(Henry Spencer) writes:

In article ,
Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

...But with these
agreements I'm not really sure if Galileo will operate (with the same
precision) in the event of a military conflict somewhere.

It is more likely to do so than GPS, because its decision-making process
is not dominated by one nation's soldiers. There may be localized jamming
of it in the combat zone, but there's rather less likely to be a global
shutdown or degradation of accuracy and/or precision, simply because it's
run by a large consortium that will be slow to make such decisions except
in an obvious dire emergency. This is, on the whole, a good thing.


If anyone, anywhere, builds a batch of Galileo-guided cruise missiles which
end up killing American soldiers while a large consortium of Europeans are
still arguing about whether to pull the plug, the consequences would be
almost unimaginably bad.

Whether they would be better or worse than having the United States Air Force
decide to implement a non-consensual shutdown of Galileo is debatable, but
I'd really prefer there be a third option put in place before the hardware
is put in place.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *