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

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 Nuclear Bowls of Wrath (Revelation 15)

Arms Races Increase Atomic Arsenals, Raising the Risk of Nuclear Winter

DIMITRI LASCARIS: This is Dimitri Lascaris, reporting for The Real News from Montreal, Canada.

As recently reported by The Real News, the Trump administration has announced America’s withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Agreement, one of the most important international treaties on nuclear arms reduction. In 1975, the world’s nuclear powers collectively possessed about 70,000 nuclear weapons. Thanks to a series of dramatic initiatives to reduce nuclear arsenals, including this intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement, the world’s nuclear powers now possess collectively about 14,500 nuclear warheads. And due to the dismantling of arms control treaties, that number now could expand substantially in a new nuclear arms race. But even the vastly reduced arsenals that exist today are enough to trigger a nuclear winter and to extinguish life on this planet as we know it.

Now here to discuss this with us is Professor Alan Robock. Professor Robock is a meteorologist and Associate Director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University where he is a professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences. His expertise is in the environmental effects of aerosols in the atmosphere, whether from volcanoes, pollution, geoengineering or nuclear weapons. He currently serves on the editorial board of Reviews of Geophysics. Thank you very much for coming back onto The Real News, Professor Robock.

ALAN ROBOCK: Thanks for having me.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: So, first let’s talk in general terms about the concept of a nuclear winter. What does that term mean and what would it take in terms of a nuclear weapons conflict to generate a nuclear winter?

ALAN ROBOCK: Nuclear weapons targeted on cities and industrial areas start fires. Smoke from those fires goes up into the atmosphere and gets into the stratosphere, which is the layer above where we live, where there is no rain to wash it out and can last for years. If there’s enough smoke it will block out the sun, making it cold and dark at the earth’s surface and can even make temperatures below freezing in the summertime. That would kill all the crops and subject us to a global famine. That’s what we call nuclear winter.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And in terms of the scale of a nuclear exchange that would be required to generate one, or at least create a substantial risk of a nuclear winter arising, how big an exchange would that require?

ALAN ROBOCK: The current arsenals of the United States and Russia, if used in a war, could still produce nuclear winter. Even though, as you said, the arsenals have been going down over time, we still have enough to cause this.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Now, in a 2014 interview with The Real News you talked at some length about the research that you and others have done on the climactic effects of a nuclear conflict. And you stated that a full scale war between the U.S. and Russia would produce so much smoke, as you’ve just explained, the temperatures will get below freezing even in the summertime. And then you went on to talk about a smaller scale conflict and some research that you and colleagues had done on a conflict of that magnitude, say one involving India and Pakistan, each of which had at that time about 100 nuclear weapons.

And you stated that the results of your and your colleagues research were shocking to you, and you concluded that global temperatures would fall to colder than the Little Ice Age within a few months, even as a result of that smaller scale conflict. Since that 2014 interview, has there been further research into the potential climactic effects of a smaller scale nuclear war, or more generally, about a large scale nuclear war? And if so, what has that research shown?

ALAN ROBOCK: The India-Pakistan case we studied more than a decade ago. And we assume that each one would use 50 Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons with an explosive power of 15 kilotons. Since then, both India and Pakistan have more nuclear weapons and they have larger nuclear weapons. And the targets they might use, the megacities in India and Pakistan, have grown. So now we estimate that rather than 5 million tons of smoke, we could today have maybe 25 million tons of smoke, 5 times the amount, and that would produce a much larger climate response.

Today we’re using more modern climate models with much more detailed studies of the processes and we’re finding that the results done ten years ago are still duplicated, we’re still getting the same climate response. So it looks like it all depends, of course, on the scenario. What story do you want to tell about how a nuclear war might be fought and how many weapons would be used? But India and Pakistan have the potential to produce much more climate change than we studied 10 years ago.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: When we talk about climate change resulting from the production of greenhouse gases and their introduction into the atmosphere, we talk often about the level of confidence that scientists have in the proposition that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are warming the climate. What is the level of confidence that researchers have in terms of the climactic effects, the ones you’ve been talking about specifically, from a nuclear conflict? Do we have a very high level of confidence in these scenarios?

ALAN ROBOCK: Well, first of all, yes. We’re sure that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. As far as the aerosols, if you put aerosols, a cloud of particles, in the atmosphere and it blocks out the sunlight, the physics is very simple. Less sunlight gets to the ground and it gets colder and there’s less evaporation and there’s more rain. So we’re sure of that. The big question is how much smoke would there be? And so, that would depend on the scenario. What weapons would be used on what targets and how much smoke would they generate?

And we have a big project now to look into much more detail and we’re looking at conflicts between North Korea and the United States, between India and China, Israel using them if they fear an attack. And so, another question we’re looking at is if you say, “I have nuclear weapons and I’m using them to deter you from attacking me, and if you attack me I’m going to use my nuclear weapons on you,” how many weapons can a country use and still not kill themselves and still not produce so much climate change that their own agriculture would be threatened? And we think the number is pretty small – much, much smaller than our current arsenal.

And so, we’re going to look at using our modern tools, look at that number. Anything more than that, any threat more than that is basically acting like a suicide bomber and your enemy has to believe that you would do that. And this all leads, of course, to the treaty to ban nuclear weapons which was passed in the United Nations last year, which the United States has not signed yet. But the rest of the world is really pressuring the nuclear nations to get rid of their weapons because there’s really no safe usage of them. It’s hard to imagine a limited nuclear war once started that it wouldn’t continue, that generals wouldn’t use the biggest weapons that they have. So that’s what’s really scary. Once it starts, how do you stop it?

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And I might add that Canada, the Trudeau government, also refused to sign that agreement, the one banning nuclear weapons, and even criticized the initiative. But let’s talk a little more about the Trump administration.

ALAN ROBOCK: I talked to the ambassador from Canada and they feel like they’re protected by NATO, by the U.S. nuclear weapons, which doesn’t make any sense to me.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And just going back to the Trump administration, I mean certainly its withdrawal from the intermediate-range nuclear weapons accord would suggest that it is underestimating the risks arising from not only the maintenance of current stockpiles, but their modernization and potential expansion. But do you think that people within the Trump administration, particularly Pentagon planners, that they continue to accept what the scientific evidence is showing us about the potential for a nuclear winter arising from a conflict, or are they showing the kind of skepticism toward that science that the Trump administration has already shown toward the climate science community?

ALAN ROBOCK: I have no evidence that anybody in the Pentagon knows anything about nuclear winter. I’ve never seen them state that this is a concern of theirs. I went to a meeting last year and talked to some military people, and they said, “Look, we understand the effects of blast from nuclear weapons, we understand the effects of radio activity, but we don’t understand the effect of fires, and so in our current planning, we just ignore them.” And I said, “Well, if you tell us what you’re going to target, we’ll tell you how much smoke there’s going to be.”

“Well, we can’t tell you that secret.” So one of the things we want to do in our current research is to look at different scenarios and explain clearly what the effects of the smoke would be, not only on your enemy but on yourself. And I know no evidence that anybody in the Pentagon … we tried to get funding from them to study this, they weren’t interested in even learning about it, even giving us some money to support our research.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Well, we’ve been speaking to Professor Alan Robock, a meteorologist with expertise on the effects of nuclear conflict on the climate. Thank you very much for joining us again today, Professor Robock.

ALAN ROBOCK: Thanks very much for having me.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And this is Dimitri Lascaris, reporting for The Real News.

The Nuclear END Game (Revelation 15)

Image Credit: Carlos Barria/Reuters

The US and Russia are playing chicken with nuclear weapon

While the current administration seems to run on uncontrollable testosterone, the problem of nuclear weapons didn’t start with them, even its immediate predecessor helped to bring about this impasses.

On Sunday, November 20th, 1983, almost 40,000,000 American households tuned in to watch “The Day After” on ABC,  including, according to his diary, then U.S. president Ronald Reagan. The film, set in Kansas City just prior to and in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, had a huge effect on those who watched it, creating an outcry on the part of ordinary citizens about the possibility of such a conflict while portraying a realistic seeming assessment of what it would entail for any who survived.

While it’s long ago, it’s important to remember the hawkish tone taken by both countries at that time and how this led to a greater risk of a provocation or accident leading to a nuclear conflagration that could have ended human civilization and potentially all life on the planet. On top of this, pro-nuke strategists in the Pentagon had been pushing for the use of ‘strategic’ nukes throughout the decades long Cold War, most notably during the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Just four years after “The Day After” premiered, its effect, working in tandem with a strident anti-nuke movement that seems to have been completely forgotten in the years since in favor of the standard ‘great man’ view of history, Reagan and his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), forcing the two countries to eliminate their stocks of nuclear capable land based and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 KM (approximately 310 to 3417 miles). This effectively led to the denuclearization of most of western and eastern Europe.

Unexpectedly, at the end of 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and one of the great risks of this unforeseen development, that smaller warheads could get into the wrong hands, was thankfully avoided. At the same time, the two countries stocks of longer range ICBMs and those of other countries including China, France and the United Kingdom have remained, with the latter countries, who are not signatories to the INF, keeping the ability to develop intermediate missiles, an ongoing threat almost never mentioned by politicians or the mainstream press.

Also, in the years since, the threat of nuclear war, accidental or otherwise, seems to have left the public consciousness in most of the world even as three countries: North Korea, India and Pakistan have joined the nuclear club, the latter two countries with a dangerous history of conflict both between themselves and one of them, India, with yet another nuclear power, China.

A fourth country, Israel, is presumed to have its own undeclared arsenal.

Only in the case of North Korea has the reaction of the world been absolute horror and crippling, if ineffective, sanctions. One can make the argument that it is precisely the kind of multi-lateral diplomacy involving the US., China, Russia and other regional powers that has greatly lowered tensions on the Korean peninsula but this success has done nothing to change the strident tone coming from Washington, D.C.

Even a smaller nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan would forever alter the existences of most living things on the planet. While this writer makes no claims to expertise in the science behind the model used, a 2014 study claimed that a war in which these two countries used just 50 Hiroshima sized warheads on their large cities would have catastrophic effects on the whole world, opening large holes in the ozone layer, shortening the growing season for food as a result of nuclear winter and possibly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of millions from follow on effects.

None of this seems to be of any concern to the current U.S. president and his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who want to pull the United States out of the INF, something likely to promote a new arms race that could grow to include countries that aren’t even signatories to the treaty. Both men have said that Russia is in violation of the INF and also implied that they wanted out of the treaty because China hasn’t signed on to it and continues to develop these kinds of missiles.

Another way this could have been tackled would have been to try negotiate a way to bring China into the INF, but it appears this wasn’t even considered. This should probably not surprise us because Bolton has a long history of trying to undermine arms control agreements and a long standing reputation as a Russia hawk.

There is some truth to the case each country might make in regards to the non-compliance of the other with the INF. The U.S., through Christopher Ford, an American official, who spoke at the neo-conservative Wilson Center,, made the claim that Russia’s development of the Novator 9M729 missile system, is one such violation on the part of the Kremlin.

As Pavel Podvig of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project recently wrote, “Given that the United States seems to be very confident in its conclusion about the range capability of the 9M729 missile, we should assume that it has good information about it. Who knows, maybe U.S. intelligence has detailed blueprints of the missile and all its technical characteristics. Maybe the documentation shows that extending the range of the 9M728 Iskander-M is just a matter of filling the fuel tank full.”

Like the United States, the Russian Federation accuses its American rival of breaching the treaty. One example of this was explained by a Russian Defense Analyst, Lajos Szaszdi to the Russian state run Sputnik news service, saying of a new land based Aegis Missile Defense System to be deployed in eastern Europe and Japan, “…Romania and Poland each could have potentially 24 Tomahawk missiles ready to launch, with a total of 48 cruise missiles threatening European Russia, plus Japan having the potential to deploy up to 48 Tomahawk missiles ready to launch in its planned two sites, threatening the Russian Far East.”

While the current administration seems to run on uncontrollable testosterone, the problem of nuclear weapons didn’t start with them, even its immediate predecessor helped to bring about this impasses. In a fair critique, it’s important to remember that the much more sober seeming Obama administration pushed through a 10 year, $1 trillion‘modernization’ of the country’s nukes, a gigantic payoff to some of the United States’ largest arms manufacturers, already made obscenely wealthy by ongoing wars, declared and undeclared.

