US could shoot down EU satellites in war time

[DuctapeFatwa]

The United States could attack Europe's planned network of global positioning satellites if it was used by a hostile power such as China, The Business weekly reported on Sunday...

China last month became a partner in the Galileo program, which could help provide services such as communications for the 2008 Beijing Olympics but also has applications for strategic military use.

According to a leaked US Air Force document written in August and obtained by The Business, Peter Teets, under-secretary of the US Air Force wrote: "What will we do 10 years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary chooses to leverage the global positioning system of perhaps the Galileo constellation to attack American forces with precision?"

The European delegates reportedly said they would not turn off or jam signals from their satellites, even if they were used in a war with the United States. A senior European delegate at the London conference said his US counterparts reacted to the EU position "calmly"."They made it clear that they would attempt what they called reversible action, but, if necessary, they would use irreversible action," the official was quoted as saying.


http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=qw1098612009348B222

[Downtown Hound]

1. Great...

[Seabiscuit]

2. "Irreversible Action"?

As in... when Dubya spread his cheeks and inserted his head?

[Maple]

3. EU and China could return the favor too

[RainDog]

4. Dateline Reagan Administration, circa 1984

Or maybe I should just say, Dateline CIA-

"What will we do in twenty-ish years when the Islamic Fundamentalists we are arming in Afghanistan use our training of them as terrorists at the School of the Americas on U.S. Citizens?

or--

"What will we do when Saddam, whom we put into power in 1963, whom we armed in the 1980s, doesn't continue to demonimate his oil in dollars?"

or-

"What will we do when Clinton declassifies reports and the American people learn that the CIA recruited Nazis who fed false information about the capability of the Soviets, and also learn that these same Nazis, notably Rudy Gehlen, was willing to spread Soviet disinformation to the U.S.?"

...impeach him?

or-

"What will we do when the American people learn that there was a plot to fake a terrorist attack from Castro in 1963 in order to justify an invasion of Cuba?"

or-

"What will we do when the American people learn that we did not see the fall of the Soviet Union coming? (paging Gehlen)

"What will we do when the American people learn we assisted in the assassination of the democratically elected leader of Chile and installed a fascist dictator who disappeared citizens because they opposed him, and also conspired with the guy responsible for the mobile gas chambers and made it safe for him to live and work in Chile?

or

What will we do when the American people learn that we were taken by surprise when India detonated a nuclear weapon?

or

What will we, the Bush Administration, do when the American people learn that a PDB warned that "bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S.?

--we'll call it a "historical" document...

It's amazing to me how our so-called security agencies miss the stories that they should find out about, but maybe that's because they're too busy fomenting coups and assisting in the murder of elected leaders of other countries...

Then again, Perle, in "An End To Evil" makes it plain that he (and no doubt other neocons) do not think it's in "our" interests to maintain alliances with western European "EU" nations, while, at the same time, it is in our interests to try to keep the UK out of the EU.

[w4rma]

5. I agree with our current policy on this one. Blow 'em up if they give us

problems. Why is the European Union setting up satalites for China to use militarily, anyway?

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Staffing the occupation of Iran will be a challenge, expanding the theatre

to include Europe will pose some very interesting questions, especially in the event that Kerry wins and is able to provide attractive enough incentives to persuade European leaders to lease expendables to join the US in its activities in the Middle East.

To whom then would US turn for help in staffing the occupation of Europe?

Even more intriguing: What would be the effect on the surviving European expendables in the Middle East?

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. It's a GPS system that isn't controlled by the US

and so would be available to everyone, including the Chinese military.

[herthaner]

7. interesting

I think we should increase our defence budget a bit... :mad: :evilgrin:

[Karenina]

17. Not necessary.

The moment the ROTW pushes the financial button, the U.S. will implode.

[LizW]

8. Maybe that's what the so-called Missile Defense System

(that can't actually shoot down any missiles) really does.

:tinfoilhat:

And by the way... Peter Teets??? God, what an unfortunate name. :evilgrin:

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The 'leaked Air Force document' is available on the Web

courtesy of, erm, the US military: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afdd2_2_1.pdf

This was first noted in Wired on Oct 1st: http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,65151,00.html

[VegasWolf]

10. Since Bush is terrorist #1 on the minds of many people in the

world, they may be worrying about protecting themselves from
the US. They have no confidence that bush will be defeated here.

New Information Shows Bush Indecisive, Paranoid, Delusional

[Burma Jones]

12. This ain't the half of it

The USA, regardless of the winner of this election, is going to continue to develop and deploy space weaponry. The militarization of space is inevitable and the US is going to stay dominant for a very long time to come..........

[Karenina]

15. At YOUR expense

at EVERY altitude... :eyes:

[PATRICK]

13. This is Cheney, no joke

Very early they seemed madly intent on conquering space and eliminating competition. And they weren't talking about communications, but the spy satellites and other interferences to us building a huge space ground dominance program with silent toys.

Sounds absolutely crazy but it is on their to do list very much.

[Massacure]

14. So instead of it being USA vs China it would be USA vs China and Europe

Smart move. NOT.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. Yes

The US has allowed very generous autonomy to some of its properties around the globe, including Europe and China, but this pre-911 leniency naturally has undergone some necessary changes in order to protect America.

[BonjourUSA]

16. Why the US would be the only owner of a positioning system ?

Aren't the US worried just because they lost a market of very many billion dollars ?

[RivetJoint]

30. What market?

No one charges you or anyone else to use the US GPS system.

The EU SHOULD be able to launch, operate, and use their own GPS system; the US should have no say in it, UNLESS the EU GPS interferes with the operation of the US system (we were there first) or unless the EU makes militarily useful data avaliabe to a party engaged in war with he US.

[Kellanved]

31. you are mistaken

First, it is not really a GPS "vs" Galileo; Boeing is a major player in the Galileo consortium. In fact the US had a seat at the development table the whole time and were offered lots of ways to guard the justified national security interests.

Now it is a snotty response to the EU's "no" concerning putting Galileo under total US control.

Anyway, the US can limit or deny GPS service to anyone, at any time. And worse, GPS isn't exactly high tech any more (it is still considered High Tech by many, just like nuclear power plants, but that is hardly true). That means GPS isn't very reliable, interference can easily degrade the accuracy. The whole idea with Galileo is having a system with guaranteed accuracy, no matter what. (and protect EU states from the possible US imposition of charges.).

[RivetJoint]

32. Where am I mistaken?

I believe evrything I wroye was factual. Please show me where I was in error. BTW, you are wrong when you say the US wnats to put Galileo under "total US control." From where did you draw that? The US has never said they want to totally control Galilo.

[Kellanved]

33. depends on the definition of "total control"

Being able to turn something off is "total control" in my book. Especially when used as a bargaining token.

And there is a multi-billion dollar stake in the GPS monopoly; granted, it is one one that hasn't been used and probably never will be.

[RivetJoint]

34. So, again, I was mistaken, where?

Being able to turn off something is denial, not control.

[oldlady]

19. to think they laughed at Kucinich

as though he was some sci-fi radical, when he proposed legislation to prevent the militarization of space *sigh*

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. They laughed at him because the US owns space.

No legislation is needed. Anyone who trespasses or uses the US's space unauthorizedly need only to turn their eyes toward Fallujah to see what Unwavering Resolve to Prevail and Protect America can do.

[ixion]

27. the US 'owns' space?

I hardly think so.

We may have tossed some junk up there, but we're far, far away from actually controlling 'space', IMO.

[Chicago Democrat]

21. I love our War Mongering administration!

I just hope they don't blow up the entire world before Jan 20 after our Kerry Landslide!

[Kool Kitty]

22. Can you even imagine what

this bunch of maniacs will do or try to do in the two months left to them? What a horrifying thought. I hope we all survive the "lame duck" portion of this regime.

[steely]

23. Gee, didn't Peter B Teets used to work for Lockheed?

The manufacturers of MILSTAR, GPS, DMSP, etc, and the Titan launch vehicles that belts many of them "up there"?

What a way to strenghthen your own stock holdings, by shooting down the competition. Sure are glad we have such an unbiased / un-corrupted man such as Pete to steer our miltary down the right path.

on edit...
And whatever happened to GLONASS (Russian)? or is that a dumb question?

[Columbia]

24. Certainly a justifiable military target if it is being used against us

Just like a communication station or antenna.

Of course, the question is, is there a true threat or one concocted to justify force against an economic enemy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Even if it is owned by a neutral party?

That makes it a bit more dubious - it would be like bombing Stockholm in World War 2 because they traded with Germany, as well as us (and the Allies didn't attack Sweden).

[RivetJoint]

29. Neutrality

would demand the EU not allow EITHER side to use its satellites. If they knowingly allowed one belligerent to use their GPS capaility to wage war against the other, they have become party to the hostilities and are subject to attack.

[Columbia]

35. A party who willfully allows tech to be used against us is not neutral

[don954]

25. ASATs are supposed to be banned under international treaty

with Russia. I guess bush broke that one too.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/o/dob104/aviation/us/missile.html
ASM-135A ASAT (Anti-Satellite Missile) Boeing/LTV 1 Lockheed SR75-LP-1 and 1 Vought Altair III rocket

[RivetJoint]

28. We've been looking into

and developing ASATS for a long time. I was not aware that we had "an international treaty with Russia" to ban them. When was it signed?

[htuttle]

37. The US under Bush is an international outlaw -- a rogue state

Since when do treaties mean anything to the US government? -- its word is no good.

Only a fool (or an American...) would trust the US government.

[mumon]

36. "Peter Teets?????????"

There's a guy whose very name spells sexual confusion.