E.U. Agrees To Launch Galileo Satellite Location System

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

Comments

Plans started long before "recent events"

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

[jabberjaw777]

FUD? Talk about FUD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:I think it's a good thing

[dackroyd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:I think it's a good thing

[fruity1983]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hahahaha, the way they want it!? LMAO!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:It serves us right

[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.

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: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

[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

[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!

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: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..."