|
|
|
|
|
|
by carlosjobim
83 days ago
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
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)