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

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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

Antichrist Secures Kirkuk (Revelation 13:18)

Iraq’s al-Sadr dispatches fighters to ‘secure’ Kirkuk

Anadolu Agency 


Prominent Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of Iraq’s influential Sadrist movement, has ordered fighters from the Saraya al-Salaam, his group’s military arm, to “restore security” in the volatile Kirkuk province.

“Saraya al-Salaam’s rapid-reaction brigade set out this morning [Friday] to Kirkuk province upon al-Sadr’s instructions,” Saraya officer Ihab Mohammed told Anadolu Agency.

The deployment, he said, “is aimed at ensuring security and protecting civilians in light of recent events in Kirkuk after [Iraqi] federal forces seized control of the province”.

For years, al-Sadr’s Saraya al-Salaam force has maintained an armed presence in Iraq’s Saladin province north of capital Baghdad. It did not, however, take part in the recent months-long army offensive to recapture Mosul from the Daesh terrorist group.

Earlier this week, Iraqi forces moved into Kirkuk province — and other disputed parts of Iraq — following the withdrawal of Peshmerga fighters loyal to Kurdish Regional Government (KRG).

On Friday morning, the Iraqi Defense Ministry announced that government forces had captured Kirkuk’s northern Altunkopru sub-district following clashes with Peshmerga forces.

“Iraqi Federal Police and counter-terrorism forces, along with Hashd al-Shaabi fighters, have secured Kirkuk’s northern Altunkopru sub-district,” the ministry said in a statement.

“Altunkopru is now under the total control of federal forces,” it added.

Iraqi Army Captain Jabbar Hasan told Anadolu Agency that Iraqi counter-terrorism forces had launched a wide-ranging operation Friday morning aimed at wresting Altunkopru from Peshmerga forces deployed in the area.

According to Hasan, “fierce” clashes — featuring medium and heavy weapons, including artillery — are now underway between the two sides.

Tension has steadily mounted between Baghdad and the Erbil-based KRG since Sept. 25, when Iraqis in KRG-controlled areas — and in several disputed parts of the country — voted on whether or not to declare independence from the Iraqi state.

According to poll results later announced by the KRG, almost 93 percent of those who cast ballots voted in favor of independence.

The illegitimate referendum faced sharp opposition from most regional and international actors (including the U.S., Turkey and Iran), who had warned that the poll would distract from Iraq’s fight against terrorism and further destabilize the region.

Reporting by Hussein al-Amir :Writing by Ali H. M.Abo Rezeg

This is Nuclear Reality (Revelation 15)

Nuclear weapons — a threat to the world

Wajahat Abro

Nuclear weaponization has become a massive threat to the world. Many of the world’s powerful states have been stockpiling, strengthening and testing nuclear weapons on a large scale. Despite the catastrophic and fatal effects of nuclear stockpiles, the strongest nations are creating more and more nuclear arsenal.

In World War I and II the most nuclear arsenal was used. However, after the end of cold war, the US, Russia, the United Kingdom and France reduced their nuclear arms. Disarmament was their responsibility as they had deliberately signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NTP) – an organization to reduce nuclear programme.

Turning towards the current scenario of the world, it categorically seems that the process of prohibition of nuclear armament has been delayed. Russia is increasingly modernizing its nuclear capabilities. She has tested 715 detonations since its inception. Currently, she possesses 1,950 strategic arsenal. As a result, the country is considered one of the most militarily powerful states in the world. Similarly, the US is also dealing with militarily powerful countries to improve its nuclear structure. It has tested ballistic missiles and the recently, the ‘mother of all bombs’ in Afghanistan. Washington generates 1,411 current strategic arsenal with a 4,480 stockpile. In retaliation, North Korea is currently skyrocketing in manufacturing maximum defence measures. Pyongyang has been rapidly producing missile programmes, she recently tested six intercontinental ballistic missiles to hit the mainland of United States. She produces 13-60 strategic weapons with a large range of missiles.

Pakistan has also lunched and tested cruise missile Babur-III on January 9, 2017. It augmented the credibility of Pakistan’s nuclear warheads. Pakistan claims that without nuclear power the country will be sanctioned like Iran and attacked like Iraq by the US in its recent Afghan foreign policy. Pakistan aspires to complete its credibility of nuclear warheads to counter the US and its major ally, India. Currently, Islamabad has 130 warheads in its current stockpile along with testing 6 detonations.

Pakistan launched and tested fired cruise missile Babur-III on January 9, 2017. It augmented the credibility of Pakistan’s nuclear warheads. Pakistan claims that without nuclear power the country will be sanctioned like Iran and attacked like Iraq

As far as India is concerned, it has been pursuing more nuclear weaponization since Sino-India and Indo-Pakistan nuclear wars. Recently, she has created strong relationships with the US and Israel in terms of developing defence warheads. As Israel is one of the strongest nuclear powers in the world, India is more inclined toward Israel and deals in billions of dollars for strengthening nuclear armament to counter the threats posed by China over the Doklam issue and Pakistan over Kashmir issue and border skirmishes. Currently, New Delhi possesses 110-120 peak stockpile with testing 6 detonations.

Despite the inauguration of NPT, developing and developed nations are not ratifying the treaty, because no nuclear states support banning nuclear warheads. In this way, non-nuclear countries are indicating fear that nuclear states are a symbol of a great threat for them. Such non-nuclear states are also improving their defence systems to counter those military threats posed by nuclear states. On the contrary, the sabre-rattling between the US and North Korea has recently rekindled the flame of nuclear weaponization. Overall, the conflicts in the world of Middle Eastern and South Asian countries are accelerating the nuclear race. Despite igniting a war on terror, the Trump administration must also realize that a 16-year long war in Afghanistan has only given mass destruction. Washington should initiate efforts to organize a platform where both, Taliban and the US, can negotiate a peaceful discussion to end the war. This is the only path, America has to follow to desist further mass destruction.

Those who are in the nuclear arms race claim that nuclear armament is a security guarantor, protector and national ambition. But that is a problematic way of disarmament. If we aspire to the disarmament of nuclear weapons, we could prevent the race without the cited claims and reasons.

It is clear as crystal that nuclear weaponization will not be curbed until world conflicts are countered properly through peace and harmony. It is also not hard to confess that there is a dire need of nuclear and NATO nations to not only sign but also ratify NPT for complete nuclear disarmament. The nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1 – UN Security Council permanent members and Germany – is a positive way in this regard and should be implemented. The war can be won or lost, but it shall affect both sides and lead many countries into feminine, drought and mass destruction. Here, the key role of the UN peace keeping organization is need of the hour. The UN must play its role in maintaining peace by resolving old conflicts.

The writer is a freelance columnist, based in Shikarpur

Trump and the Nuclear Bomb (Revelation 15)

Take the President’s Finger Off the Nuclear Button

Dan Glickman

October 20, 2017

A military aide carries the ’nuclear football‘ on the South Lawn of the White House on April 25, 2017 in Washington, DC. | Getty

I was once tasked with ordering a nuclear strike in the event of catastrophe. It’s an awesome responsibility no single person should have.

In 1997, as a member of Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, I was once the “designated survivor”—the senior official who stayed away from the State of the Union speech in the event of an attack that killed America’s entire executive and congressional leadership all at once. It was a heady experience. I was taken to a location outside of Washington (my daughter’s apartment in New York), where I was accompanied by key military staff and Secret Service, including a military officer carrying what I presumed to be the nuclear football—a black, leather-encased aluminum briefcase that would be used to authenticate the person ordering a nuclear strike. The football, formally known as the “president’s emergency satchel,” also contains options for different strike packages—to hit, say, Moscow, Pyongyang, or a much wider set of targets.

On this particular day, the person who would have to punch the authorization code into the nuclear football was me. Within nanoseconds, an order would go to the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center, and minutes later the missiles would launch. Millions would die.

I don’t recall getting any specific instructions on what to do if the doomsday scenario happened. All I knew is that if necessary, I could turn to that military officer accompanying me, holding that 45-pound bag, and trigger a military response, including a nuclear strike. It felt like an awesome responsibility to put on one man’s shoulders, even if it was exceedingly unlikely the president—or in this case, the secretary of agriculture—would ever have to use it. I sometimes wonder if I would have had the courage to give the order.

I’ve been thinking about that day a lot lately as I read alarming stories about how President Donald Trump is ordering up options for “limited” strikes on North Korea, or how he reportedly once mused to top Pentagon officials about wanting a nuclear arsenal 10 times our current size.

I’m by no means, a nuclear expert, but I’m hardly the only one alarmed. On Wednesday, former CIA Director John Brennan said he rated the odds of a war with North Korea at 25 percent. Days earlier, the sober-minded chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, said he was worried the president might start “World War III.” Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has warned that today’s situation is as dangerous as anything he saw during the Cold War—and he lived through the Cuban missile srisis up close as a satellite photography consultant for the CIA.

Right now, the decision to trigger a preemptive or retaliatory nuclear attack lies solely in the hands of one person, without any required oversight from Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the secretary of defense. Since the advent of nuclear weapons and the passage of the War Powers Act in 1973, all presidents have had virtually unlimited power and authority to trigger a nuclear attack. And while there are processes in place to verify codes and communication links—the nuclear football—that power does not require any input or consultation with Congress. The framers of the Constitution never envisioned investing the president with the sole power to wipe out all human life on earth several times over.

It’s past time to re-examine the War Powers Act and the role of Congress, the president and war-making in the modern era, particularly when it comes to nuclear weapons. This effort must be bipartisan, should involve public hearings if possible and should probe questions such as: What is the specific role of military commanders downstream to execute on a presidential decision? Are we sufficiently protected against the threat of a cyberattack that could trigger nuclear war? How do we prevent mistakes, either human or technological? How should congressional leaders participate in the planning and decision-making process when it comes to such grave choices?

I recognize that in war, sometimes quick decisions are necessary and lengthy consultation isn’t possible. But at the same time, the present system violates a basic principle of self-governing democracy: The American people’s right to have a say in whether to go to war. I’m confident we can still protect the president’s ability to act decisively when necessary, but otherwise provide robust congressional and military oversight to the process by which a nuclear attack is triggered.

In the great movie “Crimson Tide,” a valid launch order is sent to Captain Frank Ramsey, an American submarine commander played by Gene Hackman. As they are preparing to launch, a second emergency message comes through. But it is garbled. Ramsey’s second in command, played by Denzel Washington, believes the scrambled message means the original order is now void, and a mutiny against Hackman is initiated to prevent accidental nuclear war with the Soviets. It turned out Washington was right.

No one should use Hollywood as a strategic guidepost, but the story is a reminder that when such power is consolidated in one person, without any oversight, mistakes can happen. Even under the best of circumstances, there’s no perfect way to manage nuclear weapons. But we can do better. It’s time for Congress to act.

Dan Glickman (@DanRGlickman) is a former congressman from Kansas and secretary of agriculture. He is now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center and vice president at the Aspen Institute.