Raising the stakes on the Russian side, Vladimir Putin was quoted as saying, “If the United States deploys new intermediate-range missiles in Europe after withdrawing from a nuclear treaty prohibiting these weapons, European nations will be at risk of a possible counter strike.”

That the leader of the nation with the most nuclear weapons in the world makes a statement like this and it passes almost completely unnoticed should be worrying but, then again, just a few short weeks ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced that there is just a little more than a decade before climate change will severely alter our reality and this also mostly passed under the mainstream radar.

This isn’t to say that the right wing Russian government shouldn’t be criticized, just that in terms of arms control and foreign policy in general it appears to be a rational actor, experienced and traditional in its approach to diplomacy in ways that both Donald Trump and his ridiculously bellicose NSA are not. In what is perhaps a foreboding sign of what’s to come, President Trump has proclaimed he thinks Defense Secretary James Mattis, not exactly known as a dove, may be a ‘Democrat’.

While it’s doubtful that any of us would agree with either of them on almost anything, like former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson before him, when we see whoever Mattis’ replacement eventually is, we may be sorry to see him go.

While mainstream commentators ignore the danger, a new, more dangerous reality is already on display as NATO stages its largest military exercises since the end of the Cold War in Norway, Finland and Iceland and the Russian military tests missiles nearby in the Norwegian Sea. As global warming takes hold, look for the Arctic region to heat up in more ways than one.

One of the biggest problems on the American side is that rather than accepting that we are moving into a multi-polar world where rising powers like China and Russia will counter balance the United States’ ability to act unilaterally throughout the world, squandered by successive administrations beginning with George W. Bush, hawks like John Bolton want to continue along under the delusion that their country is an indispensable hegemon.

It’s also short-sighted in the sense that Russia, with a declining population in its far east and China, with a burgeoning one, are natural rivals who are being forced into each others’ arms to deal with U.S. belligerence.

On nukes, as on so many issues, the US. President shows a staggering lack of curiosity. Early on in his administration he reportedly asked his subordinates why he had fewer nuclear weapons than predecessors in the distant past. For Trump, all that matters is having ‘the most’, whether this is hotels or nukes. In the case of the latter, it’s even rumored that he once asked an unnamed expert why he couldn’t use them.

This kind of ignorance is a danger to us all.

Derek Royden is a freelance writer based in Montreal, Canada with an interest in activism, politics and culture. His work has appeared on, Truthout, and Gonzo Today as well as in Skunk Magazine.

Brazil Measures the Inner Walls (Revelation 11:1)

Image result for brazil netanyahuBrazil to Move Embassy to Jerusalem as Gaza Violence Subsides

Blog Posts November 3, 2018 | Victor Kotsev
The news came as a ceasefire deal between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas appeared to tentatively take hold; and shortly before comprehensive US sanctions against Iran, an arch-enemy of Israel, were scheduled to come into force early on Monday.Bolsonaro, a right-wing populist, followed the lead of US President Donald Trump within days of winning Brazil’s presidential election last Sunday. Emulating the style of Trump, who formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last year and who often makes important policy announcements on social media, Brazil’s president-elect posted his decision on Twitter.His tweet, predictably, drew praise from Israel and condemnation from the Palestinians, who called it a “provocative and illegal” step. Israel claims sovereignty over all of the city, while Palestinians have sought its eastern parts for a capital of a future Palestinian state.Nevertheless, shortly after the announcement the ceasefire, mediated by Egypt, went into effect in the Gaza Strip, while on Saturday a separate effort for reconciliation among warring Palestinian factions was underway in Cairo.

The Gaza Strip has witnessed deadly clashes on a weekly basis this year, between Palestinian protesters and militants on one side, and Israeli forces on the other. These clashes have periodically escalated into exchanges of the Palestinians’ Grad Katyusha rockets and Israeli airstrikes.

Separately, analysts say that Iran has sought to exploit the splits between different Palestinian factions and the deteriorating economic situation in the Strip in order to hit back at Israel and the US for the re-imposition of nuclear sanctions on Monday.

By becoming the third country to formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — after the US and Guatemala, which followed Washington’s example in May — Brazil would step into the convoluted Israeli-Palestinian conflict at a particularly sensitive time.

