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

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.

Antichrist Shapes the New Iraq Government

BAGHDAD

The parliamentary bloc led by Sunni leader Osama al-Nujaifi will not participate in Iraq’s incoming government but will rather join the opposition, according to a statement released by the bloc.

Prime Minister-designate Adil Abdul-Mahdi was tasked with forming a new government in early October, but since then the process has been dogged by delays.

Explaining its decision in a Wednesday statement, al-Nujaifi’s Qarar Coalition described Sunni representation in the incoming government as “insufficient”.

“Only six cabinet portfolios were distributed among Sunni groups linked to the Al-Bina Coalition,” the bloc asserted.

“Apart from these, no other Sunni coalition or group will enjoy representation in the incoming government,” it added.

As it currently stands, Sunni representation in Iraq’s parliament is divided into two main blocs: The Construction and Reform Coalition (which includes Muqtada al-Sadr, Haider al-Abadi and Ammar al-Hakim) and the Bina Coalition (led by Hadi al-Ameri).

Al-Nujaifi and his allies in parliament are affiliated with the former.

In a statement released on social media, Muqtada al-Sadr (whose Sairoon coalition came in first in May 12 parliamentary polls) voiced his rejection of “factionalism based on sectarianism and racism; corruption and corrupt people; and foreign pressure”.

He went on to assert that Iraq’s next government should be composed mainly of “technocrats and political independents”.

“Otherwise,” he warned, “the people will reject it.”

No Turkmen

According to recent reports, the PM-designate will not include any Turkmen in his cabinet lineup, although it is rumored that a Turkmen might be given a vice-presidential post.

Some sources close to the PM-designate say the finance portfolio will go to the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), while the justice portfolio will be given to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

The migration portfolio, meanwhile, is expected to go to Viyan Dakhil, a female Yazidi lawmaker formerly affiliated with the KDP.

The Kurdish Gorran Movement, the same sources said, would likely be given a single cabinet portfolio, although which one remains unclear.


Too Little Too Late (Revelation 6:12)

Closing Indian Point is good

Posted October 14, 2018

To the editor:

(re: “Reforming energy vision,” Sept. 27)

In her Sept. 27 letter, Phoebe O’Connor claims that closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant would change our ability to provide reliable, clean power to downstate New York. But this claim is full of holes.

Let’s start with some actual numbers about power supply and demand. The figures supplied by the New York Independent System Operator, the non-profit which runs New York’s electrical grid, show that we’ll have enough energy thanks to reduced demand and increased renewable capacity, to replace Indian Point.

First, a December report by NYISO found that we already have replacement supplies for 1,900 out of Indian Point’s 2,000-megawatt output, and that further buildout of renewables and efficiency measures could meet the remaining 100-megawatt “compensatory need.” Several months later, NYISO released its April Gold Book, with updated numbers showing that continuing reductions in demand mean that there is now, officially, no projected power gap in connection with the closure of Indian Point.

To illustrate, NYISO’s Gold Book forecast for “peak” demand in downstate New York during Summer 2020 plummeted by 380 megawatts, compared to the forecast for that same 2020 time period just one year earlier. Plus, we’re not nearly done saving energy: The state’s commitment to ramp up energy efficiency-related demand reductions to 3 percent a year will strengthen the trends reported above, which are mirrored in countless other states.

And let’s not forget just how much Indian Point puts New Yorkers at risk. Over the past four years, Indian Point repeatedly suffered major malfunctions — pump and power failures, a transformer explosion, damaged O-rings, radiation leaks, a fire and an oil spill. Twice, this 45-year-old plant’s operations discovered a record number of failures in the bolts holding the inner walls of the reactors together.

Indian Point is just too old and too dangerous, and we have plenty of safe, sustainable energy to replace it. That’s why Indian Point’s stipulated closure in 2021 — under the agreement between its operator Entergy, the State of New York, and Riverkeeper, is the right move.

Cliff Weathers

The author is communications director for Riverkeeper.

A Time For War (Revelation 15)

Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg

Nuclear Weapons

Jonathan Tirone

October 23, 2018, 10:35 PM MDT

Half a century after world powers agreed to thwart the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce their own arsenals, both those projects are under strain. Under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, only five nations — China, France, Russia, the U.K. and U.S. — can possess nuclear arms, and all have promised to reduce their stockpiles eventually to zero. But Israel, India and Pakistan all developed the bomb after the treaty emerged. More recently, the goal of curbing atomic arms has been challenged by North Korea’s entry into the nuclear club, by the U.S. withdrawal from an international deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program, and by threats by the leaders of the U.S. and Russia to augment their arsenals rather than continue to pare them down.

The Situation

U.S. President Donald Trump said in October that he planned to pull the U.S. out of a landmark 1987 treaty with Russia that rolled back ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in and aimed at Western Europe. The U.S. says Russia’s recently developed 9M729 missile falls within the range covered by the pact, which NATO agrees has been violated, a charge Russia denies. Termination of the agreement could revive the nuclear arms race in Europe. It could also spur one in Asia, as it would free the U.S. to deploy mid-range nuclear weapons to counter China’s deployment of such arms, which is not bound by the 1987 treaty. Trump has said that in general the U.S. “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has boasted of his country’s work on next-generation nuclear-weapons systems. Under Trump, the U.S. has already withdrawn from a 2015 accord setting limits on Iran’s nuclear program and has begun re-imposing sanctions that were lifted under the deal. Iran’s government has said it would continue to abide by the pact. The risk, though, is that as U.S. sanctions bite, hardliners in Iran will insist on re-accelerating the nuclear program. Before the deal, Iran possessed enough enriched uranium for multiple bombs and was thought to be capable of refining it to the level needed for weapons in just a few months. North Korea declared its nuclear force “complete” in late 2017. Dictator Kim Jong Un said this year that he’s open to giving up his nuclear weapons. It’s not clear what his conditions are. And many analysts are skeptical he’d ever relinquish the arms, for fear of losing his means of deterring a military intervention meant to topple him.

Estimated Nuclear Warheads Globally

Of about 15,000 existing nuclear weapons, roughly 9,600 are in military service

The Background

The U.S. was the first to develop nuclear weapons and is the only country to have used them. It dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, hastening an end to World War II but at the cost of an estimated 300,000 lives. Within two decades, the Soviet Union, the U.K., France and China had their own arsenals. In the Nonproliferation Treaty, those powers and the U.S. promised to share nuclear technology for civilian purposes – energy generation and medical applications – with countries that foreswore nuclear arms. Today, 191 countries are treaty members. The International Atomic Energy Agency monitors the arrangement and accounts for global inventories of nuclear material that could be diverted for bombs. The nuclear-armed countries outside of these agreements — India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea — are subject to trade restrictions and in some cases, sanctions. The U.S., Soviet Union and then Russia, U.K. and France have all reduced their nuclear arsenals, decreasing the total number of warheads from a Cold War peak of 70,000 to about 15,000 today.

The Argument

Arms-control advocates worry that any growth in the arsenals of the U.S. or Russia will make it blatantly clear that nuclear-armed states have no intention of giving up their weapons, undermining non-proliferation efforts. Other analysts say those efforts are largely futile anyway. They note that creating the bomb isn’t the technological feat it once was; many nations now possess the fissile materials and cadre of engineers to pull it off. And the penalties used to dissuade countries from going nuclear have lost much of their potency because of inconsistent application. While Pakistan and North Korea remain stigmatized, India and Israel have won waivers of restrictions on trade and military sales. At the same time, nuclear weapons may be declining in appeal as more countries look to emerging technologies for defense. Systems using artificial intelligence, robotics and bioengineering are on the sharp edge of a new generation of weapons, which may eventually require their own non-proliferation rules.

The Reference Shelf

• The Arms Control Association details nuclear weapons arsenals worldwide and analyses the U.S. Defense Department’s nuclear strategy.

• The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by the people who made the first bomb to help prevent their invention from spreading.

• The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons seeks to halt proliferation by making nuclear weapons illegal.

• The International Atomic Energy Agency maintains inventories of nuclear stockpiles used for peaceful purposes and helps countries get access to technologies.

• The Nuclear Suppliers Group keeps lists of controlled nuclear materials and technologies that are subject to export restrictions.

To contact the author of this QuickTake:

Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this QuickTake:

Lisa Beyer at lbeyer3@bloomberg.net

First published Oct. 24, 2018

It’s Time for the Australian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Australia is within range of China’s nuclear-capable Dongfeng missiles. Getty: The Asahi Shimbun

Does Australia need a nuclear arsenal? And what would be the cost?

Updated yesterday at 6:19pm

RN By Joey Watson for Late Night Live

Nestled in the native bushland of Jervis Bay on the New South Wales south coast are the concrete footings of a nuclear power station that was never built.

The construction, which began during John Gorton’s brief prime ministership in the late 1960s, was to be Australia’s first foray into nuclear energy generation.

The reactor would have been able to generate plutonium which, under the auspices of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

But the project did not survive an abrupt change of leadership and Australia ended up riding out the remainder of the Cold War as a non-nuclear player.

Should Australia go nuclear?

Five decades later the nuclear anxieties which coloured Mr Gorton’s foreign policy outlook are creeping their way back into international relations.

US President Donald Trump has announced that he will pull the US from the Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, as both countries expand their nuclear arsenals.

Getty: Corbis

India is locked in a nuclear tit-for-tat with neighbouring Pakistan, while China has developed nuclear weapons capable of reaching anywhere in the US.

Historically Australia has sought shelter under the US ‘nuclear umbrella’, but is it time for that to change?

In a recent essay, Dr Stephan Fruhling, the Associate Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the ANU, contemplated the “unthinkable option”, and suggested that a nuclear-armed Australia is more likely than ever before.

Fortress Australia

According to Dr Fruhling, Australia’s continuous coastline makes it uniquely positioned to ‘spike the moat’ with tactical, short-range nuclear weapons that could be used against air and maritime forces.

“In air and naval battle on the high seas, nukes can now be employed without significant risk of collateral damage, much like conventional war heads,” he told Late Night Live.

“Australia could establish a maritime exclusion zone in wartime, to increase the military risk for any country planning a major attack against the continent.”

Getty

But what would be the cost?

The strategic benefits of any nuclear capability would have to be balanced against the possible implications of breaking out of the US nuclear umbrella.

Australia’s access to US intelligence, technology, and weapons systems may be compromised if it chose to take on a defence strategy that was less reliant on the US.

“Before investing in a nuclear program I think we would have to make a genuine attempt at trying to draw closer to the United States and its nuclear arsenal,” Dr Fruhling said.

If Australia chooses to remain under the US nuclear umbrella, Indonesia presents a unique case in which American and Australian interests may not intersect.

Indonesia is also a US ally, and if it decided to begin its own nuclear program, the implications for the US security guarantee for Australia are not clear.

“Should Indonesia acquire nuclear weapons, relying on US deterrence against a nuclear attack would require a leap of faith about the alignment of Australian and US interests,” Dr Fruhling said..

An Australian nuclear program could lead to Indonesia following suit.

“Indonesia has regional leadership ambitions, and a strong sense of independence and will, in coming years, tower over Australia economically as well as in population terms,” Dr Fruhling said.

“Australian acquisition of nuclear weapons would strengthen Indonesia’s reasons to reciprocate, for status as well as security.”

In the meantime, however, Australia’s non-nuclear status is important in discouraging Indonesia and other regional players from going down the nuclear path.

To proliferate, or not to proliferate?

During the Cold War America and Britain built their defence plans around nuclear weapons.

Australia, stricken with paranoia, was prepared to play its role in the event of a nuclear war. Warplanes were built that could deliver nuclear warheads to defend South-East Asia.

Australia also backed Britain’s nuclear-weapons program with uranium and test facilities at Maralinga, with devastating consequences for local Indigenous communities.

“Australia saw itself as reinforcing the status and significance of its great nuclear-armed friends on which it depended on for its security,” Dr Fruhling said.

After the Vietnam War, however, Australia dropped its nuclear ambitions as the great existential threat moved from an Asian communist invasion to a US–Soviet nuclear conflict.

In the early 1970s Australia ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, after refusing to become a signatory when it was first presented to the UN in 1968.

In the latter decades of the 20th century Australia cemented its place under the US nuclear umbrella and centred its own defence strategy on a superior conventional capability at home.

Photo Britain’s first atomic weapon was detonated on the Monte Bello Islands, off the coast of Western Australia in 1952

Wikipedia Commons

Australia’s nuclear strategy has remained relatively static over the past half century, advocating for disarmament while remaining close to the US and its nuclear arsenal.

The Federal Government’s 2016 Defence White paper reiterated a familiar position.

“Only the nuclear and conventional military capabilities of the United States can offer effective deterrence against the possibility of nuclear threats against Australia,” it read.

Last year more than 120 nations held talks to negotiate a treaty that would forbid states from developing or manufacturing nuclear weapons.

The Australian Government refused to take part in the treaty negotiations, claiming they didn’t consider the geopolitical realities the world was facing.

For anti-nuclear organisations like the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a Nobel prize-winning coalition founded in Melbourne, Australia has disregarded its humanitarian duties.

“So long as the Australian Government stubbornly refuses to renounce nuclear weapons for our own security, it will have little luck convincing others to do so,” said Tim Wright, the organisation’s Asia-Pacific director.

Nukes on the horizon?

When the Gorton Government set out to build nuclear facilities at Jervis Bay in 1968, Cold War tensions were high, Britain was withdrawing from Asia, and Japan was beginning to take its place as a new economic power.

A rapidly changing strategic environment has placed Australia at a similar foreign policy cross-road as China rises, the US retreats, and a series of flashpoints keep the world on edge.

Ultimately, Dr Fruhling believes Australia should only consider nuclear weapons if there is a direct, existential threat to the country.

“I think we would have to genuinely feel under existential threat by a great power from Asia,” he said.

“A serious study would be the key to assessing whether nuclear weapons could really be a solution to our prospective security problems, rather than a distraction from them.”