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

[bananas]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x625181

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-plant-kansas-city

[Skink]

1. Why are we building Nuclear weapons?

[Poll_Blind]

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

[RKP5637]

5. I guess having the fire power to kill every living thing 50 times over apparently isn't enough.

[spin]

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.

[Tesha]

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Per the article non-nuclear components are made there

not whole bombs or any work with radioactive materials

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. If they get by with this, there will be others following. (shiver)

[phantom power]

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.

:(

[kristopher]

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...

[Nihil]

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.