Slashdot Mirror


Galileo System To Include Jamming Capability

CharonX writes "The Galileo project, an european alternative to the US based (and controlled) GPS system, recieved a severe setback today. Under US pressure the EU has agreed to use transmission frequencies that could be easily disturbed or completely jammed by the US military. Since one of Galileo's main advantages had been being independent of goverment or military control, this is a severe setback. Read more here on Heise.de (German - ya might want to use the fish)" Some of the background on this had NATO being unhappy with some of the provisions of it as well - at the least military structure.

1,026 comments

  1. Rough Translation by me :) by real-q · · Score: 5, Informative

    Galileo under US-Control

    The argument, the european satellite navigation system Gallileo will make the europeans independent from the USA, seems to tumble. Tagesschau [one of the most serious Newsmagazines in Germany] reports, US military forces may disturb or completely jam the Galileo signal without furhter notice, similar to what they are doing already with the GPS-Signals in critical times.

    But that is not enough for the americans. They demand to reduce the quality ofthe unencrypted Galileo signal, which the System sends in normal operation. If the USA will succeed with its demands, one of the main arguments for the european Navigationsystem - it's much higher precision compared to GPS - would fall. The final decision talks are set for january in Washington D.C.

    About four billion Euro will the Galilep project cost and it will start in the year 2008. About 30 satellites are required for the system. China and India also want to take part in financing the project with togehter 500 million euro.

    --
    "I know Gentoo" - "Show me"
    1. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Golly, guys, what happened to compromise and multilateralism? I thought that was a good thing, or is that only when the US has to compromise?

      Who on earth would want to stand in the way of a 1M accurate GPS type system available to terrorists, militaries, and civilians alike? I'm sure there's nobody in Europe having second thoughts about this either. It's all the mean, nasty, evil US.

      Maybe they can just modify the GPS jamming equipment Russia provided Iraq with.

    2. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by randyest · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I was trying to figure out what it means to turn out "in the wanken" (from the Babelfish translation):

      The argument, the European satellite navigation system Galileo makes the Europeans independent of the USA, seems in the wanken to turn out.

      Now I know it means "to tumble". I think I prefer to say "turns out in the wanken".

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by FR-lopet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this 1M accuracy is needed : for exemple to locate on which side of a highway there's been an accident. Yeah, terrorists can use this system ? But medics too. And i bet that more lifes will be saved by this system than lost by 'bad guys' who will anyway make whatever is necessary to be harmful. After all, more people die every year because of car accidents than by terrorism and nobody started a 'war on car' ...

      --
      I love the smell of lithium in the morning
    4. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As you say...if the accuracy is degraded, and can be disturbed by the US at will, then why in god's name spend the money?

      IF these changes occur, then I'll be asking the relevant minister why we're going to spend money on a system that is not just redundant, but less usefull than the currently available one.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny, but the Reg. article (link in another post)gives a distinctly different impression on the "jamming" issue, to wit:

      The US and EU are currently coordinating frequencies so that the EU system doesn't interfere with the US system - and vice-versa. As a side effect, the EU system will be susceptible to jamming ONLY in that, being on a different freq., the US could jam Gallileo and not GPS.

      Well, guess what - that implies that the EU could jam GPS and not Gallileo! Oh yeah, and even if Gallileo is on the same freq. as GPS, it could STILL be jammed - it would just take out both systems. AND accuracy would still suck due to interference.

      As for the "demand" that the US military be able to degrade Gallileo's accuracy, given the breathless nature of the balance of the article, it seems the author may have gotten a little carried away.

      Besides which, why can't the EU "just say no"?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey moderators, mod parent up! He's got it exactly right.

      This isn't a case of the US being high-handed, it's a case of the EU being high-handed assholes and parking Galileo frequencies right on top of existing GPS frequencies. The french blandly claim there would be no interference when they knew damn well there would be. Most observers say that was completely intentional and little more than an attempted power grab by the EU so that the US would have to go hat-in-hand to ask for the EU's permission to go to war.

    7. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by rwise2112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah,

      It'll make a big difference if they'll have to resort to 10m accuracy with DGPS (differential GSP) with selective availability.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    8. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      If you have to know what side of the highway a crash is on, you can find this out from information other than GPS feedback. Any highway big enough to have a separation between the two sides is going to be heavily monitored anyway, when the traffic and/or news choppers fly over, they can tell you. The problem is not that we don't have enough information out there, the problem is that it is not shared readily enough and people don't make good enough use of what they have.

      Being able to tell that someone is in a particular bathroom stall rather than in the west wing is not that useful. 10 meters is good enough for most purposes involving GPS. In most cases, it will even tell you which side of the highway it's on.

      The real question is, will SA actually stop terrorism? It's a lot cheaper to use a person to bring a weapon of whatever sort to the scene than to buy or build a cruise missile.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by ultranova · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Besides which, why can't the EU "just say no"?

      Because the USA has a bigger army and is actively trying to stop us from making a common army of our own. I have to admit, I hate the idea of losing our national independence, but if we have to lose it, I'd rather lose it to Bryssel than to Washington... Meaning, I'm starting to wonder if the idea of making EU a real nation actually has merit...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...little more than an attempted power grab by the EU so that the US would have to go hat-in-hand to ask for the EU's permission to go to war

      That's not all that bad of an idea, actually.

    11. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Being able to tell that someone is in a particular bathroom stall rather than in the west wing is not that useful.

      Except when the building is on fire.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    12. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 9/11 hijackers didn't need 1M accuracy to take the towers down, and they won't need 1M accuracy to commit other acts of destruction on similar scales.

    13. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to ask this question of my EU friend....what in heck could a EU army do? Maybe invade a evil despots empire long after said despot is long dead of old age.

      If EU framework depends on the French, Germans and the Polish all getting along on anything but a common curency, rail standard or method of dumping "enviromently dirty" steel on the US market.

      Now I can see two divergent EU armys and the swiss being the banker for both. Wow history keeps repeating itself.

    14. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Creating a unified Europe may be desirable. BUT the way it is being done now is very dangerous. Countries aren't joining the EU because of communal reasons. Instead, they are joining because of economic reasons (read: getting richer). This does not bode well. Actions carried out in the name of money and wealth are the generally the worst...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    15. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Besides which, why can't the EU "just say no"?"

      Common rhretoric suggests an addiction to American Defense (TM). Supposedly they don't want to piss off the DoD or they might take their toys and go home.

      Me, I don't care enough about intra-EU politics to bother checking the validity of this idea, but I've heard arguments like this from both sides of the "pond."

    16. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One or 2 simple questions Who developed GPS?
      Europeans? NOPE!
      Who has paid for most of the development costs and/or launch costs for the satellites that are providing this service? Europeans? NOPE!

      This is a by-product of the Cold War which IMHO was caused by the fear that Europe would be involved in a far larger war than WW II that ONLY the U.S. could afford to choose to protect by investing in an unknown tech that would benefit others.... Therefore we spent the money we should be able to say who can and can't use it.

      We being the U.S. know what frequencies the GPS works on so we are capable of jamming said frequencies.
      Same being if you knew that your enemies/friends (kind of hard to tell the difference anymore) were using the telephone to "phone critical information" to others you might consider shutting down the phone system....

    17. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Dalcius · · Score: 1


      > Besides which, why can't the EU "just say no"?

      "Because the USA has a bigger army and is actively trying to stop us from making a common army of our own."


      Um... when are we all going to grow up and quit blaming "bigger brother" for everything we can't do?

      Can you please explain to me what arm twisting is being done and why the EU is giving into it? I'm not meaning to sound bitter here, but talk of the EU being forced to do something by an outside force makes me want to give the speaker a bottle of warm milk.

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    18. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and nobody started a 'war on car' ... "

      no.. but we SHOULD

    19. Re:Rough Translation by me :) by CooCooNutz · · Score: 1

      So whats the purpose of having the Galileo as far as the Europenas are concerned? It seems to me the systems already in place are adequate to handle global positioning on any continent. It seems very fishy to me. If you want to argue independence from using US based systems, I still have to wonder why. If you can give me one good reason other than the French being such a whip of a cry baby nation, then offer it forward.

      'nuff said

  2. Only one man would dare give me the raspberry... by Enzondio · · Score: 4, Funny

    RADAR TECH.: I'm having trouble with the radar, sir.

    HELMET: What's wrong with it?

    RADAR TECH.: I've lost the bleeps, I've the lost the sweeps, and I've lost the creeps.

    HELMET: The what?

    SANDURZ: The what?

    HELMET: And the what?

    RADAR TECH.: You know. The bleeps, the sweeps, and the creeps.

    HELMET: That's not all he's lost.

    RADAR TECH.: Sir. The radar, sir. It appears to be... jammed.

    HELMET: Jammed? Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry. Lone Starr!

  3. Unbelievable... by mOoZik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This defeats the whole point of an independent system. The U.S. may be the superpower at this time, but this doesn't mean they should have such a strong hand in these decisions. If such a system eventually gets built and many years down the road the U.S. decides to invade a country which uses the Galileo system for its weaponry, what's to keep the U.S. from jamming and disabling their systems for a clean sweep? In a word, this is unfair. Other states should have the capabilities which the United States takes for granted. Very disappointed in my country.

    1. Re:Unbelievable... by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Informative

      i wonder though.. the financing of this has to shake somewhat now though, since the whole point of making the system kind of falls now, i don't see any point why china for example would like to contribute at all now.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Unbelievable... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Interesting
      down the road the U.S. decides to invade a country which uses the Galileo system for its weaponry, what's to keep the U.S. from jamming and disabling their systems for a clean sweep? In a word, this is unfair.

      You're worried about one side having an unfair advantage in war? That's just weird, man. There's no "fairness" in war. The US dictating to the EU how their nav sats should work, that's pretty lame. But the EU will be even more lame if they knuckle under.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Other states should have the capabilities which the United States takes for granted."

      let them build them then. much as you may not like it, might makes right. its the way its always been, its the way its always going to be. i dont like it either, but what are you gonna do?

    4. Re:Unbelievable... by praksys · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If such a system eventually gets built and many years down the road the U.S. decides to invade a country which uses the Galileo system for its weaponry, what's to keep the U.S. from jamming and disabling their systems for a clean sweep?

      What's to keep them from just trashing the whole system? The alternative to jamming is destruction.

    5. Re:Unbelievable... by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      Simple - so they don't have to rely on an American system, and its cheaper than putting their own up.

    6. Re:Unbelievable... by Naito · · Score: 1

      reminder "All's fair in love and war"

    7. Re:Unbelievable... by Zocalo · · Score: 1
      This whole project has been one massive conflict of interest almost from day one, and it's not as simple as US vs EU either. I'm sure that while the military in NATO countries were arguing for the override functions, their countryfolk in the EU offices were arguing against it. Just look at all the confusion over the proposed EU Peace Keeping Force (or whatever it's called this week) to see how bad it can get.

      Besides, just how much of a tactical benefit does a GPS system accurate to 1m instead of 10m, or 100m give you anyway? If you have access to the US arsenal of smartbombs and laser guided targetting systems, maybe enough to make a difference. If your weapons of choice are the RPG ambush, hijaaked airliner, and suicide bomber however I don't think having pinpoint accuracy really makes any difference. At a pinch, I suppose you could justify it by saying that it negates its use to accurately locate buried munition supplies, but that's about it.

      Remind me how the European Union was going to be an independant entity equal to the United States again? Very disappointing!

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    8. Re:Unbelievable... by twofidyKidd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's interesting that you take notice of the financing for this project. I sometimes wonder if this isn't just another attempt by the U.S. to undermine the value of the EURO against the US Dollar. They're doing it in Iraq with OPEC, and they see no reason to stop there.

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    9. Re:Unbelievable... by dumeinst · · Score: 1

      Giving the US the finger this day in age would probably result in economic suicide, or a least a serious maiming

    10. Re:Unbelievable... by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

      This is the whole point of the ability to Jam. It is inevitable that a U.S. adversary would use Galileo just as they use GPS now. It is denied them with GPS and will hopefully be denied them with Galileo. I'm really not sure this jamming thing is all it's cracked up to be. It sounds like the differing frequencies will make jamming possible (because the U.S. won't step on it's own toes) and it's being blown out of proportion and misrepresented as being designed to be jammed easily.

      I'm more concerned about the degradation in accuracy. I mean really, we're talking meter accuracy vs a few meters accuracy. What possible strategic difference could this make? Yet because of the foolish paranoia of a few in uniform thousands of civilian applications are rendered useless while no strategic advantage is gained that I can see.

      If this European system doesn't offer more accuracy then it should be scrapped. There is no point to it beyond pure egotism.

    11. Re:Unbelievable... by nehril · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and many years down the road the U.S. decides to invade a country which uses the Galileo

      bingo, you have exactly identified the reason for this "demand." The purpose of the US is not to be nice, or fair, but act as a sovereign nation that will do whatever it takes to gain every advantage for itself. (this is why US only pretends to go along with the UN, until it no longer serves their purposes).

      in international affairs, there are no good guys. there is no "fair." everyone acts in their own best interest to the maximum extent possible. Don't try to look at these things from the "we're nice guys, sure we will let you build electronic systems that reduce our military advantage" perspective, you will be disappointed.

      I'm not saying I agree or like this. But reread today's international news section of your local paper. it may seem different to you now.

    12. Re:Unbelievable... by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Basically, the US is pointing out that the Galileo system is a dual-use civilian/military system. If it is used by an enemy the US might be forced to take it out. Instead, they're giving the EU the option to design it to play nice so that there are more options in a war than just shooting it down or letting the enemy use it.

      Basically, the USA wants to make sure that only first-world nations can fight using high-tech weapons. They don't want two-bit dictators to have the same capabilities. If the chinese launch their own system the USA will live with it, since the USA could always shoot it down if they got into a big war with China. You can bet the Chinese would be looking to shoot down the GPS system if they got into a war.

      There would actually be a long-term use for a navigation system which is completely low-resolution. In theory nobody would bother to shoot it down, and it might be the only system that survives a big war.

      Galileo is analagous to a contractor who sells ultra-modern naval cruisers to anyone willing to pay for them. In a war, everybody would be looking to blow them up. Actually, even in peace there would be a large effort to control their activities. Big countries spend a lot of money to get a technological advantage in war - selling products to anyone willing to pay for them levels the playing field.

    13. Re:Unbelievable... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      In a word, this is unfair.

      Fair in warfare means "I win".

    14. Re:Unbelievable... by gowen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What's to keep them from just trashing the whole system?
      Lets see... how about: because that would be an act of war? Do you really think the US is hankering to declare war on Europe, given the amount of trouble they're having subduing a few thousand dissident Iraqis?
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    15. Re:Unbelievable... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What?!?

      Why should other countries have the same military advantages as the US? Should the US willingly give up its military superiority?

      That's the kind of "Balance of Power" thinking that got Europe into WW1.

      I know it's absolutely counter-intuitive and it sounds monstrous, but only the US and people we like (like Britain and Isreal) should have technology like GPS and especially Nukes.

      It sounds fucked up, but that is the only way to prevent their catastrophe. If everybody's equal *somebody's* gonna feel froggy and jump. This madness is very deliberate, and it works.

    16. Re:Unbelievable... by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purpose of the US is not to be nice, or fair, but act as a sovereign nation that will do whatever it takes to gain every advantage for itself

      True, but the worrying aspect of US foreign policy is that decisions are being made under the tacit assumption that America's allies today will at some point be enemies in the future. This is hardly a respectful manner in which to treat ones friends; imagine if your friends always had a gun pointed at you, so they could shoot you if an argument developed?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    17. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Remind me how the European Union was going to be an independant entity equal to the United States again? Very disappointing!"

      They missed their chance. A show of force in the Persian Gulf, standing in the way of the US ships, would have been suicide for the people doing the blockade, but it would have forced Americans to understand that there are people who matter, who oppose the US unilateral military actions.

      As it happened, nobody at all lifted a finger in opposition to the US invasion of Iraq. For all the talk of "opposition", none in fact manifested when and where it could have made a difference.

    18. Re:Unbelievable... by lobsterGun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Destroying the system would be no more af an act of war than providing the use of the system to an enemy.

    19. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've seen what we do to our enemies, and if you're not a friend you're an enemy. You don't want to be our enemy, do you?

      (Is it so hard to find one decent American to run at the top of the Democratic ticket next fall?)

    20. Re:Unbelievable... by gowen · · Score: 1

      Wow. You're phenomenally unaware of International Law, even for a Slashdotter...

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    21. Re:Unbelievable... by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      While I believe in your right to bitch, there doesn't seem to be a powerful argument in what you say. Warfare (and as a result, technology in general) has evolved over the centuries based on creating an unfare advantage. Battles fought on perfectly equal grounds are the most bloody and often indecisive, as the winning side will probably be only slightly better off than the losing. Sticks and stones evolve into spears and slingshots, then armor, swords, and arrows, fortifications and siege weapons, mounted units, gunpowder, machine guns, tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc,.. It is up to our government to find any and every way of being superior militarily to protect it's citizens. I imagine you just don't like the USA, but still... This is all part of preventing war as much as anything... Someone on the street armed with only a good left hook isn't going to attack someone with a tommy gun. Also, provided the person with the tommy gun is mentally stable, that person isn't going to have a reason to attack anyone else either so...

    22. Re:Unbelievable... by CXI · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is so unfair that one country would try to protect its interests and give itself an advantage. Instead, we should all share technology and promise not to hurt each other. The terrorists find it very unfair that we don't give them nuclear bombs for instance.

      Oh, wait, that's right, socialism doesn't work. Nevermind.

    23. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friends ?
      You mean countries like France that actively go out of their way to lobby against US interests ?
      Even, NYT recently admited that France is basically an enemy nation these days ..

    24. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's also because most of the talk is coming after the action. People had no problem with kicking saddam out but their lack of patience makes them frustrated we're not out in 6 months.

    25. Re:Unbelievable... by praksys · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...because that would be an act of war?

      The term "act of war" is pretty much obsolete in modern international law, but in any case providing guidance signals for munuitions being used against the US or US forces could just as easily be cited as an act of war by the US (in general anything which aids another belligerent can be called an act of war).

      Obviously the diplomatic costs of destroying the Galileo system would be high, but there is *zero* chance of the EU calling it an act of war (if you think the US would find a war with the EU inconvenient, consider how much more inconvenient the EU would find it). On the other hand, it would be a one off cost. The US fights lots of wars, so the benefits of destroying the system would probably extend far beyond one particular war.

    26. Re:Unbelievable... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1
      In a word, this is unfair.

      Of course it's unfair. Welcome to geopolitics.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    27. Re:Unbelievable... by MxTxL · · Score: 1

      If such a system eventually gets built and many years down the road the U.S. decides to invade a country which uses the Galileo system for its weaponry, what's to keep the U.S. from jamming and disabling their systems for a clean sweep?

      Of course... that's *THE POINT*. The US wants to maintain a strategic advantage that they have bought and paid for (the current GPS system). They don't want it obsoleted by a new-fangled one. Especially an independent European one. You can't fault the US for this. You can't even fault the administration for flexing it's superpower status to cock-block at every turn. That's what nations do, act in their own best interests. Especially in matters of war. It cannot be otherwise. War is not fair and the big guy will use his big guy status to stay the big guy. That's the reality of politics from the international level, right down to the local and even inter-personal level.

      Other states should have the capabilities which the United States takes for granted.

      Maybe they should. And if they develop these capabilities, then nobody can say they shouldn't. But it's on them to develop them. If they can't stand up to american pressure, then apparently they didn't want them badly enough. You can't fault the US for doing all it can to protect it's interests, you CAN fault the EU for NOT doing all it can to protect it's own interests.

    28. Re:Unbelievable... by Algan · · Score: 1

      The ASAT can be used against low orbit satellites. GPS (and probably Galileo) satellites are/will be in mid to high orbit...

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    29. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be american..
      They have the right to build whatever damn system they want.

    30. Re:Unbelievable... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't another country simply give us the finger once and a while and do their own god damned thing

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Israel

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    31. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try "imperialist" instead of "sovereign"

    32. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US military can jam every radio frequency used in a country so it doesn't matter if it is easy to jam.

      By the way, the US system does not allow commercial GPS products to be accurate so terrorists can't strap GPS systems to bombs and start dropping GPS guided bombs in NYC. The US military will not allow another system to be more accurate for those reasons. That means that a country using an accurate GPS system to guide its weapons would be immediately blown off the face of the earth.

      Also, people are saying that the EU shouldn't be listening to the US. I agree with you, it should go ahead with its plans and have the US defense satelites (they were meant for blasting large Meteors headed towards the planet before they do damage but probably can be reprogrammed to shoot satelites out of space) blast the Galileo satelites out of space.

      Some people seem to think that everyone bends over for the US and the US doens't bend over for anyone. That is not true, the US actually does alot of bending over for the UN. The US military would have been in Iraq November 2002 if the UN didn't stall Bush for 4 months.

    33. Re:Unbelievable... by gowen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The term "act of war" is pretty much obsolete in modern international law,
      True, but in the now-common usage shooting down satellites of a third party is an "act of armed aggression" (which is a well defined term, especially within NATO)

      there is *zero* chance of the EU calling it an act of war
      True, but there's also *zero* chance of the US (deliberately) shooting down EU satellites, even if they consider them to be giving aid-and-succour to the enemy. Look how carefully even the present hawkish administration has ignored continued Saudi support for terrorism, because they're nominally allies.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    34. Re:Unbelievable... by gaijin99 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I mean really, we're talking meter accuracy vs a few meters accuracy. What possible strategic difference could this make? Yet because of the foolish paranoia of a few in uniform thousands of civilian applications are rendered useless while no strategic advantage is gained that I can see.
      Gotta agree with you here. If you're using GPS as a guidence system for a missile with a military size payload, hitting within a meter's accuracy vs. hitting within ten meter's accuracy doesn't much matter. Its just stupidity on the part of whoever thinks he should be worried about this.

      However, I don't really think its people in uniform who are worried about this. Most high ranking military types are prefectly capiable of seeing that accuracy in a GPS-like system isn't really a military concern. I'm fairly sure that its more the fault of the un-uniformed Chickenhawks, who have no military experience but seem to think that watching a few Rambo movies made more expert than the real experts. And yes, I'm specifically talking about Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush himself.

      .

      Also, just because I know a zealot is going to point this out, I'm perfectly aware that Rumsfeld did serve in the military. He was a peacetime pilot and pilot instructor for the Navy. Not that this experience gives him any knowledge of strategy, or proper military planning. He's just an idot, not a Chickenhawk.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    35. Re:Unbelievable... by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      It's not like one of the Galileo countries has threated to nuke the United States recently. Wait a minute, one of them has.

    36. Re:Unbelievable... by Aardpig · · Score: 0

      It's not like one of the Galileo countries has threated to nuke the United States recently.

      Galileo is a European project. China is not part of Europe. Study geography before posting.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    37. Re:Unbelievable... by tka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Basically, the US is pointing out that the Galileo system is a dual-use civilian/military system. If it is used by an enemy the US might be forced to take it out. Instead, they're giving the EU the option to design it to play nice so that there are more options in a war than just shooting it down or letting the enemy use it.



      <p>Why should it be shot down if US can't jam it? Why not trust the EU to do it?</p>
    38. Re:Unbelievable... by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he's making a valid point. If the Europeans want to put up a satellite system that anyone can use for military purposes, then the US might very well be forced to shoot it down in the event of war with anyone who uses it (European or not). They probably wouldn't like that, so they're getting the opportuntity in-advance to prevent it.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    39. Re:Unbelievable... by dumeinst · · Score: 1

      Some people seem to think that everyone bends over for the US and the US doens't bend over for anyone. That is not true, the US actually does alot of bending over for the UN. The US military would have been in Iraq November 2002 if the UN didn't stall Bush for 4 months.

      Yeah, like paying it's UN dues for the past.. 15 years?

    40. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > selling products to anyone willing to pay for them levels the playing field.

      Hm, I was following your argument til the end, which I quote above. But, the U.S. and others sell as much hardware as they can all over the world, to whomever is willing to pay for them.

    41. Re:Unbelievable... by Raul654 · · Score: 1

      Well,
      A) Europeans don't exactly have a good history of being united among themselves or (for better or for worse) of cooperating fully with the US military.

      B) I could be wrong, but I think the point of the article is that it is being designed so that *no one* can jam it.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    42. Re:Unbelievable... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      I sometimes wonder if this isn't just another attempt by the U.S. to undermine the value of the EURO against the US Dollar.
      Well if that's their evil plan they've sure fucked it up. 1EUR = 1.20USD and rising.

      Looks a lot more like they're trying to keep the price of the dollar down, to cut imports and increase exports.

      P.S., unless you're a FORTRAN programmer it's called the euro.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    43. Re:Unbelievable... by bobbabemagnet · · Score: 1

      Why the heck are they using a missile to blow up a satellite? We just heard about an accident on the space station that was caused by space junk. It seems pretty irresponsible to create a lot more space junk. Why can't they just shoot a net at it, hook it, and pull it into the atmosphere?

    44. Re:Unbelievable... by onion2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because thats exactly the kind of attitude toward the rest of the world that makes people like Osama Bin Laden fly planes into skyscrapers? People out there hate America and its policies toward foreigners. This sort of action is not going to win people over.

    45. Re:Unbelievable... by haystor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "foolish paranoia of a few in uniform".

      I'll just say that you don't want to be defended by a non paranoid military. They train hard and prepare for very bad things. History is littered with nations unable to defend themselves after their militaries became headed by political appointees rather than professional soldiers.

      That said, the military does not make these policies. They raise concerns and the wise government officials you elected make policies.

      --
      t
    46. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      -1, dead wrong

      Why should other countries have the same military advantages as the US? Should the US willingly give up its military superiority?
      That's the kind of "Balance of Power" thinking that got Europe into WW1.

      Yes, and the unbalance of power, from a country that became the biggest military in Europe (if not in the world), with a pretense to rule the entire world, lead to WWII.

      And oddly, you completly forgot last balance of power between to superpower able to destroy 40 times the entire planet, the one called "Cold War".

      This entirely destroys the point. In addition, history shows that most of countries in position of hegemony tend to abuse their powers, and the unilateralist US under Bush administration, is a fine proof (I'm not talking only about Iraq, but a long pattern of unilateralism from the Bush administration which started from day 1).

    47. Re:Unbelievable... by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

      Should the rest of the world live under the tiranny of the USA? Can the rest of the world still do something without fear of the USA?
      Who gave the USA absolute power over the rest of the world?
      Perhaps they have it, but that does not mean they deserve it.
      I prefer to do whatever I want, without fear of the USA.
      I am not saying that every nation in the world should have nukes, but neither should the USA have such capability.
      The tiranny of a dictator is replaced by the tiranny of the president of the USA.
      Now, if the UN has absolute military power. That's something I can live with.

    48. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      wait... are we talking about the US or the French here? I'm trying to think of a country that has abused US military hardware... I suppose some would say Israel, but can you name any others... On the other hand, lets look who has French and Russian hardware: Iraq, Iran, Lybia, Yuogoslavia...

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    49. Re:Unbelievable... by praksys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but in the now-common usage shooting down satellites of a third party is an "act of armed aggression" (which is a well defined term, especially within NATO)

      I think you have two different terms mixed up.

      The term "act of agression" is used in the UN charter. What counts as an act of agression is far from clear, because the charter clearly excludes any action taken in self-defense, and that covers a great variety of actions (it would arguably cover the destruction of guidance satelites being used by another belligerent).

      The term "armed attack" is the one used in NATO, but that expressly excludes anything that happens outside of the geogrpahical area covered by the treaty, and arguably excludes anything that happens in space.

      Look how carefully even the present hawkish administration has ignored continued Saudi support for terrorism, because they're nominally allies.

      The US appears to think that the current regime in Saudi Arabia is about the best they can hope for. Are you suggesting that an attack on EU satelites would result in the EU collapsing and degenerating into an Islamic Theocracy?

    50. Re:Unbelievable... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you are from the US or not but:

      Are you so mad at the US you would want to kill us? If we are so bad surely we deserve death. As I said on another post, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world combined has equal military strength as the US.

      Since you have the capablity to put an end to us, and we so clearly deserve death, why don't you fight?

      This is an absolutely serious statement. If we are evil, fight us.

    51. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, the EU must be hiding WMD's onboard..

      The fact is they want control over the whole system.

      Their not "liking" it honestly isnt going to matter much. The US won't be on top forever.

    52. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course the USA decides it's time for another pre-emptive attack.

    53. Re:Unbelievable... by LearnToSpell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Way off. America wants (and needs!) a weak dollar right now. It's certainly more of a stimulant than the insane tax cuts.

    54. Re:Unbelievable... by smack_attack · · Score: 1

      I was kinda hoping they would grab Bush when he flew to Iraq. They could have made him serve out the time that he was AWOL and send some of our troops home for 6 months.

    55. Re:Unbelievable... by gowen · · Score: 1
      The US appears to think that the current regime in Saudi Arabia is about the best they can hope for. Are you suggesting that an attack on EU satelites would result in the EU collapsing and degenerating into an Islamic Theocracy?
      There are other developments than Islamic Theocracy that would weaken the US. A belligerently anti-US EU would be one of them. Even superpowers do not, by and large, go around pissing off their largest single trading partner and greatest ally of the past 100 years.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    56. Re:Unbelievable... by smack_attack · · Score: 1

      nice retort.

    57. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want military and civilian intelligence agencies to be paranoid so that they check out every remote possibility. You don't want your high brass to be paranoid, you want them to be pessimistic. Yes, they need to plan for all possibilities, but paranoia leads to unnecessary wars and lost lives.

    58. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. If the US destroyed the system as an act of war, it would be called an act of war by the EU.

    59. Re:Unbelievable... by BenBenBen · · Score: 1

      It's just not cricket.

      --
      The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
    60. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq?

    61. Re:Unbelievable... by eleusis25 · · Score: 1

      French hardware?

      quote from http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/30434 .html

      We fear this communications gear may really have been voice, and furthermore we fear the voice gear used by the "knots of commandos" is likely to have been (shush...) French (the comms gear of choice for us.mil's cheese-eating spearhead, the Rangers, Marines and Special Forces).

      </quote>

      Seriously, what's with the 'let's hate the French' bullshit?

    62. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Heise article says China and India are getting involved in the project too.

    63. Re:Unbelievable... by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      >Study geography before posting.

      EU and China are set to collaborate on GALILEO the European global system of satellite navigation


      An agreement has been reached between the European Union and China on its participation in the GALILEO programme. This agreement was initialled in Beijing on 18 September 2003 by Mr F. Lamoureux, Director-General of Energy and Transport at the European Commission, and Mr Shi Dinghuan, Secretary General of China's Ministry of Science and Technology. ?China will help GALILEO to become the major world infrastructure for the growing market for location services,? said Loyola de Palacio, Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for the GALILEO programme. Her counterpart in the negotiations, China's Science and Technology Minister Xu Guanhua highlighted that ?China supports GALILEO and plans to participate actively in its construction and application for mutual benefits?.


      Any more advice?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    64. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America supplied Iraq with money and arms during the Iran-Iraq war.

      America also (supposedly) secretly supplied Iran with arms during the Iran-Iraq war as well (seems nuts, but there you are).

      America secretly took sides in the Bosnian war, when NATO was supposed to be neutral, and supplied weapons to the Bosnian army.

      America supplied the Afghani mujahideen (sp?) with money, weapons and training during the fight against the Russians. That money, training and those weapons are now used by Al Qaeda to kill Americans and others.

      The list goes on.
    65. Re:Unbelievable... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically, the US is pointing out that the Galileo system is a dual-use civilian/military system. If it is used by an enemy the US might be forced to take it out. Instead, they're giving the EU the option to design it to play nice so that there are more options in a war than just shooting it down or letting the enemy use it.


      Fair enough, but being a non-USA solution, the keys to reducing its effectivness should not be in the hand of the US miltary. Rather, it should be in the hand of the countries who a responsible for putting together the Galileo system. The only way to have balance of power is two have sides, since otherwise there is no balance.

      Then again the country that is likely to have the advantage, in a future war, is the one that is capable of working in the absence of electronic devices. You take one neutron bomb or a system capable of multifrequency jamming, and all electronic communications are worthless.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    66. Re:Unbelievable... by eleusis25 · · Score: 1

      "To secure peace is to prepare for war."
      It's also been said...
      "Fighting for peace, it's like fucking for virginity!"

      The Google link

    67. Re:Unbelievable... by keriaan · · Score: 1

      Prime Minister Jean Cretien of Canada essentially gave the U.S.A the finger by not supporting the invasion of Iraq and others in the Liberal party have shown a little bit of independant mindedness through such things as openly deriding George W. Bush (called him a moron).

      Was it worth it? You decide. For example the goverment of the U.S.A. is taking it's sweet time resolving such things as the trade disputes over softwood lumber imports and reopening the border to Canadian beef. It's costing the Canadian economy billions of dollars. Yeah, a country may act independantly once in a while but they have to be prepared for retribution at some level if the government of the U.S.A. doesn't like your independant thinking.

    68. Re:Unbelievable... by John+Newman · · Score: 1
      Study geography before posting.

      Get a clue before posting.

      China is a partner in Galileo, because they, quite reasonably, would like access to GPS for military uses without being held hostage by the US. They watched Kosovo and Iraq on TV just like we did, and realize what a strategic disadvantage they're at without GPS to guide their bombs and missles.
    69. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not forever, but for the rest of your sorry Euro-trash lifetime it will be.

    70. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Google Galileo System china before posting.


      Europe Helps China Setup Satellite Navigation Centre
      GPS NEWS. Europe Helps China Setup Satellite Navigation Centre The Galileo system
      will be built around 30 satellites of whichh 27 with be operational with three ...
      www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-03x.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages


      How stupid do *you* feel?

    71. Re:Unbelievable... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure I understand whats stopping Germany from just launching it the way they want it.

      I really don't think Bush could invade Germany, (insert random Iraq conflict comment), so what is the worst that could happen?

      Trade embargo? Unlikely.

    72. Re:Unbelievable... by praksys · · Score: 1

      Even superpowers do not, by and large, go around pissing off their largest single trading partner and greatest ally of the past 100 years.

      Given a choice between pissing off the EU or allowing the EU to aid and abet the killing of US citizens I don't think there could be any doubt that the US would rather piss off the EU.

      Still you are quite right in one respect. Neither the US nor the EU would want to find themselves having the sort of discussion that we have just had. No doubt that is why the EU decided to avoid any such conflict by making Galileo jammable.

    73. Re:Unbelievable... by guiscard · · Score: 1

      Uh Bush wants a weak dollar. Weak dollar = more exports = more jobs. Its election year.

    74. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (if you think the US would find a war with the EU inconvenient, consider how much more inconvenient the EU would find it). On the other hand, it would be a one off cost. The US fights lots of wars, so the benefits of destroying the system would probably extend far beyond one particular war.

      You are really saying taking on a large number of 1st world nations (at once) could ever in any form have benefits. Though european forces are small they are highly trained and have a lot better kit than anything the US has had to deal with (relative for what they had) since WW2. Also they have capiblities to hit mainland USA, the whole thing would wind up a mess on both sides.

      Oh yeah and picking a fight with two nuclear contries is not the best of plans. You don't need very many to cancel out any benefits.

    75. Re:Unbelievable... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this European system doesn't offer more accuracy then it should be scrapped. There is no point to it beyond pure egotism.

      Actually, thats the sort of comment I would expect fom an AC, not a full fledged member. Okay.. the entire point - which, if the article is correct, stands in danger of beeing undermined - is to provide a system that isn't dependent on the US. You may or may not agree, but there are people all over the world who don't want to be reliant on the goodwill of the US military when it comes to navigation. If you're trying to land a fully loaded 767 on a runway in less than perfect visibility, it sucks if the US military suddenly scrambles the GPS in suppoert of the pre-empative invation taking place next door...

      There already exists a russian nav-sat system up there, but it's accurancy is equall to very early GPS at it's best. It's certainly good enought to find your way with, and probaly good enought for a terroristbuilt cruisemissile, but for most other uses we uses GPS for today it's not good enought by far. So there is a need to have a second, indepentent constelation of nav-sats hanging overhead.

      I can understand the logic behind the US 'request'. However, it makes a lot more sence if the nations behind the european system built a simular capability to mess up the signals as there is in the GPS today. Then the US could, via proper diplomatic channels, ask for the system to be taken down over spesifics areas. Independence is retained, the legal consumer gets two systems to choose from, and Bobs your uncle.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    76. Re:Unbelievable... by lobsterGun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm aware enough of international law to know that it's really just a collection of treaties and customs.

      But I like to keep an open mind and welcome any opportunity to gain knowledge in this area. You seem like a reasonable fellow. Please enlighten me as to the articles of International Law that would be violated by destroying or jamming a GPS system owned and operated by an international non-governmental organization.

    77. Re:Unbelievable... by kisak · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The term "act of war" is pretty much obsolete in modern international law

      [sarcasm] You mean obsolete like the term "POW" because of the phony use of the term "enemy combatant"? [/sarcasm]

      Even if the neo-cons wants international law to disappear, international law and its definition of war is more relevant today than ever because modern technology and trade makes almost any important question and problem international, and not just national.

      ...but in any case providing guidance signals for munuitions being used against the US or US forces could just as easily be cited as an act of war by the US (in general anything which aids another belligerent can be called an act of war).

      It would be a hard case to make for any international lawyer to say that it is an act of war by EU, when the Galileo system is made available to both belligerents and has important civial purposes (even though it can be misused in a war situation).

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    78. Re:Unbelievable... by Firethorn · · Score: 1
      Who gave the USA absolute power over the rest of the world?

      The USA did. We built the largest, most powerful military. But we don't have absolute power. If we ever pissed off enough countries, it'd be WWIII, and we'd go down in flames.

      I prefer to do whatever I want, without fear of the USA.

      I'd like to think that we're pretty easy to live with. Just don't attack us.

      I am not saying that every nation in the world should have nukes, but neither should the USA have such capability.

      MADD worked during the cold war. Like it or not, the genie is out of the bottle.

      "Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war." - Vegetius, Flavius Renatus

      Osama bin Laden attacked us 9/11 because the previous administrations gave the impression that we'd roll over and capitulate. Bush has done many things to repudiate this.

      The tiranny of a dictator is replaced by the tiranny of the president of the USA.

      I've noticed a lack of news about Iraqies being fed feet-first through chippers under US administraion

      Tyranny: A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.

      Considering how Bush will be out of office in at most 5 years, he hardly has absolute power. Turning power over to an Iraqi government is ongoing, as well as training of police and military forces. Remember the Marshal plan?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    79. Re:Unbelievable... by gowen · · Score: 1
      Given a choice between pissing off the EU or allowing the EU to aid and abet the killing of US citizens I don't think there could be any doubt that the US would rather piss off the EU.
      I disagree. Saudi funded terrorists killed thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, but political expediency meant the US overthrew the government of a completely different country.

      Politicians do not have the same high regard for the lives of servicemen that we do, only remembering to strike the right poses when election time comes around (remember Bush's "Bring 'Em On" comments about pro-Saddam counter-insurgents?)
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    80. Re:Unbelievable... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1
      Oh, wait, that's right, socialism doesn't work. Nevermind.

      Maybe you'd better explain that to Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, France and most of the rest of Europe because they don't appear to have noticed.

      Or better yet, just keep quiet when the grown-ups are talking

    81. Re:Unbelievable... by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Because they'll have surrendered to the enemy by then.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    82. Re:Unbelievable... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken quite a bit of US military hardware is designed to survive EMP blasts, and I believe the US has tactics to handle a total lack of navigational equipment. I'm sure every US cruiser has a sextant on board "just in case"...

      My guess is that if an EMP went off over Iraq it would give a tremendous advantage to the USA. The insurgents are undoubtedly using civilian equipment not hardened against nuclear blasts and would be reduced to using carrier pigeons to communicate. The USA would at least have regular radios hardened against EMPs. If not they could probably acquire them much more quickly than the insurgents could.

    83. Re:Unbelievable... by tka · · Score: 1

      A) Somewhat true. Why should they cooperate fully as long as they follow the rules and agreements? What are thoughts of the iraq war? Should all european union countries have gone to fight the war?

      B) Dunno.. haven' t read it ;)

    84. Re:Unbelievable... by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about the actual monetary values of the euro vs. the dollar. In fact your reply strengthens my argument. If the US can get the dollar to equal or just below the euro, then why spend 1,000,000EUR when you can spend $928,000? Where does that place the value, and in some cases, the power?

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    85. Re:Unbelievable... by tantrum · · Score: 1
      wait... are we talking about the US or the French here? I'm trying to think of a country that has abused US military hardware... I suppose some would say Israel, but can you name any others.


      Not that I really care, but...

      Iraq. where do you think they got their chemical wepons from? ever heard about chemical ali, his toxic shit came from the us.

      Osama was trained by americans, probably got some weapons to fight the sovjet as well..

      What about the various (former) military dictatorships in south america. Pretty much all supported by the us.

      The problem for the us is that it seems to change it's "friends" ever so often.
    86. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woohoo! You sure made *him* look like and idiot!!! oh, wait...

      Europe Helps China Setup Satellite Navigation Centre

      The Galileo system will be built around 30 satellites of whichh 27 with be operational with three in reserve. They'll be stationed on three circular medium-Earth orbits at an altitude of 23 616 km and inclined at 56 to the equator.

      Paris - Sep 19, 2003
      Europe and China share a common interest in cooperating to bring the benefits of satellite navigation and Galileo in particular to transport, science, land management, disaster prevention and other user sectors. Sharing research results, encouraging education, joint projects and industrial contacts are important means towards such goals.In this context, the European Commission, the European Space Agency and the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology have decided to establish the "China-Europe Global Navigation Satellite System Technical Training and Cooperation Centre" (CENC) in China.
      On the basis of bilateral discussions to date in the Europe-China Joint Technical Working Group, the decision has been taken to locate the centre at the renowned Beijing University.
      The centre will be staffed initially by one or two experts supported by two administrative and technical assistants.
      Mr F. Lamoureux, Director General for Energy and Transport at the European Commission, will inaugurate the centre together with Mr Shi Dinghuan, Secretary General of the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, at 11:00 on Friday 19 September in Beijing.
      This will take place at the China-Europe Technical Training and Cooperation Centre, Room 323 ZhongGuanCun FangZheng Building, No 298, Chengfu Road, Haidian District (in front of the Beijing University East Gate).
      The Galileo system will be built around 30 satellites (27 operational and three in reserve) stationed on three circular medium-Earth orbits at an altitude of 23 616 km and inclined at 56 to the equator.

    87. Re:Unbelievable... by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      What's to keep them from just trashing the whole system? The alternative to jamming is destruction.

      Exactly. That ASAT missile isn't even the most lethal anti-satellite threat these days. The Airborne Laser 747 will have a quite lethal ASAT capability as well. It could probably shoot down LEO satellites at the rate of a couple a minute, as long as they're above the horizon. IIRC it gets about 10 one-minute shots during a single flight.

      The website doesn't appear to have been updated lately, I guess the government decided to turn down the publicity on one of it's most impressive new weapons. (It should also be hell against planes, BTW.) It was originally scheduled for live firing in 2004, I'm curious where the program is now. They are building seven ABLs if things are going according to plan. Here is the most recent article I could find about the program.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    88. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha sure thing, you'll be smoldering in no time you 300lb trailer park dwelling hick :)

    89. Re:Unbelievable... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh - since when is it against international law to destroy military hardware being used by an enemy? If the Canadians leave a bunch of tanks lying around in Iran after a training exercise (lets say they simply forgot to pack them), and the Iranians use them to attack US forces, does that mean the US forces can't counterattack since the equipment is the property of Canada?

      Just look at WWI/II - everybody was sneaking around munitions in civilian transports and as a result civilian transports were being torpedoed without regard to whether they actually contained contraband. Both acts violate the laws of war.

      I'm a big fan of the Geneva conventions, but as soon as somebody starts playing dirty (say by using a civilian navigation system to guide bombs) then everybody starts playing dirty, unless somebody is so sure they can win playing clean they don't need to resort to dirty tricks.

    90. Re:Unbelievable... by praksys · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Saudi funded terrorists killed thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, but political expediency meant the US overthrew the government of a completely different country.

      I think I already pointed out that the two situations are quite different. Blowing up some satelites would piss the EU off. Toppling the Saudi regime would not just piss the Saudi Arabians off, it would probably result in the creation of a Theocracy, which wouldn't exactly serve US interests.

      Apples and oranges.

      Politicians do not have the same high regard for the lives of servicemen that we do, only remembering to strike the right poses when election time comes around (remember Bush's "Bring 'Em On" comments about pro-Saddam counter-insurgents?)

      Most US servicemen who sign up for combat units would much rather face any attacks made on US citizens themselves than see those attacks directed at US civillians. That's why most of military personel that I know entirely supported Bush's comment.

    91. Re:Unbelievable... by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    92. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. Other countries have the right to do what they want. American global dominance isn't some kind of birthright.

    93. Re:Unbelievable... by pitdingo · · Score: 1

      I love listening to people bitch about the USA. I love how they say America is so bad and how we are the cause of all the worlds problems. All the bitching is based on one thing: jealousy.

      What would the world be like if the USA did not exist or was a paper tiger like the rest of the world?

      Lets see:
      1) We would all speak either German or Russian.
      2) There would be no bitching about how bad the 'world' government is because you would be executed as a traitor
      3) There would be no Jews
      4) There would probably be no blacks or other ethnicities that Hitler and Stalin did not like.
      5) Everyong would live in fear of the SS or KGB taking you away for 're-education'

      etc...
      etc...

    94. Re:Unbelievable... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      There would actually be a long-term use for a navigation system which is completely low-resolution. In theory nobody would bother to shoot it down, and it might be the only system that survives a big war.

      I have to disagree with that. Sure, the big nations want good accuracy because they use it for guidance of missiles.

      But in traditional war with troops, being able to pinpoint your location to the nearest mile would be a great help alone. Many battles have been lost by troops going to the wrong places. In the middle of a bland environment, e.g. dessert, there isn't much use for a map and compass if you don't have landmarks/hills to navigate by. Ditto night travel.

    95. Re:Unbelievable... by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

      In a word, this is unfair. Other states should have the capabilities which the United States takes for granted. Very disappointed in my country.

      Are you a FUCKING IDIOT?

      As a former Marine, I can tell you that the LAST THING you want in a battle is a fair fight.

      Why in the world would you EVER want to give ANY advantage to the enemy?

      Get out of your little liberal cocoon and stop questioning how people defend your freedom to make stupid comments.

      Now if you want to make a comment on how the EU caved, that is a different thing completely.

    96. Re:Unbelievable... by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      "Because thats exactly the kind of attitude toward the rest of the world that makes people like Osama Bin Laden fly planes into skyscrapers? People out there hate America and its policies toward foreigners. This sort of action is not going to win people over."

      What would?

      Between the trade deficit and foriegn aid the "rest of the world" already enjoys huge piles of US money. We're no longer expansionist (same 50 states most of last century with no prospects on the horizon.) What, exactly, could the US do to score happy points with Osama? Hell, we "made" the guy in Afghanistan, but lacked a reason to support his fanaticism to it's ultimate conclusion. Shame on us? Strong people have enemies. Metaphysical certainty.

      It's really easy to understand this Euro-GPS thing; If that system provides an adversary with accurate navigation, it's dead. We'll kill it right off. In a war time posture we could rig up the necessary space artillery in short order (on the order or weeks) and remove those satellites. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that among our skunk-work assets is a shiny little high altitude launched satellite smasher. Reagan had it tested. So if Europe wants some assurance that's not going to happen, Europe had best cooperate, and they have.

      Don't like it? Invade. Best just to get over it and chalk it up to the fact that the US makes the rules in western military matters. That policy has kept the western world at peace for two thirds of a century.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    97. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not, but I'm personally glad my government is doing this.

      Something about the responsibility of my government to provide for the defense of the American citizens.

      Note that I said "American" citizens...there's no constitutional obligation to protect Europeons...tough we've been doing it for years despite that fact.

    98. Re:Unbelievable... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Fair? Where do you get the ideal that this has to be fair? In fact that is the very ideal of the US Military for the last 50 years. To make any fight against us as unfair as possible. Peace through superior firepower has been the basic military phlosophy of the US for the last 50 years. Even though it don't make the hippies and the tree huggers happy it has basiclly worked.

      There is nothing fair about war, that is what makes it a thing to be avoid. In a perfect world it would be unneeded, but we don't live in a prefect world. There will always be 'evil' mother fuckers out there that have to be taken out. When you have to have a bully on the block to keep the peace its best you be that bully.

      Maybe one day we can join hands and sing koombya as we beat the tanks in to plowshares but right now it's best we have every trick we can use when we need it.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    99. Re:Unbelievable... by penguin7of9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically, the USA wants to make sure that only first-world nations can fight using high-tech weapons. They don't want two-bit dictators to have the same capabilities.

      No, the USA wants to make sure that the USA has control over all high tech weapons. With the current fascist and religious fundementalist currents in US politics, this is something that should have the world really worried.

      Instead, they're giving the EU the option to design it to play nice so that there are more options in a war than just shooting it down or letting the enemy use it.

      Then the EU should have the option of disabling the system at the EU's choice. If the US decides to shoot the system down against the wishes of the EU, that would be an act of war by the US against the EU. Shooting down another democracy's satellites for domestic US political or military purposes and against the wishes of that democracy would be a useful indicator of when the US really has crossed the line to being a rogue nation.

    100. Re:Unbelievable... by JonTurner · · Score: 1

      >>i don't see any point why china for example would like to contribute at all now.

      The Chinese are easy to understand -- simply look for the military application. Just like the old Soviet empire, China is a government structured to build military power first, and provide for the citizenry second. Why support it? Three words: Missle Guidance System. Galileo has a higher resolution (read: more accurate) than the American GPS system. Of course if one's lobbing megaton nukes (as when the Chinese threatened "trading" Los Angeles for Beijing a few years ago) precision accuracy isn't critical, but if instead small pilotless drone aircraft or a cruise missle is being flown at low altitude through a city on way to a target, GPS accuracy *is* critical. It sure would be handy, for instance, if China wanted to wipe out the Tiawanese military command structure from afar.

      It's not just China, of course, but also it's allies that are a risk. Wouldn't Kim Jong Ill just love to be able to wipe out the capitol of South Korea with a precision guided missle?

      Of course, this also explains why the US military wants to block the system -- it's a risk both domestically and internationally among allies.
      Many of the same arguments were made by Europe and ROW (rest of world) at the time of deployment of the American GPS system, though.

    101. Re:Unbelievable... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Wrong, every thing can be jammed. It might not be easy but if we had to we could jam it. I'm willing to bet that there is already plans in place to jam it if they had to. We are just asking it be easy to jam, but its not impossible.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    102. Re:Unbelievable... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Go and read some books about the US dealing in the middle east. You might learn why these people hate you enough to fly planes into buildings.

      The rest of the (sane) world doesn't hate you. We just don't trust your government, and with good reason.

    103. Re:Unbelievable... by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Execpt that the insurgants are probably don't require any electronic equipement at all. To do what they do only requires someone to be there and want to cause damage. One doesn't need to communicate with radios, just go up to your fellow insurgant and say hey lets bomb something or hey lets shoot something up. Sadly most bombs and AK-47's do not have any electronic parts in them at all.

      And even if the US equipment was "hardened" some of it would undoubtly fry anyway as it became "unhardened" due to use and maintaince. Causing the soldiers to freak out as all of a sudden things stopped work.

      An EMP would only work against an enemy that was designed to fight like we fight. Lots of large tanks and planes and tons of electronics. If someone fights in another style, an EMP and for that matter a lot of the US weapons systems turn into useless junk. There are stories on how "battle simulations" go horrible haywire when someone decides to do things like stop using radios.

      And don't get me started on how bad of a PR move that would be. Blowing up all the radios and TV's of the regualar Iraqis. Yea, that's how to win them over to our side.

    104. Re:Unbelievable... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Lets put this in perspective shall we? If we have to destory this system, I don't think we are going to be worried about a little thing like Europe declaring war. Now normally Europe declaring war on the US will be a big thing but I think in the light of what ever crises has led us to "take this puppy out" will make it a small thing.

      Follow me?

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    105. Re:Unbelievable... by rednox · · Score: 1

      You make an extremely good point. My first reaction to this development was one of outrage that they would give up so much control over the system. You convinced me that this is a necessary - though unpalatable - change.

      However, I think that there is a better way to solve the problem of leaving a high-tech nation no option but to shoot down the system. They could build into Galileo the ability to selectively reduce the accuracy or even disable it altogether for specific regions. The control over this spot service reduction would be in the hands of the EU, not the US.

      Whenever the US orders a service reduction, the EU would then have the final decision on whether to go ahead with it. We have seen that the EU is willing to disobey the US military machine when they feel it is necessary.

    106. Re:Unbelievable... by PhB95 · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that an attack on EU satelites would result in the EU collapsing and degenerating into an Islamic Theocracy?

      Have you ever counted how much muslims live here in Europe ? So take care rejecting this kind of hypothesis : The chances of that happening may be very low, but they are not nil. And chances are high that there would be serious unrests.
      And even without such extreme developpements, the US should not think that this kind of action could go without any backlash. It may be a short term benefit, but now doubt a long term loss.

      --
      One of those Europeans...
    107. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to see a more intelligent view really. Yes - Amongst ordinary people in Europe there is a strong and widespread anti-American sentiment.
      But you could see this the wrong way unless you take the following into consideration:

      1) Most people LOVE Americans, its your government we hate and most euopeans are intelligent enough to know the difference.

      2) Most people realise how much ordinary Americans also hate their government and how ironically the country that most stands for democracy is the place where people now have the least control.

      3) Many people now know about the American election fraud and the strange connections between the Bush family and Bin Laden etc.

      4) Most Europeans remember Americas benevolance in WW2 and want to help ordinary American people be rid of their evil government.

      5) Europeans forgive Americans for their apparent 'stupidity' in world affairs because we know how your school and media systems work.

      6) Increasingly I have heard many individuals express worries about the next American civil war!

      If we ever do come to 'invade' you it might, like Iraq, be because we are comming to liberate you. Not because there is any problem between the Eropean and American PEOPLE.

    108. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you mean all of those nice countries who love to snipe out our lack of social infrastructure, yet are inexorably running toward bankrupting their own social systems? I have neither the time nor inclination at this point, but each and every example you gave I can take apart as either a failure or an impending failure. Do some research before shooting off your mouth.

    109. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      " With the current fascist and religious fundementalist currents in US politics"

      Fascist ?
      I happened to be an atheist and I voted for that guy and so did lots of very intelligent and highly educated people.
      I support Bush not because he is a born again Christian ( I couldn't care less) but because at this point he is the only guy around capable of stopping islamofacists avalanche.

    110. Re:Unbelievable... by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

      OK, I see your point about chickenhawks.
      I kinda like Rummy though, especially the way he doesn't pander to the morons in the press corps who traditionally get away with asking the most obviously assinine questions. He doesn't play their game by their rules and I enjoy watching that.

    111. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The problem for the us is that it seems to change it's "friends" ever so often."

      Are you a fucking oracle ?
      Do you always make right decisions and associated with flawless people ?
      No ?
      I thought so ..
      Then quit bitching and welcome to the real world.

    112. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The repeated fallacy with the invasion topic at hand is that with Iraq we wanted a certain amount of the country left intact. A potential war with a European country would entail no niceties, and total destruction would be the only option as there would be no way to handle such a capable enemy while wearing kid gloves. And no, I don't have a problem with that. I'm from the U.S., and the EU and US stopped being cordial years ago as far as I'm concerned.

    113. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with that?
      If you fuck with US , you can't expect preferential treatment now can you ?

      It is a fucking common sense you know.

    114. Re:Unbelievable... by Ulven · · Score: 1
      If the Canadians leave a bunch of tanks lying around in Iran after a training exercise (lets say they simply forgot to pack them), and the Iranians use them to attack US forces, does that mean the US forces can't counterattack since the equipment is the property of Canada?

      Close, but a better analogy would be:

      If the Canadians are training with the Americans in Iran, and a fanatic or two hang onto the back of a Canadian tank taking pot shots at the Americas with RPGs. Does that mean the US forces can't counterattack since the equipment is the property of Canada?

      Well, yes it does. Get the Canadians to sort it out. Firing at an ally might cause political ructions, not to mention noone really trusting them to behave on the battlefield.

      Oh, wait, they've already got away with that several times.

      Looks like you win.

    115. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The planes would just use GPS as a rough guide to where they're going. With todays computer power, it's not a problem to make missiles/planes recognize the terrain and use that for navigation. They don't need GPS

    116. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of Europe is a part of Nato. If one country is attacked, the others must defend it. It's the "attack one, attack all" principle. So if USA was attacked the Europeans would help in any way, because it would automatically mean that they were attacked as well.

      If US needs to invade another country for no good reason, why should they expect help?

    117. Re:Unbelievable... by ReallyQuietGuy · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't Kim Jong Ill just love to be able to wipe out the capitol of South Korea with a precision guided missle?

      they can do that already with the artillery they have. that is the point about the north-south detente in korea, the south darent do anything too provocative because the north's border is close enough to their main city to flatten it before any south korean/US troops rush up to clear out the arty.

    118. Re:Unbelievable... by M-G · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what's with the 'let's hate the French' bullshit?

      Probably because the Allied forces saved the France's ass in WWII, and they've been troublesome ever since. France created quite a mess in SE Asia. France refused to let F-111's from the UK fly through their airspace to bomb Libya. They were trying to block the enforcement of UN resolutions in Iraq because of their big oil deals there. They set up a nuclear reactor for Iraq in the '80's. And now, it's been discovered that Iraq was obtaining weapons during the UN embargo, and the source appears to be France.

    119. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have signed the Nato agreement, so you have to support other Nato countries (most of western and northern europe + Poland)

    120. Re:Unbelievable... by bmajik · · Score: 1
      i would just like to say that this quote:

      if you think the US would find a war with the EU inconvenient, consider how much more inconvenient the EU would find it

      made my day. thanks :)

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    121. Re:Unbelievable... by penguin7of9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I did NOT specifically talk about Bush. I did NOT say that "the US was already firmly in the grip of fascists and fundamentalists". I said that there were "fascist and religious fundamentalist currents in US politics".

      Whether the US will become a rogue nation remains to be seen; it's not the most likely outcome, but it has become probable enough that other nations shouldn't blindly trust the US. Politically moderate, bumbling wimps like Bush are probably not the biggest threat to US democracy; right wing members of Congress are much more dangerous. But the biggest threat to US democracy is people like you, people who are perfectly willing to sacrifice democracy for temporary safety and national pride. It has all happened before.

