1884 A Forewarning Of The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

The Coney Island earthquake of 1884

Seismograph of New York Earthquake 1884

January 20, 2010

New York City isn’t immune to earthquakes; a couple of small tremors measuring about 2.5 on the Richter scale even struck back in 2001 and 2002.
But on August 10, 1884, a more powerful earthquake hit. Estimated from 4.9 to 5.5 in magnitude, the tremor made houses shake, chimneys fall, and residents wonder what the heck was going on, according to a New York Times article two days later.
The quake was subsequently thought to have been centered off Far Rockaway or Coney Island.
It wasn’t the first moderate quake, and it won’t be the last. In a 2008 Columbia University study, seismologists reported that the city is crisscrossed with several fault lines, one along 125th Street. 
With that in mind, New Yorkers should expect a 5.0 or higher earthquake centered here every 100 years, the seismologists say.
Translation: We’re about 30 years overdue. Lucky for us the city adopted earthquake-resistant building codes in 1995.1884 A Forewarning Of The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

The First Nuclear War is Inevitable (Revelation 8)

War with Pakistan is Inevitable
Northlines
February 28, 2018
The net result of all the millions of daily discussions around the globe on India and Pakistan, the continuous flow of articles and speeches around the world on this subject, the narratives presented, terrorism in both Pakistan and India, the posturing and skirmishes between the two armies, and the trend of emotions of Indians and Pakistanis, point unequivocally to the certain future that war between India and Pakistan is inevitable, much to the dismay of all peaceniks. It is not anymore a question of “if”, but only of “when.” The desire to put Pakistan behind India and the world is driven by wanting to fully close the chapter on terrorism – to pull out a thorn and move ahead with the task of economy building – to bring peace on Earth.
The overall issues in India-Pakistan relations are deeply intertwined such that they are knotted, with historical baggage going back a thousand years, and the knots simply cannot be opened or released. Instead, the knots are feeling tighter and tighter on a daily basis as terrorism increases, and as does China’s interest in Pakistan because of CPEC, the oil of the Middle East, and CPEC’s relation to OBOR.
The Time for India to Act
The time for India to act is getting more and more difficult as the years pass. For instance, it was relatively easy for India to take West Pakistan apart soon after the 1971 war, if India had so contemplated. To imagine that the USA would have invaded India in the early 1970s, had India invaded Pakistan or not returned the 93,000 prisoners, is most unreasoned, given that the USA was deeply embroiled in a war of its own in Vietnam, right up to its neck. Hence, the threats given by the USA to India were hollow, except that our leaders were hollower. It is well known that President Nixon gave a serious threat of military intervention to India should India not return the prisoners, and warned the USSR not to intervene[1], given the history of USSR submarines trailing the 7th fleet during the Bangladesh war. The USSR buckled, and imposed upon Indira Gandhi to return the 93,000 prisoners. And, Indira Gandhi, who was a likely protégé of the USSR, preferred to pay heed to them rather than her own advisors. After all, when she declared emergency in 1975, she was given information by “heads of state” that India was in danger by “external forces”, who then suggested to her to impose the emergency,[2] upon which she ruled like a dictator, much in the image of her Soviet superiors.
In any event, India could have dismembered West Pakistan once again in the early 1980s when it was occupied with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, things kept getting more and more difficult after West Pakistan made its own atom bombs, and sponsored a massive terrorist action in Kashmir.Things also became psychologically difficult after two political assassinations of prime ministers in India within a short span of ten years, which upset and distracted the political mind in India. Through the 1990s and 2000s, Pakistan’s military was inferior to India’s, and still is inferior in the 2010s. Now, the possibility of nuclear war hangs as a shadow over the subcontinent, and Pakistan seems to depend on that to avert war. But, inasmuch as there are rationale actors on both sides that may only threaten nuclear war but not use it, the only match at this point is who has inferior guts and inferior will. The logic that nuclear weapons will deter conventional war is probably a full-blown myth.[3] In other words, when war starts, Pakistan is likely to refrain from using nuclear devices.
India’s Defense Buildup
The present BJP government under PM Modi has embarked upon a major defense procurement program. The program could be better and more effective, but the buildup will assure India’s supremacy and victory in the inevitable war with Pakistan. Thus, India is buying sufficient numbers of 155 mm light howitzers and attack helicopters that are necessary and supreme in mountain warfare. A massive missile program, both indigenous and imported, promises to dent and destroy Pakistani tanks, aircraft, ships, and incoming missiles. This is coupled with a significant naval buildup of frigates, submarines, submarine hunters, and additional aircraft carriers. Pakistan’s efforts pale in comparison.
As soon as the buildup is substantially completed, by 2022 supposedly, and while PM Modi is likely to be in his second term, it is very plausible that India will exercise its muscle, whether Pakistan is prepared or not.
Justifications of the Pakistan Military
The Pakistani military has justified its existence in Pakistan on the basis of the Indian military threat. There are two parts to this threat, viz. (i) the Indian threat is real, or (ii) the Indian threat is imagined.
For the former scenario, Pakistan has rightly calculated that it must keep up its guard. But, to justify the latter in the eyes of the public, Pakistan must still pose as if to keep up its guard, and create a string of problems on the border with India even if none took place, so as to justify its own existence as an elite organization that is entitled to the lion’s share of the country’s resources. Hence, we see a proxy war fought by Pakistan in Kashmir that is continuing relentlessly till today. In either scenario, the Pakistani military manages to maintain an elite status for itself and its officers, garnering immense respect in the eye of the public, such that the Pakistanis have come to depend on the military, notwithstanding that Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, and Pervez Musharraff took them from one disaster to another. They have still not recovered the goodwill that Pakistan lost in the world after Musharraf’s ill-fated Kargil campaignon the world stage. But none of this daunts the Pakistani public, who depend on the Generals for their survival as a nation.
The Pakistanis Who See Through
However, there is a major segment of the Pakistani public, including intelligentsia, who understand that the present situation, starting from Pakistan’s 1948 expedition in Kashmir, is a result of Pakistani mischief. Every bit of international terrorism, the adventures in and of Kargil, 1999, East Pakistan, 1971, and the Indo-Pak war, Sept 1965 are a result of Pakistani aggression.[4] They are honestly scared that Pakistani shenanigans can spiral out of control, result in Western sanctions on Pakistan, and culminate in a Pakistan broken into pieces.[5],[6]
A Little Bit of Muscle Made a Big Difference
Recent changes in Pakistani media and a change in the tunes that Pakistanis sang, suffered a dramatic change with a small surgical strike by India. Up till now, Pakistan took as much advantage as they could of the quiet and cowardly behavior by India. Hence, Pakistan tried to press home its advantages so long as India did not retaliate – much like a bully in school keeping up his bullying tactics till confronted. The narrative on Pakistani talk shows began to change ever since the surgical strike by India, which even begs the question why India does not react more frequently, as does Israel against its belligerent neighbors. But overnight, Pakistanis went from assailing India to talking of peace. And, this happened with simply a small surgical strike by a mostly cowardly India[7]. What would happen if India did something bigger than only a surgical strike? Surely, logic would dictate that Pakistan would reform itself. Sometimes, one has to slap a child to rectify behavior.
War Scenarios
To a great extent, Pakistan draws its political strength from the voices of the public, not only its military. Hence, with a Pakistani public that sees a tiger in India rather than a mouse, the will of Pakistan stands a chance to change.Nevertheless, simply undertaking stronger and deeper surgical strikes at higher frequencies may not be the answer.
The fact is, there are multiple war scenarios, each of which cannot prevent war. An overall scenario, where the politicians on both sides, the military generals on both sides, the media on both sides, and the public on both sides do not want war is immensely hard to come by. Should only one of the above elements be lacking in either side, war is inevitable. Add to this mix, the Pakistani terrorist organizations fuelling the path to war, as well as ISI’s aid to Indian homegrown terrorists.
How any adverse combinations can be stopped by political action and negotiations defeats every analyst and politician, because efforts of 70 years have failed. In fact, their efforts to reconcile India-Pakistan differences, such as the return of territories in 1965 under Russian mediation; return of 93,000 POWs and territories in 1971 under American threats; and not crossing the LOC during the Kargil war, only delayed the inevitable, and brought no good to the region or the world in the interim. It appears that only war can solve this Gordian knot that strangles both India and Pakistan. The sooner this strangulation is released, the better for all the people on both sides.
There are 48 scenarios where the above combinations have at least one antagonist on the other side. This is excluding the terrorist combination, but if you include them, certainty for war simply rises. When there are two antagonists – one on each side – war has a very high chance; when there is at least one antagonist – which is all that one really needs for war – the chances are still high. Hence, the flat probability of at least one antagonist on each side is 75%. Further, the actual probability – not the flat probability – that all elements will not want war, given the deep hostilities and in-built feelings – is practically zero.
Thus, if the voice of the Pakistani generals, or voice of the Indian public goes highly in favor of war, war stands an increased chance; if the voice of the Indian politicians or Pakistani public increases for war, then war will ensue: from the Indian side, the politicians can give a direct order; from the Pakistani side, the public pressure can be felt on their politicians and military. The same theories work on both sides.
Anyone can analyze those 48 combinations. The theory behind them is that any strong voice from among the four elements – and terrorists as the fifth element – will influence the war-making decision-makers. Even the media can have a very powerful effect on the leaders of the country, especially in a small country like Pakistan. For instance, the tit-for-tat nuclear tests by Pakistan in 1998 were influenced very strongly by the public, parliament, and the media.[8] The force in the Indian public appears particularly strong in that it wants Pakistan taken properly care of once and for all. The voices in the BJP also say the same.
Overall Chances of War
Given the inbuilt misgivings and distrust on both sides, the overall chances of war far exceed the chances of peace. The entire culture in which three generations have come up in India and Pakistan, and the continuing and misguided actions at the border, there is little to no chance to reverse this trend by trade, political deals, or person-to-person contacts. The deep differences between India and Pakistan are irreconcilable by any technique of alternate dispute resolution, despite all the efforts of 70 years. Alas, given that the odds favor war, the question is only when, not if.
Hence, war is inevitable, and India has no choice but to arm to protect its interests – this time with the aim of overtaking Pakistan fully – and swiftly. The only choice India faces is about how it wishes to win the war – slowly, with pain – or swiftly, before the world wakes up – or, in fact – to lose the war by neglecting its defense, as it nearly lost at Kargil, was caught unprepared in the Rann of Kutch in 1965, and actually lost in the 1950s to China by yieldinghuge tracts of Kashmir to Chinawithout a shot being fired because India did not even have observation posts on its borders.[9]
Questions to also ask now, are: how well does India wish to plan the next war? Will it wait for a Pakistani or terrorist attack, or will it take the initiative on its own? Has India got the nerve and the willpower to want to move ahead or does it wish always to be pulled down in perpetuity by a Pakistan – much to the wishes of a modern China and erstwhile Great Britain?
Closure
The reading from the tealeaves is that all indicators at a political, military, public, and media perspective, points to war. At present, there is a strong call among the Indian public to demolish Pakistan and get over with the nuisance that Pakistan is. The major elements of the public, the media, the military, and the political leaders can combine in 48 different ways to create a strong, overwhelming route to war, and this is not even considering that terrorism is a strong fifth force.
Thus, war appears inevitable once again on the subcontinent. It is quite certain that the story will not finish on this till the story of Pakistan is finished in Indian eyes.

Iranian Reasserts Hegemony in the Middle East (Daniel 8:4)

Velayati on Iranian Involvement in Middle East

MEMRI

 Speaking on February 1, 2018 in Mashhad, at the Conference for Support of the Palestinian Intifada, Ali Akbar Velayati, senior advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, responded to Iranian critics of the regime who, during last month's uprising, protested against Iran's involvement in various battlefronts in the Middle East. Addressing an audience of students, he stated that Iran would maintain its involvement and presence in the region, in order to thwart the plots of Israel and the U.S., among other goals.

The following are his main points, as reported by the Iranian news agencies ISNA and Fars.
According to Fars, Velayati said: "Let me tell you, you don't have to worry about that mess [i.e. last month's popular uprising], some of whose [participants] stupidly became a tool in the hands of the mercenaries and speak against the sacred goals of the revolution. The call 'Neither Gaza nor Lebanon' conceals a misunderstanding of the developments in the world. Can someone sit at home and say that the conflagration at his neighbor's home does not concern him?
"Everyone wants a foothold in our country. That is the essence of the global developments.
"Let's assume we aren't Muslims. [Even so], could we conceivably [watch] the Israeli flag being raised near our border, in the Kurdish region of Iraq, and remain silent?
"The Lebanese Hizbullah has grown stronger thanks to Iran, and we are proud of this. Hizbullah is now in a situation similar to [its situation in] the 2006 Lebanon war: The Israeli leaders are fleeing from it.
"In the Gaza war [presumably the 2014 war with Israel], the leaders of the resistance in Palestine said, 'Iran supplied us with everything, from bread to bullets.' After the war, [Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader] Ramadan [Shalah] declared this at a press conference. We are proud to sit here and help the Muslims against the Zionists.[1] For 22 days, Gaza, only 300 [square] kilometers in size, was under attack from all directions, yet managed to resist. This attests to the will of the Palestinian people, and to the support we extended. We are proud to have paralyzed Israel...
"Today, America wants to dismantle countries. The plot of the New Middle East [involves] breaking up countries, and Iran opposes this.
"The global arrogance [i.e. the U.S.] has excessive demands in the region. One [member of the P5+1] says that the JCPOA should be maintained, but [tells us], 'limit your missiles.' Another tells us, 'limit your presence in the region.' Why? Isn't this an excessive demand? You could make such excessive demands in the Shah's era, but not today.
"The Iranian people has always opposed the arrogance. It has rejected arrogance since the dawn of history...
"Our presence in the region is inevitable. We will continue this process, so as to become the most decisive force in the region. We are present in Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon, at the behest of and in coordination with the governments of these countries. We help Yemen because it is our human duty to do so. Saudi Arabia must know that this ongoing process will make Yemen its Vietnam."[2]
ISNA also quoted Velayati as saying: "If we had sat in silence, if the great Islamic general [commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' Qods Force] Mr. [Qassem] Soleimani and the wisdom of the Leader [Ali Khamenei] had not existed, the Israelis would have opened up a front only dozens of kilometers from our border [i.e. in Iraqi Kurdistan]. In that situation, could we live in Iran? [Even] someone who does not share Iran's religion and identity – could they live where Israeli tanks are only dozens of kilometers away? How can anyone be so deficient in understanding?"[3]

Iranian Influence Stirs the Ire of the Antichrist

Iranian interference in Iraqi election stirs anger among Iraqis

 

 

With the upcoming Iraqi elections in May, Iranians have stepped up their actions to manage their alliances in Iraq to ensure the continuity of their influence.

 

REUTERS/Thaier al-Sudani

 

An Iraqi policeman casts his vote into a ballot box during early voting for the parliamentary election in Baghdad, Iraq, April 28, 2014.

 

Ali Akbar Velayati, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's top adviser on international affairs, paid an official visit to Iraq from Feb. 15-18. He made statements on issues related to Iraq's internal affairs, including the upcoming elections, which sparked controversy in the Iraqi political scene.

“We will not allow liberals and communists to govern in Iraq,” Velayati said during a speech Feb. 17 at the Founding Conference of the Iraqi Assembly of Islamic Unity in Baghdad.
It is clear that Velayati was referring to the electoral alliance between the Sadrist movement, the civil movement and the Iraqi Communist Party in the upcoming elections. Since the last elections in 2014, the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, has been adopting a stance independent of Iran. His followers have repeatedly shouted slogans against Iran and its regional symbols such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani.
Raed Fahmi, the secretary of the Central Committee of the Iraqi Communist Party, running in the elections with the Sairoun coalition allied with the Sadrist movement, saw Velayati’s statement as an intervention in Iraqi affairs and against the Iraqi Constitution.
Velayati’s statement stirred the ire of other civil entities, too. Faeq al-Sheikh Ali, a member of parliament with the civil movement, said in a Facebook post Feb. 17 that it expresses contempt for and disregard of the Iraqis. “The civil movement, liberals, communists, nationalists, democrats and all the honorable people of Iraq will not allow Ali Akbar Velayati and other Iranians to interfere in Iraqi affairs,” he wrote.
In turn, the Sunni currents were also disturbed by the statements of Velayati. Parliamentarian Abdul Karim Abtan, a prominent leader with the Iraqi National Movement, said in a TV interview, “We do not work for Velayati or any other person. … We are Iraqis. Our national project is an Iraqi project. Even if Velayati has power over one or two Iraqis, this power will not last. We will not allow anyone to have influence at the expense of the Iraqis and to intervene in Iraqi affairs.”
In addition to his official meetings with President Fuad Masum and Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Velayati met with Shiite leaders close to Iran, such as former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, head of the Wisdom Movement Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Badr Organization Hadi al-Amiri and Sheikh Humam Hamoudi, the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
The choice of the figures Velayati met with indicates that Iran is apprehensive about the state of political disintegration within Iraq's Shiite community, which could have serious post-elections repercussions that would result in the formation of an Iraqi government that is more distant and independent from Iran.
An official in the Iraqi National Dialogue Front, Haidar Nuri Sadeq al-Mulla, told Al-Monitor, “Iran's tools in Iraq can no longer play the Iraqi sectarian card since the Iraqi people have become aware of such maneuvers. Therefore, Iran is trying to mobilize the Iraqi street from abroad so that the elections lead to results in favor of the blocs that still support its agenda.”
Mulla pointed to other similar statements by Rahim Bor Azghadi, a member of the Iranian Supreme Council for the Cultural Revolution. Azghadi had said, “We are intervening in the countries in the region that are close to the United States in order to bring down the ruling regimes in those countries and to be able to control them. There are five countries that are no longer controlled by Washington and currently under the control of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.”
Mulla called upon the Iraqi Foreign Ministry to take a clear stance on Iran’s interference in Iraq’s affairs, saying, “Iraq will not be part of the sectarian axis policy that Iran seeks to create in the region.”
"Iraq is not subject to the domination or control of any foreign country," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ahmed Mahjoub said Feb. 22 in response to Azghadi's statements that Iran controls five countries in the region, including Iraq, and that it was Iran (via its agents) that executed Saddam Hussein.
As usual, Velayati failed to meet with top Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani and other religious authorities during his trip to Najaf, because of the policy of the city’s religious figures not to receive Iranians who make inflammatory statements about Iraqi domestic affairs.
Lebanese Shiite activist Mustafa Fahs said that Velayati, in a statement at the Baghdad conference, called Khamenei “the leader of the Islamic nation,” without any mention of Sistani despite the latter’s major role in the stability of Iraq. Fahs said this is evidence of Iran’s resentment of Sistani.
Velayati also called on the Popular Mobilization Units to stand tall in the face of the American forces in Iraq. “Americans are in the process of creating a NATO base in Iraq with the help of some Islamic countries to prevent unity among Muslims,” Velayati said in his speech. He said Iran will not allow the American plan to see the light; he said the plan aims to block land passage between Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut.
During his encounter with Maliki, Velayati said US troops should not be present east of the Euphrates. He added, “The resistance front should not allow NATO to set up a base in western Asia.”
Recently, NATO agreed to carry on with and expand its mission in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces, upon the request of the United States.
Pro-Iran Shiite militias promptly responded. The secretary-general of Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, Sheikh Akram al-Kaabi, said Feb. 21 that his movement is making tremendous efforts “to clean up Iraqi soil of any US presence and terrorist sleeper cells; we have warned against their being under US protection under different names and descriptions.”
Parliamentarian Abdul Bari Zebari, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, criticized Velayati's remarks, saying, “Any remarks that do not come following coordination with the Iraqi government could influence Iraqi public opinion and have negative repercussions — particularly as the election approaches.”
Iran will continue to pressure its proxies in Iraq to set up a strong political alliance against their rivals in order to make sure they win a political majority that would enable them to form a government following the election.

History Warns New York Is The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New York Earthquake 1884

Friday, 18 March 2011 – 9:23pm IST | Place: NEW YORK | Agency: ANI

If the past is any indication, New York can be hit by an earthquake, claims John Armbruster, a seismologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

If the past is any indication, New York can be hit by an earthquake, claims John Armbruster, a seismologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.Based on historical precedent, Armbruster says the New York City metro area is susceptible to an earthquake of at least a magnitude of 5.0 once a century.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.
There’s another fault line on Dyckman St and one in Dobbs Ferry in nearby Westchester County.
“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.”
“Considering population density and the condition of the region’s infrastructure and building stock, it is clear that even a moderate earthquake would have considerable consequences in terms of public safety and economic impact,” says the New York City Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation on its website.
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.

Iran Ready to Go Nuclear Against the US

Iran 'may quit nuclear deal' if Donald Trump sabotages benefits of sanctions relief, minister warns
Roland Oliphant Emma Gatten
22 FEBRUARY 2018 • 2:20 PM
The world will be plunged into a new nuclear crisis if Donald Trump continues to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal, the country’s deputy foreign minister has warned.
Abbas Araghchi, a deputy foreign minister, accused Mr Trump’s administration of violating the agreement by threatening to reimpose sanctions and said Tehran could walk away from the deal if it did not begin to see economic benefits from the deal.
“If we lose the JCPOA we would face another nuclear crisis that would be very difficult to resolve this time,” Mr Araghchi said in London.
“I don't think the deal can survive in this way, if the atmosphere of confusion continues, if companies or banks will not cooperate with Iran. We cannot stay in a deal in which there is no benefit for us," he said. “That’s a fact.”
The 2015 agreement between Iran and Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States obliges Iran to restrict its nuclear program in exchange for relief from
Mr Trump last month said he would refuse to extend relief from American sanctions unless the European signatories to the deal agree to “fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal.”
He said he wants Britain, France, and Germany to help rewrite the deal to prevent Iran from resuming nuclear research and development in next decade, which it is allowed to do under the current agreement.
US sanctions will resume on May 12 unless Mr Trump signs a fresh waiver to suspend them.
Mr Araghchi said the restrictions on activities like uranium enrichment and centrifuge building were temporary “confidence building” measures and that to suggest they should be made permanent was “ridiculous.”
And he warned against attempts to tie the agreement to other points of dispute, such as Iran’s ballistic missile program or regional conflicts.
“It would be a big mistake if anyone tried to link JCPOA to other issues,” he said. “You would just lose the JCPOA and make those problems worse.”
The role of the US is crucial because many European and British businesses and banks are exposed to US regulations, making them wary of trading with Iran even if their own governments have lifted sanctions.
Mr Araghchi was speaking in London at the beginning of a visit to discuss the nuclear deal and bilateral issues with UK officials.

The Threat of Trump’s Nuclear War

No one can stop President Trump from using nuclear weapons. That's by design.
Sometime in the next few weeks, Donald Trump will be briefed on the procedures for how to activate the U.S. nuclear arsenal, if he hasn’t already learned about them.
All year, the prospect of giving the real estate and reality TV mogul the power to launch attacks that would kill millions of people was one of the main reasons his opponents argued against electing him. “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,” Hillary Clinton said in her speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination. She cut an ad along the same lines. Republicans who didn’t support Trump — and even some who did, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — also said they didn’t think he could be trusted with the launch codes.
Now they’re his. When Trump takes office in January, he will have sole authority over more than 7,000 warheads. There is no failsafe. The whole point of U.S. nuclear weapons control is to make sure that the president — and only the president — can use them if and whenever he decides to do so. The one sure way to keep President Trump from launching a nuclear attack, under the system we’ve had in place since the early Cold War, would have been to elect someone else.
When the legal framework for nuclear weapons was developed, the fear wasn’t about irrational presidents but trigger-happy generals. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which was passed with President Harry Truman’s signature after nine months of acrimonious congressional hearings, firmly put the power of the atomic bomb in the hands of the president and the civilian components of the executive branch. It was a momentous and controversial law, crafted in the months following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with an eye toward future standoffs with the Soviet Union.
The members of Congress who wrote the law, largely with the backing of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project, framed it explicitly as a question of who controls the power to use nuclear weapons: Is dropping an atomic bomb a military act or a political one? If it is inherently political, above and beyond a regular military tactic, then that power could not be entrusted to the military. Ultimately, the president was supposed to be the check against the Pentagon pushing to use nukes more often.
The scientists’ fears were based in their experiences in World War II. Their work under the Army Corps of Engineers and the Army Air Forces left them with a sour taste: Generals, they concluded, cared little about ethics, democracy or international politics. Even during the war, some civilians involved with atomic-bombing work feared that the military had become too eager to leave German and Japanese cities in cinders. The secretary of war, Henry Stimson, learned about the ruinous firebombing of Tokyo from the press. He warned Truman that letting the military run the show might cause the United States to “get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities.”
This division between military and civilian control over nuclear weapons has been weaker or stronger at various points. In the late 1940s, U.S. nuclear weapons could have their nuclear components — the plutonium or uranium “pits” needed to start their reactions — removed and inserted as needed. The nuclear parts of the atomic bombs were in the custody of the civilian Atomic Energy Commission (the precursor to the present-day Energy Department), while the military controlled the nonnuclear parts. The president had the power to transfer these pits to the military and order their use.
During the Eisenhower administration, more compact and complex weapons were developed whose nuclear and nonnuclear parts could not be separated. Fearing a Soviet sneak attack, President Dwight D. Eisenhower put the military in charge of most of the U.S. nuclear stockpile to streamline a possible response. Eisenhower also “pre-delegated” authority to the military to use tactical nuclear weapons (aimed at tanks, not cities) without getting specific presidential approval in certain situations, such as if Soviet tank columns rolled into Germany’s Fulda Gap.
Fears of low-level commanders setting off nuclear conflagrations during the tensions of the early 1960s persuaded President John F. Kennedy to dial some of this back. Miscommunications during the Cuban missile crisis almost led to the use of nuclear weapons by both U.S. and Soviet troops, and U.S. weapons stationed abroad, such as the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, could be used by any army that seized control of them. There were also lingering concerns about “Strangelove”-esque rogue generals. The head of the Strategic Air Command, Gen. Thomas Power, was an enthusiastic proponent of preemptive nuclear war.
Similar concerns within the upper reaches of the Kennedy administration led to a push for technologies to “lock” the nuclear weapons and prevent their use without some kind of codes or authorization. Some early versions were as primitive as combination locks, but later versions were complex electro-mechanical systems that could physically disable a weapon if it were tampered with or if the wrong code was entered too many times.
Eventually, the brass adopted the idea that, when it came to nuclear matters, they were at the beck and call of the president. It was not generals’ responsibility to make the order; it was their responsibility to carry it out.

That the president would be the only person competent to use nuclear weapons was never challenged. Even asking the question would throw the entire system into disarray, as Maj. Harold Hering learned in 1973. Hering was a 21-year Air Force veteran who was decorated for his flying in Vietnam before being sent for training as a nuclear missile squadron commander. He had been taught that officers had an obligation to disobey illegal orders. So when he was told how to launch a nuclear attack, he asked what seemed like a simple question: How could he be sure that an order to launch his missiles was lawful? How could he be sure, for example, that the president wasn’t insane? Instead of an answer, he got the boot: an aborted promotion and an administrative discharge for “failure to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership” and for indicating “a defective mental attitude towards his duties.”
The Air Force’s problem, in short, is that once a serviceman starts down the rabbit hole of doubt, he becomes an unreliable second-guesser — and suddenly he is one of the few people who can decide whether nuclear weapons are used.
* * *
The procedure for ordering a nuclear attack involves more than one person: The president cannot literally press a button on his desk and start World War III. There is no “nuclear button” at all. Instead, the U.S. nuclear command-and-control system is bureaucratically and technically complex, stretching out to encompass land-based missile silos, submarine-based ballistic and cruise missiles, and weapons capable of being dropped from bombers. The chain of command as widely understood requires that the president order the secretary of defense to carry out a launch; the secretary serves as the conduit for implementation by the military. There are succession policies in place so that the procedure can be continued in the event of the death or incapacitation of either the president or the secretary of defense — or their designated successors.
Most details of how a nuclear war would be started are classified, because an enemy who knew enough about the system could come up with ways to complicate or defeat it. What is known is that an aide is always following the president, carrying at least one large satchel (often two) known as the “nuclear football,” reportedly containing information about nuclear attack possibilities and how the president could verify his identity, authenticate orders and communicate with the military about implementing them.
Could the secretary of defense refuse to carry out a presidential order for a nuclear attack? The legal and constitutional aspects are not clear. The official doctrine that has been released says nothing about this question, and the cryptic public responses to official inquiries, even from Congress, indicate that it is not something that can be openly talked about. “Only the president can authorize the use of nuclear weapons” is essentially the only reply officials ever give to any questions about nuclear controls. Could the president simply fire the defense secretary and move on to the deputy secretary, the secretary of the Army and so on through the chain of command? Maybe. Such an action would at least slow things down, even if the refusal to carry out the order was illegal. But the secretary may not even be formally required to participate — U.S. Air Force doctrine does not indicate he is a necessary part of the chain of command, and holds that the president can communicate directly with the military, in the form of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to order a nuclear strike.
Commanders further down the pipeline are trained to act quickly on any orders that do come in. The launch officers are trained to launch weapons, not to debate the legality or advisability of the action. Hence the problem with Hering’s question in 1973: While nuclear launch officers are not meant to be strictly mechanical (and indeed, the United States has always resisted fully automating the process), if they stopped to question whether their authenticated orders were legitimate, they would put the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence at risk.
Congress held hearings on these issues in the mid-1970s, but nothing came of them. The debate faded away except among a small circle of nuclear wonks. In the early 1980s, Jeremy Stone, then the president of the Federation of American Scientists, proposed that Congress ought to pass a law restricting presidential use of nuclear weapons. The idea was fairly simple: So long as no nuclear weapons had been used by another power in a conflict, the president should not be able to order a first strike with nuclear weapons without getting approval from a fairly large committee of high-ranking members of Congress. It would not eliminate the possibility of an American first strike but would spread the responsibility more democratically.
The idea was pooh-poohed by legal scholars, who noted that Congress has often been far more belligerent than presidents and that the logistics could be complicated.
The people who set up the current command-and-control system did believe there was a check in place: elections. Don’t want an insane president to have nuclear weapons? Don’t put one in office. But this isn’t necessarily much of a check — even rational presidents have bad days; even high-functioning people succumb to mental illness or substance abuse.
It might be worth resurrecting this debate , if we take seriously the idea that presidents — any of them, much less Trump — should not have the legal authority to conduct arbitrary and unilateral nuclear war. Perhaps now, decades after the end of the Cold War, we are past the moment when we need to entrust that power in a single person. One can imagine a law that would allow the president to use nuclear weapons in the face of imminent danger, the sort of situation in which a matter of minutes or even seconds could make a difference, but would enact formal requirements for outside consensus when more options were on the table. It would not require a full renunciation of the possibility of a first-strike nuclear attack (something the United States has never been willing to make) but might add some reassurances that such decisions would not be made unilaterally.
Congress ceded a considerable amount of power to the presidency in 1946. Seventy years later, maybe it is time lawmakers took some of it back.
This story was updated after its initial publication to reflect later research by the writer that found that the secretary of defense may not be legally required to be part of the chain of command for launching nuclear missiles.

