Europe's Galileo Program In Serious Trouble 403
elrous0 writes "Various news outlets are reporting that Europe's Galileo program is facing a serious financial and technical crisis and may be permanently stalled. The European program, designed to be a superior answer to the US's GPS — and, more critically, not controlled by the US — has faced numerous hurdles since its inception. To date the Galileo program has succeeded in launching only one of its 30 planned satellites and has been beset by delays and cost overruns. Apparently, squabbling between the eight companies in the consortium behind the project is responsible for many of the problems. The project is now threatened with an EU takeover. But some doubt that even an infusion of EU capital can save the flagging program."
Piggyback US (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds Familiar (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm not surprised... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm not surprised... (Score:4, Interesting)
Particularly that countries like Germany and France would be force to give up their bullying of the rest of continent. The Euro would be a lot stronger if Germany and France didn't keep breaking the deficit rules that they force everyone else to abide by.
Oh, don't be dense (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, it has fuck all to do with spite and everything to do with military independence. It's geopolitics. Whether you like it or not, the EU is gradually unifying into what will become a direct competitor to the US for world resources. Where there are trade rivalries today we will have wars tomorrow, and to conduct a war against a country who controls vital information systems like GPS would be stupidest folly.
Oh, you don't think the EU would ever go to war against the US? Just wait till the oil and water start running out.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps in the U.S. (although I've never heard of any license fees for building GPS receivers); I doubt that those license agreements would be enforceable outside the U.S. anyway, and I'm pretty certain that it wouldn't be hard to go to Taiwan or China and have a bunch of receivers made without paying. It's not like the DoD is going to degrade service for that.
Now, if you start using your bootlegged GPS receivers to pilot cruise missiles with, and you happen to not be in good odor with the U.S. at the moment, I can see how that might get you on the Selective Availability shitlist, but even then you'd have to be pretty egregious. The U.S. has more to lose by disabling parts of the GPS system than anyone else -- there are a lot of U.S. business interests that depend on GPS in various ways, and would be pretty pissed if something happened to it.
Even during the height of the war in Iraq, the DoD never degraded or interrupted civilian GPS service, because the U.S. had more to lose by interrupting service than the Iraqis did (due to the unavailability of military GPS receivers, a lot of soldiers were using civilian ones; more than one person has said that the modern U.S. Army runs almost as much on AA batteries as it does on diesel or food).
Selective Availability is a "nuclear option." Most of the scenarios that would invoke its use, would probably also invoke the use of anti-satellite weapons to disable a competing navigational system. It's not something that just gets tossed around at random, because the consequences for using it on U.S. assets (both military and civilian) would be dire. You'd have planes crashing, tankers running aground, farms not being harvested -- it would be a mess. (Sure, all planes and ships are supposed to have backup navigational systems, but I'm not sure I'd trust anyone to know how to use them for normal operations anymore; things would still get FUBAR pretty fast.)
Re:I'm not surprised... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm not surprised... (Score:2, Interesting)
the US didn't even join in until it firmly noticed the war was on its doorstep.
So, are you saying the US should have been involved in the war earlier? How much earlier? Should the US have persuaded the European states to not follow 'appeasement'? Failing that, should the US have invaded Germany without European support?
Re:I'm not surprised... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Disclaimer: I am a US Citizen)
There's a lot of resentment over the power the US has held over the heads of other nations in the world. Gunboat negotiations and all.
US corporations spread globalism with an emphasis on profits over the benefit of humanity. The government repeatedly chooses not to reign them in because the politicians are lobbied by money instead of doing what's right for the nation.
Unfair trade agreements, a favor of capitalism over socialism, and other inequities just helps keep people angry. We try to police the world and are bad neighbors to the world community at the same time.
That said, (minefield time) I do agree that there's far more anti-American feelings than warranted. If Portugal (just for a random example) found itself in our position it would do the exact same thing. It's a Game Theory thing. A lot of old world countries did all sorts of horrible things within their spheres of influence. It just so happens that the rise of US power coincided with the time when one nation COULD have global reach.
But...
Until we get voter turnout rates that aren't pathetic compared to American Idol,
Until we have a culture that honors education instead of 50 Cent,
Until we can be colorblind in all racist matters,
Until we can humble ourselves as a member of the world instead of masters of it
We will continue to be hated.
That's ok, I was unpopular in high school, too.
Re:Oh, don't be dense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm not surprised... (Score:3, Interesting)