Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Privately Owned Nuclear Weapons Plant in…Kansas City? (xpost)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 11:52 AM
Original message
A Privately Owned Nuclear Weapons Plant in…Kansas City? (xpost)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

A Privately Owned Nuclear Weapons Plant in…Kansas City?
In a last-ditch court hearing, activists seek to block a new Honeywell project.

—By Adam Weinstein

Mon Aug. 29, 2011 3:00 AM PDT

In Kansas City, Missouri, a local zoning fight is going nuclear, literally: A Monday-morning courtroom showdown between activists and politicians could determine whether the city becomes host to the world's first privately owned nuclear weapons plant.

The proposed plant, a 1.5 million-square-foot, $673 million behemoth, would replace an aging facility, also in KC, where 85 percent (PDF) of the components for nation's nuclear arms are produced. The new plant would be run by the same government contractor as the old one—Honeywell—and proponents say the only major change will be more jobs and city infrastructure. But there will be another big difference: The federal government will sublease the property from a private developer, who in turn will lease it from the city for 20 years…after which the developer will own it outright.

The developer that could ultimately own its very own nuclear weapons plant, Centerpoint Zimmer (CPZ), didn't even exist until the deal for the Kansas City facility. It's the product of a union between Zimmer Real Estate, a big swinger in local properties—"Their red signs are all over town," says Ann Suellentrop, a local anti-nuclear activist—and Chicago-based builder Centerpoint, which just happens to own a new 1,000-acre industrial park across the street from the planned production facility. In what it called a "competitive bidding process," the US General Services Administration awarded CPZ a contract to build the new plant—on a soybean field that the company already owned. The Kansas City Council, enticed by direct payments and a promise of "quality jobs," approved the deal and agreed to exempt CPZ from property taxes on the plant and surrounding land for 25 years. It also agreed to $815 million in bond subsidies to build the plant and needed infrastructure.

"It's one thing to be concerned about nuclear proliferation," Ed Ford, a Vietnam-era conscientious objector and the only city councilman to oppose the plan, told the Kansas City Business Journal. "It's another thing to have your city be an active partner."

More: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/nuclear-weapons...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why are we building Nuclear weapons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. That is a great fucking question, my friend. Why, indeed?
I guarantee we have more than enough already to destroy/make absolutely uninhabitable every planet in our solar system except possibly Jupiter or Saturn.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I guess having the fire power to kill every living thing 50 times over apparently isn't enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. We build nuclear weapons as a deterrent ...
How many world wars have we had since WWII?

If we ever have to use our nuclear weapons, they have failed to achieve their purpose.

However, the world is changing. We failed to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and now many countries are developing both these weapons and the delivery systems that could destabilize our world in the near future.

Eventually, terrorists will obtain their own nukes. Our nuclear arsenal is not a deterrent to terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Because America's one-and-only speciality these days is "Blowing shit up".
So we need to keep our really big shit-blowers
operational just in case we need them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Per the article non-nuclear components are made there
not whole bombs or any work with radioactive materials
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. If they get by with this, there will be others following. (shiver)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. I predicted the defense industry wouldn't just give up their ability to build nukes.
Dismantling nuclear electricity capability is not going to put a halt to nuclear arms.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. On to the greatest page with rec 5
This isn't the kind of endeavor that should start with what appears to be such a corrupt process...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-06-11 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
10. Now you've done it ... a 2nd amendment issue in E/E ...
:hide:

:evilgrin:



FWIW, I totally agree with the above posts with regards to
1) There are too many nuclear weapons anyway.
2) Stopping all nuclear power stations will not prevent the warmongers.
3) This will get a clear pass from the "We're best at blowing up shit" brigade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 30th 2014, 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC