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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:33AM (#41512489)

    Most computers and computer components sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China now. Just wanted to let you know, Mr. President, in case you missed it.

    I know, I know "free market" and all that, sir. But is it really a free market if the country doing all the manufacturing isn't free?

    • by war4peace (1628283) on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:36AM (#41512521)

      Then use your in-house built electronics. Ah, too expensive? Well, tough shit, pay up or... what, no money? Maybe because of a debt that measures in trillions? Oh well, ask the Chinese for a big loan. Oh wait... :)

      • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:39AM (#41512539)

        Debt for our nation is a good thing, within reason. Also the Chinese do not own most of our debt, they own only a decent percentage of foreign debt. When the USA can borrow money for negative interest, which is basically what is happening now, it should. We should use that money for investing in our nation and pay it back in better times.

        Having no debt is bad for our nation, we then have no ability to influence interest rates.

        • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:49AM (#41512641)

          We should use that money for investing in our nation and pay it back in better times.

          It makes sense to borrow money at low (or negative) interest rates to invest in infrastructure, education, etc., because those investments will lead to higher growth in the future. But that is not what we are doing. We are borrowing money to put off dealing with entitlement reform. Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption, and is not an investment in future growth. Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

          • Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption, and is not an investment in future growth

            Agreed.

            Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

            So let's cut them off and let them die while we take care of our debt issues. If any of them survive until our finances are in order, *then* we can take attend them. That's what civilized people do, don't you know - cast out their old and infirm, their non-contributors.

            ~

            • by MightyYar (622222)

              So let's cut them off and let them die while we take care of our debt issues

              That's not the only choice. You could cut some of them off - like the ones who don't absolutely need it. You could set up neutral panels of doctors to review end-of-life spending decisions (death panels, if you prefer). The entire point is that we can't "take care of our debt issues" without tackling entitlement spending.

          • by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday October 01, 2012 @10:03AM (#41512807) Homepage Journal

            We are borrowing money to put off dealing with entitlement reform. Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption

            I've been paying SS and Medicare taxes for 45 years. I fucking paid for it. Congress kept borrowing from the money we PAID. Yes, we ARE entitled to that SS amd medicare. Are you entitled to the food you bought and paid for? Are you entitled to the money you put in the bank? Yes, you are, and if you fuck with my retirement income, good luck getting reelected, kid.

            BTW, fuck everyone who is against my getting what I PAID FOR. Goddamned thieves...

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              You paid it in and you (and your generation) elected politicians who squandered it. Your generation delivered the current economic problems to my generation and now you expect US to clean up YOUR mess. YOUR generation destroyed the SS and Medicare system. YOU should have been more responsible.

              • by paiute (550198) on Monday October 01, 2012 @10:45AM (#41513235)

                You paid it in and you (and your generation) elected politicians who squandered it. Your generation delivered the current economic problems to my generation and now you expect US to clean up YOUR mess. YOUR generation destroyed the SS and Medicare system. YOU should have been more responsible.

                I just wanted to point out that there are no such things as "generations". That term is used by media as a filler because they don't have the time or inclination to be more subtle in their analyses. It isn't like humans give birth every 20 years en masse. The distribution of birth dates in the population follows a nice epidemiological curve.

                • by Bengie (1121981)
                  So "baby boomers" aren't real? Ohh thank God, I thought there was a "generation" with lots of extra births.

                  Even though you won't find "generations" based on birth dates, you will find people with-in a given age range, will have some common pop-culture commonality. They tend to define their child-hoods fairly similarly.
            • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday October 01, 2012 @10:41AM (#41513207)

              I fucking paid for it.

              No, what you did was pretend to pay for it. Your generation tallied up the money that they paid in. They called this tally a "trust fund". Then they took the money and spent it on the general fund. Your parents' generation was complicit in this, and they are the ones who benefited from the scam.

              We 30-somethings all want to know why you didn't burn these politicians at the stake in the 1980s when they set up this system. Our kids will want to know why my generation let Bush and Obama do the same thing to them.

              Calling you children's generation "thieves" will not make them more sympathetic to you saddling them with trillions in debt.

              • 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.
                • by MightyYar (622222)

                  They didn't "take the money and spend it on the general fund."

                  You are right, it was worse than that. They spent the money AND put the next generation in debt.

                  Should a trust fund just pile up its money and let it sit there, losing more and more value to inflation every year?

                  Yes, this is the argument that you all fell for. First of all, you should have questioned why Social Security needed a "trust fund" in the first place, after running so long without one. Second, there are some really good investments if the argument is persuasive enough:
                  - A mix of commodities. Hell, even just straight gold. Inflation proof and government proof.
                  - Annuities. Buy guaranteed payments for a fixed pric

              • by mcgrew (92797) *

                It's noy my parents and children who are thieves, it's the politicians.

            • Goddamned thieves...

              As the first responder said, 'thieves' that YOU (collectively) voted for and reelected time after time, despite knowing better. The fraud is staring us in the face, and we continue to enable it to this day. I'm in the same boat and will have to work until I'm dead dead dead, but I recognize who screwed up, and I really can't sympathize or feel sorry for myself.

            • by DarkOx (621550)

              Check your math, it is most certainly an entitlement.

              Based on current life expectancies and medical cost structures odds you only paid in a tiny fraction of what you will take out, even if you consider the time value of money.

            • by gorzek (647352)

              Every reform proposal I've seen thus far comes with a caveat that it won't affect anyone already receiving benefits, and usually not anyone over 55, so if you are close to retirement (or already retired), you don't have anything to worry about as far as your benefits being slashed.

              That said, the system will not be solvent for future beneficiaries, so we have to do something about that.

              • by mcgrew (92797) *

                It's not my SS I'm worried about, it's yours. We have SS because when my grandparents were young, old people starved.

          • by beelsebob (529313) on Monday October 01, 2012 @10:36AM (#41513159)

            Spending money on pensions and healthcare for 80 year olds is pure consumption, and is not an investment in future growth. Pensions and healthcare for retirees are important, but funding them with borrowed money is insane.

            On the contrary...
            Scenario 1: I, at 30, know that at 80 I will have to pay a bunch of extremely expensive medical bills out of my own pocket. The result – I squirrel my money away, and do nothing with it, because I know I'll be fucked later if I don't.
            Scenario 2: I, at 30, know that at 80 I will have no such problems, and that the government will provide me with medical care at a significantly lower cost than if I'd had to pay it myself. The result – I put my money straight into the economy now by buying all kinds of shiny stuff, hence driving the economy.

            You might say that the money I save gets worked by the banks I save with, but ultimately it works much less hard than the money I spend. You might also say that the money I pay in tax towards such a scheme would also be squirrelled away and hence not used for bolstering the economy, but that misses two critical things - 1) that it's much less money than I would be putting away myself as the healthcare is much cheaper this way 2) it's being paid for out of the negative interest, not my tax anyway.

            Conclusion: investing in health care for the over 80 (or in fact socialised health care for everyone) is an excellent plan!

            Aside – socialised health care for everyone would result in an even bigger boost to economic output, as it would make sure that as many as possible people were fit and healthy, ready to go and work, earn money, and spend it again.

            • I've made that particular healthcare argument more times than I can count, and because it is so sensible in terms of its cause, effect, and goals, you can only get responses that take issue with the very idea of government involvement in healthcare:

              * "It's wrong for my neighbor to reach into my pocket to pay for what he can't afford." This is the libertarian argument, which is impossible to argue with because it comes from a fundamentally different view of government's purpose.
              * "Let's get the government out of the healthcare business and let the free market sort it out." This is the conservative argument, which is naive at best and malevolent at worst. The "free market" is concerned with rent-seeking, not ensuring a healthy, productive workforce. Such policies have been proven over and over not to work, but conservatives keep pushing them because, I guess, enough people are gullible enough to buy them.
              * Insert random argument about how socialized healthcare makes people lazy, dependent, etc. etc. etc.

              Those who oppose a single-payer/socialized system in the US never seem to have an explanation for why healthcare is so much more expensive here, in our "free market" system, than in more socialized (e.g. European) systems. When confronted with this, their solution, puzzlingly enough, is to embrace even more "free market" policies to "bring costs down." It makes absolutely no sense.

            • by MooseTick (895855)

              The problem with this view is it is unrealistic. Yes, some peolple would realize this and react as you suggest. Most people though, will not save even if they know there will be no one there to bail them out and will end up at 80 with nothing anyway. Social security alone is not a great retirement, yet tons of people squirrel $0 away.

