citizens of EU member states - what do you think of galileo GPS competitor?

[Meneldil]

Hey know what? Military and technological independence is something every country should pursue.

That's what Canada have been trying to do - with little success - for a while, and I think that's what Europe should do aswell.
It's not as much a way to 'counter the yanks' as a way to have our own reliable technology.

Now, I agree that the US are for some reasons distrusted in Europe (as in the rest of the world, that's what you get for being the hegemon), and that the very idea of the US using his GPS as a diplomatic tool sounds unbelievable (but then, the US have done some unbelievable things lately).

And no, I don't think a partnership with China is a good idea. If it was up to me, China would be boycotted in whole EU.

[Furunculus]

i would take that sentiment seriously if the european nations decided to be serious about the first duty of the nation state, i.e. the provision of external security to their respective populations, something i would argue thay are failing to do spending an average of 1.75% of GDP on defence, wasting what precious little money there is on vanity projects, and damaging their strategic relationship with the worlds superpower by attempting to build parallel defence institutions that sideline NATO.

[Jolt]

i would take that sentiment seriously if the european nations decided to be serious about the first duty of the nation state, i.e. the provision of external security to their respective populations, something i would argue thay are failing to do spending an average of 1.75% of GDP on defence, wasting what precious little money there is on vanity projects, and damaging their strategic relationship with the worlds superpower by attempting to build parallel defence institutions that sideline NATO.

So we should remain subservient to the World's Greatest Power, and not prepare for the future where the EU can actually proceed with its own independent foreign policy without the guidance of the USA?

[Furunculus]

no, but the idea of the EU wishing to be an independent superpower is:
a) laughable given how low Defence spending ranks in european priorities
b) wholly undesirable to many EU nations given the level of military integration it would require
c) daft in that considering the above it manages to damage institutions that DO provide european security
thus rendering galileo a pointless vanity project, and one that has been mis-managed to the point of redundancy to boot.

[Jolt]

no, but the idea of the EU wishing to be an independent superpower is:
a) laughable given how low Defence spending ranks in european priorities
b) wholly undesirable to many EU nations given the level of military integration it would require
c) daft in that considering the above it manages to damage institutions that DO provide european security
thus rendering galileo a pointless vanity project, and one that has been mis-managed to the point of redundancy to boot.

I don't think the EU wants to become a Superpower. I think it wants to end the Century hold period of American hegemony over the continent. And it has to start somewhere.
a) Wait, but do you think high defence spending budget is a good thing? O_o That's odd.
b) I don't see how not being a unified military would cripple the military power of the EU in comparison with different armies under a central EU command.
c) Damages so in what way? If so, why does it damage? Because the Americans wish for the Europeans to continue addicted to their system so they can use it as diplomatic leverage when the oportunity presents itself? If the situation was reversed, do you think the Americans would think twice before developping their own GPS system. Do you think a tiger would rather stay in a cage or be free?

[LittleGrizzly]

If the situation was reversed, do you think the Americans would think twice before developping their own GPS system.

This is why im confused at some of the American reactions, why do we bother having our own military... or currency... or anything... because we can and it gives us independence in our actions any american would want the same thing for thier country...

[Strike For The South]

I don't care. You can do what you want as long as you're home for supper, now run along.

[Furunculus]

If the situation was reversed, do you think the Americans would think twice before developping their own GPS system.

This is why im confused at some of the American reactions, why do we bother having our own military... or currency... or anything... because we can and it gives us independence in our actions any american would want the same thing for thier country...

that is your mistake, the yanks have been supporting all and any moves towards a more effective european military capability. they have said, and i believe them, that they want a partner. what they don't say is that they are sick of europe acting like a bunch of selfish parasites.

europe has not, and likely never will be a strategic problem for the US, except that it is a sickly relative they feel compelled to prop up.

[Furunculus]

I don't think the EU wants to become a Superpower. I think it wants to end the Century hold period of American hegemony over the continent. And it has to start somewhere.
a) Wait, but do you think high defence spending budget is a good thing? O_o That's odd.
b) I don't see how not being a unified military would cripple the military power of the EU in comparison with different armies under a central EU command.
c) Damages so in what way? If so, why does it damage? Because the Americans wish for the Europeans to continue addicted to their system so they can use it as diplomatic leverage when the oportunity presents itself? If the situation was reversed, do you think the Americans would think twice before developping their own GPS system. Do you think a tiger would rather stay in a cage or be free?

Is that what the EU member states want? Because i know the UK doesn't, i doubt many of the new states do either.
a) Yes, it is the first duty of the nation state. Why is that odd?
b) Because not that many nations are willing to divest themselves of military sovereignty
c) America wants no such thing, America wants an independent military europe and cries when it sees chronic underspending and vanity projects.

[Vladimir]

Is that what the EU member states want? Because i know the UK doesn't, i doubt many of the new states do either.
a) Yes, it is the first duty of the nation state. Why is that odd?
b) Because not that many nations are willing to divest themselves of military sovereignty
c) America wants no such thing, America wants an independent military europe and cries when it sees chronic underspending and vanity projects.

Points a and c are wonderful.

[Jolt]

Is that what the EU member states want? Because i know the UK doesn't, i doubt many of the new states do either.
a) Yes, it is the first duty of the nation state. Why is that odd?
b) Because not that many nations are willing to divest themselves of military sovereignty
c) America wants no such thing, America wants an independent military europe and cries when it sees chronic underspending and vanity projects.

a) I'm confused, you're saying its a waste of money, then you say countries ought to have high spending in defence. Since Galileo is primarily due to military independence, I'd say the EU is doing exactly what you propose. And you're arguing against having spending money on something which will make the EU countries better without needing the assistence of the USA.
That is a Pro-Militaristic point of view. But then, I'm sure Kim-Il Jung would agree with your views. I'd much, much rather have a low budget for defence and a high budget towards economic and social development. Having high spendings in defence at a time of crisis is foolish and ridiculous.
b) NATO takes part of the military sovereignty of its members. I don't see an International outcry about it.
c) HAHAHA. America cries when it sees chronic underspending? You should read up on what Realpolitik or International Realism is. For a proponent of high budget spending in contrast with economical social welfare, you sure have a liberal view of the International Relations that the USA executes, which is not quite up to par with the truth, and you're hearing this from a person who knows of what he is speaking.

[Meneldil]

no, but the idea of the EU wishing to be an independent superpower is:
a) laughable given how low Defence spending ranks in european priorities
b) wholly undesirable to many EU nations given the level of military integration it would require
c) daft in that considering the above it manages to damage institutions that DO provide european security
thus rendering galileo a pointless vanity project, and one that has been mis-managed to the point of redundancy to boot.

The amount of military spending of members has absolutely no link whatsoever to the capability of the EU to be a superpower. In any case, the EU (read France and UK) has enough nukes to blow the crap out of anyone threatening the old continent, be it the US, Russia or China, and it will stay the same until one of them develop some badass scifi-like anti nuke technology.
Furthermore, military spendings suck, nobody except a few right wing nationalists support them, so it is fine by me. High military spendings are not a 'duty of the nation state'. Protecting citizens is a duty of the state. When there's no threat, the spending can be reduced.

There's absolutely no reason to support large military spendings in Europe right now, except if you to play the 'I've got the biggest one' game that nobody cares about anymore.

how many times of recent has britain involved itself in events that appear to be opposed by our continetal 'partners'?
you don't just opt to have a common foreign policy, you need to agree what those objectives are.

case in point; iraq, which i supported and am thus glad could not be vetoed by javier solano.

At least there's one point of agreement between us: the UK has nothing to do in the EU. I don't even know why you whined and begged so much to get in, just to whine even more once we allowed you to join the club. I say go and whine alone and stop pestering us. I'm pretty sure you could make a Britano-Polish Union of Whiners. Would probably work fairly well ;)

Now, since that seems to be pretty much the main argument you bring in, since when is military spending the first duty of the (nation? I don't see what the nation is doing there, but heh) state? It might be according to your personal but nonetheless respectable idea of the nation, but it is not according to me and to a whole lot of people.

Oh, and a few scholars of political science, history and international relations, both from the left and the right, think the Westphalian system is well, really outdated, if not already dead and burried. Actually, there's quite a lot of them, so you might want to check their work, because according to them, we're heading right into a post-Westphalian system whose caracteristics are still unclear.

But after this ranting, I have to agree on a point, and not a minor one: the EU, in its current form, smells bad. I'm all for an European con/federation of willing European countries, but the thing we have now is neither that nor a simple free market agreement. And the worse is that even European leaders don't know what the EU is going to be

If Canada tried to do it without the inherent anti-Americanism involved (yes, it is involved, and some of it is vicious), then I think a lot more people would be a little happier about it.

Oh yeah, absolutely agreed. That's why I think we should give up with the anti-americanism in Europe. While I think we should have our own 'GPS' system, the fact we reached an agreement with China tells quite a lot about the general mindset that still plagues most western european leaders.

[Sigurd]

I haven't read all posts in this thread, but I felt I had to comment on the general topic.

First and foremost the NAVSTAR GPS is an American Military system. This normally means the US military use it during military campaigns.
Having worked in Navy intelligence, I have learned that The US military has GPS jamming capability.
(We, as in the Norwegian Military, tested such a jamming system)
There is also implemented in the GPS; forced inaccuracies that can be turned off with a flip of a switch.
This is problematic as satnav programmers must implement offset algorithms to the GPS softwares and build land based correction bases for them to show true positioning which even then leads to inaccuracies.
The US military during their military campaigns will turn off this offset and most Satnavs will be useless as The Gulf War I painfully demonstrated.
In Europe, satnavs showed boats running on the shore during the Gulf War.

This might sound like a conspiracy theory but my info comes from navigation system developers working in development of Military navigation systems in Norway.

[Furunculus]

I haven't read all posts in this thread, but I felt I had to comment on the general topic.

First and foremost the NAVSTAR GPS is an American Military system. This normally means the US military use it during military campaigns.
Having worked in Navy intelligence, I have learned that The US military has GPS jamming capability.
(We, as in the Norwegian Military, tested such a jamming system)
There is also implemented in the GPS; forced inaccuracies that can be turned off with a flip of a switch.
This is problematic as satnav programmers must implement offset algorithms to the GPS softwares and build land based correction bases for them to show true positioning which even then leads to inaccuracies.
The US military during their military campaigns will turn off this offset and most Satnavs will be useless as The Gulf War I painfully demonstrated.
In Europe, satnavs showed boats running on the shore during the Gulf War.

This might sound like a conspiracy theory but my info comes from navigation system developers working in development of Military navigation systems in Norway.

first logical reason i have heard in support of an alternative GPS.

though in reality all GPS systems will be turnable off in the event of war, no great power will leave on a service that guides cruise missiles and tank brigades in the heart of its cities.

[Furunculus]

1. The amount of military spending of members has absolutely no link whatsoever to the capability of the EU to be a superpower. In any case, the EU (read France and UK) has enough nukes to blow the crap out of anyone threatening the old continent, be it the US, Russia or China, and it will stay the same until one of them develop some badass scifi-like anti nuke technology.
Furthermore, military spendings suck, nobody except a few right wing nationalists support them, so it is fine by me. High military spendings are not a 'duty of the nation state'. Protecting citizens is a duty of the state. When there's no threat, the spending can be reduced.

2. There's absolutely no reason to support large military spendings in Europe right now, except if you to play the 'I've got the biggest one' game that nobody cares about anymore.

3. At least there's one point of agreement between us: the UK has nothing to do in the EU. I don't even know why you whined and begged so much to get in, just to whine even more once we allowed you to join the club. I say go and whine alone and stop pestering us. I'm pretty sure you could make a Britano-Polish Union of Whiners. Would probably work fairly well ;)

4. Now, since that seems to be pretty much the main argument you bring in, since when is military spending the first duty of the (nation? I don't see what the nation is doing there, but heh) state? It might be according to your personal but nonetheless respectable idea of the nation, but it is not according to me and to a whole lot of people.

5. Oh, and a few scholars of political science, history and international relations, both from the left and the right, think the Westphalian system is well, really outdated, if not already dead and burried. Actually, there's quite a lot of them, so you might want to check their work, because according to them, we're heading right into a post-Westphalian system whose caracteristics are still unclear.

6. But after this ranting, I have to agree on a point, and not a minor one: the EU, in its current form, smells bad. I'm all for an European con/federation of willing European countries, but the thing we have now is neither that nor a simple free market agreement. And the worse is that even European leaders don't know what the EU is going to be

1. but it does, because violence is the ultimate political sanction.
military spending is a necessity..... if you believe war is not gone from this world and that your nations first duty is the protection of its citizens.

2. what is large military spending? i ask that the NATO standard at least be adhered to which is a mere 2% of GDP, though i expect the UK to succeed that which must make me one of those right wing crazies.

