet to the school-bully and hope for some candy.
[/flamebait]

Then don't forget the big protests all over England, Italy and Spain.

Living in England, I have to note that the first protest in London was (apparently) the biggest protest *ever* in that city.

T.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[JohnFluxx]

And how many of those countries were "with us" because they were forced to be?

I know that for example the carribean countries were given the choice of either voting for the war, not voting, or having all aid cut to them.

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

[kaffiene]

US & UK were right and Europe was wrong???

Oh? So tell me where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are then. ...and, tell me how the US is now a safer place. ...and, tell me how this solved anything to do with Sept 11.

The US was wrong. They claimed the existence of WMD. They are not there.

The Iraqi people are free? Are they governing themselves? Are they controlling their own natural resources? I must have missed that bit of news...

Re:I think it's a good thing

[golgotha007]

I think the media is largely responsible for most people's opinions in this matter. I'm an American living in Europe now, but before leaving the States in late Feb, I remember watching the news with their ,'yay yay go war' attitude.
Having traveled thru France, Germany and now in Russia, I have been media blitzed into thinking the Americans are juvenile and that their 'invasion' was merely a selfish act.

it was so strange to call the States and talk to some of my extremely level-headed friends, only to find them glued to CNN, walking in circles and murmuring strange pro-war chants.

So, everyone should try this next time there is a world dispute on on particular isuue or another. First, read your local news. Then, read international news. Try to draw some sort of line down the middle of the two, and that's probably the most truth you will find.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemme get this straight. The verbal attacks on America are "Insightful," but the reasoned responses are "Offtopic?" This board seems to be sadly changing from an anti-MS propaganda site to a I'm-smart-so-I-hate-the-US site. Pathetic.

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:I think it's a good thing

[Pall Agamemnides]

most of the countries you mentioned are in deep poverty or have just come out of very conservative governments

Most of them have lived under leftist dictatorships, which may be why they can sympathize with other people in similar circumstances, and would support freeing them from such a fate.

their topmost priority is to feel that they're important

Are you describing France here?

Then don't forget the big protests all over England, Italy and Spain.

Those were organized by Socialist and Communist organizations. I'm not really surprised at the size of the protests, given how many socialists there are in Europe.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[vidarh]

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.

Even more importantly, counteracting the US isn't about counteracting Bush, but about the next US government, and the one after, and the one after that. The US has shown that it is willing to ignore international law to protect it's interests. Nobody should feel safe that in 10-15-20-50 years the US won't have an even more hawkish government and that "protecting US interests" won't mean coming after them.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[dackroyd]

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.

Don't you hate it when someone completely proves your point:

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S0050

The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in control of all U.S. spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command about actively denying the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other nation at any time--not just adversaries, but even longtime allies, according to NRO director Peter Teets.
At the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs in early April, Teets proposed that U.S. resources from military, civilian and commercial satellites be combined to provide "persistence in total situational awareness, for the benefit of this nation's war fighters." If allies don't like the new paradigm of space dominance, said Air Force secretary James Roche, they'll just have to learn to accept it. The allies, he told the symposium, will have "no veto power."

---------------------

This would not make us Europeans very happy at all.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[BenTels0]

If Europe had respected its obligations to its allies (a perpetual failing of Europe)

Bullshit. The Crusades, WWI, the naval wars between England and France, England and the Netherlands, about your very existence as a country, these are all wars that started because European countries respected their obligations to allies and overseas colonies. As for Iraq (which is undoubtedly what you are blithering about above), the European nations in NATO have a mutual defense pact with the US -- it doesn't obligate us to support the US in a totally unnecessary war that the US is (was) itself starting.

By the way, you do realize that Germany is in Europe, right? This wasn't a matter of a united Europe standing up against an outside foe -- there was no such thing as a united Europe or even the idea of it.

and confronted a militaristic Germany early on, WW2 would never have happened.

Confronted it with what? With militaries that had been downsized after several years of the Great Disarmament Drive (look it up)? With populations unwilling to fight another bloody war after World War I and desiring a diplomatic settlement at all cost? Not to mention that in the end, they did confront Germany. That's why there was war. As there would have been no matter what -- the foundations for WWII were laid on November 11th 1918 at 11:11 and not a moment later.

Crack open a non-European history book one of these days.

So I can get the US-government mandated dose of "we are great and they are wimps"-Americana nonsense? No thanks.

Re:I think it's a good thing

[BenTels0]

Actually, I was talking about Europe's sacrifice of Austria and particularly Czechoslovakia to Germany prior to WW2.

Austria wasn't a sacrifice; the vast majority of Austrians wanted the Anschluss. As for Czechoslovakia, that's what I was talking about as well -- the Munich Pact.

France and Britain had a pact to protect Czechoslovakis but allowed Germany to snap it up because they believed that appeasing Hitler would prevent further agression.

No, they didn't. The Munich Pact was the agreement whereby France, Britain and Czechoslovakia turned over Sudetenland to Germany in return for Germany agreeing not to annex any more Czech territory. France (or at least its president and prime minister) already knew at the time that it was just a delay. They also knew they weren't in any shape to go to war with Germany in 1938, so they started preparing for war. The defense pact between Britain and France was with Poland, not Czechoslovakia, and came in March of 1939 when Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia. And they stood by that agreement -- Hitler's invasion of Poland started World War II.

It only emboldened Hitler, who actually expected France to go to war over the Sudetenland.

No, he didn't. Hitler didn't know what Britain and France were willing to do (although he had a reasonable idea of what they were able to do). He started the play for Sudetenland to test the waters and the limits; note that he didn't seize Sudetenland until after the Munich Pact.

That history of Europe, particularly France, putting its own self interests ahead of its obligations to its allies has been going on for hundreds of years. It is nothing new.

That history of Europe doesn't exist. There is no obligation to any allies that France broke (much the opposite and much to France's detriment). And you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of it before 1938 either.

That aside, the idea that France or Britian should have gone to war before 1939 would have been deemed ludicrous back then and is simply insane with hindsight. France was in no shape whatsoever to take on Germany in 1938. In 1939/40, Germany crushed France in a matter of weeks; had war come about 18 months earlier, France would have been pulverized.

France's army was much larger than Germany's prior to 1939. France lacked the will and courage to fight.

That's the stupid type of wartime accounting that got millions of soldiers killed needlessly in WWI. The kind of thinking that says "they have twenty-five siege mortars and seventy machine guns, but we have five hundred rifles so we outgun them" and then sends half a regiment of men to be blown to bits on that basis. So what if France had more men? Germany was better armed, its men better trained and equipped, the German army had more and better tanks, the Kriegsmarine had U-boats that swept the seas and the Luftwaffe was damned near invincible in 1938 -- and it was only four years from having fighter jets. There is no way in which France could have realistically defeated Germany in 1938 or even brought it to a standstill. If the German surface navy had been worth anything, not even Britain would have survived the 1940 onslaught. Hell, the United States would be part of the German Reich right now. And you think France should have gone up against that when they were even weaker than they were in 1939?

Does this ring a bell ?

Only the resonating of your cranium.

Competition is good for consumers!

[earthforce_1]

I just hope they do a really good technical job of it, that results in an even better system than GPS.

Well done, EU

[Faust7]

So they have their own system now, excellent. Autonomy is always a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that the U.S. is healthy as hell, but no country should be dependent on it for satellite navigation (GPS) or software (Microsoft). I just wish Japan would get its act together to avoid a U.S. economic bailout...

Perhaps at some point in the future, both satellite systems will be merged into an internationally-run outfit. Good standardized functionality as well as a symbol of building what President Clinton referred to as an "integrated global community."

Not a new project

[Bunji X]

Galileo has been in the planning for quite a while, and will as far as I can tell be compatible and possibly linked with the US GPS system.

The Galileo homepage, in english.

Re:Welcome back to Superpower Politics

[letxa2000]

Europe is, slowly and quietly, moving towards the status of Superpower

Superpower? They have a lot of internal divisions and disagreements to deal with before they get to that level.

and it is unsurprising that it is seeking independence of technical material.

I think the European GPS is a waste of money. Unless they anticipate a U.S. vs Europe war then I don't see this is the best use of limited resources.

On the up side I think it'll be cool if we see GPS receivers that receive BOTH signals and can use the combined data of both systems to produce an even more accurate fix.

Re:Great

[krisp]

Actually, the GPS system is owned by the Air Force. Here is a fact sheet.

The NAVSTAR Global Positioning System is managed by the NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office at the Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif.

Not the army.

It's not just about challenging the US military

[grungie]

Galileo is --in theory-- much more accurate than GPS. You probably don't want your airliner to risk missing the runway by a couple of meters in thick fog. Galileo will give QoS guarantees and greater precision, which will make it a viable solution for critical systems such as air-traffic control. But I have no clue what the current plans are to enforce the policy that it should be a civilian-only system.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Why not? Planes use autopilots that are built on inertial reckoning systems that are only able to pinpoint their position within a hundred feet!

There are practical limits to reckoning systems. If the accuracy of your reckoning system is great enough to discriminate between two points inside your vehicle, then things like the position of the antenna on your car become important. A navigation system that is too accurate can be as much of a problem as one that's not accurate enough.

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

[Realistic_Dragon]

Your example is stupid in the extreme. Runways are much bigger than airplanes. A difference of ten feet one way or the other isn't going to matter to anybody.

You haven't ever met an AW guy then? Believe me, these guys are so anally retentive it's unbelivable - they would consider 2 feet to be dangerously out of spec. This is one of the reasons why planes don't land on GPS, or INS, they do so with the Mk.1 eyeball or ILS - both of which are rather accurate and capable of landing a plane right on the centerline - which _is_ required to save your life should you have a tire go, especially in a 747 landing at a normal airport.

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

[mnemonic_]

Actually, with differential GPS (2 GPS receivers with software corrected data), accuracies of 2 to 45cm are attainable.

Source: http://www.geod.emr.ca/index_e/geodesy_e/gps-13_e. html

Two receivers are used; one receiver over a known location (the base or reference receiver) and the second (Rover or roving receiver) is placed over the new or unknown location. The receivers track and record data from the same satellites at the same time recording similar information. The data is eventually transferred from the receivers to a computer. Specialized software is used to 'correct' the data.

But this is kind of moot for your example. Since when do commercial aircraft use GPS for landings? Inertial navigation systems coupled with ground based positioning transponders and cockpit instrumentation provide highly accurate navigation data close to the airport, when necessary for low-visibility landings.

