Report: UK government reboots independent GPS plans

[DanceswithUnix]

I just find it ironic that we have a military and no GPS, while the EU have a military GPS and not much of an army.

[spacein_vader]

Presumably, what you meant to say was New Labour really plumbed the depths, and the Tories carried it on. HS2 was a Labour project. As was HS1.

While I agree on HS2, you can't dump it all on the "current incumbents" as solely responsible when it was a Labour project.

Or was it a good idea when Labour wanted to do it, and only incompetence, corruption and greed when the Tories carry it on?

If the current incompetent greedy and corrupt mob had cancelled it, what would the cost of all those broken and breached contracts have been, given the benefits then would have been naff all?

I seem to recall both Labour and the Tories can share the blame for HMS White Elephant and her sister ship Prince Chas too.

I really don't see why we need to build our own GPS netowrk though, surely the yanks will let us use theirs in the unlikely event we're at war with anyone advanced enough to need to use it.

[jimbouk]

I really don't see why we need to build our own GPS netowrk though, surely the yanks will let us use theirs in the unlikely event we're at war with anyone advanced enough to need to use it.

In exchange for chlorinated chicken, access to the NHS and planning permission for half a dozen new golf courses/luxury resorts...

But yeah, we're a small country without any real space capability - time to buddy up.

[Saracen999]

I seem to recall both Labour and the Tories can share the blame for HMS White Elephant and her sister ship Prince Chas too.

.....

I'm not entirely sure I read that right, but if it's a direct poke at the costs of the Royal family, it's worth pointing out the other side, which is the value and income from the estates that were given up in exchange for it.

If it's a poke at HS2 and similar white elephants, like two aircraft carriers .... well, those were Labour projects too. But, that said, both parties are culpable in numerous ways, on numerous projects, over many decades. Neither have a good track record.

My point was that to attribute the blame for HS2 on the "current incumbents" is a smidge unfair. There's plenty we can lay at their door, but not that. Or at least, not entirely.

....

I really don't see why we need to build our own GPS netowrk though, surely the yanks will let us use theirs in the unlikely event we're at war with anyone advanced enough to need to use it.

I would similarly assume that to be likely.

But not guaranteed.

Firstly, it will depend in part on exactly who is in the Whitehouse. Both Bushes were pretty UK-friendly, but Obama? Much less overtly so.

And, unsurprisingly, the US puts the US first, second, third, and so on. We come some way down the list. We could not, for example, rely on unstinting support even in the Falklands. US interests and ours may often be similar, but by no means always correlate identically.

Do we want to rely on the US for what is an even more critical capability now than it was in the Falklands? Especially one they can turn on, off, or degrade, more or less instantly?

I'm no military expert but how would that affect .... oh, fighter air cover, seaborne or undersea missile targeting, etc? How effectively could we even use those stupidly expensive carriers, or even cruise missiles, without GPS? Assuming we wanted/needed to, of course.

Do we really want to have to go cap in hand, pretty please, can we use our own damn military to protect our own interests, Mr. President, if that's okay with you?

And by "Mr President", I mean either the US or even EU president.

[Luke7]

Given the results, not once but twice, just how do you come up with a decision-making process that completely ignores both votes and somehow justify staying in, and still call it a democracy?

Hey bud.. we haven’t had two votes on the matter. We had ONE referendum. (Actually two but that was a “yes” for joining). As for everything else you’ve said... wow. How can you possibly ignore the lies we were told and what has been revealed about brexit since that vote? There’s nothing democratic about accepting the result of a referendum that was essentially voted on blind.

And no, the referendum should never have existed in the first place. The subject of the EU is too complicated and anyone that hasn’t worked within it for a lifetime that claims to understand it is a total liar. Any claims that “x y and z” are simple are foolish. We’ve had nothing but lies from our government, bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish promises that have been forgotten (oven ready deal my rear end) and now we’re fine with breaking international law? And you think we should accept that because of democracy? I hate to invoke Godwin’s law, but you’re aware Hitler was elected right?

[ohmaheid]

Presumably, what you meant to say was New Labour really plumbed the depths, and the Tories carried it on. HS2 was a Labour project. As was HS1.

While I agree on HS2, you can't dump it all on the "current incumbents" as solely responsible when it was a Labour project.

Or was it a good idea when Labour wanted to do it, and only incompetence, corruption and greed when the Tories carry it on?

If the current incompetent greedy and corrupt mob had cancelled it, what would the cost of all those broken and breached contracts have been, given the benefits then would have been naff all?

Poor attempt at Whataboutery.
The Tories have been in power for 10 years - So Labour have little to do with it.
I singled out the Present Incumbents, because their leader has form for this sort of splaffing.
The Garden Bridge across the Thames, where £120m of taxpayers cash went missing on 'consultancy fees'
Similarly, a useless zipwire across the Thames. The infamous London Estuary Airport. And his latest folly - The bridge to Ireland.
But, back to HS2 and a GPS system. I would've thought that 'British Sovereignty' would require an independent GPS system.
As for HS2...The price has doubled in 8 years, and the spiralling costs are purely down to handing eye-watering sums to already rich Tory landowners on the HS2 route.
There is no amount of taxpayers cash the PM won't spend on his vanity projects. Simple As.

[[GSV]Trig]

Oh lol

[spacein_vader]

I'm not entirely sure I read that right, but if it's a direct poke at the costs of the Royal family, it's worth pointing out the other side, which is the value and income from the estates that were given up in exchange for it.

If it's a poke at HS2 and similar white elephants, like two aircraft carriers .... well, those were Labour projects too. But, that said, both parties are culpable in numerous ways, on numerous projects, over many decades. Neither have a good track record.

My point was that to attribute the blame for HS2 on the "current incumbents" is a smidge unfair. There's plenty we can lay at their door, but not that. Or at least, not entirely.

I would similarly assume that to be likely.

But not guaranteed.

Firstly, it will depend in part on exactly who is in the Whitehouse. Both Bushes were pretty UK-friendly, but Obama? Much less overtly so.

And, unsurprisingly, the US puts the US first, second, third, and so on. We come some way down the list. We could not, for example, rely on unstinting support even in the Falklands. US interests and ours may often be similar, but by no means always correlate identically.

Do we want to rely on the US for what is an even more critical capability now than it was in the Falklands? Especially one they can turn on, off, or degrade, more or less instantly?

I'm no military expert but how would that affect .... oh, fighter air cover, seaborne or undersea missile targeting, etc? How effectively could we even use those stupidly expensive carriers, or even cruise missiles, without GPS? Assuming we wanted/needed to, of course.

Do we really want to have to go cap in hand, pretty please, can we use our own damn military to protect our own interests, Mr. President, if that's okay with you?

And by "Mr President", I mean either the US or even EU president.

I meant the carriers, I think the monarchy will sort itself out when the monarch is Charles, he's got nowhere near the goodwill QE2 has.

I know that Trident doesn't rely on GPS but it does rely on the USA continuing to lease us the warheads. If we trust them for the ultimate defence of the realm why not GPS too?

[Saracen999]

I meant the carriers, I think the monarchy will sort itself out when the monarch is Charles, he's got nowhere near the goodwill QE2 has.

I know that Trident doesn't rely on GPS but it does rely on the USA continuing to lease us the warheads. If we trust them for the ultimate defence of the realm why not GPS too?

Agreed on Charlie.

As fo GPS if we assume (for sake of discussion at least) we can do the GPS, then in order to use Trident as a precedent for doing our own or using US supply, we'd have to assume we could do our own warheads. If not, there's no equivalence between the two cases.

As for leasing warheads, I'm far from an expert on strategic defences but as I understand what little government's are prepared to say, we have operational control of ou tridents. Long-term support might rely on the US, but that was why I said GPS could be turned down, or off, more or less instantly. As I understand it, that's not the case with Trident. Therefore, again, a marked lack of equivalence.

The fact that we, arguably, can't do Trident without the US doesn't imply we shouldn't do GPS, if we can do it.


Note: There's some Devil's Advocate in these points. Don't take this as what I think we should do, in either case. I carefully tried to imply neither support nor opposition, merely to make the points.

[chj]

"The UK previously invested heavily in Galileo and as an EU member pushed for it to not be open to third party military use"

The latter part of that is a detail I hadn't been aware of before. Makes more sense why the go-it-alone approach had been pursued now; it never made sense to me before.

I wasn't aware of that point either. If I wasn't living on this damn island I'd find it funny.