3. fair point about britain in europe, you continetal types must be heartily sick of hearing brits whinge about the EU, and i have been the first to advocate exiting pronto and letting you guys get on with your federation without continual hindererance from the UK. i guess we whinge about it because there isn't a mainstream political party we can turn to to express our displeasure, and we hope that the volume of our noise will distract our politicians from their rapt gaze into the EU's navel.

4. fair enough.

5. scholars have always been dreaming up new political systems, and a post westphalian world must indeed look to be an attractive concept to powerless nations that have spent the last 350 years getting trampled, but it makes little sense for nations that have successfully maintained that balance of power and survived the traumas inflicted on less effective neighbours.

6. its not that a federal europe is necessarily bad, but it serves the UK no benefit to be in it, and until we can persuade our politicians of the fact i guess we shall shout from the rooftoops. :)

[Fragony]

i would take that sentiment seriously if the european nations decided to be serious about the first duty of the nation state, i.e. the provision of external security to their respective populations, something i would argue thay are failing to do spending an average of 1.75% of GDP on defence, wasting what precious little money there is on vanity projects, and damaging their strategic relationship with the worlds superpower by attempting to build parallel defence institutions that sideline NATO.

Spending 1.75% on the military would be silly for us, we are way too small for that much an army, the Netherlands is armed to the teeth as it is. I know it's a deal but it's not practical.

no, but the idea of the EU wishing to be an independent superpower is:

You forgot incredibly dangerous, especially with the EU's desire to include the Balkans. How easily the EU will be devided with their EU army.

[Furunculus]

Spending 1.75% on the military would be silly for us, we are way too small for that much an army, the Netherlands is armed to the teeth as it is. I know it's a deal but it's not practical.



You forgot incredibly dangerous, especially with the EU's desire to include the Balkans. How easily the EU will be devided with their EU army.

you spend enough money to demonstrate that you are serious about the future survival of your nation to your adversaries.

america spends about 4.0% of GDP (some might say that is too much)
the UK spends about 2.1% of GDP (which i say is too small even before you consider the impact of two ongoing wars)
the EU average is a pitiful ~1.6% (which tells me they don't take their first duty as a nation state seriously)



agreed, there is no EU foreign policy with which to use use armed force if the last 10 years are anything to go by!

[Fragony]

you spend enough money to demonstrate that you are serious about the future survival of your nation to your adversaries.

The Netherlands is incredibly tiny, if we would spend 4% on the military we wouldn't have any room to build houses on. We have a small but extremely advanced army and we can hit hard if we need to, but only with allies, if the world crumbles so do we.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought the whole point was transnational progressivism -- the end of the petty states and the radiant future of a Europe united as one community?

[Fragony]

I thought the whole point was transnational progressivism -- the end of the petty states and the radiant future of a Europe united as one community?

So was the Vienna Convention, shame about that incident in the Balkans.

[Furunculus]

I thought the whole point was transnational progressivism -- the end of the petty states and the radiant future of a Europe united as one community?

that is a political thought that i utterly reject, along with every single one of its tenets:

Transnational progressivism is a term coined by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte in 2001 to describe a movement and political view that endorses a concept of postnational global citizenship and promotes the authority of international institutions over the sovereignty of individual nation-states.

Fonte argued that the core beliefs of this view include:

* Advocating the goals of an identity group rather than individual: "The key political unit is not the individual citizen...but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born."[1]

* An oppressor/victim dichotomy: "Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy," with "immigrant groups designated as victims."[2]

* Proportional representation by group: "Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."[3]

* Change in institutional values: "the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented" within dominant social and political institutions.

* Change in the assimilation paradigm: "The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism."[4]

* Redefinition of democracy: "Changing the system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens."[5]

* Deconstruction of Western national narratives and national symbols in favor of post-modern multiculturalist views.

what a load of rubbish!

I go in the opposite direction and follow the westphalian principle of the sovereign nation state.

[edit]
found this, interesting reading:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...ype=HI_reports
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/030118-6.htm
cheers
[/edit]

[Furunculus]

The Netherlands is incredibly tiny, if we would spend 4% on the military we wouldn't have any room to build houses on. We have a small but extremely advanced army and we can hit hard if we need to, but only with allies, if the world crumbles so do we.

don't be so melodramatic. :)
i would not argue for 4%, but at least meeting the NATO goal of 2% would be a start.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's what Canada have been trying to do - with little success - for a while, and I think that's what Europe should do aswell.

If Canada tried to do it without the inherent anti-Americanism involved (yes, it is involved, and some of it is vicious), then I think a lot more people would be a little happier about it.