GPS vs. Galileo; Where Are They Headed?

ben_ writes "This keynote speech from the recent European Navigation Conference talks about the history between the US military's GPS and the proposed EU Galileo system, as well as where they're both going. Interested in how you know where you are and what's going to happen to those satellites?"

Comments

Essential to Ending US Dominance

[Jameth]

As long as GPS is the only game in town, the US has a stranglehold on the superpower market. The US can regulate the GPS satellites and could cut off anyone else at any time. Seeing as GPS has revolutionized warfare, this means the US gets an automatic bonus in any war.

Until the EU has an alternative, it's military (should it form one) will be at a severe disadvantage in a theoretical conflict, and potential power in a theoretical conflict is a major bargaining chip. (It's a chip that's not talked about, but people pay attention to it on their own.)

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[Rhubarb Crumble]

1. Someone more intelligent than Putin takes over Russia and uses Putin's communist-like infrastructure to once again impose a military state.

Vlad Putin is a VERY smart guy. At the moment he's busy wresting control of the country back from the cowboy capitalists that Yeltsin and the IMF sold its natural resources to (as in 100 people own 1/4th of the country's wealth). This needs to happen before re-establishing the military's dominance can take place. The symbolism is already pointing that way, what with the red star being restored as the symbol of the Red Army, and the national anthem reverting to the Soviet one (but with new words). This is why eastern europe is so keen to join NATO, as they know very well that Russia the superpower is just taking a timeout...

2. China decides that they have the most people in the world and that someone else should give up some land to support them.

Ummm, China is very far away from Europe. If they want land from someone it'll be Russia....

Re:Essential to Ending US Dominance

[meringuoid]

1: An EU-US war is madness plain and simple. It's not going to happen. Both sides are very happy to play the game of trade tariff arm-wrestling, but actually fight? Leave it out... Short of a fascist dictator coming to power in the US (no, Bush does not constitute one of these) this is absurd. It's just not a profitable business model.

2: The Russians storming west is more likely than (1), which isn't saying much. The Russian conventional army is really not what it used to be, after years of underfunding. A hypothetical Russian dictator would need to rearm a whole lot to make an invasion of Europe a practical proposition, and that would take a long time. Time enough for the Europeans to get their act together - note that most of Russia's former Warsaw Pact allies are now in NATO and the EU. In any case Russia is turning into a capitalist state like no other; they're more likely to see the EU as a huge, rich market on their doorstep, rather than as an opportunity for a scrap.

3) is just nuts. China decides to invade the EU for extra space? Picking out just about the only place on the planet more crowded than China itself? Entirely barmy. The only place China could realistically look for lebensraum is Siberia, and, er... well, I said the Russian conventional forces were not what they were, but that was an outlandish proposition when Tom Clancy tried it out, and it's no saner now.

If I was a European military planner I'd be worried about the dodgy nations on the doorstep, rather than the three other big players. Belarus, for instance, is ruled by a complete and utter fruitcake dictator. And as we expand we'll have more neighbours like that - if Turkey joins up we'll have Iraq right on the EU frontier. That's the sort of thing we'll need to be thinking about.

And as the expanding EU bumps up against such difficulties, we may need to conduct our own military operations, probably without American support - and sometimes, I would imagine, with outright opposition from Washington. That's why we need our own GPS-equivalent. It would be, at the very least, a diplomatic embarrassment to launch a war of which America disapproved, while relying on America's satellites to guide our missiles ;-)

Competition vs monopoly

[magarity]

Most of the time competition is good: software, hardware, cola. Sometimes monopolies are more acceptable: stringing up electric transmission cables, streets to my (your) house, large constellations of bright satellites that interfere with astronomic studies and general enjoyment of the night sky. Sure, GPS is very handy but more than one system seems a little redundant.

Re:Competition vs monopoly

[Hamhock]

Well, it only seems redundant if you're the one controlling it. If you're not the U.S., then you might be concerned that the U.S.'s GPS system may not always be available to you.

Re:Where ever they are going...

[Dun Malg]

I think that they will need to develop a system in the next 5-10 years that can be used through buildings and underground, otherwise it might be useless. I would think GPS devices would be useful for people like cave explorers, but maybe that's unreasonable or would be too dangerous to the rest of the population.

Forget it, man. You can't get EM radiation through solid rock from orbit. At least not without a lot of power, and then you're frying everything on the surfac. Wishing for an underground-capable GPS is like wishing for a lighthouse you can see through the hull of your boat. It's asking too much.

redundancy

[curator_thew]

This is also about global redundancy. The world increasingly depends upon navigational technologies like this. It's a little dangerous that there's only _one_ point of failure (whether technical, economic, political, etc).

Thomas Jefferson and Our Cultural Differences

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a great article and I'm encouraged that the US and EU are working together to ensure we'll eventually be able to get inexpensive GPS receivers that'll use both systems.

But alas there is this remark:

And, since US policy was to "limit availability of their radionavigation systems in the event of a real or potential threat of war or impairment to national security", Europe saw that its access to this vital new utility depended on the decisions of a single nation, with which it might well disagree on matters of national security. Recent event have given examples of just such disagreements. Europe's response was Galileo.

Alas, this cultural difference has been with us at least since the days of Thomas Jefferson and those earlier terrorists, the Barbary Pirates. European nations paid off the pirates rather than fight. Under Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. had a policy, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." It seems someone has posted more about that history at:

Barbary Pirates

Then as now, Europe thinks being nice to nasty folk is a better than getting tough, sending out the frigates, and making them behave. Hence their policy of leaning toward the Arabs. In contrast, the U.S. supports feisty little Israel, perhaps the only nation in history to fight four major wars in one lifetime with foes that outnumber them twenty to one and win every one. We back a democracy and a winner. They (particularly the French), back repressive dictatorships and losers.

In that context, it helps to remember what Churchill warned in 1939 after the Munich Agreement, "Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war."

In the end, every people gets the government they deserve. If the Europeans have so little sense of 'honor,' that they cannot defend their free and democratic societies from an ideology driven by hatred and revenge, then perhaps they deserve to drop into history's dustbin, always knowing precisely where they are thanks to a Galileo that will never be turned off to fight terrorism. And in their obsession with not fighting a few brush wars, they may lose a far greater and more critical cultural war. Europe may become Eurabia. In a generation, European women may only leave their homes clad in a sack from head to toe.

Am I the only one to catch the madness of all this? For perhaps two decades we've been told that there was a 'religious right' or 'fundamentalism' spanning from Jew and Christian to Arab that is a threat to free and democratic societies. But when push comes to shove, when religiously sanctioned terrorism and repression must be fought, it is the secular left who apologizes for religious repression and who wants little or nothing done to open up brutally repressive Arab societies. The left of western democracies is defending Saddam with all the zeal they once had for cruel Stalin.

All this brings to mind the Chinese proverb about the curse of living in "interesting times."

Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle