Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Blocks Chinese Wind Farms In Oregon Over National Security

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the no-wind-for-you dept.

The Military 226

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."

cancel ×

226 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obligated to point out another security concern (3, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#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?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (3, Insightful)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#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... :)

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512629)

That last bit makes no sense. If we have no debt, then other countries would still have debt to us. We would influence interest rates directly, by chosing how much interest we charge them on the loans we give them.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41512677)

We would not have to do that, if we could invest in things that would lead to higher growth. We have a political party that opposes doing so and fights it at every turn. This is of course because their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America.

Please don't forget the entitlements to the defense contractors when you offer up the solution of removing the bread from the mouths of our seniors.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (-1, Flamebait)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 years ago | (#41512787)

This is of course because their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America.

Care to explain this part? Do you really think that given the option or employing workers here or overseas, all things being equal, that Romney would choose to employ overseas workers?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | about 2 years ago | (#41512891)

All things are not equal.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513001)

You're asking h4rr4r to back up their claims? Wish I had mod points so I could mark you +1 Funny.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (-1, Flamebait)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41513147)

Their is a plural pronoun, I am singular.
Learn English, then go signup for an account.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513401)

Use of singular "they" has been acceptable for decades now. So fuck off with your failed grammatical pedantry, shithead.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41513419)

Lots of things are considered acceptable and are still wrong, like the popular beers of the USA.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about 2 years ago | (#41513469)

HAHAH!!! The American Beer suxors! w00t!

troll.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513481)

Lots of things are considered acceptable and are still wrong

[Citation needed]

like the popular beers of the USA.

Hurr.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41513129)

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about 2 years ago | (#41513599)

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.

Then, of course, there was that $2 billion loan to Brazil to drill off of their shores rather than our own. Isn't that preferring to ship jobs overseas rather than investing in jobs here in America?

The difference is that when Bain did it, it was because opening jobs overseas was the only way to save a company. When Obama did it, it was for.... Actually, I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil. Of course, like I said, Obama shipped jobs overseas with YOUR money against your will. Romney did not.

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513663)

Well said!

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (3, Informative)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

websitebroke (996163) | about 2 years ago | (#41513891)

Actually, I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil.

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41513163)

...if we could invest in things that would lead to higher growth.

What would that be? It doesn't seem to me there is a shortage of capital to invest; interest rates are absurdly low. A company can borrow money to grow almost interest-free. And the stock market is so loaded up with money that has nowhere else to go, that now we're just getting investment bubbles with little if any long-term growth. How about investing in education? There are millions of new college graduates who can't demand a high enough salary to repay the costs of their education.

You can see I'd be a lousy politician because I do not see the solution. Where do we go from here?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41513227)

Infrastructure, we have bridges in poor shape, we have a power grid that is a total joke, we have a lack of power in some parts of the country in the summer.

Investing properly in education would solve that last part. By that I mean free university education for those who qualify at public universities.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513335)

Investing properly in education would solve that last part. By that I mean free university education for those who qualify at public universities.

Free to the students. So who pays for it?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41513369)

The taxpayer, like most 1st world nations do to a large degree.

Having an educated society is of value to all members of that society. The party that embraces anti-education would of course fight this tooth and nail.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#41512749)

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.

~

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41513153)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41512807)

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:Obligated to point out another security concern (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512875)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

McGrew, for once? Agreed, 110%... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512943)

"BTW, fuck everyone who is against my getting what I PAID FOR. Goddamned thieves..." - by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday October 01, @10:03AM (#41512807)

See subject-line, because it is truly, a "first"...

* Thus, you're not so "bad", after all...

APK

P.S.=> At least on THIS subject, you & I see things the same, & like you? It PI$$E$ ME OFF - Especially when I hear some FUCKHEAD saying "entitlements" & like you since we're roughly the same age?

New NEWS/NewsFlash:

I've paid into the system for 31++ yrs. now in payroll taxes, purchase taxes, quarterly realestate taxes, & more!

However, & it's looking like they're going to say "oh well, the SS system is bankrupted, you lose..."

(To that all I can say is "how come politicians get 1/2 their pay for the rest of their LIVES as a pension still then?" since they do, afaik...)

... apk

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513019)

I hate to tell you, but you didn't pay for it. You paid for other, older people to get their Social Security Welfare. The court a long time ago held that you don't have any property interest in SS benefits. You only get what the Congress decides that you get. Yes, it's based on what you paid in previously, but that can simply be changed as a matter of law.

If you wanted something that you had a property interest in, you should have created a private retirement account such as a 401k or IRA (or just a simple bank savings account).

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#41513505)

...you should have created a private retirement account such as a 401k or IRA (or just a simple bank savings account).

With all that money that you were forced by law to pay into Social Security?

Wat?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41513357)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (4, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Social Security is entirely self-funding. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513177)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 2 years ago | (#41513209)

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-competitive rates compared to the real world.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512651)

but we're not investing in our nation. we're pissing it away on foreign wars and tax cuts for the rich.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512667)

And who would borrow and who would invest? Zero interest rates are killing the economy, there is no decent lending possible in these conditions. Banks have no decent way of making money under zero rate policy, and will not lend.
And a lot of government liability right now is in floating rate paper.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (2)

FirstNoel (113932) | about 2 years ago | (#41512747)

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

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#41512881)

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

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41513165)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41513105)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513849)

keynesian nonsense

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513949)

Debt is simply a promise to pay against potential future growth... Another word for this is inflation. We are swelling the monetary supply without an increase in GDP units on the backend to support that additional capital. Which of course means that when that growth evaporates under those low interest rates, or just never comes because of the inability of the consumer to continue exponential borrowing then we hit the floor hard. Now don't get me wrong there are ways to borrow less stupidly (I don't believe borrowing is ever "smart") or more responsibly, although the US (and most of the world) hasn't done this in decades. We have all demanded like petulant children that our governments continue to sustain unreasonable spending patterns to support things that we don't need.

Frankly I don't have a problem with the Chinese company purchasing this wind farm. I don't see it as a security risk. And if it turns out to be then charge all individuals who are complicit with treason, we shouldn't black ball individuals because they have the potential to be criminals, especially if they want the privilege of owning a future failed wind farm.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512639)

That's matched by the country doing all the consuming. You ought to try reading They Thought They Were Free

A taster: "What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider."

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41512679)

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...

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512789)

Stopping parts made offshore would upset the real masters of his, in corporate america and the 1% investment class since they profit by it at your expense from every angle (keeping you out of a good job by offshoring it so they can control payrolls to profit more, creating a security danger (but who cares? Making money is more important, right?))

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about 2 years ago | (#41512995)

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...

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

GigsVT (208848) | about 2 years ago | (#41513043)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

Phelan (30485) | about 2 years ago | (#41513313)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41513189)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513023)

It's a Chinese COMPANY building and operating them... Hint: They are still an aggressor nation on the books. Just because computer components (by the way, the bulk of the components are still manufactured in Korea and Taiwan, not ROC...) are made there doesn't mean it's a good thing to have a foreign aggressor nation operating something nearby a defense critical facility. You, sir, are a goddamn idiot and the mods up-modding this as insightful need to lay their damn crack pipes down.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513137)

ROC = taiwan
PROC = china

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#41513089)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41513141)

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.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41513559)

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#?

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 2 years ago | (#41513343)

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!

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41513535)

Bruce Willis and I are heading there in a speeding car even as I type this.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (0, Troll)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#41513487)

China is a Democratic Capitalistic society. More or less identicle to the US..

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

thereitis (2355426) | about 2 years ago | (#41513771)

Must've clicked on the "Protect national security with this weird old trick" banner ad.

Re:Obligated to point out another security concern (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41514009)

Yeah because it's not like China doesn't engage in espionage....I'm sure building a wind farm next to a naval base where the do drone testing was just over sight....

Moron.

Mandatory post (-1, Offtopic)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#41512503)

dotSlash: it's little endian, you insensitive binary clod!

it's about the campaign (1)

Capablanca (100250) | about 2 years ago | (#41512533)

competition with china is a huge political issue in the midwest. it is likely this is about scoring pre-election political points.

Re:it's about the campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512617)

Well, he just got my vote. It's too bad it takes a political campaign for anything to get done.

Re:it's about the campaign (4, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 2 years ago | (#41512921)

He's tough on China now that Romney criticized him for not being tough on China. It will go right back to status quo right after the election.

Re:it's about the campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513673)

Likely true: if Obama wins, he will eventually be forced to pursue relations with the next rising superpower, politically or militarily; if Rmoney wins... well, he's Made In China anyway, so you know where we'll be then.

"Sany"? (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about 2 years ago | (#41512561)

Isn't that how people tend to pronounce Sony in certain dialects of the US-English language variant?

Re:"Sany"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512601)

Isn't that how people tend to pronounce Sony

No, it's pronounced "lootkit".

Re:"Sany"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512653)

No, only complete faggots like yourself.

China Conflation (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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.

China Neighbors. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512757)

Do British bases have Chinese wind farms next door as opposed to other countries wind farms?

Re:China Conflation (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41512781)

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.

Re:China Conflation (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41513465)

I'd be more concerned about wind farms being used to hold listening antennae to try to figure out drone protocols, details of actial radar systems in use, and so on.

@yuo Fail It!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512619)

aashole tO others

It's official: the Cold War is back (4, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#41512623)

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.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back (-1, Flamebait)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41512663)

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.

Nations are dogs?

Are apples oranges too you stupid sonofabitch?

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41513493)

Nations are dogs?

Yeah actually, most of them are.. leading unruly and chaotic lives, fighting and mating in an uncontrolled way, stealing food, barking and howling, and in general being dirty and uncivilised. Sounds like a pretty close match.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#41513233)

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.

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513325)

You realize that China's rise to power is due to their corruption and subsidies combined with their nationalistic pride and die hard control of their population and the information they receive.....

If they weren't, they would have had to give more to their employees which would have had less jobs outsourced there which would have slowed their growth so much.

A Nucluear Chihuahua (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513785)

A nuclear chihuahua? That's the most dangerous kind!

Re:It's official: the Cold War is back (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#41513521)

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.

In other News, Republican pundits decry Obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512695)

And how he's blocking yet another industry in the United States, one that will truly lift Americans into prosperity.

Oh wait, it's Wind Energy? Oh well, just turn on your cognitive dissonance dampeners folks, either that or go on a rant about how Obama isn't committed to Green Energy and how it doesn't work.

Right-Wing for the Win!

In other news... (5, Funny)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 2 years ago | (#41512737)

USA elects Don Quixote for president!

But seriously, (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 2 years ago | (#41513301)

Anybody hear anything about any launch codes?

Is this even Constitutional? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41512739)

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" reasons.

Re:Is this even Constitutional? (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41512895)

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.

Yes, it is constitutional (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41513025)

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.

Re:Is this even Constitutional? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41513347)

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 (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41512741)

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.

I'm OK with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512803)

...in a global scale, not here and there (what about computer parts, iphones even).
China plays the game with very different cards.

WTF? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512829)

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.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512903)

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

Except for Iran right?

Surely he's (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

This is the first thing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512907)

in my recent memory that the Obummer has done that makes any sense. Fiannly something he can take credit for and not blame it on Bush.

Crony capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41512951)

It could simply be that this is an attempt to shore up US-based 'green' industries by blocking a Chinese competitor. Those industries are one of the few groups that went for Obama in 2008 (campaign contributions), that he's actually treated well. Most of the rest--blacks, Hispanics, young adults--he had ignored.

Re:Crony capitalism (1)

GigsVT (208848) | about 2 years ago | (#41513103)

Occam's razor. Mod parent up.

It's All Politics (0)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 years ago | (#41513329)

Getting "tough on China" is a popular meme among the huddled masses.

This is all about saying some things that have wide appeal to voters, and taking some minor, token actions to create the illusion of "walking the walk."

Think about it. It appeals to the voters who have this false notion that Romney is an out-sorcerer of jobs to China, and it also appeals to those who have lost their jobs and believe it is because of China.

It all translates to votes.

Re:It's All Politics (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#41514023)

False notion? Romney eliminated American jobs and shipped them to China. Hell China even says that. Take your head out of our ass.

Similar issues in Canada (3, Informative)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#41513659)

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).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?