Really interesting write up, thanks! What would the effects be on aviation?
Really interesting write up, thanks! What would the effects be on aviation?
Commercial planes would probably get lost a little bit more often?? Â (The original incident that motivated the USA to opening up GPS for civilian use was in 1983 when "Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was shot down when it mistakenly entered Soviet airspace".) Â But it's not like planes NEED GPS in order to find their way -- commercial aviation is (rightfully) obsessive about safety and redundancy, so planes have lots of ways to stay oriented (even in storms / at night / etc), including:
- Inertial navigation systems: per claude, "Every airliner carries ring-laser-gyro or fiber-optic inertial platforms that track position by integrating acceleration from a known starting point. They need no external signal at all. They drift â on the order of a couple nautical miles per hour of unaided flight â but modern aircraft run multiple IRUs and blend them, and over a typical flight the drift is manageable and bounded by periodic updates."
- A variety of old-school navigation systems that the FAA specifically requires be kept in place precisely as a GPS backup, including for instance "VOR" beacons which are basically radio-signal landmarks scattered across america, emitting simple radio signals that planes can measure their distance & bearing to. (I assume all other developed countries also maintain similar navigation backups.)
- Ground-based flight controllers (ie the people who hang out in those airport control towers) have access to radar systems and thus can see exactly where all the planes are, and help guide planes even if the planes themselves get confused about their position.
You might think "sure, there are backups, but mightn't you still end up with overloaded systems if everyone suddenly has to switch to using unfamiliar backups?" Â But it must be the case that aviation is (like the finance industry which has resilient backups for all their precision-timing needs) sufficiently paranoid that their backup systems are actually up to the task of smoothly taking over -- the UK study looked at aviation but considered that the consequences of a 7-day outage would be negligible. Â Overally, the situation might be a little bit like the situation with the power grid -- the power grid doesn't need GPS for any of its normal functioning, but GPS timing information is an important tool for debugging / monitoring / maintaining the power grid, so the system gets more fragile without it. Â The civil aviation system in theory should be almost unaffected by the loss of GPS, but in practice you've lost one layer of your multilayered swiss-cheese-defense against accidents, so accidents are going to go up slightly.
Of course, for unmanned drones (which in many cases only have GPS), a GPS outage would be disastrous.
For military rather than civilian aviation, I think the airplanes themselves would probably find their way around fine in most circumstances, but GPS-enabled weapons (like JDAM guided bombs) obviously wouldn't work, and the situation on the ground (tanks, vehicles, logistics stuff) would probably get messy in the same way that civilian ports & logistics stuff would get jammed up.
Very helpful!
Very quickly cargo ships would be queuing up for days and even weeks as ports are not able to process their containers. From this perspective, the 1 to 2 days of navigation delay due to the loss of GPS becomes insignificant because it does not matter if a ship is a day late arriving at a port if it will need to queue for a week before being unloaded.
Why would losing GPS prevent processing?
But $1.8 trillion (about $5B/day for a year) for COVID for US economy seems like a good rough estimate.
Even COVID can be considered an existential risk if it prolongs the time of perils. What's your estimate of the global economic impact over a year?
Executive summary: Losing GPS would not be an existential risk but would create a worldwide economic disaster roughly comparable in magnitude to the Covid-19 pandemic, most plausibly triggered by great-power war, AI cyberattacks, or (less likely as a permanent threat) a solar storm.
Key points:
Â
Â
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Losing GPS isnât an X-risk, but would create a huge disaster on the scale of Covid-19 or bigger.
Hi! From 2020 - 2023 I was one of the early employees at Xona Space Systems, a company working on essentially a next-generation version of GPS. I ended up learning a lot about how GPS works and what itâs used for, and (due to my personal interest in effective altruism) ended up doing some research into what would happen if todayâs GPS systems suddenly failed. This post is the product of that research. I discuss:
This post got too long, so I split it in half. If people like this one, then I hope to finish up a second post wherein Iâll discuss:

The Global Positioning System is a constellation of about thirty large space satellites created by the United States Air Force in the 1980s. These satellites provide very accurate position, navigation, and timing (PNT) information to anyone with a GPS receiver. It does this by broadcasting super-accurate timing signals -- each satellite has no less than four atomic clocks on board -- which your GPS radio receiver can use to triangulate your position. For much more on the technical details, check out this unbelievably well-made and interactive explainer website (which is now part of the onboarding experience for all new hires at Xona!)

GPS was originally created for its military utility, which weâll talk more about later. But itâs most notable today for its usefulness throughout many areas of civilian life. Beyond enabling countless everyday smartphone apps like google maps, uber, etc, itâs also crucial for all sorts of transportation and logistics tasks, construction, shipping, precision agriculture, etc. Basically any industry where lots of physical stuff moves around, is an intensive user of GPS. Plus, unexpectedly, the cellphone network and power grid are also significantly dependent on the super-accurate timing signals from GPS!
Overall, GPS is a pretty big deal -- the detailed NIST study described here assessed that, in 2017, GPS was directly contributing about 1.5% of US GDP compared to an alternative scenario where GPS was never created and everybody had to get their positioning/timing information some other way. The world economy is getting more GPS-intensive all the time; Claude thinks that the most reasonable way of extrapolating the data in that report would give a figure of about 2% - 3% of GDP in 2026.
And thatâs âcounterfactual value contributed by GPS versus a world where we never built itâ -- by contrast, the value that would be destroyed by suddenly losing GPS in real life would be significantly larger. This UK study tries to look at how bad a GPS disruption would be, and (once you translate all the results to account for the fact that the UKâs economy is much smaller than the USAâs) it foresees an economic impact from suddenly losing GPS thatâs perhaps 5x - 10x bigger than NISTâs reckoning of the counterfactual benefits of the system. So that all adds up to maybe, like, an impact equivalent to 15% of the GDP of all rich-world countries? Maybe more?? Seems bad!
So far Iâve just been saying âGPSâ. But, because of the importance of GPS for both military and civilian life, any superpower worth its salt wants to have its own satellite-navigation constellation (âGNSS constellationâ) under its sovereign control. The original US system is called GPS; Russiaâs system is called Glonass; Europeâs is Galileo, Chinaâs is Beidou. Japan and India also have partial satellite-navigation systems, each consisting of around seven satellites that enhance the accuracy of satellite navigation signals over Japan and India respectively. But in this post Iâll just talk about GPS, because:
My former employer, Xona Space Systems, has an IMO innovative and credible plan for a kind of next-gen GPS system that would be different in many ways from traditional GPS -- stronger signals, higher precision, more satellites, lower orbits, with each individual satellite much smaller and cheaper than traditional GPS sats (somewhat like a Starlink or OneWeb constellation, but for navigation). Such a system, and the fact that itâs being developed by a private company trying to turn a profit rather than a superpower military seeking battlefield advantage, means that Xonaâs system will have some unique properties compared to traditional GPS constellations. But Xonaâs constellation doesnât actually exist yet, so weâll mostly ignore it for now -- Iâll talk more about it in the section on potential risk-mitigation steps in Part 2 of this essay.
There are lots of *local* threats to GPS -- for example, Russia and Ukraine do extensive electronic warfare that jams GPS signals throughout much of eastern Ukraine. More mundanely, occasionally stuff will happen like the time some trucker installed an overpowered GPS jammer in his truck to block the GPS tracking devices put in the truck by his employer, and the trucker accidentally shut down the entire port of Newark when the jammer started interfering with harbor operations. GPS signals are easily jammable because they are very weak. (Theyâre actually *quieter* than the ambient background radio noise on earthâs surface, which seems like it ought to make the signals literally impossible to detect! But itâs barely doable using some fancy math / radio magic, explained in the later parts of that aforementioned interactive website). Itâs also possible to âspoofâ GPS signals, broadcasting a fake signal that can be used to steer unsuspecting drones, planes, and ships off course (or to cheat at Pokemon Go). [1] But these are all local issues, certainly not civilization-threatening.
Also, sometimes individual GPS satellites fail (for normal âaerospace engineering is hardâ reasons) and need to be replaced. But the GPS system is designed with redundancy in mind, and could even survive the failure of several satellites at once.
But how could the entire GPS system could be brought down? There seem to be three main possibilities:
As I describe later on, GPS was originally created by the Air Force because it has a variety of incredibly valuable military applications. If youâre a superpower and you want to launch a big surprise attack on another superpower, disabling their GPS satellites would be an aggressive but potentially appealing move to include in your opening strikes.
The most obvious way to destroy a GPS constellation would be to launch precision anti-satellite missiles capable of reaching all the way up to Medium-Earth Orbit (MEO, about 20,000 kilometers above the earthâs surface) where such satellites live. This requires bigger missiles than are needed for taking out Low-Earth-Orbit spy satellites (which orbit below 500 kilometers), but is perfectly within the capabilities of both the USA and China. Todayâs GPS satellites do not really have defenses against any kind of physical attack, nor could they likely maneuver quickly enough to dodge such a missile.
As an alternative to missiles, you could launch your own satellites that could maneuver alongside GPS satellites and sabotage them in various ways. This has various pros and cons versus missiles:
China, the USA, and Russia do all sorts of cloak-and-dagger shenanigans with co-orbiting satellites all the time, so this kind of thing is definitely an existing technology.
Perhaps the least-destructive and least-aggro option would be to launch your own satellites capable of simply blaring out radio noise on GPS frequencies, jamming GPS indefinitely on a continental or potentially worldwide scale. Russia apparently already has this capability; perhaps China and the US do as well. Of course, if you started doing this, other superpowers might then try to shoot down your jamming-satellites using missiles, but that would be a big escalation.
Fortunately, all these methods of attack are limited to countries with advanced space & missile programs, so it is not like any random tiny rogue nation can threaten to destroy GPS.
People sometimes worry about whether itâs possible to hack GPS and disable the satellites. The usual response to this is something like âCyberattack is always possible in principle, but GPS is a hardened military system resistant to intrusion, thus would require great resources that perhaps only the strongest cyber powers possess, and maybe not even then.â But nowadays with Claude Mythos discovering troves of zero-day exploits in countless pieces of critical software, this scenario has probably become more relevant! This method has some unique aspects compared to the more kinetic approaches described above:
Although satellite navigation systems pride themselves on their extremely high uptime and reliability, there have been a variety of mundane bugs and screwups over the years resulting in things like the wrong timing data being sent from GPS for a few hours, or even a weeklong outage in Europeâs Galileo constellation in 2019. So, it is certainly not inconceivable that GPS could be at least temporarily disabled by sophisticated hacking. One hopes that Project-Glasswing-style AI cyberdefense initiatives will be able to stay ahead of any such hacking attempts.
Solar storms produce a lot of radiation that can fry satellites. Fortunately, navigation satellites are already extremely radiation-hardened, far beyond whatâs required for most satellites, for two reasons:
Probably the only satellites more rad-hardened than GPS are deep-space NASA missions to Jupiter, like Juno and Europa Clipper. Consequently, per this RAND report, although radio interference from a Carrington-scale solar-storm would likely render GNSS temporarily inoperable for several days, they lean against the idea that it could permanently disable GPS satellites? The report says that âan unpublished but publicly disclosed FEMA report from 2010âMitigation Strategies for FEMA Command, Control, and Communications During and After a Solar Superstormâfound that, in such an event, there was a âpossibleâ loss of enough GPS satellites to reduce the constellation below the 24 usually required, a less-dramatic and less-consequential failure (Emerson, 2017).â That doesnât sound too bad, IMO -- sounds more like degraded, less-accurate-than-usual, occasionally-patchy capacity rather than the whole system being destroyed.
This EU study seems to concur; they say that the direct effects on ground-based electrical infrastructure from a Carrington Event would be far worse than the effects on satellite infrastructure, such that itâs basically not worth bothering to put effort into solar-storm mitigation for satellites while thereâs still so much important work to do on the ground. (And, to reiterate, MEO GPS constellations are more resilient to solar storms compared to all other satellite infrastructure.)
But everyone just anchors on the Carrington event! I wondered: is this a mistake? Are people neglecting the possibility of outlier mega-storms that might be, say, 10x stronger than Carrington, even if theyâre 10x less likely? Turns out, not really! Solar storms can get somewhat worse than Carrington, although more powerful storms become exponentially rarer. Per this paper, a storm as bad as the Carrington event or worse has about a once-in-100-years probability, while an event 2x as powerful as Carrington or worse has about once-in-500 years probability, so thatâs 2x more powerful but 5x less likely. More importantly, solar storms from stars like our Sun are thought to top out at about 4x as powerful as Carrington -- so there isnât some long tail of increasingly-powerful but decreasingly-likely storms. 4x as bad as Carrington is simply as bad as it gets (and these are incredibly rare).
This section is based on summary of two helpful and extensive resources:
The UK study paints a good picture of all the short-term chaos, but not which things would recover versus which would stay broken (or get worse) as an outage dragged on past the seven-day window. The NIST study repeatedly uses the idea of a 30-day outage as a thought experiment, but only in service of their overall goal of estimating counterfactual financial benefits to the private sector. This results in some big discrepancies â the UK report states that the worst impacts would be from gnarled traffic gridlocking major cities and degradation of emergency services, while the NIST report only briefly considers those same issues and doesnât incorporate them into their overall estimates, instead acknowledging that their numbers are a conservative estimate. Still, by putting the two reports together, a general vision of the potential disaster emerges.
In summary: people's phones would basically turn to bricks -- not just in that Google Maps would stop working, but the actual entire cell network would collapse over a few days. Logistics/deliveries of all kinds (amazon, the postal service, rideshare services, et cetera) would get insanely backed up and stop working, shipping in major ports would similarly grind to a halt, and there would be mild but widespread economic pain in other industries. Traffic chaos would snarl the roads of most cities, at least initially. In the future, the performance of self-driving cars and other autonomous systems would be much degraded, or perhaps stop working altogether.
On the bright side, the power grid would become more fragile but probably not actually collapse. Agriculture would be somewhat impaired but would basically still be able to get the job of growing food done.
Losing GPS sounds pretty bad, but how bad would it be exactly? The best way to compare the risk of GNSS failure to other kinds of disruption is to make an overall estimate of the total economic costs. Fortunately, our two studies do just that. Unfortunately, they disagree significantly.
Why the discrepancy between the NIST reportâs 1 billion versus the UK reportâs implied ~10 billion?

Â

Overall, Iâm tempted to think that a true picture of the cost of permanently losing GPS would look worse than either report suggests -- itâs certainly reasonable to expect emergency services to drop 3% of their calls like the UK report models, but in a longer-than-seven-days scenario it seems crazy to ignore the fact that agriculture and the cell network would be seriously impaired.
To bring that estimate five years forward into 2026, we have to wonder if the economyâs âGPS-intensivenessâ has doubled yet again, just like it did in the years 2017 - 2021 (per the UK report), or in the years from 2014 - 2017, or the years 2010 - 2013 (per NIST). Seems plausible that it might have! So that would maybe be like $4B - $10B per day for the US economy in 2026? And the further into the future you imagine losing GPS, probably the worse it gets, since the world economy will continue to get more GPS-intensive via more use of technologies like drones, autonomous vehicles, precision farming, cellphone networks, et cetera.
As a rough guess, it looks like Covid-19 cost the United States at least 5 billion per day in the year from March 2020 to March 2021:Â
Of course, the details of losing GPS would look nothing like the details of the covid-19 pandemic. Instead of roads in major cities lying eerily empty, theyâd be paralyzed by gridlock. Instead of relying on computer technology (zoom calls, etc) to adapt to changing circumstances, it would be the unexpected failure of a ton of computer technology that causes constant problems. And while Covid-19 was a fairly even mix of economic and health damage, the loss of GPS services would be a more purely economic hit. (Although the frustration and anger of millions of people lost at confusing intersections and stuck in traffic on snarled roads and unable to get their packages delivered, certainly might rival the difficulties of social isolation and business/school closures of the covid era.)
Like Covid, the loss of GPS would be a worldwide disaster, not something specific to the United States (although perhaps especially intense in rich countries generally, which I expect are the most GPS-intensive economies).
Naturally, outage length would depend on the nature of what killed GPS:
Keep in mind that GPS likely wouldn't be going down in isolation â it would probably collapse as part of a larger crisis, either a great-power war, an exceptionally powerful solar flare (which would destroy many other satellites as well, and damage electrical grids on the ground), or perhaps a wave of AI-assisted cyberattacks. So the negative impacts of suddenly losing GPS â a shock to supply chains and the routines of daily life roughly comparable in magnitude to the covid-19 pandemic â would be overlaid on top of the unrelated effects of the larger crisis. For example, the fact that the electrical grid has now become harder to monitor / debug / repair thanks to the loss of precision GPS timing information, might not play well with the fact that your adversary (whether China, AI, or The Sun) is at that very moment probably doing everything they can to sabotage and destroy your electrical grid.
* * *
Okay, thanks for reading! If you liked this post, let me know, and stay tuned for part 2, covering GPSâs military utility and some of the ways that civilization could try to obtain more robust, resilient access to positioning and timing services. You can sign up for my substack, Nuka Zaria, if you want to be notified when I publish it!
Xonaâs proposed navigation system, with stronger signals and various encryption/verification mechanisms, would help address these local issues somewhat; there are also other solutions that generally involve using backup, non-satellite-based navigation systems.
A few comments, some of which you may be intending to cover in updates
Interested to see the followup
Similarly, people working with navigation systems prone to spoofed location results (maritime navigation) have to find workarounds
though electronic warfare can affect neutral neighbours and overflying aircraft too...
current generation GNSS satellites are in fairly empty medium earth orbits and can be disabled without kinetic weapons, but this doesn't rule out collateral damage and likely won't be the case for future GNSS (in part because they want more redundancy even though the system(s) just work.
Definitely agree that shooting down GPS satellites (or satellites of any kind, really) is a really agressive move that would make all countries super mad at you, thus probably only happens in a pretty serious "all or nothing" great-power conflict!Â
 I'll try to talk more about the military dynamics around GPS in my later post, although I'm not an expert.  My impression is that although militaries do indeed have lots of backup systems, none of them is perfect and some systems (like many existing drones and guided bombs) do rely exclusively on GPS, so losing GPS would still be a big problem even though the military has done a lot of work to try and ensure that it wouldn't be a totally overwhelming catastrophe.
yeah, agree there are some military subsystems that would go down (and alternative PNT options have their own drawbacks). But it's not a particularly decisive advantage: to take the topical example if Russia took out global GNSS it wouldn't seriously harm the defensive posture of Ukranian front line troops that have been experiencing local GNSS jamming and finding alternative ways to get drones to work for years now, and would disrupt a bunch of Russian based logistics and civilian systems further from the front line nearly as much as it did to Kyiv's. So it wouldn't even significantly help them advance in Ukraine, even before the likely response from NATO and China was considered...