Nuclear Escalation In South Asia (Revelation 8)

Asia & Pacific

India has deployed an infantry division to a potential flashpoint to guard against any provocation from its neighbor Pakistan and has again warned its ‘adversary’ against aiding terrorists to cross the Line of Control.

New Delhi (Sputnik) – In the midst of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan

over the possibility of India launching a “limited war,” India has revived its decades-old combat division comprising tanks and armored vehicles near the historically significant Akhnoor sector in Jammu and Kashmir.

The division is mandated to counter any action of Pakistani troops in the Chamb-Jaurian sector – the area where the 1971 war between the two countries broke out.

The 10th Infantry Division of the Indian Army, which is now being converted into RAPID

(Reorganized Army Plains Infantry Division), will hold around 100 T-72 tanks and the same number of Russian made mechanized armored vehicles.

The RAPID formation has infantry assets to reasonably conduct significant offensive operations and is easily adaptable to nuclear, biological & chemical warfare.Meanwhile, the Indian Army has once again warned Pakistan that it should stop helping terrorists across the Line of Control (de facto border). “The surgical strikes were a message we wanted to communicate. I think they have understood. If the adversary does not behave, and it is required,

we can conduct such operations again. We can repeat them, if not in the same form and shape,” said Gen Bipin Rawat.

Pakistan, on the other hand, continued to accuse India of unprovoked firing. Pakistani newspaper ‘The Nation’ reported on Monday that Islamabad had contacted Washington, Beijing, Moscow, and London to raise the issue of unprovoked firing at the border by India. “We have urged them to ask India to give up defiance. India is threatening a limited war which could be dangerous for the regional peace,” said a Pakistani official.

Last week, flaunting the country’s short-range nuclear weapons, Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said that Islamabad can use nuclear weapons to thwart any Indian attempt to enter Pakistani territory. “We have developed short-range nuclear weapons as a counter to the ‘Cold Start’ doctrine that India has developed,” Abbassi said. The Cold Start doctrine is considered as a retaliatory offensive arrangement along the western border, through which Indian armed forces can hit specific targets for a limited duration.India’s Cold Start doctrine had been on the backburner for many years; however, General Bipin Rawat opened the discussion on reviving the doctrine soon after taking charge as chief of the Indian Army in the beginning of 2017.

A Closer Look At The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12) Look at the Tri-State’s Active Fault Line

Monday, March 14, 2011

The Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast that occasionally makes local headlines when minor tremors cause rock the Tri-State region. It begins in Pennsylvania, crosses the Delaware River and continues through Hunterdon, Somerset, Morris, Passaic and Bergen counties before crossing the Hudson River near Indian Point nuclear facility.

In the past, it has generated occasional activity that generated a 2.6 magnitude quake in New Jersey’s Peakpack/Gladstone area and 3.0 magnitude quake in Mendham.

But the New Jersey-New York region is relatively seismically stable according to Dr. Dave Robinson, Professor of Geography at Rutgers. Although it does have activity.

“There is occasional seismic activity in New Jersey,” said Robinson. “There have been a few quakes locally that have been felt and done a little bit of damage over the time since colonial settlement — some chimneys knocked down in Manhattan with a quake back in the 18th century, but nothing of a significant magnitude.”

Robinson said the Ramapo has on occasion registered a measurable quake but has not caused damage: “The Ramapo fault is associated with geological activities back 200 million years ago, but it’s still a little creaky now and again,” he said.

“More recently, in the 1970s and early 1980s, earthquake risk along the Ramapo Fault received attention because of its proximity to Indian Point,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.

Historically, critics of the Indian Point Nuclear facility in Westchester County, New York, did cite its proximity to the Ramapo fault line as a significant risk.

In 1884, according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website, the  Rampao Fault was blamed for a 5.5 quake that toppled chimneys in New York City and New Jersey that was felt from Maine to Virginia.

“Subsequent investigations have shown the 1884 Earthquake epicenter was actually located in Brooklyn, New York, at least 25 miles from the Ramapo Fault,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.

The South Korean Nuclear Horn Prepares For War (Daniel 7:7)

South Koreans buy survival bags as nuclear threat from North looms

By Emma Beswick

Videos showing what “war bags” contain are growing in popularity in South Korea

“War bags” to be used in the event of a nuclear attack were growing in popularity in South Korea amid threats from Kim Jong-un.

Such was the popularity of the “war bags” that a search on YouTube returned 7,400 results showing what they contain, created this year alone.

South Korean comedian Kang Yoo-mi created one such video, titled “I’ve bought a War Bag!” which has received 560,000 views.

“The reason that I bought the survival bag is because I can’t dig a bomb shelter myself but I can at least afford to do this much preparation, and also (if a war breaks out) I might really be able to survive,” she said.

What do the “war bags” contain?

-A pen and paper
-Bottles of water
-Packet food, such as soups and noodles
-Warm clothes
-A gas mask, etc.

Some South Korean residents said the videos could help educate people on what to do in the event of war, whereas others were pessimistic, saying a simple bag would not help if a nuclear bomb was dropped on the country.

Why Japan is not a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Image result for japan vs korea kim

Is It Time For Japan To Go Nuclear?

By CHARLES V. PEÑA • September 26, 2017

In the wake of North Korea’s most recently reported nuclear test, which took many by surprise—because the yield was much larger than most analysts expected and because North Korea claimed it was a hydrogen bomb or a thermonuclear weapon that is the same type that the U.S. and Russia have—Secretary of Defense James Mattis assured Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera that “the United States’ commitment to defend Japan, including the U.S. extended deterrence commitment, remains ironclad.” To be sure, this is reassuring to Japan. But why does Japan need such a commitment? And, more importantly, why doesn’t Japan have an ironclad commitment to defend itself? Certainly, Japan would be better off if it didn’t have to depend on the U.S. And America would be better off with a strong, capable ally.

In the aftermath of World War II, there were good reasons for the U.S. to assume the mantle of defending Japan. First and foremost, the U.S. wanted to prevent Japan from becoming an aggressive military power—and the Japanese agreed—as a means to avoid a replay of war in the Pacific. Second, the reality was the Japan had been ravaged by war and—much like America’s European allies—needed the U.S. to provide stability and act as a counterweight to the Soviet Union and, to a lesser degree, China, as it rebuilt its economy.

But that was then and this is now.

Today, Japan is the third largest economy in the world (only the U.S. and China are bigger) with a gross domestic product (GDP) of $4.9 trillion. The Central Intelligence Agency estimates North Korea’s economy to be about $40 billion, which would place it in between Tunisia and Jordan—ranked 86th and 87th, respectively—on the World Bank’s list (the World Bank does not include North Korea on its list because it cannot confirm the country’s GDP). But with an economy more than 100 times larger than North Korea’s, Japan can easily afford to pay for its own defense—and it’s long past time for our wealthy ally to shoulder the responsibility of its own national security.

As a move in that direction, the Japanese Ministry of Defense recently requested its largest budget ever for fiscal year 2018—$48 billion, which is more than North Korea’s total economy. North Korea’s defense spending is believed to be about $10 billion, which is somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of its GDP. Just as Japan’s economy eclipses North Korea, so does its defense spending—by more than 4-to-1.

Put simply, if a rich country like Japan cannot defend itself against a very poor country like North Korea, there is something very wrong. Especially when Japan’s Self Defense Forces (SDF) are considered one of the best militaries in the world. According to John T. Kuehn, a professor of military history at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, “Pilot for pilot, ship for ship, Japan can stand toe to toe with anybody.”

What Japan is most worried about, of course, is the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Their recent defense budget request reflects that concern, with tens of billions of yen (more than $600 million) for Standard Missile-3 missiles to intercept ballistic missiles in space and Patriot PAC-3 missiles to intercept warheads in their terminal phase inside the atmosphere. At least the Japanese have a willingness to pay for such capabilities, rather than expecting that they should be given to them courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

But even with missile defense, Japan continues to rely on extended deterrence via the U.S. nuclear umbrella to deter North Korea’s nuclear weapons. But whether extended deterrence will work is unclear. Is Kim Jong-un credibly convinced that the United States is prepared to risk Los Angeles for Tokyo? Does the Japanese government believe the U.S. would do so? And, most important, is that a price Americans should pay for a rich ally such as Japan?

Just as Japan is considering amending its constitution to explicitly allow for armed forces and avoid any contradiction between the constitution and Japan’s SDF (Article 9 states that “land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained”), perhaps it is also time to consider whether the best way for Japan to deter North Korea’s nuclear capability is with its own such capability—because the reality is that the only way to deter nukes is with nukes.

While we rightly remain concerned about nuclear proliferation, what is worse: A country like North Korea with a nuclear monopoly able to threaten its neighbors and hold them hostage? Or allowing Japan—a democratic U.S. ally—to have its own nuclear deterrent to offset Pyongyang rather than risking Los Angeles or Seattle to save Tokyo?

Nonproliferation advocates would be aghast about the prospect of more countries with nuclear weapons, but Japan as an effective nuclear counterbalance to North Korea has some precedent. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and have managed not to vaporize each other. There is some evidence that nuclear weapons have actually had a stabilizing effect on Indian-Pakistani relations, which runs counter to nonproliferation expectations. For example, does the fact that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons prevent violence related to the Kashmir dispute from erupting into war between the two countries?

And the reality is that although Japan is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which prohibits it from having nuclear weapons, it has a “bomb in the basement,” with de facto capability to build nuclear weapons since the 1980s when it decided to embark on a nuclear energy program with a plutonium breeder reactor and a uranium enrichment plant. Building an actual nuclear deterrent would not be a huge leap.

The issue isn’t whether Japan should have nuclear weapons or not. The issue is whether Japan should take primary responsibility for itself. If it doesn’t, then the U.S. will forever need to provide an ironclad commitment to defend an ally who is more than capable of defending itself.

Charles V. Peña is a senior fellow with Defense Priorities. He has more than twenty-five years of experience as a policy and program analyst and senior manager, supporting both the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Peña is the former director of defense-policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism.