You guys really need to work on your comprehension skills and bias. The article is about satellites generally. GPS is just one of the technologies they mention.
e.g. "These are not experimental weapons of the future, but weapons of today, already operating from Near Earth Orbit, just 100 miles up and home of the International Space Station, to Medium Earth Orbit at 12,500 miles, where the GPS satellites fly, all the way up to 22,000 miles in Geostationary Orbit, home of the nation's most sensitive military communications and nuclear early-warning satellites. Hyten warned that adversaries will soon be able to threaten US satellites in every orbital regime."
And, to take the quote that most seem to find most objectionable: "Airline pilots would lose contact with the ground, unsure of their position and without weather data to steer around storms"
That's actually true isn't it? During a trans oceanic crossing there aren't VORs so pilots indeed would be unsure of their position, at least in some sense. What is the accuracy of INS these days? Or is there something even better?
They would lose contact with the ground, that's accurate.
They have weather in the nose, so that's more sketchy. But it is true that they would lose satellite weather and the ability to plan in advance or see around heavy buildups (that create shadows on the onboard radar)
None of this adds up to an emergency, but neither does it make the author a joke unless someone enters looking for a failure.
