The Sixth Seal: More Than Just Manhattan (Revelation 6:12)

http://media.pkobp.pl/media_files/6d05d372-bbc0-4a0f-adfa-06e215cc8128.jpg

By Brooklyn Eagle

And Brooklyn, resting on sediment, would shake more than Manhattan, built on solid rock. “There would be more shaking and more damage,” Dr. Kim told the Brooklyn Eagle on Wednesday.

If an earthquake of a similar magnitude were to happen today near Brooklyn, “Many chimneys would topple. Poorly maintained buildings would fall down – some buildings are falling down now even without any shaking. People would not be hit by collapsing buildings, but they would be hit by falling debris. We need to get some of these buildings fixed,” he said.

But a 5.2 is “not comparable to Haiti,” he said. “That was huge.” Haiti’s devastating earthquake measured 7.0.

Brooklyn has a different environment than Haiti, and that makes all the difference, he said. Haiti is situated near tectonic plate.

“The Caribbean plate is moving to the east, while the North American plate is moving towards the west. They move about 20 mm – slightly less than an inch – every year.” The plates are sliding past each other, and the movement is not smooth, leading to jolts, he said.

While we don’t have the opportunity for a large jolt in Brooklyn, we do have small, frequent quakes of a magnitude of 2 or 3 on the Richter Scale. In 2001 alone the city experienced two quakes: one in January, measuring 2.4, and one in October, measuring 2.6. The October quake, occurring soon after Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, “caused a lot of panic,” Dr. Kim said.

“People ask me, ‘Should I get earthquake insurance?’ I tell them no, earthquake insurance is expensive. Instead, use that money to fix chimneys and other things. Rather than panicky preparations, use common sense to make things better.”

Secure bookcases to the wall and make sure hanging furniture does not fall down, Dr. Kim said. “If you have antique porcelains or dishes, make sure they’re safely stored. In California, everything is anchored to the ground.”

While a small earthquake in Brooklyn may cause panic, “In California, a quake of magnitude 2 is called a micro-quake,” he added.

Iran is About to Deliver a Nuclear Bomb but NOT to Israel (Daniel 8:4)

Iran’s Terrifying Drive Toward Delivering a Nuclear Weapon

And what Israel is doing to protect itself

By Brent Nagtegaal • August 2

Iran’s Terrifying Drive Toward Delivering a Nuclear Weapon | This Week From Jerusalem

Israel is justifiably terrified that Iran will soon have a functional nuclear weapons program and is actively working to stop it on multiple fronts.

It’s important to understand that a military nuclear program is based on three fundamental components.

• Fissionable material: This is the highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which is the substance that makes nuclear bomb itself.

• An explosive device: This is the initial explosion that sparks the larger nuclear bomb, similar to a spark plug starting an engine.

• A delivery system: This is the method to send the bomb to its target.

Iran has been working on those first two components clandestinely, but its work on the delivery system is out in the open.

Here are three recent events that reveal how serious Iran is about targeting Israel with a nuclear weapon and what Israel is trying to do to stop it.

1) Iran Test-fires Another Ballistic Missile

Last Wednesday, Iran test-fired its Shahab 3 ballistic missile, which flew 683 miles and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead on its nose.

Ballistic missiles, which actually fly out of the Earth’s atmosphere and into space, are so expensive that they are almost solely developed to carry a nuclear or chemical payload.

Iran has one of the world’s largest arsenals of ballistic missiles and has been honing its ability to hit its targets over huge distances.

Aware of this, Israel has been working on a defensive system to counter the ballistic missile threat.

2) Israel Successfully Tests the Arrow 3 Defensive Missile System

At Sunday’s Israeli cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed footage of a successful test of the Arrow 3 system. The test took place over the preceding weeks in Alaska and was produced alongside the United States.

The Arrow 3 system is Israel’s main defense against Iranian ballistic missiles. It is similar to the Iron Dome system, except the interception of the missile takes place in space rather than inside Earth’s atmosphere.

With a ballistic missile, the projectile rises until it exits the atmosphere and then flies in an arched orbit before it reenters the atmosphere to approach its target. The warhead breaks off before detonation.

Israel says Arrow-3 missile shield aces U.S. trials, warns Iran

The Arrow 3 has the ability to recognize an incoming ballistic missile, fire its own ballistic missile out of Earth’s atmosphere, and hit the incoming missile while in space. Thus neutralizing the threat.

The tests that took place over Alaska showed three successful interceptions, which highlight the mindboggling level of sophistication of the Arrow 3. In Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Mr. Netanyahu said, “I would like to make it clear here that metal hit metal; it was not just a proximity detonation. The missile hit the missile all three times. This is a great achievement.”

With the Arrow 3, Israel is trying to provide a protective umbrella should a ballistic missile be fired. But Israel is also going after Iran’s missile stockpiles on the ground.

3) Israel Now Targeting Iranian Missiles in Iraq

For years, Iran has been actively transporting missiles of different sizes to Lebanon and Syria to be used against Israel. Israel has conducted almost 1,000 strikes in Syria over the past few years to prevent these missiles from reaching Iranian proxies in those countries.

However, it wasn’t until recently that Israel began targeting Iranian weapons depots in Iraq.

On two different occasions last month, Israeli F-35 fighter jets struck Iranian missile depots north of Baghdad.

The first attack, on July 19, occurred on a warehouse about 110 miles north of Baghdad. The Israeli Air Force targeted the Shiite militia base just after a shipment of Iranian-made short- and medium-range ballistic missiles was offloaded from a truck, which was supposedly transporting refrigerated food.

The second strike, on July 28, was aimed at Camp Ashraf, another suspected Iranian missile depot 25 miles northeast of Baghdad and 50 miles from the Iranian border.

The significance of these attacks should not go unnoticed.

They are likely Israel’s first air strikes in Iraq since Operation Opera in 1981, when it bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor.

They show that Israel is unwilling to allow Iran to use Iraq as a forward operating base to launch ballistic missiles at it.

It also shows how powerful Iran has become in Iraq. This Iranian takeover of Iraq is something we have prophesied of for almost 30 years. Iran is using Iraq as a potential launching pad for its ballistic missiles against Israel.

Put together, Iran’s ballistic missile test, the Arrow 3 defensive tests and Israel’s bold strikes into the heart of Iraq show how close we are moving toward a confrontation with Iran.

Iran is vehemently seeking the destruction of Israel, and it sees its control of Iraq and its ballistic missile program as crucial steps toward its goal.

So many commentators, especially in the West, cast Iran as a rational actor that is just trying to defend itself in the region. But its ongoing quest for ballistic missiles and the lengths to which Israel has to defend itself are proof against that notion. In reality, Iran is moving forward with a deliberate strategy to confront and conquer Israel.

Iran is not defensive, but offensive. It doesn’t need to be provoked to act. Iran initiates conflict all by itself.

And that’s precisely how the Bible describes the end-time nation of Iran.

For almost three decades, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has shown that Iran fulfills the role of the prophesied “king of the south” spoken of in the book of Daniel. This is a king that leads a radical Islamic kingdom and initiates conflict, not just against Israel, but against Europe as well.

Daniel 11:40 states, “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.”

As characterized in that verse, the foreign policy of the king of the south is pushy. It would be a challenge to find a nation with a pushier foreign policy than Iran.

Iran’s continued testing of ballistic missiles and its movement of those missiles into Iraq show that Iran is positioning itself to make this prophesied push.

Its actions are a sign of where we are in the timeline of biblically prophesied events. It’s essential that you understand those upcoming events, so you can know how to prepare for them.

These aren’t normal times in which we live, and Iran’s actions prove it. For more understanding of how Iran is pushing the world toward this prophesied war, read The King of the South.

Palestinians Riot Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Palestinians protesters clash with Israeli forces during demonstrations at the Israel-Gaza border, near Shuja’iyya neighborhood of Gaza City, August 2, 2019 (Hassan Jedi/Flash90)

6,000 protest at Gaza border, rioters hurl explosive devices toward IDF troops

51 Palestinians said injured at demonstrations, 24 of them as a result of IDF fire, after Thursday firefight between Palestinian gunman and Israeli soldiers

By TOI STAFF

2 Aug 2019, 6:43 pmUpdated at 8:13 pm 7

Some 6,000 Palestinians gathered near the Gaza Strip’s border with Israel Friday to take part in weekly protests near the fence.

The Kan public broadcaster reported that some demonstrators broke through Hamas checkpoints set up to prevent mass rushes of protesters toward the border.

According to Hebrew-language media reports, rioters hurled rocks and explosive devices toward IDF troops stationed on the border. There were no reports of Israeli injuries.

The Hamas-run Gaza health ministry said 51 Palestinians were injured, 24 as a result of IDF fire.

The IDF said one of the flags waved by protesters was attached to a swastika.

The Nazi Swastika flag, a symbol of murder and hatred, raised yet again during a Hamas riot in Gaza today.In the face of this hatred stand IDF soldiers, ready and determined to defend lsrael.

In addition, a fire started in the Simhoni Forest, close to the border community of Kfar Aza, was thought to have been ignited by incendiary balloons launched from the Strip.

Channel 13 news earlier reported that the IDF had bolstered its presence in the region surrounding the enclave and was prepared for “every possible scenario” after a Palestinian gunman injured three Israeli soldiers in a firefight before being killed a day earlier.

The gunman was identified as Hani Abu Salah, a member of the military wing of Hamas whose brother was killed in a clash with the IDF last May.

Abu Salah was armed with a rifle and grenades and wearing a Hamas uniform, according to the IDF. However, an army spokesperson said the military believes the attacker was acting alone and not on orders from Hamas.

The Israeli soldiers were taken to Soroka hospital in Beersheba with non-life-threatening injuries. One officer was receiving care for moderate injuries while two lightly wounded soldiers were released shortly after their arrival.

A relative of Hani Abu Salah, a Hamas operative killed in a firefight with Israeli soldiers after he entered Israel from the border fence, shows his picture on a mobile phone during his funeral in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis on August 1, 2019. (Said Khatib/AFP)

The flareup of violence broke several weeks of relative calm along the normally restive border.

The beginning of 2019 saw a dramatic increase in the level of violence along the Gaza border, with near nightly riots and airborne arson attacks, but the violence waned in recent weeks due to a de facto ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Gaza-ruling Hamas terror group.

Under the fragile ceasefire brokered by Egyptian and UN officials following a severe flareup in May, Israel is meant to ease aspects of its blockade on the coastal enclave in exchange for relative calm. Israel maintains that the blockade is necessary to prevent arms from entering Gaza that could be used in attacks against it.

On Wednesday, Israel wrapped up a four-day drill meant to prepare for the possibility of war with fighters based in the Palestinian enclave.

The Simmering Storm Between India and Pakistan

The India-Pakistan border in Kashmir is simmering again — thousands of Amarnath pilgrims have been sent back due to terror threat

• The Jammu and Kashmir government asked the Amartnath tourists to leave the valley “as soon as possible” citing the possibility of terror threats.

Pakistan-based terrorists are reportedly planning to target the ongoing Amarnath Yatra, the state(?) government said citing intelligence inputs.

The Indian government has already posted 10,000 additional paramilitary personnel to Kashmir in the wake of the intelligence inputs.

The Jammu and Kashmir government has issued an advisory urging all the Amarnath pilgrims to leave ‘as soon as possible” citing the possibility of attack by terrorists, based on intelligence inputs.

According to the intelligence inputs, Pakistan-backed terrorists are reportedly planning to target the ongoing Amarnath Yatra, reported NDTV.

The Amarnath Yatra is an annual pilgrimage to the holy Amarnath cave, a shrine for the Hindu God Shiva, in the mountains of south Kashmir in the months of July and August.

As of 30 July, Over 320, 000 pilgrims have performed the annual Amarnath yatra. And another batch of 1,175 tourists left Jammu for the valley on Tuesday (30 July)

“Keeping in view the latest intelligence inputs of terror threats, with specific targeting of the Amarnath yatra, and given the prevailing security situation in the Kashmir Valley, in the interest of safety and security of the tourists and Amarnath yatris, it is advised that they may curtail their stay in the valley immediately and take necessary measures to return as soon as possible,” said the advisory.

The security forces had reportedly recovered an anti-personnel mine of Pakistan Ordnance. They have also found a sniper rifle during the raids at terror hideouts, the IANS reported citing Gen K.J.S. Dhillon, Commander of the Army’s Srinagar-based 15 Corps Lt.

The Indian government has already posted 10,000 additional troops to Kashmir in the wake of intelligence inputs that the terrorists could target the yatra. On Thursday, 25,000 more troops were pressed into service.

(With IANS)

The Nuclear Pact Ends (Revelation 16)

US ends Reagan-era nuclear missile pact with Russia

David Reid

Published Fri, Aug 2 2019 6:03 AM EDTUpdated Fri, Aug 2 2019 9:57 AM EDT

The U.S. has formally withdrawn from a decades-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, which banned ground-launched medium-range missiles with a range of 310 to 3,400 miles.

The 1987 Reagan-era treaty ended after Moscow refused to destroy its new intermediate-range SSC-8 cruise missile that Washington said violated the INF.

The SSC-8 missile can be tipped with conventional or nuclear explosives.

President Donald Trump announced in February that he would end the agreement unless Russia mothballed the missile system. At the time, Trump added that if Russia didn’t comply, the U.S. would “move forward with developing our own military response options” to Russia’s SSC-8.

In a statement Friday, which confirmed the U.S. withdrawal, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Russia was “solely responsible for the treaty’s demise” and that U.S. efforts to seek compromise had been continuously rejected by the Kremlin.

“Dating back to at least the mid-2000s, Russia developed, produced, flight tested, and has now fielded multiple battalions of its noncompliant missile. The United States first raised its concerns with Russia in 2013. Russia subsequently and systematically rebuffed six years of U.S. efforts seeking Russia’s return to compliance.”

The statement was released at the same time as a tweet from Pompeo’s Twitter account.

Russia’s short- and medium-range missiles are viewed as a particular threat to its neighboring countries as the weapons can be quickly launched, leaving the target country or region with almost no response time.

Pompeo’s statement said fielding the SSC-8 missile system in sites around Russia represented “a direct threat to the United States and our allies and partners.”

NATO added its weight to the U.S. position Friday, stating that Russia “bears sole responsibility” for the treaty collapse and that the military alliance would now respond in a “measured and responsible way” to “risks posed by the Russian 9M729,” an alternative name for the SSC-8.

NATO said in June that Russia must dismantle the short-range system, or the Western alliance would be forced to respond, adding that NATO defense ministers would now look at next steps “in the event that Russia does not comply.”

Responding to that June threat, Russia promised to take “countervailing military measures.”

CNBC reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press office but a comment was not immediately available.

The Coming Storm Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

The Coming Middle Eastern Storm

The next war between Israel and Hezbollah will be a region-wide fight, with Iraq playing a key role

Aaron Kliegman

August 2, 2019 11:50 AM

Since 2013, Israel has attacked Iranian targets in Syria hundreds of times, killing soldiers and decimating equipment and facilities. Israel’s aerial campaign led Iran, which seeks to establish another military front against the Jewish state, to move the bulk of its assets away from the Syrian-Israeli border to Iraq earlier this year. Since then, Iran has entrenched itself militarily in Iraq, where, according to Israel’s intelligence assessment for 2019, “the domestic and international situation … created better opportunities for [Tehran] to prepare its regional plans” to dominate the Middle East. Specifically, Iran deployed more members of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Lebanese Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization, to bolster the two cornerstones of Iran’s military entrenchment in Iraq: missile systems and Shiite militias that obey Tehran.

Media outlets previously reported that Iran set up missile launchers in Iraq and gave ballistic missiles to its Iraqi proxies, while developing the capacity to build more missiles there with the ranges to threaten both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Now Tehran is, according to Israeli intelligence, actually providing the militias with accurate missiles capable of striking anywhere in Israel. Such intelligence appears to be why, just this week, the media reported Israeli airstrikes in Iraq for the first time since 1981, when Jerusalem destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. This ongoing expansion of the conflict between Iran and Israel foreshadows a coming storm in the Middle East, one that could engulf the entire region.

Israel struck Iranian targets in Iraq twice in the last two weeks, according to Asharq al-Awsat, an Arabic newspaper based in London. Citing Western diplomatic sources, the publication reported Tuesday that the first attack occurred on July 19, when an Israeli F-35 fighter jet hit a base in the Saladin province, north of Baghdad. Arab media outlets reported separately that members of the IRGC and Hezbollah were killed, and that, shortly before the attack, Iranian ballistic missiles arrived covertly at the base. A state-run Iranian news agency appeared to corroborate these reports, announcing the death of a senior IRGC commander in an “Israeli-American” attack in Iraq on the same date.

Asharq al-Awsat also reported that Israel attacked another base in Iraq on Sunday, this one northeast of Baghdad and about 80 kilometers from the Iranian border, targeting Iranian advisers and a shipment of ballistic missiles from Iran.

The alleged strikes came after Israeli security officials warned that Iran was building storage sites in Iraq for missiles to be deployed to Syria or Lebanon to attack Israel. And just three days after the first strike, Israel’s ruling Likud party reposted a clip of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promising to strike Iran anywhere to thwart its ambitions, including in Iraq.

If these reports are true, then Israel, which has neither confirmed nor denied the strikes, is signaling it is prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its goals in Iraq, as in Syria. Furthermore, the reported strikes are the latest indication that the Israeli-Iranian conflict is far from over, with Iraq emerging as a crucial battleground. But Israel faces complications carrying out strikes in Iraq that it does not face in Syria. First, many of the Iranian-backed militias are part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMUs), an umbrella organization that the Iraqi government is integrating with its security forces. So striking militias risks escalating tensions with Baghdad. Second, while the Trump administration supports Israel’s anti-Iranian efforts in Syria, it may be more hesitant to back Israeli strikes in Iraq. American forces deployed in Iraq work with the Iraqi security forces, and Israeli strikes could lead Shiite militias to retaliate by attacking those forces. Fear of such retaliation should under no circumstances dictate Washington’s behavior, but it may nonetheless. President Trump, moreover, wants Iraq to become stable as soon as possible, especially after the collapse of the Islamic State’s caliphate. Israeli military action could lead to escalation and spook foreign investors who want to rebuild Iraq.

But the greatest danger is that the Israeli-Iranian conflict spills into Lebanon, triggering another war between Israel and Hezbollah. This outcome is quite possible for several reasons. Iran’s imperial expansion should generally be understood as part of its strategy to build a “land bridge” from its borders to the Mediterranean Sea (with Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon in between), a continuous corridor of political and military control from which to exert influence across the Middle East, weaken America’s role in the region, and, of course, destroy Israel. Because securing routes between Iraq and Syria is a crucial part of this effort, ongoing Iranian construction on a new border crossing, which may open in the next couple of months, is troubling. Among other purposes, Iran wants to use such crossings and the larger land bridge to traffic weapons to Hezbollah. In fact, ensuring a survivable pathway to Hezbollah is one of Iran’s chief reasons for intervening in Syria—an objective that Israel is determined to thwart. Hezbollah also has thousands of fighters deployed in Iraq and Syria to support Iran’s expansionism. In this strategic environment, it is all too easy to imagine Lebanon, which Hezbollah dominates both politically and militarily, becoming more directly involved in the fight.

A war between Israel and Hezbollah would be catastrophic, embroiling much of the Middle East and causing unimaginable destruction. Hezbollah has an estimated 130,000 rockets ready to fire at Israel, and because Israel is such a small country with few key strategic targets, Jerusalem would need to act immediately in a conflict with overwhelming force. The Israelis have learned from the last war in 2006, which was not the overwhelming success that Israel usually enjoys against Arab armies—they will not hold back this time. (Gabi Ashkenazi, the former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, said that in the next war it will be forbidden to ask who won. Presumably the answer will be beyond any doubt.) Furthermore, the Lebanese military closely collaborates with Hezbollah. The two are effective allies, making it likely that Israel would need to regard the state’s armed forces as hostile in a war.

Critically, such a war would not just include Hezbollah and its Iranian masters. For years, there have been growing signs that Iraq would be involved. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has said that a future war with Israel could draw thousands of fighters from Iraq. A commander of Iraq’s PMUs warned earlier this year that the militias are ready to respond to Israeli acts of “hostility.” Last year, the head of a powerful Iraqi Shiite militia pledged to stand alongside Hezbollah if a war breaks out with Israel, saying his group will fight with its Lebanese ally “in a single row, on a single front, just as we stood with them on a single front in Iraq or Syria.” One key question is whether and to what extent the Iraqi government would get involved, as many of the Iranian-backed militias are part of Iraq’s security apparatus. Regardless of Baghdad’s role, however, Iran’s recent military emphasis on Iraq, and the Israeli responses that it triggers, only makes it more likely that Iraq will be belligerent in a future conflict.

Beyond Iraq, Iran would bring in Shiite fighters from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Yemen (not to mention Iran itself) to fight Israel in the event of a third Lebanon war. And Iran could possibly coordinate with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two Palestinian terrorist organizations it supports, to barrage Israel with rockets from Gaza and the West Bank as the Jewish state is focused to the north, where it borders Syria and Lebanon. The regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would also support the Iranian-led axis.

War between Israel and Hezbollah would be a perfect storm, and Israel’s reported strikes in Iraq are a reminder of how far-reaching that conflict would be. Israel’s clear willingness to use any and all means, including its immense military power, to counter Iran’s goals has deterred Tehran, forcing the regime to alter its calculations. And a mutual understanding of how terrible a new war would be has prevented full-scale conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. But Israeli deterrence, while essential and potent, is no panacea. Here is where America can help.

If the United States wants to prevent a devastating war in the Middle East and support a critical strategic ally against their mutual enemies, then Washington needs to establish a level of credible military deterrence in Iraq and Syria, working with Israel to signal to the Iranian-led axis that acts of aggression will carry heavy—and perhaps deadly—costs. In other words, the United States needs to strike Iranian targets if necessary. Those who argue such actions are reckless and would trigger a war with Iran should be asked to explain how Israel has been striking these targets for years. The American military would only enhance Israel’s deterrence.

There are many additional steps to be taken. One is to continue to impose sanctions on Iran and Hezbollah. Perhaps most important, however, the United States must provide Israel steadfast political and diplomatic support in the event of war and do everything in its power to push Western governments to do so as well. Hezbollah knows it cannot defeat Israel on the battlefield, so it embeds its forces and weapons throughout civilian areas to force Israel to kill innocents. The terrorist group used human shields in 2006 and, according to reports, plans to do so in a future fight. Israel does all it can to avoid killing civilians, but, in the fog of war, it is impossible to ensure zero civilian casualties. Nonetheless, Europe and the United Nations condemn Israel and effectively take the side of Israel’s enemies, emboldening Hezbollah to be aggressive. The United States should not only support Israel’s right to counter Iran and Hezbollah by any means necessary during a war, but also before one. Only through concerted, consistent action today is it possible to avoid catastrophe tomorrow.

How Trump Will Order the First Nuclear Strike

How Trump could spin a nuclear strike

Could Trump follow the formula President Truman used on Hiroshima?

Don GillmorAug 3, 2019

The on-again, off-again nuclear talks between President Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un have all the earmarks of a high school romance. There are love letters, furtive meetings, promises, hugs, followed by mistrust, name-calling (“Little Rocket Man,” “mentally deranged U.S. dotard”), threats and a messy break-up. Then Trump storms off to flirt with other dictators (Putin, bin Salman) and Kim angrily fires off some missiles. The weeks drift by, then both men realize they have something special; they owe it to themselves to give the relationship another chance. And the world’s nuclear fate lies in the hands of these two stable lovebirds.

To understand how a nuclear war would actually start and how it would be spun to the public afterwards, it’s worth looking at the last time nuclear force was used. There are surprising parallels between Donald Trump and Harry Truman. Like Trump, Truman was an outsider, labelled “the accidental president,” a Missouri haberdasher caught up in the Democratic machine and thrust into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died.

Both men were plain-speaking, and neither president was popular. Truman’s average approval rating through his last four years in office was 36.5 according to Gallup, while Trump averaged 40 during his first two years in office. Like Trump, Truman was given to belittling those who attacked him. When Arkansas Senator Fulbright suggested that Truman resign after his approval rating dropped to 32 per cent in 1946, Truman referred to him as “Senator Halfbright.” When a reviewer disparaged his daughter’s singing, Truman threatened to blacken both his eyes.

MORE: Donald Trump and North Korea’s nuclear war rhetoric is frighteningly similar

Both Truman and Trump were underinformed when they took the job; Truman had no idea America was developing an atomic bomb. Many of Truman’s military advisors advised against its use, including General Dwight Eisenhower, who wrote, “The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Even uber-hawk Major General Curtis LeMay (depicted as General Jack D. Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove) said “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

Japan would likely have surrendered if it had been allowed to keep a version of its monarchy. On August 3, 1945, Truman received a telegram from the Japanese Emperor himself, asking for peace. Three days later, the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

In The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth, Gar Alperovitz argued that the main reason wasn’t to hasten Japanese surrender, but as a demonstration and warning to the Soviet Union. The Russians were still officially allies, but already shaping up to be the next enemy. James Byrnes, the militant secretary of state (similar to Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton), argued that “Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.”

The decision to bomb civilians (90 per cent of the 250,000 dead were civilians) was taken by an assembled “target committee,” made up of scientists, bureaucrats and military personnel. A true military target was never considered, as it wouldn’t gain “the international recognition” they wanted. Kyoto was at the top of the list, but the Secretary of War Henry Stimson insisted it be removed. He and his wife had visited the ancient city in 1926 and he remembered it fondly. Which moved Hiroshima to first choice. Truman saw something biblical in the decision. In his diary he wrote that the bomb “may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous ark.”

MORE: Obama at Hiroshima: Death fell from the sky

The public needed a more sympathetic narrative. Henry Stimson wrote a piece in Harper’s magazine titled “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb” where he said a million American lives were saved by dropping the bombs. This became the accepted figure. Except it wasn’t true. The official military estimate was 220,000 lives lost in a “worst-case scenario” if the U.S. invaded Japan. But the military may have inflated that number to make a stronger case for a negotiated surrender. At any rate, there wasn’t a need to invade. In 1956, Truman expanded the estimate to “millions of American lives” saved. This myth proved to be stubborn, in part because classified documents weren’t released until decades later, and by then the myth was entrenched and more powerful than its atrocious reality.

If Trump initiates a nuclear strike, ignoring Congress and disregarding military advisors, he may frame it in terms of a decisive, heroic act that saves American lives and liberates an oppressed people. Kim Jong-un will go from “very open and terrific” to the worst prom date in history. Echoing Hiroshima, the bombing of Pyongyang may have more to do with impressing China than discouraging North Korea.

And what is the likelihood of Trump initiating a nuclear strike? He withdrew from a key bilateral nuclear weapons treaty with Russia, pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, and announced he will increase the U.S. nuclear arsenal. He has threatened North Korea with a strike, and as a candidate said he would consider nuclear weapons an option to deal with political problems. He is narcissistic and irrational. As Hillary Clinton noted, “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

MORE: Why it’s crucial that Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un get along

But surely saner heads would prevail. Unfortunately National Security Advisor John Bolton probably doesn’t fall into this category. And it turns out the protocols developed for launching a nuclear strike were designed to limit the power of war-happy generals, not presidents. In December, 2016, The Washington Post ran this startling headline just after Trump was elected: “No one can stop President Trump from using nuclear weapons.” The world could be one angry tweet away from nuclear devastation.

