North Korea Sends Message to Babylon the Great

North Korea propaganda video depicts nuclear attack on Washington

North Korea released a dramatic propaganda video Saturday called “Last Chance” that depicts a nuclear strike on Washington, complete with animation of a missile slamming into the earth near the Lincoln Memorial.

The four-minute video, backed by a hyper musical score reminiscent of TV Westerns of the 1960s, includes a mushroom cloud and an American flag going up in flames.

It was posted to the YouTube channel of D.P.R.K. Today, a North Korean website, and includes a rapid-fire catalog of “humiliating defeats” meted out to the United States over the years, including the North’s capture of an American ship, the Pueblo, in 1968.

“If the American imperialists provoke us a bit, we will not hesitate to slap them with a pre-emptive nuclear strike,” read the Korean subtitles in the video, according to The New York Times. “The United States must choose! It’s up to you whether the nation called the United States exists on this planet or not.”

Th video comes amid increasing tensions with Pyongyang over repeated missiles tests, a nuclear test and a long-range rocket launch this year. The moves sparked new sanctions by the U.S. and United Nations. North Korea has also repeatedly issued nuclear strike threats against both Seoul and Washington.

The History Of New York Earthquakes: Before The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)

 
The Historic Earthquakes
Near New York City, New York
1884 08 10 19:07 UTC
Magnitude 5.5
Intensity VII
New York historic earthquakes
USGS.gov

This severe earthquake affected an area roughly extending along the Atlantic Coast from southern Maine to central Virginia and westward to Cleveland, Ohio. Chimneys were knocked down and walls were cracked in several States, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Many towns from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Chester,Pennsylvania.

Property damage was severe at Amityville and Jamaica, New York, where several chimneys were “overturned” and large cracks formed in walls. Two chimneys were thrown down and bricks were shaken from other chimneys at Stratford (Fairfield County), Conn.; water in the Housatonic River was agitated violently. At Bloomfield, N.J., and Chester, Pa., several chimneys were downed and crockery was broken. Chimneys also were damaged at Mount Vernon, N.Y., and Allentown, Easton, and Philadelphia, Pa. Three shocks occurred, the second of which was most violent. This earthquake also was reported felt in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Several slight aftershocks were reported on August 11.

Antichrist Warns of Unrest (Revelation 13:18)

March 25, 2016 | 9:27 PM
by Reuters
 
Sadr also called on Abadi to announce a new cabinet lineup by Saturday that would see current ministers replaced by technocrats with no party affiliation to tackle systemic political patronage that has abetted bribery and embezzlement.

The influential cleric spoke in a Friday sermon delivered by a representative to tens of thousands of people outside the gates of Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone that houses government offices, parliament and embassies.

Sadr’s followers began a sit-in a week ago outside the Green Zone to pressure the government to see through anti-corruption pledges. Abadi has shown a willingness to act but has been slow to deliver on a reshuffle announced in February.

Corruption is depleting the central government’s financial resources at a time when revenues are declining due to lower oil prices and Abadi needs to ramp up funding for the US-backed war against IS militants.

“If he brings a logical reform package to parliament and does not get enough votes, there will be a call to escalate protests against those who did not vote” for the proposed cabinet, said Sadr’s envoy, Sheikh Asaad Al Nasiri.

“If (Abadi) does not announce a package that appeases the people, then we will have another stance we will announce tomorrow. We will not be content with a sit-in at the Green Zone,” Nasiri added amid crowd chants of, “Yes, yes to Moqtada our leader!”

He did not mention a deadline which Sadr gave Abadi last month to implement reforms. The deadline expires next week.

Abadi has voiced concern that the street protests could spin out of control and put Iraq’s security in danger when it needs to keep its focus on fighting IS militant group.

Iraq, a major OPEC producer that relies on oil exports for most of its revenue, ranked 161 out of 168 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index in 2015.

Antichrist Threatens Against Iraq Reforms (Revelation 13)

Iraqi Shia leader al-Sadr threatens leaders against blocking reforms

Reuters, Baghdad
Supporters of prominent Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr shout slogans against government corruption during a protest in the streets outside Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone in Iraq on Friday. (Reuters)

Sadr also called on Abadi to announce a new cabinet line-up by Saturday that would see current ministers replaced by technocrats with no party affiliation to tackle systemic political patronage that has abetted bribery and embezzlement.

The influential cleric spoke in a Friday sermon delivered by a representative to tens of thousands of faithful outside the gates of Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone that houses government offices, parliament and embassies.

Sadr’s followers began a sit-in a week ago outside the Green Zone to pressure the government to see through anti-corruption pledges. Abadi has shown a willingness to act but has been slow to deliver on a reshuffle announced in February.

Corruption is depleting the central government’s financial resources at a time when revenues are declining due to lower oil prices and Abadi needs to ramp up funding for the US-backed war against Islamic State militants.

Iraqi security forces gather in the streets during a sit-in for supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr in Baghdad on Friday. (Reuters)

“If he brings a logical reform package to parliament and does not get enough votes, there will be a call to escalate protests against those who did not vote” for the proposed cabinet, said Sadr’s envoy, Sheikh Asaad al-Nasiri.

“If (Abadi) does not announce a package that appeases the people, then we will have another stance we will announce tomorrow. We will not be content with a sit-in at the Green Zone,” Nasiri added amid crowd chants of, “Yes, yes to Moqtada our leader!”
He did not mention a deadline which Sadr gave Abadi last month to implement reforms. The deadline expires next week.

Abadi has voiced concern that the Shia street protests could spin out of control and put Iraq’s security in danger when it needs to keep its focus on fighting Islamic State.

Iraq, a major OPEC producer that relies on oil exports for most of its revenue, ranked 161 out of 168 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index in 2015.

The Irony Of Obama’s Nuclear Legacy

Obama: The Anti-Anti-Nuke President

By ALAN J. KUPERMAN
MARCH 25, 2016

NEXT week President Obama will welcome world leaders to Washington for his fourth Nuclear Security Summit, a biennial event he initiated to mobilize global action to prevent terrorists from acquiring atomic bombs.

As this is Mr. Obama’s last such meeting on an issue that he professes to care about deeply, one might expect him to seize the opportunity to announce a major nonproliferation initiative, then brace for resistance from congressional Republicans skeptical of arms control.

But reality is exactly the opposite. It is the Republican-controlled Congress that is pushing the most ambitious arms control project in recent memory. Inexplicably, President Obama is the one resisting.
Some background: In recent years, legislators on both sides of the aisle have become increasingly concerned about global commerce in highly enriched uranium, the same material that fueled the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. If terrorists obtained less than 100 pounds of the stuff, they could almost surely set off a similar explosion. A country with even moderate technical expertise could achieve the same yield with a much smaller amount.

In light of these dangers, the United States in 1978 initiated an international program to reduce the use of bomb-grade uranium fuel in research reactors — which typically sit undefended on university campuses — by developing substitute fuel from low-enriched uranium that is unsuitable for weapons. The program has been enormously successful, eliminating highly enriched uranium from dozens of such facilities.

But this initiative failed to address the vast majority of bomb-grade uranium fuel, which is used by the world’s nuclear navies, in reactors that propel submarines and aircraft carriers. Indeed, the navies of just three countries — the United States, Russia and Britain — use several tons of bomb-grade uranium annually for fuel, at least four times as much as all of the world’s research reactors combined.

Naval highly enriched fuel poses multiple risks. First, it creates cover for countries to develop of nuclear weapons, since naval fuel is excluded from international inspections under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iranian officials have said repeatedly that they will need highly enriched uranium for their future nuclear navy, but there would be no way to prevent them from diverting it into weaponry.

What’s more, such uranium is vulnerable to being stolen by terrorists during transport or storage. And these dangers are expected to grow. Unless our Navy switches to safer fuel in coming decades, the United States will need to resume production of bomb-grade uranium for the first time since 1992 to replenish its supply, undercutting Washington’s goal of halting such production worldwide.
To address these risks, last year Congress authorized and appropriated funding for initial research and development of low-enriched uranium fuel for America’s naval reactors. This project could be a game-changer, since the United States is the world’s biggest user of bomb-grade naval fuel. Simply by signaling an intention to convert to safer fuel if feasible, the United States would put substantial pressure on Russia to follow suit, and would reduce Iran’s justification for seeking highly enriched uranium.

That would seem like a no-brainer addition to the president’s laudable nonproliferation agenda, which helped earn him the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, the president has opposed it. When Congress initiated the program in the 2016 fiscal year, the White House objected on the ground that funding was to be taken from an existing Energy Department nonproliferation account. This was an odd objection, given the plan’s undeniable nonproliferation intent, but bureaucrats guard their budgets vigilantly. Eventually, the president acquiesced to the first-year funding as part of larger legislation.
If Mr. Obama’s sole concern was the funding source, he could have provided funds directly to the Office of Naval Reactors in the subsequent fiscal year. But when he submitted his 2017 budget last month, it included no funding at all for the program.

When asked why, an Energy Department official claimed that the program’s findings to date were insufficient to justify a second year of research. But that is ridiculous. Nuclear fuel development typically requires at least five years to assess feasibility.