            • by dywolf (2673597)

              And where does the money the Gov uses to pay for your really-expensive-over-80-medical-care come from?

              And no its not cheaper just cause the gov pays for it. Cost is cost, regardless. The gov may pay less due to rules it writes itself, or other things, but a Dollar Steak is a Dollar Steak even if I pass a law stating no one can charge more than $0.50 for it.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Except that the payments in have been raided for entitlement programs for the "wealth creators" by giving them a tax break that wasn't paid for.

          • Social security is still cash positive right now... WE (not the 1%) pay that tax out of our paychecks. The govt has borrowed $2-3 Trillion from that fund.

            Health care is a big line item that comes from the general fund. Only a small portion is cornered by the 1.75% payroll tax. Of course, they conveniently omit that we could bump up that specific tax.. If you could convince folks it would go to the correct purpose.

            So aside from those items, most Federal money goes to employees or CONTRACTORS... Often at non

        • by FirstNoel (113932)

          When you have a small loan, the bank owns you. When you have a large loan, you own the bank. ( more or less )

          • Until shit hits the fan. Which is going to happen sometime during YOUR lifetime.

            • by h4rr4r (612664)

              Then it does not matter at all.
              If you really think the SHTF will occur, then we might as well rack up as much debt as possible now, then pay it off with printed currency.

              • When shit hits the fan, all currency will be useless. Look up hyperinflation, friend.
                This mindset is exactly what leads to shit hitting the fan. Better stockpile water and canned food starting now.

                • by h4rr4r (612664)

                  Look up hyperinflation yourself. All currency is not useless just that one experiencing hyperinflation. In Zimbabwe for example, they are now using the Rand after their own currency experienced hyperinflation.

                  You sound like the Y2K nutters.

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          Having no debt is bad for our nation, we then have no ability to influence interest rates.

          It's one thing to sell a 30-year bond and then build a bridge with it that is expected to last at least as long.

          It's another thing to use that bond to make payroll.

          • Stop it.

            70% of the US debt is internal to the United States.

            China only owns 7% of the total US debt.

            • by MightyYar (622222)

              So what? Granted that is strategically better from an international relations point of view - but I don't see how that makes using debt to pay for recurrent expenses a good thing.

        • Seriously? You're all concerned about the security issues of this situation? Did nobody read the original AP article written by Julie Pace? She handed Democrat voters a BOMBSHELL...and everyone is talking about debt.

          From the Original AP article written by Julie Pace (and the REAL meat of the article):

          "Huawei, one of the world's largest producers of computer network switching gear, has repeatedly struggled to convince U.S. authorities that they can be trusted to oversee sensitive technology sometimes used in

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:52AM (#41512679) Journal

      I know, I know "free market" and all that, sir. But is it really a free market if the country doing all the manufacturing isn't free?

      Inconveniently, you can run something that looks remarkably like a free market economy while still executing inconvenient dissidents(the fantastic thing about dissidents is how often they are students, intellectuals, and other economically near-irrelevant bit players...) In fact, certain flavors of authoritarianism might actually make that easier: If the political process is free enough that it is viable and cost-effective to attempt to convert money into political influence(Americans should be readily familiar with this situation), there is a strong likelihood that either the private sector incumbents will gradually overrun the state and use it to suppress the aspects of the free market that are bad for margins(such as 'competition' and 'low barriers to entry') or public sector incumbents will gradually overrun the private sector in an attempt to suppress potential threats and ensure that the oligarchs of the private sector are in line with the strongmen of the public sector(the most notable case of this is probably Russia, where virtually anyone with a net worth worth talking about is either kissing Putin's ass, in prison on dubious tax charges, or hanging out in London).

      If political authoritarianism is sufficiently ossified, such that money cannot be used to easily buy power, a certain dente comes to exist between the two sectors: because it is authoritarianism, the private sector will be coopted to some degree for state ends(espionage, vaguely mercantilist development/employment policies, enforcement of media blackouts and censorship; but because wealth is not easily transferrable to power, the state apparatus has an incentive to smile on anybody who is content to make money and keep his nose out of politics.

      You can't have a command economy and a free market economy; but other flavors of unfreedom are substantially less incompatible...

      • by polar red (215081)

        You can't have a free market economy

        PERIOD
        It's a physical impossibility. because some of the assumptions in economic theory require an infinitely big economic space.

    • by Svartalf (2997)

      Not all of them are that way. As an observation any DoD gear tends to not have ROC parts in the device- it's kind of a requirement even now.

      Just in case you missed it...

      • by GigsVT (208848)

        Consider how many "US company" parts are actually counterfeit chinese parts, I'd say there's probably no device without Chinese parts in it.

        A recent audit of military jets showed a huge percentage of the parts were Chinese counterfeit.

        • by Phelan (30485)

          Those were replacement parts purchased on contract. Some small business probably got the contract for replacement parts and decided to cut corners

          For items that absolutely need to be TAA compliant a lot of auditing is done. Especially with products that require that all handling is done on a NOFORN basis. If one of the units we manufacture and market under these regulations would be found to have a ROC sourced component it would be good night sweetheart for us.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        Why not ROC parts?
        I would think those would be no worse than any other foreign parts. The PRC is who we should be avoiding for parts.

      • by Gryle (933382)
        Heck, anything military personnel are issued, in terms of clothing, has to be manufactured in the USA. That's why military personnel buy their own running shoes instead of having them issued. As only New Balance makes their running shoes in the USA anymore, issuing sneakers would effectively give a no-bid contract to New Balance.*

        *Source: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/127204-maine-sneaker-maker-could-provide-military-footwea/ [thephoenix.com]
    • by beelsebob (529313)

      The security concern here is very simple... The naval base will have a fancy radar installation, a bunch of giant rotating blades will make it give fubar results in one direction.

    • by tgd (2822)

      Most computers and computer components sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China now. Just wanted to let you know, Mr. President, in case you missed it.

      I know, I know "free market" and all that, sir. But is it really a free market if the country doing all the manufacturing isn't free?

      Yes, I'm sure you're privy to all sorts of information the President of the United States isn't aware of.

      • by crazyjj (2598719) *

        Yes, I'm sure you're privy to all sorts of information the President of the United States isn't aware of.

        Damn straight. You think anyone ever told HIM how to write a decent method in C#?

        • Actually, he's automated the entire White House with a bunch of Arduinos, five Raspberry Pis, and programmed the whole thing on a custom port of Visual Studio onto Slackware.

          Fucker can code.

    • by 0xdeadbeef (28836)

      Just wanted to let you know, Mr. President, in case you missed it.

      Dude, you better fly out there, right now, and go to the Oval Office and demand to speak to the President. And don't let the rent-a-cops with the sunglasses and hearing aids stop you, national security is at stake, AND THE PRESIDENT NEEDS THIS INFORMATION WHICH ONLY YOU CAN PROVIDE!

    • Must've clicked on the "Protect national security with this weird old trick" banner ad.
    • by dywolf (2673597)

      Wind turbine pylons make good, discreet antennaes (or housings for them). A farm of them is even better. Grab all the signals emitted by the EA-18's in the area. Analyze. Plot the spectrum and the variations...

      ECM is an ever changing game. The codes, frequencies, spectrum, wattage, every single specification, all classed Secret for that reason. Updates are issued frequently (not as often as the once a day nuke codes, but still).

      I can see there being concern about someone getting a leg up on the ECM game.

  • 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.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday October 01, 2012 @10:01AM (#41512781) Journal

      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.

      It wouldn't entirely surprise me if somebody looked at the 'Red Chinese wish to place a field of antenna-shaped objects with wind turbines on top next to an ECM test site' concept and turned a slightly funny color, as well.

      • "Red Chinese" is kind of a silly term to use these days. When I was a kid, that was how you differentiated the Communist government on the mainland (which we didn't recognize) from the Nationalist Chinese government on Taiwan (which we no longer recognize but still support militarily!). And although, technically, the mainlanders are still comies and still at war with the Taiwanese, the reality is that the Chinese Communist Party is the biggest capitalist entity on the planet, And they got there, in part, by

  • by concealment (2447304) on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:48AM (#41512623) Homepage Journal

    The fact is that you can't have three big dogs in the same room, and not have each one want to be the top dog. USA, China and Russia are going to duke it out for who's top dog.

    That being said, it's foolish that we allow so many Chinese firms to make vital parts of our infrastructure. The solution there won't be as easy as invoking a little-known law.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        Actually, Russia's fertility rate has picked up steam in the last decade, and if the trend continues, the country is not in danger from "white death".