Many, including the EU’s top diplomat, say that the two-state solution, which would see an Israeli and Palestinian states coexist side by side, is on its last legs, while intense speculation rages about the legacy and likely successor of ailing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Trump, on the other hand, has been promising the “ultimate deal.” Stay tuned.

Trump Hastens War With Iran (Daniel 8)

An exchange shop displays rates for various currencies in downtown Tehran last month. Iran is bracing for the restoration of U.S. sanctions on its vital oil industry set to take effect on Monday, as it grapples with an economic crisis that has sparked sporadic protests over rising prices, corruption and unemployment.

The Trump administration is imposing major sanctions on Iran, effectively ending America’s participation in a nuclear deal it helped forge in 2015.

Effective Nov. 5, Iran will see sweeping sanctions imposed on its banking, shipping and petroleum sectors. The move will “put a vise on Iran’s ability to conduct economic activities internationally,” says Corey Hinderstein, a vice president at the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative.

The new sanctions are the final step in President Trump’s promise to extricate the U.S. from Iran nuclear deal, which lifted sanctions in exchange for limits on the country’s nuclear program.

“The fact is that this was a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never ever been made,” Trump said during his announcement withdrawing the U.S. from the deal in May.

The 2015 nuclear deal was designed to address a very specific problem. At the time, Iran had thousands of centrifuges in operation. It had enriched uranium up to 20 percent, far above the level required for a commercial nuclear reactor. Taken together, Hinderstein says, Iran was getting perilously close to developing a nuclear bomb.

“They would have been able to produce enough of the material, the highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, in a matter of weeks,” says Hinderstein, who helped to negotiate the deal as part of the Obama administration.

So in exchange for surrendering enriched uranium, shelving equipment and opening up to inspections, the deal lifted sanctions. The U.S. wasn’t alone — Europe, Russia and China were all part of the deal.

“I believe that this deal was the best deal we could have gotten at the time,” Hinderstein says.

Not everyone agrees with that assessment.

“I think that it had flaws that were known from the very beginning,” says Olli Heinonen, a former weapons inspector now at the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Under the deal, some of the restrictions on Iran’s enrichment activities are only temporary. And the deal entirely ignores Iran’s efforts to build powerful missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons.

“It’s also important to have the delivery vehicle as part of your verification system,” Heinonen says.

The Trump administration’s complaints about the deal go further still. It has a dozen issues it wants resolved, only four of which relate to the nuclear program. The rest have to do with things like sponsoring terrorism and supporting groups opposed to U.S. interests in the region.

Until all these issues are dealt with, the sanctions are back on — though on Friday, the U.S. said it would grant temporary waivers to eight countries buying oil from Iran, including India, Japan and South Korea.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described re-imposition of the sanctions Friday as a policy of “maximum pressure” designed to bring Iran back to the table. And Heinonen believes it may be possible to come up with another more comprehensive plan. “I think the Iranians will agree to negotiate another deal, it’s in their interest,” he says.

But Hinderstein and others aren’t so sure. Until now, Iran has been holding up its end of the bargain by allowing in inspectors and curtailing research. But that was with the expectation of economic benefits. Now, even companies in countries that are part of the deal will be unable to do business in the U.S. if they’re doing business with Iran without a waiver.

The Trump administration is counting on its pressure policy to bring Iran back to the table. But Hinderstein says that, with the international community divided, “I see no hope of a better deal on the horizon.”

The Indian Nuclear Horn

Image result for indian nuclearIndian nuclear forces, 2018

By Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, November 1, 2018

India continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal, with at least five new weapon systems now under development to complement or replace existing nuclear-capable aircraft, land-based delivery systems, and sea-based systems. India is estimated to have produced enough military plutonium for 150 to 200 nuclear warheads, but has likely produced only 130 to 140. Nonetheless, additional plutonium will be required to produce warheads for missiles now under development, and India is reportedly building several new plutonium production facilities. India’s nuclear strategy, which has traditionally focused on Pakistan, now appears to place increased emphasis on China.

India is estimated to have produced enough military plutonium for 150 to 200 nuclear warheads, but has likely produced only 130 to 140.