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

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/normantranscript.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/08/408bdb1d-8734-5959-b892-f359fe1bf6b9/54382834d5e4b.image.jpg

Historic Earthquakes

Near New York City, New York

1884 08 10 19:07 UTC

Magnitude 5.5

Intensity VII

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.

The Australian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

The bomb for Australia?

The Strategist

After the Cold War ended, the existence of nuclear weapons on both sides wasn’t enough to stop the US from expanding NATO’s borders ever eastwards towards Russia’s borders, contrary to the terms on which Moscow thought Germany’s reunification and the admission of a united Germany into NATO had been agreed. Several Western leaders at the highest levels had assured Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t expand even ‘one inch eastward’. In 1999, Russia watched helplessly from the sidelines as its ally, Serbia, was dismembered by NATO warplanes that served as midwives to the birth of an independent Kosovo.

But Moscow didn’t forget the lesson. In 2014, the nuclear equation didn’t stop Russia from reacting militarily to the US-backed Maidan coup in Ukraine—which displaced the pro-Moscow elected president with a westward-looking regime—by invading eastern Ukraine and annexing Crimea. In other words, the more or less constant US–Russia nuclear equation is irrelevant to explaining the shifting geopolitical developments. We have to look elsewhere to understand the rebalancing of US–Russia relations over the past decade and a half.

Closer to home, nuclear weapons didn’t stop Pakistan from occupying the forbidding Kargil Heights on the Indian side of the Line of Control in 1999, or India from waging a limited war to retake it—an effort that cost over 1,000 lives. If Mumbai or Delhi were hit by another major terrorist attack that New Delhi concluded had Pakistan connections, the pressure for some form of retaliation across the border might well prove stronger than the caution about Pakistan having nuclear weapons.

Nor do nuclear weapons buy immunity for North Korea. The biggest elements of caution in attacking it are its formidable conventional capability to hit the heavily populated parts of South Korea, including Seoul, and anxiety about how China would respond. Pyongyang’s present and prospective arsenal of nuclear weapons and its capacity to deploy and use them credibly is a distant third factor in the deterrence calculus.

If we move from historical and contemporary cases to military logic, strategists face a fundamental and unresolvable paradox in ascribing a deterrent role to the bomb. To deter a conventional attack by a more powerful nuclear adversary, each nuclear-armed state must convince its stronger opponent of its ability and will to use nuclear weapons if attacked—for example, by developing tactical nuclear weapons and deploying them on the forward edge of the battlefield. But if the attack does occur, escalating to nuclear weapons will worsen the scale of military devastation even for the side initiating nuclear strikes. Because the stronger party understands that, the existence of nuclear weapons will induce extra caution. But it won’t guarantee immunity for the weaker party.

For example, ASPI’s Andrew Davies believes that, while there is little realistic likelihood of an outright invasion by China, sea-based or air-launched long-range strikes against Australian targets are imaginable. Suppose that were to occur, and suppose further that we had acquired the sort of high-yield nuclear bombs and long-range delivery systems that Hugh White mentions. Would we really threaten China with nuclear retaliation? What if it didn’t find our threat credible and persisted with its strikes. Would we carry out nuclear first strikes against Chinese targets? If we don’t, China will have called our bluff on a non-credible threat. If we do, perhaps to maintain ‘credibility’, we will have entrapped ourselves in a posture of mutual nuclear suicide in the name of national defence. These scenarios, too, need to be thought through to their logical conclusions instead of being left in the realm of elegant abstraction.

And at what financial cost in an ever more competitive fiscal environment? A common but mistaken belief is that nuclear weapons enable defence on the cheap. To the contrary, not only is there no diminution in the need for and costs of full conventional capabilities, but there are additional costs related to the safety and security requirements that cover the full spectrum of nuclear weapons, material, infrastructure, facilities and personnel. And, as Britain and France have discovered, investment in the essentially unusable nuclear deterrent can take funds away from conventional upgrades and expansion that are actually usable.

We’ve made something of a fetish of our belief in the benefits and virtue of a rules-based order. The 2017 foreign policy white paper notes that the leash function of strong rules is ‘becoming more important to Australia as the distribution of power changes in the international system’. After its breakout in 1998, we strongly condemned India for violating the NPT-centred global nuclear order. We have backed international action to contain Iran’s suspected nuclear ambitions in the past, and we continue to demand that North Korea comply with the non-proliferation obligations under the NPT.

Australia, too, is firmly bound by NPT obligations, and for us they’re reinforced by obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear-Free-Zone Treaty. It would take us a long time to recover from the stench of hypocrisy if we were to discard treaty obligations as a mere inconvenience when we’ve consistently rejected security arguments by others as justifications for getting the bomb.

Ramesh Thakur is a professor at the Australian National University and co-convenor of the Asia–Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. Image courtesy of Pixabay user Ildigo.

The Path to Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

US’s new nuclear policy ‘a blueprint for war’, Nobel peace laureate says

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons founder describes weapons review as ‘a chilling document’ that echoes cold war era

Ben Doherty
Last modified on Mon 5 Feb 2018 12.01 EST

Australia’s Nobel peace laureate says America’s aggressive new nuclear policy is “a blueprint for nuclear war” that returns the world to a cold war mentality.

Tilman Ruff, the founding chair of the Melbourne-founded International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) said the newly released US nuclear posture review was “a chilling document”.

This increases the danger of nuclear war … it clearly flags that great power confrontation with Russia is back on again. It essentially says, ‘we’re back in the cold war’.”

Last Friday the release of Donald Trump’s nuclear posture review revealed a significantly more aggressive stance towards Russia, saying Vladimir Putin’s regime must be convinced it would face “unacceptably dire costs” if it were to threaten even a limited nuclear attack in Europe.

The review also cast North Korea as a “clear and grave threat” to the US and marked out China, saying the US arsenal was tailored to “prevent Beijing from mistakenly concluding” it could be advantaged by using its nuclear weapons in Asia.

In October, Ican was awarded the 2017 Nobel peace prize for the organisation’s efforts to abolish nuclear weapons globally, in particular through a prohibition treaty adopted by the United Nations. Ican is the first Australian-founded organisation to ever be awarded the peace prize.

On the floor of the UN general assembly in July, two-thirds of the world’s countries – 122 nations – voted in favour of the treaty outlawing nuclear weapons. Fifty-six countries have signed the treaty and five have ratified it. The treaty will come into force when 50 countries have ratified it.

None of the declared nuclear states, including the US, have signed on to the treaty. And key allies such as Australia, reliant on the umbrella of US nuclear deterrence, have also refused to endorse the ban on nuclear weapons.

The Pentagon-led review of the US nuclear arsenal and the policies that govern it was ordered by Trump a year ago. Such reviews are customarily done at the outset of a new US administration.

In a written statement, Trump said US strategy was “aimed at making use of nuclear weapons less likely”.

But Ruff said the opposite was true, condemning the new US posture as one “that invests in new, more usable nuclear weapons on submarines and on ships, and that increases the range of options where nuclear retaliation would be considered”.

He said the US had abandoned its legal commitment to disarmament, agreed to under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

“The goal of a world free of nuclear weapons has disappeared from that document. It’s been described as a blueprint for nuclear war, and I don’t think that’s too extreme a characterisation.”

Ruff said on myriad indicators the risk of global nuclear war was increasing. “The continued reliance on nuclear weapons; the continued massive investments on keeping them indefinitely; making them more usable and more deadly; the lack of talks about disarmament, the increasingly belligerent postures and extraordinarily specific threats to use nuclear weapons by multiple leaders in multiple parts of the world,” he said.

The US position has also been criticised – predictably – by China, Iran and Russia.

Russia’s foreign ministry said the Trump administration’s policy statement was both “confrontational” and “unscrupulous” while Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said it risked “bringing humankind closer to annihilation”.

The Union of Concerned Scientists described it as “reckless path” that will weaken US security.

On Monday, Ruff was speaking aboard the Peace Boat, which was docked in Sydney Harbour.
The Peace Boat, a Japan-based non-government organisation, has toured the world since 1983, promoting peace, human rights and environmental protection.

Also on board the ship in Sydney was 85-year-old Tanaka Terumi, who as a 13-year-old, survived an atomic bomb being dropped on Nagasaki.

The former university professor has dedicated his life to speaking out on behalf of the Hibakusha, those who survived the Japanese atomic bombings, and to campaigning for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

“It was a truly cruel and inhumane weapon that should never be used again. No one else on this planet should have to experience the pain that my fellow survivors experienced.”

Russian Horn Moves Into Europe

Russia deploys nuclear-capable missiles to border with Poland and Lithuania

President of Lithuania warns weapons pose threat to ‘half of all European countries’

Samuel Osborne Wednesday 7 February 2018

Iskander missile launchers were driven through Red Square in Moscow during the Victory Parade marking the 70th anniversary of the defeat of the Nazis in the Second World War AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko

Russia has said it has the sovereign right to deploy weapons anywhere within its own borders after sending nuclear-capable missiles to its territory between Poland and Lithuania.

The Kremlin deployed advanced Iskander missiles to its Kaliningrad exclave on the Baltic Sea, within striking distance of large swathes of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — all members of Nato.

The head of the Russian parliament’s defence committee, Vladimir Shamanov, confirmed the missiles’ deployment in remarks carried by Russian news agencies.

He said the move was a response to a Nato buildup near Russia’s borders, with the number of US weapons in Poland being a particular irritation to Moscow.

When asked about reports of the deployment on a conference call with reporters, Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Kremlin, said: “The deployment of one weapon or another, the deployment of military units and so forth on Russian territory, is exclusively a sovereign issue for the Russian Federation.

“Russia has never threatened anyone and is not threatening anyone. Naturally, Russia has this sovereign right [to deploy weapons on its own territory]. It should hardly be cause for anyone to worry.”

Dalia Grybauskaite, president of Lithuania, said the missiles would be deployed on a permanent basis and called them a threat to Europe.

Ms Grybauskaite told reporters: “Iskander missiles are being stationed in Kaliningrad for permanent presence as we speak,” after visiting Nato troops in the central Lithuanian town of Tukla.

She called the deployment a threat not only to Lithuania but to “half of all European countries”.

Latvia’s foreign minister, Edgars Rinkevics, said the deployment added fresh impetus to discussions already underway inside Nato about improving the alliance’s capabilities.

“It means that what we have been talking about – the necessity to discuss strengthening air-defence elements during the Nato summit in July; strengthening the chain of command, to talk about many questions that affect defence of our region and Latvia specifically… – it all has been confirmed by the practical actions of Russia,” the minister said.

Reports of the Kaliningrad deployment so close to Nato territory are perceived by some alliance members as a threat at a time when tensions between Russia and its Western neighbours are running high over Moscow’s illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea.

Washington has said placing such missile systems near the Baltic states and Nato member Poland is “destabilising,” while US officials have expressed concern the deployments represent a permanent upgrade to Russia’s forces in the area.

The Kremlin has often said it would place Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad as a challenge to a US missile shield being developed in eastern Europe. Washington says the shield is designed to counter possible missile attacks by Iran, but Moscow says it is directed against Russia.

The high-precision Iskander missiles deployed in Kaliningrad can be fitted with a conventional or nuclear warhead and have a range of up to 310 miles (500km). In the past, Moscow deployed them to Kaliningrad temporarily for military drills.

A Nato official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said: “Any deployment close to our borders of missiles that can carry nuclear warheads does not help to lower tensions. In the spirit of transparency, we look forward to hearing more from Russia on this.

“It is important to determine the exact situation. Nato is alert, we understand the capability, but we also understand that the Russians have been moving equipment in and out of Kaliningrad for a long time.”

Another Small Quake Before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Earthquake strikes near New York City days after bogus tsunami alert

AN EARTHQUAKE has struck near New York City just days after the state was hit with a bogus tsunami warning.

By Henry Holloway / Published 7th February 2018

2.2 magnitude earthquake strikes near New York City

The 2.2 magnitude quake hit at about 3 miles depth near in Westchester County around 30 miles north east of New York.

Witnesses used the federal earthquake tracker to register they had felt the small tremor at 6.14am local time.

Hundreds of people are understood to of felt shaking from the quake, and one said it was “startling“.

And luckily no one is reported to have been injured by the seismic event.

It comes after New Yorkers were issued with a false tsunami warning from an AccuWeather push alert citing the National Weather Service.

One witness said on Twitter: “We just had a small earthquake by my house.

“It is not uncommon to have these in New York a few times per year.

“Always a bit startling though.”

New York City and its outskirts are not near plate boundaries – but still can suffer rare earthquakes.

Tremors can hit around the Manhattan Island area, and the largest on record is said to be approximately magnitude 5 back in 1884.

Fallen brickwork and cracked walls were reported from this quake as far away as Pennsylvania and Connecticut.