Nuclear Horns Align For War (Daniel 7&8)

Russia Picks Nuclear Allies For Imminent War With NATO

By Polina Tikhonova on December 1, 2015 5:05 pm

Amid reports that a war between Russia and NATO is imminent, Moscow is already building plans as to who will be its allies in a nuclear confrontation against the Alliance. And yes, Russia has so far picked nuclear-powered allies. A coincidence? Unlikely.

In an attempt to team up with even more nuclear-powered countries, Russia is seeking to build military ties with Pakistan, according to Bloomberg. The move also appears to be a response to India, Pakistan’s traditional rival, buying more weapons from the United States. Thus, Moscow has just killed two birds with one stone.

Last week, Moscow and Islamabad signed a historical military cooperation deal. The world community “wants to do business with Pakistan now,” as said by Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s defense minister, after signing the agreement.

The U.S. has surpassed Russia in being India’s top defense supplies in recent years, which is why Russian President Vladimir Putin feels the need to change his approach in South Asia. Still, Putin is scheduled to visit India in December to meet with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But it is yet unclear whether the Russian President plans to persuade India into halting its expanding military ties with the U.S.

Earlier in November, the Kremlin announced it will build a second gas pipeline to China, who’s Pakistan’s biggest ally. The move would thus once and for all tilt energy exports toward Asia.
“China and Russia are also allying themselves, so it’s also one factor why Russia is looking toward Pakistan more cooperatively,” retired Lieutenant General Talat Masood, a former chairman of Pakistan Ordnance Factories, told Bloomberg by phone from Islamabad. “It’s important to be an ally of an ally.

China, Russia and Pakistan: the world’s new superpower axis

Russia and Pakistan are already building plans in counter-terrorism cooperation, increasing port calls of military ships as well as helping stabilize Afghanistan, according to Bloomberg citing ITAR-TASS. During last week’s meeting between Shoigu and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the two sides agreed on further steps to boost the $542 million of bilateral trade between the two nations.

Meanwhile, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently said the country is seeking to modernize its armed forces and become capable of producing its own military equipment, stripping itself off reliance on imports from the U.S. and Russia.

In August, ValueWalk reported that there were signs of the emergence on a new superpower axis in the world – a triangle between Russia, China and Pakistan. And it seems that there has been significant progress in forming this kind of superpower axis ever since.

China, Russia and Pakistan are perfect fit for one another for the reason that Moscow is capable of replacing all Western military technology for both Beijing and Islamabad. Besides, Russia has a reputation of being a reliable energy supplies for its allies.

China, meanwhile, is much more powerful in terms of its economy compared to both Russia and Pakistan. In addition to that, a great amount of foreign exchange reserves are looking to invest and require energy supplies.

Pakistan, for its part, has a developing economy and requires both military equipment and energy supplies from Russia and protection from China.

Both Beijing and Moscow see Washington as a challenge to their interests, while they believe it is in their best interests to stop U.S. global dominance. Pakistan, meanwhile, has no significant disagreements with the U.S., but it would not mind to ensure its own safety under the wing of the Chinese and Russians.

Putin urged to drop nuclear bomb on Turkey, killing 9 mil people

Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons on Russia’s “enemy number one,” Turkey, according to one of the nation’s leading politicians, as reported by the Daily Star.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the misnamed Liberal Democratic party, urged Putin to destroy Turkish capital of Istanbul, killing over nine million people. Zhirinovsky said Turkey was stupid to shot down a Russian fighter jet on Tuesday, when it violated Turkish airspace.

“A nuclear attack can destroy Istanbul very easily. Just one nuclear bomb in the Istanbul Strait will wash the city away,” the Russian MP told Moscow Speaking Radio, according to the Daily Star.
“It would be such a terrible flood, the water would rise to between 10m and 15m and the city would [flood],” he continued and added, “And then there are nine million lives.”

Zhirinovsky also labeled Turkey as Russia’s “enemy number one.” The comments come after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned Russia not to “play with fire,” hinting at NATO’s 5th article, which states that an attack on one Ally shall be considered an attack on all NATO members.

Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons on Turkey

The Turkish military shot down the Russian warplane on Tuesday, triggering a furious response from the Kremlin and escalating the already hot tensions between NATO and Russia. With Putin warning NATO of “serious consequences,” analysts believe Moscow is willing to unleash a nuclear war over the incident.

Despite the fact that Turkey is backed by NATO’s 5th Article, the chances that Putin will start a nuclear war over the incident with the Russian warplane are very “likely,” according to Pavel Felgengauer, Russia’s most respected military analyst, as reported by ValueWalk on Wednesday.
Felgengauer said Turkey wants to protect a zone in northern Syria controlled by the Turkmens, who are Turkish allies, while the downing of the Russian fighter jet must prompt Putin to either accept the zone or “start a war with Turkey,” which means starting an all-out war with NATO. And the only way Russia could win a war against NATO is by going nuclear, Felgengauer added.

“It is most likely that it will be war,” said Felgenhauer, as reported by Mirror. “In other words, more fights will follow when Russian planes attack Turkish aircraft in order to protect our [Russia’s] bombers. It is possible that there will be fights between the Russian and Turkish navies at sea.”

Antichrist Unifying Opposing Sects (Revelation 13:18)

Sunni tribes joining Shia militias as war against IS heats up in Iraq

Partial rapprochement despite credible allegations that some militia troops abused or killed Sunni civilians and destroyed homes

Sheikh Qais Jassem al-Khazraji (in brown robe) with Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai and another Sunni tribal leader (MEE / Jonathan Steele)

 

Jonathan Steele

 

Tuesday 1 December 2015 09:33 UTC

 

KARBALA, Iraq – Wearing elegant gold-fringed robes and traditional Arab head-dresses, three Sunni tribal leaders waited respectfully in an upstairs reception room inside the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala one morning last week.

The shrine is one of Shia Islam’s holiest places and on this day, dozens of pilgrims sat cross-legged reading sacred poems in the courtyard below or knelt in prayer in the Shia way with their foreheads touching a round clay tablet on the carpet in front of them.

When the shrine’s senior cleric, Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai, entered the ornately furnished reception room to welcome his unexpected Sunni guests, their mission rapidly became clear. There was barely time for the four men to exchange greetings with the requisite number of alhamdulillah – praise be to God – before the leader of the Sunni trio came to the point. The Islamic State group had killed around 200 civilians from his tribe, the al-Khazraji, Sheikh Qais Jassem al-Khazraji said. He and his colleagues now wanted to offer 150 armed men to fight alongside the Shia paramilitaries who are battling IS.

The offer was accepted with alacrity. The Shia cleric told his guests the paramilitaries had lost 30 men in one day the previous week in battles north of Baiji. Another 90 men were wounded so new volunteers were definitely needed. The Khazraji leaders, whose people are centred in an area between Tikrit and Mosul, asked the Shia cleric to confirm the arrangement by signing a paper which they had brought with them. Karbalai did so without hesitation and the brief encounter ended.
Two years ago such a deal would have been unimaginable. 

But IS’s eruption on to the scene in Iraq and Syria has produced several startling changes. One of the more remarkable is the creation of armed militias (Shia leaders discourage the word which they consider pejorative) by Iraq’s top religious leaders. Although some clerics who also head political parties long ago formed militias – for example the Badr brigade of the Hakim family or Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army – this practice was frowned on by the grand ayatollahs whom Shia communities largely follow. The ayatollahs felt that private militias heightened the risk of intercommunal violence and undermined Iraq’s national army.

Attitudes changed in June last year when IS seized Mosul after most of the Iraqi army fled. IS was already occupying Fallujah just west of Baghdad and after the Mosul debacle the Shia authorities worried that the militant group, which treats Shias as heretics, could capture Baghdad itself or move on the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf. No-one could forget that in Samarra in February 2006 IS’s predecessors, al-Qaeda in Iraq, had blown up the golden dome of the Askari shrine, which houses the remans of two of the Shias’ 12 imams.

Iraq’s top Shia authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa declaring that in the face of the danger from IS it was every able-bodied man’s duty to come to the defence of Iraq and volunteer to protect the shrines in the first instance. He pointedly did not urge the volunteers to join the Iraqi army but he also did not want to see more militias with party-political loyalties and agendas.

Rise of the hashd

Instead, the shrines’ leading officials created their own paramilitary forces which took food and supplies to people who had fled from IS and started giving volunteers military training. Tens of thousands answered Sistani’s call. The Imam Hussein shrine set up the Ali al-Akbar brigade, while the Abbas shrine which is also in Karbala set up a battalion as did the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf. Known officially as hashd al-shaabi, or Popular Mobilisation Units, the three are referred to sometimes as hashd Sistani.

Their exact numbers are not declared but the two battalions and one brigade are estimated to have about 50,000 men. Sheikh Maytham Rahi, the general supervisor of the Abbas battalion, told MEE his force consisted of 7,000 men, of whom 40 had been killed. This total of 50,000 in the hashd is considerably higher than the number of effective fighters in the Iraqi army, which is thought by some experts to be no more than 10,000, although authorities contest this saying there are far more fighters on the ground.

The main fighting forces however are deployed in the US-trained Golden Division and the Counter-Terrorism Bureau which are special forces who report directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister. Defeat by IS in Mosul last year and in Ramadi in May this year revealed how hollow the Iraqi army is, full of “ghost soldiers” whose presence inflates the numbers, allowing corrupt commanders and government officials to pocket the salaries of troops who only exist on paper.

As a result, the hashd have become one of the most successful “boots-on-the-ground” in Iraq, even though the 3,500 US advisers who have been sent back to Iraq by President Barack Obama are racing to train more units in the Iraqi army, with the US declining to train the hashd.

The militias’ first big victory came in October last year when they pushed IS out of the largely Sunni town of Jurf al-Sakhar. The town is close to the main road linking Baghdad with Karbala.
Some Sunni politicians have made much of the fact that although IS has been driven away, none of the residents of Jurf al-Sakhar have been allowed to come home. They charge the Shia with forced displacement of people or even sectarian cleansing. Maytham Rahi conceded that Jurf had no civilian residents now but said this was because of concern that the residents would invite IS to infiltrate back again.

“No civilians have returned to Jurf. Many collaborated with IS so they can’t go back. The roads are also full of booby-traps and bombs,” Rahi told MEE.

Until last year, Rahi’s military experience was confined to a short stint as a conscript in Saddam Hussein’s army performing peacetime duties. Now he takes part in all the battalion’s operations. He was wounded by an IS sniper in Balad last November, but he described himself as the battalion’s chief administrator. Under him, there are five former generals from Saddam’s army who take the military decisions.

Allegations of abuse

There have been credible allegations that some militia troops abused or killed Sunni civilians and destroyed houses after liberating Tikrit this summer. Officials in Karbala admit there have been cases of revenge killings but say the government needs to investigate fully. Sistani issued a 20-point list of advice for paramilitary fighters in February, saying that members of their opponents’ families and their property must not be touched.

Hashd leaders insist their aims are not sectarian. “We are not allowed to talk about Shia and Sunni. We are all Iraqis. Five percent of our battalion are Sunni, and people in Ramadi have asked us to liberate their areas,” said Rahi. “No part of Iraq can be liberated without the hashd.”

The hashd also has Christian units. In the military wards of the Imam Hussein hospital, I came across a wounded soldier who could not speak Arabic. He was from one of Iraq’s other minority communities. A Turkmen, he had joined hashd after fleeing with his family from Tal Afar in north-western Iraq after IS arrived.

In another hospital room I met Salim Kadhim, a 21-year-old who said he had moved from the Iraqi Army to the hashd because the army was badly managed. The hashd was better trained and had higher morale than the army, though it had lighter weapons. Volunteers usually got 45 days’ basic training, while snipers got six months. Army conscripts had only 30 days of training.

Sunnis join hashd against IS

There is strong communal pressure for young men to join the hashd. They are supposed to earn $625 a month, a relatively generous wage, but there is no time limit on their service. “They will fight until the battle against IS is over,” as Maytham Rahi of the Abbas battalion put it. Some of this summer’s refugees to Europe are known to be deserters from hashd, while other refugees have claimed that they have escaped the hashd’s heavy-handed recruiting tactics.

The hashd is currently fighting north of Baiji in the Makhoul mountains, not far from where the Kurdish peshmerga has also been confronting IS.

