A Lack Of Vigilance Before The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6)

http://dmna.ny.gov/home/storyimages/NYSfaultsnoearthquakesforNG.jpgFaults Underlying Exercise Vigilant Guard

Story by: (Author NameStaff Sgt. Raymond Drumsta – 138th Public Affairs Detachment

Dated: Thu, Nov 5, 2009

This map illustrates the earthquake fault lines in Western New York. An earthquake in the region is a likely event, says University of Buffalo Professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.


TONAWANDA, NY — An earthquake in western New York, the scenario that Exercise Vigilant Guard is built around, is not that far-fetched, according to University of Buffalo geology professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.

When asked about earthquakes in the area, Jacobi pulls out a computer-generated state map, cross-hatched with diagonal lines representing geological faults.

The faults show that past earthquakes in the state were not random, and could occur again on the same fault systems, he said.

“In western New York, 6.5 magnitude earthquakes are possible,” he said.

This possibility underlies Exercise Vigilant Guard, a joint training opportunity for National Guard and emergency response organizations to build relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners against a variety of different homeland security threats including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.

The exercise was based on an earthquake scenario, and a rubble pile at the Spaulding Fibre site here was used to simulate a collapsed building. The scenario was chosen as a result of extensive consultations with the earthquake experts at the University of Buffalo’s Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), said Brig. Gen. Mike Swezey, commander of 53rd Troop Command, who visited the site on Monday.

Earthquakes of up to 7 magnitude have occurred in the Northeastern part of the continent, and this scenario was calibrated on the magnitude 5.9 earthquake which occurred in Saguenay, Quebec in 1988, said Jacobi and Professor Andre Filiatrault, MCEER director.

“A 5.9 magnitude earthquake in this area is not an unrealistic scenario,” said Filiatrault.

Closer to home, a 1.9 magnitude earthquake occurred about 2.5 miles from the Spaulding Fibre site within the last decade, Jacobi said. He and other earthquake experts impaneled by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada in 1997 found that there’s a 40 percent chance of 6.5 magnitude earthquake occurring along the Clareden-Linden fault system, which lies about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester, Jacobi added.

Jacobi and Filiatrault said the soft soil of western New York, especially in part of downtown Buffalo, would amplify tremors, causing more damage.

“It’s like jello in a bowl,” said Jacobi.

The area’s old infrastructure is vulnerable because it was built without reinforcing steel, said Filiatrault. Damage to industrial areas could release hazardous materials, he added.

“You’ll have significant damage,” Filiatrault said.

Exercise Vigilant Guard involved an earthquake’s aftermath, including infrastructure damage, injuries, deaths, displaced citizens and hazardous material incidents. All this week, more than 1,300 National Guard troops and hundreds of local and regional emergency response professionals have been training at several sites in western New York to respond these types of incidents.

Jacobi called Exercise Vigilant Guard “important and illuminating.”

“I’m proud of the National Guard for organizing and carrying out such an excellent exercise,” he said.

Training concluded Thursday.

How Iran Will be Denied with the Next Nuclear Deal

Untitled-design-5-1Pompeo, North Korea, and the Nuclear Deal

Now that Trump has announced that Mike Pompeo is his nominee for Secretary of State, it is worth considering some of what Pompeo has had to say about North Korea and the nuclear deal with Iran at greater length. In an interview this past Sunday, Pompeo restated the administration’s unrealistic goal of denuclearization. He went on to say this:

There is no relief in sight until the president gets the objective that he has set forth consistently during his entire time in office.

That doesn’t suggest that there is an interest in the administration in finding a compromise or in offering North Korea an incentive to reach an agreement. Like other members of the administration, Pompeo seems to think that the “maximum pressure” campaign has been successful and thinks that pressure should continue to be applied to force concessions. If there is “no relief in sight” for North Korea, why would North Korea be willing to give up anything? If their capitulation is required before they are able to get sanctions relief, why would they accept that?

Later in the same interview, Pompeo contrasted the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran with the current administration’s handling of North Korea:

CIA DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO: Yes, Margaret, I think that’s the case. Most importantly the conditions are very different. The previous administration was negotiating from a position of weakness. This administration will be negotiating from a position of enormous strength with sanctions that are unrivaled against the North Korean regime. That conversation will proceed very differently. My critique of the Obama administration’s JCPOA commitment was that they left the Iranians with a breakout capacity. They had a short time frame that these would these restrictions would remain in place. And North Korea’s human capital and enrichment capacity continues to remain in place. Those are…those are all things that present risk to the world and President Obama’s, excuse me President Trump is determined to prevent that from happening in North Korea.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you look at that deal and say, that’s a starting point or that’s at least what we can reach if not go beyond that with North Korea.

CIA DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO: Yes ma’am.

It doesn’t make sense to say that the Trump administration is in a stronger position vis-a-vis North Korea than the previous administration was with Iran. The conditions are indeed “very different,” but Pompeo doesn’t understand how they are different. The U.S. is demanding much larger concessions from North Korea with relatively less leverage than it had with Iran. North Korea is a nuclear weapons state whether the administration wants to acknowledge it or not, and they have a nuclear weapons program that Iran did not have at any point. North Korea has to give up much more to satisfy the Trump administration, and it is being offered less in exchange. Even if one were inclined to think that the Trump administration is serious about finding a negotiated solution, this is not a promising start.

Put simply, the Trump administration is demanding far more from the other side than the previous administration did, and it is unwilling to offer them even as much as the Obama administration offered Iran. To make matters worse, they don’t seem to understand that they are trying to do something much more difficult than what the Obama administration did, and yet they have nothing but contempt for the work their predecessors did in negotiating the JCPOA. If the Trump administration defines denuclearization as the complete elimination of North Korea’s nuclear program and not just the elimination of their weapons, they are truly setting out on a fool’s errand. The idea that North Korea can be made to give up its nukes is already unrealistic. Expecting that they will agree to a deal that is even more onerous and intrusive than the one Iran accepted is just silly. Once the Trump administration reneges on the nuclear deal, they will have even less reason to agree to anything.

India and Pakistan Approach Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

 

Both India and Pakistan have between 120 and 140 nuclear warheads, according to estimates provided by the Arms Control Association. However a report produced in 2015 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center asserts that Pakistan may be outpacing India in terms of its nuclear stockpile, and may possess 350 nuclear warheads in the next five to ten years. A 2016 SIPRI report confirmed the assessment that Pakistan has more nuclear warheads than India.

However, what distinguishes the two neighbors’ nuclear-weapons programs from each other is not so much the pace of production or the size of the stockpiles, but their radically different nuclear doctrines. The major difference between the two countries’ nuclear doctrines is that while India has renounced first use of nuclear weapons, Pakistan has refused to do so by reserving its right to use nuclear weapons in the face of India’s conventional superiority.

So far, uncertainty regarding Pakistan’s nuclear threshold is the principal factor preventing a major conflagration in South Asia. Pakistan’s refusal to disavow first use of nuclear weapons, and its emphasis on amassing tactical nuclear weapons and short-range missiles as a corollary of its nuclear doctrine, can be explained in light of its conventional-force inferiority vis-à-vis India. It is in fact a mirror image of the American nuclear doctrine as applied to central Europe during the Cold War. The United States refused to disavow first use of nuclear weapons, and deployed tactical nuclear weapons in central Europe on a large scale, because of NATO’s presumed inferiority in terms of conventional power vis-à-vis that deployed by the Warsaw Pact.

But for Pakistan, the uncertainty introduced by its nuclear doctrine has achieved another major objective as well. It has provided Pakistan with the shield behind which terrorist groups armed and trained by Islamabad, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, can engage in acts of terror that create mayhem not only in Indian-administered Kashmir but also in other parts of India. The fear of escalating a conflict with Pakistan to the nuclear level has prevented India from retaliating to these provocations with the massive use of its superior conventional force.

India desisted from retaliating against terrorist bases or Pakistani military installations even when a massive terrorist operation launched from Pakistan targeted India’s financial capital, Mumbai, in November 2008. This attack lasted for more than sixty hours and left at least 174 people dead.

However, it seems that the logic of this deterrence is fast eroding. Attacks such as the one in Mumbai, and subsequent assaults on Indian military installations in Kashmir and elsewhere, have also provided justification for India’s hard-line Hindu nationalists to heighten anti-Pakistan rhetoric, and putting pressure on the Indian government to intensify its military response. In the past few months, Indian retaliatory attacks have targeted not only terrorist bases but also Pakistani military facilities, causing significant casualties among Pakistani forces.