    122. Re:Unbelievable... by haraldm · · Score: 1

      Stay sober, man. If somebody started a war against the US using Galileo (there's two very unlikely ifs in here if you care to notice), then shooting down Galileo as a 3rd party's asset would be like a declaration of war against this 3rd party, in this case, Europe. Just in case you eventually wake up, Europe wasn't the US's enemy last time I looked.

      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    123. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but what are you going to do about it pussy? You don't have to like us, just bend over when we tell you to.

    124. Re:Unbelievable... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      >>intact. A potential war with a European
      >>country would entail no niceties, and total
      >>destruction would be the only option

      Mr Bush? Is that you?

    125. Re:Unbelievable... by haraldm · · Score: 1

      Maybe the whole problem would be null and void if the US didn't fight that many wars to begin with, and would start to play fair in politics, economy, and ecology. In the last 60 years (in fact, after WWII), the vast majority of problems the US had were homemade. To deny that the US near east policy and the single-sided support for Israel's wretched policy doesn't casue the Arabs to stand up is naive at best. Stop that shit, sign the Kyoto protocol, make sure Israel follows the UN resolutions like you wanted Irak to, help Africa to fight AIDS, and the world will be a better place for everyone, and no need to fight wars. Just to name a few examples.

      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    126. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn some history

      USA has been involved (directly or indirectly) in over 70 wars since WW2. You have invaded several countries because you didn't like their democratically elected president (and did so right after the election).

      You use political and millitary power to pressure other countries into buying from US companies and have a total disregard for international treaties.

    127. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The US won't be on top forever.

      Nope but your vagina will be bleeding before we get off.

    128. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm

      Iraq : President Reagan signed an executive order removing Iraq from the list of countries the US was not allowed to export weapons to when Iraq started to lose ground in the Iran / Iraq war. Iraq then upgraded its military which subsequently used the technology in the war against Iran, the Anfal Pogroms in Iraq, the Invasion of Kuwait, against the Shia Muslims that tried to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War.

      Iran : Again under Predident Reagan. The US covertly supplied arms to Iran without the knowledge of the US People or Congress.

      Afghanistan : Again under President Reagan. The US supplied weapons, money & training to those fighting the Soviets. Amongst those that benefited were the Taliban & Osama Bin Laden.

    129. Re:Unbelievable... by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 1
      The only way to have balance of power is two have sides, since otherwise there is no balance.

      Not true. Balance of power not defined as 2 sides sharing power equally. A fat kid on a see-saw with is ass firmly on the ground is perfectly balanced with his skinny little partner. Power moving from one party to another causes unbalanced conditions. Unbalance causes competition until balance is restored.

    130. Re:Unbelievable... by BigBadDude · · Score: 1

      and hell

      TALIBANS!!!

      where did they get all the weapon from?
      (to fight commies of course).

      US with Bush sr. was the largest supplier of weapon to Talibans.

    131. Re:Unbelievable... by Luscious868 · · Score: 1
      It's costing the Canadian economy billions of dollars

      So let me get this straight. The USA stops importing Canadian beef due to health concerns, then Canada "gives the USA the finger" and you expect the USA to quickly allow Canadian beef exports back in?

      That would be sort of like going to a restaurant, telling the waiter to fuck off and then expecting prompt service. It isn't going to happen, and quit frankly, the waiter would be a fucking idiot if he did anything other than take his sweet, sweet time.

    132. Re:Unbelievable... by BigBadDude · · Score: 1


      wait a minute!

      didn't US supplied a huge amount of weapon to Iraq and the Talibans??

      i mean hell, THE TALIBANS! does it ring any bells??

    133. Re:Unbelievable... by eyeye · · Score: 1

      "Just don't attack us"

      Iraq didn't attack you.. not very easy to live with after all.

      You have some of our UK citizens and aren't going to give them a fair trial.
      A couple of examples from the "US: Easy to live with!" book.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    134. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Now this is a hoot.

      Man, the U.S. is getting bitch-slapped big
      time right now because the best response they
      can offer is a satellite-guided gravity bomb.
      If you took away their night vision and their
      guidance systems (you can't harden an antenna
      or a CCD, because they have to be exposed in
      order to function) they would be SO dead...

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    135. Re:Unbelievable... by pitdingo · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah...the big bad USA just wants the oil and does not care about the people...right? how many palaces did Saddam have? How many Ferrari's does the Saudi Royal Family have? How is it our fault these countries leaders squander all the wealth they have? We need oil as does the rest of the world. If there was no oil there, we would have nothing to do with them, same with the rest of the world. The USA tried after both WW1 and WW2 to help these people live in peace for once in their lifetime but the fanatical religious leaders chose not to live in peace and set about creating fundamentalist states there. They said and continue to say much the same things Hitler said to justify war. Hitler said the Jews are to blame for all the problems in the world, they say the Jews and America are. It is interesting how people the world over love to point fingers at everything besides themselves. Perhaps rather than preaching a religion which demands death to the non-believers, they should take a more moderate tone and respect others beliefs? If 9-11 never happened, the USA would not be in Afganistan. If Iraq had not invaded Kuwait, the USA would not be in Iraq today. So what is your point?

    136. Re:Unbelievable... by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      If somebody started a war against the US using Galileo (there's two very unlikely ifs in here if you care to notice), then shooting down Galileo as a 3rd party's asset would be like a declaration of war against this 3rd party, in this case, Europe.
      That sounds like a scenario that would be good to avoid. Hence, this story, of USA trying to use its influence to prevent the scenario from taking place.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    137. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's because the French and the British
      are the only EU nations with nukes, and the
      British are our pet poodles. That means that
      France is the seed from which a future nuclear
      superpower Europe will grow. The U.S. wants
      to remain the worlds only superpower. China
      and Europe are the only threats to that
      status. Therefore, PRC and France are the
      only real enemies of the U.S.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    138. Re:Unbelievable... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      > The US fights lots of wars, so the benefits of destroying the system would probably extend far beyond one particular war.

      Not against other nuclear club nations. Think about it. Something tells the "future benefits" would be null in a post-nuke USA and EU.

    139. Re:Unbelievable... by Uncle+Joe+Steel · · Score: 1

      Actually most Iraqi mainline military equipment was of Russian or French origin (T-72 tanks, AK-47s, Mirage fighters). The US provided more support equipment, not weapons.

      The US did not support the Taliban. True Osama and the Taliban were fighting the same enemy, but US support was directed to less troublesome groups

    140. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Destroying the planet Earth would be no more
      of an act of war than providing the use of its
      surface to an enemy.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    141. Re:Unbelievable... by STrinity · · Score: 1

      What's to keep them from just trashing the whole system? The alternative to jamming is destruction.

      Um, positioning satellites are way up in geostationary orbits, whereas the missile you linked to (and, AFAIK, everything else in the American arsenal) are for taking out objects in low earth orbit. That's like suggesting a mortar in New York could hit Pyongyang.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    142. Re:Unbelievable... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      You, for one, should welcome your new American overlords.

    143. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If such a system eventually gets built and many years down the road the U.S. decides to invade a country which uses the Galileo system for its weaponry, what's to keep the U.S. from jamming and disabling their systems for a clean sweep? In a word, this is unfair. Other states should have the capabilities which the United States takes for granted. Very disappointed in my country.

      Where do they grow these twits? War is inherently "unfair." As Gen. Patton is said to have remarked, war isn't dying for your country. It's making the other SOB die for his country.

      War isn't a video game. People die in wars and the more evenly matched (and hence "fair") a war is, the more people die. That's what made World War I so dreadfully bloody. Only the US entry into the war tipped the scales enough to end the killing.

      Behind this argument is the assumption, common among the "left" that there's a moral equivalence between the US and its foes. When the chief of those foes was the USSR, it looked liked the left in democratic countries simply believed that it had "no enemies to the left." But now that the foes of the US are terrorists who derive their ideologies from Islam and hide within Arab dictatorship, the left still sees a moral equivalence (i.e. between Israel and the PLO or even Hamas).

      I find this astonishing. For roughly twenty years we've been told that a religious "fundamentalism" (Christian, Jewish and Islamic), threatens our freedoms. But when the third religion's fanatics are particularly successful at mass killing (9/11), it's the left that takes to the streets demanding that nothing be done. Its secularized European governments (think France and Germany) that seems indifferent to promoting democracy and freedom of any sort in the Middle East. And if polls be right, iit'sthe religious right that's most supportative of freedom and democracy for Arabs.

      In this context, being able to instantly shut down the high precision mode in Galileo and GPS is important. The difference in accuracy is that between having a terrorist plane or missile hit or miss a target filled with people. And expecting Europeans (excepting the British) to have enough courage to shut it down themselves on a moment's notice is asking a bit much. This past summer, it took the French government several weeks to figure out their elderly were dying by the thousands in the heat.

      In practice, the US will probably acquire the capability to block GPS/Galileo-guided attacks on targets in our country. If the French want to do nothing while an Airbus crashes into the Eiffel Tower, that'll be their worry.

      That, I have to admit, is fair.

    144. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > Can't another country simply give us the
      > finger once and a while and do their own god
      > damned thing

      Not without getting invaded or nuked ;)

      > without bitching about us and our
      > international policys?

      I can't understand why you would object
      that our international policies are a cause
      for complaint. If you had said "internal"
      policies, I could have understood.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    145. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > imagine if your friends always had a gun
      > pointed at you, so they could shoot you if
      > an argument developed?

      Well, we do: Our friends in China, France,
      Israel, and (perhaps) Russia.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    146. Re:Unbelievable... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Galileo is analagous to a contractor who sells ultra-modern naval cruisers to anyone willing to pay for them. In a war, everybody would be looking to blow them up. Actually, even in peace there would be a large effort to control their activities. Big countries spend a lot of money to get a technological advantage in war - selling products to anyone willing to pay for them levels the playing field.

      And the USA is analagous to a monopolistic software corporation that keeps bitching and moaning and trying to coerce governments about the use of a certain Open Source OS.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    147. Re:Unbelievable... by gibbsjoh · · Score: 1

      Maybe all the years of joking about French "cowardice" took their toll. You Yanks (and we Brits) tend to forget about the thousands of French Resistance who died in the war, long before Roosevelt decided to join in.

      Seriously, though, do you all honestly expect every country to kowtow to your version of how the world should be? Please grow up and stop whining whenever someone disagrees.

      More on-topic though, I am far more disappointed (though not surprised) that the EU has given in on this issue than I am about the US making the "suggestion" that we compromise Galileo in this way. It's about time Brussels cleaned up its act, got the UK fully on board, and acted like a world power rather than the Has-Been Club.

      --
      -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
    148. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take long hair or a splinter fetish
      to recognize that the U.S. has made a lot of
      enemies by creating injustice and misery by
      it's aggression outside of its borders, and
      it doesn't take a politician's keen insight
      to understand that this will result in attacks
      against the U.S. on a much larger scale than
      a couple of tall buildings.

      WMD are becoming cheaper and easier to
      produce every day. What worked to prevent
      attack by a global superpower (USSR)
      will NOT work to prevent attack by a
      well-funded cell group.

      It's shaping up to be a post-American
      century.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    149. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then fight you coward.

    150. Re:Unbelievable... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      I happened to be an atheist and I voted for that guy and so did lots of very intelligent and highly educated people.

      Gee, you are talking about Hitler, aren't you?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    151. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hate
      it when
      my antenna
      overloads.

      Hoot.

    152. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aw, upset with the US? I'm sowy. Here's a hanky for you to blow your nose in.

      Now here's a reality check for you. The US just invaded a murderous dictatorship and ousted a guy who's killed many times more innocents than Slobodan Milosevic ever did. Civilians died in the process but many more lives have been saved. You claim the US is controlled by fascists but I said it was a just war. Perhaps you'd care to explain why it was ok for Clinton to use the military in Iraq but not Bush? Perhaps you'd care to explain why it was ok for Clinton to invade Bosnia without UN approval (UN approval came *after* the military was involved) but not ok for Bush to invade Iraq without UN approval. The only difference I see in this situation is the president. You supported Clinton and so you supported his use of the military. You don't like Bush so you dont support his use of the military. Thus you are a hypocrate.

      If Saddam had been using high-precision Galileo-equiped weapons against the US guess what, the US would have destroyed those satellites. You can bitch and moan all you like and call it an act of war against Europe if you like, but there's really nothing you could do about it. All Europeans ever do is bitch and moan. They couldn't handle Bosnia themselves. They can't handle Ivory Coast themselves. They sure as hell can't do anything to the USA.

      So, the US military is being nice and saying "hey guys, you should build in an option to disable your GPS so people can't use it against us - otherwise, we'll shoot it down if it comes to that." That's a lot more consideration than the Europeans deserve if you ask me.

    153. Re:Unbelievable... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Errm. War of Secession? Segregation and race riots?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    154. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > Are you so mad at the US you would want to kill us?

      If I were not highly averse to moral risk,
      and had the capability, I would definitely
      eliminate the US as an international actor,
      given that the cost in lives was less than
      10 millions. Including my family and
      myself, if necessary.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    155. Re:Unbelievable... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you are counting on GPS when loading your 767, you deserve what you get. They have IFR for a reason. People ought to stop trying to use GPS for things for which it is quite simply not suited.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    156. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Um, positioning satellites are way up in geostationary orbit

      What?! WHAT!! You moron. All positioning satellites are in LEO. You must be a fucking moron.

    157. Re:Unbelievable... by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      I don't mean this post to sound like I'm not being serious, but look at the score card and tell me how things are going with the USA keeping things unfair.

      USA vs all foreign enemies so far

      After the USA has lost a couple thousand people to terrorist attack, how many million casualties have we inflicted on the "enemy"? What percentage of our military has been lost to the "enemy"? Something like .1%? Just a random liberal guess... WMDs have been cheap and easy to produce for a long time, but they aren't being used, and with the combination of increased security and the fact that we're taking the war to their home countries, I doubt they will ever be used to any large extent. Yes, I know it only takes one time to murder thousands, but the fact is, we could [somehow] make peace with the terrorists and then some lunatic could randomly decide to detonate a briefcase nuke in the middle of NYC. The same thing could happen anywhere else, regardless of whether the target has pissed anyone off. You can't just go around saying oh we're all going to die because we pissed off people in the middle east... If the terrorist groups could only see posts like yours I'm sure they'd be saying, "Mission accomplished!" In whatever language they speak, of course.

      You may dream up the demise of the USA all you want, but I'm happy to tell you that it isn't happening anytime soon. Even if something horrible does happen to bring down the country, it'll probably come more through foreign trade (or lack thereof) rather than from a physical attack. Even then, given our record, I don't see it happening anytime in the next 100 years, but I guess a lot could happen. Anyway, I believe that terrorist "cells" are a threat, don't get me wrong, but automobile accidents are killing more people than terrorists are...

    158. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You claim the US is controlled by fascists

      I did not claim that.

      aw, upset with the US? I'm sowy. Here's a hanky for you to blow your nose in.

      You express typical US arrogance and ignorance. That's exactly why Europeans would be fools to trust the US with their security and future.

    159. Re:Unbelievable... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Yeah exactly. If all chances were fair, nobody would wage war because they couldn't win. The Us doesn't want that, because they want to wage wars and win them.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    160. Re:Unbelievable... by haraldm · · Score: 2
      You mean - by blackmailing Europe into giving the US a back door into Galileo? This sounds like an offer Europe can't refuse.

      Don't get me wrong. Basically I think the USA are a great country, and I know quite a few Americans who are great folks and fun to deal with. It's just that the current (and past) US politics is part of the problem, not the solution. As far as I'm concerned, I am far from being dumbly anti-American. But as a couple of US constitutional rights allow, I have the right to express my opinion, as everybody else who expresses their opinions these days.

      Let's face what the actual military scenarios may be. Firstly: The likelyness of another country openly attacking the US is zero. Everybody knows about the sheer US military force. A second scenario is guerillas operating covertly. A back door into Galileo does not help much - these folks can operate freely within the country with street maps or the help of GPS itself if required. Stays the third scenario: foreign forces attacking US forces outside of the US territory. Well, what do US forces have to do outside of their own territory to begin with? This, as I said before, is part of the problem.

      The USA operating a law-free zone in Guantanamo, practically a concentration camp, is part of the problem. US medical corporations refusing to make anti-AIDS drugs cheaper in Africa is part of the problem. Fighting a war against Irak and then instantiating Halliburton & Co. is part of the problem. USA supporting the current fascist and paranoid Israeli politics is part of the problem. The US denying to sign the Kyoto protocol is part of the problem.

      Many people in the 96% of the world population who live outside the US borders (face it - the US is a 4% minority) think that it's no good if a single country dominates the world as the USA do right now. Sooner or later, they will start doing something about it. Or they did already.

      On the other hand, the current spook will be over in 2008 or so.

      So - coming back to topic - the US trying to get a back door into Galileo isn't actually motivated by logical military aspects. It's just like the old joke why a dog licks its balls.

      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    161. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape as the moral basis for US international politics? Thanks for making the point so clearly.

      Besides, rape is an even more pathetic violent crime if you have to use a strap-on.

    162. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Toppling the Saudi regime would not just piss the Saudi Arabians off, it would probably result in the creation of a Theocracy,

      Saudi is a theocracy, why do you think they funded the Talibans, and some Chechen fundementalists? Why do you think Bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi? More generally, how do you call a Kingdom were article 1 of the Basic Law of Government stipulates that "God's Book and the Sunnah" (God's Book being Qur'an of course) are the substantive constitution and where Islamic Shari'a is in effect?
      Also on a related note, Iraq has never been closer to a theocracy than today (simple hint: try buying alcohol these days in Iraq - the fundamentalists assassinated the last alcohol seller after scarying the others).

    163. Re:Unbelievable... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      From the US Coast Guard site:

      The Space Segment, consists of 24 operational satellites in six circular orbits 20,200 km (10,900 NM) above the earth at an inclination angle of 55 degrees with a 12 hour period. The satellites are spaced in orbit so that at any time a minimum of 6 satellites will be in view to users anywhere in the world. The satellites continuously broadcast position and time data to users throughout the world.

      Not even CLOSE to geostationary orbit, nevermind the 55 degree inclination. Try again.

      Most imaging satellites are in highly elliptical LEO orbits, with perigee's of 200 some-odd KM and apogees in the 1000's of KM.

      Communication satellites and early warning satellites may indeed be in GSO orbits, but not everything.

      But you are most correct, this ASAT is not sufficient to attack GPS satellites, and probably not the Galileo constellation... besides the fact that the project was "cancelled"...

    164. Re:Unbelievable... by corebreech · · Score: 1

      I did NOT specifically talk about Bush. I did NOT say that "the US was already firmly in the grip of fascists and fundamentalists".

      Well then, let me say it for you. The US is firmly in the grip of a fascist and fundamentalist government.

      Hard to see how that's controversial in the slightest, unless of course, you're one of these fucking retards who get all their news from Fox.

    165. Re:Unbelievable... by jeti · · Score: 1

      Basically, the EU is pointing out that the GPS system is a dual-use civilian/military system. If it is used by an enemy the EU might be forced to take it out.

    166. Re:Unbelievable... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Thank you!

      It would have been one thing for the French to defend Iraq with their Mirage fighters and nuclear weapons, but they showed just how little regard they have for the Iraqi people by not putting their skins on the line.

      It's one thing to invade a foreign country. It's another to start a war with an ally and friend to do so...

    167. Re:Unbelievable... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah...the big bad USA just wants the oil and does not care about the people...right? how many palaces did Saddam have? How many Ferrari's does the Saudi Royal Family have? How is it our fault these countries leaders squander all the wealth they have?

      So? Does that justify assassinations and funding of terrorism? The only states that the US doesn't like are those that aren't open to business. If you are willing to talk dollars, how many palaces you have, how many citizens you murder somehow becomes irrelevant. Only when said government turns against you, do they suddenly become "the enemy".

      We need oil as does the rest of the world. If there was no oil there, we would have nothing to do with them, same with the rest of the world. The USA tried after both WW1 and WW2 to help these people live in peace for once in their lifetime but the fanatical religious leaders chose not to live in peace and set about creating fundamentalist states there.

      You created the fundamentalist states! They used to have fairly decent governments, which were destroyed through US funded terrorism.

      They said and continue to say much the same things Hitler said to justify war. Hitler said the Jews are to blame for all the problems in the world, they say the Jews and America are. It is interesting how people the world over love to point fingers at everything besides themselves.

      Exactly, propaganda hasn't changed much. You are aware that your own government is using terrorism in the exact same way? Ever notice how Bush uses the word "terror" as often as possible in speaches? Why? Iraq never had terrorist links, so what is he implying by using that word I wonder...

      Perhaps rather than preaching a religion which demands death to the non-believers, they should take a more moderate tone and respect others beliefs?

      Well, Islam doesn't teach that. In the same way that Christianity doesn't teach what we are doing as well. Both sides have their nutters.

      If 9-11 never happened, the USA would not be in Afganistan.

      Not true. Was in planning before Sept I'm afraid. 9-11 provided a "remember the maine" incident. Google for it to learn more.

      The same applies to Iraq. The Project for a New America Century, the think tank that Bush et all are all fully paid up members of, have been planning it for years. 9-11 just gave them the political currency to do it, via deliberate lies and misdirection.

      If Iraq had not invaded Kuwait, the USA would not be in Iraq today.

      LOL. The Iraqi's asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait and were told "we have no opinion on that matter" by your government. It is only after the Kuwaiti elite started a massive PR campaign, including lies about what the Iraqi soldiers supposedly did to babies. That was the point at which a vote in congress moved the US into the war. At that point, we began to learn what a "bad guy" Saddam was. In the preceeding years, he could do no wrong. Even D. Rumsfed has met him personally, and sold weapons that were used to kill the Kurds.

      So what is your point?

      That most US citizens live in an idealistic dream world where you believe your country can do no wrong, because of your historic "good guy" stance. Nowadays, that just isn't the case. They just don't teach you the "bad" stuff in school.

      You need to wake up before people like Bush destroy everything that America is supposed to stand for. We admire that stance, we always have. But now, we are genuinely scared of you.

    168. Re:Unbelievable... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      I believe before the century is out you will get an opportunity. We will enjoy killing you :-)

      We like it.

    169. Re:Unbelievable... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Let me just give you a little advice there my friend. The US hasn't had a war in 50 years. I'm not talking about these little furballs like Iraq and Afganastan or even Vetnam. I'm talking War, with a capital 'W.' One where the president ask for it and congress says yes. Think WWII and your in the ballpark.

      American policy on nuclear attack on our homeland or even the Americas has been total and complete destruction of the attackers with like weapons. Sure mr. middleeast terrorist might get a hold a nuke and kill a few million people but he had better think about what might happen to his homeland. There might be a good chance that we will forget the middle east is made of a bunch of little countries and reguard it as one big bullseye.

      Sure he may kill a few million Americans but he will be kill more of his own in the process.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    170. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      So UBL manages to snap up one of those loose
      Russian tacticals with his big cash wad, and
      turns DC into a crater. Exactly what is the
      U.S. gonna do to hurt him?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    171. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      The system has adapted to embrace those
      automobile deaths. But Gen. Franks tells
      us that a major homeland attack will result
      in the suspension of the Constitution.
      The two are qualitatively different forms of
      damage.

      The US has killed approximately 1 million
      Iraqis in the past 13 years.

      WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to
      produce, not more expensive, not more
      difficult. That is why the past lack of
      use is not a predictor of future use.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    172. Re:Unbelievable... by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      except at that point if the US is already going against the EU what is to stop them from taking more drastic steps of just shooting them down?

      if i were the EU what i would do was comply with the US in giving them their jamming ability but secretly i would add to it the ability to broadcast at other frequencies and just not tell the US so in time of war against the US they can turn on these other frequencies if they so desire...at the very least it will take some time before the US realizes that the EU's galileo system is not being jammed because it is also working on other frequencies. though this relies on keeping secrets, and those aren't always easy to keep.

    173. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > the western world at peace for two thirds of
      > a century

      If this is your idea of peace, I might just
      prefer to try war.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    174. Re:Unbelievable... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      I don't think you've ever lived under a fascist or fundamentalist government. Or read much history, either...

    175. Re:Unbelievable... by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You will note that the GPS system is designed so that the US government can degrade its capability if it should be used by an enemy. Since most of the EU is part of NATO and generally aligned with US interests, it is likely that if the EU actually went to war with anyone the US would be more than happy to turn off the civilian GPS system in the war zone.

      The USA is simply asking that the European system be designed with the same safeguards as the GPS system.

      I'm amused by the number of EU vs the USA posts in this thread. I think most of the intelligent posters have pointed out that regardless of who has the superior firepower that is definitely not a confrontation that anybody really wants to see (unless perhaps they don't live anywhere near the EU OR the US).

      Designing the Galileo system so that the EU can degrade it at a later date is just being prudent.

    176. Re:Unbelievable... by Syncdata · · Score: 1

      You express typical US arrogance and ignorance
      I learned it from you! I learned it from watching you dad!
      Look, you don't have to believe me, but it would help you out immeasurably if you did. The US originated from european schools of thought, and law. The only diference between Europe, and the United States, is that Europe started and lost 2.5 global conflicts in the 20th century. The US helped you out when you couldn't help yourself. We didn't take over your country, we didn't destroy your culture, we airlifted tons upon tons of coal and rebuilding material.
      And yet we are accused of arrogance and ignorance, accused of being something we are not, (fascists, dictators) by the very same nations who defined the terms in the twentieth century.
      That general aura you see wafting towards Europe from America isn't arrogance pal, it's an utter lack of giving a damn about europes opinions about what's good for us. Europe today is like an alcoholic at an intervention. You reflect your own problems onto others to illeviate any doubt of your own self worth. It's not arrogance that is driving Europe and the US apart, it's mutual dislike, plain and simple. And it kills you that you wellfared away your militaries, and you can't do anything about it.
      Of course, that is all changing. It will be an interesting 50 years, to be sure.

      --
      "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    177. Re:Unbelievable... by pitdingo · · Score: 1

      LOL! What? You must be a European!

      Only when said government turns against you, do they suddenly become "the enemy".

      If they are not your friend, what are they? You do not make any sense. How does the USA fund terrorism? I hear this all the time yet fail to see any evidence?

      And how did the USA destroy the governments in the Middle East? What are you talking about?

      Iraq never had terrorist links

      The last time I checked there was a well known terrorist group in Northern Iraq that the USA uprooted. Ansar Al Islam, or some such nonsense.

      Also, If memory serves me correctly, Saddam did send checks to suicide bombers families in Israel congratulating them. checks

      Those aren't terrorist links!?!?!?!? LOL!!!!!

      Well, Islam doesn't teach that

      Huh? Perhaps you should try reading the Koran. Koran. And why are you dragging Christianity into this? The USA does not tell you what religion to follow; you are free to follow any religion you like, including no religion at all. It is your choice.

      Was in planning before Sept I'm afraid.

      Yeah, I would believe anything a Pakistani Diplomat says, especially since they are the ones who put the Taliban in power! Perhaps you should learn to not believe everything you read.

      You need to wake up before people like Bush destroy everything that America is supposed to stand for. We admire that stance, we always have. But now, we are genuinely scared of you.

      Well, the USA is scare of arrogant, spineless, spectators, who have a jealousy of America so embedded into their little minds they fail to grasp the realities of the large world. If there was no United States, the world would be a much worse place, care to argue that based on your in depth understanding of world history?

      Is the USA perfect, no. But when you are the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, you have a responsibilty to make the world into a better place. No country gives more foreign aid than America. No country so readily commits the lives of their own Armed Forces to aid those oppressed peoples of the world. No country takes in as many immigrants as America does. Don't insult America by taking a moral high ground that you so clearly do not have.

    178. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well actually if you had a couple of fanatics hitching a ride on the back of a *tank* and taking pot shots at you all you have to do is hose the *tank* down with small calibre machinegun fire.

      If you wonder why I emphasize *tank* it is because *tanks* have armor and small calibre machine gun fire will simply glance off of them. It will not however, glance off any persons on the outside of the vehicle.

    179. Re:Unbelievable... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Response to ridiculous extreme "example" #21388:

      Ricidulously extreme example used by aminorex:

      Destroying the planet Earth would be no more of an act of war than providing the use of its surface to an enemy.

      In response to lobstergun who posted:

      Destroying the system would be no more af an act of war than providing the use of the system to an enemy.

      Response:

      Nobody relies on the surface of a satellite for the continuation of life, jackass.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    180. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in, pigeons are in demand.

    181. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now tell that to guys with AK47, plactic explosives strapped around their chests and with nothing to lose. That EMP would really disadvantage them.

    182. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real threat isn't the from conservatives, its from elitist who think they are smarter than everyone else. Like you.

    183. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, intelligent egoistic people. Who clearly don't give a fuck if the rest of the world burns in flames as long as they get their cheap fuel and don't have to spend money on those silly environment issues.

      Bush is more capable of leading this world to hell than any other living being on this planet. He is the reason for existence for these suicidebombers.

      I'm constantly shocked by the fact that there seem to be people who don't understand that there is a reason for the hatred against the US. Do you really think that all these people just hate the US for no reason at all? Would you die for no reason at all?? They simply don't have a future. NO future at all, since the US wants to control all resources, all military groupings (EU army) and all communication. They started with project Carnivore, and now they apparantly openly want to control the EU satellite systems.

      If your former allies, the Europeans, moon your president when he arrives here, that should ring some bells shouldn't it? We used to be allies, and considered you allies when Clinton was at power. Now, at the university where I work, I don't know a single person who is not shocked by the behavior and stupidity of your president.

    184. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean that Europe doesn't slavishly follow the US goverment on its crusade against arabs like that moron Blair did?

    185. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only 4 indications:

      - last elections in the USA

      - god bless America and fuck everyone else

      - several restricting acts/laws passed this year

      - we will bomb anyone we wish, after all it's just bussiness

      See, modern history is fun. I do say indications however.

    186. Re:Unbelievable... by corebreech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, like I said, if you watch Fox News you wouldn't know either way, would you.

      The war on drugs alone qualifies America as a fascist and fundamentalist government whose expression of hatred has resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

      The war on Islam now escalates our barbarity to an even greater degree... now we're aiming to kill a billion or more.

      And despite it all, we see fucking retards running about saying God bless America!, as if America deserves any kind of favor whatsoever for perpetrating all these horrors, to say nothing of the conceit that God would condone much less reward our behavior.

    187. Re:Unbelievable... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "except at that point if the US is already going against the EU what is to stop them from taking more drastic steps of just shooting them down?"

      Do you actually foresee at time or reason every that the US would come in after one or more countries in Europe? I mean, we've got hundreds of thousands of US soldiers bodies buried over there from trying to help the countries of Europe stay free. We came from part of Europe for God's sake.

      Seriously, if you think for some reason we'd attach Europe, stand back, catch a breath and get some perspective. Just the same way that no one here in the US could ever picture ya'll attacking us militarily. Our economies are too closely linked, and we are all related in many ways.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    188. Re:Unbelievable... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The US has done the same for EU contries in the past. The Brits in the Falklands only did so well in Air to Air combat because they had AIM-9L Sidewinders while the other side had AIM-9Bs The Sea Harrier is not a good air to air plane but it had a much better missle.
      The EU does not have to do what the US wants. They just have to deal with a US that will be less likley to help bail their butts out or help them when the need it. The US is not going to bomb Paris but if some one is using the EU Nav System to send cruse or ballist missles at US targets then taking it out is self-defence. Before any of you high and mighty Euros get on your high horse just rember that the UK considered attacking a US war ship and blaming it on the Germans to get the US into WWII. That little scam that was pulled on the US to get us into WWI is often forgotten as well. And lets not forget when the US had to give the peace loving French and English over that little Suez thing.
      War is not a game fair? If one goes to war you worring about causing as few civillian deaths is a good thing. Treating your POWs humanly is a good thing. Making it a fair fight???? Not on your freaking life.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    189. Re:Unbelievable... by GimmeZeroZero · · Score: 1

      You faith in a government is disturbing, particularly the US government. A country which violates international law whenever it feels like.

      "Oh yeah...the big bad USA just wants the oil and does not care about the people ...right?"

      Correct. The last thing the US cares about are others. In fact they don't even care about the majority of their own population. You would find plenty of evidence if you cared to do a little research. All that really matters is keeping the beloved mega-corporations happy.

      "how many palaces did Saddam have?" "How many Ferrari's does the Saudi Royal Family have?" "How is it our fault these countries leaders squander all the wealth they have?"

      Your country is no different in that regard. If fact your country was a big supporter of Saddam, until it was deemed he stepped out of line. So much in favour, the US even overlooked an attack by Saddam on a US Naval vessel killing something like 13 Americans. Even more ironic, the US, the richest country on the planet, has the highest child poverty rates of any other developed country. Where is your money going?

      "The USA tried after both WW1 and WW2 to help these people live in peace for once in their lifetime but the fanatical religious leaders chose not to live in peace and set about creating fundamentalist states there."

      I find this amusing, the US is the biggest supporter of dictators in the world. And have continued to undermine countries which had a chance of democracy.

      "It is interesting how people the world over love to point fingers at everything besides themselves."

      You obviously have no idea how ironic this statement is coming in support of the US.

      "If 9-11 never happened, the USA would not be in Afganistan."

      Incorrect. 9-11 only gave them the excuse they needed. They had plans for Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9-11 ever took place.

      Please, please, do yourself a favour and go read Rogue States by Naom Chomsky, rather than furthering the cause of ignorance. I didn't really backup anything I said because it's all there in Rogue States. Plus you'll learn an awful lot more than I could ever tell you.

    190. Re:Unbelievable... by incal · · Score: 1

      Obviously, most enemies of the US could use even civilian versions of GLONASS, Russian satellite navigation system. Its much more accurate than current american GPS and probably up to standards of Galileo.

      And shooting russian satellites would be an act of war. answered with easy destruction of american satellites through ASAT C1 Kosmos missiles.

    191. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      um...wrong. name one piece of gear in the Iraq order of battle that is US.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    192. Re:Unbelievable... by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      What a stupid question. Seriously. The ASAT is designed to kill satellites with its velocity alone... it's going much too fast for a net to do anything but disintegrate it. Furthermore, carrying a net would add to the weight of the homing vehicle and reduce its effective range, which isn't that great to begin with.

      So no. That's not possible. Not even remotely.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    193. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      hardly. The US provided Singer missiles to the Afghan rebels. This was the limit of the hardware support. The remnants of this movement ended up founding the Taliban government. Saying that the US armed the Taliban is a ridiculous stretch by an means. Fact is, the Taliban's order of battle is (was) almost entirely captured Soviet era gear.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    194. Re:Unbelievable... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      I think you need to go back and read my post again. It's not what we will do to mr. middle east terroist. It's what we might do to the middle east. Sure, we may not get mr. terrorist but we might get the rest of them. Sure he may blow D.C. off the map but we may just flatten the middle east because of it. I'm not talking iraq, iran or any one pissant country, I'm talking all of them.

      Before you answer, you might want to dig into the /. archives for the 9/11 posts and read some of those comments. Under 3000 people died in those attacks but there where calls from posters on /. to level the middle east. Look what happened because of those attacks, to countris became "leaderless."

      Think what would happen if a million or more people died in a attack on US homeland. Esp. if that attack was on D.C. itself.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    195. Re:Unbelievable... by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      Could you offer an explanation of what you mean by "the suspension of the Constitution"?

      The US has killed approximately 1 million Iraqis in the past 13 years.
      Yay? Was that statement to make a point, or were you just rambling?

      WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to produce, not more expensive, not more difficult. That is why the past lack of use is not a predictor of future use.
      They're already cheap. They're already easy to produce. Anybody could build a thermonuclear bomb in their garrage if they have a few million bucks to spend, and terrorists have more than enough money for that. The only remotely difficult part is getting uranium, plutonium, and tritium. Price and ease-of-production have not been issues preventing their use for a long time.

    196. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      Money yes,... arms no.

      With regard to the Bosnian war, are you actually acknowledging that the US stood up for an oppressed people? I thought the mantra was that the US only supported despots...

      With regard to Al Qaeda... that is just insane. The oldest 9/11 hijackers would have been less than 5 years old when the US was supporting the Afghan rebels, which is as close as you can get to associating US support for Al Qaeda... pretty weak if you ask me.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    197. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      I have no ill will toward the French,.. I actually just came back from two weeks there and have nothing but positive things to say (other than the fact that they all are chain-smokers and they have extremely liberal buisness hours). I was merely pointing out that the US is actually quite restrained in who they sell weapons to compared to other (France/FSU) countries. Now, military aid in the form of money is an entirely different matter.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    198. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      The nuts you are referring to was a one-time parts exchange. One cargo-container worth of repair parts for US hardware that had been sold to Iran before the revolution. This exchange was part of a deal to free American hostages. The really screwed up part of the deal was that the profits from the sale were diverted to fund the Contras (Nicaraguan rebels).

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    199. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      for the third time... the US never supported the Taliban at any time. The Taliban did not exist when the US was supporting the Afghan rebellion. The closest you can come is that the remnants of the rebelion eventually formed the Taliban... but that is quite a stretch.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    200. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWII? Talk about not letting go of the past.. ;-)

    201. Re:Unbelievable... by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      The system has adapted to embrace those
      automobile deaths. But Gen. Franks tells
      us that a major homeland attack will result
      in the suspension of the Constitution.
      The two are qualitatively different forms of
      damage.


      I would say that General Franks is incorrect, as he often [sadly] is. If anything, we have become more prepared for a terrorist attack. We have also become a bit better at preventing them as well. Though I'm against things like the misuse of the patriot act, I feel that as citizens we are individually more vigilant and prepared. This also goes for our emergency response professionals and such.

      Other than that, my point still stands that a random whacko is a random whacko. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing... Look at the unibomber... Olympic park bombing... etc etc... We face this garbage from whackos that we piss off unintentionally. There is no reason to think that pissing people off in another country is any worse than pissing off Random Moron by passing a law he/she does not like. The threat of domestic terror, which has nothing to do with afghanistan, iraq, the plo, etc, is just as great. Your argument that the USA pissing off foreigners is not that great of a concern in the scheme of things. The only difference is that you see terrorists on the news. You're like people who are afraid of flying because of crashes, afraid of the ocean because of sharks, little kid afraid of the dark... etc etc... Just because it could happen doesn't mean it will. I'm sure the stories of doom and destruction and how the USA is going to hell sounds great to your friends though, just don't try to spread the stories as fact.

      The US has killed approximately 1 million
      Iraqis in the past 13 years.


      Don't forget the militants of Afghanistan and other terrorist harboring nations. The fact is, if they're all dead and an disarray, they can't fund or organize an attack of any size. This is double sided of course, as it is usually easier to track large organizations, but the point still stands that they need *some* funding and *some* organization to cause anything as bad or worse than what we have seen so far.

      WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to
      produce, not more expensive, not more
      difficult. That is why the past lack of
      use is not a predictor of future use.


      It would be nice if you actually added to your original argument with some substance. Assault rifles and explosives aren't hard to come by, but how often are they used to inflict mass casualties? I see gasoline tanker trucks (as well as chemicals that are probably 20* as dangerous) drive by on the highway all the tim. It would not take a genius to hijack one of these at a truck stop, but you know what? It doesn't happen... Am I saying it won't ever happen? No.. Just that the fact that they're cheaper and easier means jack, and that there is no reason to think the chances of the USA being dissolved by some terrorist group are all that great.

    202. Re:Unbelievable... by pitdingo · · Score: 1
      In fact they don't even care about the majority of their own population

      Huh? What ultra liberal book does this come from, Rogue States?

      If fact your country was a big supporter of Saddam, until it was deemed he stepped out of line.

      Yeah, until he invaded Kuwait. The USA reluctantly supports a lot of countries because we are not Imperialists. If we were Imperialists, as the rest of the world so unintelligently says, we would simply invade every country on the earth we did not like.


      Even more ironic, the US, the richest country on the planet, has the highest child poverty rates of any other developed country. Where is your money going?

      Foreign Aid!


      I find this amusing, the US is the biggest supporter of dictators in the world. And have continued to undermine countries which had a chance of democracy.

      Huh? Where and when has the USA undermined Democracy? Where do you people come up with this nonsense?!?!?!? Again, the USA reluctantly deals with these countrie as she does not invade every country it does not like.


      You obviously have no idea how ironic this statement is coming in support of the US.

      Huh???

      They had plans for Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9-11 ever took place

      Where does such nonsense come from? Is the latest Liberal story? I suppose the second Bush took office he said: "Let's attack Afghanistan!" Please.

      Rogue States

      I will not read something so full of such utter nonsense as Rogue States. Sure, now that Bush is president the USA is attacking everyone and does not care about any other country, and the world would be in total peace if Bush would dissolve the USA military and get rid of all our nukes. Yep, the world would be in total peace. Sure.

      Why would you base your views off someone who is an admitted ultra liberal anymore than someone who is an ultra conservative?

      I didn't really backup anything I said...

      No kidding. I just do not get why people are so clueless as to how the world works and basic history. I suggest you start watching the news, read some history books, and get a clue.

    203. Re:Unbelievable... by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      you know, you have a point there...we have already invaded parts of europe twice!

      yes, i do foresee a time when the US may need to invade europe as i said it has already happened twice why not a third time?

    204. Re:Unbelievable... by BWJones · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't Kim Jong Ill just love to be able to wipe out the capitol of South Korea with a precision guided missle?

      Shoot dude. Seoul is what, less than an hours drive by car to the DMZ? It's weird but the Korean peninsula is a pretty small place that can be traversed by plane from one side to the other in about 20 minutes flying at commercial speeds. As to US military desires, absolutely. There is a desire to be able to shut the GPS grid down or decrease it's accuracy significantly when needed. However, the countries we need to worry about with GPS guidance based systems are the big established ones. Smaller 3rd world countries do not typically have access to these munitions.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    205. Re:Unbelievable... by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      I kinda like Rummy though
      Well, he's interesting to watch when he talks to the press, no doubt. OTOH, my friend stationed in Iraq says that Rumsfeld's name is mud with the troops. Bear in mind that he was the brilliant person who forbade any speculation about a less than enthuiastic Iraqi civilian population, and also through serious bungling managed to let the Navy run out of Cruise missiles. Not that they didn't have other munitions, but considering that Cruise missiles are one of the major components of our military strength it was just plain dumb on his part. Bad planning all the way around.
      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    206. Re:Unbelievable... by gaijin99 · · Score: 1
      Flamebait? WTF? Someone comments that its idiocy on the part of the military to reduce accuracy of GPS-like systems and I point out that its cililian idiocy rather than military idiocy and I'm flamebait. Can I cite this modding the next time someone says Slashdot has a liberal bias?

      Sheesh....

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    207. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tactical jamming capabilities of the US military both by aircraft and otherwise are already so good that jamming the galileo system is virtually a certainty whether the signal is easy to jam or not. In fact the US Navy employes the EA-6B prowler EM-Spectrum jamming aircraft for just this purpose.

    208. Re:Unbelievable... by althalus1969 · · Score: 1

      tell you what, buddy... America is not a nation. It's been built upon genocide by the trash that Europe shipped over there. You people are still trash, and you show it in every way, be it actions or words. I'm fairly sick of American Trash trying to meddle with the way of the world. Go back under the stone where you and your buddies crawled from. And take your fascist military complex of which you are so proud with you.

    209. Re:Unbelievable... by Dick+Faze · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like if it was a truly independent system the US gov wouldn't figure out what frequency it was on and how to jam it anyway. Welcome to Earth.

      Besides, the US doesn't attack countries that use systems as sophisticated as GPS......

    210. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not see it this way:
      While the US is wasting $400.000.000.000 (this is the US military budget for 2004) every year on "security". We Europeans can spent money on more usefull issues like social security and healthcare etc. I for one do not want my tax money spent on the military and loose other benefits. Let the americans pay if they like it so much...

      Come to think of, do you people have ANY idea how much positive influence can be exerted by having so much money at your disposal? Peace could be created in the entire middle east and probably most of the world, by providing financial aid in education, health, food programs, etc.

      Poverty creates potential terrorists. And until the US (and our beloved friend Mr. Bush) realize that waging war generates poverty, we will unfortunately not have seen the end of it.

      The Greeks, the Romans, the Germans, and the Russians at some point realized - or where made to - that the world cannot be controlled by force.

    211. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Where and when has the USA undermined Democracy? Where do you people come up with this nonsense?!?!?!? Again, the USA reluctantly deals with these countrie as she does not invade every country it does not like.

      Your ignorance of basic history is staggering. You should consider going back to school.

      For just one of a *tremendous* number of examples check out the CIA toppling of the (democratically elected) government of Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company. The United States regularly supports tyrants over democratic leaders whenever their own geopolitical interests dictate it. The overall record shows a marked preference by the US for authoritarian regimes over democratic ones (ie, they are more liable to follow orders).

      Feh. I can't be bothered arguing with pinheads like you...

    212. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly sick of American Trash trying to meddle with the way of the world.
      But you love you some transistors, don't you?
      By the way, try not to sound so arrogant when accusing others of arrogance. I can see the bottom of your nose, so haughty is your stature.

    213. Re:Unbelievable... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Suggesting that someone who watches Fox News either (a) doesn't watch anything else or (b) is unable or unworthy of understanding "what's really going on" smacks of elitism and a certain kind of liberal closed-mindedness that preaches against that which it so ably demonstrates.

      Fascism is either a specific authoritarian government or, more generally, oppressive dictatorial control. If you think drugs should be legal (as I do), then you might think our government is fascist. However, "the government" is more than one issue, and on balance, it's clearly not: while the war on drugs is pathetic and well past its usefulness (if there ever was any), there are wildly varying drug laws in different states, and considering the vast numbers of middle class white kids who're smoking joints after school, one can hardly claim the federal government is oppressive (also, consider "the Drug war" was just as bad during the Clinton years, and well before Fox News came on the air).

      As for fundamentalism, while there are certainly those who would like to turn the U.S. into the some sort of theocracy, it's certainly not that now and won't be in the near future. While there are those who like to preach that we should go stomp on the heathens, it's hardly happening. We're no closer to killing a billion+ Muslims as we ever were.

      My guess is you're an angry white guy about 20 years old. I was there once, but trust me, it's not that bad. The glass if half full.

      (I do, btw, generally agree with you on your "god bless america" bit. Throw in all the stupid ballplayers who thank god for helping them win, etc...)

    214. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Suspension of Habeas Corpus, martial law,
      that sort of thing. Of course it is easily
      arguable that the document is already in a
      state of practical suspension.

      I was responding to the question
      'how many million casualties have we inflicted
      on the "enemy"?'

      > Price and ease-of-production have not been issues preventing their use for a long time.

      And for that reason there is means and
      opportunity. For motive, see above.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    215. Re:Unbelievable... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Eliminating D.C. would probably render the
      U.S. incapable of effective action.

      Flattening the middle east is a fantasy.
      No one could get enough people to obey their
      orders to accomplish such an obviously
      demonic aim. Certainly not POTUS.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    216. Re:Unbelievable... by corebreech · · Score: 1

      Suggesting that someone who watches Fox News either (a) doesn't watch anything else or (b) is unable or unworthy of understanding "what's really going on" smacks of elitism and a certain kind of liberal closed-mindedness that preaches against that which it so ably demonstrates.

      A recent example is where Fox News trumpets across the airwaves news that al Qaeda and Hussein were really linked after all. Of course, it isn't true, and their source (the U.S. military no less) concedes that the report isn't valid, but does Fox News retract the story? No sir.

      So now the nation is full of fucking retards who will swear up and down that Hussein was involved with 9/11, when in fact, it just isn't so.

      while the war on drugs is pathetic and well past its usefulness (if there ever was any), there are wildly varying drug laws in different states...

      That are overruled on demand by Washington.

      considering the vast numbers of middle class white kids who're smoking joints after school, one can hardly claim the federal government is oppressive...

      Over 1.5 million arrested every year, ~500,000 incarcered as we speak, millions more living today with the memory of being incarcerated, property confiscations in the tens of millions, and deaths ranging anywhere from a conservative 20,000,000 to as high as 300,000,000 (or more.)

      As for fundamentalism, while there are certainly those who would like to turn the U.S. into the some sort of theocracy, it's certainly not that now and won't be in the near future.

      Excuse me, but the war on drugs is based in large part on religious fundamentalism, but more to the point, so is our ongoing war on terrorism (Islam).

      We're no closer to killing a billion+ Muslims as we ever were.

      We are engaged in a war against Muslims, that causes an ever increasing number of Muslims to fight back, which causes our increasing the amount of force used, which causes their increasing the amount of force used, and so on. The only conceivable consequence of this conflict is that one side or the other is made to perish.

      It's hard to believe that this wasn't understood when we went into this war.

      My guess is you're an angry white guy about 20 years old.

      Anyone who bothers to look at the long, hard road that's been put before us because of Bush is either angry or blind. And what does my age have to do with anything?

    217. Re:Unbelievable... by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      Suspension of Habeas Corpus, martial law, that sort of thing.
      Martial law and suspension of writs of Habeas Corupus are provided for by the Constitution itself, so how is that a suspension of the Constitution?

      And for that reason there is means and opportunity. For motive, see above.
      There have been means, opportunity, and motive for years. What's kept terrorists from using WMD in the past? (I don't know, so I'm just asking for any opinions.)

    218. Re:Unbelievable... by GimmeZeroZero · · Score: 1

      "Huh? What ultra liberal book does this come from, Rogue States?"

      Lets see, high percentage of poverty, what's been done about that? Oh welfare cuts. Yep, real helpful. Any cuts in military spending.. no, increases actually. The US would be far better off putting even a fraction of its military spending into looking after its own population. Oh let me guess.. you also support the enormous amount of money being spent on the 'war against drugs'. As for the 'war on terrorism', well, that's a complete joke. And is doing more to undermine individual rights than anything else. Strange that the corporations are gaining ever increasing freedoms.. or maybe not if you look at where the campaign contributions are coming from.

      "Yeah, until he invaded Kuwait. The USA reluctantly supports a lot of countries because we are not Imperialists. If we were Imperialists, as the rest of the world so unintelligently says, we would simply invade every country on the earth we did not like."

      So tell me, why were the US even supporting him while he was busy butchering his own people and Kurds?
      And don't give me any crap like "the US wasn't aware".

      Foreign Aid!

      You're taking the piss right?
      Again maybe you should try looking at your military spending. Compared to that, the amount spent on foreign aid is piss small. Living conditions for the poor could be improved dramatically if your country wasn't so trigger happy.. or if it actually gave a damn in the first place.

      "Huh? Where and when has the USA undermined Democracy?

      The 2000 election might be an interesting place to look for a start.

      Where do you people come up with this nonsense?!?!?!? Again, the USA reluctantly deals with these countrie as she does not invade every country it does not like ."

      Reluctancy only seems to come into it once it becomes a PR issue.. odd, no?

      "Where does such nonsense come from? Is the latest Liberal story? I suppose the second Bush took office he said: "Let's attack Afghanistan!" Please."

      No, but do you honestly think the US would have attacked a country when they couldn't get a return on such an investment? Dream on.

      "I will not read something so full of such utter nonsense as Rogue States."

      Whether you agree or not is somewhat irrelevant. Your dismissal of information says a lot about you. I might have taken you more seriously had you actually read it.

      "Sure, now that Bush is president the USA is attacking everyone and does not car e about any other country, and the world would be in total peace if Bush would dissolve the USA military and get rid of all our nukes. Yep, the world would be in total peace. Sure."

      Hardly.

      "Why would you base your views off someone who is an admitted ultra liberal anymore than someone who is an ultra conservative?"

      My views are based on what I see going on and information available. Much of my criticisms can also be applied to most governments. Corruption is inherent in governments. It's just the US is in a much stronger position to leverage and abuse such power. You seem to believe the US is the "defender of all that is good and holy". It's not. How you could think your government is the exception is mystifying.

      "No kidding. I just do not get why people are so clueless as to how the world works and basic history. I suggest you start watching the news, read some history books, and get a clue."

      If watching the news is the only way you get yours then things are starting to make sense. But never mind, I'll let you back to your flag waving, there is bound to be some more violations of international law and killing of civilians soon enough.

    219. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suggesting that someone who watches Fox News either (a) doesn't watch anything else or (b) is unable or unworthy of understanding "what's really going on" smacks of elitism and a certain kind of liberal closed-mindedness that preaches against that which it so ably demonstrates.

      Anybody who relies solely on US news organizations gets a very distorted view of the world and is incapable of understanding "what's really going on". Go read some French, British, German, Israeli, Palestinian, and Japanese newspaper.

      Oh, but that requires being able to read and maybe even understand a foreign language. Oops, we lost most Americans right there.

    220. Re:Unbelievable... by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      The US has done the same for EU contries in the past.

      Yes, the US has, in many ways, become a mercenary force for the West. It is high time that Europe take responsibility for its own defense. Running its own GPS system under European control is a good start.

      Before any of you high and mighty Euros get on your high horse just rember that the UK considered attacking a US war ship and blaming it on the Germans to get the US into WWII.

      And you consider that some kind of recommendation for the US? Pretty much the only war in the 20th century where they US was completely justified in intervening, it knowingly accepted the internment and slaughter of millions before finally acting.

      Making it a fair fight???? Not on your freaking life.

      Yes, and all I'm saying is that Europe should take responsibility for its own defense, both in terms of expense and governance. Given that Europe has become a federation of more than twice as many people as the US, it is time that its political and military power reflect that.

    221. Re:Unbelievable... by tantrum · · Score: 1

      lol! Was Iraq a nice nation in the war iran-iraq (when the US supported Iraq)? Was Osama a nice guy when the american government trained him as an terrorist?

      Why didn't the us government like Alliende?

    222. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Actually, the CIA and Pakistani ISI provided training in subversive warfare to the Taliban, and lots more small arms. It was in the millions. Probably nothing like tanks, but Reagan did have Taliban people come and stay at the White House, he even compared them as freedom fighters to the "Founding Fathers."

    223. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1
      Easy. Do you want nuclear, biological, chemical, or just rockets? US corporations sold each kind to Iraq.


      The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program (mirror)

      Report: U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons

    224. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, the US may have made some mistakes once in a while, but they also KNEW they were supporting some really bad people too. They should be blamed for that.

      Everybody knew the Shah of Iran was a bad guy to support, but they supported him anyway. What about backing guerillas and terrorists in South America, overthrowing legitimate democracies and replacing them with military dictators?

    225. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, heard all that before.

      France said in their UN speeches that they are not opposed to fighting IF WMDs are found, but they said that it would be more prudent to let the inspectors uncover them first instead of just rushing into a military battle. "Some things can be better solved without force" I recall them saying.

      In hindsight, if the US didn't want to RUSH into war, there could have been some better ways to remove Saddam Hussein.

    226. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Can we stop calling them insurgents and something better?
      President Bush formally asked everyone to stop calling them "resistance fighters" and call them something less freedom-loving. That's stupid.

      I prefer to keep using 'resistance fighters.' Or something.

    227. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me tell you, from speaking to dozens of these so-called "islamofacists" as you refer to them, Bush is creating MORE of them. 9/11 was universally condemned by everyone everywhere, but they can't just sit idly by as Bush invades 2 countries and causes more than 7,000 civillian deaths in each. So far he's doubled the number of dead civillians in comparison to 9/11.

      If you want to end terrorism, stop perpetuating injustice in Muslim countries, be more even-handed in Israel/Palestine, and just let the Muslims live in peace! I swear, they'll leave us alone if we do.

    228. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Oh come off it, it's not a war against Islam. If Bush were fighting Islam, then he's lost. A country can't fight an entire world-wide religion and expect to come out of it OK.

      You are correct about the ever-increasing number of Muslims fighting back. Did anyone notice they didn't bother us until we bothered them?

    229. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, millions of innocent children died in Iraq over the past decade due to sanctions against Iraq. We have some accountability over that, which means that we let kids die. Civillians died, and I don't agree with you that "many more lives have been saved." We invaded under false pretenses, and the people of Iraq, who have to put up with problems created by the US daily, want us out. Thanks, but please don't stay.

    230. Re:Unbelievable... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The guys with the AK-47s will have a lot harder time finding things of significance to blow up if they can't use radios. Do you think they just wait around randomly beside roads hoping that a convoy will drive by before they run out of water? Obviously when a convoy leaves one town, somebody calls the next town down the road to tell them to get ready.

      Sure - it won't stop acts of desparation - but those were never all that big a threat in the first place. Also - people use terrorism to win public support. If nobody in Iraq has a working TV set they won't even know that people are busy blowing themselves up. They'll just do whatever the US commander on the scene tells them to do - since he's the only one who has some idea what is going on in the world at large.

      The threat of resistance fighters in Iraq isn't the troops they kill (really, there aren't that many, and who expected to get out of Iraq with only 20 bodies?). It is the threat that they could mobilize fanatic elements of the society at large and win converts.

    231. Re:Unbelievable... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1

      How the fuck was this modded as a Troll? That's the reason they jam signals, because it's not an obvious act of war like firing a rocket! FUCK, this system is broken!

      --
      evil adrian
    232. Re:Unbelievable... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      How does the USA fund terrorism? I hear this all the time yet fail to see any evidence?

      So, you've never heard of The School of the Americas, which has trained practically every South American terrorist group ever? Quote:

      Since 1946, the training center, often called the school of the assassins, has produced ten dictators and hundreds of others connected with human rights violations, drug trafficking and organized crime.

      OK, you maybe missed that one, but you must be aware of the Taliban being created by the US? The US being primary funding of Northern Ireland terrorism? Documented evidence about the CIA's terrorist/drugs links?

      Stick your head in the sand if you want...

      And how did the USA destroy the governments in the Middle East?

      Go and read some history

      The last time I checked there was a well known terrorist group in Northern Iraq that the USA uprooted. Ansar Al Islam, or some such nonsense.

      Yes, and said terrorist group was an enemy of Saddams, and he had tried to destroy them many times. What's your point? Every country has some sort of terrorist precence, government supported or not. Does that justify invasion?

      The USA does not tell you what religion to follow; you are free to follow any religion you like, including no religion at all. It is your choice.

      Any religion, provided it's Christianity. Have you ever listened to a Bush speach? Oh, and by the way, gimmie a shout when you get a president that isn't a white male Christian. Ain't ever gonna happen.

      Yeah, I would believe anything a Pakistani Diplomat says, especially since they are the ones who put the Taliban in power! Perhaps you should learn to not believe everything you read.

      It's well documented all over, but I can understand your sceptism.

      who have a jealousy of America so embedded into their little minds they fail to grasp the realities of the large world.

      People do not fly planes into buildings because of jealosy. Nor is it because of "hating freedom", as Bush puts it. If that were the case, the US wouldn't be the only target. Where are Europes Al Qaida's terrorist attacks? Where are Canadas? Where are Oz/NZ? And a dozen other countries that have a similar way of life to the US?

      Go and read some history.

      If there was no United States, the world would be a much worse place, care to argue that based on your in depth understanding of world history?

      Sure, but the same can be said for any superpower. Chaos theory means we'll never know.

      But when you are the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, you have a responsibilty to make the world into a better place. No country gives more foreign aid than America.

      No, no responsibity is there and none is taken. US "aid" isn't aid, it's loans. Big difference. These loans feck up the economy for years, and usually get squandered by corrupt officials in the first place.

      No country so readily commits the lives of their own Armed Forces to aid those oppressed peoples of the world.

      Provided there is profit to be had, then yes. If there is no profit, you can remain oppressed, and the US will happilly sell your dictator weapons.

      No country takes in as many immigrants as America does.

      That is so far from true it's unbelievable. Sure, the US is (admirally) built on imigration, but you have some of the strictest controls anywhere in the world now. European countries take in far more imigrants/refugees. It's a major political issue over here at the moment.

      Don't insult America by taking a moral high ground that you so clearly do not have.

      I never took a high-ground. I just pointed out that the US high-ground is a nationalistic delusion. Read some history please. The US doesn't always save the day, that's just Hollywood.

    233. Re:Unbelievable... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      I think the war on drugs is based more on socialist style high-minded types who want to protect us from ourselves than any specific religious fundamentalism. Hemp vs. wood corporate fights didn't help either. How do you explain the attacks on cigarette makers by the left? They're surely not religious fundamentalists, are they?

      I'd like to see where you get your numbers. I was with you until you said that the drug war has caused more deaths (300 million) than the total population of the U.S. I find that mighty hard to believe. It's a pathetic waste of resources and lives, but I believe the people are starting to understand that it's failed, and things are starting to look up (if you don't choose to see it that way, that's ok).

      Also, it's hard to cry fascism when the simplest solution is to simply confine your drug use to those that are legal (alcohol and nicotine appear to be quite popular these days). It's not as though they're jailing you for being green-skinned or for voting for Dean. And hell, you CAN still vote!

      To blame this particular president for any "long, hard road" is ignoring the realpolitik that dominates just about any powerful nation in the history of the world. Besides, who can say Gore would have done much differently, seeing as both parties seem to be intent on intrustive, ever-growing gov't?

      Finally, your obvious anger and use of terms like "fucking retards" to describe middle America marks you as one who is still idealistic / young. You'll find in another 10 years or so you'll have calmed down somewhat, even if you believe the same things you do now. Until then, you're reactionary nature will make decisions "easy" for you, and you'll keep getting mad at everyone else who doesn't agree with you.

    234. Re:Unbelievable... by onion2k · · Score: 1

      Don't like it? Invade.

      So we (I'm in the UK) have to invade America in order to have the freedom to produce a GPS system that rivals one you have? You arrogant fuckwit.

    235. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>And take your fascist military complex of which you are so proud with you.

      Doesn't it make you a hypocrite to use US products (IOS on Cisco routers... try taking a 'net hope without one) to enjoy the Internet on a US site while saying the US should burn in hell?

      What does it say about Europe if its "trash" has so much more power than the "elite?"

    236. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe the Taliban existed in 1988, though if you've got a good source, I'm all ears.

      The Mujahadeen, did, though.

    237. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you admitting Iraq had WMDs?

      Under UN Resolution 1443, wasn't it Iraq's job to prove they didn't have them? When did they do this?

    238. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Afghanistan : Again under President Reagan. The US supplied weapons, money & training to those fighting the Soviets. Amongst those that benefited were the Taliban & Osama Bin Laden.

      According to this:
      http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7615884 18/Tali ban.html

      The Taliban wasn't created until 1994. Dutch had been out of office for about five or six years.

    239. Re:Unbelievable... by pitdingo · · Score: 1

      This is some of the most laughable dribble I have ever read. No wonder the world is so f'd up. I was not even going to respond to your warped reality, but it is quite humourous reading your twisted reality. So what if some bad people went to the School of Americas. Should we close every Univeristy that has a graduate that broke the law? Your ultra liberal mind is a little imaginative in concluding we have trained "every South American terrorist ever." Where so you come up with this nonsense? The USA has military exchanges with China. What is your point? That massacre you point to was actually reported by an US Army Major. But we are so bad, right?

      The US being primary funding of Northern Ireland terrorism Huh!?!?!? I thought Britian was our ally? How does your fantasy have the USA funding the IRA? You do know what that stands for, right?
      Please spare me your here-say "evidence" about drug trafficing etc... Again no facts other than some liberal bullshit stories to discredit Bush, because this is all it is about, right?
      Any religion, provided it's Christianity You clearly have no understanding of America. The majority of Americans are white Christians. Tell me from your in depth understanding of American politics how many female, non-caucasions there are in elected government today? Again, you are living in fantasy land. In America we have a thing called checks and balances; the President is not a Dictator.

      Sure, but the same can be said for any superpower. Chaos theory means we'll never know At least you admit your point made no sense.

      Wow, i never knew all that food and economic assistance we give are loans. Why do they count against our national debt then? You have no idea about what you speak. Perhaps you are talking about Iraq? Yes, some, and I stress some, of the aid is loans, which will be paid back through oil sales.

      Provided there is profit to be had, then yes. If there is no profit, you can remain oppressed, and the US will happilly sell your dictator weapons I guess there is profit in Somolia? Yugoslavia? Lebannon? You bitch if we liberate oppressed people, and now you bitch when we do not. Which is it? What should we do?

      Sure, the US is (admirally) built on imigration, but you have some of the strictest controls anywhere in the world now Huh? Look at the Mexican border.

      Jealousy is a dangerous thing. I see it has the best of you. This discussion is over.

    240. Re:Unbelievable... by eleusis25 · · Score: 1

      lol

      Mess in SE Asia? /me points to the US meddling in various democratic countries during the Cold War.

      Restriction of airspace?
      So what, it's their own damn airspace.

      Big oil deals?
      Well, yes, indeed... doesn't the US manipulate global political events to protect its own economic interests?

      Nuclear reactor in Iraq? /me recalls seeing footage of good ole Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein back in the 80's, when Iraq was fighting Iran...

      As for the French supplying weapons to Iraq... I have to say I haven't heard of this bit of news before. :P What I *have* heard of, is Korean missiles being shipped to the Gulf region...

    241. Re:Unbelievable... by CXI · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why I should waste my time on the likes of you, but for just for the fun of it, lets go over a few things. First let's make sure you actually understand what we are talking about:

      socialism n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]

      Also, a market economy is generally, but I admit not always, the opposite of a socialist economy.

      Second, let's look at your "examples" of thriving socialist economies (quotes from the CIA fact book):

      - Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits... Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output...

      - Denmark: This thoroughly modern market economy features high-tech agriculture, up-to-date small-scale and corporate industry

      - The UK, a leading trading power and financial center, is one of the quartet of trillion dollar economies of Western Europe. Over the past two decades the government has greatly reduced public ownership and contained the growth of social welfare programs.

      - Australia has a prosperous Western-style capitalist economy, with a per capita GDP on par with the four dominant West European economies. Rising output in the domestic economy has been offsetting the global slump, and business and consumer confidence remains robust. Australia's emphasis on reforms is another key factor behind the economy's strength.

      - Canada: As an affluent, high-tech industrial society, Canada today closely resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and high living standards. Since World War II, the impressive growth of the manufacturing, mining, and service sectors has transformed the nation from a largely rural economy into one primarily industrial and urban.

      - Switzerland is a prosperous and stable modern market economy with low unemployment, a highly skilled labor force, and a per capita GDP larger than that of the big western European economies.

      - Germany: Structural rigidities in the labor market - including strict regulations on laying off workers and the setting of wages on a national basis - have made unemployment a chronic problem... Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could allow Germany to meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization, particularly if labor market rigidities are addressed.

      - France is in the midst of transition, from a well-to-do modern economy that featured extensive government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market mechanisms. The Socialist-led government has partially or fully privatized many large companies, banks, and insurers... France's leaders remain committed to a capitalism... At the end of 2002 the government was focusing on the problems of the high cost of labor and labor market inflexibility resulting from the 35-hour workweek and restrictions on lay-offs. The government was also pushing for pension reforms and simplification of administrative procedures. The tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe.

      So, let's review. Almost all the nations you listed are switching or have already switched from socialist economies to those more aligned with capitalism. I fail to see a single shining example listed that is propering due to socialist ideals. In fact, Germany and France appear to have significant problems due to socialist labor policies and are trying to do away with them (the same problem with unions in this country, which are also a bad idea in this day and age).

      BTW, I love the grown-up comment. Your failure to provide even a single correct example to prove your point makes it all the more ironic. I fear I have wasted my time on a troll.

    242. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not admitting that Iraq had WMDs. Plenty of the ones I mentioned were wiped out after the first Gulf War. The weapons inspectors didn't just find them, they destroyed them. Moveon.org(I think) had a photo showing them bulldozing missiles. The other weapons were allowed, like those missiles that didn't go very far, AFAIK.

    243. Re:Unbelievable... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      So what if some bad people went to the School of Americas. Should we close every Univeristy that has a graduate that broke the law?

      Hmm. From this site (found via google).

      The training manuals used at SOA gave specific instructions in how to hold prisoners in clandestine jails and to use threats of force on them, how to "neutralize" political opponents, how to infiltrate and spy upon civilian organizations and opposition political parties, and other human-rights abuses. This was sort of admitted by the US Army in September 20, 1996, when the manuals were declassified and publicly released, and confirmed by the Pentagon's Inspector General in a report on February 21, 1997. Earlier, things had gotten so bad in El Salvador that the United Nations established a "Truth Commission" to investigate. Among the details, it reported on March 15, 1993 that 74% of the military officers it found to have participated in rape, assassinations, murder, torture, and massacres during El Salvador's "dirty war" were SOA graduates.

      I've actually seen these declassified training manuals, you can find them on the web. Lessons in kiddnapping, guerilla warfare, terrorism and extortion. Hardly a sylibus to be proud of!!

      I thought Britian was our ally? How does your fantasy have the USA funding the IRA? You do know what that stands for, right?

      Most of the IRAs funding comes from donations from the US. Covered here. I live in the UK, have done all my life. I am more than familiar with the troubles.

      Please spare me your here-say "evidence" about drug trafficing etc... Again no facts other than some liberal bullshit stories to discredit Bush, because this is all it is about, right?

      Hey, I'm not an expert in this. But it is a commonly held belief that the CIA has had links to drug smuggling in the past. And I never mentioned Bush. The question is, was it official CIA policy, or just agents doing it on the side. And is it still on-going?

      Tell me from your in depth understanding of American politics how many female, non-caucasions there are in elected government today? Again, you are living in fantasy land.

      Woopie do. Gimmie a shout when one gets the top job, or even VP. It's not a problem with your system of politics, more with the media. We're not any better here in the UK. Our countries are both led by very strong believers in Christianity, and we have a history of this. Given the number of times we both hear our leaders say "god" in a speach, I'd say that it was a pretty important factor in our governments actions.

      Wow, i never knew all that food and economic assistance we give are loans.

      I've had this argument before on /. I was presented with official government figures on a US gov. website as someone pointing out how much aid was given by the US. Most of it was loans. I never bookmarked it, and student grants seem to be getting in the way when googling, so I couldn't find a link. IIRC, the majority of the aid was in the form of loans. Countries have been lending each other money for hundreds of years, it's nothing new.

      There is always the neat site, NationMaster. Here are the top 100 international aid per capita and total.

      We all donate international aid. Don't put yourself up on some prize-winning podium though. You can't excuse recent indiscressions by pointing out something that we all do anyway.

      That's my issue with Americans. Other than that, you are great guys. You get brought up in a very patriotic environment that is now harming your country, due to the inability to view things objectively. In your minds (obviously generalising here), you will always be the hero coming to s

    244. Re:Unbelievable... by BigBadDude · · Score: 1


      I think you know jack shit about the subject you are talking about :)

    245. Re:Unbelievable... by corebreech · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see where you get your numbers. I was with you until you said that the drug war has caused more deaths (300 million) than the total population of the U.S.

      I said 300,000,000 was a possible number. There's the open question of how many have died because they were denied the medical care of their choosing. Then there are all those who may have died because research was banned. How many AIDS deaths are to be attributed to our denying addicts clean needles? How many are to come? Then add overdoses, most of which wouldn't have happened if we regulated the manufacture of drugs and required proper dosage information. And then there's my answer to your next comment...

      Also, it's hard to cry fascism when the simplest solution is to simply confine your drug use to those that are legal (alcohol and nicotine appear to be quite popular these days).

      You miss the point though. Our drug policy promotes the use of the most deadly and addictive recreational drugs, alcohol and tobacco, while using violence to punish those who would use the safest of recreational drugs, even if such use is only for medicinal purposes.

      And we've been pursuing this policy for decades now, all while knowing that the drugs we promote are the most addictive and the most deadly and that the consequence of this policy is many, many people dying.

      And not only do we pursue the policy for ourselves, we use our military and economic might to force other countries to adopt the very same policy.

      It's very easy to cry fascism here. And the death toll is simply nothing less than shocking.

      Finally, your obvious anger and use of terms like "fucking retards" to describe middle America marks you as one who is still idealistic / young.

      You're a condenscending piece of shit, but that's OK, you're exactly where you should be, and your future is exactly what you deserve. To take offense at a term like fucking retard amidst all of the atrocities we commit is repugnant and repulsive and I can only observe that the silver lining to all of this is that, in the end, rat fucks like you take it hard in the teeth.

      Shove off, monkey.

    246. Re:Unbelievable... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1
      Well we can all pick the defination of Socialism we prefer, in fact -

      [Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

      Capitalism and socialism are not digital - the presence of one does not forbid the presence of the other. All the countries I mentioned still have extensive social welfare systems.

    247. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Ah...Moveon.org... now there is a great source of non-biased information.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    248. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      The above links do not contain any information about weapon systems that have been sold to Iraq. The first link just lists a story that quotes a the leftist German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, reporting of a list of companies from several nations that supplied equipment to Iraq. Assuming this information is accurate, I am sure that most if not all of this equipment was dual-use, the US government and the companies themselves may have been lied to or deceived as to the purpose of the equipment. Even the germs were dual-use in that the second article says that they were sold as vaccines.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    249. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1
      What's the problem with Moveon.org? Why, just because you don't agree with them? I don't exactly see them as liberal and they don't really take a stance on any end per se, they try to stay more in the middle. Not anti-war, but not pro-war either. Why, do you want all Americans to be on the far ends of the spectrum?
      "MoveOn has been tagged in mainstream media as a liberal activist group, when in fact the positions they've articulated have tended to fall more in the center," says Jonah Seiger, a visiting fellow with the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "Their birth was a moderate position on the Clinton impeachment -- censure the president and move on. It wasn't 'This is all bullshit and we shouldn't do anything,' and it wasn't 'Let's tar and feather him.' Their position on the war was also a middle-of-the-road position -- give inspectors time. It wasn't 'Let's not be there,' and it wasn't 'Let's go right to war.'"
    250. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1
      The story was reported in Independent (London) Financial Times, theGuardian (London), and the Associated Press (the only US news outlet to touch the story, albeit in an unrevealing article), so if they stake their credibility on it, I'm inclined to believe it. The corporations named didn't deny their involvement, and refused to comment. The Guardian indicates that the listing came from UN documents, specifically that 12,000 page declaration by Iraq on how, where, and when they got their purported 'weapons' and stuff. They were allowed to have weapons, just not WMDs, apparently. (Speaking of which, why did the US administration get so angry when Iraq cooperated like that? It slowed down their excuses for war?)


      Let me remind you about the shady deal involving Bechtel (one of the mentioned corporations) and Iraq. In November 1983, Secretary of State (and former Bechtel president) George Schultz received an intelligence report describing Saddam Hussein's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons. He took no action. In December 1983, Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld was sent to meet with Saddam. They discussed a possible oil pipeline from Iraq to Jordan, to be constructed by Bechtel. Have you ever seen that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? That's when they met.


      The US. eventually condemned Iraq's use of WMDs, but the Pipeline talks continued until 1985, when the deal fell apart, reportedly because Saddam felt that Bechtel was overpricing the job. However, Bechtel managed to secure a contract with Saddam in 1988, to build a Chemical plane outside of Baghdad. Did nobody suspect that it could be used for evil, or was money more important? Anyway, the construction was halted after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.


      Now, in 2003, Rumsfeld is secretary of Defense, Saddam is gone, and George Schultz is a board member of Bechtel- which has just been awarded in April 2003 a $680 Million Iraq reconstruction contract! Stuff like this is why people hate corporations.

    251. Re:Unbelievable... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      You've got to be kidding... here are the stories on the their site today:

      -"Uncovered: The whole truth about the Iraq War"

      -"Bush in 30 seconds." (A contest to make an anti-Bush ad that will be judged by Michael Moore, Donna Brazile, Jack Black, Janeane Garofalo, Margaret Cho and Gus Van Sant... all extreme right winger's, right?)

      -"Fire Rumsfield and Change Course"

      -"Investigate the White House"

      You are right.. this site is not liberally biased. It is fanatically anti-Bush. To say that it is only biased would be like saying you smoked pot but didn't inhale.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    252. Re:Unbelievable... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Aww, I disagree with you so you call me names. Another mark of an angry child. Good going, well done, way to get anyone to take you seriously.

      I'd try to explain further, but it's quite obvious that your maturity level isn't quite up to snuff.

      Of course, there is always an option for you: feel free to take your whiny ass out of the country, we won't miss you.

      Oooo, "shove off monkey", that took some smarts. I also rather liked your misspelling of "condenscending" (sic) and your inability to handle some honest debate. As for your "take it hard in the teeth" nonsense, all I can say is, bring it, boy.

    253. Re:Unbelievable... by corebreech · · Score: 1

      Calling me immature wasn't calling me names?

      What's next? I'm rubber, you're glue?

      As for begging me to bring it, retard, you really should think that one over. Each day spent under this regime gives me (and many others) that much less to lose.

      Kill millions, hey, where's the proof. But use the f-word? Oooo, that's just wrong! lol

    254. Re:Unbelievable... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      You're still doing your math the wrong way round:
      If the US can get the dollar to equal or just below the euro, then why spend 1,000,000EUR when you can spend $928,000?
      If you want to spend 1,000,000 EUR and all you have is USD then you'll have to put 1,200,000 USD on the table.

      This is a good thing for the US 'cos it increases the price of imports from the EU, so reducing the amount of EU goods bought by US consumers, and it reduces the prices of US goods for EU consumers, 'cos we have those more valuable euros.

      So the US should import less and export more. Some people think this is a good thing.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    255. Re:Unbelievable... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      No, calling you immature is being proven by each increasingly raving response. "Retard", on the other hand, adds no value at all...

      I am impressed, though. Apparently a little debate and conversation is enough to throw you into a frenzy. You must be terribly oppressed. Down with the man.

      Please, I'm begging you. Go live anywhere in South America, Africa, or China right now and then come back and call our government a "regime" (a word with negative connotation for you anti-Bush types). Granted, there are numerous nations where you'd be perfectly happy (and might not even call their gov'ts "regimes"). Feel free to go to any of those, instead.

      By the way, if you look back over this conversation (which I suppose should end until you grow up), you'll note I never said there was anything wrong with saying "fuck". I was merely pointing out that your using it to try to make a point marked you as immature, and effectively obscured whatever point it was that you were trying to make.

      Next time you want to make a point, make sure you have some kind of proof and can argue your side without resorting to name-calling. I'd be happy to continue to school you on effective communication skills, but the discussion thus far leads me to believe it would be comparatively pointless.

    256. Re:Unbelievable... by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that still makes my point...
      Why would you spend 1,200,000 USD on something that costs 1,000,000 EU when you could spend 928,000 USD (92.8 American pennies on the euro)? That's not backwards math. Everyone seems to be missing the really basic premise of all of this. You aren't going to spend more money at place A, if you can get it cheaper at place B. And if place A is the only supplier, then you are going to spend what you have, and receive less product. Layman's terms: You have $10. You need gas. Station A has it at $1 per gallon, Station B has is at $1.15. Where are you going to go? Now let's say the town you live in only has one gas station with the particular gas you need (let's say you drive a VW and you need diesel). They charge $1.22 a gallon for diesel, but you only have $10! Looks like you're only getting 8.2 gallons of fuel.

      How does that effect the US? Well it increases dependency on us in two ways: we become the cheaper supplier, and we make it expensive to do business with the euro. So while, ya...we might end up importing less and exporting more, but what this is really about is the US becoming the "go-to" country. That puts the US in a position to manipulate those that have any kind of reliance on us for something, from oil to ...hell, diapers.

      What they did in Iraq was basically take control of their oil sales, but not necessarily so that we can have cheaper oil for the US (we get the majority of our oil from South America), we made sure that the currency that Iraq dealt with was primarily the USD. Since late 2000, Iraq was accepting the euro for oil (the first OPEC nation to do so). That was causing Iran (the second largest OPEC producer) to consider the same. The US's "invasion" may have been partly, or even mostly, to force the Iraq sellers to drop the euro and use only the USD.
      Economic leverage. It all comes down to that.

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    257. Re:Unbelievable... by keriaan · · Score: 1

      Ummm, no. Canada "gives the USA the finger" then due to health concerns the USA stops importing Canadian beef, and then (perhaps due to the finger incident?) the USA takes it's time allowing beef exports back in.

      And no, I wouldn't expect the USA to be motivated to quickly resolve it's current issues (trade or otherwise) with Canada. My post was responding to the parent post and gave an example of why a country might "give in and do this." If billions of dollars are at stake you might just decide to bend over and take it once in awhile rather than show a little independance and suffer the consequences. To use your restaurant example . . . Mr. Independant Country usually DOES AVOID provoking waiter USA precisely because he wants prompt service and doesn't want any spit in his soup.

    258. Re:Unbelievable... by corebreech · · Score: 1

      You can't deal with the substance, so you resort to capricious criticism of the presentation.

      Maybe it's time to find another typo.

      BTW, you could add up all the atrocities committed by the nations you've listed, and you wouldn't come close to achieving what America has, and if you're too stupid to see that, it isn't my problem. At least not anymore.

      Eat shit and die.

    259. Re:Unbelievable... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Wow, "eat shit and die", what a great criticism. And ooooo ahhh, I'm a Freak. That makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

      See, the whole problem with your presentation is that there WAS NO SUBSTANCE.

      Now, I will attack the point of your previous post. First, last time I checked, "South America", "Africa", and "Asia" are not nations. As for your assertion that we are worse than all of them, I can give you a few quick names: General Lansana Conte, Pol Pot, Alfredo Stroessner, or pick anyone from North Korea. It's really pathetic to think the U.S. is worse than any of those three, and yet another indication of your rather narrow world view.

      But let's go back to the beginning: You claim we're run by a fascist, fundamentalist regime. The trouble with such raving fantasies is that you might as well be claiming we're all created by aliens in test tubes: It's simply not true.

      Man, I really love that "eat shit and die" nonsense, as if you can't accept that someone might have a world view less radical than yours.

      Please, keep replying, I'm enjoying pushing your buttons far too much to stop now.

    260. Re:Unbelievable... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      I see it's leaning a bit to the left, but it's a far cry from being left-wing. They claim it's the "silent majority of Americans" who quietly oppose war. I can show you much better left-wing sites, this thing makes me yawn in comparison, they're not alienating the right like the left usually does. They're not even at Salon.com standards.

      After checking those articles whose headlines you copied, I wouldn't call it "fanatically anti-Bush." (Why, you feeling threatened?) It does oppose people whom Bush appointed, and the only sign that it's going after Bush himself is the commercial, and even then, if you read it, it's criticizing Bush's foreign policy, not anything else about him. Besides, are you going to tell me that Jack Black and Margaret Cho are all left-wingers?

    261. Re:Unbelievable... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Azghoul, you are my new hero.

      Good to see somebody here can actually debate properly without resorting to insults or fallacies.

      Thanks for taking out the trash for the rest of us reasonable folks.

    262. Re:Unbelievable... by corebreech · · Score: 1

      Retard, "eat shit and die" isn't a criticism, it's a request.

      It's also a hint. I don't want to talk to you.

      Why?

      Because you're a shit-eating retard! Leave me alone! Go play with all the other retards!

      Bye bye!

    263. Re:Unbelievable... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      Oh god, please save me from the innumerate.

      Look, 1.00 EUR == 1.20 USD.

      If you have something priced at 1,000,000 EUR you will have to spend 1,200,000 USD to buy it.

      If you have something priced at 1,000,000 USD then you will have to spend 1,000,000 USD to buy it and I can spend 833,333 EUR to buy the same thing.

      Where on earth you get the 928,000 USD figure from I cannot imagine.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    264. Re:Unbelievable... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Hey, I didn't expect to see another comment in here. Thanks. :) I do, of course, make the occasional argument based on a mistaken notion or incorrect fact, but I also like to admit it when I finally figure out the facts...

      I'm enjoying picking on this guy, though, so I might have to toss one more in there.

    265. Re:Unbelievable... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess any reasonable person looking at this debate would have to agree you've shown pretty poorly. Keep trying though, another few years of practice and you'll be up with the rest of us.

      By the way, if you don't want to talk to me, STOP RESPONDING! :) It's pretty simple, really.

    266. Re:Unbelievable... by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't read none too good... forget it, you're a loss.

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    267. Re:Unbelievable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meta-Modded as unfair.

      Have Faith.

  4. The Register has article in English... by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here

    John.

    1. Re:The Register has article in English... by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Oh, so Galileo isn't actually "in the wanken"? I was wondering if that was righty or lefty wanken, and, indeed, why they had even installed wanken capabilities in the first place.

  5. What can I say... by WetCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Use GLONASS instead...
    Or a combination of GLONASS & GPS

  6. Life sucks, wear a helmet. by FatSean · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Everything should be 'fair' huh? Christ....

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Life sucks, wear a helmet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      who cares about fair, the rest of the world needs to grow some balls so they can bitch slap us americans when our government does stupid shit instead of going along mindlessly like little children

    2. Re:Life sucks, wear a helmet. by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

      why slap us americans? why not slap the government..

      I dont see the masses here saying "Hey politicians! please force europe to let you jam their technologies!"

      we're already getting bitch slapped by the corporations and the government combined... last thing we need is crap from another country..

      I'm tired of going into chatrooms and getting flamed over something president bush did as if I had personally given him the order
      these people forget that it's not by the people and for the people over here anymore.

    3. Re:Life sucks, wear a helmet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, who do you think is to blame for your goverment? I thought about 50% of the US population voted for this new Hitler. I don't see many anti-bush protests in the US. I do see 'em at every occasion in Europe.

    4. Re:Life sucks, wear a helmet. by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      There are anti-bush protests about every single day in our major cities. Bush is also protested at about every event he goes to as well... Search a news site, search google, hell... search slashdot... There are plenty of Americans who don't want Bush as our president.

      Of course, most of the people in those protests seem to be about as dumb and blind as you apparently are... Then again, that's just a personal opinion.

  7. Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... by buffy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...
    Since one of Galileo's main advantages had been being independent of goverment or military control, this is a severe setback.
    ...

    I think the US Gov't & Military (and her allies, too, probably) consider this a great advancement of their goals. So...I guess it all depends on your point-of-view! ;)

    -buf

  8. Big shame by sosume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do I still pay taxes? I could as well pay directly to the US Government since they control our defense. Bah. Shame on the EU for letting the US walk straight over them!!!! .. what if the US get caught by a coup d'etat? Not as unlikely as many think.. they will immediately control the EU as well.

    A dark day for Europe, this is.

    1. Re:Big shame by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "what if the US get caught by a coup d'etat?"

      You mean they haven't? Quite a few people I know, including several Americans, view Bush's presidency as nothing more than an illegal coup.

    2. Re:Big shame by Nostrada · · Score: 1

      Uh, when you look at the last election in the US you wonder if they HAD already a coup d'etat. At least Michael Moore thinks so. (Stupid White Man)

      --
      Cheers, Nostrada
    3. Re:Big shame by fenix+down · · Score: 0

      That's nice.

    4. Re:Big shame by Performer+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sigh, nobody has walked over anyone. Geeze keep your hair on. You don't even know the facts beyone some rant on /. typical, get all hot & bothered over propaganda.

    5. Re:Big shame by sosume · · Score: 1

      The question was indeed rhetorical :(

    6. Re:Big shame by aliens · · Score: 1

      Coup d'etat? You mean like when JFK was removed?

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    7. Re:Big shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing quite a few more don't think it's illegal.

    8. Re:Big shame by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Why do I still pay taxes? I could as well pay directly to the US Government since they control our defense.

      Well....you could pony up and pay for your own defense, instead of depending on the US to provide massive amounts of troops and equipment to assist you.

    9. Re:Big shame by mortonda · · Score: 1
      Actually the nature of US politics creates a coup every 4 years or so. Just think what we would be capable of if we kept the same government for 20 years or more!

      Just think of US politics as a honeypot and tarpit. Then it all starts to make sense...

    10. Re:Big shame by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I fully agree with you. It's time the U.S. stopped providing a defense for Europe. I wish our government would pull our troops out of Europe, and close down our military bases there. I think it's time for Europe to invest in their own defense, instead of relying on the U.S. to do it for them.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:Big shame by isa-kuruption · · Score: 1

      Yeah and when the US planned to move an Air Force base from Germany to Poland, the locals were upset. They'd lose 50,000 well paying jobs that support the meer 15,000 US troops stationed in the area. And with Germany's economy in the shitter already, this wouldn't have helped! This has forced Germany to BEG to the US to keep the base there!

    12. Re:Big shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How this can be an illegal coup if the matter was decided by US supreme court ?
      You might not agree with the decision but this sort of ruling was exactly what was supposed to happen in a situation like this.
      You are simply bitter that your side lost ....

    13. Re:Big shame by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But when you look at Micheal Moore, you wonder if he could find his own ass in an outhouse with both hands. The 'Stupic White Man' label is ironically appropriate ...

    14. Re:Big shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the angst-ridden rantings about geopolitics, but please go back to making that yummie chocolate, or beer, or wine, or cheese, or whatever it is you the quaint little people in whatever European country you're from are so *good* at!

      Or making sculptures that are the pride of your country that have water coming out of a little boy's weiner. That one gets me every time! You folks sure have us beat on culture, that's for sure!

      PS: Glad that you're all learning to speak English so well; it really makes the tourism experience a lot easier for us!

    15. Re:Big shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously think the US would let Europe build up its defenses and force the US out. The US is in Europe for the simple reason that it wants and needs to be there from a strategic point of view, not because Europe wants it there.

    16. Re:Big shame by halo8 · · Score: 1

      Voltaire once said:

      "The Most Ideal Form of goverment is Democracy tempered with assasination"

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    17. Re:Big shame by ultrasound · · Score: 1

      Pretty powerful?

      Do you mean they have tanks, artillery, air-force, WMDs, NSA, CIA , FBI, _TIA_ like the force they would be opposing?

      If there was a coup you would be fscked. All the rednecks in the world with all their 'heavy' weaponry wouldn't be able to do dick. Although one could argue that the David vs Goliath attacks occurring in Iraq are a demonstration that such a defence is possible, but the only way that David can win is if Goliath has to withdraw because he cant win without flattening the whole country.

      Not deliberately flamebaiting, but your freedom to bear arms etc. as defence against tyranny are purely illusory.

    18. Re:Big shame by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      You think that the entire US government would support the coup? At LEAST half of the active duty forces would desert (taking their weapons with them). I'd guess most of the reserves/guard would too. Between that and an armed citizenship (they might not have the best toys, but they outnumber the military forces better than 100 to 1), coups don't have much chance. Europeans have a better chance of a coup occuring. Add in that the moment that occurs that all weapon laws are out the window, and those attempting the coup would be in deep trouble.

      Tanks, artillery, air force are all only efficient against massed targets. They'll all eventually run out of ammo/fuel if they can't get resupply.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:Big shame by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Yes, the US wants and needs to be there. Europe also wants the US there, to allow funds to be spent on other things.

    20. Re:Big shame by argStyopa · · Score: 1
      I could as well pay directly to the US Government since they control our defense.


      You're RIGHT - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? I've been paying for YOUR defense for the last 50 years and all I've gotten out of it is:
      a) some good chocolate
      b) some pretty good cars
      c) decent beer
      d) constant whinging about everything
      e) all of the above.

      Bah indeed.
      --
      -Styopa
    21. Re:Big shame by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How this can be an illegal coup if the matter was decided by US supreme court ?
      You might not agree with the decision but this sort of ruling was exactly what was supposed to happen in a situation like this. You are simply bitter that your side lost....

      I normally don't respond to AC's, just because 99% of the AC posts are trolls, but your post was free of spelling and grammatical errors, and appeared to be making an attempt at legitimate discourse. (Which I applaud! I wish more AC's would say something useful...)

      My objection is to the Republican party spin on Florida that has become the pervasive opinion of conservatives all over this country who still deny that the 2000 election was stolen/rigged/electioneered. I certainly agree, coup is the wrong term. However, there was a very serious crime committed: election fraud. A fraud so chilling and devious that the election (in Florida) was decided long before it even started.

      And I'm not talking about disqualifying the "hanging chad" ballots, or the Supreme Court's ruling that the equal protection clause only counts if you're educated and white. In fact, their ruling on the matter would not have been sought were it not for the intentional, illegal actions of a few people in the Florida state government that wrongly disqualified about 50,000 voters.

      Among those illegally disenfracnhised, a vast majority (90% or more) were blacks and hispanics, two groups that (among those who actually were permitted to cast ballots) voted overwhelmingly (85%) for Gore in the 2000 election.

      Without this massive fraud perpetrated by Katherine Harris and her buddies at the private firm she hired to "purge" the voter rolls, there would not have been any need for the Supreme Court to rule at all, because the totals wouldn't have been close enough to waste time re-counting. You do the math: 50,000 total citizens systematically stripped of their rights for no reason, approximately 40,000 of whom most likely would have voted for Gore. If only 1/10 of them actually went to the polls, it would STILL have been a Gore win by a couple thousand votes.

      This information can all be independently verified, if you're so inclined. (In fact, I insist you do so, since I would do the same if you offerred such damning evidence going the other way.) You could also read the official civil rights commissions report on the subject that says the same thing. (Albeit in drier, more technical language.) Here's a link to the executive summary as printed in the Washington Post.

      Sadly, many Republicans would prefer to put their fingers in their ears rather than hear the ugly, well-documented truth: The course of democracy was perverted, resulting in a Bush presidency. Whether that perversion is the result of intentional institutional incompetence or the misdeeds of a small group is irrelevant...The outcome is the same either way: An engineered win for the republican party.
      --
      Who did what now?
    22. Re:Big shame by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Although that does sound great on the surface, I don't think it's completely the best idea- even though Europe has been getting it's security for free from us for sixty years, to the point where they've become decadent and have come to believe that their style of peace is the natural order of things.

      Anyhow, we put troops in Europe after WW2 to make sure that anytime some country felt like taking over another, they'd probably have to kill a bunch of US soldiers, taking the United States into the war. Because our power proved to be decisive in WW1 and 2 (I'm NOT saying we did all the fighting, just that we sealed the deal!), this isn't something done lightly.

      Basically, the idea was to keep us out of future wars by making the potential price of future wars too costly for aggressors.

      If another huge war did start over there, we couldn't remain neutral, we'd have to act. So we might as well prevent the wars.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    23. Re:Big shame by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      How this can be an illegal coup if the matter was decided by US supreme court ?
      You might not agree with the decision but this sort of ruling was exactly what was supposed to happen in a situation like this.
      You are simply bitter that your side lost ....


      Given that I'm British I hardly think "your side lost" applies.. But there are plenty of reasons to call the 2000 election illegal, and a coup - you just never hear about any of it on the mainstream media (in the US or UK). Check out the composition of the Supreme court during the election, and who was working for Bush at the time. You'll find some interesting ties that suggest far from impartial decision making was going on.

      Or you could just stick your head in the sand and pretend eveything is fine like a good passive citizen.

  9. This is a good thing by shed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure this sounds like flame bait, but as someone has already pointed out the article itself constitutes a tasty treat for the consumption of flame.

    The question here is why would you not want the military to be able to jam a GPS system? I'd like to see some cogent thought in that direction, rather than froth and hand wringing without substantiation.

    Let me give one positive example. North Korea launches a galileo guided missle toward new york. The US military disables it. Any others?

    --
    My cat can eat a whole watermelon
    1. Re:This is a good thing by TheDredd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any others?

      Sure the US jams Galileo because, some European company using Galileo competes with some US company using GPS

    2. Re:This is a good thing by DjReagan · · Score: 1

      The more accurate question is "why would you not want a *foreign* military to be able to jam a GPS system?"

      Its all good and well assuming the EU and USA have similar goals and direction. But that is not always going to happen. There will be times in the future when Europe and America don't see eye to eye on things, and then the EU will be regretting decisions like this, and America will be laughing its head off.

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    3. Re:This is a good thing by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Your argument is easily extended to allowing the military complete control over any and all aspects of life. Care to provide anything a bit more substantial?

      I'll give you a start: North Korea launches an inertially guided missile toward New York.

      I'll take a step farther and provide a realistic answer to your flaimbait: The "jamming" they're talking about doesn't effect 1 reciever. It affects an entire area, or, in the case of GPS, it affects the entire system. There's a real use for an accurate positioning system that can't be disabled on a whim - this is a real issue in the US. People want to use GPS for accurate positioning, but you can't rely on it. There was a great deal of concern during the invaision of Afghanistan (and again during the invasion of Iraq) over this, because there were systems in place that relied on accurate GPS (although they shouldn't) and they would fail if it was disabled. A civilian positioning sytem outside of military control wouldn't have this drawback.

    4. Re:This is a good thing by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, remove the countries from the equation if you don't want the above to be considered flamebait.

      The entire point of a country having Nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrent against invasion or attack. If country A knows country B's WMD are blockable, country A will have less of an issue invading country B.

      The argument for Nuclear weapons is, and has been since the 1950s, that they'll never be need to be used. Any country that ever uses them will be performing its last act on Earth.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:This is a good thing by BorgDrone · · Score: 1

      There's no problem with (partly) shutting down the system if required.

      The point is, we pay for it, so we should have the finger on the shutdown button, not the US.

    6. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, the US is still screwed. This seems equivalent to shooting down the missile. The missile is basically locked into its trajectory (somewhat) after something like 2 minutes (after the main burn) due to conservation of momentum.

      So, Korea just programs the missile to coast if it loses GPS. It might not have the detailed targeting, but it will still hit the US.

    7. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automated farming equipment that uses Galileo suddenly finds the signal jammed, which results in millions of dollars in lost productivity.

    8. Re:This is a good thing by Molt · · Score: 1

      The question should really be 'Why should you build a GPS system with the express design that a foreign military can jam it?'.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    9. Re:This is a good thing by morcego · · Score: 1

      How about the USA lauching a GPS guided missile toward North Korea ? How about China lauching a missile toward North Korea ? Who will the all mighty USA side with ?

      It's very well and good to look just to your own backyard, but the world is not USA. There are things outside, if you care to take a look.

      We are no talking about USA jamming Galileo signal on USA territory. This is about USA being able to jam it ANYWERE.

      Again: if the USA were going to be able to jam (or block) the Galileo signal on USA territory, then you can say it is a security measure, and a good(?) thing. But who gave USA rights to control signals on other countries ?

      Please, grow up, and look outside your window.

      --
      morcego
    10. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bit one sided though isn't it, or are you going to give the 'keys' to gps to forign powers so we can disable that when america launches gps guided missles at korea? didn't think so.
      Remind me again which country it is that has a long history of launching attacks against other countries on a dubious basis most of the time at best? oh yes the US who are the only power to ever have launched nuclear weapons in anger, I know who's satnav system i'd feel safer without.

      you come across more like a religious fundamentalist extremist group than a superpower every day.

    11. Re:This is a good thing by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      why would europeans(such as me) want to have a seperate system from the usa controlled satellite navigation system? i wonder why indeed! look, there's not too many military superpowers out there that go on invading foreign soil regularly, buying systems they have control over(killswitches if you may) to defend against them doesn't have much point(and while the world situation might change in few years the equipment will be used for decades, what if there's a coup in usa and they just start blatantly extorting every other nation because they have the upper hand? or if usa breaks up and no state wants the another to have it working?).

      it just depends on which side of the border you're sitting on, sure this must be great news if you're american and would like to keep other countries under your (military)control for the foreseeable future as well. if you're an army commander in any other country then you'll see some very good reasons to not rely on american gps for everything(especially if one of the potential scenarios to defend in is usa attacking for whatever reason).

      for now there has been little point in starting to rely on gps for any other military(or other critical crisis equipment) than for usa's own military, since there's no guarantee it will work precisely when you need it most(during an attack on nearby axis of evil country or maybe even your own country). missiles can be guided by other means also(and really the biggest hurdle is just getting the missile to fly that distance).

      if it's jammable by usa on whim then there's absolutely no point in wasting that money in it(and i really don't see _any_ reason for india and china to contribute then).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:This is a good thing by darkweasel · · Score: 0

      the scary thing is, we are a religious fundamentalist extremist super power. if gwb and his cronies don't destroy civilization in the next 5 years, i'll be suprised.

      --
      .sig.
    13. Re:This is a good thing by Bill_Mische · · Score: 1

      How about: What if they're not your military? I have no particular problem with the British Army blocking the galileo system - but I'm not overly keen on the US Army doing it for us - we're not the 51st State *yet*.

      Or how about a different positive example: The US fires a gps guided missile towards (insert city here). The French Army disables it. Perhaps not something you feel quite so happy about?

      The point of galileo is give an independent system to Europe. Now I for one am happy for our governments to give your military the same rights over galileo as you give us over gps. I'm not sure what rights they are at the moment but I'm sure they must be extensive. Fair trade?

      --
      Boring Old Fart (40, married, 3 kids...er no...make that 49, married, 3 grown up kids...it's been a long time)
    14. Re:This is a good thing by nagora · · Score: 1
      Let me give one positive example. North Korea launches a galileo guided missle toward new york. The US military disables it.

      Either: a) it gets shot down at any one of a thousand points along its route or b) it somehow doesn't and, due to having to use laser gyros instead of GPS/Galileo it lands half a mile from Central Park. If it's a nuke, big hairy deal: the body count is still six figures or more.

      Here's a different scenario: Galileo is introduced with 1/32nd inch accuracy and the world's airlines start using it as the prefered method for landing aircraft while cargo vessels are piloted in by computer using up-to-the-minute echo soundings of esturies and harbours.

      Then one day some fucking unelected military nutter (eg, George W Bush) decides to invade some small, oil rich, country and unilaterally turns off the Nav system. Several hundred people die in the ensuing crisis and major environmental damage is caused by the grounding of the Exxon Valdez II.

      The alternative is that we don't introduce high-res navigation systems and continue to have a number of deaths and other avoidable accidents every year just so that the current occupent of the White House can sleep in the secure knowledge that America has the biggest Dick in the world (eg, George W Bush).

      If the military party in America is going to stand in the way of something which will aid the entire world then it's time they were reminded that the world isn't actually there just to provide them with their toy-soldier jollies.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    15. Re:This is a good thing by nysus · · Score: 1
      5 words: Soviet-style global US domination.


      Maybe not now, but when George Bush's great grandson is running the country.

      --

      ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    16. Re:This is a good thing by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      This is not intended as a flame, it's a serious, serious question:

      If all the world is so pissed at the US why don't we just another world war? I'm serious. All of Europe, India, and China, vs. US. Last I heard all of the world put together has equal or more military capacity than the US, so it ought to be a fair fight. The point is, y'all (rest of the world), is that your actions will not be without consequences forever. This belicosity you exhibit is not free.

    17. Re:This is a good thing by jayayeem · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think this US request for facilitating jamming of the Galileo system lacks creativity.

      A much more entertaining request would be for the US military to be allowed to change the signals in the event of enemy activity.

      North Korea launches missile
      Washington DC is the target
      Update the satellites, informing them that Washington DC and Beijing China have switched places
      Fun ensues

      --
      I metamoderate, therefore I am
    18. Re:This is a good thing by zeasier · · Score: 1

      Here's another positive example. The United States attacks a country that uses Galileo in it's military and by it's citizens. Because they can't block the signals they have no alternative but to attack ground components using intelligence to determine what is military GPS. As a result civilians are killed due to shortcomings in that intelligence. If the system can simply be jammed then nothing needs to be destroyed and no one needs to die while it's disabled.

    19. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This belicosity you exhibit is not free.

      How about telling Bush that next time he talks to some German or French leaders?

    20. Re:This is a good thing by nagora · · Score: 1
      Update the satellites, informing them that Washington DC and Beijing China have switched places

      You, son, are a grade-A genius. So: no future in the military for you.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    21. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a fight instead? Come on, it'll make you feel so much better. Much better for two sides to macho assholes than everybody to be a weepy pussy.

    22. Re:This is a good thing by zaphod.nu · · Score: 1

      The missile isn't disabled by simply jamming the GPS/Galileo signal, the signal is only used to check and correct the inertia guidance. If the missile lose the signal it will simply keep going from the last known vector.

      Being a few meters off with an ICBM carrying a nuclear warhead doesn't change the massdestruction much at all.

      Besides, would jamming the radar have stopped the airplanes from crashing into WTC?

    23. Re:This is a good thing by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

      His post wasn't flamebait. w.r.t. your concern over Afghanistan and the loss of GPS a civilian system would me no better than GPS. GPS denial like Galileo jamming can be localized to the theatre of operations.

    24. Re:This is a good thing by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "There's a real use for an accurate positioning system that can't be disabled on a whim"

      The reason for launching Galileo (or his namesake satellite) is that it's reliable enough to land aircraft by, to do train collision-detection by, to navigate ships automatically, etc.

      Now imagine the effects of jamming that galilieo-guided korean missile over europe (or over america)

      Then imagine the economic effects of making a system vulnerable to this. If galileo doesn't survive US action, it's not reliable enough, and the CAA doesn't give licenses to use it for navigation. So the people who would have paid for it suddenly have no use for it. So then what use is the project?

      When the project is launched, it needs to be reliable.

    25. Re:This is a good thing by old_unicorn · · Score: 1

      In an extreme case like that - no problem, it is the borderline cases that are harder to judge. For instance, there is a major storm off Europe, and the rescue service need the GPS system for locating two large ships in trouble, BUT the americans want to prevent a chinese spy ship from tracking an experimental spy plan over taiwan. Result: One american spy plane, lots of dead Spanish sailors.

      --
      ***You learn something Every day. And then you die.***
    26. Re:This is a good thing by smack_attack · · Score: 1

      I was kinda hoping Saddam and George could settle their dispute in a Las Vegas boxing ring.

    27. Re:This is a good thing by smack_attack · · Score: 1

      You better kneel down and bow your head while we're laughing, otherwise we'll preemptively invade your ass and liberate you from your wallets.

    28. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inciteful, maybe. but not insightful.

      if my nukes found their targets by using ANOTHER countries PUBLIC GPS system, then i'd be sacking my rocket scientists.

    29. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The question here is why would you not want the military to be able to jam a GPS system?

      Because you don't trust the politicians running the military?

    30. Re:This is a good thing by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you can be pissed at somebody without wanting to kill them, or even want to kill them but realise that there's not much point in it(it would be 'wrong' and unprofitable in the long run for _everyone_).

      a war only leaves people dead and is an incredible waste of resources(sure, few individuals can strike gold there, but most of it is just total waste), and thankfully majority of europe remembers what happened 60 years ago(and what happened after that in eastern europe countries, lack of freedom can be a bitch).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    31. Re:This is a good thing by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Nothing that has been done is enough to warrent such a response yet. There are economic skermishes, a tax on this good begets a tax on some other good. There are even violent responses (9-11 being a famous example, although there are many others). No major countries are so pissed as to go to all out war. The few that might be that pissed (N. Korea, Iran, Cuba) don't have the might to back a war up. The ones that do have the might are trying to create their own hedgemony (EU, China).

      --
      -no broken link
    32. Re:This is a good thing by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you didn't pay attention in history. Japan was trying to take over the world and they had all ready taken care of every other country except the US. The Japanese were very close to controlling the world. They knew that the US was the only thing that stood in its way. The Japanese also attacked America on its own land which was a big no-no. America tried to stay out of the war as long as they could, and they tried hard. After Europe couldn't defend themselves and screwed everything up, we went in and saved all your asses. You'd all be dead or slaves right now. And then after we took care of the Germans,the Japanese had made a lot of progress. We needed to do something and do it quick. You don't actually regret that we used atomic weapons do you? You probably wouldn't be alive right now if we hadn't. We did what we had to do, in the best interest of the world. The world should be on their knees thanking the US, and since the US is the only country that has proven itself as such, yes they should have some say in the matters of the very countries who's asses we saved a few years back. And as far as Iraq goes, every major country wanted it to happen, no one had the balls to do it, so the US did. If Saddam came in your country with guns blazing, nuked your major cities, raped your wives, etc... youd all be crying for the US to come and save you again, and bitching that we hadn't acted earlier before it happened. We saved Europe's ass by invading Iraq, and they are all too stubborn or ignorant to realize it or help us.

    33. Re:This is a good thing by fpillet · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the US military want to control equipment which is not theirs. And I, as a European, refuse that they can do this. The "ennemy missile" argument doesn't hold one minute. It is likely that if the military see the missile on their radar, they'll destroy it instead of simply trying to jam its gps signal (heck, a missile can very well do without gps, thank you!)

      No the real threat has been highlighted by the recent actions of the US military: the US government doesn't hesitate to do whatever it wants, even against the rest of the world, under the most fallacious arguments.

      Its very clear that if they can jam a galileo signal, they will be able to jam the signal used by a European country's military. This is not acceptable. We don't care whether it pleases Rummy or not, we do not want to be tied to the absurd decisions and the dirty political games of the freaking US government.

    34. Re:This is a good thing by DjReagan · · Score: 1

      yeah... right... ok. Whatever you say.

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    35. Re:This is a good thing by DjReagan · · Score: 1

      Of course, the US could just decide to NOT attack the country in the first place, and hence avoid all the deaths without the need to disable any GPS system.

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    36. Re:This is a good thing by tiger99 · · Score: 1
      It generally does not affect the whole system, although no doubt the US could simply switch off GPS any time they wanted. The jamming covers an area which is more or less line of sight from the jamming equipment. From the ground, maybe a 10 or 20 mile radius, or mode depending on how high youcan get it. From the air, several hundred miles. From a satellite, potentially almost half the earth's surface.

      GPS is occasionally jammed during military exercises in the UK, it was done some time ago, from the air I think, unfortunately it was one of the rare occasions that I actually tried to use my Garmin GPS, and it said that I was at -50 feet in the Irish Sea, off the coast of Wales. I was in fact in southern Scotland, about 1400 feet up. AFAIK the jamming radius on that occasion was about 100 miles.

      The real danger is that civil aircraft will be using these systems as their primary means of navigation, and might not know that anything is wrong. There is the potential for disaster on a huge scale. In fact, given more intelligence than Al Quaeda are capable of, it could be possible to corrupt the course of an airliner flying in bad visibility such that it flew straight into a building, by transmitting suitably corrupt GPS signals. Admittedly, it takes some human error in addition, but we all know that crashes do happen, with monotonous regularity, because the crew do not cross-check their various sources of data.

    37. Re:This is a good thing by ReallyQuietGuy · · Score: 1

      Here's a different scenario: Galileo is introduced with 1/32nd inch accuracy and the world's airlines start using it as the prefered method for landing aircraft while cargo vessels are piloted in by computer using up-to-the-minute echo soundings of esturies and harbours.

      that's a lot of unemployed pilots

    38. Re:This is a good thing by PhB95 · · Score: 1

      My country once sold Exocet missiles to Argentina. Those where then fired at english ships during the Falkland war : The UK did not have the key to disable them and we had to urgently explain how to do it. Not something we should be proud of, I believe.

      --
      One of those Europeans...
    39. Re:This is a good thing by MobileC · · Score: 1

      "Let me give one positive example. North Korea launches a galileo guided missle toward new york. The US military disables it."

      How do the US know it's Galileo guided?
      "If in doubt, disable Galileo"?
      And the critical infrastructure that relies on Galileo is left out in the cold for how long?
      People dying in crashes because the rescue systems cannot get a reliable fix?

      Oh and you're assuming that the US is the "good guy" here.

      More and more people are relying on GPS, how many more would with a system in place with more accuracy that was more reliable.
      Galileo would be reduced to a competing system with no advantages.

      --

      Fran
      :):):)
      1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

    40. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if your idea of fun is nuclear war.

      What do you think China will do after they nuke North Korea and find out the USA nuked their capital?

    41. Re:This is a good thing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      One issue is that without the military having the power to protect you, everything you have is for nothing. Remove our military today and the nation will be in ruins, if not tomorrow, then by next week at the latest (people have to have time to ship their munitions over here.) So certainly it's in our best interest to listen to the military, if not do everything they say. Degrading GPS to a lesser quality, while still leaving the system functional enough to do vehicle navigation or get you out of the woods, or for that matter guide a ship to land, seems unusually level-headed of the military.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:This is a good thing by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Because we bought their governments.

      The people of the world would certainly
      obliterate the U.S., if it were put to
      a vote. But the U.S. owns their asses,
      so its moot.

      Slaves don't vote.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    43. Re:This is a good thing by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > Any country that ever uses them will be
      > performing its last act on Earth.

      If you know where they are coming from.
      That's why the preferred delivery vehicles
      are cargo ships and satellites.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    44. Re:This is a good thing by avanha · · Score: 1

      GPS gets jammed all the time, is not 100% reliable and no critical transportation application ever uses it as it's sole navigation system. When it is used, it reports any problems immediately, allowing its users to fall back to other, perhaps less convenient systems. Even a system designed in a way that can't be jammed can suffer unplanned outages for other reasons. Because operations are structured with this in mind, the potential for negative economic impact is elminated regradless of the reason for the outage.

      You could say that long term jamming could have some economic impact such as decreased traffic density, though nothing like that theoretical missile hitting its target.

    45. Re:This is a good thing by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "GPS gets jammed all the time, is not 100% reliable and no critical transportation application ever uses it as it's sole navigation system."

      From my reading of Galileo news, I thought the idea was: "GPS isn't reliable enough for planes, so let's build something that is".

      The system was being designed with the sort of sub-centimetre* accuracy that would allow the system to be licensed to people who had plans to use it for landing systems.

      * about the width of a beer-bottle lid, for people in imperial-units

      What I meant to say was, that if Galileo can't be guaranteed to give that accuracy (for example, if there's a chance of the americans jamming it), then the cargo-aircraft manufacturers won't be able to rely on it, so it'll be like GPS. And then they have no need to pay for it, so it doesn't get built.

      As you say, putting it on the same frequency as GPS only gives protection from american abuse of the system, and doesn't help with somebody prepared to jam both systems equally. So maybe nobody *is* planning to use it for autonomous aircraft. Or maybe they're doing something clever with upward-pointing aerials, inertial navigation backups, and abort-landing-on-galileo-fail programs.

      Oh, and the north korean missile is apparently a modified mig-21 with a lego mindstorms set to control the rudder. So if it reaches the korean coast they'll be doing well.

      One wonders whether the galileo team are good enough at encryption that they will continue to get paid for use of the system though... Didn't GPS prove that no DRM system can remain uncracked forever?

    46. Re:This is a good thing by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      I'll take a step farther and provide a realistic answer to your flaimbait: The "jamming" they're talking about doesn't effect 1 reciever. It affects an entire area, or, in the case of GPS, it affects the entire system. There's a real use for an accurate positioning system that can't be disabled on a whim - this is a real issue in the US. People want to use GPS for accurate positioning, but you can't rely on it. There was a great deal of concern during the invaision of Afghanistan (and again during the invasion of Iraq) over this, because there were systems in place that relied on accurate GPS (although they shouldn't) and they would fail if it was disabled. A civilian positioning sytem outside of military control wouldn't have this drawback.

      While this is true, you should think it over a bit more.

      Q:Why is SA implemented in the current GPS system?
      A: In case the enemy tries to use GPS.


      Q:Why should an SA-like system implemented in the current GPS system?
      A: See above.

      While it would be nice if the bad guys would promise never to use a precision guidance system for evil, it's just not reasonable to assume.

      The solution is have multiple levels of GPS: Military, Critical Infrastructure, and Civilian. Recievers for the first two types could be controlled while the last type could be unrestricted and degraded as necessary. This is why SA in necessary.
      The solution is not to eliminate SA, but to put critical infrastructure items in the same bracket as military systems.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    47. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you cant hug your children with nuclear arms.

    48. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea launches missile
      Washington DC is the target
      Update the satellites, informing them that Washington DC and Beijing China have switched places

      /s/Beijing\ China/Pyongyang/

      Fun ensues

      Yup.

    49. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clap clap

      don't just have one country hating you, have two.

    50. Re:This is a good thing by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Please explain, then, without contradicting yourself, why the military SHOULD have control over the accuracy of GPS (or GPS like systems), but NOT control over the world power grid? Or water supply? Or how about the internet?

      Whe defines "bad guy" anyway? And remember that we aren't talking about US infrastructure here - what, say, a train company in Iraq (do they have trains in Iraq? Maybe oil drilling...) considers critical infrastructure and what the US military considers critical infrastructure are very different things.

      If you're going to get all freaked out and scared because "the bad guys" might use something, you may as well just sit in your basement for the rest of your life.

      SA is NOT neccesary, by any definition of the word. It was added to our existing GPS system because GPS was designed for and implemented by the US military and they wanted to maintain control over it. It's essentially a historical artifact. By no means is it a critical component of a positioning system, any more than Clipper was an essential component of a TV.

    51. Re:This is a good thing by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      I think you should educate yourself more on what GPS is and can be used for. IMO SA in "necessary" because not including it would be irresbonsible.

      GPS provides not only position, but a highly accurate time source. As a result it is an excellent tool for both weapons guidance AND multilateration of radio transmitters.

      Unlike electricity and water, it is an non-trivial exercise to build a backup GPS network.

      You seem pretty ignorant about both the technology involved here, and war in general. When a war is going on the military DOES control the power grid, in the sense that they often bomb their enemy's power stations. You could find plently of examples of this from WII.

      Part of the problem here is that the article is flame-bait. OF COURSE THE MILITARY CAN JAM GPS. It's a frickin radio signal: ANYONE WITH A BIG ENOUGH TRANSMITTER CAN JAM IT.

      What the US is doing here is asking Europe to be sensible. Someday the US/NATO/Whoever WILL need to block this new GPS signal. If you use a properly designed system like SA, if won't cause a bunch of airplanes trying to land on a foggy night to crash. By not implemeting a proper system, you leave any power whose enemy is using it 2 options: jam the entire system, or destroy the entire system. Neither is good.

      SA is no more a "historical artifact" than nuclear weapons. Just because they haven't been on the front page lately, doesn't mean they're out of the picture.

      The Germans were able to build the V-2 rocket in the 1940's, but they were quite inaccurate. Do you really want the next Milosevic to have an arsenal of accurate V-2 style rockets? Without an SA-type system, all they would need is 1940's missle technology and a handful of engineers (to adapt a civilian unit). All they would need is one of these rockets to take out the Bundestag. The launch site could be hundreds of miles away.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    52. Re:This is a good thing by nathanm · · Score: 1

      Selective Availability has already been disabled since May 1, 2000. The DOD stated they don't intend to turn it back on, even in the case of war. They said they can disable GPS in a specific region if needed.

    53. Re:This is a good thing by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's not "turned on" right now, but it's hardly "disabled".

      The point is not that we aren't using it right now, but that it exists in the first place. It was designed into the system with good reason. If it has been supplanted by newer technology, that's dandy, but the basic idea is the same.

      The point I'm making is not that SA is perfect and exactly what the EU should implement, but that a similar system should be in place.

      Hopefully the EU's "SA" system will allow for degredation in specfic areas only.

      BTW, the US hasn't completely ruled out using SA, this is why they are allowing military GPS receivers in certain non-military critical infrastructure applications.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    54. Re:This is a good thing by nathanm · · Score: 1
      BTW, the US hasn't completely ruled out using SA, this is why they are allowing military GPS receivers in certain non-military critical infrastructure applications.
      It's not a matter of military vs. non-military receivers. Every GPS receiver picks up the same signal, and understands the CA (coarse acquisition) code. The only difference is that military receivers can also understand the P (precision) code, which is encrypted. The encryption is classified, and changes frequently. Each change requires the new key to be downloaded to military receivers. The key is not given out to just anybody; they need the proper security clearance and a need-to-know.

      Military GPS receivers aren't being used in non-military critical infrastructure applications, but the receivers they are using are probably more accurate than standard military GPS receivers. This is possible using differential GPS, i.e. comparing the GPS signal you're receiving with another receiver placed over a known geographic position (either post-processing the data or by telemetry). Anyone could buy a decent GPS surveying system for a few thousand $$ that gets 1 cm accuracy when stationary, or 1 m accuracy in real-time.
    55. Re:This is a good thing by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Military GPS receivers aren't being used in non-military critical infrastructure applications, but the receivers they are using are probably more accurate than standard military GPS receivers.

      You should say that unless you know what you're talking about.

      http://www.zyfer.com/gsync.html
      http://gps.losangeles.af.mil/user/products/ue-secu rity/indexhae.htm


      Differential GPS doesn't help much when you're trying to synchronize a comm network.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    56. Re:This is a good thing by nathanm · · Score: 1

      Your first link is just a GPS receiver available for either civil or military use.

      Your second link just tells which part of the US government is responsible for controlling access to GPS security devices.

      What was your point exactly?

      Even if someone had a GPS reciever capable of deccrypting the military P code, it couldn't function without the key. And as I said before, and as your second link points out, it's classified, so they don't just give it to just anyone.

    57. Re:This is a good thing by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      My point is that they DO give out military GPS receivers (and codes, duh) for select non-military applications. The first site was one which sells these revievers.

      If you look at the lists on that second page, you can see a list of projects which have these recievers.

      What was your point exactly?

      That you're wrong. You said: "Military GPS receivers aren't being used in non-military critical infrastructure applications", which is not true.

      I not sure how you got it into your head that you're an authority on this subject, but you're 100% wrong. I'm not about to give out anymore information than is publicly availible on the 'net, but I suggest you start with those two sites. The Zyfer site has a number of highly informative PDF's.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    58. Re:This is a good thing by nathanm · · Score: 1

      I not sure how you got it into your head that you're an authority on this subject, but you're 100% wrong.

      I didn't claim to be any kind of authority, I'm just writing what I know from my own experience and research. My original post was from memory, but this time I did some quick Google searches to backup my claims with some evidence. Anyone could learn this information on their own. However, I do know a few things about GPS:

      • I've used several civilian GPS receivers, from handheld models for hiking or hunting, to a marine model mounted on a boat for fishing, to aircraft mounted models. In a geography class I took in college, we did some labs to observe variation in GPS readings, both over time at one location, and at the same time at different locations. It was very interesting.
      • I'm a surveyor by trade, and have used different types of differential GPS surveying, like post-processing, telemetry-based, and now real-time kinetic.
      • I'm an Air Force veteran, and have training and field experience with the Rockwell PLGR handheld (the term handheld being used very loosely) GPS receiver, which can decode the P signal when using the decryption key. (Read this [scroll down to multi-color highlighted paragraph] to see how carefully the key is protected.)
      • While I was in the Air Force, I took the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) course called: Mapping, Charting and Geodesy for the Warrior (scroll to bottom of page).

      I still don't claim to be any kind of expert on GPS, but I probably know more than your average person.

      I'm not about to give out anymore information than is publicly availible on the 'net, but I suggest you start with those two sites. The Zyfer site has a number of highly informative PDF's.

      My point is that they DO give out military GPS receivers (and codes, duh) for select non-military applications. The first site was one which sells these revievers.

      Did you actually read any of the PDFs on the site you reference? The very first PDF on the page has this to say:

      • Under FEATURES -> GPS Reveiver:
        • Standard 8-channel C/A
        • Optional SAASM PPS (for approved users)
      • Under the model description: the FEI-Zyfer GSync can provide you with either Standard Positioning Service (SPS) GPS or the very latest in GPS technology SAASM PPS GPS receivers (for DoD authorized users only).
      • Under SPECIFICATIONS -> Reference Options: Standard GPS (SPS C/A) 8 channel, (L1)
        SAASM GPS (PPS, C/A P-Y) For approved users (L1/L2)

      So the evidence you're citing actually undermines the point you were trying to make.

      If you look at the lists on that second page, you can see a list of projects which have these recievers.

      The projects listed on that page are DOD projects. Obviously, the corporations manufacturing the devices need access to the decryption key to test their products. But, like all defense contractors working on classified projects, every employee who needs access has to obtain the appropriate DOD security clearance.

      That you'

    59. Re:This is a good thing by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      So the evidence you're citing actually undermines the point you were trying to make

      No, it doesn't. It says "for approved users" but it never says what the criteria for being approved is.

      Read this paper about "black key" SAASM GPS.
      http://www.zyfer.com/briefings/saasmmil-nasafacwhi tepaper.pdf

      The military GPS you have experience with is "red key".

      "Black key" achitecture allows for unclassified cyrpto keys and hardware.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    60. Re:This is a good thing by nathanm · · Score: 1
      Read this paper about "black key" SAASM GPS.
      http://www.zyfer.com/briefings/saasmmil-nasafacwhi tepaper.pdf

      The military GPS you have experience with is "red key".

      "Black key" achitecture allows for unclassified cyrpto keys and hardware.
      OK, now we're getting somewhere. You should've been this specific in your previous posts. It would've saved us both some time. There are still a few issues though:

      It says the hardware is unclassified, even when keyed, but its design still requires DOD approval. Do potential users still need DOD approval and/or security clearances? The whitepaper itself is titled and aimed specifically towards Military Ranges and NASA Facilities. It also says the receivers are available to the more commercial, non-secure oriented sector. This still sounds like they're talking about government agencies only, just ones who aren't directly warfighting units. There's a difference between commercial users and the more commercial-oriented sector.

      The purpose of the new GPS-PPS receivers is meant as a countermeasure to jamming and/or spoofing of the C/A-Code signal. The whitepaper even predicates the ability to acquire the P-Code signal in the event of intentional or unintentional jamming of the C/A-Code signal. And its use of scare quotes around "direct" military P(Y)-Code signal acquisition is ambiguous. It implies that the receiver is not truly decoding the P signal, but nonetheless using it somehow to counteract the jamming.

      Can these receivers be used for more than just timing and synchronization? As I understand it, the purpose for having an additional encrypted signal (and Selective Availability, when it was still activated) is to prevent GPS from being used against us, i.e. an explosives-laden Cessna with GPS guidance (the poor-man's cruise missile). I admit I don't know what sort of time accuracy is required for these types of applications. My computers use ntp to periodically synchronize their clocks, but only because I like having the correct time (and the hardware clock in one of my computers is slow). That's plenty accurate for my needs.
    61. Re:This is a good thing by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Do potential users still need DOD approval and/or security clearances?

      I assume there is some sort of approval process, but I don't have details.

      This still sounds like they're talking about government agencies only, just ones who aren't directly warfighting units.

      Right, like the FAA for instance. I don't know if they're offering this to private companies or not. It wouldn't suprise me too much if they allowed cellular providers to use them.

      Can these receivers be used for more than just timing and synchronization?

      Maybe. The reason you use military GPS for timing is that differential GPS just can't help you. You would need a "perfect" clock inside your differential GPS source, and if you had that, you'd just put it in the device that needs accurate timing. It wouldn't suprise me if the military said no to anyone wanting you use these recievers for something besides timing, as there are alternatives.

      GPS recievers give you timing accuracy in the tens of nanoseconds. This accuracy is necessary for synchronizing time division multiplexed communications systems (some cellular networks) for example. There are other applications which rely on this level of timing accuracy as well.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  10. I for one, welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...a lost opportunity to have an independent European defence policy.

    1. Re:I for one, welcome by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Evidently, it's better than doing something. Doing things has been a bit of a loser for them. Sitting there renaming their cheeses seems to keep them quite healthy and pleased with themselves, as opposed to dead.

    2. Re:I for one, welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the French, who have the policy "welcome our invading German overlords, ply them with wine and cheese, and rub their feet after they march down the Champs Elysees".

      Oh, wait, actually it's been revised. Now it's "welcome any third-rate dictator who the US dislikes, regardless of how repugnant that person actually is, since tweaking the US is the most important thing for France to do." (vis Mugable.)

    3. Re:I for one, welcome by azzy · · Score: 1

      Historically the european defence policy has been 'invade your neighbours', one I am very proud of - am from UK.. so helps that successes outnumber failures.

  11. a stupid question... by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >the EU has agreed to use transmission frequencies that could be easily disturbed or completely jammed by the US military

    if they wanted, wouldnt the US military be able to jam them pretty easily no matter what frequencies they used?

    1. Re:a stupid question... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, GPS is pretty hard to jam - at least from the standpoing of guiding bombs and ICBMs - which is what the USA is mainly worried about.

      All you need to do is design an antenna which selectively receives signals coming from the sky - any ground-based jammer would be at an immediate disadvantage. Also - the jammers would only work fairly close to the ground, the bomb would still fall pretty close to its target.

    2. Re:a stupid question... by niceandsunny · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but they would be jamming their own system as well because Galileo was going to use the same frequencies as GPS. As the article points out, however, the EU was "persuaded" to use different frequencies to make it possible for the U.S. to disable Galileo.

      Sharing frequencies wouldn't have caused GPS and Galileo to interfere because Galileo was supposed to use a clever way of superimposing signals.

    3. Re:a stupid question... by misterpies · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>if they wanted, wouldnt the US military be able to jam them pretty easily no matter what frequencies they used?

      no, because if you RTFA you'll notice that originally Galileo was to broadcast on the same frequency as GPS. That would mean that the US could not jam Galileo without also jamming GPS. By persuading Galileo to use a different frequency, the US will be able to jam its systems without affecting Galileo. (Though presumably it also means that people using Galileo will be able to jam GPS as well.)

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    4. Re:a stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      no, because if you RTFA you'll notice that originally Galileo was to broadcast on the same frequency as GPS. That would mean that the US could not jam Galileo without also jamming GPS. By persuading Galileo to use a different frequency, the US will be able to jam its systems without affecting Galileo.

      Now this makes sense. It means EU military would be able to jam GPS signal without interfering with Galileo as well. More importantly, it means that if only one of them is jammed, the other could still be used.

    5. Re:a stupid question... by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Jamming an enemy's transmission is a lot harder than it sounds against modern "smart" weapons. The Iraquis did try some jamming early in the war, but the US simply programmed a missile to home in on the jammer's signal.

    6. Re:a stupid question... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      note also, this feature would now allow other EU countries to jam GPS while leaving Galileo unaltered.

      I don't understand what the deal is... so it is ok for everyone in the world to have GPS-jamming capability but the US should not be able to jam Galileo in time of war?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  12. Question?? by TheDredd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would that mean you would be better of using GPS, because the US would be jamming Galileo out into Oblivion, because it competes with GPS???

    I don't see the point of Galileo anymore if it falls under US control, we already have that

  13. Agreed to it? The Reg seems to say different. by arevos · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Register just says that: "Talks are underway between the US and the European Union". Nothing yet seems to be agreed or finalised.

    Do we know if anything definite has been decided yet? I can't see the EU caving in that easily (though I may be wrong).

    1. Re:Agreed to it? The Reg seems to say different. by neglige · · Score: 2, Informative

      Galileo offers two services: one free, unencrypted service and one encrypted service that you have to pay for (higher precision, higher QoS). As far as I understand it, the encrypted signal can be jammed - this is what the Heise article is about. The talks (in January in Washington) are about jamming the unencrypted signal, according to Heise.

      --
      My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
    2. Re:Agreed to it? The Reg seems to say different. by tsager · · Score: 1

      The article (all the articles in fact) is also only based on one source.

  14. Well obviously the US by goldcd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    could do a lot 'if they wanted to'. They could nuke Europe if they wanted to - it's not could to happen, but they could.
    There is a very large difference between the EU allowing the US to jam and the US jamming against the wishes of the EU. We in Europe are getting quite uppity with the US, especially their foreign policy and breaking our new toy would not be looked on kindly.
    The EU collectively has a lot of clout with the US, for example the import tariffs imposed on steel imported to the US are going to be removed due to pressure brought by Europe. The dollar is currently at an all time low against the Euro and the lower it gets the more influence we have.

    1. Re:Well obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Tariffs are being removed because of economic pressure throughout the world, not just Europe. Get over yourself.

      If you count being able to buy more goodies from the US as influence, then yeah, the lower dollar helps. However, your exports are getting screwed. Cheers.

      The EU doesn't hold much sway, except in Europe. Shutup, wanker.

    2. Re:Well obviously the US by bigdisk · · Score: 1

      I take it they don't have economics classes in Europe?

      No history lessons either. The Euro is at the same price it was introduced at, no higher. It's roughly like saying pets.com stock is at an all time high.

      Basically retarded.

    3. Re:Well obviously the US by arcanumas · · Score: 4, Informative
      Lower dollar will increase US exports you retard

      Currently the US imports much more than it exports. Having the dollar devaluate in relation to the Euro it means you will have to pay more to get the same amount of imports.
      So it will have a positive effect of making American products more competitive as far as price is concerned and therefore increase exports in the long run.

      In other words you make the Dollar devaluation sound like it is most certainly a good thing. It depends on the situation, and the current US situation tells us that for now it is a BAD thing.

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    4. Re:Well obviously the US by leerpm · · Score: 1

      And obviously you haven't taken any either. Do you know why currencies fluctuate? Because of demand. If you want to import European goods to your country, at some point in the transaction you have to convert your dollars to Euros to purchase those goods. You are therefore demanding Euros, and the currency will rise accordingly (remember this is happen on a macroeconomic scale).

      Currencies trade just like commodities do. When the Euro rises against the dollar it indicates that an increasing number of people have decided they want to hold onto Euro dollars, an increase in the demand. The lower valuation of the US dollar is a reflection of decreased demand for US goods. That is NOT a good thing for the US.

    5. Re:Well obviously the US by sxpert · · Score: 1

      (...)want to hold onto Euro dollars, an incre(...)

      it's euro (EUR) goddamit, not "Euro Dollars"...

    6. Re:Well obviously the US by leerpm · · Score: 1

      The steel tarriffs are not being removed because of 'economic pressures'. They were just put in place a short while ago. The EU went and complained to the WTO, and the WTO agreed with the EU. So the US has to drop their steel tarriffs or they are going to face massive tarriffs at the EU (their biggest customer). In general tarriffs are being removed, because of basic economics, but not in this case.

      The EU holds a lot of clout in the world. While they currently don't hold as much as the US, they are the second largest economy in the world (bigger than Japan). Foreign national banks still hold more US currency in reserve than the Euro, but the percentage of share for the USD is falling, and the percentage for the Euro is rising.

    7. Re:Well obviously the US by sharkey · · Score: 1
      They could nuke Europe if they wanted to

      Does Europe have oil?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    8. Re:Well obviously the US by whittrash · · Score: 1

      I read something off of the Space Command web site (which is now scrubbed) that the goal of the US in space is to dominate not just enemies, but to push out allies, Europeans included. They also planned to send weapons into space, even nuclear ones if there was a 'policy change'. Makes you wonder why the Chinese sent a man into space doesn't it? I think its a signal that they can make an ICBM, I can't think of any other reason why they need to send a man into space. I love evil plans like this. It warms my heart.

    9. Re:Well obviously the US by mrtroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heya, ignorant boy.

      I am not from the US, or Europe, so I can be pretty neutral here in your arguements. However.

      "I take it they don't have economics classes in Europe?

      No history lessons either. The Euro is at the same price it was introduced at, no higher. It's roughly like saying pets.com stock is at an all time high.

      Basically retarded."


      You sir, are retarded. The Euro is at a higher price than it was introduced at.
      LOOK HERE.
      Also, silly American, Europeans recieve a much better historical education than you. They know what really happened during major world events, not the propaganda you recieve. CNN != history.

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    10. Re:Well obviously the US by Gauchito · · Score: 1

      Well, they were also removed to avoid starting a trade war. The EU had already threatened to impose around $2.2 billion in tariffs on American goods, and on goods specifically targetted at Bush's family (e.g., citrus products from Florida), and on steel-consuming products, like motorcycles, who already had lost demand due to higher steel prices.

    11. Re:Well obviously the US by leerpm · · Score: 1

      Yes, the impeding trade war was the massive tarriffs the EU Commission was threatening to put in place against US steel exports to the EU. Thanks for the further clarification, I should have been more specific.

    12. Re:Well obviously the US by Gauchito · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US right now has one of the most indebted populations on the planet. Americans consume about $500 billion more than they produce. The only thing keeping this consumption in check and cash reserves steady is that the US receives huge amounts of foreign investment (i.e., capital inflow). However, a weak dollar, while it increases exports, also reduces the US's appeal to investors, since the dollars they earn here are worth less in their home countries.

      Right now, this is mostly against Europe, though. The yen and the yuan have been kept low thanks to China's and Japan's heavy, heavy buying of American treasury bonds to keep their currencies weaker, since they depend a lot more on exports than the US does (hell, Japan and China ARE export-driven economies).

    13. Re:Well obviously the US by goofballs · · Score: 1

      Currently the US imports much more than it exports. Having the dollar devaluate in relation to the Euro it means you will have to pay more to get the same amount of imports.

      um, yeah, but the theory goes, w/ higher prices, there's less demand and less imports. additionally, since american goods w/ cost less abroad, there will be more exports. the net result is the deficit goes down. that's why there's been no attempt to reign in the devaluation of the dollar.

    14. Re:Well obviously the US by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      " Tariffs are being removed because of economic pressure..."

      Correct, Economic Pressure from the US's trading partners, in particular the European Union.

      The EU were threatening to increase tarriffs against a number of US imports, the specific imports were chosen as they came from states that were marginal in the last Presidential election.

    15. Re:Well obviously the US by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1
      CNN != history.

      Also...

      Fox News != (Fair & Balanced)

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    16. Re:Well obviously the US by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      Does Europe have oil?
      Yes.

      WMD's as well.

      Next quetion?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    17. Re:Well obviously the US by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked the US was working on Star Wars back in the 80's - weapons in space is old news.

      Right now everybody would rather keep weapons out of space. However, if parity is ever achieved with the USA using earth-based military equipment, you can bet that we'll see LOTS of weapons in space.

      Every weapon I can think of is an expenditure of energy now to be saved up to be quickly released later. An F16 and a bunch of bombs costs lots of money to build now, but it can release tons of energy against a target in a moment's notice. Space is ideal for this - you can launch big rockets now to put orbiting devices in orbit. You keep launching them during peacetime until you have an armada of streamlined heavy objects with small deorbiting thrusters on them. Then if you want to take out a target suddenly it is raining titianium meteors - decending to earth at Mach 20+ and potentially capable of penetrating the ground to great depths. The space-based weapons don't require any maintenance either. They may cost a little more than aircraft-borne weapons, though. However, despite their higher initial costs, the low maintenance costs mean that you can ammoritze your next war over the prior decade or two.

    18. Re:Well obviously the US by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      They could nuke Europe if they wanted to

      And vice versa. The US is not the only country with nukes, you know. :-(

    19. Re:Well obviously the US by sharkey · · Score: 1
      Next quetion?

      Have they ever sculpted an exposed breast on a statue?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    20. Re:Well obviously the US by ViVeLaMe · · Score: 1

      problem is, there isn't much demand on (most) US products, not because of the price, but because it's crap. And the fact it's crap won't change with the current dollar devaluation.

      --
      i had a sig, once..
    21. Re:Well obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News != (Fair & Balanced)

      Wow, how insightful. I've never heard that viewpoint. You are quite a thinker and wise beyond your years. Original, too. WHat an iconoclast.

    22. Re:Well obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can be pretty neutral here in your arguements ...

      Also, silly American, Europeans recieve a much better historical education than you. They know what really happened during major world events, not the propaganda you recieve. CNN != history.


      Wow, how objective and free of bias you are!
    23. Re:Well obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are they any KNOWN statues sculpted in the US by the Americans?

    24. Re:Well obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sept 11 != justified

      Oh yea, I am following you around.

    25. Re:Well obviously the US by yosemite · · Score: 1
      I have only to refer you to the Statue of Liberty!!


      jk

    26. Re:Well obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, them is euro dollars; just like them there pound dollars, mark dollars, franc dollars, lira dollars, and peseta dollars.

    27. Re:Well obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "While they currently don't hold as much as the US, they are the second largest economy in the world (bigger than Japan). "

      FYI: China is now number two, Japan is number three. Germany is number four. And the EU is NOT a country.

    28. Re:Well obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush knew he was breaking the rules when he put in the tariffs; only euro clout got him to care about the rules. By many measures he is our most lawless President in the modern era.

    29. Re:Well obviously the US by yosemite · · Score: 1
      You have a well thought out analysis, and I do not disagree, but here is a question: despite the fact that the USA spends as much on defense as the next 20 Nations Combined or around 400 billion dollars.

      Why would at a time when parity is not even close to bing an issue, why is military spending increasing?

      Now keeping that rhetorical question in mind, Why would you assume that *everybody* wants to keep weapons out of space? And if not weapons, what of the support systems for weapons? GPS being a prime example. Hell, if I had a budget of 400 fricking billion dollars I would be looking at ways to launch rubber bands into space, if only to keep the wheels of the military industrial complex greased. I believe there is in space, in addition to clumsy lasers and nuclear bombs, a whole host of other military crap and more is being added all the time. I dont disagree with you per se, my view is

      'because there is no reason for the military to do something, isn't a reason for them to not do it' :p

    30. Re:Well obviously the US by Herkules · · Score: 0

      The first time i saw fox news i thought it might be some kind of parody show.

      Just shows you hove different people see the world =)

      BR Bojne

      --
      CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
    31. Re:Well obviously the US by sharkey · · Score: 1

      The Statue of Liberty is topless?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    32. Re:Well obviously the US by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1

      Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a Fox employee in our midst!

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    33. Re:Well obviously the US by yosemite · · Score: 1
  15. Surprising by sevensharpnine · · Score: 4, Funny

    I knew the Galileo project would run into trouble, but I honestly thought it would be the Catholics causing it.

    --
    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
    1. Re:Surprising by pla · · Score: 1

      I knew the Galileo project would run into trouble, but I honestly thought it would be the Catholics causing it.

      Nah... They got over that whole "we don't occupy the center of the universe" thing years ago. All the way back in 1983, IIRC.

    2. Re:Surprising by ssstraub · · Score: 1

      Oh man. That was a nice laugh. Thanks.

  16. What I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    is what frequencies can't be jammed by the Military? Is there some secret form of Maxwell's equations I don't know about?

    1. Re:What I want to know by Lord+Kholdan · · Score: 1

      is what frequencies can't be jammed by the Military? Is there some secret form of Maxwell's equations I don't know about?

      Frequency that their own military GPS uses? Or any other frequency that's cricital to their operation? In theory they could but that'd do them more harm then good.

  17. Re:Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... by lovebyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the US Gov't & Military (and her allies, too, probably) consider this a great advancement of their goals.

    Most allies of the USA are taking part in the Galileo system!
    But also most allies of the USA are getting scared of the military control of the USA.

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  18. Re:Article is flamebait by madprof · · Score: 1

    The US could shoot the entire system out of the skies if it wanted. That doesn't make it responsible, amenable to good relations or the best policy.
    You'd hope that democratic nations would behave in a sensible way towards each other.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Hold on here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If GPS uses radio signals, and radio signals, by nature, are all inherently jammable... how does one possibly make it MORE or LESS jammable? It is what it is, and that is jammable. Now, reducing accuracy is something entirely different.

    1. Re:Hold on here... by arevos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's about permission. Sure, the US could jam the EU system, but this is about talks to give the US permission to do so. There's quite a big difference.

      For instance, if the EU has a 9/11 terrorist suspect, then the US can ask them nicely to export said terrorism to the US for trial. Or the US could, without any warning, drop a military taskforce into the EU and kidnap the suspect. Obviously, the latter isn't preferable to the former.

      These talks are about giving the US permission to shut down the EU system whenever it wants. That's not a good thing.

    2. Re:Hold on here... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      It depends on the frequencies you use. If the Galileo system used frequencies close to those used by US GPS, then the US probably would interfere with its own satellite system whenever it tried to jam Galileo.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    3. Re:Hold on here... by kisak · · Score: 1
      Or the US could, without any warning, drop a military taskforce into the EU and kidnap the suspect.

      This is a very common misunderstanding.

      NO! The US could not just drop a military taskforce into the EU. That is an act of war and would not be tolerated, even by the puddle Blair, and it would mean the end of US military dominance in the world. Forget those Chuck Norris films or whatever Bush is watching, the world does not work this way. You do not invade allies and keep them as allies. And no, the US can not do without allies. The short historical twist that has given the US the strongest military in the world is doomed to be short term, whatever the neo-cons dream.

      To give you another example, you can of course invade any country as long as you have superior military strength. But you can not force the people there to think of your army as liberators or make the invaded country into a democracy, or even force your allies into thinking it is a good idea.

      In the real world, something does not become true just because it is cool or because one really wants it to be that way. The real world can seem more booring than a terminator film, but it also has a lot more depth if one start looking.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    4. Re:Hold on here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the same token, if a "friendly" nation consistently works to undermine US interest , they should not be considered friendly anymore.

      Guess which nation am I talking about here ?

      It cuts both ways.

    5. Re:Hold on here... by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, Part of the European Convention on Human rights says that a suspect may not be sent to a country to be tried if they are likely to be given the death penalty. A prerequisite of handing over suspected terrorists would be that they could not face the death penalty.

      As for kidnapping the suspect - look at it the other way around - Europe has some pretty hard-core special ops troops as well, but can you really see the SAS being able to sneak into the US and nick a terrorist suspect? No? I can't quite see it happening the other way around, either - This isn't Splinter Cell... ;-)

    6. Re:Hold on here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that simple.
      One must figure out how to best jam it.
      For example, shouting in mandarin won't
      do much to jam a conversation in english.
      spewing random noise doesn't so much to jam
      a frequency hopping system.
      I can't beleive you think the US black suits
      are naive enough to not know their way around such issues.

    7. Re:Hold on here... by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      No, the U.S. could perfect well drop a strike force almost any place the want, tear up some people, and get out with thier obective complete. This is not really up for debate.

      The reason they don't, as the poster you replied to but apparently didn't actually read said, is that actions have repercussions. The gain of watever objective it would be that involes invading a foreign country, is usually infintesimally small compared to the political and possibly military responses to such an act. So it isn't done. But that certainly deson't mean it couldn't be.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    8. Re:Hold on here... by kisak · · Score: 1

      You mean like the US did so succesfully in Iran. Don't kid yourself, most European powers would now what to do with some yankee commandoes.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    9. Re:Hold on here... by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      How about the rest of the times when they've been successful? I'm not saying that any given European strike force couldn't do as well as a US one, but simply that a covert strikes aren't used often because of the fall out afterwords.

      As for a European power knowing what to do, they key advantage, besides serious training, is suprise and speed. you're supposed to get in, do you thing, and get out before anybody knows what's happened.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    10. Re:Hold on here... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we'll see what those pricey Parisian
      chicks do with us the night before we drag
      Giscard d'Escargot to Gitmo.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  21. US Military, not EU by arevos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, except this would give the US Military capabilities over Gallieo, not the EU. Would the US agree to something similar? If the US should be able to jam the EU system, then surely it's perfectly fair for the EU to jam the US GPS system.

    I wouldn't mind this provision as much, if the EU had the same rights as the US in this matter. In short, if the US Military wants the ability to shut off the EU's feed, then the EU member countries should have the ability to shut off the US feed. And how likely is it that the US would give France or Germany the ability to arbietarily decide to block their system?

    1. Re:US Military, not EU by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      That's what puzzles me most. It's not our (USA) toy, why should we own the remote? Of course, the EU ought to be ashamed of itself for caving to such a request. If I were standing in a line and asked a guy in front of me for $1000 and he gave it to me, who's the idiot?

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    2. Re:US Military, not EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I for one welcome our GPS jamming US military overlords.

      Oh, its not a joke...

    3. Re:US Military, not EU by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      The point is that if the US gets into a war and that country is using satellite navagation technology - the US will do whatever it takes to shut it up.

      Whether that means the EU temporarily silences the sats or the US shoots them down doesn't really matter to the US. Asking that the EU put provisions in that allow the US to locally jam Galileo simply means the US doesn't have to kill Europe's nav tech because the enemy is using it.

      It's not bullying - it's just a way for Galileo to survive when we attack the next Iraq.

    4. Re:US Military, not EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like we in the EU are a small restranteur and the large goons dragging their knuckles walk in (USA) and say "It would be a shame if anything happened to your nice joint here. For a consideration we can protect you from this happenings. Oops I am sorry to have accidentally knocked over your stack of plates. Oh dear,what a shame, never mind".

    5. Re:US Military, not EU by saldek · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is flawed : if you stood in front of an ATM and a guy with a gun in his hands demands $1000, would you refuse?

      I have no doubt that American diplomats exerted plenty of pressure on their European colleagues behind closed doors.

      While I'm sure that America wouldn't shoot down the Galileo system if Europe refused to make it easy to jam, it's hardly a secret that America routinely uses economic incentives and punishments to get what it wants.

    6. Re:US Military, not EU by vidnet · · Score: 1
      That's like saying that if the beaver gets to swim in the pool, the cat should be able to swim in it too.

      Yes, it's kind of fair, but the beaver is the one who jumps into it at every possible opportunity.

    7. Re:US Military, not EU by kc0dxh · · Score: 1

      Why should the EU be given any control over the military power that allowed it's constituent nations to for the union in peace rather than be soviet?

      --

      --- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc

    8. Re:US Military, not EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone with a little bit of knowledge of the NavStar GPS system currently in place knows that it is EASY to jam GPS. The system uses power below the atmospheric noise floor in fact. GPS is easy to jam with even a small transmiter. Russia builds a 4Watt jammer that is hand held, nothing new here.

      The US is simply asking for similar ability. Before just wholeheartedly thinking the US is evil in doing so, read some of the other posts here that are quite thought provoking.

      For all the privacy people in here, it might appeal to you to have the ability to jam a transmitter that is in your rent-a-car, or in your brand new On-Star system.

    9. Re:US Military, not EU by arevos · · Score: 1

      The US is simply asking for similar ability. Before just wholeheartedly thinking the US is evil in doing so, read some of the other posts here that are quite thought provoking.

      As other posts have also pointed out, you can jam any EMF-based system, which includes Galileo. What the US is asking for is to be allowed to shut it off whenever it wants. If the US has permission to turn the EU system off, the EU should really have permission to do the same to the US.

    10. Re:US Military, not EU by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that American diplomats exerted plenty of pressure on their European colleagues behind closed doors

      I have serious doubt that the United States has any ability currently to apply pressure to more than two or three countries in the EU. That was proven when we could not get a consensus approval from most European countries to move into Iraq.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    11. Re:US Military, not EU by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's more like the cops or the firemen showing up and telling you that unless you give them money, they're going to tell you to fuck off when you get robbed or when your establishment starts burning down. We're not going to invade the EU any time soon, but if someone else decides to take a shit on it, we might stand by for a while, as the EU gets pockmarked with craters, before we commit our forces. Unless, of course, y'all play ball. If you are convinced that you won't need us, then don't cave. Of course we might end up blowing up some of your satellites, if we feel they're being used against us. Who can blame us?

      The US has unfortunately been caught empire-building, but we also operate as a kind of police force. We brought this 9/11 shit on ourselves, and many of the things we've done in the world in response to it are therefore ridiculous. But, not everything we do is simple greed. Usually, greed is only a part of it :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:US Military, not EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, but it's the beaver whose dam built the pond/pool in the first place!

    13. Re:US Military, not EU by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Could you give us a hint who is EUs potentiual enemies? Unlike US we dont run around making enemies with everyone.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    14. Re:US Military, not EU by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Anyone who wants what you've got, if you don't have sufficient military force arrayed against them (maybe your own local stuff, maybe yours and your allies') to keep them cowed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. Project should be cancelled by jschrod · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the report is true, the whole project should be cancelled ASAP.

    There is no reason why my tax money should be used to create a second system that is equal to an already available and (within the spec limits) working one. It's only sensible to spend the money if there is a big enough advantage.

    --

    Joachim

    People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    1. Re:Project should be cancelled by Zocalo · · Score: 1
      If the report is true, the whole project should be cancelled ASAP.

      And what makes you think that this isn't what the US military hasn't been after all along? If they can get enough people to lose interest in Galileo, then the entire project might go away leaving the US operating the sole GPS system, with a whole range of options to retard its use as required. GPS has a huge range of uses beyond military applications, search and rescue for example, and it says a lot about current US policy that they consider possible military applications the most important.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Project should be cancelled by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I agree. A system designed to allow outsiders that didn't even give any financing or help an influence or control shouldn't happen.

      I really don't know the spectrum or why certain frequencies are more succeptible than others, that is a little outside and beyond my education, but if that is true then there is no reason to pick easily jammable frequencies so some disturbed group, big or small, can disrupt things.

    3. Re:Project should be cancelled by jschrod · · Score: 1
      I agree to your assessment. To clarify, for the record: I am in favor of a civil-controlled system that delivers precise location information -- as planned in Galileo. I consider creation of such a system as a good example of "my tax money at work".

      But this is an implication, not an equivalence: From the requirements follows "money OK", not the other way round. Of course, that's not the way politics work; but that won't change my evaluation.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    4. Re:Project should be cancelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you understand the real issue here ?
      Basically EU was given an option : design your system so we can jam it if need arises or we will simply take it out the first time is used agaist us.
      This whole thing is is not about Europeans but rather about external parties ( rogue nations etc ) using this system in their attack again US interests.

    5. Re:Project should be cancelled by g_attrill · · Score: 1

      Look at the specs - Gallileo will be more powerful and more accurate than GPS.

      One of the main reasons it is being produced was to allow location based road charging. The press currently talk about the system using "GPS", which would be silly to deploy on a seriously large scale (even if it were as reliable as would be required). Gallileo would have allowed EU countries use of a technology that would be pretty dependable.

      Gareth

    6. Re:Project should be cancelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, quite the opposite. The project should move full swing ahead (since it has a lot of merits) - but absolutely without giving to the US the right to interfere with the system (since it will make the whole project pointless).

      Easy. If you're building a house, you don't usually allow your neighbour to implant a bomb under the roof, however nicely he asks or whatever reasons he provides. You just don't allow him.

    7. Re:Project should be cancelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This whole thing is is not about Europeans but rather about external parties ( rogue nations etc ) using this system in their attack again US interests.

      So what? External parties can already use GPS against European interests. There is more to the world than US interests, in fact 95% of world population doesnt care about US interests.

    8. Re:Project should be cancelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The specs are watered down to the point where Galileo is neither economically competitive nor advantagous in a military context when compared to GPS, which is an established system of (then) roughly the same quality and reliability. I doubt this is about military applications at all: More and more civil uses for positioning systems are found. Just think of the requirement for mobile phones to include GPS receivers. This is a huge economic potential, and since Galileo will have very few technological aspects going for it, GPS will win in the market place due to its head start (known property, etc).

    9. Re:Project should be cancelled by jschrod · · Score: 1

      RTA. The specs are watered down. There doesn't seem to be an advantage of Gallileo over GPS any more, and thus the money is spent in vain.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    10. Re:Project should be cancelled by zoloto · · Score: 1

      Then using that logic, we should cancel linux because there is already an available and working system the public can use.

    11. Re:Project should be cancelled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To extend the argument, the OS already available is a US OS. And the US military/gov may want the option to include trapdoors, so they can control other countries IT systems.

      The rest of the world is not at the beck and call of 5% of the worlds population.

      I sincerely hope the Europeans show some spunk and tell the Pentagon where to get off.

    12. Re:Project should be cancelled by jschrod · · Score: 1
      If linux would be as closed as proprietary Unices, and no functional enhancement would be available - yes, then it would be of no use to work on it.

      To prevent another misreprentation by you: You misunderstood (or overlooked) the basic logic "if ... then". The if is: closed system, watered-down specs, caving in to US military demands. The then is: no use for such a project. In my opinion, a civil-controlled high-quality location system is a Good Thing(tm). Let's go for it. But Gallileo doesn't have this target any more, so this would be a different project.

      And, as others have pointed out, Gallileo must be much better than GPS to have a chance on the market. After all GPS has a really big headstart. I don't like sinking our tax money in some bad (politically and technically) project that has few success chances; though I fear it will happen anyhow.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

  23. US Control is not a "setback" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without the ability of the United States to override in case of emergency, there's no telling what purposes such a system might serve. If that's what it takes to keep it out of the hands of Islamic terrorists then so be it. Don't blame the US, blame the fucking terrorists who created the climate.

    1. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by arevos · · Score: 0, Troll

      Without the ability for the government to arrest citizens in secret and execute them without being held accountable, there's no telling what damage terrorist could do. If that's what it takes to keep the country safe then so be it. Don't blame the US, blame the fucking terrorists who created the climate.

    2. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by dumeinst · · Score: 1

      Without the ability of the United States to tell us what to do in case of emergency, there's no telling what trouble we might get into. If that's what it takes to keep money in the hands of the corporate elite, so be it. Don't blame the US, blame the terrorists.

    3. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by hplasm · · Score: 1

      Sod it. Blame Canada.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    4. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eek, your post looks like you actually mean what you said... You forgot the modifier!

    5. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by Bill_Mische · · Score: 1

      This would be slightly less scary if governments were made up of people & didn't make such a pigs ear of repression ("Hey lets arrest the wrong people and make the six o'clock news").

      Unfortunately they do and it is bloody scary.

      --
      Boring Old Fart (40, married, 3 kids...er no...make that 49, married, 3 grown up kids...it's been a long time)
    6. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Obviously it is. I announce a Linux distro that's Windows compatible, but then I decide that, well, no, it's not, that's kinda a setback for the whole "this isn't a pointless waste of time" idea, no? Eerily similar, in fact, to announcing a GPS system that can't be jammed, and later deciding that, wait, no, we were actually, how you say, "making shit up" when we said that.

      And now, let me, here, use a few more, additional, useless, commas, and clauses, that will fuck, up, you know, the flow of the sentance, yeah.

    7. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Right... that's why they can arrest someone with a Persian name, but who was actually a Canadian citizen merely visiting the US for a few days. Once they arrest him, they deny him any rights to return to what he claims is his own country when his name shows up on a suspect list, and end up deporting him to Iran, where he is tortured for almost a year before finally being allowed to return home.

      This story is *TRUE*.

      Yeah, you can blame the terrorists for causing this level of paranoia in the first place, but blaming the present on past events, even if true, isn't productive. The powers that be in the US are going to have to eventually learn to move on with life. What happened was tragic on 9/11/2001 was terribly tragic, yes... but the above scenario can happenned in a place that is called "the land of the free". What sane person that wasn't being racist, prejudiced, or bigoted, would want freedom if it came at that price?

    8. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..so why do you think there are terrorists - because they are "evil" or because they feel very mistreated by the US (and/or other countries/political descisions)?

      So if you think we should blame the terrorists for creating this climate - I say we blame the US for beeing agressive and creating the terrorists that created the climate that "forced" the US into beeing more agressive. :)

      I think much of the problem with US vs. "terrorists" is that the US is far to agressive - and agressiveness feeds aggressive behaviour - it is a "bad circle". Therefore my solution to terrorism is to stop beeing agressive - and stop interfering in other countries internal affairs (for example israel vs. the arabs - what the hell was UN/US thinking in constructing a jewish contry in arab land).

      What picard says all the time in TNG is so true even in our time; Dont interfere with other cultures - even how good your intentions may be - the result could be disastrous.

    9. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by nagora · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Don't blame the US, blame the fucking terrorists who created the climate.

      And who created the terrorists? Why, the good 'ol USA. The people that brought you Saddam Hussain (ex-CIA assassin and short-time puppet ruler of Iraq), the fantasy nation of Israel, many fun-time bombings by the IRA, the Cuban missile crisis (laugh and laugh again as the US nearly destrys the world by objecting to Russia having a handful of missiles as close to America as America's hundreds of warheads are to Russia), frollics in Vietnam, the friendly WMD of Pakistan, not forgetting most-favoured trading nation China and its ongoing attepts to crush the kingdoms of the Himalaya and its own democratic movements, the attepted assassination of democratically elected President of Venezuela (that happened during Gulf War II so if you missed it, just wait for the repeat), arms to Iran, arms to Iraq, arms to Nicaragua, arms for drugs, arms for cash, ARMS FOR ANYTHING!

      This century only: a corrupt US-backed African government free with almost any African sub-Saharan country.

      America's government is available in the shops or by phone: just dial Washington I-HAVE-OIL and ask for "Donald" for low, low prices on West Nile Virus, Anthrax, Botulism, and a host of other great diseases. Have your credit card details ready.

      Yes, thank God for the US, without it who would you turn to in war-time?

      I bought weapons of mass destruction from America and their after-sales service was second-to-none: they even sent over CIA agents to help "calibrate" the weapons when I fired them at Iranians. This saved a lot of time when I gassed my own civilian population later. I wouldn't buy E. coli off anyone else." Mr S. H., Iraq

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    10. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      You created the terrorists in the first place. Why should we have to deal with the concequences of your imperialism?

    11. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're American, right?

    12. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by arevos · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I agree with you. Check the parent to my post. Perhaps I was being too subtle in my sarcasm, I suppose. Still, it's irritating that whoever who modded me as troll wasn't browsing at 0, otherwise they would have picked up the AC I was replying to. Oh well.

      Next time I'll be sure to put big "SARCASM" notices up :)

    13. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Moore fan, perchance?

    14. Re:US Control is not a "setback" by nagora · · Score: 1
      Michael Moore fan, perchance?

      Ah! a brilliant rebuttal. So much easier than bothering with evidence or facts.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  24. Naivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let us not be naive; there was no other real reason for Galileo than EU money into EU industry, the massively underestimated budgets (30 billion Euros only) is a big hint on that. Just launching the 24 satellites (and that assumes NO losses) would eat up about that amount of money, and then you have ground stations, staff, development and, best of all, maintenence.

    The whole thing has been presentet as being too good to be true, and guess what: it should then not be assumed to be true. The US has developend, evolved and maintained the GPS for about 30 years and it has cost a bit more than what EU has guesstimated.

    Secondly it was always rather hazy just who should control Galileo and just what limitations should be in place; it was always this unclear "someone" in "the approporitate commission", which should alert anyone who didn't fall out of a tree yesterday of big corruption ahead. Those still in their diapers might be surprised of jamming capability; the rest of us should ne be.

    The French have always been a big proponent but then again they have this massive penis envy with respect to the US.

    1. Re:Naivity by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The French have always been a big proponent but then again they have this massive penis envy with respect to the US.

      It has nothing to do with penis envy. As a European, I want our economy to be strong and united, and our defense force strong and not reliant on a third party. This is not because I envy the USA. It is because I live in Europe, and even if the USA says that it'll propect us in the case of a third world war, I'd much rather the EU had it's own capabilities because the USA has shown itself to be increasingly unilateral in its actions.

      Some in the current administration in the USA have even been questioning the "loyalty" of the UK recently, and if the administration is capable of that then it's capable of stabbling its 'lesser' friends in the back.

      Sorry, but that's just the way it feels to me at the moment. Hopefully something will change in the near future and we'll be able to feel that the USA is a great and friendly power again.

    2. Re:Naivity by Gulik · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that's just the way it feels to me at the moment. Hopefully something will change in the near future and we'll be able to feel that the USA is a great and friendly power again.

      Well, there *is* an election coming up, so keep your fingers crossed.

    3. Re:Naivity by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      The French have always been a big proponent but then again they have this massive penis envy with respect to the US.

      Why would they envy US penises? US penises are usually mutilated soon after birth to stop US guys from enjoying sex as much (it's a religious thing). That's why they have to play with guns instead (same thing applies to certain well-known countries based on religion and probably pre-WW2 Europeans/Antipodeans).

    4. Re:Naivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if Ron Jeremy has a gun and an SUV, doesn't that blow most "little dick" theories out of the water?

      Anyone care to ask the man?

    5. Re:Naivity by The+Swedish+Chef · · Score: 1

      Sir YOU are the naive one in this discussion.

      Who saved Europe in the late 1910s? how about the 1940s? What great European power stepped into the former Yugoslavia in the 90s? When in the past century has the defense of Europe NOT been relient on a third party (the US)?

      The US saved Europe from Germany (twice!), and protected it from the Soviet Union from the end of WWII through the end of the Cold War.

      Do you honestly think that the US would abdicate the defense of Europe to the defenseless EU if WWIII ever came to pass? We saved Europe twice already, what makes you think that we wouldn't be dumb enough to do it again?

    6. Re:Naivity by jameslore · · Score: 1

      Sigh....

      The US came awfully late to the party in 1917. It was a helpful step in pushing the Germans to an armisitice, but you hardly saved us.

      As for 1942, the Russian beat the Nazis. The turning point of WW2 was Stalingrad, not D-Day. And you didn't help us when we were under threat of invasion, you sat it out under Hitler declared war on you.

      The fact that Europe was bankrupt and somewhat fed up with war has shaped the European armed forces and attitudes for the remainder of the century. Unlike America, we've had the enemy in our towns and cities, bombs falling nightly from the sky, and know that war is dirty, whoever wins.

      And let it not be said that we're not grateful for your help - but to claim the US single handedly saved Europe is both ignorant and arrogant. Read a history book, please!

      (Speaking as a Briton, depsite the NZ location)

    7. Re:Naivity by Dalcius · · Score: 1

      Sorry we're not friendly. :( I sincerely hate that about my government. Either we're pacifistic isolationists or manipulative goons. Both sides have their good points, but the sharp edges are horrible.

      In fair game, I'd like to point out my feelings about a number of countries across that oversized lake...
      Much of Europe seems to have adopted an isolationist, pacifistic attitude. This is my opinion, but it seems like government/EU/UN resolutions and statements are rarely followed through by European countries. Whether force is necessary here or there is one thing, but personally I don't see any way out of thinking that some of our bitter neighbors wouldn't rather beat their chest and return to their cave when their talk is ignored.

      I'm sorry that I see things this way. I hope that in the future I can feel like members of the EU and surrounding countries (as well as some folks in my own nation) can either stand behind what they say or not say anything at all. Claiming that you're going to get your Posse only to stay home and call the US a "Crazy Cowboy" when he goes to follow through seems a little hypocritical.

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    8. Re:Naivity by nathanm · · Score: 1
      As a European, I want our economy to be strong and united, and our defense force strong and not reliant on a third party.
      I don't see how the Galileo system will help the EU economy, only hurt it. Some European countries are in deep financial crises already.

      This is not because I envy the USA. It is because I live in Europe, and even if the USA says that it'll propect us in the case of a third world war, I'd much rather the EU had it's own capabilities because the USA has shown itself to be increasingly unilateral in its actions.
      I'm all for it. Europe has gotten a (practically) free-ride for too long. It's avoided spending much on defense only because the US was taking up the slack.

      Also, I'd argue that World War III is already over, it was the Cold War. There are also good arguments to consider the current War on Terrorism to be World War IV. Its scope and breadth certainly qualifies.
  25. I wonder by tempestdata · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if the EU (or any other political/military entity) has the ability to jam US military GPS signals. If that is the case, then this only means that a balance of force exists. ie. I'll jam yours if you jam mine.

    However, if the US GPS system is difficult (or impossible?) to jam.. then this is definitely a bad idea. However, the US is only doing what any bully would do. Make sure no one ever gets in a position where it wont have to take his/her/its bullying. (yes mod me down for calling the US a bully.. but frankly when the article says the US 'pressured' the EU into changing the systems specs, it really means 'bullied')

    Does anyone know if the US system can be jammed? Is china working on a similar system?

    --
    - Tempestdata
    1. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of a story that some "friends" told me a few years ago. The radar system that "some company from a European country" wanted to sell to the USA and had sold to other (friendly) countries was so good that the so-called american invisible bombing planes were perfectly visible on these radars. So who knows?

    2. Re:I wonder by Walterk · · Score: 1

      The company which you referred to is Thales, formerly known as Holland Signaal. They make some impressive systems.

    3. Re:I wonder by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      Here you go.

      LINK

      The part you're interested in if the second article on the page.

    4. Re:I wonder by sxpert · · Score: 1

      Is china working on a similar system?

      china is part of the gallileo project now

    5. Re:I wonder by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 1

      So it is your opinion that war should be fair for the enemy instead of safe for the US?

    6. Re:I wonder by uebermts · · Score: 1

      sure the GPS Signal can be jammed - after all its just a radio transmission - just as good/bad as the Galileo (PRS) system.
      The GPS uses two frequencies one for civilian use one for military uses, the first one artificially not as precise, the military signal encrypted.So when the DoD would decide to jam the civilian signal it won't affect the military part of the system.
      When the Galileo consortium were designing the system, they decided to use the same frequency as the military GPS. If the US would, for any reason, decide to jam the PRS, at the same time they would affect they own system. A actual simple sollution for protecting this system agains any, well lets say mischance ;-)
      But as GPS is still the NATO standard there are still needs for the possibility to keep enemies from using any satelite positioning system. After all Galileo is not ment to be a military system, but can of course be misused in this sense.So what to do if there is a NATO "deployment" and you want to keep your enemy from hitting your troops while still having the ability to use modern warfare (smart bombs etc.) ?

      Hope this brings some sense into this topic.

      Thomas

      more info: http://www.useu.be/Galileo/June1902NATOBellGalileo GPS.html

    7. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NavStar GPS system is quite low power and can be jammed using incredibly low power. A hand built jammer could jam GPS units within 100m. Of course the higher the power the higher the range, and if your jammer is in the air (aboard a plane or helicopter) it gets much more effective now that it is above the horizon of most receivers. So instead of receivers seeing really low power satellite transmissions, they are getting swamped by high power jamming. Simple.

    8. Re:I wonder by nathanm · · Score: 1
      Does anyone know if the US system can be jammed?
      Yes, it's quite easy to jam the signal locally. All you need to do is transmit a stronger signal in the same frequency band. This could be either a brute-strength transmission of noise to prevent GPS receivers from working (very easy), or transmission of signals that imitate GPS satellites, giving GPS receivers erroneous readings (much more difficult).

      Is china working on a similar system?
      I don't know if China is, but Russia already has a similar system called GLONASS.
  26. Frequencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi all,

    would someone please explain why some frequencies might possibly be harder or easier to jam than others? (Which is what the article is insinuating...)

    The other thing that keeps me worried about the article (or hopeful, actually) is that this was reported through only a single source, and everybody else is referring to them. If it is true (or as grave as suggested), then surely some more people would pick it up...

    1. Re:Frequencies by njan · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the article was intending to convey the same message as the slashdot summary.. but in essence, I think the idea would be that the US wants galileo to work on different frequencies so that a) it doesn't interfere with gps (obviously this would be a design configuration anyhow) and b) it's totally independent.. ..so, for instance..

      gps works on frequencies 1, 4, and 7. galileo works on 2, 3, and 4. In this for-instance, blocking galileo involves blocking a third of gps's available signallage, possibly diminishing the usefulness of the system. If galileo worked on 2, 3, and 5, then this wouldn't be a problem. Extend this to exclusive signals which naturally interfere with each other (harmonised signals and the like), and that's probably the essence of what you're asking. ;)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. manual translation of Heise article by Apogee · · Score: 5, Informative

    Galileo under US control

    The previous argument that the European satellite navigation system Galileo would make Europeans independent from the US apparently starts to falter. As reported by the Tagesschau (German TV news, trans. note), US armed forces can jam or artificially deteriorate the Galileo signal without consulting the Europeans, just as it is being done nowadays with GPS signals in times of crises.

    But that is not sufficient for the Americans. They further demand that the unencrypted Galileo signal, which the system broadcasts during normal operation, should be artificially degraded or dampened, as well. Should the US come through with this demand, one of the major arguments for the European navigation system would fall, namely its higher precision compared to GPS. The pivotal round of negotiations for this is planned to take place in the American capital, Washington DC, in January.

    The Galileo project is estimated to cost four billion Euro, and is supposed to become operational in 2008. Approximately 30 satellites are needed for the system. Recently, China and India have agreed to participate in the financing of the project with 500 million Euro combined. (uma/c't)

    1. Re:manual translation of Heise article by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the US can cause some serious trouble for Galileo if they don't appease them. I imagine that GPS has precisions comparable to Galileo's but is currently unavailable to civilians. Therefore, in the future, the US can just make those signals available and destroy Galileo's business. Galileo costs money while GPS doesn't. There's already a large number of GPS receivers out there. So if the EU doesn't agree to the US's demands, the US can easily render Galileo unmarketable. I mean, once Galileo is working, the US might as well make those more precise signals available since the enemy will already have the capability from Galileo, unless of course Galileo is jammable at the US's request.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    2. Re:manual translation of Heise article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPS is around 15-20 years old? It's quite possible that the technology developed in those years makes possible greater accuracy that wasn't cheaply feasible for GPS when it was conceived. I mean that's 8 to 10 generations of chip development, we can put a lot more transistors on a chip for analysis and have a lot more options available for signal generation and processing.

  29. Re:I'm a Conservative! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Conservatives work on fear, yet Dems are the ones trying to scare seniors by telling them we'll destroy their SS. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah.

  30. Re:Article is flamebait by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Precisely why the EU compromised on the matter.

    If they put the system in orbit and the only way to deny its use to an enemy were to shoot it out of the skies, then that would be what would happen.

    If you can selectively degrade it simply by flipping a switch that give the EU a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US (ie, we can make this whole galileo-jamming bit real easy for you if you only change policy xyz).

    If you can jam it from the ground then at least the US has a more painful solution if it wants to go it alone which does necessitate shotting the satelites out of the sky.

    Basically, by giving in to the USA, they can still use the system for the civilian purposes it was designed for, but at the same time they retain the option of denying it to an enemy later.

  31. Gravity Waves! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    If someone figured out a way of broadcasting gravity waves and recieving them without annoncing it in a sci journel, then they would be able to send signals without any fear of jamming or eavesdropping. Ofcource if you did publish, you'd get a nobel prize.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  32. Not only that, by blankinthefill · · Score: 1

    but it goes against US law as well. This is a decidedly monopolistic move, one that will weaken a rival solution. Didn't we just have a big case of Microsoft doing the same thing?!? And anyways, the system is being developed outside of American control or influence. If this was a corporate system, we would not have the right to change it, so why should we be able to interfere now? This administration really gets on my nerves.

    1. Re:Not only that, by squarooticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but it goes against US law as well. This is a decidedly monopolistic move

      While I'm in agreement that Europe should just tell the US government to fuck off in this instance, this statement is just stupid. A government is by definition a monopoly: it has to be a monopoly over some domain---typically territory---or it has no authority.

      Unless you're prepared to declare all governments illegal---which of course makes no sense, since only in the presence of laws enforced by government can something be considered illegal---then antitrust measures cannot be interpreted as applying to governments.

      Mod parent down.

      --
      [ home ]
    2. Re:Not only that, by blankinthefill · · Score: 1

      How is that a stupid comment? While I do agree that a government is a monopoly, I was trying to draw a parallel between the people who are actually making the system and what rights we have to control them, namely, none. And one of the fundamental rules of leadership is that no entity is exempt from the laws of the whole, up to and including the ruling party. So, even though the government is a monopoly, taking part in activities that promote monopolies would be against the law. Have you ever seen anything that exempts the government from its own laws? I haven't, and there have been many occasions where the government has gotten in trouble for breaking its own laws! (like Watergate.)

    3. Re:Not only that, by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And anyways, the system is being developed outside of American control or influence.

      Obviously, the fact that this article was published at all indicates that this system is WELL WITHIN American influence. The area of US influence is essentially the range of an ICBM - which is just about anywhere of significance.

      Not that I'm advocating might makes right - but it is silly to think that the USA would just ignore this considering it has military value. You don't see the USA telling foreign countries to cripple their TV broadcast satellites - even though they compete with US service providers.

      In any case, the concept of monopoly and competitition is meaningless when you're talking about military eqiupment (such as Galileo - and yes, it is as useful to a military as it is to any civilian). Government is usually defined as that organization which has a monopoly on the use of force in a given area. In 1943, the capital of France was Berlin, since only the Germans could effectively apply force in France. No country likes the idea of sharing military power with anyone - it goes against the very definition of a sovereign nation to allow others to use force within your borders. The Galileo system would allow anyone to drop a satellite-guided munition on US forces anywhere in the globe - whether in US territory or foreign territory. Obviously, the US military isn't going to like that...

      In any case, having the ability to selectively degrade the system is good for the EU as well as the US. If the EU decides to invade some country I'm sure they'll want to control access to precise navigation information as closely as the US does...

    4. Re:Not only that, by GrodinTierce · · Score: 1
      I think that what blankinthefill meant was
      This is a decidedly hegemonistic move
      --


      Tierce
      Who sponsors your feelings?
  33. I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 1

    I never quite understood the fascination with GPS devices; unless I'm lost in a trackless wilderness or adrift at sea, I likely know where I am. (And yes, I own a GPS unit, for geocaching games.)

    At least they haven't found a way to jam a compass or sextant...

    1. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      Most people don't know how to operate a sextant. GPS interfaced with a map program makes location find very easy. We used it during our roadtrip (Geeks on roadtrips...) and navigated without any problem. We even used the program to route us around traffic jams.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    2. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by Nostrada · · Score: 1

      ... geocaching GAMES?

      Addiction, my friend. Addiction. :-)

      --
      Cheers, Nostrada
    3. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by eutychus_awakes · · Score: 1

      Sextants are jammed in battlefield environments through the use of magnesium flares on parachutes. The bright lights in the sky prevent you from seeing stars (unless you look AT the flares, then you see lots of stars when you close your eyes.) It's an intersting fact (and well documented in Ron Howard's film) that the Apollo 13 crew couldn't use their sextant due to all the bright space debris floating around their capsule.

      To have more than 10-degrees accuracy with a compass, you need to know where you are geographically in order to correct for magnetic-north offset. See point number 1 above.

      --
      This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
    4. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by perly-king-69 · · Score: 3, Funny
      At least they haven't found a way to jam a compass or sextant...

      You just wait until the magnetic poles flip. Due any day soon!

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    5. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by javatips · · Score: 1

      I believe a compass can be easily jammed with a strong magnetic field.

      As for the sextant, they just need to create some sort of clouds. Which is probably not that difficult oer s relatively small area.

    6. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes on the Cuillin in Skye the magnetic field of the rocks are notorious for screwing up compasses.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    7. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Most people don't know how to operate a sextant. GPS interfaced with a map program makes location find very easy.

      Indeed, this was highlighted in a recent government study involving 200 SUV-driving regional account managers. Those account managers who tried to simultaneously drive their SUV, talk on a cellphone, drink a latte, and navigate with a sextant were found to be more than 27 times more likely to inflict multiple fatalities on other motorists than those account managers who instead tried to drive, talk on a cellphone, drink a latte and use the in-dash GPS unit.

    8. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by Walterk · · Score: 1

      That's easy to counter. Just take a pen and swap 'N' with 'S' and 'S' with 'N'. (A complete reversal would be easy for anyone to detect.) Now, if they drove some trucks when huge electromagnets, then you'd be screwed.

    9. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by Psykechan · · Score: 1

      Just take a pen and swap 'N' with 'S' and 'S' with 'N'.

      Just a bit of advice: You may also want to relabel the East and West indicators or you will find yourself being very confused. Granted, in the case of Magnetic Reversal, you may end up more than just confused.

    10. Re:I'll stick with my Compass, thank you. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      If you realize that gps is used in many situations you dont even know, like in majon harbors to track the positions of the single containers, than it becames clear that its something you dont want someone on another continent have control over.
      At least if he is to dumb to know on which continent your contry is...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  34. Good times ahead by RPoet · · Score: 1

    ... for the US jam industry. They can jam anything with that stuff.

    --
    "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  35. thats the plan by zorgaliscious · · Score: 1

    it probably will... trust me ;-)

  36. Already in control by morcego · · Score: 1

    Of course we pressured them to make their system weak!
    what blows my mind is that countries actually give in and do this!

    I think these statements summarize the whole point, doesn't it ? After all, if the other countries do give in, the USA is already in control.

    --
    morcego
  37. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is my attempt at analogy:

    Two friends, one is staying in the others mansion. Friend one (Pete) doesn't mind, because friend two (Pierre) helps clean up around the place. Now Pete has a beautiful Porsche. Pierre is envious of both Pete's Porsche and his mansion, but he spends way too much money on food and fancy clothes to afford both. But one day, after some thought, Pierre tells Pete he's going to buy a Porsche exactly like his! Needless to say, Pete is not happy. "If you can afford a Porsche, then you can afford to live in your own damned house." Pierre is alarmed. He actually has a house in a run down section of town, but that's really only so he can pretend to be an adult. A full blown mansion (to impress the ladies) is out of the question given his food budget. So Pierre gives in, and says he's going to buy his Porsche but Pete can drive it whenever he wants.

    Pete pats Pierre on the head. "Good. Now put on some gloves and help me clean out this backed up toilet, I'm knee deep in shit."

    1. Re:Good! by attonitus · · Score: 0, Troll
      Earlier ...

      Pete returns home from work, "hey, I worked 12 hours today," he says, "if I keep going at that rate, I should be able to pay off my student debt in 4 years time. Then I should be able to start paying down the mortgage on this place. What did you do today, Pierre?"

      Pierre looks up from the excellent dinner that he's been enjoying for the past 2 hours. "That's great, Pete. How's the love life?"

      "Great as usual, Pierre. You know that girl that you said wasn't interested in me? Well, to show her what a great guy I am, I parked my Porsche in her front drive and blew the horn solidly for an hour, and in the end, she let me come in for dinner."

      "Really?"

      "Yeah, she cooked a great meal. Strangely, she insisted on cooking it herself but didn't eat any. Still, that just shows what a swell guy she thinks I am."

      "Err..."

      "Not had time to see her since though. (Been laid up with the runs.)"

      "I see. Hence the backed up toilet?"

      "Err, yeah, sorry about that. "

  38. NOT obviously the US by StandardCell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First off, you focus on the US, but the fact of the matter is anyone - from anarchists to terrorists to civil disobedience organizers - can choose to jam BOTH the GPS system AND Galileo.

    Then you mention how much clout the EU has with the US now. Unfortunately, all commodities are still traded in US dollars and probably will be for the foreseeable future. The high Euro has also significantly hurt European exports and all of this in the midst of increasing European deficits contrary to EU constitution by Germany and France recently. All this in the midst of rampant inflation like 30% increases in the cost of damned table salt per year in Greece last year, for example, and the UK being resistant to joining and giving up the pound. In fact, Europe's economy is teetering on stagflation at this point. The higher the Euro becomes the more expensive European exports become and the more European countries get hurt.

    The article is pretty heavily laden with propaganda, and your post skims over too many details. However, just like the meteoric rise of the Nasdaq and Dow three years ago, the meteoric rise of the Euro of over 20% in the span of eight to ten months indicates something - volatility, not strength.

    1. Re:NOT obviously the US by hummer357 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      well, one of the geatest fears of the US is that a lot of oil-producing countries (in south america, africa, ex-soviet union) are/were considering pricing their oil in euros.

      the US government wet their pants at that prospect.

    2. Re:NOT obviously the US by lovebyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... rampant inflation ...
      Greece's inflation from August 2002 - August 2003 was: 3.3%. The average in the EU was 2.2%.
      Data from : infobase.
      This is not rampant.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    3. Re:NOT obviously the US by kisak · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The high Euro has also significantly hurt European exports and all of this in the midst of increasing European deficits contrary to EU constitution by Germany and France recently.

      If this is turning into a pissing contest, how is the US deficit doing at the moment?

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    4. Re:NOT obviously the US by arcanumas · · Score: 1
      All this in the midst of rampant inflation like 30% increases in the cost of damned table salt per year in Greece last year,

      Uhm, since when is the inflation rate calculated by the price of salt? or any individual product in any case?

      I need to tell you that the inlfation rate in Greece is at around 3.6.(2002 measurement.) A normal inflation rate by any standard.

      And since you are a keen economist. Please tell me. We know the effect of devaluation on cost of improrts/exports. Can you tell me what will be the effect on the US the imports so much more than it exports? It will make your imports much more expensive. Until you can decrease your imports , to the extend that is possible you will be paying more. So economic matters are not so simple as you present them.

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    5. Re:NOT obviously the US by StandardCell · · Score: 1

      The Netherlands still has 5% inflation, and Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal have inflation rates in excess of 4%.

      So, the question becomes, what do you do when some countries are high and some are low? That's the inherent weakness of the Euro - that one monetary policy cannot account for the fiscal policy of all countries. I did mention Greece, did I not? So obviously one of two things will happen here. Either all these countries in an economic funk will have their economies sink, or the rest of Europe will have to give them handouts. Either way, it's harmful long-term for the Euro.

    6. Re:NOT obviously the US by lovebyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. You are quoting stats from 2001 and I from 2003!

      2. What is the inflation rate of, say, Scotland relative to the UK, or Alhabama relative to the USA. Same problem than in the euro zone. Different taxes exist in different US states or UK nations.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    7. Re:NOT obviously the US by Pakaran2 · · Score: 1

      As for the easy to jam issue - any sattelite network will be easy to jam for any ground-based station that's able to run off the power grid. Using a single frequency, or narrow frequency range, may make it easier for the EE major with stuff he bought at radio shack to jam you, but it won't help vs. medium to large national governments.

      Why the US would WANT to jam Galileo globally, given the diplomatic repurcussions, especially once ships start running aground, is another issue.

    8. Re:NOT obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, the question becomes, what do you do when some countries are high and some are low? That's the inherent weakness of the Euro - that one monetary policy cannot account for the fiscal policy of all countries.

      Well, exactly the same happens, when some States in the US are high, and some low. It's a free market, with goods allowed to circulate freely between boundaries without taxes, so it ends up balancing itself.

    9. Re:NOT obviously the US by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm

      Nothing like using figures that are 2 years out of date to make your point...

    10. Re:NOT obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What is the inflation rate of, say, Scotland relative to the UK, or Alhabama relative to the USA. Same problem than in the euro zone. Different taxes exist in different US states or UK nations.

      1. It's ``Alabama.''
      2. The rest of the world is laughing at the countries in the EU because they've given up their sovereignty to become states.
    11. Re:NOT obviously the US by yiantsbro · · Score: 1

      I love it that you spell Alabama the way you have probably heard southerners (American southerners) pronounce it...

    12. Re:NOT obviously the US by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      well, it is high, and something Pat Buchannen said today on C-Span scared the crap out of me....Nixon was the same kind of republican as Bush...Spend a lot and cut taxes.

      in 1973 we entered a decade of stagflation and at the end of it, we had 21% Prime rates.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    13. Re:NOT obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, since the "proper" Southern pronunciation would be spelled "Ala-god-damned-bama"... It's next to Missishitty, and near Lousy-ana.

    14. Re:NOT obviously the US by sploxx · · Score: 1

      > hurt European exports
      Umm, germany where I live exports the most goods per citizen. So, yes export is important.

      But: 30% of the exports are non-EU. So it doesn't matter that much.

    15. Re:NOT obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the only middle east country that used Euro's for oil was... Iraq. This was one of the "hidden" factors for deciding to invade Iraq. Money and oil.

    16. Re:NOT obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the same source as you, I get the average to 2.0 and median to 1.9 .. !?

    17. Re:NOT obviously the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the parent was right, don't know what data you used though,

  39. Yea who needs knowledge! by siberian · · Score: 1

    It'll only keep you from killing your buddy, shooting 'Coalition' troops and removing the fog of war for the commanders on the field and back in camp.

    Geocaching is great, but it ain't got nothing on the integrated systems in place for soldiers on the ground.

    In related news, the EU is beginning to scale back their plans for the EU NATO competitor. They probably are starting to look at the price tag and, while it is tempting to try to emulate America's build up, their economies are even more sickly then ours and its not looking so smart anymore.

  40. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by goldcd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but US is running at a defecit i.e. is importing more than they're exporting. Dollar is slipping against the Euro, the same dollar is bringing in less and less 'product'. You could increase your deficit and bring more stuff in which is ultimately going to end in disaster as more and more dollars bring in less and less, or reverse the deficit by exporting more product (the sensible option). To export your products you need people to buy them, you don't want your main customer (Europe) imposing great big embargoes, restrictive taxes etc. That's why you should want to keep them happy. The EU knows it's in a strong position and (if we ever stop bickering with each other) will use this.

    1. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.. no, but it was an interesting attempt

    2. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1

      ...and it's only going to get worse for the US. The guys investing in the currency market are shifting away from the dollar, not for what is happening now, but for what will happen a few months or years down the line - massive, massive government borrowing with a decreasing tax take may require interest rate cuts to boost the economy.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    3. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by I8TheWorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With the exception of agriculture and services, the US usually runs a deficit globally. This has been going on since the 50's. The dollar is extremely cyclical, more so after the early 70's when it was completely taken off of any precious metal standard.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    4. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by Pakaran2 · · Score: 1

      Most of that US deficit is against non-EU nations, specifically Japan and the big oil exporters.

      I don't know what the situation between the US and the EU alone is, but let's compare apples to apples.

    5. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by InsaneGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but you need to get yourself back to a econ 101 class, there are so many things wrong I can't believe it's modded to positive territory.

      The dollar is *intentionally* down compared to the Euro. Because the dollar is down the amount of imports into the US is down. If a product in the US costs less to create (because of a weaker dollar) than it does to make it somewhere else and ship it in, why buy the imported product? By devaluing the dollar it makes everybody else's product more expensive in the US and it also makes it more attractive to buy US goods overseas. There was a stink in Canada not too long ago about bringing their currency down, because they were losing significant amounts of money/jobs because the US were able to make it cheaper than they could.

      The US has basically always ran a deficit, the US is the biggest consumer market in the world. We physically can't make enough stuff in the US for what we want to buy, so every other nation salivates at getting to the US market because their own country doesn't buy enough from them. Basically it comes down to this: a weak currency allows you to export easier, a strong currency hurts exports.

      From a consumer market standpoint, the US really doesn't need the world to buy their product as much as the world needs the US to buy their product. 80% of all Canadian exports are to the US, think about what would happen to them if the US stopped buying all Canadian goods, compared to if Canada stopped buying all US goods.

      Also I could be wrong, but I believe Canada is the main customer of the US not Europe.

    6. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but US is running at a defecit i.e. is importing more than they're exporting.

      You can see the physical manifestation of this from the NJ Turnpike... around the Port of Newark the empty shipping containers are piled seven or eight high in giant stacks all over the yards. I assume that's because containers are coming in full and not going back out. Anybody on the West Coast see the same thing?

    7. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...think about what would happen to them if the US stopped buying all Canadian goods..."

      Holy cow you're right. They'd have silos full of old Saturday Night Live and Kids in the Hall episodes on VHS. LOTS of silos. That's a lot of space the CHILDREN could be using.

    8. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US is Canada's largest trading partner, with 80% of Canada's trade happening with the US. I don't think that means the same in the opposite direction. Canada simply doesn't have the population to be America's largest trading partner.

      Now as far as Econ 101 is concerned, did you learn what occurs to your foreign debt when you devaluate your currency? A larger defecit due to debt servicing costs without providing any economic stimulation to the economy. That's a large price to pay for a currency devaluation.

      Also, in Econ 101, did you learn what happens if a nation continues to increase their debt? It's like a pot of boiling water. Keep the lid on it, and it'll explode. It's just a matter of time, and investors are starting to see this. All it takes is for investors to make a run at Wall Street and it's the 20's all over again. You guys are well due for another depression.

    9. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by Art_Vandelai · · Score: 1
      Canada IS the U.S. largest trading partner. The World's Largest Economic Partnership"

      The United States sells more than twice as many goods to Canada, a market of 30 million people, as to Japan, a market of over 125 million people. Canada is a larger market for the US goods than all 15 members of EU combined.
    10. Re:I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 1

      Looks like some European dude has found a loophole in the steel tariffs :)

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
  41. Of course it can be jammed by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any signal can be jammed. Remember the flap when it was found out that Russian GPS jammers had been sold to Iraq?

    The real issue isn't jamming but in scrambling/encoding. The idea is that you keep the system functioning but only for your benefit and not for the other side. A blanket jamming signal would deprive everyone of the system. An encrypted signal would mean that only the people with the right keys get the accurate information.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:Of course it can be jammed by Upphew · · Score: 0

      But also people without the right keys should gain some information. If signal is very usefull for one party and useless for the other why not jam it?

    2. Re:Of course it can be jammed by Ribald · · Score: 1

      Any signal can be jammed. Remember the flap when it was found out that Russian GPS jammers had been sold to Iraq?

      Yeah, and as I recall, they took them out with JDAMs. Which are (partially) GPS guided. I think someone was trying to make a point, there.

      You can jam anything, given enough power. If I'm on batteries, and you're on the grid, you can ruin my whole day. Fortunately for the jammee (but not the jammer), these are easy to locate, especially the wideband ones. Imagine a searchlight--sure, a 3-million candlepower light can blind you from a few hundred yards, but you can see it from a helluva lot further away than that. Hell, a Boy Scout could probably DF one with $10 in Radio Shack parts.

      The Air Force has another name for jammers. Targets.

      Like the parent said--encryption is the key. If they can't use it, there's no need to jam it. I'm not that current on Galileo, but as I recall one of the main sticking points was it offered it's high-accuracy signal (equivalent to the NAVSTAR GPS' P(Y) code) to just about anyone.

      GPS with WAAS gets you to, say, 1m RPE, 2-sigma. Who really needs more than a 1-meter accuracy in the civilian world? Surveyors already do post-processing and get millimeter-level accuracy.

      The only real use for Galileo is to make money for the EU. Just put the system up, and say anyone that flies in their airspace must have an approved Galileo receiver--GPS isn't good enough. Each receiver will have a tax on it that goes to the governments coffers. Want to utilize the system to fly a flight plan? That's another fee.

      Don't believe me?
      From what I understand of the European aviation system, that's how it will go. Flight plans, weather reports, runway usage--you already get billed for that, now GNSS will make money, too. Why do you think everyone comes to the US to get a pilot's license?

      Galileo's only benefit over NAVSTAR is that the EU can make money off of it. I'll take my WAAS-enabled C/A code reciever for $150, thanks.

      --Ribald

  42. But what is the difference. by khasim · · Score: 1

    If it isn't any more accurate than the US system?

    If it can be disabled by the US, just like the US system?

    In effect, they will be using a US-controlled system.

    So it would be more in their national interest to put up their own. Even if it costs more.

    1. Re:But what is the difference. by Dick+Faze · · Score: 0

      They'll be happy because they can then talk about how they're using their own laboUr and a bunch of other words with no "z" and extra "u"'s.

  43. So, what frequencies cannot be jammed? by dougmc · · Score: 1, Interesting
    agreed to use transmission frequencies that could be easily disturbed or completely jammed
    If they're going to use frequencies that can be easily jammed now, I'd really like to know what frequencies they were using before that can't be -- because these frequencies must be magical.

    Any signal from a satellite is going to be very weak -- the satallite is a long way away, our atmosphere attenuates the signals somewhat (which does depend on the frequency), and they cannot transmit with very much power to begin with (because they have limited solar power, and cooling is difficult to do in space.)

    Any signal from a satellite can be jammed from the ground just by pumping a few thousand (or more) watts into that frequency in the general vicinity. This noise would overwhelm the weak signal from the satellite and drown it out.

    It's also quite possible that any yahoo with a big dish and a few thousand watts to spare could jam an entire satellite by aiming the dish at the satellite and transmitting a few thousand watts on the the frequencies the satellite uses (especially the uplink frequencies.) This has happened recently and made worldwide news.

    (Of course, I imagine that the only reason they never caught (?) the person (organization? government?) responsible is that they were in Cuba. This sort of jamming isn't trivial to track down, but I'm sure that it wouldn't take long.)

    I'd expect GPS-type satellites to be more resistant to this sort of jamming (because I imagine that they don't really use uplink frequencies at all) but one could certainly jam the control frequencies (which may or may not be needed often) and one could probably interfere with the transmitter by flooding it with noise on it's own channel (I guess ... my experience with RF electronics is limited.)

    I doubt that the government would flood the satellite with noise, however -- I suspect they'd just use equipment to jam the local area.

    1. Re:So, what frequencies cannot be jammed? by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a way to transmit your information so that it can still be recovered if a portion of it is loss? I was told once that the orthogonal nature of CDMA makes it more jam resistant. I'm not saying this as a matter of fact so I could be wrong.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    2. Re:So, what frequencies cannot be jammed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      These magical frequencies happen to be the same as used by GPS and hence if you jam them you knock out GPS as well. being able to jam is not the problem, its what else is jammed at the same time.

    3. Re:So, what frequencies cannot be jammed? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Isn't there a way to transmit your information so that it can still be recovered if a portion of it is loss?
      Absolutely. There's numerous ways of doing this, from complicated things like Reed-Solomon coding to things as simple as just sending each bit of information twice (or more times.)

      In the case of a GPS signal, it falls more into the category of the same information being sent over and over. If you failed to determine your position last second, maybe you can do it this second, or next second. As long as you're not moving too fast, as long as you can get some of the signal you're probably fine.

      However, if the signal from the jammers is millions of times stronger than the signal from the satellites (which is entirely possible and probably even likely) it's probable that your receiver will *never* get any valid data from the satellites.

    4. Re:So, what frequencies cannot be jammed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With GPS, the trick is not to jam the entire signal. The US military relies on GPS for its own purposes. As a result, they would only want to jam the unencrypted (civilian) signal.

      I don't know the details, but this would appear to be more difficult than you would think. Initially, the unencrypted GPS signals were made less accurate (random jitter injected) to prevent unfriendly groups from using it to guide their weapons systems. Being able to jam the unencrypted signal locally was a prerequisite for making the system more accurate. It was years after the introduction of GPS before they were able to do this.

    5. Re:So, what frequencies cannot be jammed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps they were planning on using frequencies close to those used by GPS, and thus jamming the EU signal would also jam GPS? That could be what is meant by signals more easily jammable, signals that are easily jammable without effecting U.S. systems?

    6. Re:So, what frequencies cannot be jammed? by joggle · · Score: 1
      The GPS satellites are using their uplink frequency all the time, receiving new precise orbit information from tracking stations on the ground. This orbit data is then continuously transmitted by the satellites so that receivers on the ground know where they are. I would guess that the uplink signal is heavily encrypted so that any jam on that frequency would simply cause the satellite to not be able to update its orbit info while in the area.

      The US would probably never need to jam the signals themselves as the Galileo system is probably similar to the GPS system where the civilian frequency can be dithered or even turned off in a specified region. So if the Galileo sytstem where in place today, the US would probably only need to make a phone call asking that the satellites turn off their civilian signal over Iraq and Afghanistan for the next few months and the EU would probably comply.

  44. Re:Article is flamebait by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

    Well said. The whole thing about jamming seems to stem from it using different frequencies than the U.S. system, it's a non story dressed up as anti-U.S. propaganda. I'm more concerned with the degradation issue for everyday use. I still don't see the significant strategic value of those extra few meters but I do see it undermining many peaceful civilian applications. Let's hope that Galileo supports the maximum accuracy for everyday civilian use. If it doean't there's very little point.

  45. Terrible translation... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    Galileo are belong to US.

  46. Re:Article is flamebait by kisak · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If they put the system in orbit and the only way to deny its use to an enemy were to shoot it out of the skies, then that would be what would happen.

    Not even Bush would be crazy enough to start a war against the EU. Shooting down EU satellites would be a declaration of war. Looking how much problems the mighty US army has with a 3rd world country like Iraq they should hessiate before making war with strong NATO allies. Of course, one could always nuke the EU, but both France and UK have nuclear weapons of their own.

    This is a compromise like all compromises, it probably serves some purpose for both parties. The US military like to believe that they can do what they want and the EU don't like the thought that rouge states can take advantage of their technology.

    On the other hand, it is not for sure that this is a final deal, since there are strong forces in the EU who do not want rogue elements in Pentagon or unpredictable presidents to control the safty of air traffic to mention one reason to have a trusted Galileo.

    --

    --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  47. I'm not for one moment claiming by goldcd · · Score: 1

    it's only the EU that's not appreciating the US lurching about planet. The EU is the largest single financial entity the US has to deal with however so obviously can exert more muscle than another single country.

  48. Re:Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... by radja · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and the US has planned invasions on at least one ally.. with friends like that, who needs enemies?

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  49. Re:Vote with money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right up until the point where someone else gets their hands on the tech, in which case there'll be gravity jamming too.

  50. its not like this can be done one a large scale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the way this would be jammed is flooding a certain area (in the several sq miles range) with crap in that frequency which disrupts recievers in that area. you cant practically jam hundreds of square miles let alone the entire world. and its not like you can jam a satellite sending the signals either, you can only jam a region of recievers. this isnt a bad thing and its only real use will be when fighting battles the military will jam reception of galileo signals (as they already almost certainly do of gps signals) so the enemy cannot use your own targetting systems. (they have their own higher end gps using a different frequency for military use)

  51. Makes perfect sense by CanadaDave · · Score: 1
    "The argument, the European satellite navigation system Galileo makes the Europeans independent of the USA, seems in the wanken to turn out."

  52. What?! The US being pushy?!? by gearmonger · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine America imposing its will on European nations and letting the US military push other countries around just out of convenience and without much regard for individual liberties or national sovereignty -- that's just not like the US that I know and love. Oh, wait a minute, it has been for the past 3 years now. D'oh!

  53. I have. by khasim · · Score: 1

    I am looking outside the window.

    What I'm wondering is WHO in the EU would even consider allowing the US that kind of access.

    I understand the US wanting it.

    I understand the US bringing whatever political/economic pressure it can to get its way.

    I do NOT understand anyone in the EU even considering allowing this.

    This is the US. We'll demand just about anything in the name of "security".

    The EU needs to stand up for its own national interests and say "No".

    1. Re:I have. by smack_attack · · Score: 1

      You need us to protect you from the terrible secret of space.

  54. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So?
    Unless you are talking armoured divisions (no, 5 people is not a division), or nukes, do you think the coupmakers would care?
    Sorry, I rather not put my countries security in the hands of US rednecks with a few shotguns...

  55. If, if, if, if... by uradu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As another poster said, IF the US wanted, they could nuke Europe. Of course, IF Europe saw the US as that kind of threat, they COULD switch from producing cruise ships, fancy automobiles and high-end electronic schnick-schnacks to producing fancy weapons instead. The sole reason Europe spends just a fraction of the money the US does on defence R&D is because it normally doesn't have to. If it felt it HAD to, the US wouldn't have much of a leg up on Europe anymore in that respect. As European nations have demonstrated plentifully in other areas (e.g. healthcare, public works), they are quite capable of appropriating gargantuan amounts of money, which could then be channelled to more destructive uses.

    If Europe started a massive military R&D push today, they could take advantage of the huge advances and cost reductions in digital electronics since the 70s and 80s, when a lot of the current US stock of weapons was developed. Cruise and intelligent anti-aircraft missiles with current technology could be produced for a fraction of the cost, you wouldn't event need equivalents to the F-22 or anything. Stealth is only as good as the next generation of DSP algorithms and chips. The principles of mass production aren't quite the novelty they were during WWII when the US were the only ones churning out hardware on a huge scale.

    This is all assuming all-out, take-no-prisoners war between Western nations, which given the economic realities of today is highly unlikely, almost ridiculous--as is the OP'ers flamboyant and boisterous statement.

    1. Re:If, if, if, if... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      If it felt it HAD to, the US wouldn't have much of a leg up on Europe anymore in that respect.

      Bullshit. The only reason the US won WW2 was economic -- we increased our GDP by 50% from 1941 to 1945, increased plane output tenfold, &c.

      It is true that combined the GDP of all of Europe exceeds the United States, but it would have to totally abandon all barriers to be effective, and, like I said, in the last war, the way it went down was the opposite of what you said.

      Of course, there's no reason history will repeat itself, but there's no reason it won't either.

    2. Re:If, if, if, if... by leerpm · · Score: 1

      Your argument has several flaws in it. You assume that military R&D is the only way to way to growth. The reality is that investing in military technology is not the most efficient way to advance your economy. Investment and advancements in the private sector is what really drives economic growth.

      While there are examples of military technology making its way into the general market, like the Internet, much greater advances would be achieved by diverting those funds to non-military research labs. Look at Japan, they have a very small military compared to the US, and yet they have become very technologically advanced in the production of electronics.

    3. Re:If, if, if, if... by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Also, let's please not forget that the US is closer to the EU than any other entity in the world and as an American I consider you friends. And just like friends we might disagree from time to time but we need not skepticize on what if scenarios that, god-willing, will never come to pass. For every person shooting from the hip their flamboyant statements is an equal voice of reason (on both sides of the Atlantic).

    4. Re:If, if, if, if... by uradu · · Score: 1

      > For every person shooting from the hip their flamboyant statements
      > is an equal voice of reason (on both sides of the Atlantic).

      As a European living in the US I know that ;-)

    5. Re:If, if, if, if... by uradu · · Score: 1

      > would have to totally abandon all barriers to be effective,
      > and, like I said, in the last war, the way it went down
      > was the opposite of what you said.

      Sure, because European nations under Nazi rule had no particular motivation to improve themselves and thus help the Nazis. Do you honestly think France under the Nazis could ever have been as productive as under self-governance? Or Holland? Or Poland? Europe at that time was itself torn apart. The (hypothetical) scenario discussed is very different, that of ALL of Europe being under thread from an external enemy.

    6. Re:If, if, if, if... by monkeydo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So why were you getting your asses kicked by the Axis before the US entered WWII? Before the US entered the war we weren't really spending much on the war machine, but Europe was putting every dime they had into making war. When we did enter the war we managed to crank up the war machine, increase domestic output and help pull your butts from the fire. You think you could out R&D the US? Do you remember that the USSR went Chapter 11 when they tried that?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    7. Re:If, if, if, if... by uradu · · Score: 1

      > You assume that military R&D is the only way to way to growth.
      > The reality is that investing in military technology is not the
      > most efficient way to advance your economy.

      Who is talking about economies here? The topic was total annihilation, R&D for survival rather than Gain & Profit.

    8. Re:If, if, if, if... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Europe not only has to perceive the common enemy, they'd have to absolutely drop *all* barriers and become a single nation to compete with it.

      Europe is play-acting at being a single state now with the common currency and lowered barriers. It is on the track you are describing, but it has in no way demonstrated the (yet) the ability to act as a single entity.

    9. Re:If, if, if, if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule number one: Don't trust anything you read on the internet.

      Rule number two: Don't trust anything a politician says.

      Since the U.S. and Europe both have the internet and have politicians, we know who to watch out for.

      Sure, our governments will have diagreements and difficulties from time to time, but the great thing about democratics republics is that the leadership changes every so often. In a few years, the current heads of state will be out of office and we can 1.) live in a state of bliss or 2.) continue screwing each other over. That depends on who is in charge of the countries at the time.

    10. Re:If, if, if, if... by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm

      I think you need to look at the effect that the money from the British Empire had on the US Economy, both prior to and after the Lend Lease Act. The British Empire had to increase the number of exports substantially as it converted more of its manufacturing base to a war footing. The British Empire was at that time the richest Empire in the world and it practically bankrupted itself to finance the war. Huge amounts of monetary reserves were signed over to the US as were a number of key patents.

      As a side note, the British Empire wasn't putting much into the war machine prior to the summer of 1939. Like most of Europe it believed another war was inconceivable given the huge cost in lives of the previous war.

    11. Re:If, if, if, if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Hitler's forces had a boost when Germany annexed Czechoslovakia apparently because it had an excellent armament industry. It really boosted Germany's army. Germany did use some new tactics which gave them a tremendous advantage. French and British tanks were actually more advanced than German tanks, but the Germans used theirs more effectively.

      To be fair, the Russians bore the brunt of the German army. They lost millions of soldiers in the fight, but they probably did the most damage to Hitler's armies. (Although I remember that the U.S. did supply Russia with some weapons and supplies, but I don't know specifically what.)

    12. Re:If, if, if, if... by uradu · · Score: 1

      > has in no way demonstrated the (yet) the ability to act as a single entity.

      War and the threat of annihilation have a funny way of doing that. Just watch France, Russia, the UK and US during WWII. Still couldn't stand each other, but they certainly had no problem fully cooperating for that duration.

    13. Re:If, if, if, if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add to that - What would the various economies (US & European) look like today if the Europeans were still having to pay off war debts?

      The US shouldered some pretty HUGE debts when they erased everyones' war debts.

      A big reason that the various European countries haven't had huge military budgets is because the US was doing it for them. Granted, the US was pushing its' own agenda.

      Never mind how wonderfully well socialized medicine works (as mentioned by an earlier poster). It's so efficient too. I shudder to think how things will look here in 20 years when Congress continues to buy votes with Medicare expansions.

    14. Re:If, if, if, if... by netfool · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity I added up the GDP of the EU using the following nations: UK, Ireland, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Greece, Sweeden & Finland. (I'm not exactly sure of all of the nations that are a part of the EU) Total: 8.2 trillion US: 10.4 trillion source - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

      --
      Left 4 Dead Gaming Group - http://www.l4dgg.com
    15. Re:If, if, if, if... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1
      War and the threat of annihilation

      Talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk.
      That's all you're good for. Put up or shut up.

    16. Re:If, if, if, if... by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1
      So why were you getting your asses kicked by the Axis before the US entered WWII?
      I hope you're not implying that US alone 'turned the tide of war'?

      The germans lost 2.3 - 2.5 million soldiers on the eastern front. That leaves about 1 million casualties to _all_ other campaigns. Based on that, I'd say that most ass kicking was done by the USSR.

    17. Re:If, if, if, if... by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1
      euro-zone GDP: 7.1 billion euros *
      the whole union (E15): 9.2 billion euros *
      E15 + CC-13 (the countries applying for membership): ~10 billion euros *

      Euro-zone: Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland.
      E15: euro-zone countries plus Sweden, Denmark and UK.
      CC-13: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia,Bulgaria,Romania,Turkey (Three last ones are uncertain, others will probably become members in 2004).

      * us trillion = billion for other people. Also, your figures were probably in dollars... Source: Eurostat

    18. Re:If, if, if, if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know I think the US has a serious problem today that Europe does not. The US public now thinks that war is a bloodless video game you watch at dinner time with your friends. "Look mah they liberated Nasariah. Ha look at those Iraqis waving". Europe still remembers living in rubble. Look at the US reaction to 9/11. They lose 3000 people and a few buildings and they think it's the end of the world. Imagine how many civilians died in Baghdad alone. Imagine how many buildings were destroyed. Oh wait no civilians were harmed I saw it on CNN it's ok. You'll learn one day. It's so easy to talk shit about being tough, being the greatest blah blah blah

    19. Re:If, if, if, if... by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm

      To the best of my knowledge the British Empire's War Debt was not erased. Rationing was still in effect for certain items until at least 1953 as it paid off war debts from the Lend Lease Act and also paid towards the reconstruction in Europe.

    20. Re:If, if, if, if... by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      I wish we could Edit our posts...

      It should read : The British Empire had to increase the number of imports...

      Not exports...doh!!!

    21. Re:If, if, if, if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No research needed, just make an huge amount of rpgs and hand them out to the population.. just look how much the reward is in Iraq for handing in a rpg.

    22. Re:If, if, if, if... by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Put up or shut up.

      You have a lot in common with your president. Let's find out who's stronger by starting a war, just for the heck of it.

    23. Re:If, if, if, if... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      So why were you getting your asses kicked by the Axis before the US entered WWII?

      Ah yes. The Axis. Those would be Germany and Italy, no?

      Can you tell me which large political and economic bloc those two countries are now members of?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    24. Re:If, if, if, if... by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Well, Germany is a member of the Axis of Weasels with their good buddy, France. Since Italy is currently a member of the Coalition Against Raping Dictators, I'm sure they will soon be kicked out of the EU by France unless France finds someone to surrender to in the meantime.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    25. Re:If, if, if, if... by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      So if you put together the GDP of 18 countries it's roughly equal to the GDP of the US. No wonder you Euros have such an inferiority complex.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    26. Re:If, if, if, if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans know all about war. We're damned good at it. Ask a native Indian.

      If you can find one.

    27. Re:If, if, if, if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, we don't.

  56. Ever consider this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What is unbelievable is that the US military degrades the US GPS in time of war so that the enemy can't use the open signal in their war efforts. What would be irretrievably stupid is to not negotiate similar safeguards in comparable systems. Yes, some may think that sucks, but the alternative is worse.

  57. Re:Fight the USA before it is too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll liberate you before that can happen.

  58. Re:Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... by lovebyte · · Score: 1

    on at least one ally

    You are right. The Netherlands. Sounds crazy, but true. And when I said allies, I did not mean friends!

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  59. GPS can be jammed by fuck_this_shit · · Score: 0

    Apparently the possibility of jamming GPS signals already exists, if only poorly implemented so far. http://www.space.com/news/gps_iraq_030325.html I guess given this it "might" simply be a "you jam ours, we jam yours". But given the wording of the article I assume what is supposed to be done with Gallileo will be a simpler more far reaching jamming done directly at the source, the satellites, and not on the ground in a specific area.

  60. Re:Article is flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well actually you could not since the current frequency spectrum of Galileo is designed to overlap that of GPS hence if the US jammed Galileo then they would jam their own system.
    The change that the US want is that Galileo uses a separate RF spectrum to GPS so they can jam it.

  61. Re:Article is flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ah ok. If you say so i guess i should just believe you. You are american after all.

  62. This sounds familiar by xyloplax · · Score: 0

    The FBI wanted a backdoor to all encryption technology in the US. I guess since the US Govt couldn't get that, they went global and targeted EU GPS. WTF?!?!?!?!?!??

    --
    -- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
  63. Re:Article is flamebait by kisak · · Score: 1
    Let's hope that Galileo supports the maximum accuracy for everyday civilian use. If it doean't there's very little point.
    Promised by ESA: Galileo will deliver real-time positioning accuracy down to the metre range, which is unprecedented for a publicly available system. It will guarantee availability of the service under all but the most extreme circumstances and will inform users within seconds of a failure of any satellite. This will make it suitable for applications where safety is crucial, such as running trains, guiding cars and landing aircraft.
    --

    --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  64. Put away all your tin foil hats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was always on the table and NATO countries have reciprical abilities with US based GPS systems...and if you thing NATO countries would allow any freewheeling GPS systems in space be they from Spain , France, England or Germany or even Latvia your are deluded and in denial.

    This isn't big brother US stepping on poor old Euro's toes this is prudent national policy and yes it does go both ways...

    And until the Euro hits 1.50 US it really won't have much influence on US policy. And even then its influence will more economic policy not foriegn

    So put away your tin hats and conspiracy crapola there is none and your phone will still be able to tell you where you are and your car will still be able to talk to you cause you are to lazy to read a map and you will still be able to find your way around the swiss alps with your pocket Gerrand GPS ....

    This has ZERO implications for every day users and the next time Joe loser decides to invade using your "independent" GPS systems you will have the ability to say 'so sorry system is down for maintenance'

  65. Iraq jamming difficult by peter303 · · Score: 1

    At the begining of the current Iraq war, the US feared GPS jamming by inexpensive, widely available devices. Much of the military uses GPS. However, ground-based jamming is rather localized compared to the space-based GPS platform. You basically need jamming in space, which the US already has.

    1. Re:Iraq jamming difficult by goofballs · · Score: 1

      no, the US did not fear the GPS jamming; the main reason is, the GPS jammers that are known to be in existence *emit* a craqp load of EM waves, and are easily targeted by other weapons. in fact, this is what happened in iraq- they surrounded many of their SAM sites w/ anti-gps gear from the russians, but that lit up the sam sites like a mofo for weapons like HARM missiles.

  66. That depends on what you mean by "jam" by DG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If what you mean by "jam" is "make service unavailable", yes, I would expect anybody with access to a powerful enough transmitter should be able to wash out GPS signals; at least locally.

    I would wonder about the vulnerability of such a jammer to an antiradiation missile... but technically it's possible.

    The downside of course is that by doing so, you render all your GPS recievers inoperative as well.

    What you really want to do in a GPS context is something called "selective availibility" where you remove or downgrade the service from unauthenticated "public" receivers. Your stuff still works to an 8-figure grid, but the bad guys are lucky to get 4 figures, and it jumps around a lot.

    In order to do that though, you need access to the source signal. You can't really do that from a "jammer".

    The funny thing is... I'm not sure how important selective availibility is from a national security perspective.

    Back in my recce days, I was required to know where I was at all times to 6 figures (100 metres) using nothing more than a map, a compass, and an odometer/pace count. It takes a lot of practice, but once you learn how, you can locate your position very accurately using terrain features and keeping accurate track of your route.

    Same deal in an urban environment. "Meet me at the corner of Peel & St Catherines" is accurate to 100 metres. "Meet me at the nortwest corner of Peel & St Catherines" is accurate to about 5 metres.

    Some environments can be a little more tricky - open desert, fog, out-of-date maps - but as long as you're talking about humans, accurate GPS is a "nice to have" not a "must have or cannot function"

    The exception is GPS-guided precision munitions... which are not exactly common items amongst the bad guys.

    If you look at where the UN and/or the US have gone in the last little while... The preferred weapon in Rwanda was a machete. Somallia, the AK-47. Bosnia/Serbia, the AK47, the land mine, and at least one Panther tank. Afganistan, AK47 and the RPG. Iraq, AK47, AK74, and the RPG.

    Most of the bad guys are fighting with technology that was state of the art in 1945 - and even then, there's at least one 1945-era technology that hasn't made it into the hands of more than a few countries.

    Terrorists? McVey used a truck full of fertillizer. The various groups blowing themselves up in the Middle East also use various chemical explosives. The big Al-Quaida innovation was to crash a big plane full of jet fuel into a building - and that'll never work again, because they changed the "how best to survive a hijacking" procedure so quickly that one of the planes IN THE AIR AT THE TIME didn't play ball.

    In terms of places to spend political capital, this seems like a bad investment. Piss off your friends, do little harm to your enemies, and don't increase actual security by any measurable amount.

    Mind you, I just described the invasion of Iraq too....

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:That depends on what you mean by "jam" by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      well...the problem is that when you "tell" a guidend bomb to land on the corner of park avenue and broadway, it simply won't get there. GPS weapons are designed to overcome the large terminal phase guidance errors inherent in any unguided weapon. Of course, visual processing is getting much more accurate, and may soon be accurate enough to find a terrain contexted target on the battlefield in the near future...obviating the need for GPS guidance.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    2. Re:That depends on what you mean by "jam" by Fjord · · Score: 1

      I would wonder about the vulnerability of such a jammer to an antiradiation missile... but technically it's possible.

      Don't wonder. Logically, if the missile relys on sampling that radiation frequency, then a jam o that frequency would affect it the same as any other device that samples that frequency. If is does not sample the frequency, then it doesn't use Galileo.

      --
      -no broken link
    3. Re:That depends on what you mean by "jam" by krautmann · · Score: 1

      I totally agree.
      Terrorism is not guided missiles & nuclear warheads. It's rifles, fertilizer, box cutters and chemicals from next door drugstores.
      If terrorism depended on nuclear technology or billion $ items hurled at targets by thousands of kilometres, we could get rid of them pretty quick. However, terrorism is a social engineering thing, not a technology thing.

      The current US govt's demand of access to Galileo only reveals misconceptions and paranoias and lack of insight about how terrorism actually works.

  67. Unjammable frequencies? by Kaa · · Score: 1

    EU has agreed to use transmission frequencies that could be easily disturbed or completely jammed by the US military

    I am a little bit confused. Presumably the range of frequencies suitable for GPS application isn't all that wide. Why is it that some frequencies are easily jammable, and others, similar, are not?

    Or is it a question of the US already having hardware in place to jam certain frequencies and it's basically a question of saving money for the US military (that is, not needing to buy/install hardware for Galileo jamming)?

    --

    Kaa
    Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
  68. If the us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesnt like it they can fuck away off EU soil. They arnt welcome here.

    1. Re:If the us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My, how your tune has changed since 1945. Or were you on the other side?

      Your life must be so awful now, suffering under the crushing suffocation of US control. Don't you yearn for the future, when you can throw off your shackles and elect your own leaders to represent YOU? Oh, wait... you already do.

      You're welcome.

    2. Re:If the us... by Stonan · · Score: 1

      Hate to burst your bubble but this DO change in 55+ years. Or are you forgeting that the USSR was good until the 1950s?

      The US was good for that time but now things HAVE changed. The US policy has not.

      The Yanks have enough problems within their own country. They shouldn't be looking for more. Trillions of dollars in debt, a number of their states can't even support themselves and constant fear that 'the sky will fall on their heads'.

      Not really a glorious example of democaracy and capitalism...

      --
      The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
    3. Re:If the us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Or are you forgeting that the USSR was good until the 1950s?"

      The USSR murdered millions of innocent people - MORE than Hitler - BEFORE WWII !!!

      Stalin's Ukraine starvation tactics alone make him histories second greatest mass murderer (after Mao who also starved millions by using troops to confiscate every morsal of food from their victims.)

    4. Re:If the us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Or are you forgeting that the USSR was good until the 1950s?" The USSR was on the same side as the Allies during WWII - basically, whatever side Germany wasn't on. Post-war, the USSR immediately annexed large chunks of Eastern Europe, because they could.

      Conversely, the US had the same power PLUS the nuclear threat - and instead opened up their pocketbooks and helped rebuild the parts that they could get to. The US committed a vast part of its military strategy to protecting Western Europe from the same fate as Eastern Europe.

      Those trillions of dollars you're talking about can be found right there in Europe, if you care to be objective about all of this. You're welcome.

      Think the Berlin Wall would have fallen without the support of the US? Me neither. Certainly not as soon. Think more European countries would have been a part of the USSR, like maybe Finland and West Germany? Me, too. Look out, Netherlands!

      Summation: the US economy and willingness to help out Europe have been to the benefit of those Europeans from the early 1940's through at least the early 1990's.

      Perhaps that HAS all changed, but not in 55+ years. More like 10. And let's face it, internal financial problems of individual American states are NOT the reason why grandparent poster suggested that the US-ians are unwelcome. No, that would be the resentment borne of gratitude. He knows that he should be grateful, but resents that fact.

      Now, do *I* think the US should keep it's nose where it belongs? Sure. But I'd like to remind you that the US was as neutral as Switzerland up until WWI, and wanted to be during WWII. Had the Europeans been able to handle their own politics, the US could STILL have been neutral. Instead, they were dragged into somebody else's war and placed in the position of "Champion of Democracy!"

      You can't have it both ways - either the US is the daddy, or they aren't. The Europeans are finding that the giant they awoke doesn't go back to sleep as easily as they'd like. Perhaps a more reasonable, intelligent leadership will arise in the US and allow for more enlightened foreign policy. However, as long as people keep blowing up American buildings and killing Americans in them, the American people will continue to support aggression against those entities which seem to be inimical toward them.

      You really wanna keep the US out of your military affairs? Show some balls, and handle your own defense. What's that, you say? You've no-one from whom you need defend yourself?

      Yeah. You're welcome.

  69. Been there, done that by HomerJayS · · Score: 1
    If the US should be able to jam the EU system, then surely it's perfectly fair for the EU to jam the US GPS system.

    GPS jammers are not exactly news. The EU or anyone else for that matter can already jam GPS (or any other frequency in the EM Spectrum).

    If it's in the EM spectrum, it can be jammed.

  70. Not to rain on your parade by sielwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    for example the import tariffs imposed on steel imported to the US are going to be removed due to pressure brought by Europe.

    Actually most of the pressure has come from primary swing vote states in the US where industries employing steel are prominant. There has been a huge backlash in the industrial Midwest (Michigan, Ohio) by small and large companies that have had to cut employees or fold because the price of metal has gone up. It seems Bush forgot the cardinal rule for global economy: penalize the local few (US steel makers) for the benefit of the majority (consumers, steel end users). Tariffs penalize everybody.

    And since the economy is #1 on the Presidential circuit, this hasn't floated too well. The Democrats have rolled out ads pointing out the fact that GWB is the first president since Herbert Hoover to run a positive economy that has lost jobs.

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
    1. Re:Not to rain on your parade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrats have rolled out ads pointing out the fact that GWB is the first president since Herbert Hoover to run a positive economy that has lost jobs.

      This is only because the Democrats haven't tried this yet. Since it's become apparent that most Americans don't want to become the United Socialist States of America, the Democrats don't really have a leg to stand on. The normal Democratic political stances (pro gun control, pro baby killing, anti personal responsibility, pro drug addicts) have all failed miserably as of late in the various elections. They're just trying to smear GWB.

      This is backwards to my mind. If they really thought GWB was doing such a bad job as President, they'd run their strongest candidate (Hillary Clinton) against him in 2004. Since she's not running, I guess most Democrats secretly like the job he's doing.

    2. Re:Not to rain on your parade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary can't run until she's past Menopause. Otherwise, she'd get an itchy trigger finger about one week out of every month. No world leaders can afford that.

  71. Sounds like a movie by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Funny
    When I first saw the title I thought it was a like a bad horror film.

    (Announcer voiceover)
    They left it for dead on Jupiter.
    But now it has come back from the shadows to claim revenge!

    (Pan to radar control room)
    Radar Tech: Sir, all our systems are jammed!
    (Shots of satellites exploding)


    (Announcer voiceover)
    Coming this fall: Galileo's Revenge: When deep space probes go bad.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  72. Re:Article is flamebait by sphealey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you can selectively degrade it simply by flipping a switch that give the EU a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US (ie, we can make this whole galileo-jamming bit real easy for you if you only change policy xyz).
    The funny thing is that in the last three armed conflicts in which the US has taken part (Iraq I, Balkans, Iraq II) the US Space Command has bent on every effort to increase the accuracy of the GPS system. During Iraq II they took the risk of degrading the signal in the rest of the world so they could concentrate more satellites over Iraq, which increased both diversity and accuracy.

    Guess that wouldn't always be the case, but it is a bit ironic.

    sPh

  73. Re:I'm a Conservative! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? SS is already doomed, and anyone with half a brain knows that. Oh, you're talking about the American populace as a whole. Yeah, it'll probably work - there are alot of folks out there who still think of SS as a retirement plan. Thank goodness I have my Enron stock to fall back on.

  74. Re:Article is flamebait by sxpert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (...)but both France and UK have n(...)

    I don believe the UK would retaliate against their great friend of all times, the US...
    they'll probably turn their nukes on the french !!!

  75. Policy of hypocrisy by siskbc · · Score: 0
    We in Europe are getting quite uppity with the US, especially their foreign policy and breaking our new toy would not be looked on kindly.

    Every time the US goes isolationist it's Europe who begs the US out of it. If Europe is unwilling to participate in the "dirty" parts of solving the world's messes, then they have little room to complain when the US does it in a way they don't like.

    Don't like the way the US solves problems? Solve them yourselves. I personally would welcome it, fewer US deaths, less terrorism targeted at the US, lower taxes, etc.

    But somehow I don't think Europe wants to take on that burden. Those who solve the problems get to make the rules, and until Europe actually decides to get involved in anything, that's the US.

    btw, I won't comment on your economics, as it seems to have been amply addressed already.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by perly-king-69 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That might sound straight to you, but from over here it seems that you only worry about these problems _after_ someone's shat on your doorstep, so to speak.

      Take terrorism. In England people were murdered for decades by IRA terrorists funded in no small part by Americans. Suddenly the Twin Towers are attacked and terrorism is the new world evil and the IRA funding via NorAid is stopped.

      Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    2. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by siskbc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That might sound straight to you, but from over here it seems that you only worry about these problems _after_ someone's shat on your doorstep, so to speak.

      First, when I last checked, Somailia and Bosnia are damned far from anything resembling our doorstep or national interests. Second, when something does come to our doorstep, you can be sure we will take care of it, as that's called self-preservation. The French aside, most nations do have an instinct of self-preservation.

      Take terrorism. In England people were murdered for decades by IRA terrorists funded in no small part by Americans.

      Some Irish-Americans, perhaps, acting as private citizens. That's like blaming Germany because Muslims living in Germany contributed heavily to Al-Queda. That doesn't fly.

      Suddenly the Twin Towers are attacked and terrorism is the new world evil and the IRA funding via NorAid is stopped.

      Don't know what you're going after there - NorAid seems to be a private organization. The idea that the US gov is supporting them in any way is laughable. Presumably, the British are big boys and can take care of themselves. However, if they need help taking care of the Irish in a fair way, we'll help. However, the disinterested skeptic might conclude that Britain's tactics against the Irish strongly resemble Israel's against the Palestinians, and as long as that's the case, the US won't get involved as Britain certainly isn't the clear-cut "good guy" there.

      Personally, I'd recommend allowing NI a referendum on joining Ireland, as that would solve the whole problem.

      Ultimately, no country in Europe has done a damned thing outside its borders in 50 years, save sending a thousand troops or so to play soldier in UN-sanctioned excercises in pointlessness. Even in those conflicts, it's the US doing the real work while European armies police Red Cross shelters. European armies have been allowed to decay into make-work for older, under-skilled citizens, with the exception of the British army which has been somewhat well-maintained.

      If Europe wants a say in the world, it can get up off its collective ass and do something. Until it does, it has no right to complain that it is not consulted on decisions that are made and enforced at the expense of US money and lives.

      That's not hypocrisy. That's exercising prerogative.

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    3. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might sound straight to you, but from over here it seems that you only worry about these problems _after_ someone's shat on your doorstep, so to speak.

      Exactly. If we acted to stop our enemies before they attack us, the rest of the world will deride us for doing so.

      My enemies are the people who are trying to kill me. I've recently been targetted by people who want me dead because of my nationality (I'm from the USA, if you didn't already guess). Actions that limit my enemies' abilities to hurt me are taken to preserve my life and the lives of others like me. If the rest of the world hates me for it, that's fine, but I'm not going to lay down and die just because the rest of the world doesn't think I should fight back. I'm certainly not going to wait on other people to step in and save me because I have no guarantees that anyone will do anything.

      As for your claims of the USA supporting the IRA, provide some citations.

    4. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well get ready bud. They're more pissed than ever and this time they'll take out a lot more. Meanwhile I living in a country that stayed out of your idiotic war will sit back and laugh as the bodies burn.

    5. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by kogs · · Score: 1

      Some Irish-Americans, perhaps, acting as private citizens. That's like blaming Germany because Muslims living in Germany contributed heavily to Al-Queda. That doesn't fly.

      Yeah and I suppose funding of Al Qaeda by private US citizens is not illegal? It's more like blaming a country for taking no action against its citizens who collude in the murder of innocent men, women and children.

      Personally, I'd recommend allowing NI a referendum on joining Ireland, as that would solve the whole problem.

      Hell, why didn't successive UK governments think of that? Because the vote would go in favour of NI remaining in the UK, check out the demographics, and the aggrieved would remain aggrieved and the Unionists would be even more instransigent. For goodness sake, the maniac Paisley just got the biggest share of the vote in the elections for the NI assembly and he is virulently against the Good Friday agreement.

      The election results are here. Note that the republicans of all flavours got 42 seats against 59 for Unionists with 6 for the Alliance (we love everybody) Party and one independent!.

    6. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Personally, I'd recommend allowing NI a referendum on joining Ireland, as that would solve the whole problem.

      MY FUCKING GOD! WHY DIDN'T WE THINK OF THAT! It just goes to show, all those years of violence and all we needed to do was ask an American.

      Just give me a minute whilst I check with the Republicans if its OK with them that NI remains part of the UK after the predominantly Unionist population wins your cleverly devised referendum.

    7. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by arevos · · Score: 1

      Some Irish-Americans, perhaps, acting as private citizens. That's like blaming Germany because Muslims living in Germany contributed heavily to Al-Queda. That doesn't fly.

      Perhaps. But the US did had more to do with UK terrorism than Iraq had to do with bombing the twin towers.

      Personally, I'd recommend allowing NI a referendum on joining Ireland, as that would solve the whole problem.

      Of course! We'll do what the majority of people in Northern Ireland want, and then there'll be no more violence. Why didn't we think of that!

      Except... Wait. We did. And over one hundred years ago. Oh well.

      The problem with Irish politics, of which you are entirely ignorant, is that the majority of people living in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK. The minority (though a rather large minority) want to become a part of Ireland. Due largely to religious differences between the two, and the fact that the Irish can hold grudges for centuries, we can't just wave a magic wand and make it all right.

      Ultimately, no country in Europe has done a damned thing outside its borders in 50 years, save sending a thousand troops or so to play soldier in UN-sanctioned excercises in pointlessness. Even in those conflicts, it's the US doing the real work while European armies police Red Cross shelters. European armies have been allowed to decay into make-work for older, under-skilled citizens, with the exception of the British army which has been somewhat well-maintained.

      Yep, they've done absolutely nothing. Not one bit. Well, except create the second (soon to be the) largest single market in the world, and initiated an immense project of international cooperation that is unpreceeded in history. Nothing like the EU has ever been set up in the whole of human history. A collaberation of member states around a single market, and planned currency. It may not be perfect, but since no-one's done this before, and taking the incompetance of politicians into account, perhaps that can be forgiven.

      No European country has gone out and blown up a lot of stuff in recent history, this is true. But is that really a good thing? Is the only way to mark history is to wage war?

    8. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by siskbc · · Score: 1
      Perhaps. But the US did had more to do with UK terrorism than Iraq had to do with bombing the twin towers.

      I'm calling this one. Let's see it. Also, for what it's worth, I never claimed Iraw had a damned thing to do with the twin towers. I think you have your countries and wars confused.

      The problem with Irish politics, of which you are entirely ignorant,

      I'm ignorant of it because I don't give a damn. I didn't bring it up either, I'm simply responding. It was a rather irrelevant red-herring response to my original post.

      The minority (though a rather large minority) want to become a part of Ireland. Due largely to religious differences between the two, and the fact that the Irish can hold grudges for centuries, we can't just wave a magic wand and make it all right.

      First, that's a blatantly insulting ethnicist statement, and shows that the problem doesn't lie 100% with the irish. And as you point out I am ignorant of the politics, but I *bet* that there are contigious regions of Irish catholics, probably those most near Ireland, in favor of splitting with the UK. Not my business or my problem, but you'd be wise to let them.

      Yep, they've done absolutely nothing. Not one bit. Well, except create the second (soon to be the) largest single market in the world,

      That doesn't have a damned thing to do with the price of diamonds in Sierra Leone. I'm talking about solving world problems outside your borders. Saying you made an economically united Europe to further your own economic goals really doesn't count.

      Nothing like the EU has ever been set up in the whole of human history.

      Wow, that's some delusion of grandeur there. The international economy still runs on dollars. Pisses you off, doesn't it?

      No European country has gone out and blown up a lot of stuff in recent history, this is true. But is that really a good thing? Is the only way to mark history is to wage war?

      It's not about waging war, it's about ending genocide and furthering stability and self-determinism. Put it this way - what the hell has Europe done in the last 50 years for someone not in Europe? When has any European nation sent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of its own to risk their lives for the freedom of people they've never met?

      I can't think of a single time. Ever. The US has done it a number of times in the last 75 years. We don't always make the right decisions - I'd be the first to admit that - but when no one else is willing to help out, that will happen.

      Europe is big on using its mouth to decry atrocities, but loathe to actually do anything to fix them. And there's a whole lot of problems out there that need fixing, and we don't have the resources to do it right now. You could start in western Africa. Put up or shut up.

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    9. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by kevquinn · · Score: 1
      Personally, I'd recommend allowing NI a referendum on joining Ireland, as that would solve the whole problem.
      I doubt it would solve anything; NI is not such a trivial problem. A referendum would simply affirm that most people in NI wish to be part of the UK (since most are unionist). However this ignores the republican minority, always a problem with referendums, especially given the historical reasons why that population is a minority.
      Some Irish-Americans, perhaps, acting as private citizens. That's like blaming Germany because Muslims living in Germany contributed heavily to Al-Queda. That doesn't fly

      The point is that its money came from US Americans, perfectly legally. The terrorists operating out of Germany were doing so illegally - i.e. the German government in no way condoned their activities. That funding for NorAid et. al. was legal in the US indicated that the US government tacitly accepted the IRA as a legitimate organisation. Funding terrorist organisations is, of course, a crime in the US; however the definition of a terrorist organisation is often a matter of perspective, so such organisations have to be identified specifically by legislators. The IRA have maintained a cease-fire for many years now; a considerable factor in the existance of the cease-fire is surely the overdue but welcome ban on fundraising on its behalf in the US.

