GPS Alternative

Looks like Russia's alternative to GPS is now nearing completion at least as far as coverage of Russian territory is concerned. Plans are underway to further expand the system. This doesn't seem like a big deal, really, but it's a signal of how other countries are coming to chafe under American hegemony and looking for practical ways to undercut it.

At the end of the day, that kind of trend is very bad for us. Consider, say, Iran. If Moscow and Beijing look at Iranian nuclear activities and think to themselves "nuclear proliferation is bad" then we're in good shape. If they look at Iranian nuclear activities and think "if checks the Americans, it's okay by us" then we're in terrible shape. But both ways are valid interpretations of the situation. Under the circumstances, it's vitally in our interests to create the kind of climate of international cooperation where the odds favor major foreign powers seeing events through the proliferation frame rather than the "check America" frame. Thus far, we're not doing a very good job of it.

Comments

Vaild overall point, but a bad example. This is really a Soviet system, designed (reasonably enough) to have an alternative to what is, at bottom, a US military product. It languished in the 1990's, but has been revived as part of Putin's pursuit of national greatness--so I'm not sure that concern over US hegemony is the driver. The Europeans *have* had such concern, but plans for their system (Galileo) have not gone well, perhaps because GPS does exist.

I'd note that two of the important moves in GPS history (the first by Reagan) have been those that made it less exclusively a military-use system; in that sense it is less an example of hegemony than it might seem, even though ultimate control rests with DoD.

Posted by DCA | December 27, 2007 3:20 PM

It's not so much "chafing under american hegemony" as it is a desire not to be dependent on the US's technology.

The reason that Europeans developed the PAL TV broadcasting standard rather than adopting the US's NTSC standard was not simply because they wanted to "prove their independence" in a fit of pique but rather because it was cheaper to develop a different technology on their own than it was to pay the licensing fees for the American-made technology.

Posted by Tyro | December 27, 2007 3:27 PM

The EU also has their Galileo project which is intended to supplement and/or replace GPS for much the same reasons that Tyro describes.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 27, 2007 3:37 PM

This seems potentially significant in several ways for the issue of space security.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 27, 2007 3:57 PM

I think that it is important to realize that, in the end, GPS exists so that

a) military units can determine their location with precision, especially nuclear submarines and mobile ICBM launchers (in which basket the Russian's have placed most of their nuclear eggs), and

b) to put bombs on target.

That cars and your watch also use satillite navigation is a happy accident.

Kind of like the Internet.

Posted by calipygian | December 27, 2007 4:07 PM

As DCA points out, great point, not super relevant example- but who really cares? Getting back to the point, its a shame that we can't re-introduce this meme back into 'serious' foreign policy circles b/c I would've sworn it was a big part of the discussion in the 90s. (Being a similar age to MY, I could be wrong about this). I never expect the motto, "respect international institutions" to be a populist winning slogan, but elites rarely let populist sentiments deter them.

There are too many important foreign policy issues these days to neglect instituional effects like this. There is energy supply, nuclear proliferation, terrorism and, eventually, we will want to influence green energy policies. Theoretically, we could always heavily intervene in one area of the world to try and address one of these issues, but the problem with the Iraq War, even if successful in its own right, is that throwing your weight around like that can make it harder to make progress in other areas. And none of these issues is so important as to dwarf the others. They're all pretty important.

Posted by mpowell | December 27, 2007 4:14 PM

Yep, what DCA, Tyro, and Cranky said. The Soviets had plans for the system and, I believe, even launched some of the satellites before the hammer & sickle came down in 1991. But, when the ruble collapsed, the army was unpaid, the mafia was taking over, etc., etc., many such programs fell by the wayside.

Putin's not an ex-KGB colonel for nothing!

Oh, I wish I were a Sovietologist.

Posted by ajw_93 | December 27, 2007 4:19 PM

I will have to disagree a bit with calipygian's 4:07 PM. It is true that before President Clinton ordered GPS' Selective Availability (the coding that prevented high-accuracy civilian use) turned off that GPS (originally NavStar) was a military resource and civilian uses were incidental and subject to shutdown.

