3 ms·
(Maybe I'm too old, or have failed to keep up on current PC-speak - but I don't equate Sinophobia and bigotry. Either way, it's orthogonal to my point.) I do
by bell-cot 1y ago
(Maybe I'm too old, or have failed to keep up on current PC-speak - but I don't equate Sinophobia and bigotry. Either way, it's orthogonal to my point.)
I do not see a meaningful difference between (1) China buys the facility, bottles Nashua's water, and ships it off somewhere, and (2) Larry Ellison (say) buys the facility, bottles Nashua's water, and ships it off somewhere. Nashua is SoL either way, for lack of water. #1 does not get China a meaningful supply of any scarce resource. #2 still leaves Nashua screwed.
I'm not sure why you care about the site's proximity to some strategic facilities. China won't be basing any air wings or armored brigades there. And as the Mossad recently demonstrated in Iran, any competent hostile would base small assets (drones, missiles, operatives, whatever) in secret locations - not spots that'd be obvious for the DoD to suddenly raid, if the cold war with China seemed to be getting warmer. Or if (say) Trump just felt like doing some posturing.