The more likely — and depressing — explanation for the White House’s opposition appears to be petty turf warfare. Simply because Congress had the audacity to dip into a nonproliferation account, the administration has turned against the program. As a result, this vital security undertaking will grind to a halt later this year — just months after Mr. Obama hosts the nuclear summit meeting — unless Congress again comes to the rescue.

What’s more, such uranium is vulnerable to being stolen by terrorists during transport or storage. And these dangers are expected to grow. Unless our Navy switches to safer fuel in coming decades, the United States will need to resume production of bomb-grade uranium for the first time since 1992 to replenish its supply, undercutting Washington’s goal of halting such production worldwide.
To address these risks, last year Congress authorized and appropriated funding for initial research and development of low-enriched uranium fuel for America’s naval reactors. This project could be a game-changer, since the United States is the world’s biggest user of bomb-grade naval fuel. Simply by signaling an intention to convert to safer fuel if feasible, the United States would put substantial pressure on Russia to follow suit, and would reduce Iran’s justification for seeking highly enriched uranium.

That would seem like a no-brainer addition to the president’s laudable nonproliferation agenda, which helped earn him the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, the president has opposed it. When Congress initiated the program in the 2016 fiscal year, the White House objected on the ground that funding was to be taken from an existing Energy Department nonproliferation account. This was an odd objection, given the plan’s undeniable nonproliferation intent, but bureaucrats guard their budgets vigilantly. Eventually, the president acquiesced to the first-year funding as part of larger legislation.
If Mr. Obama’s sole concern was the funding source, he could have provided funds directly to the Office of Naval Reactors in the subsequent fiscal year. But when he submitted his 2017 budget last month, it included no funding at all for the program.

When asked why, an Energy Department official claimed that the program’s findings to date were insufficient to justify a second year of research. But that is ridiculous. Nuclear fuel development typically requires at least five years to assess feasibility.

The more likely — and depressing — explanation for the White House’s opposition appears to be petty turf warfare. Simply because Congress had the audacity to dip into a nonproliferation account, the administration has turned against the program. As a result, this vital security undertaking will grind to a halt later this year — just months after Mr. Obama hosts the nuclear summit meeting — unless Congress again comes to the rescue.

Such peevishness is shortsighted. President Obama should instead use the meeting to highlight the naval research as a signature nonproliferation initiative, and he should challenge other countries to follow suit. Not only would that promote global security, but it could help burnish Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy record. Indeed, the conversion of naval nuclear fuel could yield the greatest reduction in bomb-grade uranium commerce in human history. Now that would be a legacy.

The Third Nuclear Horn Of Pakistan (Daniel 8)

Pakistan faces risk of “Nuclear Theft” despite impeccable security measures: US report

