6 ms·

This is actually untrue. The US didn't like that the EU was using bands close to GPS so if there was a conflict where the Russians or Chinese were using Galileo

This is actually untrue. The US didn't like that the EU was using bands close to GPS so if there was a conflict where the Russians or Chinese were using Galileo to target American troops, the US would have no choice but to shoot down or otherwise disable Galileo satellites by force. No one wants this, so the EU chose a different frequency that could be jammed without jamming GPS. Accuracy was never a concern. Galileo can't do better than a meter for many reasons, not the least of which is number of satellites, clock accuracy, and cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)#Tension_with_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)...

madez 10y ago
Then Europe should treat shooting down of Galileo satellites as an act of war and react as such. It's not Europes business to make it easy for the USA to wage war.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Europe is part of NATO and has major incentives to cooperate with the US. In the scenario where the US would have to shoot down Galileo sats, would most likely be one where the US is protecting Europe from China or Russia as we're talking WWIII. I imagine this little story is little more than a tempest in a teapot designed to enrage Euro nationalists. The reality is that when you're in a shared defense agreement, your weapons systems, including nav systems, need a high level of cooperation. A frequency shift isn't the tragedy you're making it out to be.
  - madez 10y ago
    In the scenario you mentioned Europe could turn off Galileo if deemed necessary, no need for the USA to shoot it down. The solution taken just makes it easier for USA to wage war against Europes interests.
    - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
      Europe isn't a single entity. Imagine a conflict in Eastern Europe that the US is part of. The rest of Europe has built its infrastructure on Galileo and shutting it down means major economic and infrastructure issues for Europeans not involved in the conflict. The US asks them to turn it off, but Merkel says no. Or Greece says no because Putin promised them $200m in aid. EU decisions have to be unanimous. Now what? Lets stop pretending European nations, even members of NATO, all care about each other. There's no polite discourse here. Just naked self-interest that's easy for the enemy to game. Merkel might decide that she wants nothing to do with Russia taking Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria. This is why we need technical solutions, not political ones. Banking on Europe being nice to each other is hilariously short-sighted and ahistoric. Note, Europeans are free to leave NATO whenever they wish if they don't like our defense posture and technical requirements. I imagine letting the Russian military loose is probably not within Europe's self-interest, so enforcing technical requirements that protect all of Europe makes sense. It leaves less room for cowardly players like Merkel to appease expansionist dictators like Putin. If anything, the US did European security a favor with this policy.
      - madez 10y ago
        What is an enemy for the USA might not be an enemy of Europe. I can just repeat myself. If it is in the interest of Europe to turn Galileo off, they can do so. If it is not in their interest, they shouldn't do so. Now, that the decision making in the EU is inefficient might be an _internal_ issue that needs to be solved, not be workedaround by giving the USA the final say.
      - euyyn 10y ago
        > EU decisions have to be unanimous. That's not true.
  - nfg 10y ago
    > Europe is part of NATO Some of Europe is. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden etc aren't.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      You are being pedantic for no reason neither of those nations is a substantial military power.
    - pinaceae 10y ago
      Except Cyprus they're all in the PfP program though: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_82584.htm http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_82584.htm Austria, for example, participated in missions in Africa, Afghanistan, the Balkans (KFOR, etc). You really should learn about the subject you're trying to argue about.
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        PfP isn't a mutual defense agreement, it's more like lets play airsoft together. Hence Russia is a participant, not exactly a NATO membership candidate or ally.
  - powertower 10y ago
    In the case of a hot war between the US and Russia, the first victims (of mushroom clouds) will be every single EU NATO member that hosts US bases and US nuclear weapons. So I'm not quite sure what the gain is for those members as they will not survive (the US might, but they won't).
- BoorishBears 10y ago
  So rather than make a technological change, which according to the parent post has no effect on the quality of the end system, Europe should wage war on the US if the US did something aggressive to protect it's troops in the middle of what I assume would already be World War 3? (an overt conflict with Russia or China?)
  - madez 10y ago
    If whatever the USA are planing to do is in Europes interest, they can ask to turn Galileo off. If it is really in Europes interest, they will do so.
    - BoorishBears 10y ago
      Localized jamming sounds a lot less disruptive than turning off the system for the entire world.
      - madez 10y ago
        You could also turn off Galileo only in some areas.
        dogma1138 10y ago
        No you can't.
        madez 10y ago
        Why shouldn't it be possible to turn off only those satellites that are visible in a certain area? I don't see any argument in your favour.
        dogma1138 10y ago
        Satnav sattelites are not geosynchronous what are you going to do press on and off every time passes over? You do understand that satellites are not light bulbs right?
- mikeash 10y ago
  It's not about making it easy for the US. Shooting down satellites is not going to be a tough problem for the US military. It's about convincing the US not to do that. It's like not leaving food out to avoid attracting bears. Sure, it would be nice if the bears would just not bother you in the first place. But you can't influence their behavior directly, you can only influence what you do.
  - madez 10y ago
    It might be easy for the US to shoot down satellites, but so it might be for Europe. The whole point of this story is that the USA wants to be able to act without Europe possibly having a say. That Europe agreed was wrong, I think.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      My whole point is that the USA can act without Europe having a say, whether Europe likes it or not. It's only reasonable for Europe to take that into account in what they do. You can take some principled stand to make some sort of abstract point nobody will understand, and have the USA shoot down your satellites in the case of war. Or you can make a small change to your design and have the USA leave them alone. I don't see why taking the second option is so terrible.
      - madez 10y ago
        If Europe had created Galileo like originally envisioned the USA could not jam Galileo without also jamming GPS. Hence they would need to ask Europe to turn of Galileo or turn Galileo off for them, i.e. shooting down the satellites, which Europe should treat as an act of war. Hence, neither of both options go without Europe having a say. The abstract point here is akin to mutually assured destruction. It keeps peace. Having Galileo like originally envisioned and Europe taking a robust defensive strategy w.r.t. to it's satellites would mean GPS for everybody or for nobody or war with Europe. And Europe should make sure nobody wants war with them.
        10y ago
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  You realize that most of Europe is in NATO with the US, right?
- rhino369 10y ago
  Treating an ally shooting down your satellites because those satellites are being used against them as an act of war is pretty short sighted. Purposely designing your satellites in order to force them to do so in the event of a war is even more short sighted. If American satellites were being used to guide missiles at Europe, you'd be pretty PO'd.

