Fr. Carl Kabat spray-paints huge sign at NNSA’s nuke-parts plant in Kansas City

[bananas]

Source: Nuclear Resistor

Carl Kabat, 80, a priest in the Order of Mary Immaculate, spray-painted the National Security Campus entry sign at 10 a.m. on July 4. This is Carl’s fourth consecutive “interdependence action” in July at the so-called campus, the new home for the Kansas City Plant (in Kansas City, Missouri), where the National Nuclear Security Administration this year will begin making and procuring non-nuclear parts for nuclear weapons. In a phone call to friends at 10:03 a.m., Carl said, “This damned plant has got to be closed somehow, some way.” He chose red paint to signify blood, he said, and after painting was sitting alone by the huge sign, awaiting arrest.

The new $687 million facility replaces the Kansas City Plant at Bannister Federal Complex, also in Kansas City, Missouri, where the federal government has documented about 900 toxins – the legacy from radioactive and other substances used at the old plant. The Kansas City Plant makes parts such as wiring, fuses, guidance systems, security devices, and the trigger for nuclear weapons.

It is expected that Carl will spend the weekend in the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department’s holding cell; will come before a judge via TV court on Monday, July 7; will be freed; and will be told to return to Kansas City for a hearing, where he’ll speak truth to power.

<snip>

In 1980, Kabat took part in the first Plowshares action, following Isaiah’s mandate to “beat swords into plowshares.” He has spent about 17 years in prison for resisting nuclear weapons. In his short phone call this July 4, Carl signed off, “God bless! Peace on you!”

Read more: http://www.nukeresister.org/2014/07/05/fr-carl-kabat-spray-paints-huge-sign-at-nnsas-nuke-parts-plant-in-kansas-city/

[shenmue]

1. Good for him.

[canoeist52]

2. +1 for the next courageous step - civil disobediance.

[mbperrin]

3. Wish I had this kind of courage.

Wow, 17 years in prison.

[EX500rider]

4. Somehow I think it would be a bad idea if Russia and China had nukes and we didn't..

....not to mention Pakistan, N Korea and eventually Iran. (UK-France-Israel not so much)
And if you are going to have a nuclear deterrent to keep from being nuked then you have to have production facilities.

[PosterChild]

7. +100 !!! Thanks for a reality-based comment! (nt)

[AZCat]

8. I don't think that's a universal opinion.

I, for example, disagree. I don't think a nuclear arsenal has any inherent deterrent value, nor do I think threatening to kill millions of innocent people in retaliation for the killing of millions of other innocent people is a good idea.

[EX500rider]

9. I don't think you understand how nuclear blackmail would work..

....and having the Chinese or the Russians threatening to kill millions of Americans and we couldn't do that back would make it MORE likely to happen, not less.

I don't think a nuclear arsenal has any inherent deterrent value
I don't think that's a universal opinion..
Stalin/Mao would have nuked the US in a second if we couldn't do it back...that's how deterrence works. Or do you think they had no problem killing millions of their own citizens but wouldn't do it to people of other countries?

[ChazII]

10. Your common sense

is appreciated. The nuclear issue reminds me of the saying, "If you want peace, prepare for war." I am not in favor of war but for other countries to have nukes while we would not isn't the best way to protect ourselves.

[AZCat]

12. How does possessing nuclear weapons increase our safety?

There are a number of incidents that suggest possessing a nuclear arsenal increases the risk of a nuclear exchange, rather than the opposite.

[EX500rider]

14. Why has there been no major wars since WWII? MAD

Mutual Assured Destruction has been the reason of no WWIII.

And by major war I mean like WWII were 100,000's died in single battles..

[AZCat]

15. I don't think that opinion is universal either.

But I can see you're quite convinced of your opinion, so perhaps there isn't any point in continuing the discussion.

As a sidebar - were battles in WWII that massive? I don't remember any battles that large, but I readily admit I'm not a WWII scholar. There were bombings that had casualty counts that high, but actual battles?

[AZCat]

11. I don't agree with you regarding nuclear blackmail.

Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons, and it isn't Russia or China.

I agree that my opinion is not universal, but I'm not aware of any evidence that either China or the USSR was considering first strikes. Nor do I agree that their goal was to wipe out the U.S. Deterrence has never been shown to have contributed to the lack of use of nuclear weapons since 1945 (although I admit absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). In fact, our possession of a nuclear arsenal has, in my opinion, increased the risk of a nuclear exchange.

[EX500rider]

13. I thinks it easy..

....are China or Russia more likely to use atomic weapons if they won't be nuked in return or are they more likely to use them if they will be nuked in return?

And nuclear blackmail is just that, do what we say or face the possibility of being nuked..or are the Russians/Chinese/North Korean/Iranian leaders just such great humanitarians that that is out of the realm of possibility?

As to being the only country to use nuclear weapons....we were the only ones who had them, that's why...do you think we would have used them if we would have been nuked in return?

[AZCat]

16. I think they are useless as weapons of war.

They have no tactical value. What possible events could lead to either China or Russia using them?

As for us, I think it would be a poor decision to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack. If our mere possession of nuclear weapons was reason enough for us to use them, then I think that is a very strong argument for the elimination of a nuclear arsenal.

[EX500rider]

17. No one said they had tactical value....they have strategic value by keeping other..

....countries from using theirs. No one said mere possession was reason enough to use them. MAD works by people NOT using them.

[AZCat]

18. If that's their only strategic value...

then they have no value. That's why "MAD" is a foolish concept. If none of the participants would have reason to use nuclear weapons offensively (i.e. "first strike&quot then why do you need them as a defensive measure?

[EX500rider]

19. Not being nuked is of great value..

....and in a conflict of total war were only one side has them you can bet they would be used...that's why MAD has value, it keeps the genie in the bottle.

[AZCat]

20. I think the consequences outweigh the benefits.

Possibly preventing a nuclear exchange because of the threat of retaliation in a hypothetical future global conflict is not in my opinion worth the costs, which include increased risk of accidental nuclear detonation, heightened international tensions, people harmed from nuclear accidents, and a massive price tag that meant less money for the kinds of programs that actually help people.

[EX500rider]

21. What helps people the most is not being melted in their homes by megatonnage.

And MAD makes that happen.

[AZCat]

22. I'm not sure that's a given.

Also, you're weighing a hypothetical scenario against real costs. Besides, MAD does nothing to prevent a nuclear exchange between third parties, which would have disastrous consequences for everyone on the planet. Nuclear arsenals are a danger to everyone everywhere, in my opinion.

[EX500rider]

23. No way to put the genie back in the bottle...

...and no way to give up our arsenal as long as non-democratic authoritarian countries have one.

[AZCat]

24. We wouldn't be the first ones to give it up.

At least one other country has recognized the hypothetical value isn't worth the costs.

[EX500rider]

25. Which major power with lots of nukes has given them up?

And i don't count Brazil or S Africa or Ukraine.
Ukraine only inherited some from the USSR, they were not a nuclear power on their own and now really wish they hadn't given them up.

"Pavlo Rizanenko told USA Today that Ukraine may have to arm themselves with their own nuclear weapons if the USA and other world leaders don’t hold up their end of the agreement. He said “"We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement. Now there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake." He also said that "In the future, no matter how the situation is resolved in Crimea, we need a much stronger Ukraine. If you have nuclear weapons people don't invade you."

[AZCat]

26. I don't think that was your original criteria.

I don't remember "major power" being a requirement, nor was it part of my argument.

Nuclear weapons did little to protect us against the attacks on September 11th, 2001. And in a global environment where state-sponsored terrorism is common but difficult to prove conclusively, I'm not sure the argument put forth in the quoted paragraph is valid in all situations.

[saidsimplesimon]

5. Growing up under the TVA was a death sentence for many. We

don't know the scope yet, but, one day it will be revealed.

17 years in prison for an act of human kindness? What kind of world do we want for our grandchildren?

[saidsimplesimon]

6. omg, just imagine what good deeds were prevented.