Indian Point Pipeline Is NOT Safe (Revelation 6:12)

Is Indian Point Pipeline Safe?
Risk assessment long overdue
By Liz Schevtchuk Armstrong
In February 2016, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo commissioned a study of the risks of running a gas pipeline through the Indian Point nuclear plant site. Seven months later, the state told the consulting firm preparing the $275,000 assessment to complete it by Dec. 31, 2016.
More than a year after that deadline, the study hasn’t been released and its status remains unclear.
After repeated efforts to pry loose the document through Freedom of Information Law requests, activists are urging Cuomo and local officials to do something. Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion (SAPE), formed as the pipeline plans took shape, is among the groups that will take part in an “interfaith climate vigil” for Feb. 25 outside Cuomo’s Mount Kisco home.
Known as the Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) project, the 42-inch pipeline began operation in January 2017 despite opposition from environmentalists and scientists who argued that a high-pressure pipe cannot be safely snaked through 2,300 feet of a nuclear power complex, much less one, like Indian Point, in an earthquake fault.
Although Indian Point is scheduled to close by spring 2021, critics contend that dangers of a pipeline accident will remain because spent radioactive fuel will be stored at the facility indefinitely.
Constructed by Spectra Energy, AIM is a link in a system to carry natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania into New York, beneath the Hudson River, and across Putnam County into Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the pipeline, although critics contend that its decision was based on erroneous data.
On Feb. 1, Philipstown resident Paula Clair asked the Town Board to call for the study to be released, saying that “we who live close to the nuclear plant have a right to know” of the hazards. Clair, who sits on the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, said that the proximity of the gas pipeline to spent nuclear fuel means that “if there was an explosion or a fire, it would be a catastrophe.”
A draft resolution she proposed noted that a radioactive release caused by an explosion could “render Philipstown uninhabitable for generations.”
Philipstown Supervisor Richard Shea agreed that the study, paid for with taxpayer funds, should be released, and promised that the board would consider passing a measure soon. “I don’t think it’s going to be a problem” approving it, he said.
Susan Van Dolsen, co-founder of SAPE, said her organization has been attempting to get a copy of the study through FOIL and other means since mid-2016, without success. Instead of the study, the state sent stacks of emails and other items, often of dubious relevance, she said, with large portions blacked out.
Sandy Galef, who represents Philipstown and Beacon in the state Assembly and serves on the task force looking at the impact of Indian Point’s closure, also wants the assessment released.
In a Jan. 19 letter to Cuomo, she reminded the governor that she had previously asked to see the document, which, she said, becomes especially important as the task force looks at possible re-uses of Indian Point after its nuclear operations cease. “I don’t think we can move forward without all possible information,” she wrote.
As of Thursday (Feb. 22), the governor’s office had not responded to questions posed a week earlier by The Current about the study. The state Office of General Services, which oversaw the contract for the study, on Feb. 14 referred inquiries to the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, which also did not respond.

Preparing for the Antichrist's Rule (Revelation 13)

Iraq’s religious groups fragmented
Qassim Abdul-Zahra
Sinan Salaheddin| Associated Press
BAGHDAD: Long beset by toxic divisions, Iraq seems to be growing even more fragmented ahead of national elections scheduled for May, with Iranian influence set to grow and the minority Sunnis seething as they fend for themselves in areas of the country shattered by the three-year war against Daesh (ISIS). The Sunnis, many of them in displacement camps, bore the brunt of the war’s destruction and have been left so bereft that many don’t even have the papers needed to register to vote. If they don’t end up feeling the vote was fair, that could badly undermine the international community’s goal of bringing about the more inclusive government critical to maintaining a unified state and avoiding a repeat of the Daesh disaster.
Adding to the volatile mix are the Iranian-backed Shiite militias, now even more politically involved, which are allied with but not controlled by the Shiite-led Baghdad government, and appear set to gain influence that would alarm many in the region trying to check the power of Shiite, non-Arab Iran.
If divisions among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds persist they could lead to more protracted talks to form a new government, potentially delaying the colossal task of rebuilding Iraq after Daesh overran nearly a third of the country in 2014, mostly Sunni towns, and then hung on as a U.S.-led coalition surrounded and bombarded the areas they controlled.
The militant group was able to at least initially benefit from some popular support among Sunnis.
After the ouster of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, many Sunnis felt marginalized as parties led by Shiites were able to win elections by sheer numbers; Sunnis, in turn, felt they had lost their fair share of power.
Sunnis are worried that the Shiite influence mainly of the Iran-backed militias will grow in their areas if the Shiite-backed Sunni candidates win, and that will make it hard for them to come together in the future.
Aware of the problem, politicians now appear to be trying to distance themselves from openly sectarian rhetoric in the run-up to the vote, saying they will form diverse and cross-sectarian coalitions. But many expect the generally chaotic post-election creation of a Parliament majority will be sectarian in nature nonetheless.
“Differences now are deeper than before in that everyone is seeking influence in the next government,” said Ali al-Adeeb, a leading Shiite politician. “Thus, the process of forming the new government will be complicated and any further delay will further complicate the political and security scene.”
Nearly 7,000 candidates will vie for 329 seats in Parliament the May 12 elections, the fourth since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam from power, according to the Independent High Electoral Commission.
Candidates have formed 27 political coalitions and last month, the electoral commission extended the deadline for registering the alliances as political parties worked to negotiate deals, but failed.
Sunni candidates are divided among three big alliances and up to seven small ones. Leaders had demanded a delay in elections for up to six months arguing that their voters are in areas that suffered some of the worst destruction in the war.
Constituents would not have enough time to gather paperwork and update their personal information in time to cast their ballots, they argued. There are still nearly 2.5 million people displaced by the war around the country.
Sunni lawmaker Mohammad al-Karboli said Sunni candidates will have a difficult time facing more dominant Shiite political groups who have far more resources.
“The Sunnis will have a weak presence in the next Parliament. We are not optimistic about the coming elections,” he said.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced he is seeking re-election with his recently formed Victory Alliance, running separately from rival Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law coalition. Maliki is currently vice president; he was prime minister from 2006 to 2014.
Both men are members of the Shiite Islamist Dawa party, which has said its supporters can vote for either candidate.
Primed to play a major role in the election is the Conquest Alliance, a coalition of popular Iran-backed militias led by Hadi al-Amiri, leader of the Badr Brigade, one of the country’s most prominent Shiite militia groups. Lawmaker Ahmad al-Asadi said the Conquest Alliance has its eye on the position of prime minister.
A deal had been announced between Abadi’s party and the Alliance but it lasted only two days. The breakup came at the behest of Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s elite Al-Quds Force and a key adviser to the Shiite militias, two senior Shiite politicians said. Both spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to release information.
Soleimani’s involvement suggests Iran is endeavoring to install its militia allies into power for its own political purposes.
A source who also asked to go unnamed said neither Abadi nor the Conquest Alliance could agree on what percentage of representation the Alliance would have inside Abadi’s coalition. Another source close to Abadi said it was Iran who first asked the Conquest Alliance to join Abadi and then withdrew in order to embarrass the prime minister in front of the West.
Lawmaker Mohammad Mahdi al-Bayati said he believes the militias, who were instrumental in defeating Daesh, will do well because of their popularity in both Shiite and Sunni areas. If they do well enough, they plan to propose Amri, the Badr Brigade leader, for prime minister, he said.
“Iran stands with us in the fight, so it will be happy if we win in the elections,” Bayati said.
The prime minister position is reserved for Shiites under an unofficial agreement dating back to 2003.
The same agreement stipulates that the widely ceremonial president post be held by a Kurd, while the Parliament speaker is Sunni.
Meanwhile, the followers of Iraq’s firebrand Shiite religious scholar Moqtada al-Sadr will also field candidates in their Marchers Alliance, while Shiite religious scholar Ammar al-Hakim, who previously split from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, will lead his National Wisdom Movement.
In the country’s north, ethnic Kurds who used to run on two or three lists inside and outside their self-ruled region are broken into at least six lists as differences have been exacerbated after the September referendum on independence resulted in harsh measures from Baghdad.
Some prominent Kurdish politicians have joined Arab-led lists.
In his briefing to the United Nation Security Council on Feb. 20, special envoy to Iraq Jan Kubis said cross-sectarian and cross-ethnic coalitions across the political spectrum are essential.
“Only a new government based on such an approach will guarantee the future of Iraq as a united, democratic, fully sovereign and independent federal state, as a factor of stability, cooperation and prosperity for its people and for the region,” he said.

Russia Nuclear Bombers Near Japanese Airspace

Japanese Fighter Jets Intercept Nuclear-Capable Russian Bombers Near US Base

Franz-Stefan Gady, The Diplomat

 

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) scrambled fighter jets to intercept two Russian Air Force nuclear-capable Tupolev Tu-95MS strategic bombers on February 20, the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced in a statement.
The two bombers, escorted by Sukhoi Su-35S (Flanker-E+) multirole fighter jets, flew down the entirety of Japan’s East coast hurtling close to U.S. and Japanese military bases including Misawa Air Base, Yokosuka Naval Base and Atsugi Air Base. The Russian bombers were shadowed by F-2, F-4, and F-15 JASDF fighter jets. According to the Japanese MoD, Japanese airspace was not trespassed.
“The flight lasted more than 15 hours. During the flight, the crew members, namely the commander, commander assistant, flight navigators, onboard signal operator and flight engineer, complied with their commitments strictly,” Tu-95MS aircraft commander Major Ilya Smirnov told the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper last week. “Common success and the fulfillment of a common mission depend on how well each crew member performs their duties,” he added.
.“Upgraded Tu-95MS planes operational with Russia’s Long-Range Aviation have advanced navigation systems and short- and long-range navigation electronic devices making navigation support as effective as possible. We face no difficulties despite the geographical location of our flights,” Tu-95MS flight navigator Captain Sergei Ryzhov said, according to the newspaper report.
The Tu-95MS aircraft is an updated variant of the older Tu-95, a Soviet-era four-engine, long-range, turboprop, strategic bomber that can carry stand-off nuclear-capable cruise missiles. Russia is currently upgrading its Tu-95MS fleet and is expecting to operate up to 20 retrofitted aircraft in the near future. “The upgraded aircraft, along with the Tu-22M3 long-range bomber, will form the core of a new Russian heavy bomber division in Russia’s Far East to conducts patrol Pacific Ocean inside the Japan-Hawaii-Guam triangle,” I explained in 2017.
Two Tu-95MS strategic bombers last flew along the perimeter of Japanese airspace in October 2017. In April 2017, two Tu-95MS bombers and one Ilyushin Il-20 maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft also skirted Japanese airspace during a long-range patrol. Additionally, in January 2017, JASDF fighter jets intercepted three Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers circumnavigating the major islands — Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu — of the Japanese archipelago.
Russian nuclear-capable Tupolev Tu-95MS strategic bombers, accompanied by Su-35S fighter jets and an A-50 airborne early warning aircraft, also conducted a patrol in close vicinity to the Korean Peninsula prompting the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) and JSDF to scramble fighter jets in August 2017. During their flight, the Russian aircraft briefly entered South Korea’s air defense identification zone (KADIZ) as Russia does not recognize KADIZs of neighboring countries.
Japan is facing a shortage of fighter aircraft as China and Russia have stepped up their aerial patrol activities in the region. The JASDF is in the process of inducting F-35A Lightning II fifth-generation stealth fighter jets, the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant of the aircraft.

Brace Yourselves for the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6)

Brace Yourselves, New Yorkers, You’re Due for a Major Quake
A couple of hundred thousand years ago, an M 7.2 earthquake shook what is now New Hampshire. Just a few thousand years ago, an M 7.5 quake ruptured just off the coast of Massachusetts. And then there’s New York.
Since the first western settlers arrived there, the state has witnessed 200 quakes of magnitude 2.0 or greater, making it the third most seismically active state east of the Mississippi (Tennessee and South Carolina are ranked numbers one and two, respectively). About once a century, New York has also experienced an M 5.0 quake capable of doing real damage.
The most recent one near New York City occurred in August of 1884. Centered off Long Island’s Rockaway Beach, it was felt over 70,000 square miles. It also opened enormous crevices near the Brooklyn reservoir and knocked down chimneys and cracked walls in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. Police on the Brooklyn Bridge said it swayed “as if struck by a hurricane” and worried the bridge’s towers would collapse. Meanwhile, residents throughout New York and New Jersey reported sounds that varied from explosions to loud rumblings, sometimes to comic effect. At the funeral of Lewis Ingler, a small group of mourners were watching as the priest began to pray. The quake cracked an enormous mirror behind the casket and knocked off a display of flowers that had been resting on top of it. When it began to shake the casket’s silver handles, the mourners decided the unholy return of Lewis Ingler was more than they could take and began flinging themselves out windows and doors.
Not all stories were so light. Two people died during the quake, both allegedly of fright. Out at sea, the captain of the brig Alice felt a heavy lurch that threw him and his crew, followed by a shaking that lasted nearly a minute. He was certain he had hit a wreck and was taking on water.
A day after the quake, the editors of The New York Times sought to allay readers’ fear. The quake, they said, was an unexpected fluke never to be repeated and not worth anyone’s attention: “History and the researches of scientific men indicate that great seismic disturbances occur only within geographical limits that are now well defined,” they wrote in an editorial. “The northeastern portion of the United States . . . is not within those limits.” The editors then went on to scoff at the histrionics displayed by New York residents when confronted by the quake: “They do not stop to reason or to recall the fact that earthquakes here are harmless phenomena. They only know that the solid earth, to whose immovability they have always turned with confidence when everything else seemed transitory, uncertain, and deceptive, is trembling and in motion, and the tremor ceases long before their disturbed minds become tranquil.”
That’s the kind of thing that drives Columbia’s Heather Savage nuts.
New York, she says, is positively vivisected by faults. Most of them fall into two groups—those running northeast and those running northwest. Combined they create a brittle grid underlying much of Manhattan.
Across town, Charles Merguerian has been studying these faults the old‐fashioned way: by getting down and dirty underground. He’s spent the past forty years sloshing through some of the city’s muckiest places: basements and foundations, sewers and tunnels, sometimes as deep as 750 feet belowground. His tools down there consist primarily of a pair of muck boots, a bright blue hard hat, and a pickax. In public presentations, he claims he is also ably abetted by an assistant hamster named Hammie, who maintains his own website, which includes, among other things, photos of the rodent taking down Godzilla.
That’s just one example why, if you were going to cast a sitcom starring two geophysicists, you’d want Savage and Merguerian to play the leading roles. Merguerian is as eccentric and flamboyant as Savage is earnest and understated. In his press materials, the former promises to arrive at lectures “fully clothed.” Photos of his “lab” depict a dingy porta‐john in an abandoned subway tunnel. He actively maintains an archive of vintage Chinese fireworks labels at least as extensive as his list of publications, and his professional website includes a discography of blues tunes particularly suitable for earthquakes. He calls female science writers “sweetheart” and somehow manages to do so in a way that kind of makes them like it (although they remain nevertheless somewhat embarrassed to admit it).
It’s Merguerian’s boots‐on‐the‐ground approach that has provided much of the information we need to understand just what’s going on underneath Gotham. By his count, Merguerian has walked the entire island of Manhattan: every street, every alley. He’s been in most of the tunnels there, too. His favorite one by far is the newest water tunnel in western Queens. Over the course of 150 days, Merguerian mapped all five miles of it. And that mapping has done much to inform what we know about seismicity in New York.
Most importantly, he says, it provided the first definitive proof of just how many faults really lie below the surface there. And as the city continues to excavate its subterranean limits, Merguerian is committed to following closely behind. It’s a messy business.
Down below the city, Merguerian encounters muck of every flavor and variety. He power‐washes what he can and relies upon a diver’s halogen flashlight and a digital camera with a very, very good flash to make up the difference. And through this process, Merguerian has found thousands of faults, some of which were big enough to alter the course of the Bronx River after the last ice age.
His is a tricky kind of detective work. The center of a fault is primarily pulverized rock. For these New York faults, that gouge was the very first thing to be swept away by passing glaciers. To do his work, then, he’s primarily looking for what geologists call “offsets”—places where the types of rock don’t line up with one another. That kind of irregularity shows signs of movement over time—clear evidence of a fault.
Merguerian has found a lot of them underneath New York City.
These faults, he says, do a lot to explain the geological history of Manhattan and the surrounding area. They were created millions of years ago, when what is now the East Coast was the site of a violent subduction zone not unlike those present now in the Pacific’s Ring of Fire.
Each time that occurred, the land currently known as the Mid‐Atlantic underwent an accordion effect as it was violently folded into itself again and again. The process created immense mountains that have eroded over time and been further scoured by glaciers. What remains is a hodgepodge of geological conditions ranging from solid bedrock to glacial till to brittle rock still bearing the cracks of the collision. And, says Merguerian, any one of them could cause an earthquake.
You don’t have to follow him belowground to find these fractures. Even with all the development in our most built‐up metropolis, evidence of these faults can be found everywhere—from 42nd Street to Greenwich Village. But if you want the starkest example of all, hop the 1 train at Times Square and head uptown to Harlem. Not far from where the Columbia University bus collects people for the trip to the Lamont‐Doherty Earth Observatory, the subway tracks seem to pop out of the ground onto a trestle bridge before dropping back down to earth. That, however, is just an illusion. What actually happens there is that the ground drops out below the train at the site of one of New York’s largest faults. It’s known by geologists in the region as the Manhattanville or 125th Street Fault, and it runs all the way across the top of Central Park and, eventually, underneath Long Island City. Geologists have known about the fault since 1939, when the city undertook a massive subway mapping project, but it wasn’t until recently that they confirmed its potential for a significant quake.
In our lifetimes, a series of small earthquakes have been recorded on the Manhattanville Fault including, most recently, one on October 27, 2001. Its epicenter was located around 55th and 8th—directly beneath the original Original Soupman restaurant, owned by restaurateur Ali Yeganeh, the inspiration for Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi. That fact delighted sitcom fans across the country, though few Manhattanites were in any mood to appreciate it.
The October 2001 quake itself was small—about M 2.6—but the effect on residents there was significant. Just six weeks prior, the city had been rocked by the 9/11 terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers. The team at Lamont‐Doherty has maintained a seismic network in the region since the ’70s. They registered the collapse of the first tower at M 2.1. Half an hour later, the second tower crumbled with even more force and registered M 2.3. In a city still shocked by that catastrophe, the early‐morning October quake—several times greater than the collapse of either tower—jolted millions of residents awake with both reminders of the tragedy and fear of yet another attack. 9‐1‐1 calls overwhelmed dispatchers and first responders with reports of shaking buildings and questions about safety in the city. For seismologists, though, that little quake was less about foreign threats to our soil and more about the possibility of larger tremors to come.
Remember: The Big Apple has experienced an M 5.0 quake about every hundred years. The last one was that 1884 event. And that, says Merguerian, means the city is overdue. Just how overdue?
“Gee whiz!” He laughs when I pose this question. “That’s the holy grail of seismicity, isn’t it?”
He says all we can do to answer that question is “take the pulse of what’s gone on in recorded history.” To really have an answer, we’d need to have about ten times as much data as we do today. But from what he’s seen, the faults below New York are very much alive.
“These guys are loaded,” he tells me.
He says he is also concerned about new studies of a previously unknown fault zone known as the Ramapo that runs not far from the city. Savage shares his concerns. They both think it’s capable of an M 6.0 quake or even higher—maybe even a 7.0. If and when, though, is really anybody’s guess.
“We literally have no idea what’s happening in our backyard,” says Savage.
What we do know is that these quakes have the potential to do more damage than similar ones out West, mostly because they are occurring on far harder rock capable of propagating waves much farther. And because these quakes occur in places with higher population densities, these eastern events can affect a lot more people. Take the 2011 Virginia quake: Although it was only a moderate one, more Americans felt it than any other one in our nation’s history.
That’s the thing about the East Coast: Its earthquake hazard may be lower than that of the West Coast, but the total effect of any given quake is much higher. Disaster specialists talk about this in terms of risk, and they make sense of it with an equation that multiplies the potential hazard of an event by the cost of damage and the number of people harmed. When you take all of those factors into account, the earthquake risk in New York is much greater than, say, that in Alaska or Hawaii or even a lot of the area around the San Andreas Fault.
Merguerian has been sounding the alarm about earthquake risk in the city since the ’90s. He admits he hasn’t gotten much of a response. He says that when he first proposed the idea of seismic risk in New York City, his fellow scientists “booed and threw vegetables” at him. He volunteered his services to the city’s Office of Emergency Management but says his original offer also fell on deaf ears.
“So I backed away gently and went back to academia.”
Today, he says, the city isn’t much more responsive, but he’s getting a much better response from his peers.
He’s glad for that, he says, but it’s not enough. If anything, the events of 9/11, along with the devastation caused in 2012 by Superstorm Sandy, should tell us just how bad it could be there.
He and Savage agree that what makes the risk most troubling is just how little we know about it. When it comes right down to it, intraplate faults are the least understood. Some scientists think they might be caused by mantle flow deep below the earth’s crust. Others think they might be related to gravitational energy. Still others think quakes occurring there might be caused by the force of the Atlantic ridge as it pushes outward. Then again, it could be because the land is springing back after being compressed thousands of years ago by glaciers (a phenomenon geologists refer to as seismic rebound).
“We just have no consciousness towards earthquakes in the eastern United States,” says Merguerian. “And that’s a big mistake.”
Adapted from Quakeland: On the Road to America’s Next Devastating Earthquake by Kathryn Miles, published by Dutton, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2017 by Kathryn Miles.

US Will Help Create the Saudi Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Will the U.S. Help the Saudis Get a Nuclear Weapon?

 

The Editorial Board

 

Billboards lined the motorcade route welcoming President Trump to Saudi Arabia in May. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

 

The last thing the Middle East needs is another country with the potential to build nuclear weapons. Yet that could happen if the United States mishandles Saudi Arabia’s plans to enter the nuclear power business and erect as many as 16 nuclear reactors for electricity generation over 25 years.

The Saudis aren’t saying they want to become the second country, after Israel, to have a nuclear arsenal in the increasingly unstable region. They insist the reactors would be used only to generate energy for domestic purposes, so they can rely on their huge reserves of oil to generate income from overseas.

Still, there are growing signs that the Saudis want the option of building nuclear weapons to hedge against their archrival, Iran, which had a robust nuclear program before accepting severe curbs under a 2015 deal with the United States and other major powers.

Obama administration efforts to negotiate an agreement on transferring civil nuclear technology — required before a country can buy American nuclear technology — faltered over the Saudis’ refusal to make a legally binding commitment to forgo uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, which could be used to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. The United Arab Emirates made a commitment like that in its 2009 agreement, setting the nonproliferation “gold standard” for civil nuclear cooperation deals.

Now new negotiations are being pursued under a president who caters to the needs of American business and aggressively courts Saudi leaders. In theory, Mr. Trump is well-placed to cajole the Saudis to accept the gold standard. He can argue that it makes more sense for Riyadh to buy enriched fuels for the reactors from relatively low-cost foreign suppliers than to produce it in Saudi Arabia. Such an agreement will further cement ties with the United States, which has promised to protect the kingdom from its enemies.

But there are questions about what limits the Trump administration would require, and the Saudis would accept, as part of the agreement the two sides are about to start negotiating.

Insisting on strict conditions could force the Saudis to buy instead from Russia or China, which don’t impose such nonproliferation rules, or from France and South Korea, thus penalizing a moribund American nuclear industry eager for the lucrative new business. Westinghouse and other American-based companies are discussing a consortium to bid on the multibillion-dollar project.

However, a failure to incorporate crucial restrictions in any deal would leave the Saudis free to repurpose the technology for nuclear weapons. That would undercut decades of American-led efforts to prevent the spread of these arms.

The United States has long been a leader in nuclear technology with its sales to other countries governed by bilateral civil nuclear agreements that require adherence to nine nonproliferation criteria.

They include guarantees that none of the nuclear materials provided by the United States will be used for nuclear explosives, that none of the technology or classified data will be transferred to third parties without American consent, and that the country involved in the agreement will not enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium.

But Saudi officials are still insisting that they have a right to enrichment and reprocessing under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which guaranteed nations access to such technologies if they forsake nuclear weapons.

If these disagreements stalemate negotiations, the United States could lose the opportunity to impose any nonproliferation, nuclear security and nuclear safety conditions on the Saudi program at all.

That is why a compromise proposed by Robert Einhorn, a former American nuclear negotiator, may be worth considering, but only if efforts to set stricter standards fail. It would require the Saudis to make a legally binding commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing for 15 years, not indefinitely, thus kicking tough questions down the road.

Ultimately, Congress must assert its right to have the final say on a deal, and set strict conditions if the administration does not. Those should include intrusive inspections of Saudi nuclear facilities, similar to those Iran has accepted.

Given Mr. Trump’s flip attitude toward nuclear weapons, Congress’s responsibility affects the nuclear future of not just Saudi Arabia, but the decisions that Turkey, Egypt and other countries make about acquiring nuclear power. Lawmakers need to put protections in place so more countries don’t edge closer to having nuclear weapons.

India Test Fires Another Nuclear Missile

India Successfully Test-Fires Nuclear-Capable Ship-Launched Ballistic Missile

Ankit Panda, The Diplomat

 

The Dhanush continues to see testing.
On Friday, India carried out a successful test launch of the nuclear-capable Dhanush ballistic missile from an Indian Navy vessel in the Bay of Bengal, off the coast of the state of Odisha.
The missile was launched from an Indian Navy Sukyana-class offshore patrol vessel “positioned near Paradip in the Bay of Bengal at around 10:52 a.m.,” Times of India reported, citing Indian defense officials.
Though officials did not name the exact vessel used for the launch, only two Sukyana-class OPVs are known to support the missile: INS Subhadra and INS Suvarna. (Pennant numbers P51 and P52, respectively.)
“The missile launch was part of training exercise by the SFC of Indian Navy,” an Indian official told Times of India. Indian officials described the launch as a “complete success.”

“The missile launch and its flight performance were monitored from [Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO)] telemetry and radar facilities in the Odisha coast,” one official said. DRDO is responsible for the development of India’s indigenous defense platforms, including nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.
The Dhanush uses liquid propellant and is a ship-launched ballistic missile (ShLBM) developed from India’s Prithvi-II ballistic missile. It is a single-stage missile capable of delivering one nuclear warhead.
In 2017, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Ballistic Missile Analysis Committee assessed that India had two launchers capable of launching the Dhanush ShLBM.
The U.S. assessment puts the Dhanush’s range capability at approximately 400 kilometers, but official Indian sources cite a shorter range capability of 350 kilometers with a 500 kilogram payload.
The Dhanush has been inducted into service with the Indian Navy. Analysts have noted that Dhanush may have been intended to fill a stopgap role until India could operationalize a secure undersea deterrent with the commissioning of INS Arihant, the country’s first nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN).
Because it is a liquid-fueled missile, the Dhanush must be fueled prior to use at sea, limiting its effectiveness as a second strike tool. Moreover, the Sukyana-class OPVs are not particularly well-suited for evading detection. This latest test of the Dhanush comes following reports that INS Arihant is presently out of commission, following an accident last year. Without the Arihant, India currently has no SSBN capability.
Friday’s launch comes amid an unusually busy spate of Indian ballistic missile testing, which has in recent weeks included test-launches of the Agni-V intermediate-range ballistic missile, a user trial of the Agni-II medium-range ballistic missile, and two launches of the Prithvi-II close-range ballistic missile, including a night launch.

India - Pakistan Tensions Increase (Revelation 8)

Hundreds of Kashmir villagers flee as India-Pakistan border firing intensifies

Vasudevan Sridharan

Indian Border Security Force troops patrol along the Line of Control that divides Indian and Pakistani Kashmir Tauseef Mustafa/AFP

Hundreds of villagers residing at the border locations between India and Pakistan are fleeing to safer locations as the two sides trade border fire and yet again threaten the 15-year-old fragile ceasefire agreements.
Fresh fighting broke out in the volatile Uri sector of the Kashmir valley, a restive northern Indian region, which is the centre of a bitter territorial dispute, on Saturday, 24 February. It is still unclear who or what started it. The Pakistani side said the gunfire killed one civilian and left three others injured.
As this cross-border firing at the de facto frontier known as Line of Control (LoC) takes place days after a terror attack against an Indian army camp, tensions are running high in the region. Both India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed traditional rivals, usually blame each other for any kind of escalation in the sensitive frontiers.
"We are responding to ceasefire violations by Pakistan and will not budge even by a step. We are fighting back with our might and giving a response to Pakistan's firing. And one day Pakistan will have to stop the violation of the ceasefire," India's junior minister for internal affairs Hansraj Ahir told reporters.
Indian forces used artillery fire, the first time such heavy guns have been used since 2003, though the region has witnessed frequent cross-border exchanges.
Ahir added that Islamabad's action of shelling into the Indian territory "will prove to be Pakistan's foolishness and will cost them dearly".
From the Islamabad side, the country has summoned India's deputy high commissioner JP Singh to condemn the latest round of firing at the border. This is the fifth time he is being summoned in a month.
"This unprecedented escalation in ceasefire violations by India is continuing from the year 2017 when Indian forces committed more than 1,970 ceasefire violations," said the Pakistani foreign ministry blaming Indian security forces for the "unprovoked ceasefire violations".
Pakistani forces also made announcements via loudspeakers asking civilians to take shelter is safe spots or to flee.
Tensions in Kashmir Valley – a heavily disputed territory between India and Pakistan over which the two nuclear weapons-armed rivals have fought two major wars – have sharply escalated in recent years, primarily over protests against the presence and actions of Indian forces.

The Future of Iraq and the Antichrist (Revelation 13)

Reconstruction and the future of post-ISIS Iraq
Paul Davis
I became very upset recently over the state of mind that has settled over the very dangerous issues encompassing the Middle East.
I recently attended a panel discussion on the Iraq reconstruction conference held in Kuwait that ultimately became a discussion on the future of Iraq. The discussion was held at the Hudson Institute, a world-renowned think tank in Washington DC. I have attended many discussions at Hudson and other organizations and think tanks, and have walked away in disagreement with some of the panelists, although respecting their point of view. This time however I walk away with a feeling of dread and danger.
While the Hudson panelists Senior Fellow Jonas Parello-Plesner and Adjunct Fellow Michael Pregent spoke to facts on the ground and potential problems as well as solutions, the others were more political. While it can be expected that Iraqi Ambassador to the US Fareed Yesseen would mouth Iraqi government talking points, the statements from RAND Corporation Senior Analyst Linda Robinson were particularly disturbing.
The ambassador spoke of the increasing capabilities of the Iraqi Army and that it is not the same army that ran from ISIS. He pointed out that it was this new army that, with the aid of coalition forces, defeated ISIS – no mention of the Peshmerga who were the first to hold back the tide of ISIS aggression.
When asked about the upcoming elections and the fear of some that it will cement Iranian control of the Baghdad government, he pointed out that the outcome will be the decision of the Iraqi people in a fair election, with no mention of the reaction of Baghdad to the decision of the Kurdish people in a free and fair open election on independence.
He did say that he was at a recent meeting between “PM Abadi and Nechirvan Barzani” that was very cordial. I put the quotes around the statement to point out that while he said PM Abadi he did not use the title for Barzani. While this may sound petty it is a very serious insult in diplomatic terms.
Worst however was Ms. Robinson. Her credentials as a Woodrow Wilson Center Scholar and now a senior research analyst at RAND Corporation, which has strong ties to US policy makers, increase the danger of her comments and observations. The most dangerous notion she put out was her apparent support to the Popular Moralization Forces (PMF), also known as Hashd al-Shaabi.
She pointed out to the room that the PMF were incorporated into the Iraqi armed forces by law and were therefore under the control of Abadi. This last of course is a bad cover and was implemented long after the atrocities committed against Sunni civilians. An indication of the lie was when the PMF were incorporated into the assault on the Kurds in Kirkuk. Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew the Badr Corp units shortly afterwards, showing they were not under government control.
The most incredulous statement she made was at the end when she said in her travels she found many Iraqis that were happy to see the PMF enter their villages. I guess she forgot to talk to the families of victims and survivors of those Sunnis who were slaughtered by the PMF. I guess she also missed the PMF’s call for attacking US forces.
It was not all bad news. In the end a question was asked as to policy recommendations should the elections bring in a very pro-Iranian government. Mr. Pregent answered that his recommendation would be to move American assets such as Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) troops to Erbil.
An excellent follow up read to all this is Mr. Parello-Plesner’s paper co-authored with Peter Rough, a fellow of the Hudson Institute, titled “Reconstructing Iraq: A Test Case for Trumpian Burden-Sharing.”
Speaking to the fact that the US worked to help bring over 2,300 private companies to the Kuwait conference he points out: “Even so, the rebuilding of Iraq has a Sisyphean quality to it: After spending billions of dollars on reconstruction last decade, US partners are weary to sink money into the country again.”
Regardless of the ambassador’s words of a better, rebuilt Iraq, the world does not trust what is happening and fears the return of ISIS or some variant based on the actions of the Iraqi government.
Paul Davis is a retired US Army military intelligence and former Soviet analyst. He is a consultant to the American intelligence community specializing in the Middle East with a concentration on Kurdish affairs. Currently he is the president of the consulting firm JANUS Think in Washington D.C.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.