The WMD factory in KCMO, once known as "the Bendix plant" is a long time cancer on KCMO, the State of Missouri, the nation and the world.
Not unlike the death camps of the Nazis the nuclear weapons of mass destruction that have been, are and perhaps will be made in KCMO because the local rulers and their bought and sold representatives seem to think it is some sort of jobs program.
This is tantamount to KCMO saying, "I'll do anything for a buck." because if you can't say no to WMDs what can you say no too?
Soon an international campaign will begin to focus on the death camp nature of the WMD industry and the name of Kansas City, Missouri will be the first city to be prominently designated as a City of Mass Destruction.
ALL IN THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FAMILY
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Monday, June 8, 2009
NOTE TO 21ST CENTURY ANTI-NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTIVISTS
Dear All,
I know that some of you are steeped in nuclear weapons facts and should be educating me. I am just providing a link to a little blog that I occasionally work on called All In the Nuclear Weapons Family http://littleboybigboy.blogspot.com/ The videos are pretty informative and some of them help bring home the terrible destructiveness
of these weapons. Unless people understand just how devastating these weapons are they are not likely to be appropriately concerned.
People have united against nuclear weapons before and I think that the appreciation of their terrible destructiveness and the fact that anyone can be targeted by them, defenses are nonexistent or very limited. So when people get these things they realize that nuclear disarmament is a practical way to protect all of us from nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are a very intimate problem. Nuclear weapons have
been part of our lives since they were used in Japan and it isn't a secret but we do, as a nation, tend to look the other way when the destructive nature of these weapons are concerned. Of course many of us do feel safer with the United States having a nuclear arsenal and many Americans probably believe that the road to security is to have better and better nuclear weapons, but again most of us are not paying attention or deliberately look the other way when the issue of nuclear
weapons is raised.
Many of you may be too young to remember but may nontheless know that the Atomic Weapons scientists were big heroes in he United States. The A-bomb and H-bomb is largely what made them so popular.
Pakistani atomic bomb scientist Khan in Pakistan held in great esteem by most Pakistanis. The Pakistanis hope for security by having these WMDS.
North Korea is also quite intoxicated with its new nukes and it is interesting that even there we see a glorification of the atomic bomb scientists and they are even said to be asking for North Korea to develop these weapons and the delivery systems. Like Americans and Pakistanis.
North Korea's apparent testing of nuclear weapons helps put the issue of nukes back at the top of the political agenda. Obama's speech about abolishing nuclear weapons also gives some further indication that nuclear weapons are not only big news but also a big threat to the human race. His speech helps make this a mainstream issue and so it should be easier to legitimize the discussion if that is a problem.
Without going on and on I would like to suggest we think about persuasive and engaging arguments against the nuclear weapons as well as continuing to make the same basic arguments against nuclear weapons that have been made for decades. For example, the idea that it is a foolish decision to use our treasure to create and improve nuclear weapons is still a crucial argument. All the opportunity cost arguments are more relevant than ever with the deep economic crisis.
Being a target in a nuclear war is a lot more threatening than imprisoning some terrorists in and I think we have seen a lot of local anxiety about imprisoning terrorists at Leavenworth. I like to think that wise and sociable people can possibly help others better assess threats
and perhaps be more concerned about real threats like nuclear war and Kansas City being a target in such a war just because it is making essential nuclear weapons components.
It seems to me that the danger of nuclear war is greater than many may realize. Smaller nations like Israel and North Korea have developed not only nuclear weapons but may have what is a strategic deterrent. Most nations, including the nuclear weapon "HAVES", find the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons to be an undesirable
trend. How can this proliferation be stopped? The United States should lead by example and cut back or eliminate the nuclear weapon development programs that are already in place. The local plant could be phased out over a period of a few years if not defunded immediately. Or maybe it could just not be built at all, the new plant that is.
Improving U.S. nuclear weapons and/or improving them hardly sets a good example to other nations about the U.S. determination to really abolish these weapons. U. S. and other nuclear weapons should be decommissioned rather than refurbished, remade or improved. I think
the nuclear HAVES need to lead by example and in this case decommissioning should be the plan at the new facility! That could be put forward as a possibility. Of course decommissioning a few weapons while refining and deploying a huge nuclear stockpile is not what I am
suggesting. Nuclear weapons need to be eliminated. Decommissioning these weapons would be a "good job", wouldn't it?
I know that some of you are steeped in nuclear weapons facts and should be educating me. I am just providing a link to a little blog that I occasionally work on called All In the Nuclear Weapons Family http://littleboybigboy.blogspot.com/ The videos are pretty informative and some of them help bring home the terrible destructiveness
of these weapons. Unless people understand just how devastating these weapons are they are not likely to be appropriately concerned.
People have united against nuclear weapons before and I think that the appreciation of their terrible destructiveness and the fact that anyone can be targeted by them, defenses are nonexistent or very limited. So when people get these things they realize that nuclear disarmament is a practical way to protect all of us from nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are a very intimate problem. Nuclear weapons have
been part of our lives since they were used in Japan and it isn't a secret but we do, as a nation, tend to look the other way when the destructive nature of these weapons are concerned. Of course many of us do feel safer with the United States having a nuclear arsenal and many Americans probably believe that the road to security is to have better and better nuclear weapons, but again most of us are not paying attention or deliberately look the other way when the issue of nuclear
weapons is raised.
Many of you may be too young to remember but may nontheless know that the Atomic Weapons scientists were big heroes in he United States. The A-bomb and H-bomb is largely what made them so popular.
Pakistani atomic bomb scientist Khan in Pakistan held in great esteem by most Pakistanis. The Pakistanis hope for security by having these WMDS.
North Korea is also quite intoxicated with its new nukes and it is interesting that even there we see a glorification of the atomic bomb scientists and they are even said to be asking for North Korea to develop these weapons and the delivery systems. Like Americans and Pakistanis.
North Korea's apparent testing of nuclear weapons helps put the issue of nukes back at the top of the political agenda. Obama's speech about abolishing nuclear weapons also gives some further indication that nuclear weapons are not only big news but also a big threat to the human race. His speech helps make this a mainstream issue and so it should be easier to legitimize the discussion if that is a problem.
Without going on and on I would like to suggest we think about persuasive and engaging arguments against the nuclear weapons as well as continuing to make the same basic arguments against nuclear weapons that have been made for decades. For example, the idea that it is a foolish decision to use our treasure to create and improve nuclear weapons is still a crucial argument. All the opportunity cost arguments are more relevant than ever with the deep economic crisis.
Being a target in a nuclear war is a lot more threatening than imprisoning some terrorists in and I think we have seen a lot of local anxiety about imprisoning terrorists at Leavenworth. I like to think that wise and sociable people can possibly help others better assess threats
and perhaps be more concerned about real threats like nuclear war and Kansas City being a target in such a war just because it is making essential nuclear weapons components.
It seems to me that the danger of nuclear war is greater than many may realize. Smaller nations like Israel and North Korea have developed not only nuclear weapons but may have what is a strategic deterrent. Most nations, including the nuclear weapon "HAVES", find the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons to be an undesirable
trend. How can this proliferation be stopped? The United States should lead by example and cut back or eliminate the nuclear weapon development programs that are already in place. The local plant could be phased out over a period of a few years if not defunded immediately. Or maybe it could just not be built at all, the new plant that is.
Improving U.S. nuclear weapons and/or improving them hardly sets a good example to other nations about the U.S. determination to really abolish these weapons. U. S. and other nuclear weapons should be decommissioned rather than refurbished, remade or improved. I think
the nuclear HAVES need to lead by example and in this case decommissioning should be the plan at the new facility! That could be put forward as a possibility. Of course decommissioning a few weapons while refining and deploying a huge nuclear stockpile is not what I am
suggesting. Nuclear weapons need to be eliminated. Decommissioning these weapons would be a "good job", wouldn't it?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Funkhouser and KCMO City Council Say Nuclear Holocaust Jobs Are Good
Nuclear weapons are for one thing, destroying cities and people by the millions. So want a good job? Go to Kansas City, Missouri. That is where the city council and the notorious Mayor Funkhouser could see eye to eye on something. Only one council member had the integrity to say no to the nuclear holocaust industry.
Everyone else played the ignorant, any job is a moral job, approach. They want the jobs and they don't care if the jobs are in preparation for a nuclear holocaust. KCP the so called Kansas City Plant makes most of every nuclear weapon deployed by the United States of Nuclear Terror.
Kansas City could have said no just like the people who made the cannisters for ZYKLON B could have said no. But they didn't and when and if people die from these weapons it will be the City Council and Mark
Funkhouser, among others who are responsible.
Moral degeneracy and degradation in high places, what a surprise!
It was reported that the council and mayor were respectful of peace activists who suggested the council and the mayor do the right thing. But the council and mayor were respectful of no one. They determined that any job, no matter how evil and reprehensible is a good job. They degraded themselves and showed that the nation is rotten at the municipal as well as federal level. Making weapons of mass destruction is a form of terrorism, in this case nuclear terrorism and it is always wrong.
Everyone else played the ignorant, any job is a moral job, approach. They want the jobs and they don't care if the jobs are in preparation for a nuclear holocaust. KCP the so called Kansas City Plant makes most of every nuclear weapon deployed by the United States of Nuclear Terror.
Kansas City could have said no just like the people who made the cannisters for ZYKLON B could have said no. But they didn't and when and if people die from these weapons it will be the City Council and Mark
Funkhouser, among others who are responsible.
Moral degeneracy and degradation in high places, what a surprise!
It was reported that the council and mayor were respectful of peace activists who suggested the council and the mayor do the right thing. But the council and mayor were respectful of no one. They determined that any job, no matter how evil and reprehensible is a good job. They degraded themselves and showed that the nation is rotten at the municipal as well as federal level. Making weapons of mass destruction is a form of terrorism, in this case nuclear terrorism and it is always wrong.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A REMARKABLE LAWSUIT IS FILED AGAINST MOVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACILITY IN KANAS CITY (KCP)
For decades we called it Bendix and now what is it, Honeywell? It's KCP the imaginatively named Kansas City Plant, where most of a nuclear weapon is manufactured. The radioactive parts are not manufactured at KCP but 85% of everything else in a bomb is. Without KCP there would be no new nuclear weapons or spare parts.
It seems that the nonradioactive nature of KCP's work often takes the headlines. That and a couple thousand good jobs make manufacturing instant hell a tempting proposition.
Apparently the United States is revamping its nuclear weapons production facilities and that involves a plan to move KCP from about 95th and Troost to the Botts Road near the southern limits of KCMO. This would involve moving 2/3rds of the equipment from the old site to the new, "smaller" site. I want to examine the claims before I am sold on the idea that it is really going to be a smaller site. I see the plans for a new smaller plant but what if the old one is largely empty and inactive anyway? It could represent a significant expansion hidden behind a veil of partial information and even, perhaps, misinformation.
I was amazed and pleased to see that a remarkable lawsuit has been filed by a number of local and national organizations and individuals seeking to compel certain actions to interrupt this move of the KCP nuclear weapons factory to Bannister Mall. The complainants argue that costs are greater with the move than without it and that numerous regulations have not been followed in making the decision in the first place.
Perhaps it is a sign of the times that good things like this are happening. Certainly we could use a smaller nuclear weapons family.
While this law suit doesn't directly address the issue of abolition of nuclear weapons, or at least the law is unlikely to recognize such appeals, the question is there for all of us. How much is a nuclear weapon really worth? Who is responsible if it is used?
It seems that the nonradioactive nature of KCP's work often takes the headlines. That and a couple thousand good jobs make manufacturing instant hell a tempting proposition.
Apparently the United States is revamping its nuclear weapons production facilities and that involves a plan to move KCP from about 95th and Troost to the Botts Road near the southern limits of KCMO. This would involve moving 2/3rds of the equipment from the old site to the new, "smaller" site. I want to examine the claims before I am sold on the idea that it is really going to be a smaller site. I see the plans for a new smaller plant but what if the old one is largely empty and inactive anyway? It could represent a significant expansion hidden behind a veil of partial information and even, perhaps, misinformation.
I was amazed and pleased to see that a remarkable lawsuit has been filed by a number of local and national organizations and individuals seeking to compel certain actions to interrupt this move of the KCP nuclear weapons factory to Bannister Mall. The complainants argue that costs are greater with the move than without it and that numerous regulations have not been followed in making the decision in the first place.
Perhaps it is a sign of the times that good things like this are happening. Certainly we could use a smaller nuclear weapons family.
While this law suit doesn't directly address the issue of abolition of nuclear weapons, or at least the law is unlikely to recognize such appeals, the question is there for all of us. How much is a nuclear weapon really worth? Who is responsible if it is used?
Monday, October 13, 2008
OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS FAMILY
Nuclear weapons are too destructive to actually use and too expensive to develop.
The advantage gained by those with nuclear weapons is based upon the assumption that the nuclear weapon possessor will be able to intimidate others with these especially destructive devices. The threat is the annihilation of a city or perhaps a world.
United States nuclear policy has been based on the idea that nuclear weapons can somehow be monopolized by the United States or by those currently holding such weapons. This has proven to be an illusion. Nation after nation has acquired nuclear weapons. Unless a concerted effort is made to ban all nuclear weapons proliferation is likely to continue.
The so called "balance of terror" achieved by adversaries possessing nuclear weapons leaves all parties essentially where they would be if all parties were at peace.
Of course the more nations with nuclear weapons must increase the probability that one of these weapons will be actually detonated on a target.
On the other hand the "balance of terror" does seem to inhibit invasion and enhance respect in some instances. North Korea is one example where the nuclear weapons of this tiny nation has led to some benefits and economic arrangements with the "West". Of course the same results could have been negotiated many years ago and North Korea would not have nuclear weapons. That would have allowed North Korea to divert those resources to economic development, education, health care. Everyone would be better off.
But with the possibility of nuclear tipped missiles from North Korea hitting our West Coast the United States decided to finally negotiate. So the nuclear weapons got North Korea that and all subsequent negotiations.
The nuclear weapons family is growing and will continue to grow until all nations, including the most powerful agree to systematically eliminate nuclear weapons. The exact method of achieving this goal can be developed by all nations involved. [Otherwise I'll present a foolproof method in a later blog entry, ahem.]
The advantage gained by those with nuclear weapons is based upon the assumption that the nuclear weapon possessor will be able to intimidate others with these especially destructive devices. The threat is the annihilation of a city or perhaps a world.
United States nuclear policy has been based on the idea that nuclear weapons can somehow be monopolized by the United States or by those currently holding such weapons. This has proven to be an illusion. Nation after nation has acquired nuclear weapons. Unless a concerted effort is made to ban all nuclear weapons proliferation is likely to continue.
The so called "balance of terror" achieved by adversaries possessing nuclear weapons leaves all parties essentially where they would be if all parties were at peace.
Of course the more nations with nuclear weapons must increase the probability that one of these weapons will be actually detonated on a target.
On the other hand the "balance of terror" does seem to inhibit invasion and enhance respect in some instances. North Korea is one example where the nuclear weapons of this tiny nation has led to some benefits and economic arrangements with the "West". Of course the same results could have been negotiated many years ago and North Korea would not have nuclear weapons. That would have allowed North Korea to divert those resources to economic development, education, health care. Everyone would be better off.
But with the possibility of nuclear tipped missiles from North Korea hitting our West Coast the United States decided to finally negotiate. So the nuclear weapons got North Korea that and all subsequent negotiations.
The nuclear weapons family is growing and will continue to grow until all nations, including the most powerful agree to systematically eliminate nuclear weapons. The exact method of achieving this goal can be developed by all nations involved. [Otherwise I'll present a foolproof method in a later blog entry, ahem.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
