> whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. It doesn't look as such. As far as I see it's mostly additional tax breaks for the companies that

> whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. It doesn't look as such. As far as I see it's mostly additional tax breaks for the companies that would anyway be awarded taxpayer's money through the defense contracts, and the "security" is a magical excuse for that. The contracts could already have the desired conditions, but this is a way to avoid showing the real cost of them.