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.
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"
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!
Here
John.
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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]
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.
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
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)
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 ---
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.
... 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.
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.
Guess that wouldn't always be the case, but it is a bit ironic.
sPh
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.
US: Change Galileo so we can jam it.
... and?
EU:
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
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?
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.
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.