madez 10y ago

Then Europe should treat shooting down of Galileo satellites as an act of war and react as such. It's not Europes business to make it easy for the USA to wage war.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Europe is part of NATO and has major incentives to cooperate with the US. In the scenario where the US would have to shoot down Galileo sats, would most likely be one where the US is protecting Europe from China or Russia as we're talking WWIII. I imagine this little story is little more than a tempest in a teapot designed to enrage Euro nationalists. The reality is that when you're in a shared defense agreement, your weapons systems, including nav systems, need a high level of cooperation. A frequency shift isn't the tragedy you're making it out to be.
- madez 10y ago
  In the scenario you mentioned Europe could turn off Galileo if deemed necessary, no need for the USA to shoot it down. The solution taken just makes it easier for USA to wage war against Europes interests.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    Europe isn't a single entity. Imagine a conflict in Eastern Europe that the US is part of. The rest of Europe has built its infrastructure on Galileo and shutting it down means major economic and infrastructure issues for Europeans not involved in the conflict. The US asks them to turn it off, but Merkel says no. Or Greece says no because Putin promised them $200m in aid. EU decisions have to be unanimous. Now what? Lets stop pretending European nations, even members of NATO, all care about each other. There's no polite discourse here. Just naked self-interest that's easy for the enemy to game. Merkel might decide that she wants nothing to do with Russia taking Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria. This is why we need technical solutions, not political ones. Banking on Europe being nice to each other is hilariously short-sighted and ahistoric. Note, Europeans are free to leave NATO whenever they wish if they don't like our defense posture and technical requirements. I imagine letting the Russian military loose is probably not within Europe's self-interest, so enforcing technical requirements that protect all of Europe makes sense. It leaves less room for cowardly players like Merkel to appease expansionist dictators like Putin. If anything, the US did European security a favor with this policy.
    - madez 10y ago
      What is an enemy for the USA might not be an enemy of Europe. I can just repeat myself. If it is in the interest of Europe to turn Galileo off, they can do so. If it is not in their interest, they shouldn't do so. Now, that the decision making in the EU is inefficient might be an _internal_ issue that needs to be solved, not be workedaround by giving the USA the final say.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      > EU decisions have to be unanimous. That's not true.
- nfg 10y ago
  > Europe is part of NATO Some of Europe is. Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden etc aren't.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    You are being pedantic for no reason neither of those nations is a substantial military power.
  - pinaceae 10y ago
    Except Cyprus they're all in the PfP program though: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_82584.htm http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_82584.htm Austria, for example, participated in missions in Africa, Afghanistan, the Balkans (KFOR, etc). You really should learn about the subject you're trying to argue about.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      PfP isn't a mutual defense agreement, it's more like lets play airsoft together. Hence Russia is a participant, not exactly a NATO membership candidate or ally.
- powertower 10y ago
  In the case of a hot war between the US and Russia, the first victims (of mushroom clouds) will be every single EU NATO member that hosts US bases and US nuclear weapons. So I'm not quite sure what the gain is for those members as they will not survive (the US might, but they won't).
BoorishBears 10y ago
So rather than make a technological change, which according to the parent post has no effect on the quality of the end system, Europe should wage war on the US if the US did something aggressive to protect it's troops in the middle of what I assume would already be World War 3? (an overt conflict with Russia or China?)
- madez 10y ago
  If whatever the USA are planing to do is in Europes interest, they can ask to turn Galileo off. If it is really in Europes interest, they will do so.
  - BoorishBears 10y ago
    Localized jamming sounds a lot less disruptive than turning off the system for the entire world.
    - madez 10y ago
      You could also turn off Galileo only in some areas.
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        No you can't.
        madez 10y ago
        Why shouldn't it be possible to turn off only those satellites that are visible in a certain area? I don't see any argument in your favour.
        dogma1138 10y ago
        Satnav sattelites are not geosynchronous what are you going to do press on and off every time passes over? You do understand that satellites are not light bulbs right?
mikeash 10y ago
It's not about making it easy for the US. Shooting down satellites is not going to be a tough problem for the US military. It's about convincing the US not to do that. It's like not leaving food out to avoid attracting bears. Sure, it would be nice if the bears would just not bother you in the first place. But you can't influence their behavior directly, you can only influence what you do.
- madez 10y ago
  It might be easy for the US to shoot down satellites, but so it might be for Europe. The whole point of this story is that the USA wants to be able to act without Europe possibly having a say. That Europe agreed was wrong, I think.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    My whole point is that the USA can act without Europe having a say, whether Europe likes it or not. It's only reasonable for Europe to take that into account in what they do. You can take some principled stand to make some sort of abstract point nobody will understand, and have the USA shoot down your satellites in the case of war. Or you can make a small change to your design and have the USA leave them alone. I don't see why taking the second option is so terrible.
    - madez 10y ago
      If Europe had created Galileo like originally envisioned the USA could not jam Galileo without also jamming GPS. Hence they would need to ask Europe to turn of Galileo or turn Galileo off for them, i.e. shooting down the satellites, which Europe should treat as an act of war. Hence, neither of both options go without Europe having a say. The abstract point here is akin to mutually assured destruction. It keeps peace. Having Galileo like originally envisioned and Europe taking a robust defensive strategy w.r.t. to it's satellites would mean GPS for everybody or for nobody or war with Europe. And Europe should make sure nobody wants war with them.
      - 10y ago
oh_sigh 10y ago
You realize that most of Europe is in NATO with the US, right?
rhino369 10y ago
Treating an ally shooting down your satellites because those satellites are being used against them as an act of war is pretty short sighted. Purposely designing your satellites in order to force them to do so in the event of a war is even more short sighted. If American satellites were being used to guide missiles at Europe, you'd be pretty PO'd.