Quakeland: New York and the Sixth Seal

Quakeland: On the Road to America’s Next Devastating Earthquake

Roger Bilham

Given recent seismic activity — political as well as geological — it’s perhaps unsurprising that two books on earthquakes have arrived this season. One is as elegant as the score of a Beethoven symphony; the other resembles a diary of conversations overheard during a rock concert. Both are interesting, and both relate recent history to a shaky future.

Journalist Kathryn Miles’s Quakeland is a litany of bad things that happen when you provoke Earth to release its invisible but ubiquitous store of seismic-strain energy, either by removing fluids (oil, water, gas) or by adding them in copious quantities (when extracting shale gas in hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, or when injecting contaminated water or building reservoirs). To complete the picture, she describes at length the bad things that happen during unprovoked natural earthquakes. As its subtitle hints, the book takes the form of a road trip to visit seismic disasters both past and potential, and seismologists and earthquake engineers who have first-hand knowledge of them. Their colourful personalities, opinions and prejudices tell a story of scientific discovery and engineering remedy.

Miles poses some important societal questions. Aside from human intervention potentially triggering a really damaging earthquake, what is it actually like to live in neighbourhoods jolted daily by magnitude 1–3 earthquakes, or the occasional magnitude 5? Are these bumps in the night acceptable? And how can industries that perturb the highly stressed rocks beneath our feet deny obvious cause and effect? In 2015, the Oklahoma Geological Survey conceded that a quadrupling of the rate of magnitude-3 or more earthquakes in recent years, coinciding with a rise in fracking, was unlikely to represent a natural process. Miles does not take sides, but it’s difficult for the reader not to.

She visits New York City, marvelling at subway tunnels and unreinforced masonry almost certainly scheduled for destruction by the next moderate earthquake in the vicinity. She considers the perils of nuclear-waste storage in Nevada and Texas, and ponders the risks to Idaho miners of rock bursts — spontaneous fracture of the working face when the restraints of many million years of confinement are mined away. She contemplates the ups and downs of the Yellowstone Caldera — North America’s very own mid-continent supervolcano — and its magnificently uncertain future. Miles also touches on geothermal power plants in southern California’s Salton Sea and elsewhere; the vast US network of crumbling bridges, dams and oil-storage farms; and the magnitude 7–9 earthquakes that could hit California and the Cascadia coastline of Oregon and Washington state this century. Amid all this doom, a new elementary school on the coast near Westport, Washington, vulnerable to inbound tsunamis, is offered as a note of optimism. With foresight and much persuasion from its head teacher, it was engineered to become an elevated safe haven.

Miles briefly discusses earthquake prediction and the perils of getting it wrong (embarrassment in New Madrid, Missouri, where a quake was predicted but never materialized; prison in L’Aquila, Italy, where scientists failed to foresee a devastating seismic event) and the successes of early-warning systems, with which electronic alerts can be issued ahead of damaging seismic waves. Yes, it’s a lot to digest, but most of the book obeys the laws of physics, and it is a engaging read. One just can’t help wishing that Miles’s road trips had taken her somewhere that wasn’t a disaster waiting to happen.

Catastrophic damage in Anchorage, Alaska, in 1964, caused by the second-largest earthquake in the global instrumental record.

In The Great Quake, journalist Henry Fountain provides us with a forthright and timely reminder of the startling historical consequences of North America’s largest known earthquake, which more than half a century ago devastated southern Alaska. With its epicentre in Prince William Sound, the 1964 quake reached magnitude 9.2, the second largest in the global instrumental record. It released more energy than either the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake or the 2011 Tohoku earthquake off Japan; and it generated almost as many pages of scientific commentary and description as aftershocks. Yet it has been forgotten by many.

The quake was scientifically important because it occurred at a time when plate tectonics was in transition from hypothesis to theory. Fountain expertly traces the theory’s historical development, and how the Alaska earthquake was pivotal in nailing down one of the most important predictions. The earthquake caused a fjordland region larger than England to subside, and a similarly huge region of islands offshore to rise by many metres; but its scientific implications were not obvious at the time. Eminent seismologists thought that a vertical fault had slipped, drowning forests and coastlines to its north and raising beaches and islands to its south. But this kind of fault should have reached the surface, and extended deep into Earth’s mantle. There was no geological evidence of a monster surface fault separating these two regions, nor any evidence for excessively deep aftershocks. The landslides and liquefied soils that collapsed houses, and the tsunami that severely damaged ports and infrastructure, offered no clues to the cause.

“Previous earthquakes provide clear guidance about present-day vulnerability.” The hero of The Great Quake is the geologist George Plafker, who painstakingly mapped the height reached by barnacles lifted out of the intertidal zone along shorelines raised by the earthquake, and documented the depths of drowned forests. He deduced that the region of subsidence was the surface manifestation of previously compressed rocks springing apart, driving parts of Alaska up and southwards over the Pacific Plate. His finding confirmed a prediction of plate tectonics, that the leading edge of the Pacific Plate plunged beneath the southern edge of Alaska along a gently dipping thrust fault. That observation, once fully appreciated, was applauded by the geophysics community.

Fountain tells this story through the testimony of survivors, engineers and scientists, interweaving it with the fascinating history of Alaska, from early discovery by Europeans to purchase from Russia by the United States in 1867, and its recent development. Were the quake to occur now, it is not difficult to envisage that with increased infrastructure and larger populations, the death toll and price tag would be two orders of magnitude larger than the 139 fatalities and US$300-million economic cost recorded in 1964.

What is clear from these two books is that seismicity on the North American continent is guaranteed to deliver surprises, along with unprecedented economic and human losses. Previous earthquakes provide clear guidance about the present-day vulnerability of US infrastructure and populations. Engineers and seismologists know how to mitigate the effects of future earthquakes (and, in mid-continent, would advise against the reckless injection of waste fluids known to trigger earthquakes). It is merely a matter of persuading city planners and politicians that if they are tempted to ignore the certainty of the continent’s seismic past, they should err on the side of caution when considering its seismic future.

The Saudi and Iranian Nuclear Horns (Daniel)

Saudi Arabia is moving forward with a uranium enrichment program, but can the U.S. embrace a nuclear Saudi Arabia after exiting the Iran Deal?

While attending a conference in Abu Dhabi on Monday, Saudi Arabi’s energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, told attendees that Saudi Arabia was “cautiously” proceeding ahead with plans to enrich uranium to use in two planned nuclear power reactors.

“We are proceeding with it cautiously … we are experimenting with two nuclear reactors,” Reuters quoted Salman as saying at the 24th World Energy Congress.

Saudi Arabia has long looked toward the possibility of nuclear power as a solution for its growing energy demands. However, in the highly volatile Middle East, enriching uranium for peaceful purposes opens the door to further enriching uranium up to weapons-grade levels, a plausibility that brought the end of Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018.

Most nuclear reactors are light-water reactors that use uranium enriched between three and five percent. The same technology used to enrich uranium for energy purposes is used to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels which typically use uranium enriched to 80% or more.

Under President Trump, the U.S. pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran Deal, originally signed in 2015 under President Obama. Under the deal, Iran agreed to limit enriching uranium to 3.67% as well as to reduce stockpiles of its enriched uranium.

President Trump was a fierce critic of the Iran Deal calling it “horrible” and “incompetent,” while also claiming that Iran was frequently in violation of the deal and enriching uranium beyond the deal’s limits.

Yet, Trump and the U.S. have never offered any proof that Iran was in violation of the deal. In fact, the agency responsible for monitoring the Iran Deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed in 15 consecutive reports that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA.

Now Saudi Arabia is looking to enrich uranium likely to the same levels that Iran was enriching uranium to when the U.S. pulled out of the JCPOA. However, there is one crucial difference between the two nations’ nuclear programs. Unlike Iran and the U.S.’ volatile relationship, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have long been fervent allies (an alliance first formed under Nixon) thanks to a bond over oil, weapons and shared Middle East goals.

Iran and the U.S. have a complicated history beginning with the U.S. and U.K.-led coup and overthrowal of Iran’s democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953 and the subsequent 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the U.S. backed monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

US Appears to Embrace a Nuclear Saudi Arabia

So while the U.S. has often condemned and cast a leery eye toward Iran’s nuclear power program, now, in the face of Saudi Arabia building its first two nuclear reactors, the U.S.’ reaction seems almost the polar opposite.

In March, the Daily Beast reported that the Trump administration had already secretly okayed six American companies to conduct nuclear-related work in Saudi Arabia. The month prior, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform opened an investigation into the Trump administration’s approval, looking into whether it rushed the sale of sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and violated U.S. law by bypassing the required congressional approval.

According to the House report, under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) “the U.S. may not transfer nuclear technology to a foreign country without the approval of Congress, in order to ensure that the agreement reached with the foreign government meets nine specific nonproliferation requirements.”

As Yasmeen Rasidi previously wrote for Citizen Truth, the congressional report said it was written in response to several whistleblowers who spoke up about the White House’s efforts to advance the transfer of sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.

“The whistleblowers who came forward have warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes,” Representative Elijah Cummings, the Democrat chairman of the committee, wrote in a letter to the White House in February of 2019.

Similarly, Trump has forced through the sale of billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia also bypassing or vetoing the necessary congressional approval. In July, Trump vetoed three bills passed by both the House and Senate which prohibited the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Previously, in May, Trump declared an emergency in order to bypass Congress and speed up the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

123 Agreement and Moving Forward

In order to move forward with supporting the Saudi Arabian nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment program, the U.S. is likely to insist that Saudi Arabia sign the “123 Agreement” – an agreement that binds the signatory to using its nuclear program for peaceful purposes only.

Such an agreement would allow U.S. companies to remain in the running to build and work on Saudi Arabia’s nuclear projects.

According to Reuters, Dan Brouillette, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, said as much at the Abu Dhabi conference.

“It’s important for us, with regards to U.S. technology, we’re going to pursue a 123 Agreement,” Brouillette said.

“We would like to see a 123 Agreement accompany any agreement to transfer U.S. technology or use U.S. technology in Saudi or any other place,” he added.

However, the same Reuters report claimed that progress on signing the deal has been limited because Saudi Arabia does not want to entirely rule out the possibility of enriching uranium to higher levels or reprocessing spent fuel – both potential paths to nuclear weapons.

The 123 Agreement has also been tossed around as a possibility for negotiating with Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham told the Daily Beast in early August that he urged President Trump to put the 123 Agreement on the table with Iran.

“I told the president: Put the 123 on the table with the Iranians. Make them say ‘no,’” Graham told The Daily Beast. “I think the Iranians will say no. And I think that will force the Europeans’ hands.” So far, no such offer has been made.

Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Future

In March of 2018, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told CBS News in an interview that if Iran builds a nuclear bomb, so will Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible,” MBS stated in the televised interview.

While Saudi Arabia’s true nuclear weapons ambitions are unknown, Saudi Arabia is aiming to build as many as sixteen nuclear reactors by 2040 – a lucrative contract for any nuclear tech company.

Antichrist joins supreme leader at Iran ceremony

Iraqi preacher Sadr joins supreme leader at Iran ceremony

Agence France Presse

TEHRAN: Iraqi preacher Moqtada al-Sadr joined Iran’s supreme leader during a rare visit to Tehran to mark the Shiite holy day of Ashoura, state media reported Wednesday. The office of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued pictures of Sadr flanked by Khamenei on one side, and the commander of the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Major General Qasem Soleimani, on the other.

