History Expects the Sixth Seal in NYC (Revelation 6:12)

If the past is any indication, New York can be hit by an earthquake, claims John Armbruster, a seismologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Based on historical precedent, Armbruster says the New York City metro area is susceptible to an earthquake of at least a magnitude of 5.0 once a century.

According to the New York Daily News, Lynn Skyes, lead author of a recent study by seismologists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory adds that a magnitude-6 quake hits the area about every 670 years, and magnitude-7 every 3,400 years.

A 5.2-magnitude quake shook New York City in 1737 and another of the same severity hit in 1884.

Tremors were felt from Maine to Virginia.

There are several fault lines in the metro area, including one along Manhattan’s 125th St. – which may have generated two small tremors in 1981 and may have been the source of the major 1737 earthquake, says Armbruster.

There’s another fault line on Dyckman St. and one in Dobbs Ferry in nearby Westchester County.

“The problem here comes from many subtle faults,” explained Skyes after the study was published.

He adds: “We now see there is earthquake activity on them. Each one is small, but when you add them up, they are probably more dangerous than we thought.”

“Considering population density and the condition of the region’s infrastructure and building stock, it is clear that even a moderate earthquake would have considerable consequences in terms of public safety and economic impact,” says the New York City Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation on its website.

Armbruster says a 5.0-magnitude earthquake today likely would result in casualties and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

“I would expect some people to be killed,” he notes.

The scope and scale of damage would multiply exponentially with each additional tick on the Richter scale. (ANI)

The UK Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

This Country Has Enough Nuclear Bombs Aboard Submarines To Kill Millions

Great Britian is a nuclear power with some very deadly submarines. 

6 Technologies That Changed Warfare Forever

At any one time, at least sixty-four of the UK’s nuclear weapons are somewhere at sea, ready to launch within minutes of warning. While nowhere near as powerful as the U.S. strategic deterrent, the nuclear weapons are more than enough to prevent any opponent from launching a surprise attack. The Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarines carry on the service’s centuries-old mission of protecting the country from the sea.

The United Kingdom maintains a fleet of four ballistic missile submarines with the ability to devastate even the largest of countries. This fleet came into being after its ally, the United States, canceled a key weapon system that would have been the cornerstone of London’s nuclear arsenal. Fifty years later, the UK’s missile submarine force is the sole custodian of the country’s nuclear weapons, providing a constant deterrent against nuclear attack.

(This first appeaered late last year.)

The United Kingdom’s nuclear force in the early 1960s relied upon the so-called “V-Force” strategic bombers: the Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor and Vickers Valiant. The bombers were set to be equipped with the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile, which could penetrate Soviet defenses at speeds of up to Mach 12.4 (9,500 miles an hour). Unfortunately technical problems plagued Skybolt, and the U.S. government canceled the missile in 1962.

Skybolt’s cancellation threatened to undo the UK’s entire nuclear deterrent, and the two countries raced to come up with a solution. The United States agreed to offer the new Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile to replace Skybolt. The United Kingdom had no missile submarines to carry Polaris—it would have to build them.

A study by the Ministry of Defense concluded that, like France, the UK would need at least five ballistic missile submarines to maintain a credible deterrent posture. This number would later be reduced to four submarines. Like the French Le Redoutable class, the submarines would bear a strong resemblance to the U.S. Navy’s Lafayette-class ballistic missile submarines, with two rows of eight missiles tubes each behind the sail. Unlike Lafayette and Le Redoutable, the new submarines of the Royal Navy’s Resolution-class would have their hydroplanes on the bow, with the ability to fold up when parked along a pier.

Most of the submarine was British, with two built by Vickers Armstrong at Furness and two by Cammel Laird at Birkenhead. The missiles, missile launch tubes and fire control mechanisms, however, were built in the United States. Each submarine was equipped with sixteen Polaris A-3 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The Polaris had a range of 2,500 miles and was originally equipped with a single British warhead. A midlife improvement for the missile, Polaris A-3TK, replaced the single warhead with two Chevaline warheads plus penetration aids.

The first submarine, HMS Resolution, was laid down in 1964 and commissioned in 1967, followed by Repulse and Renown, commissioned in 1968, and the aptly-named Revenge in 1969. Resolution first successfully launched a missile off the coast of Florida in February 1968.

In the early 1980s, it became clear that the Resolution class would eventually need replacement. Despite the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet threat, London held firm and built all four ships. The UK again decided to build its own submarines and outfit them with American missiles. The result were the four Vanguard-class submarines: Vanguard (commissioned in 1993), Victorious (1995), Vigilant (1996) and Vengeance (1999). Vanguard carried out her first Trident II missile firing in 1994, and undertook her first operational patrol in 1995.

At 15,000 tons displacement, the Vanguards are twice the the size of the Resolution class that preceded them. Although each submarine has sixteen launch tubes, a decision was made in 2010 to load each sub with just eight American-built Trident II D-5 submarine launched ballistic missiles. The Trident II D-5 has a range of 4,600 miles, meaning it can strike targets across European Russia with ease. Each D-5 carries eight multiple independently targetable warhead 100 kiloton warheads, giving each submarine a total of 6.4 megatons of nuclear firepower.

UK missile submarine crews, like their American counterparts, maintain two crews per boat to increase ship availability. Under a program known as Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) at least one submarine is on patrol at all times, with another coming off patrol, another preparing for a patrol and a fourth undergoing maintenance. According to the Royal Navy, CASD has not missed a single day in the last forty-eight years without a submarine on patrol.

In 2016, the Ministry of Defense announced the next generation of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, dubbed Successor, would be the Dreadnought class. The Royal Navy will builds four Dreadnought-class subs, each weighing 17,200 tons, with construction beginning in September 2016. Each will have twelve missile tubes instead of sixteen, and the subs will recycle the Trident II D-5 missiles from their predecessors. The Dreadnought boats are expected to enter service in the 2030s and have a thirty-year life cycle. The ministry expects the new submarines to cost an estimated $39 billion over thirty-five years, with a $12 billion contingency. The introduction of the third generation Dreadnought class will provide the UK with a powerful strategic deterrent until the 2060s and possibly beyond.

At any one time, at least sixty-four of the UK’s nuclear weapons are somewhere at sea, ready to launch within minutes of warning. While nowhere near as powerful as the U.S. strategic deterrent, the nuclear weapons are more than enough to prevent any opponent from launching a surprise attack. The Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarines carry on the service’s centuries-old mission of protecting the country from the sea.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

The New Nuclear Arms Race (Revelation 16)

A new nuclear arms race has reportedly begun.

The US has started a “new nuclear arms race” since Trump pulled out of the INF treaty

Justin RohrlichMay 1, 2019

In the three months following US president Donald Trump’s announcement last October that America would suspend its participation in the decades-old Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, his administration has signed roughly $1 billion in new ballistic missile contracts.

The new missiles would guarantee a usable US nuclear arsenal through at least 2075, according to a new study released today by Pax, a Dutch nonprofit that promotes peace and reconciliation. Including the United States, there are nine known nuclear-armed nations in the world, which currently account for active ballistic missile contracts totaling approximately $116 billion.

“The research confirms that there is a new nuclear arms race happening,” Susi Snyder, the report’s lead author, tells Quartz.

The INF, an arms control pact that banned the development and use of medium-range missiles, reversed a dangerous buildup of US and Soviet nuclear weapons in Europe during the Cold War. It was signed in 1987 between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev in order to remove one of the most volatile flash points that could have led to nuclear war.

Last year, the US said Russia had 180 days to verifiably destroy its ground-based SSC-8 missile system—which the Obama administration first flagged in 2013 as a violation of the treaty—or the US would withdraw from the treaty completely.

Who benefits?

“What does this say to the rest of the world?” asks Snyder. “That everybody should be buying new missiles.”

Snyder, who has served as Pax’s nuclear disarmament program manager since 2010, says she knows from experience that these contracts tend to exceed their initial budgets, and that the ones identified by Pax will only grow larger. She says it is unknown what percentage of the new contracts are directly tied to nuclear weapons production, but “what is clear is that there is a new rush towards building more missiles that benefit a handful of US companies and intend to flood the market with missiles regardless of their range.”

Raytheon spokesman Mike Doble told Quartz that “zero percent” of its 44 missile contracts were nuclear-related. Jerry Drelling of Boeing Space and Missile Systems directed Quartz to a DoD contracting website but declined to provide further specifics. Lockheed Martin acknowledged Quartz’s request but did not follow up with a statement. Northrop Grumman and BAE did not respond to a request for comment.

Reputation risks

Nuclear missiles, especially those which increase the risk of retaliation like the medium-range weapons covered by the INF, actually weaken the safety of America and its allies, Snyder argues. She believes the new missile contracts spotlighted by Pax will do little more than “bloat a few pockets and tell shareholders, ‘Hey, you’re gonna get a good return on your investment this year.’”

Defense contractors often face blowback from investors who object to their role in making weapons of mass destruction. In 2016, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts pulled $1 billion tied to nuclear weapons manufacturing from its investment fund, including a stake in Honeywell International, which produces components for the US Navy’s Trident II missile system.

It has worked before, explains Snyder. Although the United States never signed on to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the 2008 treaty that prohibits the manufacture and use of cluster munitions, Lockheed Martin stopped production in 2013 after several countries and international banks said they would no longer invest in companies that manufactured them.

Snyder says public pressure forces firms to assess the “reputational and regulatory risks of continued exposure.” It will take some time, but Snyder remains optimistic.

“Everyone wants to make money, but not on a product that can end the future for everyone,” she says. “This is a snapshot of a very troubling time, and it’s a warning that we have to do something before it’s too late.”


An explosion is seen during Israeli air strikes in the southern Gaza Strip October 27, 2018.. (photo credit:” IBRAHEEM ABU MUSTAFA / REUTERS)



The strikes were in response to hundreds of incendiary balloons that Hamas launched at Israel on Wednesday.

The Israeli Air Force carried out a series of strikes north of the Gaza Strip on Wednesday night, according to the IDF. The strikes were in response to hundreds of incendiary balloons that Hamas launched at Israel on Wednesday.

In retaliation, two rockets were launched at Israel, according to the IDF. There were no injuries are damages, the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council reported.

In a statement to the press, the IDF spokesperson said that “Hamas bears full responsibility for all that is taking place in the Gaza Strip, as well as all things coming out of it.”

The balloons caused fires in the Eshkol region south of the country.

Earlier this week, Israel reduced the fishing zone allocated to the fishermen of Gaza after an Islamic Jihad rocket landed in southern Israel, causing no casualties.

Israel is marking Holocaust Memorial Day on Thursday. Commemoration events began Wednesday evening, including the country’s official ceremony. At that event, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel must learn from the past and “will not extend its neck for slaughter.”