The escalation in the last two years in terror attacks, especially by Jaish-e-Muhammad, with the obvious connivance of the Pakistan army, on Indian military targets in Kashmir and surrounding Indian states has made the situation very perilous. In the past several months, terrorist groups operating from Pakistan have undertaken several such major attacks, causing significant loss of life among Indian security forces.

Russian Horn Prepares Its “Satanic” Missile


Russia will soon test a newhypersonic intercontinental ballistic missile that President Vladimir Putin says can avoid any U.S. or NATO defense systems.

The RS-28 Sarmat missile, designated “Satan 2” by NATO, will undergo its second “pop-up” test at the Plesetsk cosmodrome, some 500 miles from Moscow, TASS reported.

“The first launch of this missile took place at the end of December last year,” Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s chief of the general staff, told reporters on Tuesday.

“At the moment preparations are in full swing at the Plesetsk cosmodrome for another pop-up test.” Pop-up tests are used to ensure that the missile successfully leaves its launch container.

Channel Zvezda, a TV station run by the Russian ministry of defense, uploaded a video of the test preparations to Twitter.

Gerasimov lauded the abilities of the missile, noting, “With a mass of more than 200 tonnes it has a shorter active phase of flight and better ability to penetrate missile defenses and can carry warheads of larger mass and enormous yield.”

The missile was one of several new weapons announced by Putin at his March 1 annual presidential address. He claimed that the new technology was so advanced that no missile defense technology, including in the U.S., could stop it.

The president said that the weapon was developed from 2001 onwards, following President George W. Bush’s decision to pull out of a 1972 U.S.-Soviet anti-ballistic missile treaty. At the time, Putin warned Bush not to cancel the deal. “You didn’t listen to our country then,” Putin said, “Listen to us now.”

Putin went on to announce the existence of the Avangard hypersonic missile system, which can be carried by the Sarmat. The Avangard warhead can maneuver during hypersonic flight, he said, making it even harder to intercept. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov claimed that the weapon was already in mass production.

  A Russian Yars RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile system drives during the Victory Day military parade in Moscow on May 9, 2015. Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced upgrades to the country’s Cold War-era nuclear arsenal, including the RS-28 Sarmat missile. AFP/Getty Images

The Sarmat is scheduled to enter service in 2020, replacing the Cold War-era RS-36M Voyevoda missiles. Despite previous delays to the program, Borisov said, “There can be no doubts we will have the new missile Sarmat by the time Voyevoda’s service life is over.”

It has been reported that the Sarmat can carry a warhead large enough to destroy an area the size of Texas. In the CGI demonstration video accompanying Putin’s speech, the missile targeted an area that looked suspiciously like the Tampa Bay area of Florida.

Behind the U.S., Russia has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Putin recently warned that Russia would use the weapons in response to any nuclear attack on its territory, even if it meant “global catastrophe.”

Antichrist’s Men Kill Iraqi PM’s Guard Chief

A-Shi_ite-fighter-from-Saraya-al-Salam-who-are-loyal-to-radical-cleric-Muqtada-al-Sadr.-ReutersIraqi PM’s guard chief killed by militiamen in checkpoint firing

Source: Xinhua| 2018-03-14 04:11:22|Editor: yan

BAGHDAD, March 13 (Xinhua) — A senior officer from a force tasked with protecting Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was shot dead on Tuesday in Iraq’s central province of Salahudin, a provincial security source said.

Brig. Gen. Sharif Ismail, commander of a Baghdad-based special brigade protecting Abadi, was killed when militiamen of Saraya al-Salam, or Peace Companies militia, opened fire on their convoy at a checkpoint manned by the militiamen in north of the city of Samarra, the source from Samarra Operations Command told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

One of Ismail’s two bodyguards also died, the source added. Saraya al-Salam is a militia group loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

The incident reportedly came shortly after a quarrel between Ismail’s bodyguards and another group of Saraya al-Salam militiamen at a previous checkpoint in Samarra, some 120 km north of the capital Baghdad, the source said.

The senior officer was heading to Iraq’s northern province of Nineveh for security measures there, hours before a planned visit of Abadi, who is also the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi forces, to the province.

Sadr’s militia is a reformation of the previous militia Mahdi Army, which he led during the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the subsequent sectarian strife after 2003.

On June 10, 2014, the group launched a blitzkrieg and seized large swathes of territories in predominantly Sunni provinces in northern and western Iraq, and later announced the formation of “Peace Companies” to protect Shiite shrines from Islamic State militants.