Iran’s judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi also attended the ceremony, which commemorates the death of Prophet Mohammad’s grandson Hussein at the Battle of Karbala, in modern-day Iraq. Sadr’s surprise visit comes at a time of deep political divisions among Iraq’s Shiite factions, and as Baghdad tries to walk a tightrope between its two main allies, Tehran and Washington.

Tehran has close but complicated ties with Baghdad, with significant influence among its Shiite political groups. The two countries fought a bloody war from 1980 to 1988 and Iran’s influence in Iraq grew after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq toppled dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.

In 2014, Iran sent Soleimani and “miliary advisers” to Iraq to help it in the fight against Daesh (ISIS), and Soleimani continues to play a key role as a powerbroker in Iraq during times of turbulence.

Sadr himself is a populist cleric, political figure and former militia leader whose bloc emerged as the biggest in the Iraqi parliament after May 2018 elections. But he refused to align with the pro-Iran camp to form a government, visited Tehran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia and has criticized pro-Iran paramilitary groups in Iraq – sparking contradictory analysis of the current visit.

Some observers suspected Sadr had been “summoned” to Tehran after statements challenging Iran and its Iraqi allies in the Al-Hashd al-Shaabi paramilitary force.

The Iraqi preacher recently launched a Twitter campaign against the more hard-line elements of the Hashd and even took aim at the Iraqi government, saying Iraq was becoming a “rogue” state.

Others said it might indicate a vote of confidence in him by Iran’s top leadership over the Hashd’s political arm, the Fatah alliance.

Many noted it was strange to see Sadr outside Iraq on Ashoura, a holy day during which millions of pilgrims travel to Karbala.

Tuesday, a stampede broke out among pilgrims visiting the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala that left 31 people dead and more than 100 wounded

Israel’s Collusion With Babylon the Great

Iran denounces ‘U.S.-Israeli plot’ over nuclear program

VIENNA (Reuters) – Iran has denounced a “U.S.-Israeli plot” to put pressure on the U.N. nuclear watchdog, after the IAEA called in recent days for more cooperation from Tehran following what diplomats say was the detection of uranium particles at an undeclared site.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has broad powers to inspect Iran under its 2015 nuclear agreement with major powers. The IAEA has issued its calls in recent days for Iran to cooperate, without saying specifically what prompted them, saying this is confidential.

Diplomats told Reuters the agency wants Iran to explain how traces of uranium were found at a site that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described a year ago as a “secret atomic warehouse”.

“Since two days before this session of the Board, we are witnessing a U.S.-Israeli plot with the support of their affiliated media,” Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, Kazem Gharibabadi, said in a statement to an IAEA Board of Governors meeting that began on Monday.

He singled out former U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton, a hawk on Iran who left his job on Tuesday. On Saturday here, hours before the IAEA’s acting chief flew to Tehran for a visit, Bolton had said that Iran “may be concealing nuclear material and/or activities”.

Netanyahu, who like U.S. President Donald Trump opposes Iran’s nuclear deal with major powers, also said on Monday that Iran had been developing nuclear weapons at a different site that Tehran has since destroyed.

Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful.

“John Bolton’s remark wishing to set an agenda for the visit of the Acting DG on the night that he was on his way to Tehran, along with the media campaign done by two news agencies, as well as the show played by the Israeli regime Prime Minister, all-in-all indicate that a joint project is underway,” Gharibabadi said.

He did not identify the news agencies he was referring to. The Reuters report on the uranium traces was published on Sunday.

“These show-off measures are aimed at increasing pressure on the Agency, hitting the last straw on the JCPOA,” he said, referring to Iran’s nuclear deal with major powers by its full name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Washington exited the nuclear agreement last year and has reimposed sanctions on Iran. Iran has responded by announcing some steps to exceed thresholds in the agreement but says it still aims to keep the pact in place.

When asked by reporters whether traces of radioactive material had been found and why the IAEA is pushing for better cooperation, Gharibabadi said such issues are confidential and Iran is “timely and proactively cooperating” with the IAEA.

He also took a swipe at Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and has a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear capabilities.

“Israel talking about adhering to non-proliferation is like (the) mafia talking about adhering to the laws against organized crimes,” he said.

Reporting by Francois Murphy

Israel Strikes Back Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

IDF strike in Gaza, March, 2019. Eliyahu Hershkovitz

Israel Strikes 15 Hamas Targets in Response to Gaza Rocket Attack, Army Says

Israeli army says strikes were in retaliation for rocket fire earlier that targeted cities in southern Israel, which prompted Netanyahu to get off stage at a campaign rally mid-speech

Jack KhouryAlmog Ben ZikriYaniv Kubovich

11.09.2019 | 11:00

Israel struck some 15 Hamas targets in the northern and central Gaza Strip overnight Tuesday in response to rockets that were fired from the coastal enclave earlier that night, the Israeli military said.

The sites targeted in the airstrike include Hamas military infrastructure used for weapons manufacturing, several targets in a military compound of Hamas’ naval force and a an attack tunnel intended to be used for terror attacks, the Israeli army said in a statement.

The Israeli army noted that its strikes were carried out in retaliation for two rockets that were launched from the Strip toward the southern Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod on Tuesday. The rockets were fired while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was addressing crowds at a campaign rally in Ashdod, and had to be taken off the stage mid-speech.

Netanyahu evacuated after Gaza rocket alert sirens ring out during a campaign event in Ashdod, September 10, 2019

Prior to the Israeli strike in Gaza, Netanyahu held security consultations with senior defense establishment officials.

This is the latest escalation in developing tensions on Israel’s border with both Gaza and Lebanon, as the country enters the final week of its redux election campaign.

Palestinian sources said Tuesday night that Israel had carried out several airstrikes near the city of Deir al Balah in central Gaza, in addition to striking in the northern Strip.

Hamas’ military wing reported that an Israeli drone had been downed in the night between Monday and Tuesday in the coastal enclave. The movement had managed to access information regarding the unmanned aircraft mission, Hamas said. The IDF later confirmed the drone had fallen in Gaza.

PM Netanyahu leaves a campaign event after rocket alert sirens ring out, Ashdod, September 10, 2019

On Sunday, a projectile was fired from Gaza but failed to reach Israel, landing inside the Strip. This came one day after the IDF said it carried out several airstrikes in Gaza, including on a Hamas naval base and two complexes of the organization’s aerial command.

According to the IDF, the strikes were in response to a drone attack earlier on Saturday, in which a Gaza drone entered Israeli airspace and dropped explosives on a military vehicle by the border fence.

A few hours earlier on Saturday, an Israeli military aircraft fired at what it identified as the Gaza cell that launched the drone attack.

On Friday night, Israel struck several Hamas targets in Gaza after five rockets were launched from the Strip overnight Friday, targeting Hamas military positions near the Israeli border with aircraft and tank fire. The fire was an apparent response to the death of two Palestinian teenagers killed by Israeli fire during weekly March of Return border protests.

There have also been continuing tensions between Hezbollah and Israel along the Israel-Lebanon border, after an Israeli drone attack on a Hezbollah site in a Beirut suburb – although both sides have until now managed to prevent an escalation.

The Oxymoron of Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Explained: What are Tactical Nuclear Weapons?

Vikas Sv

Updated: Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 19:29 [IST]

New Delhi, Sep 11: Knowing that it can never match with India’s military might in conventional warfare, Pakistan is said to developed an arsenal of short range low yield nuclear weapons. These are called as Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW) which were developed to thwart what is often called as India’s ‘Cold Start Strategy’.

Although no evidence exists that such a strategy has been formulated by India, experts say that it is about swiftly launching a three pronged attack on Pakistan and severing its supply lines. That would cut the supply to the forces fighting in the north.

Pakistan greatly fears this and hence developed Tactical Nukes. Pakistan keeps threatening India with tactical nuclear weapons and Islamabad has on various occasions said that it would not hesitate to use them if Indian forces attempt to enter its territory. Pakistan knows it very well that it cannot match India in conventional warfare and to counter this it has developed tactical nuclear weapons. Tactical nukes are complex to make and it is obvious where Pakistan got help from to manufacture these deadly battlefield weapons.

Defence and strategic matters expert Major General P K Sehgal once told OneIndia that Pakistan has developed tactical nuclear weapons primarily to deal with what is called as India’s cold start doctrine. He said that Pakistan cannot match up with India in conventional warfare and hence they have developed tactical nuclear weapons.

A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW), also called non-strategic nuclear weapon, is a weapon that is generally smaller in its explosive power. It is designed to be used in battlefield situations, in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons which are designed to be mostly targeted in the enemy interior away from the war front. Tactical nuclear weapons are of the range of 20-60 km with a blast radius of 3-5 km. These are developed to be used as a deterrent against aggression on the border and not for a full-fledged war.

Tactical nuclear weapons can be of several forms, they could in the form mines known as ADMs, they could be in the form of artillery shells, could be in the form of missiles, they could be in the form of bombs. They are meant to be used against advancing forces and not places. Tactical nuclear weapons are meant to be deployed essentially in the battle filed, Major General Sehgal explained. Pakistan claims that its short-range missile NASR can carry nuclear warheads of low yield with high accuracy. Pakistan has also claimed that it has been designed to overcome missile defence systems. Hypothetically speaking, if Indian Forces do enter Pakistan’s territory and Islamabad does indeed use tactical nukes then it would also be risking the lives of its own civilians as the device would detonate in Pakistani soil.

Does India have tactical nuclear weapons?

“We have not developed any tactical nuclear weapon for the simple reason that we do not feel that any country has the capacity to do what Pakistan visualises that India could do to them. India has never threatened any country historically, nor do we threaten Pakistan in any manner. If Pakistan provokes us, then India would react through cold start launch doctrine and Pakistan is worried about that. India does not have it to the best of my knowledge, because we do not need it,” the Defence Expert further said.

India’s possible retaliation:

Once Pakistan uses a nuclear weapon in any form, Indian retaliation would be unimaginable as New Delhi will not be bound by ‘No First Use’ policy. India had declared ‘No First Use’ (NFU) as a policy; Pakistan is averse to it and feels that NFU in principle negates its deterrence advantage against India. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are intended to compensate for conventional forces which are largely believed to be lagging behind India. What Pakistan must keep in mind is that India has fairly developed secondary strike capability. India has ballistic missiles with a nuclear warhead that can be launched from submarines in short notice. Pakistan can rest assured that any use of nukes- tactical or strategic – the retribution will be swift, severe and devastating threatening its very existence.

Jihad Against Babylon the Great

Telegram post by Abu Hafs Al-Maqdisi, leader of the Gaza-based Jaysh Al-Ummah Al-Salafi. Credit: MEMRI.

Gaza-based jihadi group calls on Taliban to increase attacks on America

U.S. President Donald Trump supposedly planned—and then cancelled—a secret meeting with leaders of the Taliban to have been held at Camp David.

(September 11, 2019 / JNS)

The leader of a Gaza-based jihadi group called on the Taliban to increase its attacks on America after  U.S. President Donald Trump broke off talks with the Taliban, according to a report by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), shared exclusively with JNS.

Abu Hafs Al-Maqdisi, the leader of the Gaza-based Jaysh Al-Ummah Al-Salafi, released a statement on Telegram on Tuesday commenting on Trump’s decision not to sit down with the Taliban.

Al-Maqdisi called on the Taliban to intensify its operations against America, adding that the country is on the brink of collapse.

Following Trump’s cancellation of what was supposed to be a secret U.S.-Taliban meeting to have been held at Camp David on Sept. 9, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban organization) said the following in a statement:

“Now, as the president of the United States has announced suspension of negotiations with the Islamic Emirate, this will harm America more than anyone else. It will damage its reputation, unmask its anti-peace policy to the world even more, increase its loss of life and treasure and present its political interactions as erratic.”