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

[j_w_d]

Typical horizontal accuracy with a GPS is variable, generally it can be with 3 meters horizontal resolution with WAAS. However elevation is always more dubious with GPS and anything that improves it is a genuine advance. Not having the US militiary "dithering" it is no loss either. "Too accurate" is silly. Yeah, you care about where your antenna is, but an error of 15 meters in your vehicle could quite readily add up to increased insurance costs and hospital bills. An altitude error of 15 meters in an aircraft could mean the difference between an emergency manuever and a crater. Any navigational system can be programmed to account for antenna position and vehicle or vessel configuration. The accuracy of the system needs to be based on the greatest demand that can be placed on it. Right now that can be an accuracy requirement within a meter, or even within a cm. Survey grade GPS can require sub-centimeter accuracy that is only available with post-processing at present. There are a lot of us who would like to collect mapping data with a handheld or rod unit that didn't cost ten grand.

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

[SClitheroe]

"Btw, having a good GPS system is vital for fighter planes. When you come out of a steep curling dive, and are doing hundreds of km/h, just a few hundred meters above the ground, you want to know your gps position as quickly as possible. This is where the QoS stuff comes in.
Even a delay of a couple of seconds can be fatal if you doing 200km/h at the wrong height :)"

Would you care to explain that? It makes no sense to me at all. Why would GPS matter at all, in that situation? GPS is horribly inaccurate at calculating elevation, especially compared to barometric or radio altimeters. Never mind the fact that your absolute elevation isn't important - it's your relative elevation about the ground that will prevent you from smacking into it, and that's something that GPS will never be able to tell you...

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:It's not just about challenging the US military

[doormat]

Technically, you *can* use the two station system to land a plane. It works like this...

Receiver 1 is fixed. It is hooked into a computer system that outputs correction data in real time (RTK or real time kinematic), radio recievers coupled with another GPS receiver provide spatially correct location for both Horizontal (XY) and Vertical (Z). Many companies provide solutions for individual-level tracking.

Trimble
Leica

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

[mcg1969]

Survey grade GPS doesn't always need absolute accuracy. Indeed, when it does, centimeter accuracy is not all that practical, as you point out. But usually it needs only relative accuracy. And the distortion of tectonic plates occurs much more slowly than their motion, at least if you're reasonably far from a plate interface.

So for example, your second hypothetical case is easily dismissed---because if your neighbor's fence moved 45cm, then so did the walls of your house, and the fence on the other side of your property!

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!

Great Name

[yet another coward]

During Galileo's day, longitude was hard to determine. Ships at sea had no sufficiently good clocks to determine position. Galileo proposed a system using the moons of Jupiter, but it never worked well enough. John Harrison ultimately solved the problem, but I guess "Harrison" does not sound as good as "Galileo." Nova had a good program on the longitude problem. There was also a bestselling book about Harrison and his feat, but I have not read it.

Re:Great Name

[Brian the Bold]

John Harrison was British, therefore there was no chance his name would have been chosen. This is Europe we're talking about.....

World peace?

[incom]

Good thing for commercialization of space, or bad thing for world peace? And how is the EU having thier own GPS system a threat to world peace? Maybe if your a paranoid mountain hermit, and if the world to you is the USA. I for one trust the EU as peacekeepers more than just about any powerful organization out there.

Re:World peace?

[BitterOak]

And how is the EU having thier own GPS system a threat to world peace?

Well, it isn't just European bombs that could be guided by the European satellite system, but anyone's bombs: Iraq, North Korea, etc. So, if the U.S. is in the middle of combat, and turns off public GPS to thwart emeny guided bombs, I can imagine a bunch of European beaurocrats sitting in Brussels trying to decide whether or not they should do the same. By the time they reach a consensus and turn off their system, the battle will be over, possibly with lots of allied casualties.

This really is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. Who controls the European system. How rapidly can a decision to be made to turn it off? Who controls the switch? These questions should probably be answered before the system is deployed.

Re:World peace?

[ingmar]

Actually, AFAIK there will be no way to turn Galileo off. It is designed as a commercial alternative to GPS, and supposed to be there to stay.

Re:World peace?

[plaa]

Well, it isn't just European bombs that could be guided by the European satellite system, but anyone's bombs

I somehow doubt that the ultimate motivation for the system is for guiding bombs. Yes, of course it's a factor, but Europeans seem to be culturally more opposed to war than the US.

So, if the U.S. is in the middle of combat, and turns off public GPS to thwart emeny guided bombs, I can imagine a bunch of European beaurocrats sitting in Brussels trying to decide whether or not they should do the same.

Well, perhaps this will make the US think twice before going off to wage war that most of the rest of the world opposes. If Europe should choose to go to war (not very likely), I think that the decision would be made easily (if it will be possible to achieve at all).

Is it somehow better to have absolute power in the hands of some kid trying to play dad?

Re:World peace?

[JanneM]

But of course the same thing can be said of GPS. How quickly can a European country selectively turn off GPS if they need to? Can in fact Europe depend on GPS not being turned off against them in a conflict?

Exchange "GPS" with "Galileo" and ask yourself if the US military would accept relying on a system over which they would not have control.

Re:World peace?

[Malcontent]

"By the time they reach a consensus and turn off their system, the battle will be over, possibly with lots of allied casualties."

What allies? The us will act unilaterally anyway. Sure we had "allies" like jamaica and somalia but they didn't actually do anything did they?

Also consider that US has a very stange concept of an ally. Our allies are only allies as long as they don't disagree. France went from being an ally to being an enemy in less then a month.

Europe now realizes that America is no friend or ally to anybody. It will never ever put the interests of any other country above it's own. We can and will declare war on europe if it feels it's own interests are threatened in any way.

trully a shame (from a disgusted European)

[DataShark]

as an European taxpayer i find disgusting this continuing tendency of certain European Governments (always the same Gang : French, Germany and Belgium) of copycatting the US instead of cooperating for the global good...

