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.
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
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.
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?
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]
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.
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.
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.
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 ---
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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 ---
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.