Qassem Musleh, who served as top commander of the Ali Akbar brigade until two weeks ago, was also eager to highlight the role of Sunnis, saying they comprised about a sixth of the men (16 percent) in his brigade. He stressed that the hashd operated closely with the Iraqi army and the strategic missions for both forces were decided by the office of Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi.
The liberation of Jurf al-Sakhar had been done jointly by the hashd and the army, he said. The hashd were the spearhead which liberated places so that the army could protect and patrol them once IS were driven out.

I asked Musleh about Abadi’s plan, which is strongly backed by the US, to create local forces in each province on the pattern of the US National Guard. The aim is to create Sunni militias which could defend their own areas from IS or take the lead in liberating them. Shia parties in the Iraqi parliament have rejected the plan but Abadi is hoping to persuade them to change their stance.

“It’s segregating people”, Musleh told MEE. “We were not formed in a spirit of sectarianism. Our aim is to liberate towns so that people can go home and to provide services, regardless of sect. The number one priority is to liberate our country.”

What? The Iran Deal Is Not Legally Binding!

 
State Department: Iran Never Signed Nuclear Deal, Which Isn’t ‘Legally Binding’
Nov. 30, 2015

This story broke last week, just as millions of Americans were tuning out of the news cycle for Thanksgiving. Given the seriousness of the subject matter, it deserves a re-up. National Review reports:

President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review. “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

Oh. Joel Gehrke notes that Iran’s president — much like our own — strongly discouraged his country’s legislature from voting on the agreement at all, arguing that parliamentary approval would “create an obligation” and impose an “unnecessary legal restriction” on the regime. Rouhani warned that passage would force him to sign the document, which he’d avoided doing. A vote was held anyway; the deal was approved, 161-59. It apparently remains unsigned. (The United States Congress never formally weighed in on the terrible deal because Senate Democrats repeatedly obstructed any vote, in order to shield President Obama from the political humiliation of explicitly overruling strong bipartisan opposition). The vote in Tehran was purely symbolic, of course. The ‘Supreme Leader’ runs the show in that country, and he allowed his so-called Guardian Council to sign off on the accord, guaranteeing its adoption. But according to our State Department, that “adoption” wasn’t technically binding under international law. The agreement represents “political commitments” secured by negotiators, we’re told, “and is not a signed document.” Question: If this pact isn’t binding or even signed, wouldn’t the resulting flexibility cut both ways? Couldn’t the next American president simply tear up the empty signature page of the deal upon entering office and be rid of it? Maybe so, legally speaking. But Allahpundit lays out the grim reality that the die has already been cast:

We’re lifting $100 billion in sanctions in exchange for a legally binding promise of … nothing. The flip side of that, I guess, is that the deal’s not binding on us either; if the next president or even Obama himself wants to reimpose sanctions on a whim, that’s fair game. The problem with that logic, though, is that no one believes our European partners, who crave renewed access to Iran’s markets (and vice versa), will reinstate sanctions unless Iran cheats flagrantly and egregiously on the deal, to the point where it would humiliate the EU internationally to look the other way. One of Iran’s core goals in all this, re-opening its trade relationship with Europe, will be achieved whether or not the deal is binding. And once achieved, it’ll be nearly irreversible…there’s a difference between a country voting to implement an agreement voluntarily and making a binding promise to another country that they’ll implement it by signing a statement to that effect. In theory, the latter gives the treaty partner some legal recourse — international sanctions, most likely — that the former doesn’t. Like I said above, though, international sanctions are already almost certainly off the table, in which case what is Iran’s formal promise via signature really worth? Especially when — wait for it — everyone expects them to cheat regardless.

