America Overdue For The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/11/22/2B4727DF00000578-3194241-image-m-12_1439326939787.jpg

New Study: America Overdue For Major Earthquake … In States You Didn’t Suspect

Written by: Daniel Jennings Current Events

Most Americans have a reasonable chance of experiencing a destructive earthquake within the next 50 years, the US Geological Survey (USGS) has concluded.

The survey’s new National Seismic Hazard Map show that the risk of earthquakes in parts of the country — such as the Midwest, Oregon and the Rocky Mountains — is far higher than previously thought. All total, Americans in one-third of the country saw their risk for an earthquake increase.

“I worry that we will wake up one morning and see earthquake damage in our country that is as bad as that has occurred in some developing nations that have experienced large earthquakes,” Carl Hedde, a risk management expert at insurer Munich Reinsurance America, said of the map in The Wall Street Journal. “Beyond building collapse, a large amount of our infrastructure could be immediately damaged. Our roads, bridges and energy transmission systems can be severely impacted.”

Among the findings:

  • The earthquake danger in parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois and South Carolina is as high as that in Los Angeles.
  • 42 of the 50 states have a reasonable chance of experiencing a damaging earthquake in the next 50 years.
  • Parts of 16 states have the highest risk of a quake: Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois, Kentucky and South Carolina

“We know the hazard has increased for small and moderate size earthquakes,” USGS scientist William Ellsworth told The Journal. “We don’t know as well how much the hazard has increased for large earthquakes. Our suspicion is it has but we are working on understanding this.”

Frightening Results From New Study

The USGS used new computer modeling technology and data collected from recent quakes such as the one that struck Washington, D.C. in 2011 to produce the new maps. The maps show that many Americans who thought they were safe from earthquakes are not.

New Relocation Manual Helps Average Americans Get Out Of Harms Way Before The Coming Crisis

Some of the survey’s other disturbing findings include:

    • The earthquake danger in Oklahoma, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia, New York and parts of New England is higher than previously thought.
    • Some major metropolitan areas, including Memphis, Salt Lake City, Seattle, St. Louis and Charleston, have a higher risk of earthquakes than previously thought. One of the nation’s most dangerous faults, the New Madrid fault, runs right through St. Louis and Missouri. It is the nation’s second most active fault. On Dec. 16, 1811, the New Madrid Fault was the site of the most powerful series of earthquakes in American history.

“Obviously the building codes throughout the central U.S. do not generally take earthquake risk or the risk of a large earthquake into account,” USGS Seismologist Elizabeth Cochran told The Journal. Her take: Earthquake damage in the central US could be far greater than in places like California, because structures in some locations are not built to withstand quakes.

Others agree.

“Earthquakes are quite rare in many places but when they happen they cause very intense damage because people have not prepared,” Mark Petersen, the project chief for the USGS’s National Seismic Hazard Map, told The Journal.

This new map should be a wakeup call for Americans.

The Terror of a Nuclear Trump

Ballistic missiles: Who has what?

Give Trump more nuclear weapons and more ways to use them? Not a good idea

Tom Z. Collina is policy director of Ploughshares Fund, an organization that aims to reduce the risk of the use of nuclear weapons. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.
On Friday, the Trump administration released its Nuclear Posture Review calling for new, more usable nuclear weapons and more ways to use them, including widening the rules on using them first. Donald Trump would get new nukes that his advisers claim are “low-yield,” and that Trump might be more inclined to actually launch. And he would have new excuses to use them, including against large-scale cyberattacks, that previous presidents have rejected.
If you were hoping that Trump’s bombastic words (“my nuclear button is bigger” and “fire and fury like the world has never seen”) were all bluster and that he didn’t have the policy or the firepower to back it up, think again. If you were looking for evidence that Trump and nukes are truly a dangerous combination, look no further.
Giving Trump new nukes AND new ways to use them is like giving matches and gasoline to Curious George. It will not end well. As 16 Democratic senators put it in a January 29 letter to Trump, the new policies “increase the risk of a nuclear arms race and raise the real possibility of nuclear conflict.”

