Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

The frequencies were selected to allow for easy compatibility with GPS not because the EU didn't want the US to be able to selectively jam Galileo.

No one in Europe really thinks of a war with the US as a real possibility and since the know what ICBM stands for they also know they've lost before the first shot is fired.

It's like giving the bully your lunch so they leave you alone.

It's more like giving the bully his favorite seat. You can stand on principle, but the result will be more or less the same either way, and giving him what he wants doesn't hurt you.

I think bullies should be treated with confrontative aggressiveness wherever possible until they stop bullying.

That's a great strategy when you're a member of a society that mostly doesn't put up with bullying, and will ultimately be on your side if their aggression gets too much attention. It's a terrible strategy when you're living in an anarchy and the bully is as mighty as everybody else put together.

The strategy is also great if you can guarantee the bully mutual complete destruction.

Yes. That's why I think a federal EU with united army and foreign policy stands a much better chance of achieving beneficial outcomes for its citizens.

> and have the USA shoot down your satellites in the case of war.

And then we shoot down their satellites, too. The US acting like they can do whatever they want is extremely annoying and has to end, they’re just a country, not the king of the world.

> they’re just a country, not the king of the world.

Militarily and economically the US is an empire (by definition, as its growth is tied to warfare, expansion, and dominance). Just like the British empire was before it.

For example - it has 400 major, and another 400 minor, bases (some with nuclear-ready weapon systems) stationed in foreign countries. While no foreign country has a base in the US.

Of course, it cuts both ways.

With the constellations on different frequencies, European powers also have the ability to engage in localised GPS jamming while leaving Galileo available for their military.

Blowing up 1 or more satellites will also increase the amount of orbital debris floating around.

There is already something near 1 million pieces of space junk being actively tracked to avoid possible collisions with existing space vehicles/satellites.

This space junk problem eventually reaches a point where no orbital vehicles will be able to reach, stay in, and/or pass into space.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com