In article ,
John Schilling wrote:
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.

The situation is unlikely to occur unless it's deliberately contrived. If
there is enough warning of trouble for consortium action to be seriously
discussed, then there should be enough warning to deploy jammers.

Global shutdowns or accuracy/precision degradations are simply a poor way
to deal with such threats. Military forces, American in particular, are
going to have to get used to the idea that if they want to mess up
navigation for the bad guys, they have to do it with jamming. There are
increasingly too many good guys depending on accurate, precise navigation
for it to be reasonable to mess things up for everyone worldwide in hopes
that it will inconvenience the bad guys.

(Actually, this is just a return to normal. The idea that the US military
could achieve and maintain monopoly control over precise navigation was a
brief and unrealistic aberration.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |