Unfettered Letters

Slow down on nuclear plant proposal

Kevin Collison’s article on plans to build a new nuclear weapons parts plant in south Kansas City (12/18, Business, “Proposals for weapons plant in for review; Decision on which developer will build south Kansas City project is expected early next year”) raises important questions.

First, what’s the rush? President-elect Obama has pledged to work toward a world free of nuclear weapons. If he makes progress on that goal, we may not need a spanking new nuclear weapons plant.

Second, we need more information about the companies involved. What are their health, safety and environmental records? What is their financial condition? By refusing even to name the bidders, the General Services Administration is preventing the taxpayers from considering these questions before a winner is chosen. We need more transparency and accountability before this project goes forward.

William D. Hartung
Director, arms and security initiative, New America Foundation
New York

Stop nuclear plant expansion

It seems more than ironic that in a community that likes to claim being one of the more “livable” of American cities that we should assist in the expansion of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal by giving $40 million in tax incentives to a new plant to be based in Kansas City (10/2, Business, “Decision gets pushed back; Anti-nuclear protests mark meeting on tax break for $500 million south Kansas City plan”).

I hope common sense prevails on the committee of the City Council, which should view this as 1) an immoral activity we should refuse and 2) throwing money down the drain in an age where nuclear weapons are on the way out.

The fact that money is not being budgeted to clean up the environmental hazards created by the old Bendix/now Honeywell plant making the triggers for these weapons should also sound alarm bells in the council and in our community.

Beth Seberger
Kansas City, Kan.

Stop the nuclear madness

Kansas City could help wipe out nuclear weapons (10/2, Business, “Decision gets pushed back; Anti-nuclear protests mark meeting on tax break for $500 million south Kansas City plan”). The plant at the Bannister Federal Complex makes non-nuclear parts for U.S. nuclear weapons. Can you fire a gun without a trigger? Well, the triggers for our nukes get made at the federal complex, along with the other non-nuclear parts for nukes.

The federal government wants to move the plant south, to Missouri 150 and Botts Road, and wants $40 million in tax incentives for water and gas lines and highway expansion. The plant would support a new generation of nuclear weapons, just what the world doesn’t need.

Even former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz have been saying nukes are too dangerous and we must dismantle them. Our City Council could move the world one huge step closer to safety by voting not to sink a huge tax incentive into nuclear madness.

Jane Stoever
Overland Park

Syria’s nuclear reactor

A nuclear reactor in Syria? Built with the help of the North Koreans? (4/25, A-1, “U.S. asserts N. Korean link to Syrian reactor.”)

Problem is that our government has lied to us so many times over the past eight years — WMDs, the economy, Social Security, “free trade,” privacy, security —that it makes it hard to believe anything it says now.

The more that someone cries wolf, the harder it is to get people to listen.

Donald Skinner
Leawood

Nuclear plant

I would like The Star to investigate the plan by the National Nuclear Security Administration and the General Services Administration to fast track a new nuclear weapons facility in south Kansas City across from the intermodal port at Richards-Gebaur.

Without a public hearing, a $500 million private project paid without tax money will be ready by 2009.

There’s no talk of cleaning up toxic waste from the present site at Bannister.

WMDs in our backyard!

We need U.N. Inspectors to check out this dire situation.

Elizabeth Smith
Kansas City

Say no to more war

Despite the official report that Iran halted its efforts for nuclear weapons four years ago, it’s likely Bush will continue to push for war in Iran at any cost. That’s the clincher here: at any cost.

We’ve lost nearly 4,000 troops, with thousands more wounded, in a war costing hundreds of millions of dollars a day. The Iraq war has destabilized the region and (according to CIA reports) created thousands of new terrorists. This has been quite the opposite of the “success” touted in the Orwellian “Newspeak” used by the current administration.

Continued war — expanded wars — enrich war profiteers like Halliburton and Blackwater but impoverish all the rest of us.

It’s time to look out for the people rather abdicating our brains and hearts to ideological lies.

No more money for Iraq. No more wars of aggression. We can no longer bear this cost.

A.J. Burdick
Kansas City

Report on Iran, nukes

What a surprise to learn that the most-briefed man on the planet — after warning us of impending World War III — can’t be faulted for his statements over the past years, since as he wasn’t aware of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.

As the president himself stressed, he was ostensibly left out of the loop until last Tuesday. Wow! I can’t even imagine the kind of security clearance it must take to gain access to that kind of information. Dick Cheney and Condi Rice were also out of the loop? Where have we heard that before?

This president learned from his father, who was vice president at the time of Iran-Contra, who uttered, “I was out of the loop.” Former head of the CIA and having more to do with running the country than a script-reading, front-man president actor, he was not privy? He was out of the loop? Right.

Like his father’s, George W. Bush’s whole presidency has been one big lie after another. Just what we need, another war with a Middle East oil country.

Kenneth Kassen
Shawnee

Iran’s nuclear capabilities

So “U.S. says Iran not building nukes” (12/4, A-1).

Translation: Even the most right-wing Republicans agree that bombing Iran would be a bad political move.

Rae Ann Nixon
Kansas City

Try Iran or Cuba

Several people have written recently against the United States having nuclear weapons and for the U.S. having universal health care.

I would suggest that they move to countries that fit their desires.

For those against nuclear weapons, I would suggest Iran. They claim to have none. If I recall correctly, both of the writers on this subject were women. I’m sure they’d really love Iran.

As for those in favor of universal health care, I would suggest Cuba. While there, you’d also get the benefit of not being allowed to own a gun.

By the way, having nuclear weapons at least passes constitutional muster, as they are a large part of our national defense. Nowhere does the Constitution mention national health care or anything resembling it. The 10th Amendment would then prohibit it, as it is not delineated as a federal responsibility.

Also, the preamble to the Constitution says promote the general welfare, not provide it.

Mike Sienicki
Farley, Mo.

Opposes weapons plant

I am disappointed that your article on the proposed new nuclear weapons plant near Kansas City ignored several important issues (10/25, Business, “Weapons plant moves ahead; A federal agency OKs a plan near the old Richards-Gebaur airport site”).

If the Bannister Road facility is decommissioned, what will happen to that heavily contaminated site and who will pay for the cleanup? Why is a government agency working on something as sensitive as nuclear weapons components relying on a private business? How is this private funding scheme skirting congressional oversight? Most important, does the U.S. need to be upgrading our nuclear capabilities while insisting that other nations abandon nuclear weapons programs?

I was at the Kansas City plant last week. The program managers there were proud of their workers and their facility, which they said they could produce “anything.” Many of us in Kansas City would prefer to see this world-class facility produce almost anything but parts for nuclear weapons.

Donna Constantineau
Kansas City, Kan.