New York Earthquake: City of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New York earthquake: City at risk of ‘dangerous shaking from far away’

Joshua Nevett

Published 30th April 2018

SOME of New York City’s tallest skyscrapers are at risk of being shaken by seismic waves triggered by powerful earthquakes from miles outside the city, a natural disaster expert has warned.

Researchers believe that a powerful earthquake, magnitude 5 or greater, could cause significant damage to large swathes of NYC, a densely populated area dominated by tall buildings.

A series of large fault lines that run underneath NYC’s five boroughs, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island, are capable of triggering large earthquakes.

Some experts have suggested that NYC is susceptible to at least a magnitude 5 earthquake once every 100 years.

The last major earthquake measuring over magnitude 5.0 struck NYC in 1884 – meaning another one of equal size is “overdue” by 34 years, according their prediction model.

Natural disaster researcher Simon Day, of University College London, agrees with the conclusion that NYC may be more at risk from earthquakes than is usually thought.

EARTHQUAKE RISK: New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from far-away tremors

But the idea of NYC being “overdue” for an earthquake is “invalid”, not least because the “very large number of faults” in the city have individually low rates of activity, he said.

The model that predicts strong earthquakes based on timescale and stress build-up on a given fault has been “discredited”, he said.

What scientists should be focusing on, he said, is the threat of large and potentially destructive earthquakes from “much greater distances”.

The dangerous effects of powerful earthquakes from further away should be an “important feature” of any seismic risk assessment of NYC, Dr Day said.

GETTY

THE BIG APPLE: An aerial view of Lower Manhattan at dusk in New York City

USGS

RISK: A seismic hazard map of New York produced by USGS

“New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from earthquakes at much greater distances” Dr Simon Day, natural disaster researcher

This is because the bedrock underneath parts of NYC, including Long Island and Staten Island, cannot effectively absorb the seismic waves produced by earthquakes.

“An important feature of the central and eastern United States is, because the crust there is old and cold, and contains few recent fractures that can absorb seismic waves, the rate of seismic reduction is low.

Central regions of NYC, including Manhattan, are built upon solid granite bedrock; therefore the amplification of seismic waves that can shake buildings is low.

But more peripheral areas, such as Staten Island and Long Island, are formed by weak sediments, meaning seismic hazard in these areas is “very likely to be higher”, Dr Day said.

“Thus, like other cities in the eastern US, New York is susceptible to seismic shaking from earthquakes at much greater distances than is the case for cities on plate boundaries such as Tokyo or San Francisco, where the crustal rocks are more fractured and absorb seismic waves more efficiently over long distances,” Dr Day said.

In the event of a large earthquake, dozens of skyscrapers, including Chrysler Building, the Woolworth Building and 40 Wall Street, could be at risk of shaking.

“The felt shaking in New York from the Virginia earthquake in 2011 is one example,” Dr Day said.

On that occasion, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake centered 340 miles south of New York sent thousands of people running out of swaying office buildings.

USGS

FISSURES: Fault lines in New York City have low rates of activity, Dr Day said

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city was “lucky to avoid any major harm” as a result of the quake, whose epicenter was near Louisa, Virginia, about 40 miles from Richmond.

“But an even more impressive one is the felt shaking from the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes in the central Mississippi valley, which was felt in many places across a region, including cities as far apart as Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans, and in a few places even further afield including,” Dr Day added.

“So, if one was to attempt to do a proper seismic hazard assessment for NYC, one would have to include potential earthquake sources over a wide region, including at least the Appalachian mountains to the southwest and the St Lawrence valley to the north and east.”

Trump Sets the Stage for Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

 

President Donald Trump revealed Saturday the United States intends to withdraw from a 31-year-old nuclear weapons agreement with Russia, delivering a severe blow to the arms control regime that helped preserve peace since the Cold War.

“We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out,” Trump told reporters after a rally in Elko, Nevada, without indicating what the next steps might be.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, first signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1987, was the first and only nuclear arms control agreement that ever eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons. The treaty forced the superpowers to scrap more than 2,600 missiles with ranges 310 to 3,420 miles — weapons considered destabilizing to the European continent because of their capability to launch a nuclear strike from anywhere without early warning.

U.S. intelligence first recognized Moscow’s potential violation of the agreement several years ago when the missile, the Novator 9M729, was still in its test phase. The Obama Administration worked unsuccessfully to persuade the Kremlin to stand down the program through diplomatic talks.

The Trump Administration, in contrast, directly confronted the violation by funding development of its own missile. The research is allowed under the INF, and only breaches the deal if that missile is ever tested or deployed. Aggressively responding to violations of treaties, launching new nuclear weapons programs and reminding the world about the power of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is Trump’s way of deterring others from expanding, or seeking, arsenals.

“Russia has violated the agreement,” Trump said. “They’ve been violating it for many years. And I don’t know why President Obama didn’t negotiate or pull out. And we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons, and we’re not allowed to.”

Russia, for its part, has repeatedly denied it ever violated the INF. The Kremlin has instead insisted that the U.S. is the one that’s in defiance of the agreement, saying certain interceptors on American missile defense systems have offensive capabilities. The U.S. has dismissed Russia’s allegation as false and a red herring.

Regardless, National Security Advisor John Bolton will deliver the president’s decision to walk away from the INF to Moscow on Sunday during the first-stop of his upcoming trip through Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. Bolton would not comment, but a senior Administration official said: “The United States and our allies have attempted to bring Russia back into full and verifiable compliance with INF. Despite our objections, Russia continues to produce and field prohibited cruise missiles and has ignored calls for transparency.”

Arms control experts worry about the second- and third-order consequences of tearing up a long-standing nuclear treaty. Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear weapons analyst with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif., said the U.S. has nothing to gain by walking away. “It’s a mistake,” he said. “Russia violated the treaty, but we’re going to take the blame for killing it? Why do Putin a favor?”

Lewis believes the U.S. will not deploy new missiles that would have been prohibited by INF, but Russia will. He says Moscow will step up the deployment of the Novator 9M729 or other formerly treaty-busting weapons.

The real risk will be borne by European allies, according to Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, a think tank. “This removes all constraints on the production and fielding of Russia’s illegal missile, thereby increasing the threat to our allies in range of the missiles, leaves the United States holding the bag for the treaty’s demise, and creates another source of division between us.”

The whole basis for signing the INF three decades ago was the destabilizing nature of the weapons. The ballistic missiles, the Russian SS-20 and American Pershing II, could be driven on a mobile launcher into a remote area, blasted off and strike their targets in less than six minutes. The short timeline gave world leaders little time run for cover — let alone strategize about the right response.

Those facts haven’t changed. Europeans are not likely to want weapons like that on the continent. In a sign of those concerns, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization issued a statement earlier this year heralding the INF treaty as being “crucial to Euro-Atlantic security” and reducing the risk of conflict. “I don’t think the U.S. will try to ask anyone to deploy any INF systems on land – that would be a non-starter,” said Pavel Podvig, director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project. “Russia will say that it was U.S. intent from the very beginning to pull out of the treaty and this is why it accused Russia of non-compliance … So, nothing good is coming out of this.”

Jon B. Wolfsthal, a nuclear weapons expert who worked on the National Security Council during the Obama Administration, said the INF withdrawal “poisons the well of nuclear stability” and will likely have a chilling effect on any possible nuclear arms deals between the U.S. and Russia in the future.

During the Cold War, a series of treaties between the U.S. and Soviet Union were designed to avoid miscalculation and keep communication channels open — even though Washington and Moscow were sworn adversaries. A number of those agreements have frayed in recent years but the last time that the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from a landmark nuclear arms control treaty was in 2002 when Washington left the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and continued its expansion of ballistic missile defenses.

The effects of that decision was easily seen in March when Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled his nation’s next generation of nuclear weapons, each engineered to slip behind America’s vast network of early warning and defense systems. In making the nationally televised speech to Russia’s Federal Assembly, Putin specifically stated the new arsenal serves as response to the U.S. government’s decision to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

However, the potential fallout from leaving the INF goes beyond Europe. Trump said China must also agree not to develop the missiles. This is a new development, considering China is not currently party to the INF. “We’ll have to develop those weapons — unless Russia comes to us, and China comes to us, and they all come to us and they say, ‘Let’s really get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons.’ But if Russia is doing it and if China is doing it, and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable.”

If the U.S. decided to launch a nuclear strike on China, it has a range of ways to do so. In addition, the INF did not prohibit staunch allies, such as Japan or South Korea, from building ground-based missiles with the INF-busting range.

Navy Admiral Harry Harris, then-commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March that China was benefiting because of the United States’ adherence to the INF. “We are at a disadvantage with regard to China today in the sense that China has ground-based ballistic missiles that threaten our basing in the western Pacific and our ships,” he said.

Harris, who since retired and now serves as the American ambassador to South Korea, suggested the U.S. should start exploring ways to mitigate the threat: “We could do anything from one extreme — to pull out — to the other extreme — to do nothing — and I think we should look at ways to maximize our operational flexibility.”

Fires Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

880625801002499640360noIncendiary balloons cause three fires near Gaza border

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
October 22, 2018 16:04

Incendiary balloons have caused three fires on Monday near the Gaza Strip border, KKL-JNF workers reported on Monday. Local authorities were working to extinguish the blazes.

Since March, Palestinians have sent kites and balloons with incendiary devices across the border fence with the aim of burning Israeli territory. KKL-JNF recently found more than half the forested land near the Gaza Strip has burned in the resulting fires.

There shall be famines and quakes before the Great Day (Luke 21)

CanadaQuakes102218_1540194018773.JPG

Strong earthquakes, one a 6.8, strike off Canada’s Vancouver Island

Four quakes struck in less than an hour off the west coast of Canada’s Vancouver Island Sunday night.

A series of strong earthquakes struck off the coast of Canada’s Vancouver Island late Sunday night, with the strongest reaching magnitude 6.8.

The first, a magnitude 6.6, struck at 10:39 p.m. PDT Sunday, 135 miles southwest of Port Hardy, British Columbia. That was followed by the most powerful quake in the string, a magnitude 6.8 at 11:16 p.m. That one was located about 13 miles closer to the island.Six minutes later, a magnitude 6.5 struck in the same general area as the first two.

A fourth, less powerful quake — registered at magnitude 4.9 — struck at 11:36 in the same vicinity.

Two more quakes — magnitudes 4.3 and 4.5 — hit the area early Monday morning.

There were no immediate reports of damage or tsunami warnings.

Four earthquakes struck off the coast of Vancouver Island, Canada, Oct. 21, 2018. (Credit: U.S. Geological Survey)
Pittman, Travis