However, since Clinton ordered SA turned off and the civilian market exploded GPS services have been embedded into thousands of socially-critical functions including airplane navigation[1], package delivery, and thousands of others. Making GPS unavailable to civilian users would have a devastating effect much like turning off the electric grid. While there still needs to be military oversight I would very much like to see overall design and operation of the GPS system turned over to a civilian board rather than the Air Force (how the AF ever stole it from the Navy is an interesting question in itself).

I am also a bit surprised about all the focus on GLONASS this week; that system has been operating since 1985 or so. For a while in the 1990s you could buy combination GPS/GLONASS receivers on the civilian market (GLONASS is more accurate near the poles than GPS). It is true the GLONASS satellites were slowly falling out of orbit one at a time but that Russia decided to launch a few more doesn't seem like a big deal compared to the Galileo situation.

Cranky

[1] Although oddly not so much airLINE navigation since the airlines tend to be behind on technology updates {Alaska Airlines being an exception for obvious reasons - they do most of their navigation and landing using new GPS-based services}

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 27, 2007 4:20 PM

Cranky, the other issue for the Rest of the World is that there is still a regional GPS degradation switch at AF headquarters. i.e. the US retains the ability to use SA in areas outside the continental USA, whilst keeping civilian use in the US going.

Posted by Meh | December 27, 2007 4:35 PM

You know what's really hilarious? Click Matt's link and read the comments.

Engadget, as the name implies, is a web site for consumer electronics techno-nerds. They review cell phones and DVD players and whatnot.

But this story only required two reader comments to start an all-out Liberal v. Conservative flame war! Awesome!

Posted by Jalmari | December 27, 2007 4:58 PM

Interesting thread. Its a wonder that the Air Force didn't try to kill GPS (like it tried to kill cruise missiles back in the 70's) when it had the chance, anything that improves submarine launched missile accuracy only makes Air Force ICBMS and strategic bombers that much more redundant.

Ironically, the Soviets did play a key role in the civilian use of GPS:

After the downing of Korean Flight 007 in 1983-a tragedy that might have been prevented if its crew had access to better navigational tools-President Ronald Reagan issued a directive that guaranteed that GPS signals would be available at no charge to the world. That directive helped open up a civilian, commercial market...
http://www.nasm.si.edu/spacecraft/GC-GPSBlock2.htm

Posted by beowulf | December 27, 2007 5:05 PM

We ahd an opportunity, after the fall of the Soviet Union, and until 2002 or so, to be a "soft" global hegemon. We could exert unchallenged global leadership as long as the direction in which we were leading everyone led to a general increase in world peace and prosperity, and as long as we were not perceived as threatening anyone's vital interests.

Once we started asserting the right to unilateraly kick anyone's ass who disagreed with us, however, well of course our hegemony couldn't last. No sane state will put up with that, if it has any alternative.

All Bush has accomplished in foriegn policy during his terms in office is to lay the groundwork for a global anti-American alliance.

Posted by rea | December 27, 2007 5:15 PM

If they look at Iranian nuclear activities and think "if checks the Americans, it's okay by us" ....

It's ironic that the Reagan and Bush administrations looked at Pakistani nuclear activities (when the Pakistanis were instrumental in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan) and decided that it was okay because they were our allies against the soviets. Could we blame Putin if he decides to return the favor?

Posted by Independent | December 27, 2007 5:25 PM

Russia will never, never, never say "it's okay by us" for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Iran borders Russia. Russia is paranoid about their borders. It will not happen in this century.

Posted by Joel | December 27, 2007 5:49 PM

Russia has an economy the size of New Jersey. How can they afford these projects?

I understand that life sucks for a lot of Russians, but it's still mysterious to me how they have can afford a space program, for example.

Posted by thehova | December 27, 2007 5:55 PM

Not to mention the Iran example once again shows how clueless Matt is about what's going on.

Russia and China look at Iran and say, "There's no nuclear weapons program there. This is the US trying to steal oil we need."

The US looks at Iran and say, "We see nuclear weapons where nobody else on the planet does (except out poodles in Europe) - because we see oil."

