The dark side of Galileo
(Credit:
ESA)
When Americans think Europe, it's green parties and granola, not death from above. But a recent think tank report accuses the European Space Agency of plotting to use its Galileo satellite and other space programs to dominate the "high ground" of space.
The paper raises concerns about the "creeping militarization" of space and the potential for an inter-NATO arms race in the name of "EU security." It also highlights the roles played by the European military-industrial complex.
"EU-financed communication and spy satellites are slowly becoming reality and in the long term the inclusion of space-based missile defence and other more offensive uses of space are real options for an increasingly ambitious EU military space policy," the Transnational Institute, a Dutch think tank ("a worldwide fellowship of committed scholar-activists"), charged in a report titled From Venus to Mars.
Galileo was designed to end dependence on America's Global Positioning System, which is controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense -- an agency that also has a final say in who gets to play with it. Galileo was initially pitched as a civilian project -- an economic stimulator, with the promise of 150,000 new jobs and billions in contracts for European companies.
That's smoke, according to the report's author, Frank Slijper. "While Galileo is generally presented as a genuinely civilian programme, it now appears highly militarized," he said.
Galileo could allow European armies to independently deploy GPS-guided munitions similar to those currently used by the U.S. and risks becoming the navigation system for European wars of intervention. (Videos)
"The public denial of these important capabilities shows how much Brussels and many European capitals are afraid to tell the public that Galileo is to become an extremely important tool in future warfare by European military forces," Slijper wrote.
On the other hand, proponents say the redundancy provided by Galileo and its global navigation system is a good thing, and an indispensable element of EU infrastructure -- one that need not be entrusted to third parties, ally or not.
Mark Rutherford is a West Coast-based freelance writer. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Email him at markr@milapp.com. Disclosure. 
All monopolies must end.
If someone decides to allow another entity to take care of its internal information (may it be related to air space, intelligence, military, etc.), it's ok. But, by default, having a foreign entity managing your data... it's not freedom. IMHO, it's not.
What a coincidence that when "Goerge W.'s war" was voted against (in the form of Obama's triumph) someone begins heralding that "the new enemy is Europe"!
Find an enemy!
Obama was telling the world that American must become a friendly citizen of the world, not the master of war... but some companies must lost their contracts if there is not many wars everywhere.
This old Eisenhower's times militar-industrial complex is so high now that is like cancer cells...
If you care to research the budget of the United Nations you will find that European member states provide at least 8% more to the coffers than do the United States.
Imagine a rogue group with a nuclear weapon, a vehicle to deliver it, and a desire to attack the United States with it. Obviously Americans don't want them using our own GPS satellites to guide their weapon to its target, and the US military can use its control over GPS to counteract that possibility.
Now with Galileo, this hypothetical group has an alternative guidance system. In such a scenario, would Europe allow its system to be used for a nuclear attack against the US to buy its own safety against terrorist reprisals? Recent experience with European governments (e.g. Spain) caving in to terrorist demands suggests this isn't at all a far-fetched possibility.
Absolute safety only comes to those who are already dead. You argument is one enormous straw man, soaked in gasoline.
-1917 sinking of the ship Lusitania... A passanger's ship in a war zone? Led US to enter WWI.
-1941 Pearl Harbor's attack... Were the US intelligence agencies dumb? Led US to enter WWII.
-9/11....
Maybe... somebody wants to be [indefinitly] in war...
Please let's have some realism in your comments rather than fantasizing about the coming US vs. EU WWW III scenario. If you want that then play some videogames....
Why does the USA have 600,000 troops OUTSIDE the USA in foreign bases? Who voted them "the world's hope" anyway?
- by weylandYutani December 8, 2008 5:50 AM PST
- Look, in the end, the United States and Europe are not going to go to war in the foreseeable future, and on top of that, the reason *why* we're so dependant on the United States - as far as space tech goes - is that they do have several decades more experience than just about every other country on the planet. It may be useful having an ally with these capabilities, but it's also handy when you can do it in-house.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(17 Comments)So quit whining about either the americans and their pretty toys or the europeans trying to catch up, either way, there is logic behind it all.
And american intervention, while not quite what people want, is actually making a difference - hidden agenda or no - in the lives of people who would be living under circumstances far worse than what they are now. Don't expect miracles, such things are difficult to be sure, but they're making an effort. Let's not talk about rights, whose right it is to govern things like this. Far worse invasions and attacks by many other countries have occured for all kinds of reasons, enough of them unsavory. What it all comes down to, is that americans and their allies are fighting and dying, these people are risking everything in the name of a better life for others. (Contradict me all you want, but the previous regimes were far worse than american occupation.)