Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Makes Plans for GPS Shutdown
sailforsingapore writes "Apparently, President Bush is drawing up plans to disable sections of the GPS network in the event of a terrorist attack. The rationale seems to be that it would prevent said terrorists from using the GPS system to direct some sort of attack. The plan would shut down access not only to the GPS satellite network, but projects like the EU's Galileo. Ironically, this comes alongside the President's plan to strengthen the GPS network against deliberate jamming."
Both actions make GPS harder to use as a weapon by our enemies.
What is ironic about controlling when your technology can and cannot be used. It seems like a system for shutting it down when necessary would go hand in hand with a system for making sure other's can't shut it down arbitrarily.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
They seemed to locate everything just fine on 9/11 w/o any GPS...
In the event of a terroist attack, cause large scale panic by shutting down a primary means of navigation.
What's next? Cutting off electricity so that the terrorists can't use it against people?
Mostly terrorist attacks occur quickly and without warning, and by the time the authorities gets a clue about what is going on, the attack most likely is over - as per 9/11. Shutting down the GPS network in such an event would only make it infinitely harder for rescue workers and police to coordinate relief efforts.
The ability to selectively disable the network has long been a feature though usually it's spoken of in terms of disabling it over a (non-USA) battlefield. The govt. would be stupid to do this in all but the most serious emergency and then only for the shortest possible time.
I wonder what the per-hour or per-day economic impact of disabling GPS over a heavily poplulated USA region?
A decent number of aircraft/airports that use GPS approaches would have to go back to more primitive instrument landings (more delays); many trucking/shipping companies rely on GPS for tracking goods. Then there are surveyers and agriculture and such that may use GPS augmented with some local beacon for high accuracy.
What other key economic uses of GPS are there?
It makes no mention of "how" they plan to do this. The mechanism could easily be simply to contact the EU, and, if neccesary present evidence that there will be a terrorist attack.
The EU and US may not get on with each other that well, but they're not going to be so churlish as to allow people to be killed by terrorists.
Attempting to disable Galileo/GLONASS when the EU or Russia is not attacking might be considered a hostile act.
What about all the other users? Ships and aircraft which may be relying on it? Public road users trying to find their way home? Its just asking to get more people pissed off with the US.. particularly since this system will block others systems like Galileo without permission..
<rant delivery="sarcastic" offtopic="slightly">
Yeah, this is perfectly logical. Everyone knows that only terrorists would be using GPS during a terrorist attack, and not, say, emergency workers, the FBI, etc. God forbid that a single terrorist be allowed to use the GPS network, regardless of the fact that he's probably already (a) planned for that contingency (esp. since the Bush administration has helpfully announced the fact that the GPS system might be killed at will) or (b) already done all the legwork with GPS while picking his targets and coordinating the attack (so that he can execute the attack without it).
In fact, I also applaud the Bush administration for restricting our freedoms to eliminate the risk that any of the pesky terrorists might receive some. Freedom is a limited resource and must be hoarded and parceled out accordingly, and we can't afford to waste our freedoms (e.g. 1st amendment freedom of assembly, 5th and 6th amendment right to a fair trial) on even a single terrorist. I commend Bush for indefinitely detaining even suspected terrorists at our luxurious Guantanamo Bay facility (which is far nicer than they deserve, let me tell you), because we can't risk a terrorist experiencing our freedoms. God forbid, we might actually have to let one go due to lack of evidence. Terrorists eat babies! We can't let baby-eaters go free! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
</rant>
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
Just in case you need to know. Plans usually include things such as:
When - When would it be shut down
Why - Why would it be shut down
Where - Which areas would be shut down
How - How do we shut it down, and how do we operate without it.
Get a free ipod.
This is a just a plan folks. It's like posting an article stating that the government has a plan to shoot down commercial airliners that have been hijacked and are heading for large population centers, and the responses here would be "What is the government going to randomly shoot down airplanes now? I hate the government. Don't they know that foreigners fly on those planes, that could be an act of war? Air travel is a major commercial enterprise, is anyone thinking about how this could criple the economy? Sometimes they transport organs for transplant on those planes, just think about the people who would die? I love those little jet trails in the sky, why does the government want to take them away from me? Has anyone thought about the children? The children!" Stop overreacting, RTFA, and realize IT IS JUST A PLAN. This is what government bureaucracies do... they create massive amounts of paper.
...shutdown of the network inside the United States would come under only the most remarkable circumstances
For those of you who didn't RTFA, here are some key points from it.
- President Bush has ordered plans
- Any shutdown of the network inside the United States. Use GLONASS if you like.
- Any government-ordered shutdown or jamming of the GPS satellites would be done in ways to limit disruptions to navigation and related systems outside the affected area, the White House said.
-
There have been some good question and points raised (like HOW will this work), but those are barely audible over the Bush-bashing trolls and the general knee-jerk hysteria.
Long live the paranoid.
> The EU and US may not get on with each other that well,
> but they're not going to be so churlish as to allow
> people to be killed by terrorists.
That is the sensible and pragmatic way to view this, and the way real-world diplomacy usually works out. Except that the current administration wouldn't put it in such cooperative and non-threatening language, without the possibility to flex muscle. Usually it starts with sneers and "Old Europe" masked by coughs, only to later degenerate into "hey, old buddy" and "could you spare a few thou troops".
Yes, you do, because that's way more important to the US than the impact of a terrorist attack. You need to have friends if you want a healthy economy, and a healthy economy is of much bigger importance on the average person's life than preventing terrorism.
Unfortunately, people have a really skewed perception of risk.
On 9/11 , about 2800 people (exact number is still unclear) suffered a terrible death in the terrorist attacks. Yes it was horrible. No, we don't want it to happen again.
However, the current measures taken by the US government are going way too far, it's not worth reducing freedom for in any way whatsoever, the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack is extremely small. Yet, somehow, the perception of this risk is inflated enormously.
To put things in perspective, last year there were 41,600 traffic deaths in the U.S. (15,700 alcohol related).
It seems clear to me that unsafe driving and DUI is a MUCH bigger risk to the US people than a 9/11 style terrorist attack.
The amount of money and effort spent on "the war on terrorism" is way out of proportion in relation to the risk involved. At the same time, I hear nothing about a "war on unsafe driving" or a "war on DUI", on the contrary, the government even seems to be promoting the use of SUV's which are proven to be more unsafe then 'regular' cars.
The american people should wake up, kick the idiot out of the Big Chair(tm), and put someone there who has his/her priorities straight.
And how is shutting down GPS going to prevent a suitcase nuke attack?
that's what powerful countries do, what is the alternative?
Humility?
Unfortunately there are some people who will hate you just for being American. It happens all over the world. During the 90's in ex-Yugoslavia, you didn't really go to Serbia from Croatia and vice-versa. There were people there who really hated you no matter who you were, as long as you came from the other country.
Like it or not, the US government represents you to the world. When the US government exerts pressure on some other government to get their way (Hm, lets encourage EU not to help country X because said country signed a certain treaty) the people of that country will naturally resent America. Not the US Government, but the US as a whole, including the people in it.
TANSTAAFL
If empire were an American desire Europe would have went through being territories all the way to US states by now.
State-based imperialism has been shown ineffective. It's unwieldy, it doesn't really offer any advantages, and it's risky; when you attempt to retain dominance in an area through military means, sometimes people fight back through military means, and it's not always possible to paint the people fighting back against an invading/occupying force as the aggressors. Plus, you can only maintain state-based imperialism if you continuously control the state that runs the empire, and in a democracy like America this runs the risk of temporary local power transfers leading to your empire being disassembled.
The important thing now is economy-based imperialism. There's no need to rule the world when you can just own it. The wave that's been building since 1950, and the wave of the future, is for empire to be economic in nature, for military force to be used only when necessary to support that economic empire, and for the states-- which are increasingly irrelevant anyway-- to be ignored except when they stand in the way of that empire's interests.
Of course, occasionally America may resort to traditional, invade-and-occupy methods of imperialism to maintain its economic empire and ensure its spheres of interest. But this is usually not necessary, and only under certain circumstances is it the appropriate tool to use. Who on earth would try to invade or occupy Europe, anyway? Twice now in the last 250 years Europe has faced a rogue superpower trying to conquer the continent through military means, and both times it repelled and squashed that superpower against staggering odds. Only a very poor businessman would accept those odds even if there were a good reason.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Remember that after WWII we stood astride the world with a war machine unmatched in history, totally unopposed by the shattered remains of the rest of the civilized world, in sole possession of the Ultimate Weapon. What did we do? Taxed ourselves to rebuild not only our wartorn allies, but also our defeated enemies.
Yep, and the world noticed that and by everything I can tell greatly appreciated it. That generation of Americans has a lot to be proud of. However, it wasn't long before we started to burn through that good will. Maybe it's just me, but the burn rate seems to have gone up a lot in the last two years. However, American pride has not diminished in relation with the actions taken. I've always believed that pride is justified by actions, not vice-versa.
The America of today is not the America of 1945. Using WWII as an example of our good intent only throws current events into sharper relief.
We have no longterm designs on the Middle East.
A telling moment for me was in the debates, when Kerry said it was important to demonstrate that we had no long-term designs on the Middle East. Bush made no comment. Probably because if he had, the obvious rebuttle would have mentioned the huge permament military bases we're building in Iraq.
By the way, there is a narrow difference between outright imperialism and the pseudo-imperialism where you place a "soverign" but for all intents and purposes puppet government in power and tie the economy of the country to your own corporations while maintaining a massive military presence. The only people who are fooled by this difference are the ones doing it.
In other words, if it is true that we (meaning the government) have no long term designs on the Middle East, we are a long way from proving it.
The enemies of Democracy are