        Other than that, I fully agree with your post.

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

        That is two big dogs and a chihuahua.

        More like one giant cybernetically-enhanced genetically-modified killer dog, a litter of puppies, and an old dog with liver problems.

        The US is the biggest dog on the planet, despite what you'll see on sites and shows that want to scare you to make money.

      • by DarkOx (621550)

        I don't buy your argument. India is full of smart people but they have such a huge infrastructure deficit coupled with such a large population I don't seem them every being competitive. You could say the same thing about China but compared to India their major economic centers are well equipped, there are two Chinas urban China and everywhere else. India pretty much a mess everywhere you go save a couple bright spots.

        India being a more open society does not have the option of just sitting by and letting

      • 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. 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.

        It's all true, but the country still hasn't squandered all its old gains from Soviet times, and it certainly has potential to get back there with the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) people in power.

        For a ready example of how this works, remember the rise of Nazi Germany back in the day. A country coming from economic ruin without an army to an industrial powerhouse and the strongest military in Europe in, what, about a decade?

    • Shows how little you know about the modern world that you think Russia is even in the running.
      Autralia or Canada are closer to being a top dog than Russia.

      • by jkflying (2190798)

        Do you have any idea how few people live in those two countries?
        Australia: 22 million
        Canada: 34 million

        Let's compare that to:
        Russia: 141 million
        Brazil: 196 million
        USA: 310 million
        India: 1241 million
        China: 1344 million

        Just by drafting 1 person per 100, china could have an army of over 13 million people, more than half the population of Australia.

        • I never said there was anywhere near the top, just way ahead of Russia.

          And population is not everything, Germany never had that huge of a population when you consider how close they came to world domination.

  • by Errol backfiring (1280012) on Monday October 01, 2012 @09:57AM (#41512737) Journal
    USA elects Don Quixote for president!
  • What's the legal framework for this, exactly?

    AFAIK, the laws of buying and selling and property registration (land for the wind farm) are all state laws, none federal.

    Or are they bringing this under interstate commerce?

    Anyway, isn't this banned under WTO regs? Don't you have to give international companies the same treatment as national companies? Sounds like the kind of thing the US Trade Representative would complain about if China were to ban a US company's investment for nebulous "national security" rea

    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday October 01, 2012 @10:14AM (#41512895) Homepage Journal

      A US company wouldn't be permitted to put up a wind farm in China at all, they would have to do it by partnering with a Chinese corporation which would build and actually own it.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      From Section. 8. [archives.gov]

      "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence" and later on "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations". This is clearly both.The president is complying with an enacted law providing for the common defense by attemption to prevent a foreign nation from putting an ECM suite next to a test range, which is also a law which regulates commerce with foreign nations.

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      The legal framework is in the fucking constitution. Try reading it before suggesting it forbids it.

      To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

  • 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.

  • WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's bad enough that foreign interests have taken up much of our manufacturing capability, but we certainly don't need them buying up our power generation capability. Every country should produce its own power. That's a mater of national security.
    • by polar red (215081)

      Every country should produce its own power. That's a mater of national security.

      that includes oil, right? Maybe you should try closing the borders, and see what happens.

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Monday October 01, 2012 @10:11AM (#41512865)

    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.

    Surely he's just tilting at windmills.

  • 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).

  • They're packed to the rafters with technology stuff from China.

    And I guess most US households are, as well.

    Although, back in the 80's, when Japan bashing was all the rage, I don't remember that the US ever accused Japan of military spying. Just good old industrial spying, which every county in the world does, more or less.

    • by Chuckstar (799005) on Monday October 01, 2012 @12:30PM (#41514439)

      We weren't worried about Japanese military spying in the 80s because the Japanese had a tiny military, a pacifist constitution and, perhaps most importantly, seemed to have no interest in rebuilding military power.

      China has a huge military, is overtly increasing its capabilities and has obvious aspirations to regional military hegemony.

  • Why pretend we have a free global market? This goes for all countries. They all sit around signing global free trade and open investment, but it is clear no country is really willing to deal with true global free trade. They're not willing to pay the true price of it.

    Is there a soul on this planet who actually thinks Obama is concerned with national security in terms of this Wind Farm?

    Let's not even get into Buy America, Stimulus packages...

    Just don't sign free-trade deals if you really don't want free tr

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang

Working...