New nuclear missions

The Obama administration had sought to limit the role of nuclear weapons, so that the only use of the bomb would be to deter its use by others. As he left office, Vice President Joe Biden said, “President Obama and I are confident we can deter — and defend ourselves and our allies against — non-nuclear threats through other means.” Moreover, Biden said that, “it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary. Or make sense.”
President Trump is now taking us in the opposite, dangerous direction. The Trump administration wants to expand the role of nukes to respond to “nonnuclear strategic attacks,” including cyberattacks, and use them first in a crisis. As a result, we could have President Trump launching a first strike nuclear attack over a Russian or Chinese computer hack.
This is crazy. As bad as a major cyberattack could be, it would pale in comparison to a nuclear attack. Threatening nuclear attack against, say, Russia, in response to a cyberattack, would just invite a massive nuclear attack against the United States. Millions would die, the world economy would collapse and civilization as we know it could come to a screeching halt.

Doomsday Clock: Nearing the stroke of madness

With the most powerful conventional and cyber military force in the world, the United States has no need to respond with nukes. But others might. Thus we should be working toward a global norm against nuclear use, not lowering the nuclear threshold. Moreover, cyberattacks are particularly hard to retaliate against, since it is difficult to definitively establish where the attack came from.
Even before the final NPR was released, the Pentagon was having trouble defending its policy. On January 31, Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tried to explain that the United States would not respond to “any” cyberattack with nukes, but possibly to cyberattacks “with strategic consequences.” This just raises new questions. Who decides what constitutes strategic consequences?

New nuclear weapons

The Trump administration wants to build two new types of nuclear weapons that it suggests are more likely to be used. Both types, a ballistic missile and a cruise missile, would be deployed at sea and would have a lower explosive yield than some others, but that does not make them any less dangerous. In fact, the administration says it wants these new weapons so it can make more credible nuclear threats.
On the defensive yet again, Selva said that having low-yield nuclear weapons does not “in and of itself lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons.”
Former Secretary of State George Shultz disagrees. “A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon,” said Shultz, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s top diplomat. “You use a small one, then you go to a bigger one. I think nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons and we need to draw the line there.”
Shultz continued, “Your mind goes to the idea that, yes, nuclear weapons become usable. And then we’re really in trouble, because a big nuclear exchange can wipe out the world.” Or, as one retired senior Army officer told The American Conservative, low-yield nukes provide Trump with “a kind of gateway drug for nuclear war.”

How Trump can become one of America's greatest presidents

The public is right to distrust Trump with nuclear weapons, and we all need to speak up and oppose these new, dangerous policies. People don’t tend to think of nuclear war as a policy choice, but it is, just like health care or immigration. The Trump administration’s policies are increasing the risk of nuclear war.
Sure, you could build a bomb shelter and hide, but that does not lower the risk of war, and it is highly unlikely to save you. Instead, we need to prevent nuclear war in the first place by changing government policy.
Don’t duck and cover. Speak up.

Iran May Be Building More Nukes (Daniel 8:4)

Work surrounding Iran’s latest secret nuclear site continues unabated, new satellite images from DigitalGlobe show.

The existence of the site was revealed by WND on Oct. 8.

The site – Velayat 1 – which is in the province of Isfahan on the outskirts of the small city of Najafabad, was built for research and development and has a capacity of 800 centrifuges for uranium enrichment. It already has successfully tested a neutron detonator and implosion system for a nuclear bomb.

According to the source for the exclusive WND report, research at the site includes design of a nuclear warhead for the Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which is now almost complete. The source added that there is also a nuclear reactor at the site along with a separation plant as another path to acquire a nuclear bomb.

To avoid suspicion, the site was built below a medicine factory called Abu Reyhan. The facility beneath the factory has three levels, with two underground entrances away from the facility.

This is where the father of Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, assisted by 10 other scientists, is working on Iran’s nuclear bomb program, within the SEPAND project (known by the IAEA as SPND) and under the AMAD (weapons program) to build atomic warheads.

The new images of the above-ground facility show that main buildings have been completed.

This is an image by Google Earth that dates to early 2000:

This is a new image by DigitalGlobe of the main installation:

The new images also clearly show trees planted around the site, a routine measure by the Islamic regime to hide the facility, according to a specialist on proliferation of atomic weapons who is familiar with Iran’s nuclear program. The trees camouflage barbed wires surrounding the site.

In parts of the vast site, earth has been covered, similar to what took place at the Natanz nuclear facility, a sign of underground building.

Other images show signs of digging and holes in the skirt of the nearby mountain which could corroborate the information about tunnels and passages underground.

According to a source who has been in the underground facility, military trucks covered with tarps for disguise have transferred equipment with “radiation warning” signs to the facility. An entrance on the side of the so-called medicine factory leads to the underground facility.

Another entrance to the underground facility, according to the source, is far to the north of the “medicine factory.” Large equipment has been observed being transferred through the entrance, which is almost a third of the actual size of the factory itself.

One source, with knowledge of the facility, stated that equipment similar to the picture has been installed at the underground site. The source added that several of these devices were taken out of the Lavizan Shian facility back in 2003 when the IAEA found out about that site and they were brought to the new site. He also added that more advanced neutron monitoring and measurement equipment has been purchased from a European country and installed at several sites. According to someone familiar with the device, it is a neutron detector. The white cylinder is a polyethylene moderator surrounding a detector tube, a common neutron detector setup.

Peter Vincent Pry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress, has experience analyzing imagery of underground facilities from his service at the CIA.

“It is difficult to ascertain the purpose of any underground facility just from imagery,” he cautioned. “We have been studying the Russian deep underground complex at Yamantau Mountain, which is the size of a small city, for years, and it is still a mystery. However, these photos of the facility in Iran have all the earmarks of an elaborate attempt to conceal an underground complex of significant size and strategic purpose by hiding it under a legitimate factory, concealing the original excavations, and elaborate and costly landscaping to screen everything from public view.

“Because an Iranian source of proven reliability claims this is a previously unknown nuclear facility, the allegation should be taken very seriously and regarded as credible,” Fry said. “Iran has a long history of successfully concealing its nuclear weapons program and nuclear facilities. What we know about is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Iran’s nuclear weapons program may well be larger, more sophisticated and more advanced than is generally suspected.”

The site operates under the control of the Revolutionary Guards to expand research and development of nuclear, plutonium and atomic warheads. Its activities include:

  • Enriching uranium to weapons grade.
  • Testing a neutron detonator and implosion system (chemical explosive lens). As a result of research at this facility, a test was done at Iran’s Parchin military site several months ago. After the revelation of the high-explosives experiment activity, Iran started to clean up the site but continues to stonewall on the IAEA’s request to inspect the Parchin site.
  • Designing and building a nuclear warhead to arm Iran’s Shahab-3 ballistic missile.
  • Separating plutonium for a plutonium implosion-type fission bomb. Iran’s heavy-water reactor near the city of Arak is nearing completion and is capable of providing spent fuel that, once processed, could produce plutonium for nuclear bombs. The separation of plutonium from fuel is an easy process requiring dual-use off-the-shelf equipment that Iran has already purchased.

The source indicated that Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi’s atomic warhead project seeks to build three nuclear warheads in its initial phase. Tests of the implosion system and neutron generator, the source said, have been successful and the design of the nuclear warhead is nearly complete.


Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

Babylon the Great Pushes for More Nukes

Illustrative: B61 nuclear bombs on a rack. (Courtesy US Department of Defense)

Pentagon pushes for new, low-yield nuclear weapons

By Thomas WATKINS Today, 2:45 am

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US military wants to revamp its nuclear arsenal and develop new low-yield atomic weapons, largely in response to Russian actions in recent years, the Pentagon said in a policy statement released Friday.

The so-called Nuclear Posture Review outlines the Pentagon’s nuclear ambitions under US President Donald Trump and is the first time since 2010 that the military has spelled out how it foresees nuclear threats in the coming decades.

“The strategy develops capabilities aimed at making use of nuclear weapons less likely,” Trump said in a statement. “It enhances deterrence of strategic attacks against our Nation, and our allies and partners, that may not come in the form of nuclear weapons.”

“And, importantly, it reaffirms our commitment to arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, maintains the moratorium on nuclear testing, and commits to improving efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to nuclear terrorism,” he said.

The document marks a sobering break from the vision for America’s atomic future under Barack Obama, who during a famous speech in Prague in 2009 called for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

While it underscores the administration’s concerns about North Korea, Iran and China, the focus falls largely on Russia.

“This is a response to Russian expansion of their capability and the nature of their strategy and doctrine,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis wrote in the introduction to the 75-page document.

“These developments, coupled with Russia’s seizure of Crimea and nuclear threats against our allies, mark Moscow’s decided return to Great Power competition,” he also wrote.

The Pentagon worries Russia assumes America’s regular, large-yield weapons are essentially too big to ever be detonated, as their use would likely result in large-scale retaliation and wipe much of humanity off the map.

“There are strong indications that our current strategy posture and capabilities are perceived by the Russians as potentially inadequate to deter them,” Greg Weaver, the deputy director of strategic capabilities for the military’s Joint Staff, told reporters.

“The US and NATO require a wider range of credible low-yield nuclear options to do a very specific thing: to convince the Russian leadership that if they initiate limited nuclear use, in a war with the alliance, our response will deny them the objective they seek and impose costs that far outweigh those benefits they can achieve,” he added.

More reliance on subs and ships

The document, an earlier version of which was leaked last month, says that by having additional smaller nukes, the Pentagon can counter adversaries’ “misperceptions” that the United States would not respond to another country using its own low-yield bomb.

The new strategy calls for a continuation of the nuclear modernization program ordered by Obama that encompasses all pillars of the “triad” — ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched weapons and bombs delivered by plane.

But unlike the Obama strategy, which stressed reducing the role of nuclear weapons, the new policy has a more assertive tone.

Low-yield nuclear weapons, also known as “tactical” nukes, are still extremely powerful and can pack as much destructive punch as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.

America already has a massive nuclear arsenal at its disposal, including 150 B-61 nukes stored across multiple European countries that can be configured for low-yield options.

The new weapons envisioned by the Pentagon would be launchable from submarines or ships, so would not need to be stockpiled in Europe.

They could also get around Russian air defenses more easily.

The bombs would not add to America’s nuclear horde, and would instead repurpose existing warheads, but critics say the Pentagon would be going against the spirit of non-proliferation agreements.

“We are on the cusp of a new era of nuclear proliferation,” warned Barry Blechman, co-founder of the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan anti-nuclear proliferation think tank in Washington.

“This is the great nuclear danger raised by the new” nuclear policy.

Weaver disputed media accounts that the nuclear posture review lowered the threshold for America to use nuclear weapons.

“The purpose of these capabilities is to make a US response to nuclear use more credible, not to make US first use more likely,” he said.

Pakistan Strengthens The Four Horns (Daniel 8:8)

https://i0.wp.com/www.dw.com/image/15722805_304.jpgAfter Trump Funding Cut, Pakistan to Purchase More Weapons From Russia, China and Eastern Europe

By Cristina Maza On 2/1/18 at 10:42 AM

In light of the U.S. decision to cut nearly all American security aid to Pakistan, the country’s defense minister has announced that Islamabad will begin purchasing more weapons from China, Russia and other Eastern European countries.

“We have a long relationship [with the U.S.], and we want to keep it,” Khurram Dastgir Khan assured Bloomberg in an interview on Wednesday, before adding that his country would, nonetheless, increasingly acquire weapons from countries other than the U.S.

Relations between Pakistan and the U.S. have deteriorated rapidly since August, when Trump began accusing Pakistan of taking aid while simultaneously supporting armed groups that attack U.S. forces and allies in Afghanistan. The tension reached a high point in early January when Trump began accusing Pakistan of accepting billions in U.S. aid without giving anything in return.

Foreign Affairs Minister Khawaja Asif accused Trump of lying about the amount of aid the U.S. gives Pakistan. Days later, the Trump administration announced that it would cut all security funding until Pakistan begins cracking down on the activities of the Taliban on its territory and in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has been increasingly turning to China for military aid. Beijing is now building an offshore naval base near a strategic Pakistani port.

Experts say it is typical for Pakistan to turn to other world powers when its relationship with the U.S. sours, but Trump’s harsh rhetoric toward Pakistan is out of the ordinary.

“In the past when the U.S. has suspended military aid to Pakistan, such as following the 1965 India-Pakistan War and again in the 1990s because of the Pakistani nuclear program, Pakistan saw relations with other major powers, especially China, as a means of procuring arms and military equipment,” Harrison Akins, a security expert at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy, told Newsweek.

“In the current situation, it is the Trump administration’s behavior that is a distinct break from past patterns in this relationship, as it suspends aid and publicly rebukes Pakistan’s duplicity simultaneously with the ramping up of U.S. forces in Afghanistan,” he continued.

The U.S. usually adopts a pragmatic view of its relationship with Pakistan and only rebukes the country when it is disengaging from South Asia and therefore needs Pakistan’s support less, Akins noted.

Speaking Wednesday, Khan suggested that Pakistan could play a role in brokering peace negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government.