And there are many, many reasons to expect Iran to continue to cheat. It’s what they do. The trick for Iran was to convince America and Europe to pump tens of billions back into its struggling economy, in exchange for handing Western leaders a “historic document” to wave around as a triumph of war-avoiding diplomacy, or whatever. The terrorist-financing regime knows full well that it can obfuscate and cheat at the margins for 10 to 15 years, supplying their enablers with various excuses to kick the can on re-imposing sanctions, then break out as an internationally-blessed nuclearized state just as soon as the deal’s restrictions automatically expire. The agreement leaves Iran’s illegal nuclear program almost completely intact, only “paused” (we know how that’s gone so far). It also does not guarantee intrusive “snap” inspections at all suspected nuclear sites, erecting a lengthy appeal period in which Iran can at least partially cover its tracks as the international bureaucratic process churns along. Furthermore, Iranian officials have flatly stated that certain military sites are not subject to any inspections, period. Iran is furnished with the billions it craves and a legitimized nuclear program, Europe gets a lucrative new trading partner, and Obama gets a “legacy-enhancer” among the left-wing academic and cultural elite, even as it’s opposed by a sizable majority of the country he leads. This president’s alleged triumph is appropriately embodied by an aspirational, unsigned document that contains many words that sound wonderful in theory, but appear dangerously naive in practice. It ultimately weakens America and strengthens a sworn enemy. Alas, the seemingly-significant admission showcased in the headline of this post is dismissed as a silly technicality by the Obama White House — which apparently sealed a controversial deal with Iran with the diplomatic equivalent of a handshake. Smart power. Meanwhile, Iran’s emboldened leaders would like to remind the world that they remain fully committed loathers of the United States:

A video reportedly produced by the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and posted to social media Tuesday blames the United States and its allies for the Paris terror attacks. The video, posted to a Facebook page affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and first reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute, explains that the U.S. created the Islamic State to advance its own agenda…The narrator further alleges that the U.S. trained moderate Syrian rebels to “join” the Islamic State in the Middle East and purposefully dropped weapons into the hands of IS terrorists there. He also suggests that IS has been benefiting “financially” from Western media reports. The video also includes footage of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivering congressional testimony about the rise of the Taliban in 2009 during which she stated, “Let’s remember here, the people we are fighting today, we funded.” “Of course, no one should be surprised by U.S. support for ISIS, as this was not unprecedented and American politicians had already admitted having supported al Qaeda,” the narrator says in the video. The video concludes with the narrator appearing to question al Qaeda’s involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
The regime released another anti-American propaganda video in September, featuring images of flag-draped coffins and a warning that Tehran would “humiliate” the US military in a potential conflict. In addition to these PR provocations, Iran has test-fired an illegal long-range missile, “convicted” a Washington Post journalist, detained yet another American citizen, and intensified its cyber warfare against the US government. Obama defenders and Iran apologists will downplay these moves as gestures designed to reassure domestic hardliners that the regime hasn’t gone soft against the West. It’s all just internal political posturing, they intone knowingly, and it’s still preferable to an unchecked nuclear advance. If only the nuclear accord came close to achieving the goals laid out by supporters at the outset of negotiations. It does not. And at the risk of betraying a lack of sophistication, perhaps the regime’s “death to America” words and actions are exactly what they appear to be: Manifestations of abiding enmity harbored by a cabal of religious fanatics who’ve viewed America as the Great Satan ever since they violently seized control of their country several decades ago.

Australian Nuclear Horn to Supply Uranium to India (Daniel 7:7)

  
Australian Government Gives Green Signal to Supply of Uranium to India
Indo-Asian News Service | Updated: Nov 30, 2015 07:20 IST

Sydney: After eight years of intense negotiations, bureaucratic hurdles and a shifting nuclear policy, the Australian government has finally given the green signal to the export of uranium to India “which can begin immediately”.

The Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement permits Australian companies to commence commercial uranium exports to India, an important milestone in Australia’s relationship with India, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said in a media release.

While previous Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott was quite gung-ho about the supply of uranium to India, current incumbent Malcolm Turnbull would get the credit for sealing the deal to export uranium to the power-hungry south Asian country.

“The supply of Australian uranium will help India meet its rapidly growing electricity demand and improve the welfare of its people,” said Bishop in the media release. “The administrative arrangements have been signed and uranium exports can begin immediately.”

Many observers of the bilateral ties would agree with foreign minister’s assertion that the export of uranium to India is a milestone in the bilateral relations.

It was Liberal prime minister John Howard who first agreed to sell uranium to India in 2007 in spite of the refusal by New Delhi to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which has been a pre-requisite to receive Australian uranium. It is believed that Australian PM was persuaded by the US to sell uranium to India soon after finalisation of the US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in July that year.

His successor, Kevin Rudd of Labour reinstated the ban on export of uranium to India as it had not signed the NPT, but next Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who deposed Rudd in a bloodless party coup, made a historic shift in her party’s policy by agreeing to export uranium to a non-NPT signatory in 2012.

Much more pragmatic than her predecessor, she admitted that a refusal to sell uranium to India had been an “obstacle” to getting a larger slice of the benefits of the booming Indian economy.

Australia is also keen in exporting coal to India to run her conventional power stations. But it was the nod to the uranium deal which was being awaited anxiously by New Delhi watchers in Australia.
Besides India, Australia has also finalised a Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with the United Arab Emirates.

Earthquake Assessment For The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Earthquake Risk in New Jersey
by Daniel R. Dombroski, Jr.

---

Earthquake Risk in New Jersey

by Daniel R. Dombroski, Jr.

A 10–fold increase in amplitude represents about a 32–fold increase in energy released for the same duration of shaking. The best known magnitude scale is one designed by C.F. Richter in 1935 for
west coast earthquakes.

In New Jersey, earthquakes are measured with seismographs operated by the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and the Delaware Geological Survey.

An earthquake’s intensity is determined by observing its effects at a particular place on the Earth’s surface. Intensity depends on the earthquake’s magnitude, the distance from the epicenter, and local geology. These scales are based on reports of people awakening, felt movements, sounds, and visible effects on structures and landscapes. The most commonly used scale in the United States is the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, and its values are usually reported in Roman numerals to distinguish them from magnitudes.

Past damage in New Jersey

New Jersey doesn’t get many earthquakes, but it does get some. Fortunately most are small. A few New Jersey earthquakes, as well as a few originating outside the state, have produced enough damage to warrant the concern of planners and emergency managers.

Damage in New Jersey from earthquakes has been minor: items knocked off shelves, cracked plaster and masonry, and fallen chimneys. Perhaps because no one was standing under a chimney when it fell, there are no recorded earthquake–related deaths in New Jersey. We will probably not be so fortunate in the future.

Area Affected by Eastern Earthquakes

Although the United States east of the Rocky Mountains has fewer and generally smaller earthquakes than the West, at least two factors  increase the earthquake risk in New Jersey and the East. Due to geologic differences, eastern earthquakes effect areas ten times larger than western ones of the same magnitude. Also, the eastern United States is more densely populated, and New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation.

Geologic Faults and Earthquakes in New Jersey

Although there are many faults in New Jersey, the Ramapo Fault, which separates the Piedmont and Highlands Physiographic Provinces, is the best known. In 1884 it was blamed for a damaging New York City earthquake simply because it was the only large fault mapped at the time. Subsequent investigations have shown the 1884 earthquake epicenter was actually located in Brooklyn, New York, at least 25 miles from the Ramapo Fault.

However, numerous minor earthquakes have been recorded in the Ramapo Fault Zone, a 10 to 20 mile wide area lying adjacent to, and west of, the actual fault.

More recently, in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, earthquake risk along the Ramapo Fault received attention because of its proximity to the Indian Point, New York, Nuclear Power Generating Station. East of the Rocky Mountains (including New Jersey), earthquakes do not break the ground surface. Their focuses lie at least a few miles below the Earth’s surface, and their locations are determined by interpreting seismographic records. Geologic fault lines seen on the surface today are evidence of ancient events. The presence or absence of mapped faults (fault lines) does not denote either a seismic hazard or the lack of one, and earthquakes can occur anywhere in New Jersey.

Frequency of Damaging Earthquakes in New Jersey

Records for the New York City area, which have been kept for 300 years, provide good information
for estimating the frequency of earthquakes in New Jersey.

Earthquakes with a maximum intensity of VII (see table DamagingEarthquakes Felt in New Jersey )have occurred in the New York City area in 1737, 1783, and 1884. One intensity VI, four intensity V’s, and at least three intensity III shocks have also occurred in the New York area over the last 300 years.

The time–spans between the intensity VII earthquakes were 46 and 101 years. This, and data for the smaller–intensity quakes, implies a return period of 100 years or less, and suggests New Jersey is overdue for a moderate earthquake like the one of 1884.

Buildings and Earthquakes

The 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, is an example of what might happen in New Jersey in a similar quake. It registered a magnitude 7.2 on the Richter scale and produced widespread destruction. But it was the age of construction, soil and foundation condition, proximity to the fault, and type of structure that were the major determining factors in the performance of each building. Newer structures, built to the latest construction standards, appeared to perform relatively well, generally ensuring the life safety of occupants.