Read my lips, Matt. There IS NO Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear energy program is both legal and required by Iran.

There was no nuclear weapons program in Iraq. There is none in Iran.

Get a clue.

The US NEEDS to be checked more than any other country on Earth.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 27, 2007 6:06 PM

Meh:

In fact, SA (and the other option, AS) cannot be selectively turned on for different parts of the world--and, SA is now (as of a few months ago) officially off (as opposed to "set to zero"). It was dropped in large part because there were workarounds for it--though those were only good in a region, that was enough.

Posted by dca | December 27, 2007 7:16 PM

I don't share Matt's premise. Checking American power is actually VERY GOOD for America. If Saddam had gotten his nuclear weapons, he would not have nuked Tel Aviv. But he would have stopped both Gulf Wars, which would have meant no 9/11 (a response to our basing troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War), as well as no Iraq and probably no Afghanistan either (a response to 9/11).

The best thing we can possibly hope for is for the Russians and the Chinese to make it much more difficult for us to act in an imperialistic fashion abroad.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 27, 2007 7:21 PM

Speaking of Russia, the FT had an excellent editorial today: "Russia is in need of firm handling".

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 7:56 PM

Cranky - Making GPS unavailable to civilian users would have a devastating effect much like turning off the electric grid. While there still needs to be military oversight I would very much like to see overall design and operation of the GPS system turned over to a civilian board rather than the Air Force (how the AF ever stole it from the Navy is an interesting question in itself).

No Cranky, I want that switch in military hands not a civilian board - to shut high-accuracy mode off as an option outside the USA - if the Chicoms ever start using GPS-guided bombs on our Naval elements or a GPS-guided missile barrage comes out of N Korea or Iran headed for us or our Asian and European Allies. I do not want our enemies killing our soldiers with our technology. And I doubt Russia or the Euros Galileo would stay up and running to support Iranian or NORK WMD delivery systems.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 27, 2007 8:16 PM

Dilan, maybe you want to look at 19th century history through to the first world war and then re-think your position.

Posted by nolaboyd | December 27, 2007 8:25 PM

Welcome to the multipolar century - unless the US trashes the very idea of hegemony, benevolent or not, ditches exceptionalism and embraces a foreign policy that truly tries to find common cause with the rest of the world treating them as equals, it will be in for quite a few surprises over the next decades.

Posted by novakant | December 27, 2007 8:30 PM

"Russia has an economy the size of New Jersey. How can they afford these projects?

I understand that life sucks for a lot of Russians, but it's still mysterious to me how they have can afford a space program, for example.

Posted by thehova | December 27, 2007 5:55 PM"

I'm guessing it's a combination of 1) oil 2) you can actually get blood from a stone (taxation, corruption, theft, etc. After all, North Korea was able to build nukes while its people starved to death) and 3) smuggling and the black market (who knows how much of this goes into the state coffers?). Russia also does still have some of the institutional frameworks and human talent that was around during the Soviet days.

Posted by Reality Man | December 27, 2007 8:40 PM

Good points Reality Man.

Still, Russia has never qualified as a long term threat. Russia is (and always has been) a highly centralized, undemocratic state.

Moscow exploits its citizens by spending a high percentege of its GDP on defense.

While Russia bullies its neigbors, the country stands on the verge of collapse.

I guess what I'm trying is say: America and the international community shouldn't be intimidated by Russia.

Posted by thehova | December 27, 2007 10:27 PM

To concur with a few other commenters, I'm baffled by the "what matters is what's good for Americans" frame that MY adopts in this post. The first and more important objection to this assumption is that what may be good for Americans may not be good for others, and that Americans should, for a variety of reasons, consider the interests of others when making decisions. The second objection is that when this "good for us/bad for us" frame is adopted, it often leads to the adoption of policies that are objectively bad for Americans.

At bottom, the idea that analysts should refine and help policymakers pursue the "national interest" in order to perpetuate American power and influence--an idea which MY apparently still subscribes to--ignores the possibility that pursuit of U.S. power and influence itself is not only bad for non-Americans but is also inherently bad for Americans.

Posted by yave begnet | December 28, 2007 12:00 AM

(how the AF ever stole it from the Navy is an interesting question in itself).

I don't know the answer off the top of my head, but if it occurs to you to ask I bet you already have the answer in mind and that you are 100% correct. Some neat loop of AF beltway procurement to aerospace contractor nonsense.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 28, 2007 12:25 AM

"You know what's really hilarious? Click Matt's link and read the comments.

Engadget, as the name implies, is a web site for consumer electronics techno-nerds. They review cell phones and DVD players and whatnot.

But this story only required two reader comments to start an all-out Liberal v. Conservative flame war! Awesome!"

Yeah, I followed the link and it really is funny! But hey, isn't watching the "Liberals & Conservatives" trying their best to kick each other in the 'nads the only real good reason to spend time here?

Posted by kafka | December 28, 2007 1:50 AM

"Checking American power is actually VERY GOOD for America. If Saddam had gotten his nuclear weapons, he would not have nuked Tel Aviv. But he would have stopped both Gulf Wars, which would have meant no 9/11 (a response to our basing troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War), as well as no Iraq..."

Dilan Esper,

Walter Russell Mead did a nice job of counter your line of thinking in an op/ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about American hegemony, and how most of the rest of the world benefits from it: "Why We're in the Gulf".

Posted by Fred | December 28, 2007 8:13 AM

Well, it doesn't seem to me that Latin America, for one, has ever benefited from American hegemony. Just ask the Nicaraguans, or the Salvadorans, or the Chileans.

American hegemony, no different than British, French or Soviet hegemony, has been terrible for the world, and the sooner it ends the better.

Posted by Hector | December 28, 2007 9:20 AM

Are you sure those are the best examples, Hector? Nicaragua is the messiest of them, but Chile is the best-run country in Latin America, thanks in no small measure to economic reforms instituted during Pinochet's government. Pinochet was no saint, but our support for him prevented Chile from turning Communist and paved the way for its transition to democracy. Similarly, El Salvador is a democracy today thanks to our support of its government in its counterinsurgency against Communist guerrillas. It's hard to argue that either country would be better off today had the Communists won.

In any case, these examples aren't illustrative of Mead's thesis. Even if America weren't a global hegemon, we would still be inextricably involved in Latin America. Mead is talking about the global goods provided by our global power projection: protecting the seaways, the free flow of oil from the Gulf, etc., and what the world would look like if we didn't play this role.

Posted by Fred | December 28, 2007 9:42 AM

Frankly, I'm not sure whether Mead was once a respectable "scholar" but in recent years, he's become a total joke.

There's some mysterious reason that once your livelihood becomes largely controlled by big AIPAC donors, your IQ drops by about 40 points...

Posted by RKU | December 28, 2007 9:43 AM

Dilan, maybe you want to look at 19th century history through to the first world war and then re-think your position.

It's a different world now. Asymmetrical warfare by nonstate actors with lethal firepower is possible in 2007 in a way it wasn't possible in the 19th Century. That imposes a significant cost on hegemonic rule.

Walter Russell Mead did a nice job of counter your line of thinking in an op/ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about American hegemony, and how most of the rest of the world benefits from it:

The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page isn't exactly a credible source. In any event, I know WHY we are in the Gulf. I also know that we would be much better off if we weren't there-- not only fewer Americans getting killed, but also higher gas prices that would result in reduced CO2 emissions and pollution.

Are you sure those are the best examples, Hector? Nicaragua is the messiest of them, but Chile is the best-run country in Latin America, thanks in no small measure to economic reforms instituted during Pinochet's government. Pinochet was no saint, but our support for him prevented Chile from turning Communist and paved the way for its transition to democracy.

That's a total lie. Chile was richer than other Latin American countries, due to its copper mines, BEFORE Pinochet took power. That, and not Pinochet, is the reason they are better off than, say, Bolivia or Peru.

Pinochet was evil. First, HE DEPOSED A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT. Not a communist government. A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT. Chile may have "voted" itself communist, but that isn't the same as "going" communist.

Pinochet murdered thousands of political opponents. And he installed constitutional provisions that make it impossible to prosecute the murderers and ensure that the Chilean military dominates the government even now. This was one of recent history's great villains.

Why don't you go down to Santiago and explain to the relatives of the people killed in the national soccer stadium how great Pinochet was for Chile, Fred? See what happens to you.

Even if America weren't a global hegemon, we would still be inextricably involved in Latin America. Mead is talking about the global goods provided by our global power projection: protecting the seaways, the free flow of oil from the Gulf, etc., and what the world would look like if we didn't play this role.

If we didn't play this role, Europe and Asia would join into collective security arrangements to protect the seaways. The only reason this doesn't happen is because we want control and therefore encourage them to free ride. As for oil, the higher the price, the better, for all sorts of reasons.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 28, 2007 2:11 PM

"The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page isn't exactly a credible source."

A pointless ad hominem attack, since the op/ed was written by Mead, and not the WSJ.

"In any event, I know WHY we are in the Gulf."

Your comments demonstrate that you don't understand Mead's thesis, since you were apparently too lazy to take five minutes to read the column.

"Chile was richer than other Latin American countries, due to its copper mines... That, and not Pinochet, is the reason they are better off than, say, Bolivia or Peru."

Bolivia has plenty of natural gas, but let's pick an even easier counter-example, if you think Chile's copper explains its well-run economy: Venezuela. Venezuela is a major oil exporter and yet Chile has greater economic and political freedom, higher per-capita GDP, lower unemployment, and a much lower poverty rate. It owes much of this to reforms made during Pinochet's government by Friedman-influenced economic advisers.

"Pinochet was evil."

I conceded he wasn't a boyscout, but neither were the Communists he fought who waged a terror campaign in Chile. You can't throw the actions of one side of the conflict down the memory hole.

"If we didn't play this role, Europe and Asia would join into collective security arrangements to protect the seaways."

Sounds great, but as Mead points out:

"A world of insecure and suspicious great powers engaged in military competition over vital interests would not be a safe or happy place. Every ship that China builds to protect the increasing numbers of supertankers needed to bring oil from the Middle East to China in years ahead would also be a threat to Japan's oil security -- as well as to the oil security of India and Taiwan. European cooperation would likely be undermined as well, as countries sought to make their best deals with Russia, the Gulf states and other oil rich neighbors like Algeria."

Posted by Fred | December 28, 2007 7:10 PM

It was clear to me and all the other thoughtfull people back in the late 90's that keeping selective availability on represented a long term risk that other countries would respond by introducing their own GPS system and that the longer we waited, the more likely this would happen.
The risk is that sometime in the future, there would be an incoming missile that we could throw off course by an emergency gps shutdown.
Of course its much harder when that incoming missile has 2 or even 3 different gps systems.
I seem to recall Clinton wanting to shut down SA sooner but the idiots aka republicans were aghast and started screaming about national security and Clinton waited. Now: you are here....
To be clear: it wasnt a lock that early shut off of SA would prevent other countries from implementing their own. it just made it less likely.

Posted by Aaron | December 28, 2007 9:48 PM

"Pinochet was no saint, but ..."

"Stalin was no saint, but ... he beat the Nazis."

"Mao was no saint, but ... look at China's economy today."

"I'm no racist, but ... [insert racist remark of your choice]."

Conservatives will never tire of defending the murderous dictator Pinochet--he fought the communists, you see.

Posted by yave begnet | December 28, 2007 11:37 PM

Actually a 2nd (or 3rd, counting Galileo) satellite navigation system is a win-win situation for foreign and US defense contractors. Their guys get paid to build it and our guys get paid to shoot it down.

At least since the Napoleonic Wars, its been recognized that navigation markers used by a Belligerent power are legitimate military targets. So, on the off chance a terrorist or a "madman" could use a non-US SatNav system to wage war on us, Lockheed or Boeing will be given billions to build anti-satellite missiles.

Posted by beowulf | December 29, 2007 5:39 AM