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.

73 of 1,026 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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>
    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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?

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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 ---

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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

    22. 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.

    23. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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 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?
  4. 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 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.

    3. 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. I for one, welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...a lost opportunity to have an independent European defence policy.

  6. 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 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.
  7. 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

  8. 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 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]
  9. 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.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. 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?

  12. 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]

  13. 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.

  14. 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 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 ---

  15. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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 ---

  18. 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 ]
  19. 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
  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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
  23. 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.

  24. 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?
  25. 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 !!!

  26. 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.
  27. 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?

  28. 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.
  29. 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.

  30. 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

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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
  34. 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 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 ---

    2. 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.

  35. 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/

  36. 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?
  37. 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.

  38. 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"