Monday, March 30, 2020

NYC earthquake risk: the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

NYC earthquake risk: Could Staten Island be heavily impacted?


Updated May 16, 4:31 AM; Posted May 16, 4:00 AM
Rubble litters Main Street after an earthquake struck Sunday, Aug. 24, 2014, in Napa, Calif. A report by the U.S. Geological Survey outlines the differences between the effect of an earthquake in the West vs. one in the East. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. – While scientists say it’s impossible to predict when or if an earthquake will occur in New York City, they say that smaller structures — like Staten Island’s bounty of single-family homes — will suffer more than skyscrapers if it does happen.
„Earthquakes in the East tend to cause higher-frequency shaking — faster back-and-forth motion — compared to similar events in the West,“ according to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published on its website recently „Shorter structures are more susceptible to damage during fast shaking, whereas taller structures are more susceptible during slow shaking.“
DIFFERENCES IN INTENSITY
The report, „East vs West Coast Earthquakes,“ explains how USGS scientists are researching factors that influence regional differences in the intensity and effects of earthquakes, and notes that earthquakes in the East are often felt at more than twice the distance of earthquakes in the West.
Predicting when they will occur is more difficult, said Thomas Pratt, a research geophysicist and the central and Eastern U.S. coordinator for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program in Reston, Va.
„One of the problems in the East Coast is that we don’t have a history to study,“ he said. „In order to get an idea, we have to have had several cycles of these things. The way we know about them in California is we dig around in the mud and we see evidence of past earthquakes.“
Yet Pratt wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a high-magnitude event taking place in New York, which sits in the middle the North American Tectonic Plate, considered by experts to be quite stable.
„We never know,“ he said. „One could come tomorrow. On the other hand, it could be another 300 years. We don’t understand why earthquakes happen (here) at all.“
Though the city’s last observable earthquake occurred on Oct. 27, 2001, and caused no real damage, New York has been hit by two Magnitude 5 earthquakes in its history – in 1738 and in 1884 — prompting many to say it is „due“ for another.
While earthquakes generally have to be Magnitude 6 or higher to be considered „large,“ by experts, „a Magnitude 5, directly under New York City, would shake it quite strongly,“ Pratt said.
The reason has to do with the rock beneath our feet, the USGS report says.
OLDER ROCKS
In the East, we have older rocks, some of which formed „hundreds of millions of years before those in the West,“ the report says. Since the faults in the rocks have had so much time to heal, the seismic waves travel more efficiently through them when an earthquake occurs.
„Rocks in the East are like a granite countertop and rocks in the West are much softer,“ Pratt said. „Take a granite countertop and hit it and it’ll transmit energy well. In the West, it’s like a sponge. The energy gets absorbed.“
If a large, Magnitude 7 earthquake does occur, smaller structures, and older structures in Manhattan would be most vulnerable, Pratt said. „In the 1920s, ’30s and late 1800s, they were not built with earthquake resistance,“ he said, noting that newer skyscrapers were built to survive hurricanes, so would be more resistant.
When discussing earthquake prediction and probability, Pratt uses the analogy of a baseball player who averages a home run every 10 times at bat and hasn’t hit one in the past nine games: „When he’s up at bat, will he hit a home run? You just don’t know.“
And though it would probably take a magnitude of 7 to topple buildings in the city, smaller earthquakes are still quite dangerous, he said.
„Bookshelves could fall down and hit you,“ he said. „People could be killed.“ A lot of stone work and heavy objects fell from buildings when a quake of 5.8 magnitude struck central Virginia in 2011, he noted, but, fortunately, no one was injured.
To be safe, Pratt encourages New Yorkers to keep a few days‘ worth of drinking water and other supplies on hand. He, himself, avoids putting heavy things up high.
„It always gets me nervous when I go into a restaurant that has heavy objects high on shelves,“ he said. „It’s unlikely you’ll get an earthquake. But, we just don’t know.“

The Iranian Nuclear Horn Grows Despite the Virus (Daniel 8:4)

And its clandestine agenda
By Warren Reinsch • March 28
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been one of the worst-hit countries by the coronavirus. As of March 27, it had over 27,000 confirmed cases and over 2,000 deaths. Satellite images released by the New York Times showing mass burial graves in the city of Qom, where the virus was first reported in Iran, have caused many to believe the numbers are much higher than reported. The nation is now facing a second wave of the outbreak. Iran’s response to the virus reflects the regime’s agenda.
Many hold Iran’s slow response to the virus accountable for the infection in other Middle East nations. Jonathan Spyer wrote for the Jerusalem Post, “Tehran’s relations with Beijing are of growing importance to the regime. Iran therefore preferred to downplay reports of the virus rather than risk offending its ally.” Iran did not cancel flights or suspend trade between the two nations.
To make matters worse, even after the first case was reported in Qom, it made no efforts at quarantine, instead allowing mass religious pilgrimages to the city. A hospital administrator in Tehran said, “If we had limited the travel of people in Qom, since the epicenter of the illness is in Qom, the spread would not have been so extensive.” Maps of the infected area show that the virus quickly spread to nearby provinces, and then to the rest of Iran.
Another reason Iran was slow to quarantine was because of the parliamentary elections on February 21. The Islamic regime wanted to ensure the elections would continue as planned, leading to a more hard-line parliament.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on March 3: “This disease is not serious; we have seen more disastrous calamities than this.” He claimed that the virus would only be a “fleeting event.” But as the infected numbers grew and the deaths increased, the mullahs were forced to revise their statements.
On March 22, Khamenei came out refusing United States help, claiming, “Possibly your medicine is a way to spread the virus more.” He was echoing Chinese government spokesman Lijian Zhao, who tweeted earlier this month that it “might be U.S. Army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.” Khamenei even claimed the virus was “specifically built for Iran using the genetic data of Iranians, which they have obtained through different means.”
Coronavirus: A Two-Edged Sword
Yoel Guzansky, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, called coronavirus a double-edged sword. While Iran is struggling to deal with the deaths and contain its spread, the virus has also provided the nation with an opportunity.
“Iran’s leaders might be focused on dealing with the coronavirus, but on the flip side, they might also be taking advantage of it,” Israel Hayom wrote on March 18 (emphasis added). “[W]ith the world’s focus temporarily diverted, [the mullahs are] working secretly to advance their efforts to achieve nuclear capability.”
Iran has refused access to International Atomic Energy Agency (iaea) inspectors in three potential nuclear sites. Earlier this month, newly appointed Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi called on Iran to allow inspectors access to these locations, but “it has refused to let inspectors visit. Clearly, Iran has something to hide” (ibid).
Guzansky told Jerusalem News Syndicate that “we should all be paying attention to what Iran is doing, especially now.”
While the world is hyperventilating over a fear of coronavirus, Iran has kicked its nuclear program into high gear. On March 3, the iaea announced that Iran has nearly tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium since November. The iaea reported that as of February 19, Iran had a total of 1,021 kilograms of enriched uranium, far more than the 300-kilogram limit set by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. For comparison, a small nuclear bomb only requires about 50 kilograms. The first nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 only contained 64 kilograms of Uranium-235. Iran has far surpassed these limitations.
Iran’s ultimate goal—despite what news media report—is to build the bomb (for proof, read “Don’t Believe the Deniers—Iran Wants to Go Nuclear”).
Building a nuclear bomb requires enriching uranium to 90 percent concentration of U-235 atoms, as opposed to the more prevalent and less reactive U-238. In November last year, Iran announced that it had reached 4.5 percent uranium purity and that it intended to increase that to 5 percent. Enriching uranium from its natural state of 0.7 percent to 4 percent purity is 83 percent of the effort required to achieve 90 percent weapons-grade uranium. Iran has already passed this threshold.
Just two years ago, experts estimated Iran’s breakout time to build the bomb to be as little as 7 to 12 months. Some experts now believe its breakout time could be as little as two months.
The Push
The Prophet Daniel recorded a prophecy in the Bible describing Iran’s belligerent behavior and how it will lead to World War iii: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over” (Daniel 11:40).
Watch Jerusalem editor in chief Gerald Flurry has identified radical Islamic extremism, led by Iran, as “the king of the south.” (For more information about Iran’s support of terrorism, strategy to control world trade, flirtation with nuclear weaponry, and its radical ideological beliefs, read his booklet The King of the South.)
“This is an ideology that embraces death,” Mr. Flurry writes in The King of the South. “The blatantly bold and aggressive foreign policy of Iran must lead to war. It will either conquer or be conquered.”
Iran is an extremely radical nation. Even in the midst of battling coronavirus, Iran has continued to push its aggressive agenda in the Middle East. Iran is pushing its nuclear program closer and closer to the realization of a nuclear bomb.
Despite being temporarily chastened by a rocky start to the year, the past few months have clearly showed just how determined Iran is to continue its quest for regional domination.
For more information, read The King of the South, by Mr. Flurry.

The Horrific Truth of the First Nuclear War (Revelation 8 )

Let’s hope it never happens.
Recently India alleged a series of ceasefire violations—in the form of automatic weapons fire—by Pakistan on the border between the two countries. According to India, it was the sixth attack in just five days. Such events are a reminder that tension remains high on the Indian subcontinent.
(This first appeared in 2014 and is being reposted due to reader interest.)
The nuclear arsenals of both sides—and the red lines that would trigger their use—have made conventional war much more risky to conduct. The 1999 Kargil War is considered the closest the world has come to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. If India were to use its superiority in ground forces to seize a sizable amount of Pakistani territory, Pakistan could respond with nuclear weapons.
It’s distinctly possible that any future war between India and Pakistan would involve limited action on the ground and full-scale fighting at sea and in the air. India has the upper hand in both, particularly at sea where it would have the ability to blockade Pakistani ports. Pakistan imports 83% of its gasoline consumption, and without sizable reserves the economy would feel the effects of war very quickly. An economic victory, not a purely military one might be the best way to decisively end a war without the use of nuclear weapons.
With that scenario in mind, let’s look at the five Indian weapons Pakistan would fear most in a war.
INS Vikramaditya Aircraft Carrier
Commissioned in November 2013, INS Vikramaditya is the newer and more modern of India’s two aircraft carriers. In the event of war, Vikramaditya would lead an offensive at sea designed to sweep the Pakistani Navy from the field. The nightmare scenario for Pakistan would be Vikramaditya parked off the coast of Karachi, Pakistan’s largest port, enforcing a naval blockade.
Originally built for the Soviet Navy as the anti-submarine aviation cruiser Baku, Vikramaditya was mothballed in 1996 after it became clear post-Cold War Russia could not afford to operate her. The ship was purchased by India in 2004, to be upgraded by Russian shipbuilders to a true aircraft carrier complete with angled flight deck. The updated design deleted all cruiser armament, including two 100mm deck guns, 192 SA-N-9 surface to air missiles and 12 SS-N-12 Sandbox anti-ship missiles.
Vikramaditya is 282 meters long and displaces 44,000 tons, making it less than half the displacement of American supercarriers. Nevertheless Vikramaditya’s powerful air wing is capable of executing air superiority, anti-surface, anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare. The carrier air wing is expected to consist of 24 MiG-29K or Tejas multi-role fighters and 10 anti-submarine warfare helicopters. India has ordered 45 MiG-29Ks, with the first squadron, 303 “Black Panthers” Squadron, stood up in May 2013.
INS Chakra Nuclear Attack Submarine
While INS Vikramaditya would be the visible symbol of a naval blockade, perhaps the real enforcers would be India’s force of 14 attack submarines. The most powerful of India’s submarines is INS Chakra, an Akula-II nuclear-powered attack submarine.
INS Chakra would be able to fulfill a variety of wartime tasks. It would be a real threat to Pakistan’s Navy, particularly her 11 frigates and eight submarines, only three of which are reasonably modern. Chakra is also capable of covertly laying mines in Pakistani waters and conduct surveillance in support of a blockade.
Construction of the submarine that would become Chakra began in 1993, but stalled due to lack of funding. In 2004 the Indian Navy agreed to fund the sub to completion—at a cost of $900 million—in exchange for a future 10 year lease with an option to buy. Delivery to the Indian Navy was supposed to take place in 2010, but transfer was delayed after a 2008 accident that killed 20 Russian Navy personnel and wounded another 21.
At 8,000 tons displacement, Chakra is as large as U.S. Virginia-class nuclear submarines. It has a maximum speed of 30 knots with a maximum operating depth of reportedly 520 meters. The sub not only has a customary large sonar hydrophone array on the bow, but also active and passive arrays scattered over the rest of the hull. Chakra also features a pod-mounted towed hydrophone array.
INS Chakra is armed with not only four standard diameter 533 torpedo tubes but also another four 650mm torpedo tubes. Armament includes the VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo, a high speed torpedo capable of traveling at 220 knots to ranges of up 15 kilometers. Missile armament is in the form of 3M54 Klub anti-ship missiles. Chakra can carry up to 40 torpedo tube launched weapons, including mines. (Five merchant ships were struck by mines during the 1971 India-Pakistan War.) For defensive purposes, Chakra has six external tubes, each carrying two torpedo decoys.
According to the terms of the lease with Russia, Chakra cannot be equipped with nuclear weapons.
AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III Attack Helicopter
India’s recent agreement to purchase the AH-64D Apache helicopter represents a quantum leap in land firepower for the Indian Army. The Apache’s versatility means that it will be able to do everything from engage armored formations in a conventional war scenario to hunt guerrillas and infiltrators in a counterinsurgency campaign.
The Apache is one of the most battle proven attack helicopters fielded. Apache is capable of speeds of up to 171 miles an hour in high altitude environments, an important consideration in India’s mountainous terrain. The rotor blades are resistant to 12.7mm machine gun fire and the cockpit is protected from shrapnel by Kevlar shielding.
The Apache Longbow is optimized to attack and destroy armor—the mast-mounted millimeter-wave radar is capable of detecting and prioritizing up to 128 vehicle targets in a matter of seconds, then attacking up to sixteen targets in quick succession. For counterinsurgency operations, the thermal imaging sensor allows crew members to pick out individuals in ground cover and concealment.
The helicopter has four external hard points, each of which can mount four Hellfire missiles. A 30mm cannon capable of engaging light armor, soft targets or personnel is mounted underneath the helicopter chin and slaved to an optical sight worn by the pilot and gunner.
In a contract worth $1.4 billion dollars, in 2012 India agreed to purchase 22 Apache helicopters. Also included in the 2012 deal was a request for 812 Hellfire Longbow millimeter-wave radar guided missiles for use against tanks and armored vehicles and 542 Hellfires optimized for use against hard, soft and enclosed targets. Also included in the deal were 245 Stinger Block I missiles to provide an air-to-air capability.
In August, India offered to buy a further 39 Apaches, in an attempt to drive the overall unit cost down.
Su-30MKI Fighter
The Indian Air Force’s Su-30MKI air superiority fighter is meant to secure air superiority over Pakistan. The IAF has 200 Su-30MKIs in service with another 72 on order. A long-ranged, twin engine fighter with a powerful radar and formidable armament, the Su-30MKI will form the mainstay of the Indian Air Force.
The Su-30MKI is an evolution of the 1980s-era Su-27 Flanker. Thrust vectoring control and canards make the plane highly maneuverable, while the Zhuk active electronically scanned array radar makes it capable of engaging several targets at once. Complementing the Zhuk will be the Novator long-range air to air missile, capable of engaging targets at up to 300 to 400 kilometers.
The Su-30MKI has an impressive twelve hardpoints for mounting weapons, sensors and fuel tanks. The Su-30MKI is arguably superior to any fighter in the Pakistani Air Force, with the possible exception of the F-16 Block 50/52, of which Pakistan has only 18.
A portion of the Su-30MKI force has been modified for the strategic reconnaissance role. Israeli-made sensor pods reportedly give the Indian Air Force the ability to look up to 300 kilometers into Pakistan (or China) simply by flying along the border.
The Su-30MKI will grow even more lethal with the addition of the air-launched version of the BrahMos supersonic missile, currently under development. Each Su-30MKI will be capable of carrying a single BrahMos. BrahMos will give the Su-30MKI stand-off capability against ships and ground targets to ranges of 295 kilometers.
Indian Nuclear Weapons
India first tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, with the detonation of a 12 kiloton explosive device. The Indian government has been consistently tight-lipped on the status of their nuclear arsenal, and as a result a considerable amount of mystery surrounds India’s nuclear weapons.
The exact size of the arsenal is unknown but estimated to be between 90 and 110 nuclear devices. Statements by officials have lead outsiders to believe the maximum yield of Indian weapons to be around 200 kilotons, or approximately ten times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
India’s first nuclear delivery systems were likely attack aircraft—first the Jaguar, then the MiG-27 and Mirage 2000. Although capable, the aircraft were vulnerable to Pakistan’s air defense network and this vulnerability likely lead to the development of the land-based missiles. It is unknown whether nuclear weapons have been fitted to the Su-30MKI, but as a non-stealthly aircraft its ability to penetrate Pakistani defenses would not be dissimilar to a Mirage 2000.

The Nations Resume Trampling Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

No casualties or property damage was reported, with the rocket apparently falling in an open area near Sha’ar Hanegev in southern Israel
Jack KhouryHaaretz27.03.2020
Rockets above Ashkelon, November 2019.Ilan Assayag
A rocket was launched from the Gaza Strip toward Israel, the Israeli army said on Friday after sirens blared in the southern city of Sderot and several border communities.
No casualties or property damage was reported, with the rocket apparently falling in an open area near Sha’ar Hanegev in southern Israel.
The previous escalation in the south was last February, when more than 50 rockets were fired into Israel in response to the killing of an Islamic Jihad activist in an Israeli strike.
A video that circulated in the Gaza Strip documented an IDF bulldozer dragging the body of the activist, alongside Palestinians confronting the force east of Khan Yunis.
The Iron Dome system intercepted 90 percent of the rockets launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel, but two of them hit a home and playground in Sderot.
During the escalation, the Israeli Air Force attacked Islamic Jihad targets in the Gaza Strip and Syria, and several operatives of the organization were killed in IDF attacks.

Antichrist blames gay marriages for coronavirus

March 28, 2020
By Yaghoub Fazeli
DUBAI — Iraq’s influential Shiite leaderMoqtada Al-Sadrhas blamed the legalization of same-sex marriage for causing the coronavirus pandemic.
“One of the most appalling things that have caused this epidemic is the legalization of same-sex marriages,” Al-Sadrsaid in a post on his Twitter account on Saturday.
“Hence, I call on all governments to repeal this law immediately and without any hesitation,” he added.
Followers of Al-Sadr were criticized after hundreds congregated inside a mosque and chanted “coronavirus has terrified you,” despite government measures imposed to stop the spread of the outbreak.
Iraq imposed a nationwide lockdown last week that ends today as part of measures to fight the coronavirus.
As of Saturday, 42 in Iraq have died from coronavirus, and there are 506 confirmed cases, according to the Iraqi health ministry.
Thirty countries worldwide, most of them in Europe, have allowed for same-sex marriage, according to research from Pew Research Center. — Al Arabiya English

The True Risk for Nuclear Disaster (Revelation 16)

Reuters

Nuclear Proliferation Treaty Troubles Remain Unaddressed Amid a Global Pandemic

It is vital that would-be bombmakers be disabused of any notion that they could evade tough international sanctions. We need a country-neutral, reasonably predictable, more-or-less automatic sanction regime that puts all countries on notice, even friends of the powerful.
Just as we’ve had to discard business-as-usual thinking to deal with the current worldwide health emergency; it’s time to get serious about the spread of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t have the immediacy of the coronavirus, but it will last a lot longer and is no less threatening. In particular, we need to fortify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which is fifty years old this year and badly needs fixing. The April 2020 Review Conference will likely be postponed, which provides time to develop something more than the usual charade of incremental proposals that nibble at the problem.
What needs fixing? Five problems: The NPT allows withdrawal on three months notice; it does not bar the use of nuclear explosives as fuels; its inspection arm, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is too much involved in promoting nuclear energy; it lacks an established enforcement system, so each violation requires an improvised response; and it is undermined by the holdouts—India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan—thumbing their noses at the treaty. International lawyers may scream, but we need to make it essentially impossible to exercise the NPT’s withdrawal provision. This is vital because the member states’ safeguards agreements with the IAEA remain in force only so long as the states remain parties to the treaty.
A country should not be allowed to gather the wherewithal for a bomb while a member and then free itself of its treaty responsibilities by announcing its withdrawal. It shouldn’t be allowed to leave the treaty with technology, imported or indigenous, it obtained as a member, because it did so with the forbearance of other members on the assumption that it was doing so for peaceful uses.
There has to be a wide safety margin between genuinely peaceful and potentially military applications to make it impossible to surprise the world with a bomb. The oft-cited “inalienable right” to “nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” in the NPT’s Article IV has to be interpreted strictly in terms of the treaty’s overriding objective expressed in Article I (nuclear weapons countries can’t help others get bombs), and Article II (non-weapons countries can’t get them, period). That’s a long way of saying no commercial use of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which today has no economic justification.
Another relic embedded in the NPT and the IAEA Statute is their promotion of nuclear power. With mind-numbing regularity, IAEA officials argue that accommodating countries on nuclear energy technology helps to gain their assent to control measures. But this approach weakens the NPT by creating a zero-sum game in which nonproliferation obligations of the many members are held hostage to technology sharing by the main supplier states. Unfortunately, too many members want dangerous technologies. That is not all. The agency’s singling out of nuclear energy as the anointed energy source leads to a misallocation of economic and scientific resources in countries that can’t afford it.
In the initial years of the NPT, there was an implicit assumption that the Western states and Soviets would police their spheres. But now, with the Cold War over, the NPT needs an established enforcement mechanism to deal predictably with violations, instead of each instance requiring improvisation by the leading members. The logic of “safeguards” assumes rapid international reaction, but experience shows it is more often measured in years. It is vital that would-be bombmakers be disabused of any notion that they could evade tough international sanctions. We need a country-neutral, reasonably predictable, more-or-less automatic sanction regime that puts all countries on notice, even friends of the powerful. A permanent secretariat attached to the treaty would help. Finally, it undermines the treaty when a non-member is used to enforce it, as when the United States acquiesced in Israel’s 2007 bombing of Syria’s clandestine reactor, instead of involving the IAEA, or when it cooperated with Israel in sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program.
The most difficult issue is what to do about the three NPT holdouts—India, Israel, and Pakistan—and the member-in-violation, North Korea. The drafters’ intent to only recognize five nuclear states was to first make sure that number did not grow larger while treating reductions among the five separately. To add new nuclear weapon members in addition to these five would undermine the treaty. However impossible it may now seem, the only way that all states can be brought under the NPT system is if all commit themselves to reduce their nuclear weapons to zero. The United States and Russia have made substantial reductions, but the continuation of that process requires all nuclear states to join in further cuts.
Towards this end, we would universalize the treaty—that is, regard it as applicable to all states. The three holdouts would then be in non-compliance. Of course, as a legal matter, you cannot force a country to join a treaty. But if the 190 NPT members so decided, they could treat the three holdouts, and North Korea, as countries in non-compliance, with appropriate disadvantages that would follow from that. At the same time, if these countries joined the weapons reductions process under adequate monitoring, they could be considered as approaching compliance, and disadvantages could be moderated.
This much is clear: Incremental, least-common-denominator steps are never going to get us to where we need to be, and serious people responsible for security know it. To cope with proliferation hazards in the face of weak international controls over nuclear programs, the world seems to be slipping—witness the case of Iran—into relying on greatly increased national intelligence operations backed up in the last instance by bombing and even assassinations. It is difficult to imagine that this is a workable solution for the long term.
To stop the further spread of nuclear weapons, we have to stop downplaying the NPT. Instead, we should strengthen and use it.
Victor Gilinsky is a program advisor for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) in Arlington, Virginia. He served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. 
Henry Sokolski is executive director of NPEC and the author of Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future (second edition 2019). He served as deputy for nonproliferation policy in the Cheney Pentagon. 

Sunday, March 29, 2020

History Expects the Sixth Seal in NYC (Revelation 6:12)


According to the New York Daily News, Lynn Skyes, lead author of a recent study by seismologists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory adds that a magnitude-6 quake hits the area about every 670 years, and magnitude-7 every 3,400 years.
A 5.2-magnitude quake shook New York City in 1737 and another of the same severity hit in 1884.
Tremors were felt from Maine to Virginia.
There are several fault lines in the metro area, including one along Manhattan’s 125th St. – which may have generated two small tremors in 1981 and may have been the source of the major 1737 earthquake, says Armbruster.
“The problem here comes from many subtle faults,” explained Skyes after the study was published.
He adds: “We now see there is earthquake activity on them. Each one is small, but when you add them up, they are probably more dangerous than we thought.”
Armbruster says a 5.0-magnitude earthquake today likely would result in casualties and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.
“I would expect some people to be killed,” he notes.
The scope and scale of damage would multiply exponentially with each additional tick on the Richter scale. (ANI)