This is not even competition, it is simply a continued waste of money ...

Some European Politicians didn't understood yet what Alexis of Tocqueville (himself a French) found two hundred years ago and still think that Europe must, whatever it takes, be the Center of the Universe ...

Imagine if they had learned to cooperate : we could already be on Mars or close ...

but no, those Americans are the menace, and yet those Americans saved Democracy in Europe twice in the 20th Century !

Cheers from Portugal, Europe ...

Re:trully a shame (from a disgusted European)

[Bartmoss]

How did THAT get modded up?

As a European taxpayer, I applaud the plan to launch Gallileo! Competition is a good thing. This will also create jobs, and in the process of creating it, we will gain more experience in the space industry which will probably be a vital area in the future. Hey, guess what the more space infrastructure we get, the more likely we are to get to Mars.

Also, let's not forget that USEuropean relations are at a low. Being dependent on a system that HAS been switched off in the past is foolish. Just imagine the United States decide to re-implement selective availability - 22 meters accuracy just doesn't cut it. Imagine a ship entering a harbour being 20 meters off to one side. That's enough to ram something.

No, we need Gallileo, and we need not stop here. We need to become independent from the Americans, so in an ideal we can be equal partners and don't get pushed around by whatever weird ideas the US president of the day has.

The Americans who "saved Democracy twice" in Europe in the 20th Century are NOT the Americans running the US today. I will not get into a debate about what's fscked up with America today, but the list is truely long and growing by the month.

Europe cannot be the "center of the universe" (if that's what we want) without a reliable, working, accurate satellite navigation system. Even if you discount military uses, it's just too damn important for commerce today.

Finally, your "always the same gang" smells of jealousy. Yes, France in Germany are the "center of Europe". Together, we have about a third of the population, and I have no idea how much of the industrial output, but let's face it, it's a lot. Yes, France and Germany are in the limelight recently (The UK would, if it chose to participate in the EU instead of in the US). So, what's your point? Are you pissed that Portugal is not the center of attention? The idea behind the EU is that there is Europe of which everybody is a part. If you want your country to play a greater role, push your politicans to do something.

Sorry, but it's people like you why the EU will fail. Put aside your damn jealousy and realize that we are one continent, one people; we are free to live and work anywhere we chose, travel anywhere.

I am not German, I am European. If the EU issued passports and direct citizenship, I'd be the first in line.

Sorry to rant, but you it really pisses me off that we finally seize an opportunity, that the EU finally gets off their collective butts and actually DOES something that will benefit people, and which is a cool project on top of it, and you just cry foul and complain.

Re:trully a shame (from a disgusted European)

[Troed]

I doubt you're European. If you are - you should know that RUSSIA - not the USA - saved our butts in WWII.

What an Orignal Name!

[Ken@WearableTech]

Doesn't the US have some trademark or some other crap on the name "Galileo" relating to a spacecraft?

Can't Europe do something orginal. Sure copy GPS, but do you need to copy our mission/ship names too?

Re:What an Orignal Name!

[n3k5]

Doesn't the US have some trademark or some other crap on the name "Galileo" relating to a spacecraft?

Lot's of space related things, in Europe as well as the US, have been named after Galileo, Copernicus, or Kepler for ages. All of which were European, by the way. If something in the US is called 'Galileo', that choice probably wasn't all that original in the first place; it's definitely not 'your' name.

$$ for position information

[radarvectors]

The Europeans are hoping to fund the system by licensing fees on the receivers, and fees for access to high-reliability positioning information for critical applications such as aviation.

The basic service will be free and comparable to GPS in accuracy and reliability.

I have my doubts about their business model. They are essentially trying to compete with a totally free service that already offers high reliablility and is increasing in accuracy with WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) and LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System) enhancemnts to the GPS system.

Will you buy a GPS receiver with no licensing fee or a Galileo receiver that does the same thing for more money?

In fact, if Galileo allows basic receivers to be produced license free, GPS manufacturers can tap into the Galileo signal (frequencies & signals are supposed to be compatible) to further increase GPS accuracy, at no cost.

I guess I don't mind watching the French et al blow lots of cash enroute to having their asses kicked in the marketplace. Let 'em have at it...

Accuracy

[JerryKnight]

The main problem with accuracy is the timing circuitry in the receiver. Most receivers now are accurate to a few nanoseconds, which happens to be the time it takes light (or GPS signals) about 1 foot, so 10-20 ft accuracy is typical (at least in my experience). Other than timing issues, atmospheric heating would cause inaccuracy.

The protocol of the satellites is hardly improvable, except maybe increasing the frequency of transmissions to more than 1 per second.

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.

Isn't redundancy a Good Thing?

[jerde]

Just think for a moment about how dependant we are on GPS for a whole bunch of things now...

It is a complex system, and if computer science has taught us nothing else (and it hasn't), we know that complex systems can never be immune to failure.

If there were a totally redundant system of different design, I for one would want to require planes and ships to carry recievers for BOTH systems. Then you can check for agreement or be in much better shape if either system failed for whatever reason.

- Peter

(extra points to anyone who sees my failed attempt at a Simpsons reference)

Re:Isn't redundancy a Good Thing?

[Quixote]

Suppose both don't agree: then what? Which one do you rely on? If you are an airliner on landing approach, it's not like you can stop in mid-air and ask for directions, you know.

Just something to think about.

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.

Actually...

[PHAEDRU5]

The U.S. doesn't really give a damn about the rest of the world, just that part of it which crashes airplanes into our skyscrapers.

If France, sorry, the EU wants its copy of GPS, the U.S. will be ine with it. Until it's used to attack the U.S. At that point, it will cease to exist.

Re:Actually...

[varjag]

If France, sorry, the EU wants its copy of GPS, the U.S. will be ine with it. Until it's used to attack the U.S. At that point, it will cease to exist.

Does it means you are about to get rid of Boeing the company? Their products were used in terrorist attacks on US, after all.

Selective availability vs obfuscation

[KFury]

The /. article claims that the US abolished selective availability three years ago, but that's not the case. They abolished the 'fuzzing' of resolution, so that ordinary joes could get 10-foot accuracy instead of 70, but that's not selective availability.

Selective availability is the capability of 'turning off' GPS in specific geographic regions during times of war or for any other reason. They did it in Afghanistan last year, and they can do it whenever and wherever they want, though it's on an incident by incident basis.

Re:Selective availability vs obfuscation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Selective availability *is* the degradation of the signal. Just follow the link provided in the post. What you are talking about is selective deniability.

and what?

[TallEmu]

The European Union today decided to go ahead with Galileo, the constellation of 30 satellites which will compete with the U.S. GPS system.

Competition is good right? People will be free to chose which positioning system to use? Sounds like the values America supposedly stands for to me...

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.

But it's still US Property, controlled owned (and presumably licenced by US companies). Why shouldn't Europe have one too?

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

Just cool new geek toys, and maybe a price-drop in GPS?

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:Bad for world peace.

[Lord Ender]

You say you are an American but you think the EU needs to be a world superpower? You must not have had much history class. WWI and WWII were both started by western europe. You may disagree with the recent US aggression toward backwards governments that shouldn't be in power in the first place, but if you think Europe would be any better you know nothing of European history.

Re:Bad for world peace.

[TummyX]

You're right. World peace can only be attained by sitting idly by and watching dictators take over the world. It worked in WW2, why shouldn't it work now...oh wait..

Re:Bad for world peace.

[darkov]

WWI and WWII were both started by western europe.

I think this is the point of the EU. When large powerful countries like Germany are part of an integrated Europe, they're not going to have political differences that involve invading another part of the EU, since that would be like chopping off your own leg.

I think the more integrated the world is economically and socially, the better off we are (this is the upside to economic globalisation). It's just right now the US just doesn't get it and it going around like the class bully. The other good reason for the EU to exist is to balance out an overly strong US.

backwards governments that shouldn't be in power in the first place

You mean like the Bush administration?

A bit of weasel-wording...

[PHAEDRU5]

Among other things, the article notes:

The European Space Agency (ESA) said in a statement that an agreement had been reached among its member states which finalised the conditions for their participation in the project.

"The European Space Agency is now able to finalise the conditions for participation in the Galileo navigation program and to approve the Galileo joint undertaking foundation act to be soon signed by ESA and the European Union," ESA's statement said.

"Now able to finalize the conditions for participation"? Sounds to me like scheduling a meeting to discuss the meeting where they finalize the agenda items to be discussed in the main meeting.

Good luck to them, but I doubt they'll succeed.

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:Begging the question or what?

[Malcontent]

Who nellie no fair injecting facts. You are arguing with americans here.

Re:Trust Us!

[Crashmarik]

I can think of half a dozen things that both the U.S. and Europe are dependant on the goodwill of others for. Its just the way our world works. What would have been interesting, is if the EU had of spent the money for something new and usefull, or had offered to collaborate with the US so we could all have a better system.

No this is just the EU feeling it has to have something so it can be considered a player. Much like like Germany felt it needed colonies and a blue water navy at the turn of the century, or why small towns have international airports they cant afford or properly use.

America the Barbaric

[Wyatt Earp]

For all of the faults of the US, I don't think that anyone has any right to call them barbaric.

Europe 1914-18 - 10 million dead on Western Front
Europe 1914-17 - 2 million dead on Eastern Front
Europe 1939-45 - 12 million killed in death camps
Europe 1992-1999 - 250,000 killed in Former Yugoslavia
Russia 1918-1953 - 30-40 million starved to death, executed, slaughtered, etc
Europe 1941-45 - 20-30 million killed on Eastern Front
Europe - Post WW2 - killed while 790,000 repatriated to USSR
China - 1933-45 - 12 million killed
China - 1949-75 - 30-50 million starved to death, executed, slaughtered, etc
Algerian War - at least 36,000 killed
Pakistan - 1971 - 1-3 million Bengalis killed
Cambodia 1973-1980 - 1-3 million killed
Vietnam - 1945-75 - 1.2 million killed by US, No. Vietnam, So. Vietnam, France
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos - 1-3 million killed by Communists following Vietnam War
Iraq - 2003 - 15-50 thousand killed
Iraq - 1990 - 25-100 thousand killed
Somalia - 1992-94 2-8 thousand killed
Granada 1983 - 2-6 hundred killed or wounded
Panama 1989 - 1-2 thousand killed

I'm all for the EU creating something like this Nav System, I'm also all for the EU defending it's self.

But it's not right to call America barbaric when the US fronts and wars are among the least bloody in the last 100 years.

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.

The war was a good thing

[theLOUDroom]

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.

What a bunch of bullshit.

The rest of the world should be embarassed that they were willing to leave Saddam in power.

The UN should be embarassed. They exist to take care of situations like this. The Gulf War was in 1994. The UN had been trying unsuccessfully to get Iraq to live up to the agreements it signed at the end of that war. They weren't doing their job.

Saddam was playing them like a violin. The U.S. was ready to do something about this whole situation years ago, after talks with Iraq failed and they weren't letting inspectors in. Then Kofi Anan went in, and somehow just took their word that they would let inspectors back in just for him. They were, of course, lying and any reasonable person could have noticed the pattern in Iraq's actions.

The UN totally fucked up the Iraq situation.

The US has managed to depose a brutal dictator, with a minmum of civilian casualties. More people would have died if Saddam had remained in office.

The US is not "stealing" Iraq's oil, nor are they claiming any territory.

You might think by now I'm a GWB supporter, but I'm not. I never really wanted this war to happen. My father was drafted his senior year of college, and I sure as hell didn't want that happening to me. I didn't trust GWB to do the right thing, and have a quick, respectible war, but....you know what?

He has. I think GWB is a tool, but I'm not going to make up bullshit reasons not to like the guy. There are plenty of real ones.

Your "invasion rather than liberation" comment is a lie. You have no proof that the US is doing anything but what's best for the Iraqi people. If that changes, you can expeect my views of this whole thing to change, but right now you're just making yourself look bad.


The Iraqi people, the US, and the World in general is better off due to the US' actions in Iraq. It's too bad some other countries couldn't see past their own petty oil interests, egos, and fears to make the world a better place.

Right now, I'm proud of what my country has done. In the past, we've had a tendency to prop up brutal dictators, in place of the original ones just so they'll do whatever we want. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, this has changed. I'm not about to go out an protest because my country is actually doing the right thing for once.

And an anti-satellite laser

[LinuxHam]

We also test fired an anti-satellite laser at a satellite that was no longer in use. We were originally planning to destroy the unused satellite in the test, but other countries asked us not to do so in fear of all the little pieces flying around in orbit.

Re:GLONASS Dead?

[Multics]

http://www.glonass-center.ru/nagu.txt is the current status (in English).

There is enough Glonass still functioning that given a little luck one can still get a time sync and position about 50% of the time.

-- Multics

And yes... google is my friend.

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.

Cake, eating of and having of

[A nonymous Coward]

Europe roundly condcemned us for not joining WW I fast enough, even tho it was a purely European matter which the Europeans couldn't solve.

Then Europe roundly condemned us for not joining in WW II fast enough, even tho that too was a purely European matter which was in fact jump started by the disastrous treaty, drafted by France, which ended WW I.

Not to mention that while Roosevelt was trying to help the Chinese, who Japan had invaded in 1931 and 1937, the Europeans couldn't be bothered with some trifle so far away.

Then the Suez canal fiasco, where Egypt nationalized that wonder of colonial days, Britain and France invaded to take it back ... and guess who told them to get out? Duhh ... the US! How about that?

And who told the French that trying to recover Indochina after WW II ended was a mistake? Duhh ... The US!

Then there's the Balkans again, 1990s, couple of purely European wars there ... and you'd think, this having been the very hotbed which started WW I, that the Europeans would have been a bit more eager to put a lid on it ... but wait a minute, I seem to remember France popping off their mouth that they wouldn't contribute any troops unless we contributed the lion's share.

And where were the Dayton Accords signed? Hmmmm ... Datyton, Ohio, USA ... how about that!

Now I personally am not a big fan of Bush, or either gulf war. But by gum, the UN signed up in 1991 to cleanup Iraq, put in sanctions, rid it of the big nasty weapons ... and who actually monitored it and enforced it? The US mostly. France and Germany even agreed to a UN resolution just a few months ago telling Saddam he had stalled long enough .. yet when it came time to back it up, they slid into a corner and made silly noises.

I personally am sick and tired of saving Eurpoe's ass. WW I, WW II, Suez, Balkans ... why don't you damn fools get some spine and take care of yourselves?

Re:Cake, eating of and having of

[Vainglorious Coward]

Leaving aside the fact that the US was acting in its own interests, as much as those of its allies, in all the events you mention :

why don't you damn fools get some spine and take care of yourselves?

Isn't establishing a global positioning system doing just that? Aren't competition and diversity in the marketplace good things?

Re:Cake, eating of and having of

[Goth Biker Babe]

I personally am sick and tired of saving Eurpoe's ass. WW I, WW II, Suez, Balkans ... why don't you damn fools get some spine and take care of yourselves?

You didn't in WWII the Rusians did by tying up the German forces on the Eastern front. By the time you turned up we'd won North Africa and the Battle of Britain, Hitler had given up on the invasion of Britain and had turned to the east hence the Russian involvment.

You did help financially because we were running out of money. Two and half years of fighting drains a country especially when it's being bombed regularly.

When you finally got involved, with typical US arogance and lack of control you cocked up. The Omaha beach landing was a fiasco because you ignored the advice of the Brits who had far more experience and who landed fairly safely. The scene at the start of Saving Private Ryan didn't happen elsewhere.

In the first Gulf war you did it again killing more Brits than the Iraqis and in the second you did it yet again.

From the Daily Mirror, Monday April 7th 2003

Brit Pilot's Punch-up

A Furious British Helicopter Pilot who came under "friendly fire" from American troops landed yards from them, leapt out and exchanged punches
with a US Marine.