New Jersey’s building code has some provisions for earthquake–resistant design. But there are no requirements for retrofitting existing buildings — not even for unreinforced masonry structures that are most vulnerable to earthquake damage. Housing of this type is common in New Jersey’s crowded urban areas. If an earthquake the size of New York City’s 1884 quake (magnitude 5.5) were to occur today, severe damage would result. Fatalities would be likely.

Structures have collapsed in New Jersey without earthquakes; an earthquake would trigger many more. Building and housing codes need to be updated and strictly enforced to properly prepare for inevitable future earthquakes.

China Ready For Nuclear War (Daniel 7)

---

Nuclear War Brews Over South China Sea

@MORNINGNEWSUSA
PUBLISHED: 6:03 PM, NOV 30, 2015 UPDATED: 6:03 PM, NOV 30, 2015

The United States is actively supporting its Asian allies with their territorial claims over the disputed South China Sea. But what the government does not realize is that China has risen to be a major nuclear power, an expert said. The more active the U.S. participate in the conflict over the contested region, the more it risks a nuclear confrontation.

The U.S. is now regularly patrolling the South China Sea with its warships sailing within 12 nautical miles from the vast territory claimed by China. President Barack Obama had also gifted the Philippines with warships, warplanes and had increased its military aid to as much as $79 million.
“China is major nuclear power. When cornered, nuclear-armed states can threaten asymmetric escalation to deter an adversary from harming its key interests,” according to Zhang Baohui, Professor of Political Science and Director of Center for Asian pacific Studies at Mingnan University in Hong Kong.

“When a crisis situation escalates and starts to involve potential nuclear tensions, the US faces the stark choice of either backing down first or facing the prospect of fighting a nuclear-armed China,” Baohui wrote. He noted that China paraded a new generation of tactical missiles during the Sept 3 military parade. The communist country had recently acquired long-range cruise missiles that can carry tactical nuclear warheads. Just recently, it also released photos of JL-2 sea-based nuclear missile launching from the sea. Baohui is the author of China’s Assertive Nuclear Posture: State Security in an Anarchic International Order.

On Nov. 23, China test fired its new hypersonic nuclear attack vehicle, the Free Beacon reported. Last week’s testing of the DF-ZF was the sixth time that the hypersonic glider was tested since 2014.
According to people familiar with the matter, the test fire was tracked by U.S. intelligence agencies. The F-ZF reportedly flew at speeds between Mach 5 and Mach 10 or 3, 836 to 7, 680 miles per hour. This means the hypersonic nuclear guided vehicle is five times faster than the speed of sound.
According to Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy center, the six tests conducted by China hint that the country is developing weapons similar to U.S. Prompt Global Strike. The analyst suggested for Pentagon to ramp up its own development of the strike vehicle in order to deploy it at any given instance that China does the same.

Russia Prepares For Nuclear War Against Turkey

Russia Sends Nuclear War Signals To Turkey

By Polina Tikhonova on November 30, 2015 11:22 am in Politics, Russia

With reports that a nuclear war between NATO and Russia is “likely,” Russia and Turkey have intensified their war of words after Russia’s latest revenge measures for the downing of its fighter jet.
After striking Turkey and Egypt off the list of safe tourist destinations, Russia has decided to remove India as well, according to The Times of India. And while the reason for eliminating Turkey and Egypt is crystal clear, removing India from the list is not fully comprehended in the current geopolitics.

Amid warming relations between New Delhi and Moscow and their joint naval exercises to be held from Dec. 7-12, many wonder why Russian President Vladimir Putin would weaken India’s economy by removing it from Russia’s list of safe destinations for tourists.

Putin cancelled all flights to Egypt after the Oct. 31 explosion of a Russian passenger plane, which killed 224 people on board. And after the Turkish military shot down a Russian fighter jet in its airspace last Tuesday, the Russian president wiped out Russia’s tourist relations with Turkey, where 4.4 million Russians vacationed last year.

“This is extremely bad news for our tour operators. The flow of Russian tourists was expected to increase following the bombing a Russian plane (resulting in the suspension of Russian flights to Egypt) and the easing of visa restrictions,” Subhash Goyal, president of the Indian Association of Tour Operators, told the Pakistan Observer.

