Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
The Military China Technology

Obama Blocks Chinese Wind Farms In Oregon Over National Security 226

Posted by samzenpus
from the no-wind-for-you dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Reuters reports that President Barack Obama has invoked a little-used law to block a privately owned Chinese company from building wind turbines close to a Navy military site in Oregon due to national security concerns. 'There is credible evidence that leads me to believe' that Ralls Corp, Sany Group and the two Sany Group executives who own Ralls 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' said Obama in issuing his decision. The military uses the Oregon naval facility to test unmanned drones and the EA-18G 'Growler.' The electronic warfare aircraft accompanies US fighter bombers on missions and protectively jams enemy radar, destroying them with missiles along the way. At the Oregon site, the planes fly as low as 60 m and at almost 480 km/h. The administration would not say what risks the wind farm purchases presented but the Treasury Department said the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, known as CFIUS, made its recommendation to Obama after receiving an analysis of the potential threats from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The last time a president used the law to block a transaction was in 1990, when George H.W. Bush voided the sale of an aerospace company, Mamco Manufacturing, to a Chinese agency."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Blocks Chinese Wind Farms In Oregon Over National Security

Comments Filter:
  • China Conflation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:43AM (#41512573)

    Now I don't know if there is ulterior motives, but if it was an American company they would probably do the same thing. China is not the issue. The concern is that wind farms effectively create radar blind spots. There is ongoing research attempting to solve this issue. It has happened a lot with British military bases.

  • Seems plausible (Score:5, Informative)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:57AM (#41512741) Homepage Journal

    If you're testing ECM you probably don't want someone affiliated with a foreign power putting up a bunch of tall towers in the vicinity.

    Maybe it's bullshit, but it's a great excuse.

  • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Monday October 01, 2012 @10:05AM (#41512817)

    USA, China and Russia are going to duke it out for who's top dog.

    That is two big dogs and a chihuahua. Does anyone really thing Russia will ever be a "top dog" again? Russia's economy is smaller than the economy of Brazil or Italy [wikipedia.org]. Russia's population is declining, partly because of low birthrate and poor public health policies, but also because of emigration of the best and brightest.

    If a third major power emerges in the 21st century, it is more likely to be India than Russia. India already has a bigger economy, and far more upside potential. They just need the will to reform their country, get rid of the corruption and subsidies, and open up their economy. If they did that, they could grow as fast as China.

  • by phorm (591458) on Monday October 01, 2012 @11:26AM (#41513659) Journal

    There's been a lot of controversy over the attempted Chinese purchase of Nexen [theglobeandmail.com], a Canadian Petroleum company.

    There are many concerns about Chinese companies' safety records, as well as the issues of foreign ownership of companies which exploit local natural resources (oddly, Canada seems to have less issue with US ownership of said companies).

  • by Alex Zepeda (10955) on Monday October 01, 2012 @11:34AM (#41513743)

    So? Bain Capital invests in companies that employ people overseas. Lots of companies do that. Do you invest in Apple? How about Intel or AMD? Do you own an HTC phone, or a smart phone at all? Even the US Government has invests in companies that close down US plants to open them up overseas. Obama "invested" in GM. GM has closed down plants in the US to open new ones in Mexico and other places overseas. Do you think that Obama "prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America."? It's the same thing, isn't it? Well, except that Obama is using American tax dollars to do it against our will. Bain used freely invested money from investors

    The difference is that Apple's primary focus is not shipping companies overseas. The company that Bain invested in specializes in offshoring.

    But the point is that you said "their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America", which is something you can't back up because it's not true. You WANT to believe it so bad that you are actively silencing the the logic portion of your brain that is screaming, "why would Romney WANT to give American jobs to overseas workers? That doesn't make sense". It's sad when you have to lie to yourself to keep justify your beliefs.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/aug/10/illinois-workers-bain-outsourcing [guardian.co.uk]

    From the article:

    "This company is competitive globally. They make a profit here. But Bain Capital decided to squeeze it a little further. That is not what capitalism is meant to be about," said Freeport mayor George Gaulrapp, 52, pictured.

    So, yes, it seems to me that Romey prefers overseas jobs.

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Monday October 01, 2012 @12:36PM (#41514541) Homepage Journal

    Probably something to do with that big ass oil spill a few years ago. He can look like he's protecting the environment here, while simply getting the oil from elsewhere.

    And at the cost of many, many US jobs....and decimating industries in the Gulf south (LA, TX, etc)....and causing oil companies to move their rig deployment resources out of the Gulf to other countries....possibly never to come back.

    It is our waters here....give us more a choice in allowing drilling. We're just fine down here....we've recovered....seafood industry has been tested (more than any other in history) and has been just fine for years now.....the oil spill was a bit of a burp...but we're over it....but Obama is killing jobs and money coming in here in this area by not allowing new oil leases....

  • by immaterial (1520413) on Monday October 01, 2012 @01:47PM (#41515633)
    They didn't "take the money and spend it on the general fund." Should a trust fund just pile up its money and let it sit there, losing more and more value to inflation every year? Of course not; that would be idiotic. It should be invested -- but, given the importance of the security of that money, it needs to be invested very safely indeed. US treasury bonds happen to be the safest investment in the world; there is a reason people are happy to buy them up even now, when the interest rate is slightly negative (generally its slightly positive, but only slightly).

    As such, the Social Security trust fund mainly buys and holds treasury bonds rather than a giant pile of cash. But that investment is perfectly safe (again, people invest in US Treasury bonds for exactly that reason; the US always pays its debts). It also allows that money to be put to use in the mean time, rather than be essentially taken out of the economy and hoarded in an account somewhere (aren't free-market fans always touting the power of investment? I thought that's why we have to keep capital gains taxes so low!). I know it's weird to think of an entity lending money to itself, but it is a fairly normal practice.

"Plastic gun. Ingenious. More coffee, please." -- The Phantom comics

Working...