Slashdot Mirror


US Wary of Allowing Russian Electronic Monitoring Stations Inside US

cold fjord writes "The New York Times reports, '... the next potential threat from Russia may not come from a nefarious cyberweapon or secrets gleaned from Snowden. Instead, this menace may come in the form of a ... dome-topped antenna perched atop an electronics-packed building surrounded by a security fence somewhere in the United States. ... the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon have been quietly waging a campaign to stop the State Department from allowing ... the Russian space agency, to build about half a dozen ... monitor stations, on United States soil ... These monitor stations, the Russians contend, would significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of Moscow's version of the Global Positioning System ... The Russian effort is part of a larger global race by several countries ... to perfect their own global positioning systems and challenge the dominance of the American GPS. For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration's relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin ... But the C.I.A. and other American spy agencies, as well as the Pentagon, suspect that the monitor stations would give the Russians a foothold on American territory that would sharpen the accuracy of Moscow's satellite-steered weapons. The stations, they believe, could also give the Russians an opening to snoop on the United States within its borders. ... administration officials have delayed a final decision until the Russians provide more information and until the American agencies sort out their differences.'"

14 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Doomsday device! by kdawson+(3715) · · Score: 5, Funny

    It must be a doomsday device. There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.

    1. Re:Doomsday device! by pesho · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Nah, the way it looks the C.I.A. and other American spy agencies, as well as the Pentagon have gone like:

      I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

      Now here is the scary part: Dr Strangelove is still as relevant as it was when it was made. You would think by now it would just be funny, and not scarily funny.

    2. Re:Doomsday device! by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I can't believe this is being seriously considred..?!?!

      WTF is in charge of the US with respect to these things?

      Are we allowed to put these same type of things on Russian soil too?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Ellipsis mayhem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... If... you use an Ellipsis... frequently and... hastily people will think... you are William Shatner...

    KAHN!

  3. Easily dealt with. by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "But the C.I.A. and other American spy agencies, as well as the Pentagon, suspect that the monitor stations would give the Russians a foothold on American territory that would sharpen the accuracy of Moscow's satellite-steered weapons"

    Begging the question "aren't current nukes sufficiently accurate"?

    The smart countermeasure would be to monitor the monitoring stations and be ready to destroy them at no notice. Have both HERF/jamming and explosive capability available.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:Easily dealt with. by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Begging the question "aren't current nukes sufficiently accurate"?

      Depends on the application and the size of the nuke. One of the reasons that Soviet missiles and warheads were so big was because thy lacked accuracy. Against a hardened target that can be important even for a nuke. More accurate nukes can be smaller. Smaller nukes let your missiles carry more of them, and they can be fitted on smaller missiles.

      The smart countermeasure would be to monitor the monitoring stations and be ready to destroy them at no notice.

      If a nuclear strike is launched the system would only really need to provide high accuracy for about 30 minutes. I doubt there is enough drift in that time to make blowing the stations worthwhile. (And who would want to be on the demo team that had a 15 minute notice, at most, for blowing up the station on order, 24x7x365?) If you still wanted to blow up the stations in the event of an attack, you would probably have to do it within 10 minutes of the alert to make it worthwhile. If it turns out the alert was a false one and you blew up the stations, and no doubt killed the Russian operators, the Russians would be very cranky. It might even start a real war.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. Re:... w ... t ... f ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Informative

    No it doesn't. If you bother to read the story it states, "The United States has stations around the world, but none in Russia."

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  5. The US does not have any stations in Russia by thesandbender · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or any of the former satellites of the CCCP for that matter. The authoritative list is here.

  6. Re:... w ... t ... f ... by bigwheel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the US ground station map. http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/control/ Nothing in Russia.

    Can't the Russians just put theirs in Cuba?

  7. Many smartphones use both Glonass and US GPS by mspohr · · Score: 5, Informative

    One interesting thing I learned from the article is that many (?most) current smartphones use both Glonass and the US GPS system for position fixes.
    One motivation for this is the Russian requirement which heavily taxes devices which don't support Glonass. Apparently the iPhone 4S started support and many others also added support.
    I guess it's good to have two systems (with a possible third with the EU system). This can provide redundancy and improve reliability. Of course these are useful tools for warfare which is why we have several systems ("We've always been at war with Eastasia").

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  8. If we're not doing anything wrong... by NReitzel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, the Russians want to monitor stuff inside the US borders. Ok, so what?

    To flip what we've heard from the NSA around, "If we're not doing anything wrong, we don't have to worry."

    In point of fact, letting the Russians monitor internal military chatter sounds like a good idea to me. That way, they -know- we aren't planning on attacking them. And.. by the way, we -aren't- planning on attacking the Russians, are we? If we are, _I_ would like to know about it, forget what the Russians know.

    The days of Red Baiting should be over. We should have an open society, and if the Russians want to eavesdrop, more power to them. Truthfully, I'm a lot more worried about what our own government wants to keep track of than I am about what any Russians (or Chinese) want to track. And if it improves the accuracy of their weapons, does that mean that they're more likely to blow up a military base than the local YMCA? That's good, isn't it?

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    1. Re:If we're not doing anything wrong... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "we -aren't- planning on attacking the Russians, are we?"
      Of course we are. Just like we have plans for 100's of military moves. Whether or not we implement those plans is another question.

      "The days of Red Baiting should be over"
      Putin is doing his best to bring it back. His moves really seem to be to bring back a single power* and muscle his way around. He's entrenching a theocracy, arresting minor dissenter, and undoing all the democratic gain over the last 30 years. His moving to control certain oil interests

      errr. I didn't' want to imply it was the same single power, just a centralized power.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  9. Re:Why did they ask? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What prevents them from sticking 5 RF receivers in each of the russian consulates. Or indeed, paying for a couple of dozen boxes on roofs in the USA hooked to an internet connection.

    Roofs (and even buildings, for that matter) are much too wobbly for reference-precision GPS
    signal calibration. Stations like this are directly anchored to bedrock, preferably with minimal
    seismic activity (that includes even not-so-nearby roads) and with a full-sky view.

    I doubt that any of the official russian presences satisfies those constraints.

    Note that I'm not saying clandestine (or rather "undeclared" - I don't see how anyone would need
    permission to run a non-broadcasting monitoring station on private ground) are impossible or don't
    exist, just that urban locations and building roofs wont work.

  10. Re:Slashdot Summaries, by William Shatner by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is more conventionally done with [...] rather than ... alone, which has the more usual meaning of a pause.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.