Russia set to strengthen China’s economy with tourists

India’s Goa has always been a favorite place for Russian tourists, according to Rajji Rai, former president of the Travel Agents Association of India and chairman of Swift Travels.

“Such is the demand that last year, Air India resumed its Moscow flight after a gap of around 15 years. Around 50% of tourists visiting Goa in winters are Russians,” he added.

Russians mean good business for India’s travel industry, he said and added that “they stay here for an average 3-6 months and are an integral part of the travel industry here.”

Moscow officials stated out that the removal of India from the safe travelling list was not connected to terror attacks. In what appears to be a move to strengthen China’s economy, Russia is now going to focus on China, Cuba and Vietnam as new directions for tourist flow as they “have excellent infrastructure, friendly atmosphere and warm weather in winter,” according to First Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of the Russian Federation Ivan Melnikov.

“Unfortunately, both India and Goa, were not discussed as a promising direction for Russian travelers,” Melnikov said, as reported by The Times of India.

Russia imposes visa regime on Turkey

On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that Russia is introducing a visa regime for Turkish citizens. The regime goes into effect Jan. 1, according to The Guardian.
Moscow has also warned all of its tour companies against selling vacation packages to Turkey and recommended that all Russian citizens leave the country that downed the Russian warplane last week. Additionally, it is expected that Putin is going to impose a number of economic sanctions and cancel joint projects in a bid to further cripple the Turkish economy.

The Turkish military said it had shot down the Russian fighter jet on Tuesday, triggering a furious response from the Kremlin and escalating the already-hot tensions in geopolitics. The Russian warplane was given ten warnings in five minutes as it approached the NATO member state’s territory. After the Russian Su-24 attack aircraft ignored the warnings, the Turkish military sent two of its F-16s to bring down the Russian jet.

With Putin warning the West of “serious consequences” for bringing down the Russian warplane, analysts believe Moscow is willing to unleash a nuclear war over the incident. Although Turkey is backed by NATO’s 5th Article, which states that an attack on one Ally shall be considered an attack on all NATO members, the chances that Russia is going start a nuclear war over the incident are very “likely,” according to Pavel Felgengauer, Russia’s most respected military analyst, as reported by ValueWalk.

Russia can easily destroy Turkey with nuclear bomb: Russian MP

A Russian MP has recently outlined how easy it would be for Russia to destroy Turkey.

“You just chuck one nuclear bomb into the straits, and there’d be a huge flood. The water would rise by 10-15 meters and the whole city would disappear,” said Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the misnamed Liberal Democratic party, according to the Daily Mail.

It was also reported by the British news source that Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has refused to apologize to Moscow for the downing of the Russian warplane. He said that his country’s jets would act the exact same way if a similar situation ever occurred again. The words triggered furious rhetoric at the Kremlin.

The Turkish president also said on Friday that he had warned Putin about violations of Turkish airspace by Russian planes at the G20 summit in Antalya earlier this month. Erdogan said that Putin had told him to accept Russian warplanes “as guests,” to which the Turkish president responded that his country is not going to accept uninvited guests.

Erdogan added during a speech in Bayburt that Russia is “playing with fire to go as far as mistreating our citizens who have gone to Russia.”

“We really attach a lot of importance to our relations with Russia … We don’t want these relations to suffer harm in any way,” he said.

The Turkish president also accused Putin of backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s “terrorist state” in Syria. The comments come after Putin called the Turks, including Erdogan, “accomplices of terrorists” and claimed that Turkish officials were profiting from oil trade with ISIS, which claimed responsibility for the downing of a Russian passenger plane on Oct. 31.
Erdogan has previously said that the Turkish jets which were ordered to bring down the Russian Su-24 last Tuesday did not realize the jet was a Russian jet and would have acted differently had they known.


Like our Facebook page for breaking news updates and leaks
Written by Polina Tikhonova

Polina Tikhonova is a writer, journalist and a certified translator. Over the past 7 years, she has worked for a wide variety of top European, American, Russian, and Ukrainian media outlets. Polina holds a Master’s Degree in English Philology from the University of Oxford and a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism from the Saint Petersburg State University. Her articles and news reports have been published by many newspapers, magazines, journals, blogs and online media sources across the globe. Polina is fluent in English, German, Ukrainian and Russian.

Copyright © 2015 ValueWalk – Privacy Policy