      However, the disinterested skeptic might conclude that Britain's tactics against the Irish strongly resemble Israel's against the Palestinians, and as long as that's the case, the US won't get involved as Britain certainly isn't the clear-cut "good guy" there.

      Ah; we see your colours - mod +1 flamebait. Oh well, I've bitten so may as well finish off. I won't bother countering your outrageous hyperbole, however I will say "good guy" is a ridiculous concept to introduce to such an issue - these things are never so black and white. Is George Bush a "good guy"? (that's rhetorical btw - answer, "depends who you ask").

      For what its worth, you may want to research what the US' interests might have been in Somalia and Bosnia. Basically diversity and security of oil supply has to be a significant factor (not the only one, to be sure, but significant nonetheless). A quick search on Google finds several arguments along those lines; ranging as always from whackily paranoid to credibly well-researched.

    10. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seems to be the answer to all of your other problems!

      Really, I seem to remember Clinton having a fair amount to do with the recent thaw, and a previous cease-fire. How quickly you forget.

    11. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're more pissed than ever and this time they'll take out a lot more.

      How're they going to manage it? They won't ever have the element of suprise again, and we're going to stop them from putting WMDs (that do exist) into the hands of people who'll use them (also exist).

      Meanwhile I living in a country that stayed out of your idiotic war will sit back and laugh as the bodies burn.

      And which country is that? Do you think you'll be any less dead when a cloud of supertoxin X floats into your town and starts infecting people? ``You're either with us or against us'' isn't a declaration of enemies, it's a statement that if the USA loses here, the rest of the world is going to lose soon afterwards.

    12. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has done it a number of times in the last 75 years.

      Yes we have done it quite often last century.
      But if you except WWI we always did it because we had something to end in it.

      And yes even in WWII.
      Roosevelt did know (like most of the government at the time) that Germany had won the war in Europe, it would have come after the US afterwards. And it would have been more powerful than any nation throughout history.

      Let's not forget that.

      My grand father died in the war actually, but that doesn't mean I know that the US didn't fight the nazis ONLY for freedom.

    13. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by perly-king-69 · · Score: 1
      A bit late now, but hoping you'll read this

      Some Irish-Americans, perhaps, acting as private citizens. That's like blaming Germany because Muslims living in Germany contributed heavily to Al-Queda. That doesn't fly.

      Watch it fly: At no point did the US government ever stop NorAid until after 9/11. This was a group that blatantly funded IRA atrocities, implicitly supported by the US government who failed to ban them.

      Personally, I'd recommend allowing NI a referendum on joining Ireland, as that would solve the whole problem.

      Like the one last week? Unionists won about 48% of the vote, Nationalists about 40%. Over 25% of people voted for hard-line Unionists who won't even get into the same room as Sinn Fein. There's the answer to your poll.

      If Europe wants a say in the world, it can get up off its collective ass and do something.

      At the moment 'Europe' is just a collection of (increasingly disparate) states - some of whom share a currency, and with a few common laws. There is a big issue as to whether there should be a common defence policy, a common army or a European foreign spokesman. Most countries don't want these things at it would compromise national sovereignty. Essentially we're just a glorified trading bloc - albeit the largest free market on the planet - not some giant political entity like the USA.

      --

      --
      This sig is inoffensive.

    14. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by arevos · · Score: 1

      I'm calling this one. Let's see it. Also, for what it's worth, I never claimed Iraw had a damned thing to do with the twin towers. I think you have your countries and wars confused.

      Um, well, the ball's in your court there. It's well known that the IRA had US backers. Has there been any evidence at all that the twin tower bombings had Iraqi backings? That was my point. I wasn't claiming anything more.

      First, that's a blatantly insulting ethnicist statement, and shows that the problem doesn't lie 100% with the irish.

      I was paraphrasing an irishman I know when he was describing his family to me. I was rather less blunt than he was :) - He didn't mean it as an insult, either. It was just an observation, and frankly, a very astute one. Anyone claiming that quite a few Irish don't have a fixation on ancient grudges are just deluding themselves.

      And as you point out I am ignorant of the politics, but I *bet* that there are contigious regions of Irish catholics, probably those most near Ireland, in favor of splitting with the UK. Not my business or my problem, but you'd be wise to let them.

      The majority of the Catholic population in Ireland wants independence. The problem is that Northern Ireland (which isn't part of the RoI) is two-thirds Protestant.

      That doesn't have a damned thing to do with the price of diamonds in Sierra Leone. I'm talking about solving world problems outside your borders. Saying you made an economically united Europe to further your own economic goals really doesn't count.

      And the EU isn't one country. Take Spain, for instance. That's somewhere outside my borders. EU membership, and large cash grants have transformed it within a generation. If you visited it before it joined the EU, and compared it to it's neighbours, you'd see the difference between then and now. Heh. I hope I'm not being nasty to the Spanish there. Nice people, but anyone needs a leg up if you're economy was basically rock-bottom.

      It's wrong to think of the EU as a country. It isn't. Countries that join the EU get many benefits, and cash does get distributed. Why do you think the 10 new countries are clamouring for membership? Because it'll benefit them a lot.

      Wow, that's some delusion of grandeur there.

      Sorry? I must have not been paying much attention in history for that to slip by me. When I say "Nothing like the EU has ever been set up in the whole of human history", that is, to the best of my knowledge, factually accurate. How is it delusional, unless I am incorrect. And if I am incorrect, could you provide an example of when this has happened before? I'd be intrigued of another EU-like setup.

      It's not about waging war, it's about ending genocide and furthering stability and self-determinism. Put it this way - what the hell has Europe done in the last 50 years for someone not in Europe? When has any European nation sent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of its own to risk their lives for the freedom of people they've never met?

      Well, there was an obscure conflict, 65 years ago, when some nasty nation invaded another nation, and Britain came to the aid of it's ally, sacrificing tens of thousands of young men, amongst casualties of women and children from tonnes of bombs that were dropped nightly.

      It was, of course, World War II. The US joined WW2 in defence. Only when it was attacked, did it fight. Britain, and France for that matter, declared war to stand up for the people in Poland. People they had never met. Frankly, it rather surprises me that France has a reputation for cowardice when it declared war on a superior force to aid another nation.

      Now, you tell me, when has the US sent "hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of its own to risk their lives for the freedom of people they've never met"? Vietnam comes to mind. Of course, the US lost that, though it might have done some good. WWII, maybe, but that was motivated by defence... Hmm, can'

    15. Re:Policy of hypocrisy by tbradshaw · · Score: 1

      Hypocrisy? I don't think that's what's at issue here. I pay my government to be concerned only with those issues that effect me directly.

      I don't know enought about the situation with the IRA and England enough to comment on the funding of terrorists by the US government. (I don't completely doubt it, since we've funded plenty of terrorists before, but I don't see what we had to gain from funding the IRA.)

      However, while I do believe that terrorism is a fundamentally discusting prospect, I do *not* expect my government to take action unless that terrorism is directed against Americans. It's true that the American government has only taken a serious issue with terrorism recently. And that's exactly as it should be. If it's not in your citizen's best interest to support the US government in it's terrorism crusade, then your government shouldn't agree to help.

      (On a side note, while I mention the terrorism crusade... please don't count Iraq in that crusade. I couldn't apologize enough for that tyranny.)

  76. EU currency going up benefits the US... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    It doesn't give you bargining power. The US is following a similar policy to that of the 80s, and that is to devaluate the US currency to promote exports into the rest of the world.

    Do not gloat over the new found value of the Euro. It is on purpose. Also note that considering how much Germany and France are allowed to violated EU rules applied to other states the currency isn't exactly teneable long term.

    I think the original poster was right, the US could do it regardless, it just now requires the EU to acknowledge the fact that their system isn't invulnerable. If anything people should be happy they have to admit to allowing the possibility of jamming. If anything those on the EU side now have someone to point the finger at to accept blame for "changes to their project", of which I bet a few more "changes" slip in under.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:EU currency going up benefits the US... by leerpm · · Score: 1

      There is one difference this time. The Euro was never around in the 1980's, and by devaluing their currency they are going to motivate the other central banks around the world to rely less heavily on the US dollar. The consequences of this are non-trivial. When the US comes around from its current devaluation policy it's going to have lost some of its economic clout in the world, and won't be able to control its terms of trade as favourably as before. This makes no difference to the US Federal Reserve, but it will have an effect on international trade.

      Do not be so quick to dismiss the long term viability of the Euro. The EU member nations realize they have too much to lose by dismantling the currency. I can't argue for France, but I think the rest of Europe can accept Germany's temporary flouting of the rules, as the Germans had to sacrifice quite a bit to make the EU a reality.

  77. So, the important question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With two GPS systems available, how long will it be before a unit is available that uses both signal sets to triangulate with much greater resolution than the US govt wants its own citizens to have? Won't need a land-based signal anymore for the extra coordinate, Whoo-Hooo!

  78. which reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It is not a bug, it is a feature"

  79. Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    following these setbacks for the Galileo system, it is not at all reasonable to continue pushing an independent positioning system. If your business depends on the activation of the Galileo system, turn around now. Galileo is as good as dead. Various companies will continue to milk it for all the taxpayer money it's worth, but Galileo will not reach operational status. Galileo was an economical chance more than a defensive necessity. Keyword "was".

  80. disapointing by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why should Europe have to obey their liberators for an eternity? First of all, the irony of that is too much. Secondly, what's the point in having an independent system if the USA will be able to control it?

    1. Re:disapointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, now listen carefully, the alternative is to have a system that will be taken out the first time it is used against US.
      Got it ?
      The Americans basically say : work with us, if some third party starts using your system against us we will simply jam it - if you don't allow us to do it , we will have to take it out completely.

    2. Re:disapointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because America believe they run the entire world. Well, they're certainly trying. And you're surprised that so many people loathe you.

  81. why jamming? by PreteristGuy · · Score: 1

    Wait a second...I thought this is what ASAT was for!

  82. Re:I AM ON TEH SPOKE!!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi Greased Yoda! I see by your UID, that you must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot!

    You seem to have made a little mistake, though, and in the spirit of Slashdot friendliness to newbies, I'll help you out. See, it's "GNU/Linux", not "SCO/Lunix"! I know you must be confused with all the SCO stories that keep popping up on Slashdot, but really, as I'm sure someone else around here will tell you, it turns out that SCO's claims on Linux are wrong! And, maybe it was just a typo (if so I apologize!) but you mixed up the U and the I in Linux! Ha! Anyway, no need to be embarassed. Just don't make the mistake again.

    So, welcome to Slashdot!

  83. Well now... by Stonan · · Score: 1

    it's completely useless. I was interested but now that the Yanks can screw with it, what's the point?

    --
    The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
  84. As a European, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a European, I for one, welcome our new American overlords.

  85. Sad day for the entire world by pisco_sour · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Without even being European, when I first learnt about the Galileo project I found it an astonishingly important oppportunity to end the political/cultural/social/military international monopoly in at least one area. I can hardly conceive that a system as important as GPS is controlled by one nation only, having the entire world depend on it for so much. Galileo wasn't just important, hell, it was revolutionary. And now all of those nice feeligns are starting to fade ...

    Yes, this is a terrible setback for the project, for the EU, and for the rest of the world. Galileo might work and everything, sure, but when push comes to shove the US will have full powers to unplug it as if it were its own, or probably worse, to keep it running sending bogus information. This entire "imposing our system on the world" goes against the US' usual free markets and options discourse, but hell, they are usually hipocritical about it anyway.

    I, for one, am afraid I cannot welcome our old-school dictatorial global positioning controller overlords. Real bummer.

    --
    http://castorexmachina.wordpress.com - Filosofía, tecnología y cultura.
  86. Re:Fight the USA before it is too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are more than welcomed ...
    Come and get it asshole.

  87. terrorists who created the climate by tobyvoss · · Score: 1

    wait a minute - who created the climate of "we rule. we do and take whatever we want. we owe justification to no one. we judge without being judged ourselves." ?
    isn't that just exactly why so many are upset/furious with us westerners?

  88. The sky is not falling by spiritraveller · · Score: 1, Interesting
    The point of this is not so that the US can hinder the European military. It's so the US can do a better job when it does things that Europe wants it to do. US and EU interests usually coincide... and if that changes, Europe can always change its policy.

    Isn't it unfair? Doesn't it give the US too much power?

    How about this... we finally find bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan. He's tracked down while traveling in unfamiliar territory (to him). Wouldn't it be nice if we could jam that wonderful "open" GPS system that he's using to find his way somewhere else? Wouldn't it also be in the EU's best interest for someone (the US included) to catch bin Laden?

    How about a situation where N. Korea or Iran launches a GPS guided nuclear missile. Wouldn't it be nice if the US could jam the GPS system in time to keep that warhead from reaching its destination?

    Can't you think of other situations where this would be helpful?

    I'm all for open systems and making technology accessible to the public, but sometimes there are good reasons for controlling that technology.

    1. Re:The sky is not falling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know about you but I believe that the EU has enought intelligence and competence to decide when to disable their own Galileo in times of crises or special needs. I doubt that they need the help of US military to go past them and take the decision for them.

      I believe if EU and US interests really coincide there should not be any problem for US to kindly ask the EU to help them out a little. It smells mistrust and if there is under no circumstances would I agree on letting US have any influence of anything of ours. You know trust is not unilateral as some seem to believe.

      And just tell me why should I trust USA to take care of my needs especially when it is not my goverment?

      Would you be happy if EU had control over your GPS satellites?

    2. Re:The sky is not falling by justins · · Score: 1
      How about this... we finally find bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan. He's tracked down while traveling in unfamiliar territory (to him). Wouldn't it be nice if we could jam that wonderful "open" GPS system that he's using to find his way somewhere else?

      That's something which would never happen. There's no good way to jam a microwave satellite signal like that - you'd have to just turn the system off. Even if you could get all the GPS users in the world to agree to that, you'd end up hindering the hunters much more than the prey.

      How about a situation where N. Korea or Iran launches a GPS guided nuclear missile. Wouldn't it be nice if the US could jam the GPS system in time to keep that warhead from reaching its destination?

      Maybe, just maybe, news of inertial guidance has seeped down to the third world, since it's been around for decades. Sarcasm aside, you'd use an inertial guidance system as a backup even if you wanted to guide a nuclear-tipped cruise missile with GPS. And you wouldn't use GPS in an ICBM at all.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    3. Re:The sky is not falling by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      Time constraints of war and other urgencies make it pretty damned impractical to call someone up and ask them to "kindly" shut down their system.

      If the only practical option is to destroy that system at a time when people's lives are at stake, that is what will happen. It is simply a reality you need to be aware of.

      The US isn't taking away your right to self-determination and other happy-stuff. You simply have a tough decision to make.

      Option 1: If you want to invest billions of dollars and hope that the necessity never arises to destroy it, be our guest.

      Option 2: Cooperate with the one ally that has provided you with more military support than any other.

      Option 3: If you don't want any risk of it being destroyed, and it really chaps your hide that you didn't elect our president--neither did I, but that's beside the point--a third option is to simply ditch the project.

      Life is fraught with difficult choices.

    4. Re:The sky is not falling by BovineSpirit · · Score: 1

      There are other ways of finding one's position. If Bin Laden has a decent map, a compass and a local guide the US can bugger about with GPS all it likes, they still won't be able to lead him off somewhere. Likewise missiles can track their position using dead reckoning(counting the miles some other way, using a gyroscope compass to stay on track). They won't know exactly where they are but they will still hit the US. There's plenty of population centers close enough to Washington that the missile may hit accidently.

      The only people who will really be effected by disabling these systems are the civilians who paid for them.

      Seems to me the US are just throwing their weight around again, and hiding behind FUD.

    5. Re:The sky is not falling by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

      Option 1: If you want to invest billions of dollars and hope that the necessity never arises to destroy it, be our guest.

      This option seems to assume that the US can destroy several billions worth of EU's civilian infrastructural hardware without the act of destruction being taken as a hands-down declaration of full scale war.

      The US doesn't get to say "we feels this installation's existence is threatening to us, so we are going to destroy it" without some sort of consequence with the people who built the stuff, you know. It seems that (some) Americans actually believe they can and should do actions like this and not have to answer for it.

      Which brings us back to one of the first points; the EU has nukes too. Just how hard ball do you want to play?

    6. Re:The sky is not falling by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      Which brings us back to one of the first points; the EU has nukes too. Just how hard ball do you want to play?

      ...yet you seem to think that I'm the blowhard.

      There is a vast difference between murdering millions of innocent people, and damaging someone else's property out of necesitty.

      I would expect that an enlightened European such as yourself would not have to have that pointed out to him.

    7. Re:The sky is not falling by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

      There is a vast difference between murdering millions of innocent people, and damaging someone else's property out of necessity.

      That depends entirely on the "someone else" and "necessity", apparently.

    8. Re:The sky is not falling by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      That depends entirely on the "someone else" and "necessity", apparently.

      No. It doesn't.

      Here's a recap for you:
      * Damaging someone else's property = bad
      * Nuclear war = worse... a lot worse

      Yknow, the EU did agree to this... so, I suppose you think that your government is just a bunch of sycophantic pussies who are eager to please the US. On the other hand, maybe they thought it would be a good idea.

      It's your government. Ask them.

  89. Interestingly enough... by StandardCell · · Score: 1

    US inflation has been stable in the midst of the rise of the Euro. Obviously there is more than one lever involved in the matter which I was waiting for someone to walk into. One of those levers includes less assumption of consumer debt. Another is that prices for certain imported commodities (e.g. oil) are not controlled by the US, and as means of production, this relative stability only helps matters. From a purchasing power parity perspective, Canada (the largest US trading partner and where I am now, so stop this "you" business) is still not balanced relative to the US though prices have begun to fall somewhat in Canada on certain imported items (e.g. Apple's computers). In fact, Canada's economic growth was limited to 1.1% instead of the 3% the Bank of Canada projected because of the relative rise in the Canadian dollar, all while the US economy was rising 8.2%. Taxes have also fallen in the US creating additional money circulating through the US economy while the tax base in Europe is relatively steady albeit extremely high. I would've thought that there would be an increase in prices in the US, but there isn't, which means that there are many other things going on other than what I discussed. And now you know.

    1. Re:Interestingly enough... by arcanumas · · Score: 1
      I actually did not say that the effect of dollar devaluation would be an inflation , although it is one of the stong possibilities in such situations.
      I know of the complexities involved and i wanted to point out that it is not just "a good thing" as many have mentioned (because exports will increase) but there are some negative sides as well.
      Obviously in this case , the US economic system and the ones behind it have been doing a good job. But it does not mean that the effect of increased imports cost is not there. So pointing out that the inflation rate has been stable is not an argument against my argument but just an interesting fact.
      If it is as you say then is is certainly interesting if not impressive.

      Oh, and i am sorry for the "you". :)

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  90. Re:Typical European Cry-babyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I think it's important to let them feel useful and important and relevant at times like these. That way when they have to come running to us to bring in a real military to defend them once again, they'll have to grovel and feel their actual impotence even more. Plus, it's fun to watch their little delusions!

  91. Simple solution by azaris · · Score: 1

    So the US military wants a switch it can throw to jam Galileo? Fine, anything for our friends.

    There should also be another switch Europeans can throw to turn off the jamming capability. That way both parties get what they want.

  92. Re:Article is flamebait by madprof · · Score: 1

    It would seem a little odd if the US and its greatest ally went to war with each other yes....

  93. Re:Article is flamebait by Feyr · · Score: 1

    i'm not sure of the specifics, but most likely they decreased the civilian bands (accuracy) over iraq, while maintaining (or increasing, due to more sattelites) the military bands. it's well known they have different bands for those two systems, no reason why they wouldn't use them.

    i could be wrong though :)

  94. Jamming Nessisary by nberardi · · Score: 1

    I really think it is a nessisity to be able to jam frequecies. Because who wants a frequency open over the white house of pentigon. Because they any nut with a missle and a Galileo receiver could launch a missle at a low range altitude at Washington.

    1. Re:Jamming Nessisary by gpapilion · · Score: 1


      In fact, the Military has blocked GPS as a proof of concept in the past. At issue really is the need to block guidance systems developed by other nations. I think that it is rather unlikely that a terrorist could develop the technology to guide a missle, since they consider their own lifes' expendable. However, a nation with limited resources can use it as a cheap guidence system. This is a likely situation, especially since the US developed GPS to guide its planes and missles to the proper target.


      There is a legitimate concern that if GPS is not blocked it would be used to guide missles to targets in the US.

  95. EU is a military nonentity by imnoteddy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sigh. I'm a US citizen who hated the Iraq war - we did it because we could, not because it was right.

    But the EU couldn't have done it even if they had to. For their own internal social/political reasons EU countries spend much less on their military budgets than the US. While I respect their reasons, this leaves them militarily impotent. The EU didn't go into the former Yugoslavia until the US went in - and this was in the EU's neighborhood.

    So if the EU backs down to the US on military matters such as Galileo it is the result their own decisions. The EU can do very little with the armed forces that they have, and they are unlikely for political reasons to change any time soon.

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
    1. Re:EU is a military nonentity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by the complete lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I see no reason why Europe couldn't of taken on Saddam if they wanted to.

    2. Re:EU is a military nonentity by imnoteddy · · Score: 1
      Judging by the complete lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I see no reason why Europe couldn't of taken on Saddam if they wanted to.

      I suppose I shouldn't repond to an Anonymous Coward troll, but I will.

      The EU military powers have very little logistical support and would have a lot of trouble even getting to Iraq. They have fewer tanks than Iraq had, no precision weapons and their soldiers get little realistic training.

      You must not believe your posting - otherwise why are you an AC?

      --
      No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
    3. Re:EU is a military nonentity by Ahaldra · · Score: 1
      The EU didn't go into the former Yugoslavia until the US went in
      The EU and the US went in together. The US sent 25.000 of the 60.000 Ground troops, because they had "vital interests" in this area (the official ones are mentioned here)

      There were already UN Troops there before KFOR (the US and EU Ground Troops) got there, who watched helplessly as the US tried to first "solve the problem" by throwing more weapons into the already complex situation, disgruntling their european underlin... ahem: allies.

      Apart from this rather off-topic post, I'm not sure about galileo beeing a good idea, since I do not see civil/commercial applications that can't be done with gps, justifying this expense, but maybe I'm wrong.

      --
      Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
    4. Re:EU is a military nonentity by Dumbush · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, people just want to be friends

  96. Re:Article is flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AC american dribble. Get off your 300lb texas and fling yourself off a cliff for the good of humanity.

  97. Related news item by andy1307 · · Score: 2, Informative
    India announces participation in Europe's Galileo satellite project

    Indian officials said New Delhi would soon pick up a 350-million-dollar (300-million-euro) stake in the 3.2 billion euro European satellite project, meant to rival the Global Positioning System run by the US Defence Department.

  98. Why On Earth You Guys Hate Each Other ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why on earth, just a simple article about GPS jamming brings up the whole wave of animosity against the US ? US pressures Europe on some issues, and Europe pressures US on some issues, it is pretty understandable. There is no ground for animosity and name calling, people. Everyone gets sidetracked and start calling names or predicting the downfall of the US and etc. This is exactly what certain people would L-O-V-E to see, animosity and hatred amongst the allies. Chill out, people! I live in the US, but love to visit Europe on my vacation. I like both sides of the world equally.

  99. Diplomacy by Phantasmo · · Score: 4, Funny

    US: Change Galileo so we can jam it.

    EU: ... and?

    US: And what?

    EU: And what concession will you make?

    US: If you comply with our request, the United States government is prepared to not nuke your ass.

    EU: I say, that's very generous. We accept.

    --

    The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
    1. Re:Diplomacy by sxpert · · Score: 1

      the last sentence would be wrong, it should read

      EU: I say, go fuck yourself, we have nukes too

    2. Re:Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction:
      US: But our nukes are bigger and will take both of us out in one strike.

    3. Re:Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you dont know this but EU has nuclear capacity that will fry USA in case it decides to attack EU.

    4. Re:Diplomacy by Woy · · Score: 1

      That's funny and all but i do hope the american leadership realizes in time that there are no winners in a nuclear war. All of your huge navy, army and airforce is useless against a country with a single warhead and nothing to lose. Since the invasion of Iraq was considered a good option by the current US administration, maybe the ppl will force them to change their mind when the next invasion's price is New York.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    5. Re:Diplomacy by kc0dxh · · Score: 2

      Or how about stopping US protection of them?

      European nations have been in a 60 year socialism incubator in that they have not needed to provide for their own defence. Had that not been provided them, they would have made drastically different choices particularly in light of Germany and the USSR.

      --

      --- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc

    6. Re:Diplomacy by arevos · · Score: 1

      Yes... But in today's climate, there aren't really any countries who would invade the EU, or could even consider the possibility of such. The only country that could be successful is the US, and I'd rather hope that they're not planning anything!

      So, under a situation where one is pretty certain that no-one will invade for at least a generation or so, what use is keeping a big ol' army about the place? Better to spend the money on healthcare, no?

    7. Re:Diplomacy by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Maybe you dont know this but EU has nuclear capacity that will fry USA in case it decides to attack EU

      Maybe you don't know this, but the EU nuclear forces (France and the UK) that can reach the US could be taken out by a first strike.

      According to FAS and the Royal Navy the UK nuclear forces consist of the four Vanguard class SSBNs. The RAF no longer has nuclear weapons, nor does the UK deploy ICBMs.

      Likewise, the French nuclear option (that can hit the US) consists of four SSBNs. Neither country has ICBMs anymore.

      Assuming that only half of these boats are on patrol at any time we can take four of them off the board right away. We also have the means to engage and destroy the ones at sea.

      It's also worth noting that the only two countries in the world that currently have the means to detect an inbound ballistic missile (reliably and with enough time to do anything about it) are the US and Russia. These are the only two nations in the world that can't be taken out with a first strike. It should also be noted that sooner or later we will have a missile defense system of some sort -- and it will (in all likelihood) be enough to negate the EU nuclear option (all the moreso when you consider the fact that we can easily destroy at least half of the EU nuclear force with a limited first strike). Are the UK/France really ready to invest the tens of billions that would be required to build a nuclear force that can't be taken out/negated (all the moreso to go after an allied country)? I doubt it.

      I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that if it really came down to it we could take out a large majority (if not all) of the EU nuclear force -- if we really had to. You can't even put a dent in ours. Assuming that some of your nuclear force survived, you'd have the ability to hurt us very badly (not counting for missile defense). We'd still have the ability to utterly destroy you. Something to keep in mind...

      Of course, I would also make the point that the chances of the US/EU fighting a war anytime in the future seem pretty far-fetched and I like most of my European friends ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Diplomacy by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 1

      Germany went from the most crippled economy of the 20th century to the dominant military power in the world in 15 years. What makes you so certain it couldn't happen again? Only now these countries have weapons at their disposal that can kill as many Americans in minutes as died in all of WWII.

      It's far better for the U.S. and the world for the U.S. to maintain a strong military presence in Europe. History is replete with examples of how the Europeans cannot coexist peacefully for long.

      --
      "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
    9. Re:Diplomacy by arevos · · Score: 1

      Ht's far better for the U.S. and the world for the U.S. to maintain a strong military presence in Europe. History is replete with examples of how the Europeans cannot coexist peacefully for long.

      Which is precisely why the EU was founded in the first place. It was originally designed to prevent another catastrophe from befalling Europe. Not through force, but through cooperation, open borders, and the strongest incentive; a single market. And so far, it's worked.

    10. Re:Diplomacy by serbanp · · Score: 1
      Lots of BS flying today...

      Germany went from the most crippled economy of the 20th century to the dominant military power in the world in 15 years

      Hey spartacus, is this the degree of knowledge you get in your crappy school system? Your lack of History understanding is only too typical for a 30 years old (and under) american.

      FYI, at the turn of the 20th century, Germany was one of the most industrialized countries in the whole wide world. It's economic recovery after losing the WWI didn't happen in a vacuum, bonehead!

      Serban

    11. Re:Diplomacy by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      That's funny and all but i do hope the american leadership realizes in time that there are no winners in a nuclear war.

      Yeah, I do hope we Americans some day figure this out. That last nuclear war with Russia was pretty bad.

      Since the invasion of Iraq was considered a good option by the current US administration, maybe the ppl will force them to change their mind when the next invasion's price is New York.

      You're an idiot.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    12. Re:Diplomacy by archivis · · Score: 1

      Of course the EU is full of first-world highly industrialized nations.

      --
      In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
    13. Re:Diplomacy by Woy · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I do hope we Americans some day figure this out. That last nuclear war with Russia was pretty bad.

      I must have missed it in the news. Perheaps you can send me a subscription for your fantasy world newspaper?

      You're an idiot.

      Nothing beats an insult from some unknown ignorant with no supporting arguments. I mean you should be in Bush's office, you'd fit right in. Regarding grandparent, maybe you'll want to count the towers in New York. That also "could never happen".

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    14. Re:Diplomacy by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Nothing beat a lameass who can't comprehend sarcasm.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    15. Re:Diplomacy by Woy · · Score: 1

      Idem.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    16. Re:Diplomacy by dandelion_wine · · Score: 1

      Since the invasion of Iraq was considered a good option by the current US administration, maybe the ppl will force them to change their mind when the next invasion's price is New York.

      You're an idiot.


      Titanic. Pearl Harbour. WTC.

      Gotta love optimism. Isn't that what kids are calling ignorance these days?

    17. Re:Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right up to a point - there are other British nuclear weapons, but the're not suitable for attacking land.

      RAF Nimrods have nuclear depth charges, and there are nuclear torpedoes.

      The WE177 free fall nuclear bomb has been withdrawn, but the planes can still carry it and the bombs could be recomissioned. The Ministry Of Defence is planning to replace the WE177, but with typical efficiency they started the program (which hasn't been approved yet AFAIK) long after the WE177 was withdrawn.

  100. (more) Comprehesible Explanation by daniel.probst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Obviously most advanced tech countries can jam GPS signals. The EU can jam US GPS and and the US can jam Galileo. The point of dissent is the overlap of military frequencies. The EU wants to have their military frequency to partly overlap the US frequency so that the US cannot jam Galileo without degrading their own military signal quality (and vice versa). The US obviously would like to be able to jam Galileo without degrading their own military performance hence the request to move the Galileo military frequency. Note that both India and China are participating financially at Galileo. China would certainly not pay a cent for a system under US control.

  101. U.S. Coup by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    what if the US get caught by a coup d'etat?

    Already happened -- November 22, 1963.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  102. Isn't it obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US is pressing for enabling future jamming capabilities.
    After Afganistan, Serbia, Iraq (twice), Corea, Japan (nuked twice), civil war, Mexico, Cuba, Somalia maybe they feel that time has come for France, Greece, Sweden or other.

    Olympics are to be held in Greece at 2004. With the right timing, what a spectacular nuking this could be!!!

    OK. Moderate me as a US-doesnt-do-such-things-never-did-never-will troll.

    CABOOM!

  103. umm by Pope+Slackman · · Score: 1

    That article is basically content free since they're
    not telling us what the freqs are, or why they
    would be particularly susceptible to destructive
    interference. I call BS.
    Not to mention, the US gov has enough money and
    equipment to jam pretty much *any* signal they choose to...

  104. Re:Only one man would dare give me the raspberry.. by Feyr · · Score: 1

    haha! i've been wondering what was that guy's name for a while (well both, helmet and lone starr). thanks for the memory :)

  105. Wouldn't that door swing both ways? by krammit · · Score: 1

    By the same token, if the US can jam these frequencies, isn't it also possible the EU would have this same ability? The US military is sufficiently powerful to say the least, but I can't imagine we hold a monopoly on these techniques? Maybe this isn't the US securing a foothold on Europe so much as it is the US "encouraging" the friendly gov'ts of the EU to cement their own?

    --
    "Watch your cornhole, bud."
  106. Re:Article is flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problems ?

    Obviously, you are completely illiterate as far as military history is concerned.
    US lost so far 400 soldiers in about 8 months, Nazi Germany lost respectively 30 000 and 50 000 soldier in their campaigns against Poland and the West - and both of these were considered significant and unprecedented victories

    The occasional idiot with an RPG getting a shot off at a passing vehicle is militarily completely insignificant.
    It doesn't matter - considering the crime rates , statistically it is more dangerous to simply live in London than to server in US army in Iraq.
    You are basically taking out of your ass ...

  107. Re:Article is flamebait by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

    I don believe the UK would retaliate against their great friend of all times, the US...
    they'll probably turn their nukes on the french !!!


    And to anyone who knows history, this is wildly hilarious.

    (For the uninformed, the French were good friends during the revolutionary war. The Brits were obviously enemies. See that Statue of Liberty? It was a gift from the French.)

    Ok, so politics changed significantly after the US helped Britain develop Radar and weapons during WWII, but it's still rather amusing.

  108. cough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.

    As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.

    They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

    When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

    When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

    The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

    I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

    Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?

    You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

    When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

    Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

    I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans th

    1. Re:cough by theolein · · Score: 1

      Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107?

      You mean something like the Airbus A380?

      If so, why don't they fly them?

      Could you be referring to planes such as the Airbus A340, A330, A320, A310, A300. Tuploev Tu-204. Ilyushin Il-96?

      Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes?

      See Airbus above.

    2. Re:cough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      feelin' clever, aren't ya???

      you do realize this article was written 30yrs ago, don't you?

      you do realize that it was the sentiment and its conveyance that was important... not the detail?

      you are not nearly as bright as you think... silly person.

  109. Absolutely true. by goldcd · · Score: 1

    It wasn't a very sound policy move (and I believe this was pointed out at the time). When the tariff was introduced the electoral swing states just happened to be the ones with the steel mills, the processors paid the price of buying those votes.

  110. Ignorance by phorm · · Score: 1

    The French have always been a big proponent but then again they have this massive penis envy with respect to the US.

    Speaking as a non-American but not a francophone, I'd say that it's more like the French dislike that the Americans assume that everyone else wants to be like them because "America is the best place in the world."

    I doubt that the average Frenchman goes home from a day at works, has dinner, and says "damn I wish I were an American" on the average day.

    1. Re:Ignorance by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

      Of course they don't want to be American, but the do envy America and all it has. They've never been able to shake DeGaulle's paranoia and mistrust of Anglo-American ties during WWII. It was a source of much chagrin that DeGaulle couldn't dictate the course of the war, the harsh reality never threatened impinged on his delusions. The same is true of most Frenchmen today.

    2. Re:Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nutter....

    3. Re:Ignorance by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

      Your historical ignorance does not make me a nutter.

  111. Holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Without the ability for the government to arrest citizens in secret and execute them without being held accountable"
    Remember this?
    We hold this truth to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, with certain, unalienable rights, among these are: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
    What you are proposing here, has already been done in history and it has led to the most embarrasing, painful and discusting crime against humanity EVER!
  112. General Wesley Clark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    count on it, even if Dean has to be removed from the race

    1. Re:General Wesley Clark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right, Clark.

      He's a real contender...just a little democratic version of McCain. Both are wackos.

  113. paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is afraid of a Galileo guided missile or even a guided demolition truck. Europeans are less likely to understand this, as this terrorist paranoia has gained less of a foothold in Europe. Europeans haven't compromised their civil liberties to the same extent as the US, but then again, they weren't as obsessed with them to begin with. In general, Europeans seem to take much more rational positions on the international scene. But who'd be surprised? Their leaders are elected by their people not by evil electronic machines or the Supreme Court...

  114. fuck the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of the US Govt. and media telling the rest of the world how to run their countries, economies, and forcing their "moral" (read corporatist) ideologies down their throats. I live in the US and am so ASHAMED to be an American. Other dominant cultures throughout history have been destroyed by similar methods. King George and his damn cronies exemplify this to a tee. They galavant throughout the world forcing other countries to accept their b.s. rhetoric while we continue to relentlessly bomb Iraq. Peace, love and multinationalism are not tenets the US stands for these days.

    Forcing the European Union to allow us to jam their satallites is evidence of this. Europe, JUST SAY NO, and tell the fucking Americans to go FUCK THEMSELVES AND THEIR "CULTURE".

    Canada looks pretty good right now.

  115. Everyone is not one person by phorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firstly, I'm not sure how easy it is to jam such a system in a specific area without affecting a broader base, moresoover in a way that can't be done already. Also, the whole "what about the terrorists" arguement has become as stale as "what about the children." Do you think that the EU should bow to the US and degrade a service provided to everyone on the off possibility that the US might need to disrupt it going after a particular individual/group?

    If the EU is in control of said system in the first place... and they're cooperating with the US, why not just let them do it?

    1. Re:Everyone is not one person by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      the whole "what about the terrorists" arguement has become as stale as "what about the children."

      Hopefully the people making the decisions will use reason instead of limiting their analysis to the highly advanced method of policy-making known as "What's Hot, What's Not".

    2. Re:Everyone is not one person by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the EU should bow to the US and degrade a service provided to everyone on the off possibility that the US might need to disrupt it going after a particular individual/group?

      I might if I thought the US was actually capable of capturing a particular individual/group. ;)

  116. Re:Article is flamebait by ExportGuru · · Score: 1

    I read the article and it is clear only that the writer and his editor are ignorant of the technology. Jamming any radio signal is still a power game first and a matter of hacking the signal second. The first technical issue is being able to generate enough power at the correct frequencies and then of directing it at the receivers. The present generation of GPS is ridiculously easy to jam because of the low power of the transmitters on the satellites, a fact that Galileo's European designers are well aware of. The anti-jam features that can be added to the transmitters and receivers have been described in open literature for years. Just toying with the frequency range of the system accomplishes nothing that the newspaper article claims. I agree that the article is flamebait. The real question for European governments to answer is why they will waste millions of the taxpayers' Euros to build a competitor to two free systems, GPS and Uragan, that already serve Europe and whose owners have pledged to upgrade and maintain? Who owns the companies that will benefit from this piece of indoor welfare? What scientist or engineer wants to brag: "We're Number Four!" (after GPS, Uragan, and Beidou)?

  117. Re:Article is flamebait by Technician · · Score: 1

    Just for grins, I leave my GPS on Anchor Watch. If my house suddnly relocates according to the GPS, I'll know to head for the cellar!

    I think if the signal was tampered with or jammed, it would be noticed right away. There is lots of monitoring of the signal to produce correction differental signals. These station reports would be the source of the first indication something was wrong.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  118. Name and rank. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His rank is Colonel. :-)

    1. Re:Name and rank. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helmet: "What's the matter colonel Sandurz? Chicken?"

  119. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  120. we almost wet our pants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    You could never make the currency shift stick - we have a military, you don't. And your oil, your lifeblood, comes because we raise hell in the Mideast when necessary. There's a couple of guinea Dago platoons in Iraq right now, but that's it.

    Who would defend your interests in our absence - some pothead soldiers from the Netherlands with flowers in their gun barrels?

    Europe a country, oh puleeeeeeeeeeeease. It's our children who do the heavy lifting and shooting. Yours just get stoned and have social diseases.

    1. Re:we almost wet our pants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun dying fucktard! Your country's going to be doing a lot of it thanks to this very attitude.

    2. Re:we almost wet our pants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeehaw! USA! USA! USA!

      And this attitude, my friends, is why America is considered the common enemy by extremists all around the world.

  121. Bullied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU bullies US into dropping steel tariffs.

    http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/01/news/internation al /us_steel/index.htm

    Why bother to report news when you can slant it instead? See how my substitution of a single word allows me to use an otherwise factual article to back my views that it didn't originally espouse?

    Does the original poster have any factual justification for modifying this word in the translation to fit his political views?

    This poster misrepresents the state of the negotiations, professes to know absolutely nothing about global positioning systems and seems to know less about radio jamming than a layman.

    He furthermore is such a rube that he comments that he thinks we will be modded DOWN on slashdot for attacking the US. On the internet, no one knows you just fell off the turnip truck until you make your first slashdot post.

  122. Re:Fight the USA before it is too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asshole ? Your father is!

  123. Re:Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... by krlynch · · Score: 1

    ...And you don't think that ANY other military power with global (or even regional!) reach has plans for how to invade EVERY OTHER country on the planet? That's what militaries DO in peacetime ... prepare for the next possible war, not the last one. No sir! Only the US has those types of plans!

  124. Re:Concentrating staelites by doublebackslash · · Score: 0

    How?
    GPS works because the handsets know exactly where the satelites are, and exactly what time it is, and the precise timing of the signals.
    They even have to take into account general relativity due to time dialation.
    So how could the satelites be moved without them being useless?

    --
    md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
    d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
  125. Bush diplomacy by kisak · · Score: 1
    It is really funny how heated a debate like this becomes when talking about an issue that is about the US and EU, and the trust in the relationship between them.

    I would bet that a similar story during the Clinton years would not have both sides giving knee-jerk reactions from the start with plenty of posts stating that the other party (that is the other part of NATO) could not be trusted or have some bad motives.

    [flamebait] Nice going mr. Bush! From having the whole world on your side after 9/11, now nobody of you allies citizens trust you or your nation to do anything right. And the poor US contigent thinks that nuking the EU is a valuable option. [/flamebait]

    --

    --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  126. Silly discussion by j_w_d · · Score: 2, Insightful

    GPS signals are jammable now. Iraq actually tried it during the late fracas betweeen their military and the US military. The US military could also turn selective availabiliy back on in the GPS system, but that was a demonstrably futile "feature." Engineers had worked out methods for post-processing GPS and real-time differential correction before the first GPS satellite was launched. Besides, I doubt there are such things as un-jammable radio transmissions. They would require tremendous signal strength to override a jamming signal. It's foolishness.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  127. Every mother should try and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    forgive her child when hurting, taking control over her wallet, hitting, making fun or even rapping her.

    Lets just hope that murdering is out of the question and when the spoiled child grows ups will eventually turn into a normal grownup.

    And I sincerely hope that the child will finally decide to live at its own cross Atlantic home (that mother found for him) instead of trying to claim parent's home, too (with parents still living).

  128. Indonesia by Chep · · Score: 2, Informative

    East Timor was invaded (with mass murders and all the tralala until the Aussies went to clean up the mess recently) with Kissinger's blessing, with US-build weapons (theoretically sold for defence purposes only, but I don't see the point of H.K.'s visit a few days before the invasion started).

    1. Re:Indonesia by FL180 · · Score: 1

      Kissinger, huh?

      Had to reach WAAAYYYY back for that one...

    2. Re:Indonesia by Chep · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, guess why Kissinger doesn't want to even risk going to Canada, let alone Europe.

      Several countries would love to try him (he probably has good defence devices, and he absolutely, just as you, me, and your typical Guantanamo guest, is entitled to a competent defence, but he certainly has some explanation to do over his carreer. And he gets angry real real fast (I witnessed that during a live interview) when someone just begins to hint at Cambodia or Indonesia).

      If you don't think that the single example of Indonesia (by the way, the Australians aren't nice just out of philantropy), how about South America? September 11th <b>1973</b> and the like? Operation Condor? etc. ad nauseam.

      Yes, France sells weapons to the bad guys occasionally (heh, ask the brits anytime). So does everybody. And the USA's not clean either. Every dirty trick in the book, every first-world nation practiced, or practices, or both, and needs very careful attention from its citizenship (where it is still "free and/or brave") to not practice again.

      If you think the USA are the good guys unequivocally, I have bad news for you: a lot of people disagree, and sometimes they have decent grounds for that (and afterwards, dissent is a normal and healthy thing where Freedom exists, isn't it?).

    3. Re:Indonesia by FL180 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that you were incorrect in mentioning Kissinger...just that that was a bit of time ago.

      The fact of that matter is, as you said, every nation is "dirty" in some way or another. And, no, I never even implied that the "USA are the good guys unequivocally". In fact, I don't belive that to be true to the point that I won't serve in the US armed forces again simply because in doing so I might be supporting that which is wrong from time to time.

      Also, disagreement isn't, in my view, a "healthy thing where Freedom exists". Righteous disagreement is, but not all disagreement. I impart a moral criteria to it all.

      You see, my view is that one is only really entitled to do or hold to positions that are truthful and righteous. That we can hold to other positions is obvious, I don't say that we can't do so, only that I don't believe that we're entitled to do so (and, hence, why I think that only righteous disagreement is proper disagreement).

      Still, despite all of that, I don't disagree with my govenment's attempt to do certain things, this GPS issue as an example. It's their constitutionally mandated respnsibility to provide for the defense of the US. If that means that they influence other countries into helping the US maintian an advantage, so be it. Their responsibility is to protect the US, not France, not the UK, not etc, etc, etc. (but I still believe it has to be done in a moral way).

  129. hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The story is NOT about the U.S. controlling all GPS systems. The FACT is NATO not just the U.S. wanted some way to add security features so only NATO can use it in times of war. The last I checked NATO is composed of mostly European countries. Get off you high liberal horse and get the facts.

  130. Janet Reno by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    Isn't Janet Reno behind the Jamming Abilities?

    I remember she had some cool Jam parties in her basement on SNL. ;-)

  131. Darn it! by yoha · · Score: 3, Funny

    And I was just going to invade and take over the United States using the Galileo system. Looks like I'll have to use something else. North Star, perhaps, we're not jamming that are we?

  132. Why is this a problem? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    We ( read the USA ) *should* have the ablity to jam anyone else in the world.

    You friends become your enemies in an instant when they think they can get away with it.

    So ya, we should demand OUR interests come first.. Screw the rest of ya...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Why is this a problem? by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1


      You friends become your enemies in an instant when they think they can get away with it.


      Which is exactly the sort of exasperating narrow-minded world view that causes the US (esp. under Bush) to be so loathed. People are not "jealous" of the US nor do they "hate us because we are free." They really don't like to wake up everyday knowing that this huge country across the ocean will have an impact in their life that they can't control, and, in most cases, the very citizens of that huge country experience far less intrusion into their lives by the US government/economic machine than say a place like Haiti or, gulp, France.

      The alternate reading of this GPS/Galileo dustup is that Europe must be jammed eventually, because. eventually, the US will have to attack Europe, or at least, have the contingency plans in place. The inability to jam any sort of guidance systems would put a hairy wrinkle into any war gaming that the NDU/War Colleges are doing/will do. If you think the US doesn't war game or model on invasions of Western Europe, you've got another thing coming.

      But I forget, Oceania has always been at war with East Asia

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  133. Um - isn't this a good thing? by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    GPS/Galileo is a very powerful thing. It's not just useful in consumer electronic toys, but in real warfare situations. As it is now GPS is run by the U.S. military, so if someone tries to use it against us to guide their bombs we can easily screw over their guidance systems. Galileo, without these kinds of provisions, would've allowed the terrorists an alternative guidance method not easily jammable by us. These provisions are in the best interests of the U.S. - and also Europe, as they are our ally, and would also be susceptible to un-jammable Galileo-guided smart weapons. This is not a matter of free speech or freedom - this is about national defense, and the more control we have in matters of national defense, the better.

    1. Re:Um - isn't this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I'm not losing too much sleep over the suggestion that someone in a cave in Afghanistan is going to manage to build a GPS-guided nuclear ICBM

  134. Removes my objections by amightywind · · Score: 1

    When the Galileo/China announcement was made on this forum a while back, I wrote that the project was becoming a strategic military threat to the U.S., mainly because China was participating and will put the capability to military use. By allowing the system to be jammed in time of war Europe shows that it takes these concerns seriously and that the project will be for civilian use only.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Removes my objections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry, you're a big enough threat to yourselves. the last thing you want to worry about is China. Try worrying about all these enemies you are busy creating for yourselves in the middle east.

      whether its witches, commies or terrorists, the US isn't happy unless it has an enemy. even if it has to create it itself.

  135. Re:Article is flamebait by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Umm, you call the fastest ground war in history a problem? Or are you refering to the occupation? Ironically enough, we'd almost as good vs. Europe right now.
    Europe has
    1. A disarmed population (Except for switzerland).
    2. A climate that our weapon systems were designed for.
    2a. We have many cold war scenarios for fighting the USSR in Europe, we have maps and know the area.
    3. A bunch of pacifists in government there.
    4. We've been proping up Europe's defense for decades. Imagine a plus changing into a minus.

    Though I agree, war with Europe would be bad. I don't want WWIII.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  136. Re:Article is flamebait by aml666 · · Score: 1

    Please keep in mind that if the US did not care about the civilians or collateral damage... IRAQ would be gone and ZERO US soldiers would be hurt.

    We probably would not care to rebuild Europe in the event of a US vs. EU war.

    --
    www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
  137. Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dollar keeps falling and the euro keeps rising I myself will be moving away from this military-driven hell hole of an empire and moving to some place atleast has a tiny bit of morality and COMMON SENSE, the US is making many nations angry just because they feel they have leverage this country is a baby in the sense of history and it is showing big time right now...I think many sane people would agree atleast somewhat with this, my question is what's next????

  138. Re:Concentrating staelites by Greger47 · · Score: 1
    Well, duh! Read the page you linked to.

    It's the satellites themselves that transmit their position to the handset.

    /greger

  139. Re:Article is flamebait by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1
    During Iraq II they took the risk of degrading the signal in the rest of the world so they could concentrate more satellites over Iraq, which increased both diversity and accuracy.

    Ahhh... That explains why my car's navigational system insisted that the most direct route to the supermarket was through Baghdad!

  140. EU can jam GPS too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I remember from New Scientist that the US wanted Galileo on a different frequency so they could jam it without jamming GPS. Galileo was going to operate on a similar range of frequencies to GPS, so jamming one would jam both.

    If they change Galileo's frequencies, Galileo and GPS can each be jammed independently so GPS can be used in a war zone and Galileo can't.

    There's nothing to stop anyone jamming either system without affecting the other one. This is not a global effect, it's local only.

  141. Close, but not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While I agree that the US is a control freak (more on that later), the fact that you consider "americans" and the US government one in the same shows that you don't understand the power struggle which has been going on within the US since our involvement in World War I.

    Assuming you do in fact mean citizens in the US, Americans in general are being taken for a ride by their government. The government is in turn being pushed around by large corporations.

    You ought to ask yourself, why would commercial corporations be adverse to an independent global positioning system with possible military applications? I mean, nobody charges to use the US GPS system. The reason isn't competitive.

    It's all about control. So when you figure out who controls the corporations that control the federal government, and why they have a military interest, hopefully you will know not to blame it on "americans".

    You will instead understand why we fought in the major wars on the sides that we did. You'll understand what Vietnam is all about, the Red Scare. The reason applies to *everything* that the US has been involved in, at least since WWII.

    And it applies to the US government having control of more than just the US.

    1. Re:Close, but not quite. by revscat · · Score: 1

      Assuming you do in fact mean citizens in the US, Americans in general are being taken for a ride by their government. The government is in turn being pushed around by large corporations.

      But we, being the citizens of that nation, are ultimately responsible for its behavior. Too bad most Americans are far more interested in playing with their genetalia than in what their government is doing to people of different nations around the world.

      I agree with you, though. Control is a central issue. I just disagree with you divorcing the American people from being responsible for the actions of our government. Which is, by the way, why I fully support civil disobedience with a sledgehammer re: Diebold voting machines.

    2. Re:Close, but not quite. by ReallyQuietGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But we, being the citizens of that nation, are ultimately responsible for its behavior

      i think the point the parent was trying to make was that the "citizens" DON'T have the power to be "responsible" for its behavior. the corporations - or, rather, in a Better Time, what a President (was it Eisenhower?) called it at that time, "Military Industrial Complex", are the ones in charge.

      fully support civil disobedience with a sledgehammer re: Diebold voting machines

      the problem here is that there is not much you CAN do about it either. are you really going to take a sledgehammer to them? you'll end up in jail, catching AIDS from being fucked in the ass by the prison population that the corporations dont give a shit about because they cant afford to buy anything anyway. civil disobedience? in this "political climate"? say hello to Guantanamo. the point is that the parent suggests -- and i agree -- that there is NOTHING any individual can do to really make a diffrence now

    3. Re:Close, but not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      that there is NOTHING any individual can do to really make a diffrence now

      If enough of them get together, they can start a civil war.

    4. Re:Close, but not quite. by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I think it is a fundamental theorem of justice
      that the moral responsibility for outcomes
      can be assigned to an agent must be a
      monotone function of the degree of achievable
      control that agent can excercise over the
      process that produces those outcomes.

      There is no collective responsibility in
      practice, because it is not permissible to
      apply collective punishment. As a result,
      while the people of the U.S. as a collective
      unit may be assigned a collective
      responsibility in theory, I can't imagine
      any possible system of justice which could
      enforce that responsibility in practice.

      At this point one must rely upon natural
      consequences.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    5. Re:Close, but not quite. by revscat · · Score: 1

      There is no collective responsibility in practice, because it is not permissible to apply collective punishment. As a result, while the people of the U.S. as a collective unit may be assigned a collective responsibility in theory, I can't imagine any possible system of justice which could enforce that responsibility in practice.

      I wholeheartedly agree. The original point was one of ultimate responsibility, which I believe we agree eventually rests upon the heads of the American people. But trying to establish a system of justice on this premise only leads to grave injustices being committed, viz.: 9/11. bin Laden felt/feels that the American people as a whole are targets for the actions taken by their government. This reveals the problems with putting a "blame the people" philosophy into practice, no matter how correct it might be in the abstract.

    6. Re:Close, but not quite. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Too bad most Americans are far more interested in playing with their genetalia than in what their government is doing to people of different nations around the world."

      Ok, I'll bite. What are we doing 'to' people of different nations around the world? Of late, it sounds like we're sending jobs to them....removing bloody dictators...and helping to resolve conflicts (troops in Bosnia, trying to help Palestine/Israel peace...etc.).

      I mean, while I don't believe us to be perfect, no country/people are...but, you seem to make it seem like the US, its citzens and corporations do nothing to harm to the rest of the world. I certainly don't see us as being worse than other countries of the world...we just have a bigger budget and military...which seems to magnify any action we take.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Close, but not quite. by revscat · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite. What are we doing 'to' people of different nations around the world? Of late, it sounds like we're sending jobs to them....removing bloody dictators...and helping to resolve conflicts (troops in Bosnia, trying to help Palestine/Israel peace...etc.).

      Well, while there have certainly been noble deeds done by the American government, there have also been grave injustices done by them, especially during that long dark time that was the Cold War, when any action that could remotely be justified by "fighting communism" was justified. See: El Salvador, the bombing of South Vietnamese civilians during the Vietnam War, the support of Pinochet by the U.S. government, the post-WW2 suppression of pro-democratic elements in South Korea, and others. I see nothing less ideological in the current administration than in the thinking behind those foreign policy decisions.

      This isn't stuff I'm making up just to make the US look bad. I love my country, but there are elements within its power structure that carry out actions that have no basis in justice or virtue, or really even anything other than short-term gain. As mentioned above, these were frequently justified as fighting communism, now they are justified by saying they are to "fight terror." The pattern, however, is very much the same.

    8. Re:Close, but not quite. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Of late, it sounds like we're sending jobs to them....removing bloody dictators...and helping to resolve conflicts (troops in Bosnia, trying to help Palestine/Israel peace...etc.).

      Point 1: Under capitalism, you don't "send" jobs anywhere. Jobs simply exist because the capitalists (Marxist definition) extract benefits from the labour of some country/region/city/etc. USA, or for that matter any other country, doesn't "send" jobs anymore than it "takes away" jobs. A capitalist will offer you money (aka a job) if you can provide something that they can profit off. For instance, if a company opens a factory in say China, it is not because the company likes China or cares about their citizens or anything like that. Instead, it is simply because they can profit off the labour (in this case, manual labour is cheaper there).

      Point 2: USA DOES remove dictators but it also creates them. In some sense, if USA (or for that matter other interventionist countries) did not intervene in the affairs of others, the world would be better off. You'll have a hard time finding the last dictator that USA did not support, train, fund, or help in the past. Most of the dictators/tyrants/etc that USA has attempted to eliminate have been its own creations. This is clearly the case with Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden, but it also extends to many others like Manuel Noreiga (CIA asset).

      Point 3: Helping to resolve conflicts? Do you even know what happened in Bosnia? The actions of NATO actually accelerated the genocide. THe only reason the Balkans seem like a success is because the Serbs were demonized. The Croats were committing mass atrocities similar to the Serbs yet how come very few even say anything? As far as the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is concerned, USA really isn't helping it now. The US govt is so biased towards Isreal that it will be a miracle if anyone signs any peace agreement that USA puts forth.

      You are either an American or one that is brainwashed by US propaganda. When you live under the control of the empire (yes, USA is an imperialist), everything the government does seems to be towards good when in fact it isn't. For instance, British citizens (during British imperialism/colonialism) ACTUALLY believed that they were educating the savages by invading countries and turning them into slaves, destroying cultures, etc. I'm not making this up. People in Britain genuinely believed that they were helping the world. Right now, the British realize that they weren't really educating the savages, but exploiting them. US government and its imperialism is similar. When you are within the borders of the empire, it is hard to discern reality from propaganda.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    9. Re:Close, but not quite. by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      We're doing quite a poor job. All the 'humanitarian' things we've done also has an ulterior motive. I know it sounds cynical, but there looks like there's more evidence to support that than refute it.

      We're not helping peace in Israel and Palestine, or else we'd be more like Europe and condemn the apartheid wall and Israeli airstrikes in civillian areas. Bush is too quiet, because he doesn't want to upset the Christian/Jewish/Zionist voters. He's not hard enough on Sharon

      We're not helping in Afghanistan, and when we do we are doing it for our own interests and not theirs. Go read "Dude, where's my country?" and you'll see how Afghanistan is a mess of special interests, oil pipelines, and skeletons in Bush's closet.

      We're not giving jobs to Iraqis. In fact, we fired everyone in the army, instantly putting thousands out of jobs, and making thousands of 6-person families unemployed. That made about 250,000 people (soldiers and their families they support) into enemies instantly. Not only that, but instead of hiring Iraqis to rebuild the country like after the first Gulf War (Iraq has a very high percentage of Civil engineers), the US hired US companies, specifically Halliburton, to do the job. While it cost something like $50,000 to rebuild a bridge after the first Gulf War, using only Iraqi resources, it will supposedly cost millions for Halliburton to do it. Who's going to bleed in debt from this? Certainly not the US, the cost will be passed on to the Iraqis, who will go from a not-badly-off country to a poor one.

    10. Re:Close, but not quite. by jhantin · · Score: 1

      "Military Industrial Complex", are the ones in charge.

      The Prez was two-thirds right. It's the military-industrial-energy complex. Yeah, that's right, the oil business is mixed up in it too. I suppose one could argue that energy is an industry, but when one just says "industry" it brings to mind Spaceley Sprockets, not Shalesucker Oil.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    11. Re:Close, but not quite. by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      mod the parent and the post above it (by Sivaram_Velauthapill) up :).

    12. Re:Close, but not quite. by nathanm · · Score: 1
      We're doing quite a poor job. All the 'humanitarian' things we've done also has an ulterior motive. I know it sounds cynical, but there looks like there's more evidence to support that than refute it.
      Our humanitarian interventions didn't have ulterior motives, just motives. We chose to intervene in some cases and not others based on our national interests. This is how every country justifies its actions. Ulterior motives imply that we had secret motives besides the publicly stated ones.

      We're not helping peace in Israel and Palestine, or else we'd be more like Europe and condemn the apartheid wall and Israeli airstrikes in civillian areas. Bush is too quiet, because he doesn't want to upset the Christian/Jewish/Zionist voters. He's not hard enough on Sharon
      The Bush administration is against the wall Israel is building. Last month they announced they decided to deduct money from Israeli loan guarantees because of it. Besides, I'm extremely thankful we're not more like Europe.

      We're not helping in Afghanistan, and when we do we are doing it for our own interests and not theirs. Go read "Dude, where's my country?" and you'll see how Afghanistan is a mess of special interests, oil pipelines, and skeletons in Bush's closet.
      Actually, we are helping in Afghanistan. Not as much as I'd like, but more than anyone else has. And, like I said above, of course it's for our own interests. No country ever acts out of pure altruism.

      If you're gullible enough to believe Michael Moore, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. Here's an article about his (lack of) intellectual honesty, and here's a list of some of the egregious errors in the book you cited.

      We're not giving jobs to Iraqis. In fact, we fired everyone in the army, instantly putting thousands out of jobs, and making thousands of 6-person families unemployed. That made about 250,000 people (soldiers and their families they support) into enemies instantly.
      Disbanding the Iraqi army so quickly was a mistake. Jay Garner, the guy who did it, has admitted as much. That didn't necessarily make many enemies though. The people fighting us in Iraq now aren't the poor, lower class conscripts that made up the bulk of the Iraqi army. They're either hard-core Ba'athists, militant Islamists, or foreigners.

      Not only that, but instead of hiring Iraqis to rebuild the country like after the first Gulf War (Iraq has a very high percentage of Civil engineers), the US hired US companies, specifically Halliburton, to do the job. While it cost something like $50,000 to rebuild a bridge after the first Gulf War, using only Iraqi resources, it will supposedly cost millions for Halliburton to do it. Who's going to bleed in debt from this? Certainly not the US, the cost will be passed on to the Iraqis, who will go from a not-badly-off country to a poor one.
      Luckily there aren't many bridges to repair. The US contracts are being paid strictly from US funds. Some Congress members tried to make $20B of the $87B bill a loan to Iraq, but thinking heads prevailed.
    13. Re:Close, but not quite. by nathanm · · Score: 1
      I thought I was reading a well reasoned, rational comment, until I got to your second point. It went downhill from there.

      Point 2: USA DOES remove dictators but it also creates them. In some sense, if USA (or for that matter other interventionist countries) did not intervene in the affairs of others, the world would be better off. You'll have a hard time finding the last dictator that USA did not support, train, fund, or help in the past. Most of the dictators/tyrants/etc that USA has attempted to eliminate have been its own creations. This is clearly the case with Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden, but it also extends to many others like Manuel Noreiga (CIA asset).
      We didn't create any of those 3. We did support Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war, but he was already in power. We did fund some of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but not directly bin Laden. Noriega was a CIA asset, but we captured him when he went astray. I'm not going to defend every action of the US, because many of them (including these partially) were extremely short-sighted and ultimately bad decisions.

      That's why I'm impressed with Bush's new foreign policy. He overturned decades of ultra-pragmatic, Realpolitik thinking in his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. Bush admitted that 60 years of pandering to dictators and tyrants for short-term gains has been a failure, and that freedom and democracy will be the overarching concerns now. It remains to be seen how he will implement this policy, and if it will last past his presidency.

      You are either an American or one that is brainwashed by US propaganda. When you live under the control of the empire (yes, USA is an imperialist), everything the government does seems to be towards good when in fact it isn't.
      I guess I'm not brainwashed, since I don't think everything the US government is good. If you think the US is an empire, you've got a serious misunderstanding of that word. We had a brief flirtation with empire at the turn of the 20th century, and it didn't fit well. So we went back to what America's been doing since its inception, toppling empires.

      US government and its imperialism is similar. When you are within the borders of the empire, it is hard to discern reality from propaganda.
      I spent several years outside the US, and it reinforced my belief in the ideals of America.
    14. Re:Close, but not quite. by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      We chose to intervene in some cases and not others based on our national interests. This is how every country justifies its actions. Ulterior motives imply that we had secret motives besides the publicly stated ones.

      Every politician has ulterior motives then. And Bush has had his share too. Tax cuts for the rich, legislation against abortion, the war on Iraq. The war on Iraq. There are so many ulterior motives it's hard to count. Yes, there were ulterior ones, did you really think Bush risked his political career to 'liberate Iraqis'? Do we even care for the welfare of Iraqis? His claims of Iraq having WMDs are hard to believe, after he threw away the 12,000 page dossier from Iraq, ignored CIA evidence that said there were no WMDs, put his fingers in his ears for the UN's weapons inspections reports, and made "mushroom cloud" and "yellowcake" comments in his speeches. Did we mention he ignored the fact that Saddam and Bin Laden weren't connected, and openly hated each others guts, even after both separately said so on Al-Jazeera? I'm not going to say it was all about oil, or that Israel led the US into war, or that it was all for Halliburton or the Carlyle group, or it was a giant quid pro quo, but it's obvious there were ulterior motives here, I'm not going to speculate what they are, but it's obvious that they exist.

      I am happy that the US is almost showing a veener of impartiality over Israel, or at least deciding to be less open about it. IIRC, the US blocked a UN resolution condemning the wall (it wasn't binding, and wouldn't have stopped the wall, just said that Israel is wrong to do so). Withholding a few million is a good start, but it really is a drop in the bucket considering we're still giving them $10Billion (which I think will increase the risk of terrorist attacks to the US, please tell me how it won't) I'm with a parent poster on this, I don't think anyone will trust a peace accord put forth by the US anymore, we've shown what side we're backing.

      The US is not really helping in Afghanistan, have you asked any Afghanis or read what RAWA is saying? Apparently the situation of women hasn't improved much, it's gone from fundamentalist-regime to warlord fiefdom. One brutal government to another. Drugs have skyrocketed, and the street price of heroin worldwide has gone back down. The Northern Alliance has a history of human rights violations that, in due time, looks to match the Taliban. When you say " we are helping in Afghanistan... more than anyone else has," it makes me bristle. That's not sufficient. I'm reminded of what Yvonne Ridley, a journalist who stayed in Afghanistan, once said in an interview:

      "She was critical of the way Afghanistan under the Taliban was ostracized. The Afghans told her that nobody cared for them when they needed food for their people, but when they decided to destroy some "rocks" (the Buddha statues), "suddenly the whole world wanted to talk to us."

      I've read the Michael Moore criticism links you provided. I have to say, they are interesting, I noticed some of the errors he made myself. I still stand by my earlier point, Afghanistan is a mess of special interests, oil pipelines, and skeletons in Bush's closet. The Taliban did visit Texas in 2000, and oil deals with US companies were happening. It's a bit complicated to go into here, and I haven't finished the chapter yet.


      Disbanding the Iraqi army so quickly was a mistake. Jay Garner, the guy who did it, has admitted as much. That didn't necessarily make many enemies though. The people fighting us in Iraq now aren't the poor, lower class conscripts that made up the bulk of the Iraqi army. They're either hard-core Ba'athists, militant Islamists, or foreigners.

      I disagree. It made plenty of enemies, and thousands of Iraqis will tell you that it's not like they're getting regular paychecks, there have been maj

    15. Re:Close, but not quite. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      You are seriously downplaying US actions. THe problem with you is that you seem to be heavily influenced by the US government. You are also a neoconservative and whatever I say is not going to change your view.

      We didn't create any of those 3.We did support Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war, but he was already in power.

      USA provided POLITICAL SUPPORT for Sadam Hussein. This was the greatest thing USA did for him. Doing so ensured that Saddam will strengthen his grip on power. Saddam will not have lasted even 10 years without US help. Some of Saddam Hussein's views were Stalinist in nature and there is no way he would have ruled without external support (at that time). In addition, the worst atrocities by Saddam Hussein (killing Kurds, using chemical weapons against Iran, etc) started happening after US intervention. This is always the case. Whenever USA, or any other rich/powerful country (like Russia) intervenes, atrocities just mount.

      Claiming Saddam Hussein was already in power, when in fact his worst atrocities came aftewards, is just heartless.

      We did fund some of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but not directly bin Laden.

      First of all, what happened in Afghanistan was run through the CIA so no one can find PROOF. CIA never confirms or denies anything so it's hard to find anything concrete. It all comes down to what you believe and what you think happened. What you are saying is the US government line. Namely, the US government maintains that it did nothing with Usama bin Laden. Everything I say can be dismissed as left-wing conspiracy theories. However, even the mainstream press and even some US Congresspersons/senators believe it nowadays. You would be wise to do more research or think about what is more plausible.

      You say you funded SOME of the mujahedeen. THat is a lie! You funded ALL of the mujahedeen. Pakistan was too poor to fund anyone. All the money came from USA. The vast majority of Al-Qaida members were the mujahedeen. This was especially true in the late 90's (nowadays, these guys have either retired or died). But the fact that the mujahedeen became Al-Qaida means that USA was ultimately responsible for Al-Qaida.

      On top of that, USA DID support Usama bin Laden and several of his key members. You might have seen some videos of Usama bin Laden in camouflage on newschannels (no, not his speeches and his "latest" stuff). Guess when this picture was shot?

      Given your inside-the-box-I-worship-government line of thinking, you might not believe any of this but here is what happened. USA funnelled money to the mujahedeen via the Pakistani Intelligence Services (aka ISI). In addition, USA provided training, weapons, and other logistical support. Where do you think the US-feared Stinger missiles in Afghanistan came from? How do you think the mujahedeen got to Afghanistan? Who do you think taught them the techniques about fake passports and the like? There were even US officials in Afghanistan--actual military, spy, and diplomatic officers. What you are saying implies that Americans didn't even step on Afghan soil. That is complete nonsense.

      Regardless of what you think or what I say, the important point here is that Usama bin Laden learned his TECHNIQUES from the CIA. Where do you think he learned his trade? You think he just came out of nowhere to be a formidable foe? I'm not saying that USA funded or trained Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida didn't even exist then. All I'm saying is that USA's policy of short-term realpolitik led to the creation of Al-Qaida (just like countless other people/groups/etc).

      Noriega was a CIA asset, but we captured him when he went astray.

      Amazing that you even admit that he was a CIA agent, especially given that this is also a conspiracy theory. Again, the CIA and hence the US govt hasn't admitted that. Anyway, you invaded Panama killed hundreads of innocent people! That is not ok! If I invade your country and kill a hundread innocent people just because my ow

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  142. It's always nice to find people by goldcd · · Score: 1

    who know less than yourself. Economics is all about balance. You lower the value of your currency to lower the relative price of your goods on foreign markets and make importing goods more expensive. This decreases your deficit and follows through to a surplus. The foreigners who pay for your goods need dollars (if we take the US as an example) as you export more and more these dollars are in shorter supply so their price relative to the purchasers currency rises. This is how the cycle is supposed to work.
    The problem the US is facing is that the dollar is devaluing and the defecit isn't shrinking. Some reasons for this are the US expenditure on little foreign excursions to the Gulf which don't come cheaply and a lack of confidence in the dollar on the exchange markets. This lack of confidence is due to people thinking it's going to have to fall further and them predicting they'll lose money if they buy it now - this is not a good thing - this is how stock-market crashes and the like happen.
    Of course there is hope for all economies, the lower your currency goes the more attractive more and more services you offer to the world become. Maybe we'll start seeing US made Nike trainers - I hope your children have quick fingers.

  143. Why stop at Galileo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just build an On/Off remote switch into all our defence systems and give the control box to the Americans.

  144. tough choice by bobrankle · · Score: 1

    In today's world it's a tough choice accept some degradation and a US backdoor or if needs require, or loose the system. You don't think the powers that be proved a way to destroy the system at will? Why else would something like this occur, think they were shown the facts and decided to gripe but following the line. Is this worse than them just quietly doing it, at least we know what happened (kinda)

  145. Pushy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pushy? No. They're just being polite.

    Either implement a way to gracefully degrade the accuracy of the system, or risk having it blown out of the heavens, if necessary.

    What? You want to NEGOCIATE some other solution?

    Suuuure.

  146. How to make enemies and lose allies. by theolein · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just read the heise.de forums and the overall tone of the posters is disbelief and viscious anger. On the one hand they're angry that their politicians could bend over so easily and on the other they're hopping mad that the Americans would apply so much political pressure to do this.

    I'll say this for you anks. There is literally no other country on earth that makes enemies and loses allies as well as your country is presently doing.

    1. Re:How to make enemies and lose allies. by timerider · · Score: 1

      last year a survey in germany had the result that 86% thought the USA was a greater threat to world peace than any of the so-called 'scoundrel states' (sorry, no idea whats the english term for it, you get the idea anyhow).

      my bet is that this number has not declined since.

      bye,
      [L]

  147. Correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct. It's basically a question of saving money.

    It would be fairly expensive to disable the Galileo system using explosives or space-based lasers. And it would be extremely expensive for the E.U. to replace the system if it had to be disabled in this way.

  148. Galileo was using GPSs carrier frequency by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

    The reason the US put diplomatic pressure on the EU to change to an "easily jammable" frequency is that the initial proposals for Galileo had it using the exact same carrier frequency as GPS. This was an attempt by the EU to prevent jamming of Galileo without taking down American GPS as well. Naturally, having Galileo placed atop the GPS frequency irked the Americans and caused this apprently successful push to change frequencies.

  149. If you can't beat 'em, "join" 'em by mabu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The way I figure, the E.U. is going to take some cues from the U.S. in dealings such as this. They'll nod amiably, appear to agree to the terms, then do whatever the hell they want, and if they're caught, they'll find some insignificant person within the organization and say it was his fault.

  150. What about this idea... by Chainsaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why can't the Galileo frequencies be placed extremely near or inside the same frequency spectrum as GPS uses? The US will be free to jam Galileo all they want, but they will give up GPS precision(sp?) at the same time. It's a lose/lose situation, and everybody is happy.

    Fuckers.

    --
    War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
  151. Not losing sleep over it. by SPYvSPY · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as an "attitude" that would warrant reckless death and destruction. You say you don't like America's attitude, and therefore you hate us? Why should America tolerate hatred like yours? Have you considered how morally indefensible your position is? Have you made any effort to keep yourself accountable while pointing fingers at the USA? There is no enterprise in life that operates on the scale of the USA that will be able to make every decision and take actions in a manner that is entirely consistent with the interests of all other constituencies.

    The question is: How have I, an American citizen, who you profess to hate, how have I harmed you, whoever you are? How has my participation in my local civilization interfered with yours? Why are you so quick to buy into the notion that leaders have absolute power? Why don't you see that governments are only like cowboys in the sense that they are riding the bull, barely hanging on, and pretending to be in control? You hate me, but I don't hate you. I pity you.

    1. Re:Not losing sleep over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'You' voted an incompetent moron into power who can't use multisylabic words and knows jack about international politics. You have a government which is demonstrably corrupt, and known to be so (bribery, drug use, conflicts of interest to name just a few), using a system where campaign donations allow people to influence policy.
      Your governement interferes on a global scale, making the world less safe; instead of going after the root causes of terrorism, you create only more terrorists. It has no concept of souvereignety except it's own. It pressures it's friends and it conducts industrial espionage (widely documented; Carnivore and Echelon) on a massive scale/on it's allies/.

      This is government you either voted for or allow to remain in power. Why do you think many people hate americans?

      Me, I know it's the US government I hate (literally....I really take it personally when the world I live in is made unsafer...this means I can't travel to wherever I'd like to....it pisses me off. Not to mention that the US gov't has contravened basic human rights in Iraq (wtf? allowing the rioting in Bagdad? A direct contravention of the Geneva convention...inneffectual policing to this day? Also a direct contravention...Bagdad has the highest murder rate of any city in the worl...it is, with 48 murders a day, litterally the most dangerous place on earth. Guantanamo Bay also directly contravenes human rights. The fact that the US has made it known that not only are they re-evaluating nuclear weapons, they have decided that their use is OK, and are now developing low-yield ones to 'bust bunmers'...making the wrold sterile and unsupportive of human life a pimple at a time.

      The US government is absolute mad...insane is a better word. And still you wonder why people hate you? Again, I know it's the government I hate, but I can very well understand others.

      And knowing all the above how in 's name can you still talk of a 'morally indefensible position'? Shit, I'd say murdering anyone who even considers nukes (weapons which poison land for centuries...just ask all those cancer patients in Hiroshima) is morally defensible. The fact that you either voted for or allow to remain in power such people as would do this mean you are directly responsible too, really...at least an accomplice, to abuse a courtly phrase.

    2. Re:Not losing sleep over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more this goes on the more I realize all the Europeans want to do is talk.

      Where are your men with backbones?

  152. who was unelected?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Then one day some fucking unelected military nutter (eg, George W Bush) decides to invade some small, oil rich, country and unilaterally turns off the Nav system. Several hundred people die in the ensuing crisis and major environmental damage is caused by the grounding of the Exxon Valdez II.

    The alternative is that we don't introduce high-res navigation systems and continue to have a number of deaths and other avoidable accidents every year just so that the current occupent of the White House can sleep in the secure knowledge that America has the biggest Dick in the world (eg, George W Bush).

    George W. Bush was legally elected precisely as spelled out under the terms of the United States Constitution. Despite electoral fraud and outright attempted theft via the courts by Al Gore, the legal election still stood.

    The United States did once have an "unelected military nutter" as you say. He came to power as a result of electoral fraud, came very close to declaring war against the Soviets, and decreed America would send a man to the moon before the end of the decade.

    Inicdently, the biggest dick in the world is tragically not a Guinness Records cateogry, but I'm sure some British caterers and "TV Nation" writers would agree that the big fat Marxist Michael Moore is certainly up there.

    1. Re:who was unelected?? by nagora · · Score: 1
      George W. Bush was legally elected precisely as spelled out under the terms of the United States Constitution

      Which part of the Constitution says the candidate's brother is allowed to strike people off the electoral register if he thinks they'll vote the wrong way? That must be one of the later amendments. In biro.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:who was unelected?? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      IIRC, and I know it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure all Gore asked for is that certain counties be recounted to ensure any votes missed the first time were included. This was certainly the right thing to do - to the extent that he wasn't democratic enough, it was in not asking for all the counties in a particular state to be recounted - he concentrated on the largest ones.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  153. Not even close by RevMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As I said on another post, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world combined has equal military strength as the US.

    Realisticly, that statement is laughably untrue. Sure, rest of the world combined may have numerical superiority in many areas, but no nation in history has the ability to project power like the United States.

    For instance, the US fields 12 super carriers, complete with their escort battlegroups. In addition the US has about 50 Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines. Care to guess how many fleet carriers are fielded by nations other than the US? I believe the answer is one - France's Foch. Britain has a significant force of smaller carriers. Britain, Russia, and a few other countries have significant submarine forces, but none are considered a threat to the Los Angeles class submarines. Nothing travels the oceans without the permission of the United States.

    Now that the US has clear naval superiority, the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, and Oceana are isolated. The US can now defeat in detail the forces of Canada and Latin America. Canada is fighting with American hardware and fine troops, but it is simply a numbers game. Latin America doesn't stand a chance.

    At this point, the "world" powers have lost the ability to take the initiative. The US gets to choose when battles occur, where they occur, and when they end.

    Oceana also has a fine military, but again loses on account of numbers. Africa is easy enough. Most of Europe has a decent military system. American hardware would eventually prevail, but with significant cost. China is the tough nut to crack just on their traditional willingness to suffer immense casualties.

    Of course, the US doesn't even need to invade. The US can just place its fleet carriers off shore of each of these places - one at a time - bomb the infrastructure to hell, and leave. They can never project power accross our oceans if we don't let them have a shipyard or a working runway.

    It boggles the mind, but consider the fact that the US military can apply ANY measure of power to ANY point on the planet. By that measure, no one else comes close.

    1. Re:Not even close by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      American hardware would eventually prevail, but with significant cost.

      Really? How would a significant cost be incurred?

      The European powers have no answer to stealth (F117/B2/F22), and with modern precision guided munitions (very well tested at this point;) their entire ground force would be hamburger before an American soldier set foot on European soil.

      I hadn't thought about it until now, but America has become effectively invincible, except to ICBM attack - and we're working on that.

      Very scary stuff. I hope it turns out that America can keep up her excellent track record of ethical conduct. If we were like most European nations historically, we'd be working on an American Empire right now (no, we're really not...get over it).

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    2. Re:Not even close by kisak · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Nothing travels the oceans without the permission of the United States.

      Don't mix raw fire-power with control or influence. The US army can not even stop a donky with missiles in Baghdad. Do you think US can even dream of controlling the oceans?

      In the end diplomacy and allies and friends are much more powerful than nukes. Just too bad people who don't understand this are in power in the US today (and showing with their actions the truth in the lack of power in unintelligent use of military power).

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    3. Re:Not even close by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      I hope it turns out that America can keep up her excellent track record of ethical conduct.

      You don't read much history, do you? Here's a hint, they don't make movies nor teach you about the unethical stuff in school.

    4. Re:Not even close by RevMike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't mix raw fire-power with control or influence. The US army can not even stop a donky with missiles in Baghdad. Do you think US can even dream of controlling the oceans?

      12 fleet carriers, AWACS aircraft, long range bombers, long range anti-ship missiles, sonar arrays, nd 50 fast attack nuclear submarines. No substantial merchant ship or naval vessel stands a chance. The best that the enemy could hope for is to slip a few Soviet era nuclear submarines past our picket line and harass our merchant shipping. Of course, they have travel so slow in order to remain silent that we'd localise them after one attack.

      Your analogy to a donkey in Baghdad is not a valid one. The scenario offered was one where the entire world decides to gang up on the US. If it floats and it isn't ours, the Navy will sink it. In Baghdad the US military is trying to use carefully measured amounts of force to kill insurgents and terrorists, but not kill innocent civilians.

    5. Re:Not even close by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      -stealth sucks and is demonstrably over rated...all you have to do is change your radar from high frequency to low and all stealth aircraft in existence stand out...all that held for example Iraq back from doing just this was export restrictions and cost.

      -modern 'precision munitions' are still piss poor accuracy wise; 90% missed in the first gulf war, 75-60% did same in the second. Not only that, but the only way americans could really set foot on EU soil is if they have a friendly port to use as a staging area. If they don't (and if the US would invade), they'd have to build or occupy one...massive US casualies.

      -the US is just as unsafe as any other place in the world...didn't 911 teach you anything?

      -the US? Ethical? Have you even been following the news since the 1950's? As for that 'emprie'...wtf are you guys still doing in Iraq, a year after hostilities have supposedly (according to your own gov'ment) stopped?

      Fact is, the US could probably occupy the EU...at massive cost. And they wouldn't hold it for long; guerilla warfare would make the cost of a cross-atlantic occupation too high.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    6. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we all know when they teach Watergate and Iran-Contra in school that they're shining examples of ethics at work....

    7. Re:Not even close by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      WW2 showed that a few subs can be devastating...only if the US manages to beat the encryption wil they have a chance to really rule the seas, and that's assuming that the EU subs don't just have roving orders (ie no contact for their mission duration). Thing is, the US hasn't had to really fight subs since ww2....in the cold war they might have practiced, but because it was a cold war the damage subs can do never crops up.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    8. Re:Not even close by haraldm · · Score: 1

      For instance, the US fields 12 super carriers, complete with their escort battlegroups. In addition the US has about 50 Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines. Care to guess how many fleet carriers are fielded by nations other than the US? I believe the answer is one - France's Foch. Britain has a significant force of smaller carriers. Britain, Russia, and a few other countries have significant submarine forces, but none are considered a threat to the Los Angeles class submarines. Nothing travels the oceans without the permission of the United States. Just in case you didn't get it, that is part of the problem, if not the problem itself, and not the solution. How long do you think other countries will allow the US to play the big boy, without trying to achieve something themselves. And - this whole nuclear force does not help a single bit against guerillas. The US had their Vietnam, and you are just about to get your second one - in Irak. Good luck.

      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    9. Re:Not even close by BigBadDude · · Score: 1

      ...kill insurgents and terrorists, but not kill innocent civilians.

      Hmmm... if CNN and foxnews is your reality, yeah sure...

    10. Re:Not even close by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      What he is saying by that is that we could be doing a lot of horrible things with the power we have, but we arn't. We invade countries like Iraq and Afganistan once in a while when they are deemed a threat, and we are in Iraq because we are personally rebuilding their country for them so that when we do leave, they will be stable and not a threat anymore.

      We invade countries like Poland and Norway once in a while when they are deemed a threat, and we are in France because we are personally rebuilding their country for them so that when we do leave, they will be stable and not a threat anymore.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    11. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      ok, you are fucking superrior.

      now shut up and go back watch Jerry Springer on TV.

    12. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude you might want to wake up and smell the roses..
      Your country CANNOT! provide anything for itself, it needs to trade to feed your people.
      Your currency has never been weaker, and on december the 10th. eu might even put special toll on US products due to US toll on steel - this will force the dollar to go lower - and if US accept EU terms it will still weaken your position since steel happens to be one of your major products.
      No the rest of us might not stand a chance in an open war, but we can starve your country till you surrender.

    13. Re:Not even close by koi88 · · Score: 1
      "At this point, the "world" powers have lost the ability to take the initiative. The US gets to choose when battles occur, where they occur, and when they end." (quote)

      So who chose Sep 11? Just imagine the terrorists had achieved their goal and destroyed the White House, the Pentagon (or, more of it), and the Senate-- that might still happen. No choice when it happens and what happens.

      American Forces might be strong, but if they can only fight a limited number of wars before they're getting too thin stretched.

      The Roman Empire also had a superior army and Navy, yet that didn't help against barbarian hordes.

      Yet we must admire the Roman policy of bringing peace to conquered territories (just thnk of Pax Romana).
      This is an ability the US doesn't have at all. They're just nurturing more terrorists by planting hatred in people's minds.

      --

      I don't need a signature.
    14. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying we could take over the world, i'm just pointing out the fact that we arn't trying to.

      This statement is laughably innocent. I submit that you're not familiar with the actions of your own ruling class (which is, by extension, the new ruling class of the world). If you really think they do what they do out of some boy-scout sense of honor and fair-play, then you are being terribly silly at best.

    15. Re:Not even close by UnderLoK · · Score: 1

      I must have missed the US/UK carpet bombing I guess....

    16. Re:Not even close by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      France and poland were definatly not a threat to germany, and germany definatly was not planning on leaving anywhere that they invaded.

      According to the Germans at the time, Poland actually invaded first. Absurd, of course... But then, according to the Americans, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Pretexts for aggressive war are wonderful things.

      As for leaving, the Germans probably would have left France in time. Once they no longer needed northern France as a guard against Britain, and once a suitable government friendly to Berlin could be installed... Occupying France was an unnecessary expense when the real war was in Russia (which I agree they had no intention of leaving - the idea there was lebensraum).

      Incidentally, France _was_ a threat, and a big one. Big army, fearsome defences, powerful allies. Just a shame those fearsome defences didn't quite go all the way to the coast...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    17. Re:Not even close by Anspen · · Score: 1
      Nothing travels the oceans without the permission of the United states.

      No. While it's true the rest of the world has nowhere near the Carrier capacity of the US, it doesn't need it. The other forces will have easy access to every airport in the world which means any US naval force within a few hundred miles of a (populated) coast is pretty much toast. Never mind the large number of submarines only one of which would have to get trough to sink a carrier after which a carrier group is nice but hardly invincible.

      Ovaerl in a (very theoretical) war between the US and the rest everything would depend on goals, willingness to sacrifice and level of teamwork. Keeping the US out of the rest of the world shouldn't be too hard if the other countries are able to work together efficiently. Invading the US would be very difficult but could be possible if the others where prepared to sink enough casualties end money into it.

      Of course all of this his highly unlikely, especially since there's also nuclear weapons.

    18. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me when i say your stealth planes are no match for our radar systems.

    19. Re:Not even close by sploxx · · Score: 1

      "Military stronger" makes not much sense in the age of hydrogen bombs. There is just no hiding from them. And the U.S. and also Russia have enough of them to knock out civilization. China enough to take out all major U.S. cities.

      So... what is the main advantage of the "other countries"? It's that thay have less civilization (i.e. cities), but more citizens. Look at china. Several big cities, but most of the population still lives on flat land. And the first thing nukes would hit would be the cities. Soldiers need a supply chain. The supply chain could very easily be cut in highly civilized countries using WMD, especially nuclear weapons.
      The US, Europe, Russia and all the countries with most of their population living in big cities are especially vulnerable to nuclear attacks. And sometimes it seems that this scares the hell out of many of the western political leaders. Not that they would be scared by nuclear attacks on their country in principle. I'm sure many are cynical enough to provoke a nuclear war to gain power, at least they would not care for their population. But number of civilists means military power means general power. And this can easily be lost.

    20. Re:Not even close by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Just in case you didn't get it, that is part of the problem, if not the problem itself, and not the solution. How long do you think other countries will allow the US to play the big boy, without trying to achieve something themselves.

      US defense spending is larger than the GDP of most countries on Earth. The EU (or certain member states), China, and/or Japan might be able to afford a military comparable to the US's, but only at great cost. You'd need a major social shake-up (not just opposition to US foreign policy) before Europeans or the Japanese would accept the sacrifices necessary to seriously compete with the US militarily.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    21. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, talk about seeing the world through rose-colored glasses.

    22. Re:Not even close by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      And the US won't "really" have to fight subs now, because we have a mesh-topology sonar network which reportedly covers all of our coastlines out very far; assuming that the military never tells you the whole story, these days we probably know when a pearl diver farts in the gulf. Any time three or more sensors can pick up the same signal we can figure out precisely where it is, which means by applying a little processing, once we get a fix on it once and identify it, we can figure out where it is going with only two sensors, and make some damned fine guesses with only one.

      Now picture those underwater gliders roaming near-silently all over the ocean, also carrying sonar systems and being self-powered by differentials in pressure and temperature. They never need come home, by using redundant systems they can stay out for a long time, being periodically serviced, and we will know when a fish shits off the coast of russia. Never mind flatulence charts. Submarines are pretty much a done deal, the next wave of delivery system is going to have to be something that moves more quietly along the bottom where you can't pick it up with active sonar either. Of course there are certain very deep geographical features which cannot be crossed in this manner, but I'm sure someone will think of something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it needs to trade to feed your people"

      You aint 'merican huh?

      We in America produce so much food that we pay our farmers to NOT GROW food. Food is given away for free to the needy in our cities in massive quantities.

      Using 20 pecent less farmland than 30 years ago, we produce 35% MORE food.

      America leads the world in food technology.

      We export far more food than we import. A food embargo would starve YOU not us!!!

    24. Re:Not even close by Vengie · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have posted this AC. You're correct, and should have been modded up for it.

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    25. Re:Not even close by Vengie · · Score: 1

      Hi. Its called the American Heartland. GG, no re thx. [Not saying that a war between america and the rest of the world is desireable, but when the government of the US steps in during wartime and mandates the excesses of american decadence stop and we all share, watch how fast we eliminate hunger in this country.....hey...maybe a blockade might be a good thing]

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    26. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference though is that we arn't trying to do more harm than good... as in we are rebuilding and pouring billions into giving them a stable government and economy.

      Oh fer the luv of christ use your brain. The people who run your country don't give a good god damn about "trying to do good". They are expending your own young men and untold numbers of Iraqi civilians in order to advance their own geopolitical aims. The best I will grant is that if "making life comfy for the Americans" happens to coincide with "making life better for the Iraqis" then they will likely feel great about themselves for it, but it is an absurdity to claim that you're spending so much blood and treasure for the sake of the dear Iraqi people. Bullcrap - they won't even be allowed to choose their own government unless it is rubber-stamped in Washington.

      You are the New Rome. Get over it.

    27. Re:Not even close by mehtars · · Score: 1

      yes but you forget about nukes.

      Whats to prevent the other countries with nukes, just to nuke the US, when the odds turn against them. Basically, they know they lost-- better to turn the tide right before they completely lose.

    28. Re:Not even close by haraldm · · Score: 1
      That's correct, and I hope Japan or Europe don't do that, because it's plain silly, from both a military and political (and ethical) standpoint.

      Assuming that Europe or Japan or anybody else might consider competing militarily with the US is paranoid - another part of the problem.

      US defense spending is larger than the GDP of most countries on Earth

      The US can really be proud of that.

      --
      open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    29. Re:Not even close by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Because we all know when they teach Watergate and Iran-Contra in school that they're shining examples of ethics at work....

      Woopie do. A few mentions of indiscression makes up for decades of funding terrorism and war?

      Do they teach you about "The School of Americas"? The funding of the Talliban? The creation and arming of Saddam? The toppling of the democratically electeded Saudi government? US sponsored invasions of Cuba? "The Bay of Pigs"? The truth behind the Cuban missile crisis?

      Most of you aren't even aware of half of it. Somehow, the American psyche just can't accept that there are bad forces at work behind the scenes. An America 50 years ago would never have stood for it. What happened?

    30. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someone has already posted but a German weapons company had a missile system track a stealth bomber at an airshow with ease.

      >America has become effectively invincible

      No it hasn't. It has become extremly hawkish, and for all its magical superpowered weapons it was still unable to stop a handful of men with boxcutters.

    31. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once.

    32. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read "Charlie Wilson's War"

    33. Re:Not even close by ball-lightning · · Score: 1

      Do they teach you about "The School of Americas"? The funding of the Talliban? The creation and arming of Saddam? The toppling of the democratically electeded Saudi government? US sponsored invasions of Cuba? "The Bay of Pigs"? The truth behind the Cuban missile crisis?


      Actually, yes they do. Do you really think we're that ignorant? Not everything America does is altruistic, heck; most of the time it is for its own advantage (such as the war in Iraq). There are a lot of people in France who dissagree with what the United States is doing in Iraq, but there are also a lot of people who share the same views who live in America. Governments always look out for their best interests, and anyone who doesn't beleive that is fooling themselves.

    34. Re:Not even close by UberDude · · Score: 1

      How do you know that "the European powers have no answer to stealth?" The whole point of stealth capabilities is that you're not supposed to know they're there :-)

    35. Re:Not even close by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Ask your older Europeans if the Americans had anything to do with the Russians not overruning West Germany...

      This whole hate-America shit has been going on since the 80's and the medium-range tactical nukes. Just move on, nothing to see here.

      I did read recently that by the middle of the century the average age in the US will be 35 and the average age in Europe will be 52. The birth rate in Europe is low. Europe is toast, your culture is finished. Ours is still growing.

    36. Re:Not even close by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... if CNN and foxnews is your reality, yeah sure...



      As another poster said:
      " I must have missed the US/UK carpet bombing I guess...."

      I believe it's you who have issues with reality.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    37. Re:Not even close by SEAL · · Score: 1

      WW2 showed that a few subs can be devastating..

      They were devastating mainly to merchant vessels, and that was before merchants started travelling in convoys.

      only if the US manages to beat the encryption wil they have a chance to really rule the seas, and that's assuming that the EU subs don't just have roving orders (ie no contact for their mission duration). Thing is, the US hasn't had to really fight subs since ww2....in the cold war they might have practiced, but because it was a cold war the damage subs can do never crops up.

      You'd be surprised at the level of sophistication in U.S. submarines that was directly a result of the Cold War. Prop design was vastly improved. Sub interiors were shock mounted. Driveshafts were mounted with hydraulic cushioning. Hulls were specially coated. Steam engines were designed to circulate without pumps. All to reduce noise. U.S. subs, especially missile subs are really quiet. No one else even comes close. The Ohio class is actually a hole in the water at low to moderate speeds (noise output is lower than ocean background noise).

      At the same time, our sonar was improving in parallel. The detection range and granularity is pretty amazing. Remember the Kursk sinking not long ago? The U.S. was indirectly accused of colliding with the Russian sub. Our sonar guys knew exactly what happened but ironically, U.S. officials couldn't defend our actions because that would give away how good our sonar really is.

      These improvements are all a result of our constant wargames with the Soviet Union / Russia. Torpedo technology also improved quite a bit. When the Alfas came onto the scene, they were fast enough to outrun the standard U.S. torpedoes. This caused a scramble in U.S. R&D to get the ADCAPs into production use.

      Don't think for a minute that the U.S. is too rusty to fight with submarines. The actual firing of weapons is only a tiny part of the battle.

    38. Re:Not even close by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      You don't read much history, do you? Here's a hint, they don't make movies nor teach you about the unethical stuff in school.

      If you compare the US to Britan or France (or maybe Germany) at the height of their power you should realize how this statement was intended. Sure you can find unethical actions, but as a country, we do a lot better than others give us credit for.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    39. Re:Not even close by goofballs · · Score: 1
      damn you're ignorant

      -stealth sucks and is demonstrably over rated...all you have to do is change your radar from high frequency to low and all stealth aircraft in existence stand out...all that held for example Iraq back from doing just this was export restrictions and cost.

      stealth most certainly does not suck. the whole point of stealth isn't so they can't see you- it's so they can't see in time *AND* so they can't track you. it doesn't matter if they're taking polaroids of you if they can't obtain a lock and prevent you from knocking out the targets. regarding high/low band radars, you can design aircraft to be stealthy to both.

      -modern 'precision munitions' are still piss poor accuracy wise; 90% missed in the first gulf war, 75-60% did same in the second. Not only that, but the only way americans could really set foot on EU soil is if they have a friendly port to use as a staging area. If they don't (and if the US would invade), they'd have to build or occupy one...massive US casualies.

      modern smart bombs have an accuracy rate of about 40%; and that's with many misses being in the ~100m off range. if you think that is piss poor, you have absolutely no historical perspective. that rate is absolutely *remarkable*.

      -the US is just as unsafe as any other place in the world...didn't 911 teach you anything?

      while the US is obviously not perfectly safe, the US is *not* just as unsafe as anywhere else in the world; that's just an absurd statement.

      -the US? Ethical?...

      it's all relative... not perfect, but pretty ethical all in all.

    40. Re:Not even close by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      "it needs to trade to feed your people"

      You aint 'merican huh?

      We in America produce so much food that we pay our farmers to NOT GROW food.


      It's funny because it's true.

      It's amazing how ignorant some of these anti-american belligerents are.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    41. Re:Not even close by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      But then, according to the Americans, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

      Er, genius, according the U.N. Saddam had WMD. Did you see the information from the first round of weapons inspectors? Did you hear of him gassing thousands of Kurds?

      If he really did dispose of them properly, he damn well should have documented it. He'd still be sitting around watching his son rape schoolgirls if he had.

      Personally, I'm rather happy he didn't. ;-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    42. Re:Not even close by go3 · · Score: 1

      We have tools better suited to finding a ship or submarine than a donkey. Visit FAS and become familiar with them.

    43. Re:Not even close by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      -stealth sucks and is demonstrably over rated...all you have to do is change your radar from high frequency to low and all stealth aircraft in existence stand out...all that held for example Iraq back from doing just this was export restrictions and cost.

      You are laughably ignorant. Let me know when someone actually shoots a stealth aircraft down. Furthermore, given the F-15's perfect combat record I'm not sure the F-22 would have anything to worry about regardless. (For those who didn't follow the link, the F-15 has 101 shootdowns with 0 F-15's lost.)

      If by some sad mischance your country goes up against the U.S., good luck to you. You'll definitely need it. ;-)

      -modern 'precision munitions' are still piss poor accuracy wise; 90% missed in the first gulf war, 75-60% did same in the second.

      First of all, I don't think your statistics are remotely correct for the current war. Where did you get them? I don't think the U.S. has published too much BDA information publically (hint: it is all classified).

      Secondly, I don't understand how you can characterize them as "piss poor" when it is widely recognized that they are the best weapons in the world, bar none. Please trot out some actual facts proving otherwise.

      Not only that, but the only way americans could really set foot on EU soil is if they have a friendly port to use as a staging area.

      Well, we do have Britain. ;-)

      -the US is just as unsafe as any other place in the world...didn't 911 teach you anything?

      Yes, it has taught me that the U.S. can successfully stop terrorist activity on it's soil for over two years, without a single incident. What did it teach you? Your statement is, once again, absurd.

      -the US? Ethical? Have you even been following the news since the 1950's? As for that 'emprie'...wtf are you guys still doing in Iraq, a year after hostilities have supposedly (according to your own gov'ment) stopped?

      We are in Iraq building a democracy. These things take time. BTW, it was never said that "hostilities stopped". It was "major hostilities", meaning a shooting war against another government.

      As to our ethics, if it was like historical England, France or Germany, we'd now have an American Empire on which the sun never sets...

      Fact is, the US could probably occupy the EU...at massive cost. And they wouldn't hold it for long; guerilla warfare would make the cost of a cross-atlantic occupation too high.

      Perhaps. If we just conquered France, we'd probably end up with the modern equivalent of the Vichy government, and a nice stable colony. =)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    44. Re:Not even close by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      The whole cold war reference was made to cover my ass; I never meant that the US was/had been resting on it's laurels...and hell, the cold war produced more tech in any number of fields.

      But my point is twofold: one, that tech has made it's way to a number of EU nations too (either through tech transfer or in-house dev's) and two, that since ww2 there has been no shooting war involving subs (yeah, intel etc...but AFAIK no ships have been sunk by subs, kinda thing) so the effect of subs on both sides is pretty much underrated. Especially with for example 'supersonic' torpedoes (and you can bet your ass that subs are soon to follow...who cares if they can hear you when you can out run/turn 'em?) developed by the russians (and the UK getting there quick too), passive sonar tech/pattern recognition, wireless guided torps, etc.

      Thing is, whne both sides are quite as hell, bith sides are blind...and both can equally shoot shit out of each other...but the subject under discussion (I think ;)) was a US incursion to the EU...in which case it's the US who has to cross the ocean :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    45. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invading the US would be very difficult but could be possible if the others where prepared to sink enough casualties end money into it.

      The rest of what you said was true enough, in that it is very difficult to gauge what would happen in an all out WWIII style battle. Too many variables and too much advanced hardware to figure just what would happen. I mean on the one hand any carrier group could be hit from airports all of the place, but on the other hand the carrier group is full of state-of-the-art warplanes firing missles that can hit an inbound aircraft while they are still miles away. Weird shit would happen.

      But to the main point, invading America... well, you had better be willing to nuke every last inch of North America for that plan to work. Invision Japan during the end of WWII but with a shitload more weapons in the hands of everyday folk. Instead of facing every last able bodied person armed with a pitchfork you'd have every last person (able or not) armed with small arms.

      The people with pitchforks and swords were enough of a scare that the US decided it was best to nuke them and save both sides a hell of a mess. So you can bet 200+ million persons lightly armed would make a much larger mess for any invading force.

      Talk about a fucked future. Just thinking of such a mess makes me uncertain that I'd want to be on the winning side and survive (if there could be such a thing).

    46. Re:Not even close by LordMyren · · Score: 1

      the main post you are replying to was talking about war. not terrorists smuggling in a nuke or two, thats pretty trivial.

      we had spy planes good enough then to have a cuban missle crisis. the point is, anything of serious significance- in an all out war scenario- has naval forces close enough to stop it from happening.

      thats the control he's talking about.

    47. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The US can now defeat in detail the forces of Canada and Latin America. Canada is fighting with American hardware and fine troops, but it is simply a numbers game"

      canada whooped your ass once and it cost you a white house. want to try again?

    48. Re:Not even close by hippopede · · Score: 1

      Time for a reality check.

      We no longer live in the WWII era. Weapons are much more lethal than they were: the net effect of this is that, in a war between developed nations, territories and oceans are even more difficult to control than they were formerly. In other words, we will not see a repeat of a WWII-style war.

      Those much-vaunted USN carrier groups represent an attempt by the American navy to remain relevant in a new era. Yet in most NATO naval exercises, 'leakers' get through. A 'leaker' is an OPFOR submarine which has evaded detection to move within strike range - just one heavyweight torp on target and the carrier group no longer has a mission. Consequently, the true role of the US navy today is gunboat diplomacy - beating up on weak nations. They will never again prosecute a war 'for real' since is it is much cheaper for a defending nation to build SSNs (let alone the much more numerous SSKs used in littoral combat) than it is for the attacker to build carrier-based surface fleets. It is often overlooked that the RN task force that recaptured the Falklands (a carrier group which included 15 modern sub-hunting frigates and several modern sub-hunting SSNs) was unable to engage and destroy the *single* Argentine SSK (a German-built Type 209) that was operating in the area for the duration of hostilities: it was only luck that the ARA sub did not sink one or more of the RN's capital ships. Around 100 Type 209 submarines have been built, most for export, and this is just one type of modern non-US non-nuclear submarine being built at a low-level peacetime rate.

      If America's navy cannot move within strike range of the enemy because littoral waters are denied (and they would indeed be denied by any reasonably capable enemy) then she cannot land forces by sea. Any attempt to construct an air bridge will be defeated by the lack of local air superiority (owing to carrier denial). The US cannot then establish a permanent land presence and the 'invasion' will fail. A situation not altogether unlike that faced by the Wehrmacht - the most powerful aggressor army of the day - in 1940, except that the Atlantic and the Pacific are much wider than the Channel and the North Sea.

      It's worth noting that the reciprocal applies - the US is under no threat of invasion (and has not been since 1814).

      Of course, the foregoing assumes that a new all-out war would not involve civilian targets and would remain non-nuclear. If, as is more likely, a new global war were to escalate through use of remotely-launched attrition weapons against cities and civilian infrastructures, then we would be looking at exactly the same type of war that was envisaged in the Cold War era. Why does anyone assume that since the dissolution of the USSR, any emerging stand-off would develop differently? (It should be noted that the productive output of Russia is slightly less than that of Portugal.) The term MAD was coined with good reason, but any such war would, on strict scoring, be 'won' by the 'rest of the world', not the US, since the 'rest of the world' can afford more hydrogen bombs. It would be a pyrrhic victory, obviously.

      Grow up.

      Regards,

      Charlie

    49. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously forget a lot of parameters.

      You seem to assume that wars would be played out in a "Napoleonistic" fashion, where each army line up at one side... Well, a few clues.. Most smaller countries realize that a "classic battle" is not going to win them any glory against an enemy consisting either larger numbers or having more gadgets. Guerrilla warfare is the name of the game for those countries and they practice such as well (yours truly is one of a few million such trained).

      In the event the US initiates aggression towards a region, such as the EU or ME or AP, if nuclear weapons are used, both sides will suffer enormously as most cities are left in ruins (time to live and operate from the bushes). The part which looses the most in event of nuclear war is the one depending the most upon technology (hint, if you had the ability to compare the average US troops to the European when stationed in Balkan, you'd get the hint when seeing the US troops freezing for days waiting for their dedicated "support personnel" to get the some shelter, while the European troops rested cosily in their warm, powered houses which they fixed themselves upon arrival. Most EU soldiers have a real job and practical skills other then being "just a ranger").

      Then you have the chore of taking and controlling a land-mass (what point is there to wage war unless you intend to control / impose something?). Fighting a guerrilla army at it's own territory could prove devastating (just look at Vietnam, with varied terrain, which could be exploited by most countries in the world). Also, look at the latest fiasco, Iraq. This is a land of mostly sand and rock and little terrain to assist in concealment or movement. Even there, the local forces are able to hit US forces again and again as we speak. In truth, a war isn't over until both sides agree (both sides not being two politicians, but all people with military power at either side). If the US couldn't win a war in a single country, how are they supposed to cope with an entire region?

      I say climb down from your high horse and learn something about war in practice..

    50. Re:Not even close by fishboy · · Score: 1

      rebuilding the country that you bombed into oblivion of course, i'm glad you agree with the moral imperative to give reparations for your actions. good thing you funded saddam and sold him the weapons too, just like bin laden. but truly, the reason for the expenditure of billons isn't because it is 'the right thing to do'-- rebuiding iraq serves america's short and long term interests. who gets those reconstruction contracts? american firms. it is a tax-grab by the bush admin handed over to friendly firms and the military-industrial complex. controlling eurasia puts the u.s. in the centre of three-quarters of the world's known energy sources, the gate-keeper as it were. interestingly you point out the legitimacy of your 'democratically' elected administration. did you happen to cast your last presidential ballot in florida? here's the newsflash: they do ignore the public and did so overwhelmingly in not only winning the white house but also in lying to you poor lot that still believe your vote counts for something about why they were sending the troops into iraq. yesterday the cia again officially admitted they knew there was no wmd in iraq. trumped up lies for an american public that isn't interested in self-examination. consider that you, an american citizen, have no recourse whatsoever over what is going on in guantanamo bay, even if you had evidence of the crimes that are occuring there. your own supreme court has copped-out and admitted they have no jurisdiction. your own government can label you a threat, hold you without charges indefinitely and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. the u.s. is as immoral as they come my friend. not individual yanks like yourself, but the record shows that your country is the biggest bully since hitler and stalin. the scariest part is that the american people apparently have no appetite for their own history. american unilateralism will be your undoing, i'm afraid it will be all of our undoing. too many enemies and not enough friends. all of the arguments about who would win what match-up with what equipment are pointless against the assymetrical threats that are far more likely the choice of your opponent. the enemies of american aggression are already on your own soil. good thing everyone has guns i suppose... wait.

    51. Re:Not even close by RevMike · · Score: 1

      Those much-vaunted USN carrier groups represent an attempt by the American navy to remain relevant in a new era. Yet in most NATO naval exercises, 'leakers' get through. A 'leaker' is an OPFOR submarine which has evaded detection to move within strike range - just one heavyweight torp on target and the carrier group no longer has a mission. Consequently, the true role of the US navy today is gunboat diplomacy - beating up on weak nations. They will never again prosecute a war 'for real' since is it is much cheaper for a defending nation to build SSNs (let alone the much more numerous SSKs used in littoral combat) than it is for the attacker to build carrier-based surface fleets. It is often overlooked that the RN task force that recaptured the Falklands (a carrier group which included 15 modern sub-hunting frigates and several modern sub-hunting SSNs) was unable to engage and destroy the *single* Argentine SSK (a German-built Type 209) that was operating in the area for the duration of hostilities: it was only luck that the ARA sub did not sink one or more of the RN's capital ships. Around 100 Type 209 submarines have been built, most for export, and this is just one type of modern non-US non-nuclear submarine being built at a low-level peacetime rate.

      If America's navy cannot move within strike range of the enemy because littoral waters are denied (and they would indeed be denied by any reasonably capable enemy) then she cannot land forces by sea. Any attempt to construct an air bridge will be defeated by the lack of local air superiority (owing to carrier denial). The US cannot then establish a permanent land presence and the 'invasion' will fail. A situation not altogether unlike that faced by the Wehrmacht - the most powerful aggressor army of the day - in 1940, except that the Atlantic and the Pacific are much wider than the Channel and the North Sea.

      I think you oversimplify the situation somewhat. A combination of anti-ship missiles and diesel subs may indeed deny navigation of coastal waters to the US Navy, but I don't think any reasonable person can deny that the US Navy will be in absolute control of the open ocean. That is key, because that means that a carrier strike force can show up at any location along any coastline in Europe, Asia, Africa, or Oceana. It is doubtful that the "world" forces will have the equipment or manpower to defend all that coast simultaneously. The US can replay Inchon (did I spell that right?), while the "world" has no similar ability.

      In addition, the US Military would have the ability to strike using a variety of weapons. Cruise missiles and penetrating bombers would be able to strike at the major industries, complicating the arming of the "world". The ability of the "world" to respond with intercontinental bombers is limited.

      Finally, other than Eurasia, the US could eliminate contact and cooperation amongst the allied land masses.

      As you say, this is making the big assumption of a non-nuclear conflict. You may be right about a standoff, but it is one where the US can punch at will, but might be unable to deliver a knockout. The "world" would not be able to counterpunch. Over a long term, the economies of many parts of the world would suffer sufficiently from problems like lack of resources (since ocean going commerce would essentially stop) that they would need to pursue a peaceful settlement. Eurasia might hold out indefinitely, but might suffer from resource starvation since the US could requently bomb their oil fields, mines, and railroads.

      You grow up.

      Regards,

      Mike

    52. Re:Not even close by eggsome · · Score: 1

      The AC left a space in the link, but the link is still a valid point...

      http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/27/nato.strik e.03/

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
    53. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually pround of this statement?

    54. Re:Not even close by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Lightly armed? Pfft, go watch "The Second Civil War" I'm in Idaho, our citizens have artilery and grenades in their front lawn.

    55. Re:Not even close by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Take the whitehouse, We'll take out all your furnished igloos.

    56. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. cannot project full military force against Downtown Moscow without being anihilated. With the stockpile of thermonuclear warheads Russia still has, MAD still applies. Directing over 1000 warheads against civilian targets would end the U.S. as a sovereign nation. For the few survivors, there would be too few able-bodied persons to man or fund armed forces. Much of the country would become uninhabitable. Food production would be virtually elimated. No currently envisioned anti-ballistic missile defense system could handle even a fraction of this all-out nuclear exchange.

      Even China, with over 100 warheads (currently capable of reaching the continental U.S.), is placed outside the realm of any appreciable use of direct military force. The horror is just unimaginable. Hell, we can't even project against North Korea for fear of 1 million South Koreans being killed in the first hour of conflict.

      Because of MAD, conflicts between these powers must be fought by funding proxy nations in limited skirmishes.

      Even granting the term "sole superpower", we can't project anywhere, unless you're mad.

    57. Re:Not even close by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Chances are in an all out war like that the US would not be alone. You think, no matter how pissed off Canada is, they are going to want to be alone against us?(Saying that neither of us will be able to invade each other) Mexico and South America are really no threat. Africa is no threat, infact I think it would probably spread the Non US forces out a ton, they would have to patrol/etc all of it to keep us from landing. Then factor in countries like Israel who would definately be on our side. While small they do have quite the air force, and quite the nuclear arsenal, which I think they would use before most other countries. Japan? South Korea? Australia? Those are all very vulnerable to attack from us. You really think SK and Japan wouldn't be on our side? With our 40K or so soldiers already stationed there. Taiwan? Would be smoked by China most likely first off I'd think. But I'm not really sure what we have stationed there. I'm not positive but aren't we the only ones with the huge capability of long range attack? Excluding ICBM with Nukes. How far ahead is the war? 10 Years? Will we have our star wars weapons then. And our missile defense?

    58. Re:Not even close by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Your assuming we would want to occupy that land. In a WW3 situation unless we tried to invade to take land, I don't think we would run into the problems of Iraq and Vietnam. That is trying to win the people over, etc. It would be destroyed. You think we would try not to hurt civilians in say Italy? In the intent to launch an invasion through Italy or I'd think the country would be bombed to living shit first hand. If we aren't planning to occupy it after the wars over and make it out own, why get into guerilla warfare? Look at what The Soviet Union did to some of it's satellites but think if the Soviet Union didn't want those satellite states.

    59. Re:Not even close by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Crap, I swear I had all that formatted but it seems to have all been lumped togather.

    60. Re:Not even close by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      Did you hear of him gassing thousands of Kurds? Did you hear where the gas came from? Did you hear who refused to condemn it? Did you hear who despite that continued selling arms to the 'moderate' saddam to keep the evil Iranians at bay. (And I won't even go into the US overthrowing a democracy to bring in the Shah of Iran)

    61. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      China is the tough nut to crack just on their traditional willingness to suffer immense casualties.

      China though is marching very quickly towards US level of high technology.
      History shows us that empires dont last for very long, and the US empire will crumble eventually - it could be argued that we're seeing it start already.

      I sure hope I'm alive to see the time when China finally tells the US to go shove themselves..

    62. Re:Not even close by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      The AC left a space in the link, but the link is still a valid point...

      http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/27/nato.strik e.03/

      Yes, actually I do remember this incident. It was AAA, no? Did any details ever emerge regarding the shootdown? Some possibilities that don't invalidate stealth in any way are:

      1. It may have been fire guided by the Mark 1 eyeball, which the F-117 wasn't designed to defeat regardless (except at night).
      2. It may have been a "lucky hit", i.e. the plane flew into a flak trap and got hit by a "statistical bullet" (otherwise known as a "golden BB").
      It is also worth noting that the F-117 is first generation stealth technology, essentially designed in the 60's and 70's.

      The B2 is second generation tech, and the F22 is third.

      Now, please point to another country that possesses even the equivalent to our first generation technology...

      Thanks, and have a nice day. :-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    63. Re:Not even close by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Did you hear where the gas came from?

      Iraqi factories.

      Did you hear who refused to condemn it?

      The U.N.? The French?

      At any rate, I never claimed that the U.S. was perfect...it's simply the best alternative that actually exists.

      As opposed to say, any communist country, which have consistently failed to produce a decent living standard or rapid technological progress...

      Did you hear who despite that continued selling arms to the 'moderate' saddam to keep the evil Iranians at bay.

      The U.S. played off two regional powers to limit both of them. That is called "international politics", and like sausage manufacture, it isn't a pretty process. ;-)

      Would you care to discuss France and Germany's sale of nuclear technology to both Iran and Iraq? I didn't think so...

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    64. Re:Not even close by hippopede · · Score: 1

      Control of the ocean? It is not territory. There is no such thing as naval supremacy until you neutralise the enemy's navy. The RN experience in the Falklands showed this - the fleet was at extreme risk for the duration of the conflict: 150 anti-sub munitions launched, all at false targets. How can the USN guarantee that one of its CVN groups won't be tagged in transit by a non-US SSN lurking outside one of the few US domestic carrier bases? It can't, and there's a lot of ocean to cross. Once the US starts to lose carriers, twelve won't seem like many ships at all in the context of the world's oceans. At this point, one suspects, the 'invasion' gets called off.

      But let's say the great American armada escapes the SSN pickets relatively unscathed and assembles off the coast of wherever (taking into account that it is self-defeating to land an army in a location much remote from its objective). As soon as a beach-head is committed to it demands constant resupply by sea. Thus the USN has to establish a naval blockade in a fixed known location to protect its amphibs and merchant vessels. It also has to protect all its naval convoys to and from this location. You now have a situation where one or two SSK leakers or salvos of sea skimmers can take out the equipment for a heavy division in one hit - equipment that cannot be quickly replaced. If the attack is anywhere on the European littoral - the USN also has to overmatch the combined European air forces operating in the radar cover of their own coastal topography - a scenario much rehearsed during the Cold War - not a credible proposition. In other words, as soon as your strike force moves within range and stops, it quickly dies. Just as the RN task force would have died if the objective of the landing had been Beunos Aires instead of San Carlos water (which was at the extreme limit of the FAA's attack range).

      This is the 'surprise' attack scenario. The world's navies and air forces will not voluntarily come out to be defeated and will assume a defensive posture from the outset. You should also expect that an effort to 'prepare the ground' by aerial attrition of cities, ports and production facilities (realistically by using your limited stock of CALCMs - you'll lose your bombers, including the handful of B2s in the inventory, to SAMs and interceptors) will put the world on the first rung of a ladder to all-out nuclear exchange.

      There is not going to be another WWII, or for that matter, another Korea. Forget Inchon: the developed world is not nearly so defenceless as North Korea was in the 40s and 50s. Wars like that are history. The only future military victories will be over diplomatically isolated poorly equipped renegade states. Punching a well-defended enemy without knocking him out - even if he cannot or will not retaliate in kind - is utterly pointless.

      If the US were to use a different tactic - merchant blockade using her own submarine fleet - then yes, inter-continental trade is curtailed. But two can play at this game, and unlike Eurasia, the US is a net energy importer.

      Regards,

      Charlie

    65. Re:Not even close by RevMike · · Score: 1

      It is probably time to let this thread die. :) One last comment:

      If the US were to use a different tactic - merchant blockade using her own submarine fleet - then yes, inter-continental trade is curtailed. But two can play at this game, and unlike Eurasia, the US is a net energy importer.

      The US has the ability to produce sufficient energy domestically, but we choose not to for a variety of reasons, primarily cost. There are plenty of well proven fields in Texas and Oklahoma for instance that are currently capped because foreign oil is so cheap. It would not be especially difficult to ramp up domestic production should we be cut off from foreign oil.

    66. Re:Not even close by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Nop...the gas was a compound the Iraqi's never even did research in, let alone have factories for. Only the US has the stuff in production...and the US has even admitted to selling the stuff (to the Iranians, actually...it is more than just likely that it was the Iranbians who gassed the Kurds, not the Iraqi's...blame the media for that cock up of public perception).

      The US is most definitely not the best system that work; it has third world death rates in it's cities, as well as widespread illiteracy and poverty. It is not without reason that USAID (an agency for providing relief to third world countries) has now got programs running in the US itself.
      For a better system, go look in the EU; high-tech and high standards of living, education and sanitation.

      Not only that, but would you care to discuss the US' sales of nuclear tech to Israel? Or the US' recent decision to sanction the deployment of low yield nukes in a tactical (not strategic!) scenario?

      Anyway, wtf was the US doing interfering in the souvereignety of the states in that region anyway? Why was it meddling in a region it has nothing to do with in the first place? Isn't that a direct contravention of the concept of capitalism?

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    67. Re:Not even close by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      "regarding high/low band radars, you can design aircraft to be stealthy to both."

      No, you can't. Not basic physics, but physics nonetheless. And if you can track 'em (which you can), you can shoot 'em.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    68. Re:Not even close by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      First off, the reason that bird got shot down is that the US, stupidly and against doctine and even common sense, flew sorties using the same flight paths for days in a row. Result; someone hears these things fly over (stealthy is really just relative), puts AA in the line of flight and BOOM. After that the USAF changed it's flight paths pretty quick.

      Second, not only is stealth not stealth if you change the frequency your radar operates on (or if you go optical, like some russian/british systems), but it's not cost effetive when fighting against a first world nation; sure, an F22 can take on 5 f16's and win...but you can buy about 10-15 (if not more) f16's for the price of one f22. It's called saturation, and is a real strategy (formerly known as rules of attrition :)).

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    69. Re:Not even close by goofballs · · Score: 1

      dude, you can design an aircraft to be stealthy to multiple bands of radar; not as optimized as if designed to a single band, but stealthy none the less.

      and sure, if you can track them, you can shoot them- but i didn't say they couldn't. i said it doesn't matter if they can see (detect) you, as long as they couldn't track you. there's a difference.

    70. Re:Not even close by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      Germs were supplied by the US. Resolution condemning their US was vetoed by the US (1986) Of course, its not pretty but either we're playing people off for our own good (screw the world) or we're the good guys, can't really be both. And why should I care about France or Germany when my tax dollars are being used to supply nukes to Isreal and to oppress other countries? Imagine another country treating us like we treat the rest of the world? (Coup's aplenty, assasinations, you name it, we do it :))
      Check out the following about what the US did over the past 20 years viz a viz Iraq , should be a tad bit insightful http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5 .php&id=815&blz=1

      About all the chest thumping, yes America is great and powerful, imagine the opportunity we have, we as a nation have the power to eliminate global hunger, bump the third world up to near first world levels. We currently spend close to 400 billion on Weapons (DOD) and a similarly obscene amount (200-300 billion) on subsidies. I was at the UN (tour :D) a couple of months ago, dont remember the exact figures, but the amount requited to cleanup major problems was so small in comparison, made me want to cry over our short sightedness (a couple of billion for providing most of the world with clean drinking water, a couple more per elimination of a couple of curable but deadly diseases etc etc). We've got enough nukes to blow up the entire world many times over. Who in their right mind would attack us? (talking about countries, not fanatics, you can't really stop those regardless of what you spend). Instead of spending that much money on lame big guns, there is so much good we can do.
      Btw another thing about Iraq which I find very amusing, US goes into Iraq because of Oil (as you said International Politics ;)), but the only reason it has ever had problems with Oil was its one sided support of Israel. Make that problem go away (divide it up a la the clinton era or current roadmap and position 'international' troops to keep the 2 sides apart for awhile) and all the secondary issues disappear.

    71. Re:Not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have a culture?
      hmmm... i wonder where...

      (flaming, my country doesn't either...)

    72. Re:Not even close by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      the first side to atack civilians would get the government overthrown

    73. Re:Not even close by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      it's not cost effetive when fighting against a first world nation; sure, an F22 can take on 5 f16's and win...but you can buy about 10-15 (if not more) f16's for the price of one f22.

      I doubt your figures. I suspect it's (at most, but I'm not motivated enough to track down actual figures) about 3-4 F-16's per F-22 on a cost basis. However, that's not even a fair comparison, because an F-16 isn't a true air superiority fighter.

      The F-22 has several advanced capabilities that no other fighter in the world can match, including supercruise, stealth, IRST and a performance envelope that is something like 40% beyond the F-15's. I'm pretty sure the F-22 could fly against the F-15, and compile a perfect record just like the F-15 has against every other plane in the world. The F-16 would be hopelessly outmatched. The F-22 is worth every penny, IMO.

      OK, I did do some nosing around. According to this article the per-plane cost for the F-22 is now at $83 million, given current production rates. This article claims that new F-15s cost Israel $86 million, whereas new F-16s will cost about $30 million. Looks like the 3-1 figure was about right.

      BTW, the Eurofighter (a much inferior plane) is slated to cost over $150 million per plane. So much for European efficiency... ;-)

      I hope you found it of interest!

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  154. when did slashdot become a political website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nearly all the discussion on this posting is a discussion of geo-politics. Stick to the technical issues where the slashdot community actually has a POV worthing listening to.

  155. Re:Article is flamebait by Viceice · · Score: 1

    I would think that a war between the US and the EU would go better then a war with radical terrorists.

    At least if the US-EU war ever broke out (touchwood), it'd be a conventional war, with weapons both sides know how to deal with and both sides have a sense of self preservation as well as the brains to remember that it's cowardly to purposely kill innocent people.

    As opposed to the current problem where you are fighting an army you cannot find, using weapons (suicide bomber) for which there is no countermeasure, against an enemy who is willing to die and looking to destroy un-armored civilian targets.

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  156. buy a military-grade reciever by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

    IMHO, it's far easier for a nation like Iran to simply buy a GPS-based guidance system from the Chinese or Russians. The Russians and Chinese have no issue with selling missile equipment to each other, and to rogue states. Or how Pakistan is rumored to have helped North Korea in the development of Nuclear weapons in the past.

  157. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  158. any frequency they pick will be easily jammed by zejackal · · Score: 1

    Geolocation systems by their very nature are pushed into "easily jammed" frequencies. They need broad coverage (so the signal can be picked up anywhere beneath the satellite) with a relatively small antenna on the satellite (weight/size restrictions of launch vehicles). This means you have to use relatively low frequencies. The satellites can't transmit much power (not alot of power available on the satellite) so they need a frequency with low free space loss. Since the antennas of both the satellite and the ground based receiver have to be mostly omni-directional (satellite antenna is at least hemispheric, but will provide little gain), and small, this also drives to a relatively low frequency.

    So now we know they need a relatively low frequency... what does this mean? It means that the signal is easier to jam than if it were at a high frequency. Since lower frequencies mean lower free space loss, they are easier to jam because you don't need to produce as much power to go as far. You can deliver more jamming power to a given antenna at a low frequency then at a high frequency.

    Also GPS type signals are very weak on the ground. The satellites don't transmit much power and the space loss knocks it doen until the signal is very close to the noise floor. You don't need that much power to jam it anyway.

    Basicly what I'm saying is this: if Galileo is to work as a geolocation system it will be, by definition, at an easily jammed frequency. The US just said, "get off of our frequencies and find your own". They didn't say, "go to this frequency so we can easily jam you".

  159. You sir.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are fucking stupid.
    now sit down.

  160. good news: there is always GLONASS by incal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In this summer my friend has bought a nice receiver of GLONASS - a Russian Navy GPS system. Quite amazing little toy from Javad Navigations. Civilian version is precise enough to guide a tactical missile :) we got our coordinates with ten meter precision.

    Probably military version is much better. And outside of US interferences: there are always Topol-M s targeted into Washington DC. Who wants nuclear war on such scale? Mutual Assured Destruction still works.

    So whats the point in Galileo? if UE has no power to defend their systems, use Russian alternative.
    This is a wonder of competition.

    for your pleasure: http://www.glonass-center.ru/

  161. Re:Article is flamebait by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

    Yep great, but the article reports on the talks over limiting the accuracy.

  162. It should be as long as US foots Euro defense bill by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Despite the present ill feeling between the US and Europe, let's not forget some basic facts.

    a) It is the US Navy that makes world trade possible. American domination of the deep blue sea is ultimately the engine driving containerships everywhere.

    We take free trade for granted but really free trade and free travel across the oceans is because the oceans are essentially American, and, under American rule, travel across the oceans are not taxed or restricted.

    There's no guarantee that a patchwork of powers would do anything different or better. Certainly the Europeans historically were a lot worse.

    Maybe the British could share with the Germans the same way they did in 1870-1914.

    b) It is the US Army and US Air Force that provide stability in Europe. What happens in Europe if the US pulls out? How long do France and Germany remain cozy? Or, better still, what is Europe like if Germany has the bomb, or what about Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, etc?

    Yes, the Europeans may not like Americans that much, and, Americans may not like the Europeans that much, but, fundamentally, the reasons and advantages of maintaining the transatlantic alliance remain sound.

    Ultimately, the rising muslim and anti-semetic populations in europe, coupled with an overall decline in population, will demand an american break from that old continent.

    But, until that time, NATO stands.

    --
    This is my sig.
  163. Question by lone_marauder · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't RTFA because I don't read German and don't trust the fish.

    Does this mean that the US can block the civilian variant of Galileo, allowing EU military to still use the system unimpeded on an encrypted channel? If so, then I'm cool with it.

    Even if not, I'm sure the conversation went something like this:

    US We want SA over your system.

    EU Blow it out your ass.

    US We'll shoot down all your sattellites.

    EU OK.

    --
    who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    1. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US We want SA over your system.

      EU Blow it out your ass.

      US We'll shoot down all your sattellites.

      EU We'll talk to the Japanese and Arabs and withdraw all our money from the US economy.

      US Here's the GPS keyfiles, and shut up will ya.

  164. Quick Translation by CATS :) by Bombcar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cats: All your Galileo are belong to US. :)

  165. Re:Article is flamebait by kisak · · Score: 1
    I would think that a war between the US and the EU would go better then a war with radical terrorists.

    An occupied European country would produce resistance fighters (or "radical terrorists" as you call them) all over the place. Just look at WWII. The new French resistance would be able to hurt the occupiers much more than they hurt the nazis simply because of the stronger fire-power available for guerilla these days. These "terrorist" would make an occupation of Iraq look like walk in the park, because contrary to Iraq, a nation like France is very unified and does not hate their previous leader or political system. And a strong army is already present in France which would make the back-bone of the resistance. (Exchange France with whatever European country that you feel like invading).

    These are all very unlikely future events, but maybe good to discuss since so many young US citizens (and a few politicians) have a very strange perception of how EU should do what they are told because "we have nukes". Contrary to these naive views, it is good to look at history and realise that invading Europe is something petty dictators have done over the centuries and they have all failed in the end, just like a hypothetical attack by a guy like Bush would not lead to pax americana but just a bunch of dead people and then a defeat like Hitler got. And before you say that Hitler's military was nothing compared to the US of today, realise that Hitler had a stronger army than a country like the US or any other nation of the time when WWII started. The reason Hitler failed was by making too many enemies and the sacrifices of resistance fighters, UK, Soviet Union and the US, to mention a few of the major players. Then consider how many enemies the US of today would get by invading Europe.

    EU was actually created to stop Europe from producing leaders that (wrongly) thought that military power is all you need to control other nations. Idiots that found diplomacy to be a sign of weakness. Hopefully the policies of pre-emptive war will be understood by voters to be just a version of might is right, which has been proven wrong again and again and again.

    --

    --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  166. Re:Article is flamebait by antirename · · Score: 1

    I think the odds of as US/EU war are virtually zero. Also, I think it's important to remember that bad as 9/ll was, it was essentially a fleabite. China is the only major threat, in my opinion.

  167. Excellent by CausticWindow · · Score: 0, Troll

    Even more incentive for Europe to free itself from the US. When you come for us, we will be ready.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  168. Fort USA by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

    I find it particularly telling that while the US seems to be nearly paranoid about possible "terrorist" (TM) uses of the EU's GPS, the EU doesn't seem to have the same concerns. Welcome to siege mentality.

    It is idiotic to maintain superiority through bullying tactics. It leaves you open to get stabbed in the back. And people question animosity towards the US.

    1. Re:Fort USA by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Don't know about you but im starting to get siege mentality in that im scared the US will do something against Europe. Bush feels like a bully, and his recent visit to London felt like darth vadar breathing down our necks.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  169. unreasonable? by limivore · · Score: 0

    Obviously.

    USA is stepping on the sovereignty of any country that uses Galeleio by demanding this vulnerability. Consider the 2 ways that this can go:

    1) EU says,"Hell no, we're going to make Galelio OUR way", whereupon USA punishes the EU somehow, pushing it an inch closer to "terrorist" status.

    2)EU says, "Yes sir", whereupon the USA is one step closer to removing the last threat to it's total domination of the planet.

    Either way it a winning scenario for the USA.
    Isn't that how the bully always starts a war? By making unreasonable demands?

  170. steel tarrifs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the steel tarrifs which the WTO ruled were illegal a couple weeks ago? You mean the anti-free trade, protectionist steel tarrifs imposed by the Bush administration(and against the advice of several within the Bush administration) for the purposes of propping up non-viable US industries with taxpayer subsidies?

    The steel tarrifs which the Bush administration is now going to ditch, not because of the damage the trade war might have on the US and it's economy, but because the EU was planning to target their (WTO-sanctioned) retribution on industries that are in politically important states for next year's election?

    Yeah. Before you get on the high horse, learn something. The US does a shitload of bullying, and the EU's less bullying back and more fighting in a civilized way. You knee-jerk jingoistic Bushloving shithead.

  171. LOL by whittrash · · Score: 1

    You really need to take charge of your own military to help save us people here in the US. We could invade ourselves at any time and need protection from ourselves.

    I know, this post has trollesque qualities, but don't hold it against me.

  172. it makes sense to demand this! by ethanms · · Score: 1

    Just as Europeans have enjoyed using American GPS for years in Europe, American's would now have the ability to use the Euro-GPS (Galileo) signals while in America.

    The problem there is that w/ extreme precision these signals can be used on guided missles to launch attacks with relatively little brain power inside the bomb.

    It's not so much that the USA wants control in other parts of the country, more that they want control in the US. Otherwise, maybe they would demand that the US and US controlled areas be left in dark-spots from the Euro-GPS system.

    It's being done to protect the USA... naturally no one else in the world likes this because it means they aren't the ones w/ their fingers on the button...

    But when comes down to it, the US is generally the one who goes off and polices the globe as well as prevents strong negative leaders from gaining too much power or weaponry.

    w/o the US, Hitler would probably have been the ruler of this planet for a time... there was no way that Russia & UK could have won w/o support from the US, not without dragging the war out for decades and losing millions of troops.

    Those who say differently are nothing but historical revisionists... it's quite easy for a 20-something person to balk at WWII and say it wasn't as bad, or as desperate, as it was... ask someone who lived through it and they will tell you.

    1. Re:it makes sense to demand this! by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      But when comes down to it, the US is generally the one who goes off and polices the globe as well as prevents strong negative leaders from gaining too much power or weaponry.

      a) Thats the job of a world body not one country to play judge and jury

      b) The US sells weaponry and weapon support to many countries and has done to both iraq and iran their recent war.

      c) The last war has yet to turn up evidence of "too much weaponry" (but we know it must be there because the US gov and half the world sold it to them)

      d) Bush is a strong negative leader with too much weaponry and power whos election result is questionable

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:it makes sense to demand this! by ciphertext · · Score: 1

      • Remarks for:
      • a) That is the job that, like it or not, is played by a superpower. Either because they want to, are complained about when they don't, or because they can. Right or wrong, that is how it has been and will probably always be (to varying degrees). The powerful excercise their power when it serves them.
      • b) Yes we do. Although, in most cases it isn't of the same quality that our own military use. It is a quite lucrative business I've been told. However, I don't condone selling weaponry to any foreign country no matter the relation.
      • c) There are plenty of pens in Iraq, and we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword. (Couldn't resist!) In my opinion, the war was simply fought to "finish the job" that the previous administrations (Bush Sr. included) either didn't finish or wasn't able. I believe it was also designed to serve as an "example". Whether it worked or not, is yet to be seen.
      • d) You believe the vote would have turned the other direction because the media wanted you too (i'm not a big fan of the modern media---necessary evil that they are---in case you are wondering). I believe the electoral college wouldn't have provided a clear majority to either candidate. In that case (as there isn't a third candidate sapping votes) the U.S House would elect the Pres. in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
    3. Re:it makes sense to demand this! by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      The US didn't win the war. The Russians didn't win the war and the UK didn't win the war. It was a combination of all. The US couldn't have done it by itself nor the Russians. It was a war of attrition which the Allies won becuase they had much greater resources. + the russians absorbed a lot of bullits. They lost soemthing like 20 million during the war.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  173. Just a quick question..... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

    What makes you think that it really does not matter WHAT frequency is picked....our military could jam it? I know it sounds bad, but at least our government is working to find a joint solution rather then just doing what they could do in the first place....jam it without asking anyway. Jamming a RF signal isn't a particularly hard thing to do either if they really want to do it they can. Trust me.

    --

    Gorkman

  174. This is not about "Control" of Galileo by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

    This about the ability to deny service.

    By using frequencies more prone to radio jamming equipment, the US military (and other suitably equipped forces) can completely blot out Galileo reception in a very localized area around a conflict zone. In the area where the jamming is in use, there would no useful signal at all. Outside of the jamming area, the signal and accuracy would be completely un-affected. Thus anyone with a big radio transmitter can deny service in a local area, but only the EU will have command and control of the satellites themselves. (And for those worried about equality, the GPS signal can also be jammed, but new GPS satellites transmit at higher power levels than earlier models, requiring bigger, noiser, easier to hunt and kill, jamming systems)

    This compares to the current GPS system run by the US which is designed to be able to transmit deliberately wrong positioning information on uncoded channels. Coded channels still transmit full-accuracy data (better than the normal uncoded channels, mind you) that military-grade GPS receivers can monitor. However, for the signal downgrading to be effective, it has to be applied to most or all of the satellites above the visible horizon from the conflict zone. Or to downgrade the signal in Iraq, uncoded channels on a satellites providing coverage everywhere from New York to Toyko have to be downgraded. The system loses accuracy globally, but with the most severe effects in the intended region.

    By being jam-able rather than downgrade-able, the Galileo system can perserve its civilian utility in times of war without giving either side a military advantage (unless the US and the EU decide to turn the trade wars up a notch). The GPS will probably remain the primary means of navigation for US and US-allied forces (who receive the Q-codes for the coded channels) for the forseeble future.

  175. planned invasions by wiredog · · Score: 1
    Every country plans for every possibility that it can. The US had (and probably has) plans on the books for invading Canada and Mexico. I'm sure the UK has plans for invading Ireland and France. India, no doubt, has plans for invading Ceylon, Austrailia, and Indonesia.

    The existence of the plans doesn't mean they'll be used, however.

  176. Civilization. by DarthTaco · · Score: 1

    "The U.S. may be the superpower at this time, but this doesn't mean they should have such a strong hand in these decisions"

    Imagine for a second that you are playing Civilization. You're playing along, kicking ass most of the time, and then suddenly you find out that someone else is coming up with a weapon system that could be used against you with devastating effects.

    Would you:

    A) Throw your weight around and get a trump card on the system so that you can jam it when you see fit.
    B) Decide to let them have their weapons system. After all, just because you're doing better than everyone else in the game doesn't give you the right to win!

    Sounds like you would pick B.

    Oh, and the weapon system happens to have the side effect of helping ambulances find what side of the street an accident is on.

  177. he didn't say... by koi88 · · Score: 1

    ... he wants to kill the Americans.
    He said actions like that make people hate the US' arrogance and make them commit desperate deeds like suicide bombing.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  178. Theory and Practice. by jamej · · Score: 1

    In theory the EU can put up a constellation that rivals GPS. In practice it is highly unlikely. What happened to the Euro-Fighter or even the European equivalent to the US's C-130 cargo plane. They were low quality, over priced, and they couldn't get the technology right. What about that EU constitution; it's going down in flames. Examples are too numerous to recount here. I believe many European countries could pull it off. But when the collective EU tackles a problem their track record is very poor indeed.

  179. Great... by DarkRecluse · · Score: 1

    So how much is the service and when is the RIAA going to shut it down?

    --
    --"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
  180. War satellites by XNormal · · Score: 1

    You can bet the Chinese would be looking to shoot down the GPS system if they got into a war.

    There may be no need to shoot them down - there might already be a miniature parasite satellite attached to them, just waiting a signal...

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  181. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  182. Re:Article is flamebait by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    I seem to remember that the Americans were unhappy about British and French involvement in the Suez war with Egypt in the '50s; moreover, Reagan took quite some persuasion to climb down off the fence and back Britain against Argentina in the Falklands affair. After all, Galtieri was an _anti-communist_ evil murdering dictator.

    Supposing (despite the technology of the time) the US had, in these two cases, had a GPS system operating, and had refused to shut it down to benefit the European belligerents. Would it be fair for the Europeans to shoot down the satellites?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  183. Duty by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Since its the duty of the largest benevolent nation to remain in power to help protect the rest of the world, ( and themselves first of course ) this only makes since.

    We have to retain the advantage, as tomorrow you don't know who your friends may be.. The world is too fluid to assume anything.

    If the rest of the world doesn't like it, too damned bad. We have bailed their butts out of a jam so many times I've lost count.

    We need to 'be there' for next time, and making assumptions of who will be on the 'side of good' isn't going to insure that. ( though personally I'm sick an tired of helping out shallow nations that as soon as things go good for them they dis us.. at least until they want the next handout )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Duty by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      Benevolent? How? The US gives less foreign aid per capita than Italy (Source: UN Foreign Aid Report 2000). It is THE major exporter of small arms to the rest of the world (no matter that those weapons are AKs. The US gives the money to buy them). It has fomented various right-wing dictators' careers, financed silly forays into wars of independence against said dictators, turned its back on genocide not once but twice in the last 15 years. You can go on and on. Yes, the US was crucial in defeating Fascism, had a bit do with defeating Stalinism (the folks actually in those countries had some hard work to do, no?), but you can't rest on your laurels. As a matter of fact, the truly 'good' should never claim any laurels in the first place.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  184. Argh by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

    US and EU interests usually coincide...

    You, sir, are obviously American.

  185. Buncha Retards by briancnorton · · Score: 1

    Anybody who at any point believed that a 4-5 BILLION dollar system put up by GOVERNMENTS would be out of the control of those same governments is out of their mind. You can jam any frequency, so the switch was probabally to avoid overlapping signals from something else.

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  186. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  187. Scary trends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is clearly a beginning of a new cold war.

    Thanks Dumsfeld! Thanks Shrub!

    Now you have started a cold war with our oldest allies. Congratulations. You fucked up the US for the next 50 years.

    Great going. Why don't you just nuke them now, and get it over with?

  188. FLAME BAIT - Sept 11 Trash talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yea, well what if someone "shat" on three thousand of your workers. Did we (America)kill or force out 25% of Bin Laden's people (unlike the British with the Irish), were we settling his people's land (Yeman). No, also, we didn't create the climate for the Jewish state which you Europeans hate so much. That was thanks to the British, and the French. America just didn't stop it.

    That kind of statement should only be trashed, it is worthless to a technology forum (as the GNAA). It's befuddling why it get marked up. I didn't know how much the europeans love brutal dictators. In a political forum it might be useful in creating discussion about the plight of the Irish, radical Islamics, perhaps even a discussion of American responsibility for terrorism (or was it the hangover of european/british colonialism), but this is not the place for such.

    --

    Why did the euro-weenie cross the road? because they like the feeling of walking on dead jews.
    --

    Hypocrisy is a state in old Europe.

  189. China is the only major threat, in my opinion. by gravious · · Score: 1

    Let us then be thankful that you don't hold any position of power.

    --

    Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
  190. The US will never declare war on Europe. by Aldric · · Score: 2, Insightful

    France on it's own has enough nukes to wipe half of America off the map if it came down to it. MAD would work just as well in Europe vs USA as it did in Russia vs USA.

  191. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  192. By your argument... by griblik · · Score: 1

    ...any country in the EU that gets in a fight with any country that has access to handheld GPS systems should have the right to destroy the GPS system (well, they'd be forced to, right?).

    This is more like bullying tactics - the argument basically comes out as 'You play by our rules or we might have to destroy your new toys'. I can see the point he's making, but I can't see that the US (or any other country) has any right to make a demand like this for their military convenience.

    --
    Warning: May contain nuts
  193. The US wants the moon on a stick. shove-it hoes by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    In other news Microsoft is making progress implementing its new TCPA standard and co-oparating with the Linux community - "We want the linux kernal to only reside in a specific block of memory so that it can co-exist with a Windows OS at the same time and also so that the Windows OS can terminate it if needed." said Bill Gates.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  194. Rough Translation by me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your base are belong to us.

    -- Wu Sjen Kim

  195. It was sarcasm, folks. by arevos · · Score: 1

    Um... I suggest that people click on the parent link and note that I was actually using a form of humour known as "sarcasm". It may be refered to as the lowest form of wit, but obviously I need to explain despite this.

    Perhaps I could put <sarcasm> tags around it?

  196. Re:Concentrating staelites by doublebackslash · · Score: 0

    It seems the satelites transmit time correction sgnals, not new postion data. The GPS recivers have that data on file.
    I think your reading it wrong, positioning data would be a LOT of info to transmit like that. The time correction signals work the same way, just with less data.
    Then again, I could be totally wrong. I think its this that your reffering to.
    I know for a fact, however, that the satelites do not transmit their full position data to the handsets, there would be no need for the onboard almanac if that were the case.
    I did, however, see something on a system that could transmit a more powerfull, focused GPS signal that could defeat jamming, and allow for a better siganl in a small area. Say the size of Iraq, and even better signals in a really small spot, like Bagdahd. I wonder if this is the system being referred to?

    --
    md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
    d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
  197. maybe if we can get our government under control by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    maybe if we can get our government under control

    you can too

    yours, UK

    not meant as a troll I want my democracy back too :`(

  198. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  199. Re:Article is flamebait by kisak · · Score: 1
    Supposing (despite the technology of the time) the US had, in these two cases, had a GPS system operating, and had refused to shut it down to benefit the European belligerents. Would it be fair for the Europeans to shoot down the satellites?

    That would have been an attack on the US and the US would have responded with military action. Don't kid yourself about getting away with agression; in the long run you will catch up with you. Just like Osama bin Laden turned from being controlled by the US to its worst enemy.

    --

    --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  200. Space Pollution by mcbridematt · · Score: 1

    Personally, I just think attempts to create an alternative GPS system is just space pollution. You have 3 sattelites telling your location all the time. Do you need more?

  201. Have you scored any more FPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40258&cid=4288 135

    betcha you did that by mistake! (Note to self, when ever acting childishly click the "post anonymously")

  202. Welcome to the world of super-sonic torpedoes by Endimiao · · Score: 1

    No knowns countermeasures exist.

  203. Re:Article is flamebait by Galvatron · · Score: 0
    Yes, hahaha, very funny Dr. Jones. That's like saying it's hilarious that Germany and Italy were good friends during WWII, because they were such bitter enemies during Roman times.

    The French only aided the American Revolution because they were enemies of the British, so anything that weakened the UK was good news for France. We continued to be friends for a while thereafter because for a period France was essentially the only democracy in Europe (didn't last very long, but democracy occasionally resurfaced). Besides which, they sold us the Midwest for a song because Napoleon needed money to finance his conquest of Europe (and the British had a nasty habit of enslaving American sailors and putting them to work on warships). Today, we are much closer to, surprise surprise, the nations with which we have the most in common. Politically, France is one of the most socialist European powers, and so is furthest removed from America. Moreover, language is the single strongest binding force, and so it should not surprise anyone that our closest allies are the other English speaking nations.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  204. The term I heard Bush use by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    was "illegal non-combatants".

    Umm, doesn't that imply that there are some laws involved to make them illegal - it might help if he named them.

  205. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  206. Mossad by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    The Israelis kidnapped a guy from Rome (he was tricked to go there from London) so their colleagues in the US might well consider doing the same thing.

    1. Re:Mossad by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, but kidnapping someone who's free to roam is quite different from kidnapping someone who is locked up and (presumably) under armed guard.

  207. To add to that... by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    It's been said that the purpose of NATO- and the commesurite troops we've kept in Europe, was to keep America in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.

    After cleaning up Europe's messes in the first two world wars, it was decided it would be cheaper in terms of American lives just to keep a significant force in Europe to begin with.

    This meant that attacking Europe meant killing American soldiers- something that isn't done lightly by anyone who would like to remain in power.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  208. Re:Setbacj? Depends on your POV, I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually when your allies are from the netherlands, who needs enemys

  209. Learn some history and/or international relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firstly, exactly what do you mean by "Yugoslavia"? There were several different international operations that intervened in the former Yugoslavia that went the auspices of different organisations: the UN (e.g. Bosnia), NATO (e.g. Kosovo) and, surprise surprise, the EU (e.g. Montenegro). From your comments I assume that you only know about the NATO and UN operations. Well guess what: the US is a member of NATO and the UN, and the EU is not.

  210. Re:Concentrating staelites by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

    The increase in accuracy is possible because the system can be updated to reflect the new positions of the satelites. It's that simple. The GPS signal carries the necessary information. The handsets recieve this information and store it.

    Just read some more.

    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
  211. Re:Only one man would dare give me the raspberry.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, just a man from the Lone Star state (Texas); George Bush!

  212. One why this is a bad thing... by CharonX · · Score: 1

    Many readers ask the question "why is that a bad thing"?
    Let me elaborate: This is an example how the US (military or government, your pick) seemingly tries to maintain "supremacy" over all the other global players (or at least the other feel like that). It might be different if e.g. the EU and the US would share those privileges - e.g. both would have the ability to jam the GPS systems etc.
    But the last year(s) have show us that the US (at least under the current administration) will have their way, one way or another - The UN is against invading Iraq? Screw the UN we'll do it anyway (BTW I still wait to see those weapons of mass destruction, but that would lead us away from the topic - don't get me wrong I'm happy that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are, more or less, freer).
    But the point is this way the US can afford to basically ignore the rest of the nations, because it is and remains the probably most powerful nation on the planet. And personally I ask myself - do I REALLY want a nation - ANY NATION - to have this kind of ability - even if it is the US of A?

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  213. Re:Not even close, pay the rent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may be true, but the US isn't willing to pay the rent to keep its war mungering going.

    It lets the rest of the world, including de EU countries pay. But this will end sometime.

    That is what de US fears.

    Face it people, we, the rest of the world are fed up with youre current politics.

    The only big industrie you have is the war industry. But you don't have the money to keep it goiing :-).
    I don't have to spel it out any further i hope.

    Thanks for youre attention.

  214. Re:It should be as long as US foots Euro defense b by Lochin+Rabbar · · Score: 1

    Ultimately, the rising muslim and anti-semetic populations in europe

    You do know that most semitic people are muslim, don't you?

  215. Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Ultimately, no country in Europe has done a damned thing outside its borders in 50 years, save sending
    > a thousand troops or so to play soldier in UN-sanctioned excercises in pointlessness. Even in
    > those conflicts, it's the US doing the real work

    Perhaps you missed the 4000 French troops currently in the Ivory Coast, with no US or UN in sight? (http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,543 46.jsp)

    Perhaps you missed that because you don't pay attention unless the US is involved?

    Perhaps that's why you don't know what other countries have been up to, and why you simply sound ignorant and uninformed?

  216. I'm letting you know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let me know when someone actually shoots a stealth aircraft down."

    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/27/nato.str ik e.03/

  217. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The fact is, if they're all dead and an disarray, they can't fund or organize an attack of any size."

    1. Re:Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace! by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you're joking around or if you're supporting my point... but... If they're dead, there is no more war with that enemy. Same thing goes if we're dead. That doesn't mean you should kill everyone that disagrees with you, it means just the ones that vow to kill you. Also... No matter how peaceful a country is, there has obviously not been "perpetual" peace in however many years man has existed... No matter how much someone has wanted peace, there's always some asshole that either has decided to hate you or just wants your land/money/culture/people/whatever...

      Oh yeah, sorry about the typo.

  218. Small correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen this theory everywhere: well well, now US can jam Galileo, BUT the EU can jam GPS as well!

    That is simply not true. To reliably disable a global system like GPS/Galileo you need a vast amount of resources, military technology and ground bases at your disposition. The EU simply doesn't have this and won't have it in the mid-term future.

    The 'we can disable you' is a one way road right now. Why do you think Galileo was designed to touch GPS frequencies in the first place? Partly for technical reasons, granted, but with a few political considerations as well.

    1. Re:Small correction by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Hrmmm...

      So the EU has the resources to put Gallileo in place, but not to be able to jam GPS frequencies?

      Likewise, are you stating that the US has a worldwide network in place just to jam Gallileo?

      That's like saying that only the Swiss and Japanese can break precision wristwatches, because only they have the capability of making them.

      Let me clue you into a secret - it's a lot easier to break a system than keep it running smoothly.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:Small correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So the EU has the resources to put Gallileo in place, but not to be able to jam GPS frequencies?"

      Correct. Impressive how precise you interpreted my statement.

      "Likewise, are you stating that the US has a worldwide network in place just to jam Gallileo?"

      The US has MUCH more worldwide ground bases and much more advanced military equipment. Galileo is a global system, you know. This is not about jamming the handheld GPS receiver in your back yard with primitive russian technology.

      "That's like saying that only the Swiss and Japanese can break precision wristwatches, because only they have the capability of making them."

      Slightly funny perhaps, but perfectly meaningless otherwise.

      "Let me clue you into a secret - it's a lot easier to break a system than keep it running smoothly."

      I bow to you, o wise man!
      Spare me with your commonplaces, the issue is a bit more complicated.

  219. You forgot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Of course, the US doesn't even need to invade. The US can just place its fleet carriers off shore of
    > each of these places - one at a time - bomb the infrastructure to hell, and leave. They can never
    > project power accross our oceans if we don't let them have a shipyard or a working runway.

    ...nuclear weapons.

    Your argument boils down to "the US can destroy the infrastructure of other countries." Well, yes, but other countries can destroy the infrastructure of the US, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Maybe nobody can win against the US, but there's countries the US can't win against either.

    Regardless of its level of conventional supremacy, no country in the modern era is untouchable. We would all do well to remember that.

  220. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't give me that crap.

    North corea could use GLONASS for hitting New York, after they've come clear on having the US answer turn their starving half of a peninsula into a glowing desert.

    They could even use GPS, cause before you even notice it, blam! Let alone switching GPS off before.

    This is a political issue about who is the space sheriff and who starts to bug him.

  221. Re:Not even close You are forgetting about nukes by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

    At this point, the "world" powers have lost the ability to take the initiative

    Bravo, you just forgot ICBM nukes.
    France alone has more than 350 ICBMs, IIRC, all of them capable of striking the East and West coast, simultaneously of course... Some of these pack multiple H-bomb heads. Other countries have the same capacities, Russia, England, China, possibly Israel, Pakistan, etc...
    Even if you wipe out France, for instance, there are still 4 or 5 nuclear submarines *somewhere* in the ocean, which you WON'T be able to track and destroy in timely manner. Each of these submarines carry enough nukes around to destroy most of the urban areas of the U.S.

    In the crazy hypothesis of global war (everybody against the U.S.A.), it ultimately doesn't matter how powerful the U.S.A. is: the theory of MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction, you know, the thing that prevented WW III...) still works.

    BTW, there are more carriers than just the Foch: France produced the Foch, the Clemenceau (sold to Brazil I think), and now the (*grin*) Charles de Gaulle (nuclear carrier). Russia built some, and China would.

    Plus, the other countries would very soon accelerate their arms production, which the U.S. can't do a thing about. I mean, no amount of power can stop the chinese + european + russian + indian + ... workforce, factories and such, except if you nuke everybody, but then it sucks hard to be the leader of an unhabitable planet.

    (all of the above is just pure, hypothetical, theorical, mumbling. Kids, don't try this at home!)

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  222. Ah yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How true. The US states have always peacefully coexisted, even at the dawn of the federation.

    Europe should envy America.

  223. Re:Learn some history and/or international relatio by imnoteddy · · Score: 1
    From your comments I assume that you only know about the NATO and UN operations

    I shouldn't repond to an AC troll, but I will.

    I know about all of those operations, and the European nations had to be dragged kicking and screaming into all of them. The US (Clinton adminstration) wanted to stop the murders in 1993, but France, Germany, etc. didn't give a fuck, and the American public wouldn't go in if NATO wouldn't go in.

    It wasn't America's problem - why didn't Europe do something? And why are you an Anonymous Coward? Are you unwilling to defend Europe's actions?

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
  224. why disobey? by thebonoboboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i generally sympathize with this resignation. but i'm continually heartened with the swing of the pendulum. the supremacist neocon mentality is at its height i think, with its current dominance of the newsmedia and US politics. you hear a lot about the pendulum swing now with Soros and the Dean campaign, and the worries about a leftie "Goldwater backlash". but one difference is that unlike then, there is a very loud "international community" voice now and it is incredibly anti-Bush/neocon/USA. when has the US' Left had such overwhelming world convergence? if you watch Fox News closely enough you can see it sweating. with dominance comes complacency.

    --
    ---- "Stank you smelly much."
    1. Re:why disobey? by dandelion_wine · · Score: 1

      I sympathize, strangely, with all posters on this particular thread.

      Having watched America's (the country) excesses from a relatively safe vantage point, I've long slagged the country and its inhabitants for the various ills it has propagated. Only recently have I begun to realize what it would be like to be a citizen of the country and still feel this way, knowing my tax dollars are going toward idiocy and worse. That is a level of frustration and helplessness I hope never to feel.

      Peace.

    2. Re:why disobey? by CooCooNutz · · Score: 1

      the reason that the EU hates George Bush is because he exhibits Christian values in his decisions, unlike yourself, and thats why you hate. 'nuff said.

    3. Re:why disobey? by pdbaby · · Score: 0
      At the risk of getting Flamebait, I must take issue with your retort:

      the reason that the EU hates George Bush is because he exhibits Christian values in his decisions

      I won't bother arguing there. He does show some, albeit misguided xian religiousness in his decisions: however I believe xianity teaches generally that war is wrong -- as is coveting thy neighbour's oil-err... donkey.

      unlike yourself

      I think that's probably a gross over-generalisation to make, given that the grandparent said nothing about religion at all -- conversely, s/he also said nothing that could not be construed as a pro-xian opinion.
      Indeed, there are plenty of xians in Europe, as in America and Japan, etc. -- your insinuation that the grandparent is simply persecuting George Bush because of his religion is illogical.

      I think generally people in the Europe (if not the world) dislike Bush (and lesser by extension the people who elected him) because of his warmongering big-business favouring bully tactics with the rest of the world.

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
  225. Power without control is useless ... by MarkTina · · Score: 1

    ... as someone said once.

    Although no-one can argue against the fact that the US has a huge war machine, lots of people can argue the fact that the US military (as a whole) is not that well trained.

    Having lived on a couple of NATO bases over the years and seen the way various nationalities interact (both in social and military gatherings) the US has always been the butt of many a joke, jibe and fear (from "friendly fire")

    A good example was during the first Gulf conflict, the US army arriving by landing craft onto a beach and "occupying" said beach ... all the while being closely filmed by the BBC, CNN and other world news casters, who'd been there for the past 2 days waiting for them ... the other fun thing to watch was the Coca Cola machines being unloaded :-)

    Of note the training the pilots gets seems lower than what other countries give (ie. get permission to blast something rather than blast it and then find out it was actually a bunch of italians or canadians or some other poor bugger allied to the US)

    I think the US (and it's people) needs to realise that a) the rest of the world exists outside of TV and b) the rest of the world has been fighting wars for a lot longer than the USA has been in existance ... and hence know a lot of dirty tricks, you think that in the hypothetical situation of the US vs EU that the EU members would fight fair ?

    Ah well, maybe a big wall could be built around the US, they'd be quite happy in there by themselves and the rest of the world could breath easier :-)

  226. Ummm, it's probably more of a favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would seem to me that, in as much as the U.S. leadership currently maintains that we are (1) at war against terror, (2) that Hussein was just a battle in the war and (3) that this is going to be an extended conflict, this probably amounts to the U.S. saying:

    "Guys, we won't be mounting war efforts against European democracies before those satellites fall out of the sky so why don't we just figure out a way to make sure those little boogers aren't the first thing we blow up just before we smoke the next greaseball dictator's 3 running planes along with his elite "Republican (It's funny that what, I'm sure, sounds like vowel-less poetry translates into 'Republican') Guard."

    My guess is that the U.S. is looking for a polite on/off switch that won't be interpreted as a weapon. I've heard rumors that China can and has shutdown our gps system in a brief show of force. If it's true, then it can't be a critical military system (we spend billions of dollars on defense...if China could shut us down, we'd fix that). If it's not, then the several-minute-nationwide pcs outtage we had a few years back should have proven the system to be less than fault-tolerant...it was caused by a gps satellite system glitch.

    Honestly, can any satellite system really be that tough to disable for a country that took out what my liberal friends were saying was the third toughest infantry in the world (Iraq) in a matter of weeks?

    This doesn't seem like something an armed forces person would think of. I doubt that any EU country would wager its perceived testosterone level on a gps-like satellite network if it were known to be vulnerable to someone considered to be a threat.

    If this sort of thing is on the table, it has to be pretty lightweight militarily. Let's face it, even Socialists don't equip their armies with rubber bullets.

    In short, the headline's more shocking than the story.

  227. ASS TALK by kir · · Score: 1

    Do you here that? That's the sound (and smell?) of the entire (vocal) slashdot community talking out of its ass. None of you have a fucking clue what your talking about. Particularly those of you who've been modded to a 5.

    The article is heresay. What is the source? The reg story differs. Why is that?

    And what's with the U.S. bashing? The U.S. GAVE the world GPS... and your bitching?

    Oh yeah... and to the fool who said the U.S. didn't save Europe's ass and scolded another for not knowing his history... dude. What planet are you from? Have you forgotten the cold war? What do you think would have happened if the U.S. wasn't in Europe for 50+ years? Peace? PLEASE! Do you remember the joy in Germany when the Berlin wall was torn down? Who do you think brought that about? Europe?

    --
    3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    1. Re:ASS TALK by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      actually yes. It was the guards misinterpreting an order which allowed the people to cross over. It really was a people revolution.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  228. Geez who the hell are we? by ecloud · · Score: 1

    All of Europe can't collectively tell us to take a hike on this issue?

    Anyway it's just foot-dragging. Ultimately people always have to adapt to new technologies... take the good with the bad, develop better missile countermeasures, etc. GPS has so many more good uses than bad.

  229. Re:It should be as long as US foots Euro defense b by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    Ummm maybe not. The rules of the sea and trade was going on long before the US. DOn't know the exact laws etc but piracy etc has been outlawed by all countries for a long time.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  230. Re:It should be as long as US foots Euro defense b by aCC · · Score: 1

    This is such an obvious misinformed troll that I'm wondering why moderators haven't noticed it yet.

    It is the US Army and US Air Force that provide stability in Europe.

    Wake up. This was (partly) true in the cold war. Europe is very different now with Germany and France being the driving force behind the European union.

    Europe has changed and luckily for the better part. For once people seemed to learn from history.

    Try to get to know Europe before talking about something you have no clue about.

  231. Re:Only one man would dare give me the raspberry.. by wizrd_nml · · Score: 1

    Notice how Sandurz only makes one appearance. Very intriguing....!

  232. not close, not even in the point of sight by Crass+Spektakel · · Score: 1

    > Point 2: USA DOES remove dictators but it also
    > creates them.
    > This is clearly the case with Saddam Hussein and
    > Usama bin Laden, but it also extends to many
    > others like Manuel Noreiga (CIA asset).

    Vision impaired?

    Saddam received MILLIONS of tons of sowjet equipment FOR FREE. Even in thist years war 90% of Saddams Army used rusty SOWJET equipment. Saddam is/was an socialist/stalinist leader, not a capitalist/faschist one. Only five to ten years later western powers tried to buy goodwill by SELLING some 10.000 tons of equipment but as it didn't work out like expected they stopped delivering some years later while the sowjet-union delivered still MILLION TONS FOR FREE. /bin/laden is a dictator? Well, he was educated by pakistan and saudi money, he got his first jobs by pakistan, he got his first equipment by pakistan and later he got a good bunch of modern equipment from the US. If you really are looking for a scapegoat, point your finger at pakistan first. Its like a kid who was risen by his father as a criminal, stealing, murdering, gets a knife from uncle sam, kills again and then uncle sam is responsible. Sound stupid? Knifes don't kill, education does.

    > Point 3: Helping to resolve conflicts? Do you
    > even know what happened in Bosnia?

    Yepp, yugoslawia was only three hours away and I myself even speak a bit of their language (ok, mostly about alcoholic brewege) and have friends there.

    > The actions of NATO actually accelerated the
    > genocide.

    Please explain as I think you are totally wrong.

    > The Croats were committing mass atrocities
    > similar to the Serbs yet how come very few even
    > say anything?

    The war-tribunal told 90% of killings was done by serbs, 5% by croats and 5% by muslims. I never saw a serb refugee, but we had around TWO MILLION refugees alone in germany from croatia and bosnia, most if not all beeing croats or muslims. The serbs had tanks, airplanes, helicopters, artillery and they used it. While some of their points where correct they did numerous times criminal wrong things and instead of accepting international help they acted like a strong man which they obviously were only while shelling bosnian cities with artillery and killing 200.000 civilians in a most disgustingly public way of powerdemonstration. I might add that their enemies also killed 20.000 civilians, but at least those enemies stopped fighting when ordered by the UN and they didn't kill in such a stupid public demonstration of power.

    > As far as the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is
    > concerned, USA really isn't helping it now.

    I can't tell a lie, the best way to help in this case would be to nuke both. Problem solved.

    > The US govt is so biased towards Isreal that it
    > will be a miracle if anyone signs any peace
    > agreement that USA puts forth.

    Maybe its the palestinian extremists request to dissolve the nation of israel before stopping fighting. A good healthy carpet-bombing with nukes would obviously shut up both.

    --
    "Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
    1. Re:not close, not even in the point of sight by pdbaby · · Score: 0
      Disclaimer: Granted your nuke carpet bombing statements were (I assume) meant as a jest, however I imagine the sentiments behind them were not

      I can't tell a lie, the best way to help in this case would be to nuke both. Problem solved.
      Let us not forget that Israel today is a nation that was created out of land that was rightfully Palestinian (regardless how it was many hundreds of years ago -- has anyone demanded the creation of the austro-hungarian empire again?).
      While the methods of both sides are disgraceful, I can't help but sympathise with the Palestinians, whose land has been taken

      I'm (obviously from this post) in favour of the dissolution of the state of Israel and the return of the land to the Palestinians: superpower guilt after WW2 is no excuse to cut up another country: it is decidedly undemocratic and, quite frankly, shows a disregard for Everyone Else[tm]

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    2. Re:not close, not even in the point of sight by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I'm not even sure if I should respond to you given that you think nuking two groups of people is "healthy" :( It's obvious that we have different value systems. Life, it seems, is not valuable to you.

      Vision impaired?"

      If I'm vision impaired, you are totally blind... half of what you say is pure speculation with no basis. They are not even worthy enough to be considered conspiracy theories.

      The war-tribunal told 90% of killings was done by serbs, 5% by croats and 5% by muslims. I never saw a serb refugee, but we had around TWO MILLION refugees alone in germany from croatia and bosnia, most if not all beeing croats or muslims.

      The tribunal (you are talking about the UN ICTY right?) was severely biased. How can you have countries that participated in the war (eg. bombed Serbia) have judges on the panel? It's blatantly unjust! You should have neutral countries or those that did not participate in the war. There are tons of countries that you can pick, even European ones like Switzerland (which was neutral). When you have British judges (and basically NATO member nations) on the panel, what do you expect? Do you think anyone is going to say anything about the NATO-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (for example)?

      As far as not seeing any Serb refugees, it's because they all fled to Serbia which was powerful and Serb dominated.

      In any case, I'm not trying to pick sides. Both sides committed atrocities.

      I can't tell a lie, the best way to help in this case would be to nuke both. Problem solved.

      Man, how could you even say such a thing? How about if I come and nuke you because...I don't know...because I don't like you? Is that ok with you? You are so Machiavellian... :(

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  233. Please, stop rewriting history... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    1. The US involvement in WWI was minimal. Just look at the history of that conflict - the US didn't show up until after the majority of the fighting had been done, and played only a token role in the few battles that took part on the western front after it joined the war.

    2. The number of US troops in Europe during WWII only exceeded that of Britain in late 1944, well after D-Day and well after the war in Europe became a forgone conclusion.

    Did the US "save" Europe from Nazism? Well, it helped but don't kid your self that Britain, Russia, Canada, etc couldn't have defeated Hitler eventually if the US had continued its isolationist policy. Lest you forget, the US didn't declare war on Germany, it was Germany that declared war on the US.

    And, as another poster pointed out, the key turning point of WWII in Europe wasn't D-Day, it was Stalingrad. Before Stalingrad, Germany had never retreated. After Stalingrad, that's all it did, mainly due to the huge sacrifices made by the Russian Army and the Russian people.

    3. Involvement in the former Yugoslavia wasn't restricted to the US. NATO and UN both operated in that conflict, and soldiers and peacekeepers from just about every major country in Europe played their part. And unlike the US, those European nations weren't afraid to commit troops on the ground.

    Just because the only coverage you saw on CNN was of various missions performed by the USAF (alongside the RAF, etc) that doesn't negate the efforts of those other nations and their servicemen that were involved more directly.

    Please, if you're going to talk about the US rushing to the aid of its European allies, etc then at least try to be accurate. The American servicemen who served in those conflicts would be the first to acknowledge that they didn't do so alone, and that they joined the fight once it was in full swing on every occasion, so it wouldn't kill you to do the same. Revisionist statements like the ones in your post only serve to drive a greater wedge between the US and its European allies.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Please, stop rewriting history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't kid your self that Britain, Russia, Canada, etc couldn't have defeated Hitler eventually

      Two words - lend lease.

    2. Re:Please, stop rewriting history... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Two words - lend lease.

      Gee, thanks. I knew someone would bring this up. Just how ethical was the US Lend Lease policy? Was it really the best way to help Britain and France? Should the Lend Lease be something that the US should actually be proud of?

      Let's imagine your house is on fire and your next door neigbour says he'll help you save your house but before he does so, you'll have to agree to pay for the use of his hosepipe and water - just how would you feel? Wouldn't you feel happier if he just gave you the stuff, and helped himself?

      Yes, Lend Lease helped Britain avoid invasion. But it wasn't as much help as the US actually getting involved itself. Remember, the Lend Lease programme started before Germany declared war on the US, so it's fair to say that if that declaration of war hadn't come Lend Lease would have been the full-scale of the US's involvement of the war in Europe.

      Someone who rushes to your help at the first sign of trouble is a true friend. Someone who rushes to sell you something is an opportunist. Churchill always regarded Lend Lease as being analogous to the latter of these, and I have no reason to disagree with his belief.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    3. Re:Please, stop rewriting history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The United States should loan what articles were needed, as a man would loan his garden hose to help his neighbor put out a fire without reference to payment, but with the expectation that the hose itself would be returned." -- FDR

      In reality, the United States sent $50 billion in war materials to the UK, USSR, France, China, and others under the Lend Lease Act. Approximately $10.5 billion of that was repaid, mainly through vastly overvalued, payment-free leases on very small parcels of UK-owned territory for use as naval bases. Yeah, a $39.5 billion loss is opportunistic - where do I sign up to get a piece of that action?

      Of course, the Brits were too busy protecting one island in the Atlantic Ocean to do much else, but the US simultaneously put more men and materiel in Europe than the UK did, and almost singlehandedly defeated the most heavily militarized nation on earth at that time - the Japanese Empire. I say "almost singlehandedly" because Australia did help out to a small degree - credit where credit is due, so to speak.

      In the future, feel free to remove your cranium from your rectum before posting.

  234. Re:It should be as long as US foots Euro defense b by tjstork · · Score: 1


    I have woken up. There are simply too many forces at work against the EU for it to succeed. Europe's issues are the same as they have been for the last thousand years, and Europe is destined to screw it up again.

    1. The only reason the Franco - German alliance is working right now is because Schroeder is giving away the store. Were it not for Bush driving France and Germany to unite, the EU would have broken down already. Schroeders reforms are seen as a joke and France's economy is a joke.

    2. Europe's rosey picture must be tempered by some very hard and very real demographic realities. The european birth rate is not nearly enough to sustain any meaningful economic growth. Germany's population will be half of what it was some 50 years from now, and France will not be so far behind. In the long run, the vision of the United Europe leading the world (instead of the United States), fails because there will not be any Europeans left!

    3. Russia vs Germany + France for economic dominance. A Europe of the future is a Europe dominated by Russia. Given that the French and the Germans have spent the better part of 300 years viewing Eastern Europe in general and Russia in particular as "lesser", it seems unlikly to me that such an ascension will come without tension.

    4. The bomb. Right now Europe is living under the threat of an American nuclear counterattack against anyone that would threaten it. But, without the United States (if the US withdrew from NATO), Germany, Poland, etc, all would need to acquire their own nuclear deterrent. Certainly the EU would have to have its own arms program.

    5. A rising EU will help the USA more than it will help the Euro. That's right.

    6. Turkey is a security powderkeg waiting to happen. Imagine a life some 50 years down the road with a nuclear armed islamic empire banging on the doorsteps of southern europe and the mediterranean.

    --
    This is my sig.
  235. What's Good For The US by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

    "What's good for General Motors is good for America." That was the insensitive horror quote when I was growing up. Today, "What's good for the United States is good for the World". **that** is why five billion people don't want the US to run the planet, turn off Galileo, control the Internet, etc.

  236. Re:It should be as long as US foots Euro defense b by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

    Europe's issues are the same as they have been for the last thousand years, and Europe is destined to screw it up again.

    Yeah, the last 1000 years of European history have been one big screwup: humanism, Shakespeare, democracy, the Enlightenment, capitalism, communism, quantum mechanics, navigation, cartography, modern agriculture, the age of exploration, Reformation, the industrial revolution, electromagnetism, jet propulsion, electric light, the telegraph, radio, to name just some of the many things that came out of Europe.

  237. Re:It should be as long as US foots Euro defense b by tjstork · · Score: 1


    Yeah, but like Americans, you reach a certain point of perfection and then piss it all away in stupid wars. Look at where Europe was before World War I, and after.

    --
    This is my sig.
  238. Re:It should be as long as US foots Euro defense b by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

    Europe has always had wars and political upheaval--it's part of the continent, and it may even be necessary for that kind of development. In contrast, unified nations like China were stagnant for centuries. Historically, European wars have also not been very bloody--that's a 20th century phenomenon resulting from the new technologies.

    The 50 year hiatus for Europe spanning WWI and WWII is really pretty short by historical standards. And it has brought spectacular advances in its own right: political and social unification, a pan-European commitment to human rights, and a very high standard of living throughout Western Europe.

    And the notion that conflict is a necessary evil is hardly particularly European. US libertarians and conservatives defend the right to bear arms based on the notion that an armed uprising is a threat that keeps government in check. And I think it was Jefferson who thought that the US should have a revolution every century or so.

    The real question is: what is the world going to do now that wars have become so bloody that people can't really rise up against their governments anymore or fight neighboring countries. Are we going to find other ways of renewing our governments, social systems, and infrastructure? Or are we doomed to become as stagnant and bureaucratic like China was historically?

  239. United States Protects Its Interests by SPYvSPY · · Score: 1

    That is what nations do. When your nation has acheived superpower status, then we will have a discussion about how best to protect national interests abroad. In the meantime, I remain adamant that your self-professed hatred of Americans is more detrimental to humanity than the semi-coherent, cloudy, amorphous phenomenon that is known as "America". You claim that America creates terrorists. This is how I know that you are not an honorable man. A man of honor accepts responsibility for his actions. If you ask me why America makes mistakes on the world stage, I will tell you that any innovative organization will make mistakes as it attempts to break new ground. You cannot dispute that America has been the leading innovator in the world during our lifetimes. There is as much positive influence that comes from America as negative (probably more), but your need to hate someone (not blacks today, not Jews (well probably you hate Jews, too) but today, it will be Americans that you hate) is blinding you. People like you just sit around waiting for a target for your hate to present itself. America has always been big and loud, and it is more than happy to absorb your hatred, even if it means that we lose the lives of our patriots in the process. We care enough about this community over here, that we will endure the wasted souls from yours. So, pray tell, what utopian nation do you call your own. I am 99% certain that it will be continental Europe, in which case, I have a few words for you about whichever government it is you so dearly cherish.