The Chinook pilot shouted at him: "When was the last time you saw a f******* Iraqi in a helicopter?"

The pilot and the marine had to be pulled apart as American troops advanced on the north of Baghdad, according to US reports from US Central
Command in Qatar.

British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "I'm afraid it would be an RAF kind of thing to do. "These guys are not known for tolerating fools gladly."

And

The following was broadcast live on CNN on the 24th of March.

In front of camera is the CNN anchor. He is joined by three American military experts (one being a retired two-star general from the 'elite'
Delta Force) and an ex SAS soldier. Footage on side-screen shows Iraqi soldiers surrendering to coalition troops.

CNN Anchor: "We've no current verification as to whether these are US or British troops the Iraqis are surrendering to. "
Yank 1: "They look to be ours - only US troops wear boots like those."
Yank 2: "Indeed, and they appear to have the standard issue camouflage fatigues."
Yank 3 (Delta Force): "I'm not sure - we'll have to get close-up images of them to be 100%. We'll definitely be able to tell from the shape of their Kevlar helmets if they're ours."
Ex SAS: "I'm surprised to learn you're all experts. Since when did US forces carry the SA80 rifle as standard issue? Their DPMs could've been bought, as could their boots and webbing for that matter, so you're chasing rainbows if you can I.D them from their clothes!"
Anchor: "I think you're right."
Ex SAS: "Of course I'm bloody right - anyone with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to I.D a British soldier by his rifle unless he's special forces! Not to mention the fact that they're covering all their arcs of fire properly, not shouting "woo yeah!" randomly and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention of their orders!"

...At this point one of the Americans pulls his mic off and leaves the floor. The other two look very uncomfortable...

Anchor: "I think we can safely say that the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages..."

Re:Cake, eating of and having of

[mark2003]

I don't believe a word of it - we all know that the US has the world's best trained soldiers. I mean it must be true as they tell us it so often...

Like the CNN quote, wonder if I can get a transcript from CNN.

Re:Cake, eating of and having of

[eoinatstraylight]

I was once told that during WW II:

When the Germans fired, the British ducked,
when the British fired, the Germans ducked, and when the Americans fired, everyone ducked.

I guess some things don't change that much.

Re:Trust Us!

[fm6]

Your logic escapes me. It's perfectly true that people build useless things just for the prestige. But you can't just assume that's what the Europeans are doing, at least not addressing the issues I raised in my previous post.

Suppose the existing GPS system were controlled by France. Do you think anybody in the U.S. would say "The French won't turn on selective availability! We're dependent on each other's goodwill! We can trust them!"

The Fun has Only Begun

[serutan]

Wait until the US military decides Galileo is a potential tool for terrorism.

"Why Europe needs Galileo"

[nicklott]

In case anyone cares: This is why Europe needs Galileo

Re:Still creating jobs

[Sanity]

We tend to make plenty of money (though this trend is reduced now) and low-cost health insurance is available to those who do not abuse themselves by, say, smoking cigarettes, or drinking frequently.

Oh? Try getting AIDS - and finding out just how difficult it is to get the drugs you need in what is supposed to be the world's wealthiest country.

Oh, sorry - I forgot, in America those that get AIDS deserve it for being God-hating fags. Welcome to the new world order.

US != Peace

[Offwhite98]

Having the US exist as the only major power does not mean there will be peace. I think it would be best for these European countries to work toward their own mutual benefit without outside influence because they do exist in a very tight geographical location.

While the US is not perfectly secure, the country is surrounded by water and 2 friendly nations. I can only imagine how tense it could be to live in Turkey, Serbia or even Germany right now. The European Union may prove to be the new stabilizing force in the world now that the US and USSR are not fighting over the way things should be.

In a few years we may realize the biggest threat to war is a nation that fears nothing and is sees nothing wrong with destroying other nations as long as it serves their interests.

Re:This will have no use!

[spyfrog]

So you mean that USA could go to war with Europe?
Isn't that a bit odd for even the most conservative of republicans? Perhaps you should have a look around and you will see that the ONLY other democratic allies you have still are Europe and that we still are your best friends, regardless you US current anger on France.

I honestly starts to feel a bit threathen by US more and more aggresive use of its force - what is next? Bombing of Hamburg because they had the Al Quadia cell responsible for september 11 on their university?

Re:It serves us/US right

[Kwiik]

That said.. I'm so glad I'm European !!
Makes us wonder why you're an AC poster.

Of course, I'm proud not to be from the US. Sometimes I'd rather be from even Iraq.

Anyways, the parent post should be modded up..it does have a good point. It would take a long time to build a system such as Galileo. I don't have any of the dates, but it must have been before September 11th, and the world didn't really start to go anti-Bush until more recently. This can't really be a retaliation against recent events.

Feel free to mod me down for the comments on Iraq, and for saying that I don't think Sadam Houssin has done anything wrong, and that he may have been a revolutionary leader if the US didn't start picking pickles over there.. err I didn't say that, but I did now. But the guy up needs to be insightful.

GPS + terrain database

[Chep]

GPS gives you lat+long+(not too good altitude)
you can get the altitude from another source.

Compare with a terrain map --> you know the ground's altitude relative to sea level

Subtract --> you know your altitude relative to the ground, which is what you really want.

The alternative method is to send a radar ping to the ground; this should give you a very accurate reading, provided you send the beam in the right direction, and provided you don't mind the signal being picked up by ground stations (the problem in mil-craft being that said ground stations might belong to your opponent).

