4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIn 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 agoEurope 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 agoWhat 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 agoYou are being pedantic for no reason neither of those nations is a substantial military power.
- pinaceae 10y agoExcept 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 agoPfP 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 agoIn 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).