Like Trump, Truman was prone to catchy slogans that weren’t always borne out in reality. His most famous was “the buck stops here.” Though after 30,000 Americans were killed in Korea (a war he entered without consulting what he nicknamed the “do nothing Congress”), Truman shifted the blame to General Douglas MacArthur and subsequently fired him.

“I fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the President,” Truman wrote. “I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son-of-a-bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.”

MORE: U.S. nuclear commander says any illegal Trump orders will be resisted

Trump largely shares this view, dismissing various Generals and former Generals—McMaster, Mattis, Kelly, Flynn. He tweeted that General Stanley McChrystal was “known for [his] big, dumb mouth. Hillary lover!” If any war or nuclear strike proves to be unpopular with Trump’s base, he will likely shift the blame to his generals.

It has been argued that much of the reason the world resents America was put in motion by Truman, the Truman Doctrine and the idea that the entire world was now America’s business.  He created the CIA, which went on to meddle in foreign elections, and, initially, at least, Truman wielded his nuclear authority like a club. Trump has picked up that legacy and run mad off in all directions. The Trump Doctrine, meanwhile, shifts from week to week, from tweet to tweet, randomly punishing allies and rewarding dictators, though it focuses on Trump’s role in the world rather than America’s.

Truman was divisive as a president and remains so. In one survey he is ranked the seventh best president in history, though the case has been made that he was the worst. A word of caution: before the 1948 election, Truman’s poll numbers dipped to 26 per cent and he was considered unelectable. Everyone thought Thomas Dewey would be the next president. The Chicago Tribune was so sure it ran the headline “Dewey Defeats Truman” on the front page. Yet Truman won. He remained unpopular, and left office with a 32 per cent approval rating, the lowest on record until Nixon eclipsed him. As Truman himself said, “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.”

The Increasing Risk of Nuclear War (Revelation 16)

Image result for hiroshima74 Years After Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings, the Risk of Nuclear War is Increasing, Science Group Says

Statement by David Wright, Co-Director, Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (August 1, 2019)—Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program Co-Director David Wright today released the following statement commemorating the anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945.

“Some 74 years after the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan, the risk of nuclear war is higher today than many people realize—and it is increasing.

“Current U.S. policy permits the United States to use nuclear weapons first against a nuclear-armed opponent during a non-nuclear conflict—thereby starting a nuclear war—and the president alone has the authority to order a nuclear launch.

“Making such a launch more of a possibility, the Trump administration recently built and would like to field a new ‘low-yield’ nuclear weapon with relatively small destructive power that it might consider to be more usable in a crisis than a larger warhead.

“But that’s not the only scenario we’re worried about. The United States keeps hundreds of nuclear-armed missiles on ‘hair-trigger alert’ so they can be launched in a matter of minutes in response to a warning of an incoming nuclear attack. That creates a risk that the United States would launch a nuclear attack in response to a false warning, starting a nuclear war by mistake. This risk is not theoretical. A number of human and technical errors have occurred in the past, prompting U.S. military officials to initiate steps to launch a counterattack.

“Recognizing these unacceptable—and unnecessary—risks, city councils, state legislatures, religious organizations and public interest groups across the country have adopted resolutions calling on the United States to change these dangerous policies. These groups include the California and Oregon legislatures; the New Jersey State Assembly; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; and 32 municipalities, including Baltimore, Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.

“The resolutions vary, but they generally call for the United States to make five policy changes:  adopt a policy that it will never use nuclear weapons first, change the policy that gives the president sole authority to order a nuclear attack, remove its nuclear-armed missiles from hair-trigger alert, scale back its plans to replace the entire nuclear arsenal with upgraded weapons, and pursue verifiable international treaties to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.

“Along with climate change, nuclear war remains an existential threat facing the planet. By changing its own nuclear weapon policies, the United States can reduce the risk that nuclear weapons will ever be used again.”