Re:GPS + terrain database

[Chep]

No, you know what someone thought the altitude was.

Fair enough. However, if the NOAA-gathered terrain databases are good enough to guide low-alt cruise missiles, they might be good enough to be used in aircraft too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Assuming the ping is low power and fairly directional, and that the plane is at low altitude (else it would probably be using the barometric altimeter) that means the enemy would be able to detect you with the MkI eyeball or a head mounted compression wave detection array.</BLOCKQUOTE>

It's one thing to detect, it's another altogether to aim at. It's a no-brainer to have terrain avoidance radar-seeking AA guns; manually aiming an AA gun at a fast moving aircraft, no matter how noisy, is a much different thing.

Besides, the more directional you make your radar beam, the less chance it has of actually hitting the ground (you don't necessarily know what your orientation is when you're trying to figure out where the ground is).

Re:GLONASS IS NOT DEAD

[TheGameCat]

Janes ran a piece a few weeks ago that said it would take nothing less than a full seal team to get into a Russian nuclear facility so why all the panic? The terrorist dont have that capability. Except for the missing suitcase nukes (as the old joke goes, there's nothing to worry about, as 95% of Soviet tactical nukes are accounted for), and reactor workers/scientists who haven't been paid for months selling plutonium on the blackmarket to keep their children from starving to death.

Trusting the US.

[rew]

Here in a little country called The Netherlands in Western Europe, we house the "international court of Justice". This formally has nothing to do with our country. We just happen provide a place for this institution to "live". This court tries to be fair to dirtbags that order thousands killed in wars.

The United States has "promised" us that they will invade us if "we" ever convict an American of such things.

So, the Europeans should trust their friendly American "friends", who openly refuse to be subjected to the internationally agreed upon "police"? Right.

There are always "differences" between countries. We think that shooting someone for being on your property is outrageous. You think that allowing small quantities of drugs is outrageous.

If at one point in time we (any European country) end up with a difference of opinion that the Americans find important, we'll certainly be refused the right to use the GPS system in a conflict situation.

Also, should anything go wrong with GPS, it's nice to have a backup. I mean how big is the chance that suddenly the Americans end up unable to launch (replacement) satelites for over a year? Only happened twice so far....

europe doesn't need GPS like the US does.

[oliverthered]

At least most of Europe can point to there country on a map of the earth.

The UN is not democratic and should go away.

[DunbarTheInept]

The problem with the UN isn't the theory, it's the practice. After the second world war, there were some key players that ended up becoming permanent members of the security council, which gives them more than their fair share of influence. The problem is that the balance of power has shifted since then. Is France still an important enough country to have a permanent status on the security council? Why give 5 nations permanent status? Why even *have* the security council in the first place? The UN is NOT democratic, not in the slightest. Consider, that India has 1/7 of the world's population, but only 1 vote in the general assembly, the same as, for example, New Zealand with a small fraction of the population as India Thus citizens of New Zealand have "more vote" on the UN that citzens of India, on a per-capita basis. Also keep in mind that there are no rules in the UN about how an individual country appoints it's representative.

When was the last time you voted for your country's UN rep? In most countries, the representative is an appointed position. The UN represents the *governments* of the world, not the *people* of the world. I cringe when I hear people talk of turning the UN into some global governmening body. NO, NO, NO! First turn it into a democracy, then we can talk...maybe.

Rebuttal from another portuguese

[Endimiao]

Heres from another Portuguese:

The USA would never have made it has far as to the moon without political reasons (the cold war). Competition was allways good for the space program.

A waste of money? I see it as a way of being less dependent. And should the GPS fail or come under the control of maniacs, its nice to have an alternative.

A waste of money? The ESA is one of the most efficient space agencies in the world. I personally know people working there: everything they do is expected to yeild returns under a tight budjet. Every probe mission features prototype tecnologies from private companies. Even Arianne-space is a private company under contract by the ESA. They are not NASA's white elephant with fortunes to waste in public relations. So stop fooling yourself or drinking pro-bush imperialistic propaganda.

Cooperating? Who's the ones with a multilaterist approach to the world, in a true alliance of nations, unparalleled everywhere? Cooperating doesnt mean "bending over", and friends and allies arent the same as "vassals".

Those Americans may have saved democracy in europe, but that was hardly selfless: they knew they would be the next ones on the line, so better use europe as a war scenario than US eastern shores. Furthermore, if I recall well, they gained their independence with french aid.

P.S. Were on our way to the moon and mars. Check the Aurora program in the ESA site. Regardless of the americans deciding ever to place a foot on mars: we are going to do it. Mark my words.

Re:I think I'm going crazy

[ces]

....did I just see someone mention "Nixon" and "moderate foreign policy" in the same sentance??

Compared to the prior 20 or so years yes.

Nixon pulled the US out of Vietnam.
Nixon opened up to China.
Nixon was responsible for de-escalating the cold war during the era of "detante".

Re:Other than the shoe bomber

[mark2003]

Explain what?

You judge an entire set of people because of the actions of one of them?

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, Jewish extremists blew up the King David hotel, Hindu fundamentalists have killed thousands in India, Hitler was a Christian, Saddam Hussein was secular, Catholics and Protestants in NI spent years killing each other. Any religion has it's fair share of psychos - it's not just limited to Islam, they just happen to be an easy target because they look diferent and have diferent customs...

Re:I was totally wrong.

[CausticPuppy]

The beauty of Slashdot: be totally wrong, get modded up anyway. :)