Dunya News Report (Madiha Fareed)
The esteemed Harvard Kennedy School’s research institute “Belfer centre” has published a report reviewing the nuclear security measures of the countries having nuclear weapons. The Report “Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Continuous Improvement or Dangerous Decline?” was released ahead of fourth nuclear security summit scheduled for end of this month.
The report warns Pakistan against the risk of a nuclear theft, but expressed satisfaction over the measures in place to ensure the safety of nuclear weapons.
“By some estimates, the Strategic Plans Division, which manages Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, has 25,000 troops available to guard Pakistani nuclear stocks and facilities. Pakistani officials report that sites are equipped with extensive barriers and detection systems, that the components of nuclear weapons are stored separately and that Pakistani weapons are equipped with locks to prevent unauthorized use.” said the report.
The report also pointed out to the unstable political situation in Pakistan, “The possibilities of state collapse or extremist takeover cannot be entirely ruled out, though the near-term probability of such events appears to be low”.
The report warns that Pakistan must protect its nuclear assets against almost overwhelmingly adversary threats, including terrorist groups that have previously launched complex and well-coordinated attacks on heavily defended military targets within Pakistan.
“Although India has taken significant measures to protect its nuclear sites, recent reports suggest that its nuclear security measures may be weaker than those of Pakistan,” it added.
The Report also stated that United States and Pakistan will continue meaningful dialogues to ensure nuclear security and that High Officials from United States including Obama and US Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly expressed confidence in Pakistani Nuclear Security arrangements.
“Despite a variety of negative reports in the U.S. press on Pakistani nuclear security, U.S. officials from President Obama to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly expressed confidence in Pakistani nuclear security arrangements. It is notable, however, that these statements of confidence have not been repeated at recent high-level U.S.-Pakistani meetings—suggesting that the United States has concerns about some elements of Pakistan’s nuclear security approach. The Director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, however, testified in February 2015 that improvements were continuing.” The report stated.
On the occasion of sixth ministerial level strategic dialogue between Pakistan and United States in February, US Secretary of State John Kerry, in his opening remarks, had asked Pakistan to realize that keeping a large nuclear programme “does not make sense” and that Pakistan needs to “process that reality and put it front and centre in its policy”. He also expressed hope that both countries will continue to discuss the obligations of being a responsible nuclear state.
Speculations arose in the media that United States and Pakistan had differences over nuclear security issues and that US was pushing Pakistan to cut down on its nuclear programme. Prime Minister’s Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz told the house that “We have clearly told the US that our nuclear programme is for our own security and it has by and large helped prevent an armed conflict in the region”.
He made the remarks during a debate on the statement of US Secretary of State John Kerry that Pakistan might sell nuclear bombs to Saudi Arabia. Sartaj Aziz denied the speculations and said that Pakistan’s nuclear program is not for sale. He also added that the statement of the US Secretary of State was misquoted by the media.
Sartaj Aziz informed the house that Pakistan will not lend its nuclear technology to any other country. He added that Pakistan s nuclear programme is for its own deterrence and entire world appreciates its impeccable command and control system.
“We enjoy friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, but under no circumstances Pakistan will share its nuclear technology with any other country”, Mr. Aziz informed the house.
Last week, Pakistan hosted a Nuclear Safety Training Conference in which officials from 29 countries participated, it was the first of its kind conference held outside International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) headquarters. United States has praised Pakistan nuclear engagement with the IAEA. US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a congressional hearing that Pakistan’s nuclear engagement is excellent for safeguarding its nuclear assets.
Another significant development was recorded as Pakistan ratified the 2005 Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) on the recommendation of National Command Authority (NCA). The original CPPNM, which entered into force on 8 February 1987, is a legally binding international instrument in the area of physical protection of nuclear material. It establishes measures related to the prevention, detection and punishment of offences related to nuclear material.
Last Month, the Marshall Islands- a small pacific island nation, filed cases against Pakistan, India and Britain before the International Court of Justice stating that “Pakistan is in breach of its obligation owed to the international community as a whole, when it comes to reducing its nuclear arsenal.” The lawyers informed the court that “even a limited nuclear war involving the two countries would threaten the existence of small Pacific Island nation”, reported the agencies.
It is necessary for every nation on the earth to process the reality that nuclear weapons symbolize only destruction. In order to ensure a safer future, all nations of the world must come together to get rid of this menace. It is absolutely essential that the possibilities of armed conflicts be minimized and eventually eliminated for human race to progress and prosper.

The Inevitable Nuclear Attack (Revelation 15:2)

Brussels bombers were planning NUCLEAR attack, fresh police video evidence confirms

THE Brussels-based gang of Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists who co-ordinated Tuesday’s massacre WERE planning an attack on one of the country’s nuclear power plants, police now believe.

By TOM BATCHELOR

09:32, Fri, Mar 25, 2016 | UPDATED: 09:44, Fri, Mar 25, 2016

Investigators have discovered more than 12 hours of footage filmed by jihadis of the home Belgium’s nuclear power chief.

Police have deduced that the terror group were planning to kidnap the senior nuclear official in a bid to force him to give the extremists access to the highly sensitive atomic site.

Belgium bombers – brothers Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakraoui – had hidden their camera in the bushes near the home, it was reported.

Belgian authorities evacuated two nuclear power plants after suicide bombings at Brussels Airport and on a Metro train in the centre of the city, which left at least 31 people dead.

The Tihange power plant, an hour’s drive from the Belgian capital in the province of Liege, and the Doel power plant in Antwerp were cleared amid heightened fears of another attack.

Security has been stepped up at both Doel, which houses four reactors, and Tihange, which houses three.

Armed police and the Belgian military had been on site since the weekend following growing calls from the energy industry to beef up security at the potentially vulnerable plants.

All non-essential staff had been evacuated at the request of Belgian authorities, although the plants continued to operate with key staff remaining on site.

According to Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure (DH), the jihadi gang had a camera trained on the home of the Research and Development Director of the Belgian Nuclear Programme.

The footage was obtained by police after a raid on an apartment in Brussels in December, a month after the Paris massacre.

It was only later that police made the terrifying links between the CCTV surveillance and the terror threat engulfing Europe.

It prompted Belgian authorities in February to deploy 140 soldiers to the nuclear plants, leading some to speculate that the terror cell was then forced to switch its focus to softer targets such as the Brussels Metro.

DH claims to have seen information which directly links the terrorist brothers Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakraoui to the footage.