[carlosjobim]

If the radars that the USA uses are so great, then why don't Finland and Sweden purchase these systems instead of blocking almost all offshore wind farms? These are two countries that have very strong political agendas in favour of wind power.

Maybe there are new threats that neither you or I are aware of or understand? Secrecy is how the military operates. New and emerging threats is the exact reason which has been given by the US Department of Interior.

As for drones, at least in Finland they are investigating if land based wind power mills can be equipped with drone warning systems.

I don't buy into the hacker double think, where everything is great and glorious and rational when Europeans do it, but it's the opposite if America under Trump does it.

[digitalPhonix]

> If the radars that the USA uses are so great, then why don't Finland and Sweden purchase these systems instead of blocking almost all offshore wind farms?

Are you deliberately not trying to see the difference?

Early warning systems need all the help they can get when you only have 100km to your threats (ie. the baltic sea); when you have the entire Atlantic you don’t need that.

US early warning systems are great because they have 1000s of kilometers of space.

As other commenters have already pointed out to you, the Nordic countries do allow wind farms in:

    - Gulf of Bothnia (Sweden + Finland)
    - Kattegat (Sweden)
    - Noregian sea (Norway)

[carlosjobim]

And they don't allow wind farms where they are exposed to the open baltic.

What does those three seas you mentioned have in common? They have Nordic coastline on both sides. Meaning that nobody can hide in radar shadow, because they'll be seen from the other coast.

> US early warning systems are great because they have 1000s of kilometers of space.

Not if there is a disturbance in the way. You know how signals work. Everything behind the disturbance will be in shadow, stretching for as far as you please. The ocean is a giant dark void, and your enemy can be anywhere and go anywhere.

The Swedish defense minister has specified the threat to be cruise missiles in their decision to ban and block offshore wind farms. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has the same reason for their national security concerns. With a cruise missile you have to get close before launching, as compared to ICBMs which have no limits in range.

And just out of curiosity: Why don't they build these wind parks inland in the great plains? Too much energy loss from distance to consumers?

[digitalPhonix]

> What does those three seas you mentioned have in common? They have Nordic coastline on both sides.

You should check out the Norwegian Sea?

> And just out of curiosity: Why don't they build these wind parks inland in the great plains? Too much energy loss from distance to consumers?

Don't worry, this administration has been canceling those projects too: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trump-c...

(This is why my stance is "bad faith" on the "national security" claim, if that wasn't clear; I know plenty on how RADARs work and it doesn't pass the sniff test)