Kansas City, Here It Comes: A New Nuclear Weapons Plant!

nuclear weapons protestShould the U.S. government be building more nuclear weapons?  Residents of Kansas City, Missouri, don’t appear to think so, for they are engaged in a bitter fight against the construction of a new nuclear weapons plant in their community.

The massive plant, 1.5 million square feet in size, is designed to replace an earlier version, also located in the city and run by the same contractor:  Honeywell.  The cost of building the new plant—which, like its predecessor, will provide 85 percent of the components of America’s nuclear weapons—is estimated to run $673 million. 

From the standpoint of the developer, Centerpoint Zimmer (CPZ), that’s a very sweet deal.  In payment for the plant site, a soybean field it owned, CPZ received $5 million.  The federal government will lease the property and plant from a city entity for twenty years, after which, for $10, CPZ will purchase it, thus establishing the world’s first privately-owned nuclear weapons plant.  In addition, as the journal Mother Jones has revealed, “the Kansas City Council, enticed by direct payments and a promise of ‘quality jobs,’ . . . agreed to exempt CPZ from property taxes on the plant and surrounding land for twenty-five years.”  The Council also agreed to issue $815 million in bond subsidies from urban blight funds to build the plant and its infrastructure.  In this lucrative context, how could a profit-driven corporation resist?

Kansas City residents, however, had greater misgivings.  They wondered why the U.S. government, already possessing 8,500 nuclear weapons, needed more of them.  They wondered what had happened to the U.S. government’s commitment to engage in treaties for nuclear disarmament.  They wondered how the new weapons plant fit in with the Obama administration’s pledge to build a world free of nuclear weapons.  And they wondered why they should be subsidizing the U.S. military-industrial complex with their tax dollars.

Taking the lead, the city’s peace and disarmament community began protests and demonstrations against the proposed nuclear weapons plant several years ago.  Gradually, Kansas City PeaceWorks (a branch of Peace Action) pulled together the local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, religious groups, and others into a coalition of a dozen organizations, Kansas City Peace Planters.  The coalition’s major project was a petition campaign to place a proposition on the November 8, 2011 election ballot that would reject building a plant for weapons and utilize the facility instead for “green energy” technologies.

The significance of the Kansas City nuclear weapons buildup was also highlighted by outside forces.  In June 2011, against the backdrop of the Obama administration’s plan to spend $185 billion for modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex over the next ten years, the U.S. Council of Mayors voted unanimously for a resolution instructing the president to join leaders of the other nuclear weapons states in implementing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s five-point plan for the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020.  It also called on Congress to terminate funding for modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and nuclear weapons systems.  Addressing the gathering, the U.N. leader declared that “the road to peace and progress runs through the world’s cities and towns,” a statement that drew a standing ovation.

Even more pointedly, Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the Vatican’s ambassador to the United Nations, appeared in Kansas City in July 2011.  According to the National Catholic Reporter, Chullikat “came to this Midwestern diocese because it is the site of a major new nuclear weapons manufacturing facility, the first to be built in the country in thirty-three years.”  In his address, the prelate remarked:  “Viewed from a legal, political, security and most of all—moral—perspective, there is no justification today for the continued maintenance of nuclear weapons.”  This was the moment, he declared, to address “the legal, political and technical requisites for a nuclear-weapons-free world.”  Highlighting Chullikatt’s speech, the National Catholic Reporter declared, cuttingly:  “The U.S. trudges unheedingly down the nuclear path.  Now more than ever we need to attend to the messages of the often marginalized peacemakers in our midst.”


  1. russell says

    I would be fine with a nuclear power plant as long as they use thorium 232 as the fuel, because with thorium its safer and cheaper than uranium 233, there’s no way to make a dirty bomb with the waste. Also the waste has a shorter half life than the waste that comes from uranium power plants.

  2. Skip says

    This is a phoney article! The people in Kansas City welcome this new plant that replaces the one that they are going to shut down! GSA in KCMO already makes these weapons. Really, where was this picture taken, I’ve lived here in KC for 28 years and never saw a protest against the new plant and I watch the news daily. This site has created 1,000’s of construction jobs and permanent jobs after completion. As far as the product they produce, they been making them for decades here! Without having a nuclear weapon as a deterrent, we are all at risk of being attacked. Its kind of like the gun laws, take the guns away from the citizens and the criminals will be the ones with the guns. Then how will you defend yourself, talk to them? Shut up you phoney leftwing nut!

  3. says

    Here in Long Beach, with the same decision mechanisms in play, we almost got stuck with an LNG terminal.

    LB and KC are both examples that illustrate why our needlessly unreasoned, unprecautionary, oligarchic undemocratic public-policy decision making should not be tolerated further as legitimate for our time.

    Public decisions could readily be more reasoned, precautionary and democratic. As I have described elsewhere at greater length and in greater depth, public decision-making could be done by a process of proposal, decision, and review by three independent randomly-selected short-term-serving juries of ordinary willing citizens. Each decision step would generate and publish challengeable rationale for the action taken.

    We can expect to continue getting needlessly bad and corrupted – and poorly rationalized – decisions like apparently the KC decision, so long as these are delegated to an all-powerful oligarchy (elected or appointed) of long-term-serving officials that can’t be thrown out until years after their misdeeds, and not recallable any sooner except after expenditure of many thousands of dollars and activist hours – and even when thrown out or recalled will simply be replaced by other long-term oligarchs.

  4. kellerann says

    Good for the KC community especially construction workers that are so affected by the economy as well as the businesses that will pop up around the are to service the workers post construction and during construction. Good for KC, this should benefit the community for decades to come as well as keep us safer as a nation


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *