America Overdue For The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New Study: America Overdue For Major Earthquake … In States You Didn’t Suspect

Written by: Daniel Jennings Current Events

The survey’s new National Seismic Hazard Map show that the risk of earthquakes in parts of the country — such as the Midwest, Oregon and the Rocky Mountains — is far higher than previously thought. All total, Americans in one-third of the country saw their risk for an earthquake increase.

“I worry that we will wake up one morning and see earthquake damage in our country that is as bad as that has occurred in some developing nations that have experienced large earthquakes,” Carl Hedde, a risk management expert at insurer Munich Reinsurance America, said of the map in The Wall Street Journal. “Beyond building collapse, a large amount of our infrastructure could be immediately damaged. Our roads, bridges and energy transmission systems can be severely impacted.”

Among the findings:

  • The earthquake danger in parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois and South Carolina is as high as that in Los Angeles.
  • 42 of the 50 states have a reasonable chance of experiencing a damaging earthquake in the next 50 years.
  • Parts of 16 states have the highest risk of a quake: Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois, Kentucky and South Carolina

“We know the hazard has increased for small and moderate size earthquakes,” USGS scientist William Ellsworth told The Journal. “We don’t know as well how much the hazard has increased for large earthquakes. Our suspicion is it has but we are working on understanding this.”

Frightening Results From New Study

The USGS used new computer modeling technology and data collected from recent quakes such as the one that struck Washington, D.C. in 2011 to produce the new maps. The maps show that many Americans who thought they were safe from earthquakes are not.

New Relocation Manual Helps Average Americans Get Out Of Harms Way Before The Coming Crisis

Some of the survey’s other disturbing findings include:

    • The earthquake danger in Oklahoma, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia, New York and parts of New England is higher than previously thought.
    • Some major metropolitan areas, including Memphis, Salt Lake City, Seattle, St. Louis and Charleston, have a higher risk of earthquakes than previously thought. One of the nation’s most dangerous faults, the New Madrid fault, runs right through St. Louis and Missouri. It is the nation’s second most active fault. On Dec. 16, 1811, the New Madrid Fault was the site of the most powerful series of earthquakes in American history.

“Obviously the building codes throughout the central U.S. do not generally take earthquake risk or the risk of a large earthquake into account,” USGS Seismologist Elizabeth Cochran told The Journal. Her take: Earthquake damage in the central US could be far greater than in places like California, because structures in some locations are not built to withstand quakes.

Others agree.

“Earthquakes are quite rare in many places but when they happen they cause very intense damage because people have not prepared,” Mark Petersen, the project chief for the USGS’s National Seismic Hazard Map, told The Journal.

This new map should be a wakeup call for Americans.

Pestilence Brings Us Closer to War

Amid Coronavirus Chaos, U.S. and Iran Edge Closer to War

Murtaza Hussain

March 15 2020, 2:00 a.m.

If you listened closely this week, behind the terrifying clamor of Covid-19 sweeping across the planet, you might’ve heard the sound of war nearly breaking out again between the United States and Iran.

On Wednesday, the birthday of assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a barrage of rockets slammed into the Camp Taji airbase north of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The attack killed two Americans and a Briton, while wounding 14 others. A day later, U.S. forces in Iraq hit back, carrying out airstrikes against Kata’ib Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia that it blamed for the attack. It is a safe bet that the violence between the United States and Iran will not stop there. Already on Saturday morning, reports emerged of another attack at the same base that wounded three more U.S. service members.

Despite a terrifying pandemic that has overwhelmed entire cities in Iran and now looms over the United States, the crisis between the two countries that began when the Trump administration exited the 2015 Iran nuclear deal shows no sign of abating. The possibility of war in the midst of a global public health crisis is, to put it mildly, outrageous. Iranians are believed to be among the most numerous victims of the Covid-19 pandemic. Their government’s decision to risk a conflict at this moment is both mystifying and galling.

But Iran’s grim determination to hit back against the United States regardless of its people’s suffering does illustrate an important point. It puts paid to a major Trump administration justification for the controversial assassination of Suleimani in a January drone: deterrence.

In the immediate aftermath of Suleimani’s killing, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “the entire strategy has been one of deterrence,” claiming that the drone strike against the general had sent a decisive message to the Iranian government that would force it to refrain from future acts of aggression.

But if deterrence really was the strategy, it’s been a resounding failure. Even before this week’s deadly attacks, rockets have continued to periodically rain down on U.S. bases in Iraq, as well as the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Iran has indicated in public statements that it plans to take what it views as a full revenge for the killing of Quds Force chief Suleimani at a time of its choosing. The deadly attack on Camp Taji suggests that they are not bluffing.

There is historical context to consider as well. Since the 1979 revolution that brought the current government to power, Iran has shown that it is willing to endure a tremendous amount of punishment to achieve its strategic goals.

During Iran’s war with Iraq in the 1980s, then-Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini continued to battle Saddam Hussein long after his attempted invasion of Iran had been repelled. Hundreds of thousands on both sides were killed over years of grueling World War I-style trench warfare, all in dogged pursuit of Khomeini’s goal of forcing the Baathists from power and placing an Iran-friendly government in Baghdad. (The Iranians would have to wait until 2003, when the United States graciously accomplished this goal for them.)

Today, even amid a cataclysmic public health crisis that is said to have killed hundreds of Iranians, including several top political and military leaders, the Iranians show no sign of relenting on what they view as their primary geopolitical interests. Their continued attacks on American targets in Iraq suggest that they are pushing forward toward their main strategic goal: ejecting American troops from Iraq.

In an article about the recent violence, Afshon Ostovar, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and author of “Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards,” wrote that the Iranian-backed militia attack on Camp Taji and the U.S. military response “fits right into the aims of Kata’ib Hezbollah and Iran.” The attacks by U.S. aircraft help increase public anger in Iraq against U.S. military activity there and lay the groundwork for a broader confrontation that might force the United States to leave for good.

Iran and its Iraqi allies “have more Iraqi deaths and destruction to fuel their effort to expel U.S. forces from the country,” Ostovar wrote. “They also have cause to respond further, if they wish, in order bait the U.S. into additional aggressive acts on Iraqi soil. Yet, doing so would compel the U.S. to respond in kind, and the cycle of escalation would continue toward certain conflict.”

Despite its overwhelming military advantages, that would be a conflict the United States would be poorly positioned to win. The U.S. public is already exhausted and disillusioned with years of seemingly pointless fighting in the Middle East. Most Americans are also anxious over the impact of Covid-19 at home and unlikely to be thrilled with the idea of diverting more resources to fighting another war with no clear end goals.

Unlike Iran, where the government wields authoritarian and sometimes brutal power to quell public dissent, the U.S. is constrained in its capacity to ignore the wishes of its own people. That’s why U.S. officials like Pompeo have insistently portrayed Suleimani’s killing as a way of tamping down violence in Iraq rather than escalating it. It’s a disingenuous claim that is getting harder to defend.

The proxy war between the United States and Iran looks certain to continue. It seems that not even a global health crisis can stop it. One thing is clear however: Ordinary Iranians, Iraqis, and Americans can ill-afford this kind of violence right now.

Even before the devastation wrought by Covid-19, Iran was struggling to cope with the consequences of American sanctions. It is in even worse shape today. The United States under Donald Trump, meanwhile, seems ill-prepared for the social and economic upheaval that will accompany a major pandemic on U.S. soil. It doesn’t seem like much to ask that U.S. and Iranian leaders postpone their score-settling until the pandemic threat that faces us all can be brought under control. But even that modest hope may be out of reach.

Babylon the Great Will Be Devastated By The Bowls of Wrath (Rev 16)

Nuclear War Could Devastate US, Even if No One Shoots Back

Washington could only safely use a fraction of its arsenal without killing Americans with an unintended adverse series of cascading environmental effects, writes Joshua M. Pearce.

By Joshua M. Pearce
The Conversation 

The White House’s 2021 budget calls for $28.9 billion for the Pentagon for nuclear weapons and a 20 percent increase to $19.8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Yet the U.S. already has over 3,000 nuclear weapons. And my research shows that the U.S. could only safely use a fraction of them without killing Americans with an unintended adverse series of cascading environmental effects.

My models and those of others show that soot from the burning of cities following numerous nuclear blasts would cause a significant drop in global temperature, blocking the sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface. This would cause a drop in precipitation, increased ultraviolet radiation resulting from a badly damaged atmosphere, and a breakdown in supply chains and food production.

The study my colleague, David Denkenberger, and I did shows how damaging a nuclear attack using several nuclear weapons would be for the aggressor nation.

Nuclear Winter Versus Nuclear Autumn

You have probably heard of “nuclear winter.” That’s when multiple nuclear weapon strikes cause cities to burn, putting massive amounts of smoke into the upper atmosphere and blocking sunlight for years. The resultant agricultural loss would cause massive global starvation.

The science behind nuclear winter influenced Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. president Ronald Reagan  to end the Cold War and begin nuclear disarmament.

The agricultural loss from the less-known “nuclear autumn” – meaning a smaller amount of smoke – would range from a 10 percent to 20 percent drop in global agriculture. That’s enough to cause widespread food shortages, still causing many millions of people to starve.

Every nation willing to use its nuclear weaponry must determine whether it has the ability to survive the problems of its own making. Nations with nuclear weapons all ascribe to the concept of nuclear deterrence – the idea that more nuclear firepower is intimidating and makes other countries think twice before picking a fight.

My colleague and I wanted to know: How many nuclear weapons could a country use against an enemy without causing a nuclear autumn and killing their own people?

Simulating Nuclear War

First, we determined how many nuclear weapons would be enough to provide substantial deterrence for a “worst case” enemy – the most populous target nation. We looked at the threat posed by a number of different countries, from those with around 100 weapons, like India or Pakistan, to Russia, which has about 7,000.

We estimated that, if 100 nuclear weapons hit China’s most populous cities, initial blasts would kill more than 30 million people. This would kill a higher fraction of the population than even severe pandemics, destroy China’s economy and would almost certainly destabilize its political system.

It would be even worse for any smaller country — providing plenty of deterrence to prevent any other nation from attacking.

Next, we looked at the impacts on the nuclear aggressor. We optimistically assumed no accidents; all nuclear weapons hitting their targets, whether that was 100, 1,000 or 7,000; and no retaliation of any kind.

We built a model of the burnable material in cities: how much would burn in a nuclear attack, how much of that would turn into smoke, how much of that smoke would make it into the upper atmosphere. Then, we used the result of climate and crop simulations to predict the impact on food supply. Finally, we coupled this with food storage to predict how many people would starve.

Our results showed no Americans would die in the scenario of the U.S. using 100 weapons. The U.S. is blessed with a large amount of agricultural land compared to the population, so the country is resilient to industrial loss and mild nuclear autumn if Americans cooperate and share resources.

If Americans used 1,000 nuclear warheads against an enemy and no one retaliated, the U.S. would see about 140,000 Americans die, due to the burning of cities in other countries, causing environmental catastrophe at home from lower food production.

If the U.S. attempts to expand our stockpile as recently proposed and then used 7,000 nuclear weapons, even if everything went perfectly our way, at minimum 5 million Americans would starve.

This analysis severely underestimates the number of dead Americans, since we assume severe rationing, which is the best way to keep the most people alive when there is this level of food shortage without alternative food.

Current Arsenals

Compared to other nations, if the U.S. used its entire current nuclear arsenal, it is the best case for surviving nuclear autumn – losses to industry and a 10 percent food shortfall. Other countries are far worse off.

If a country with fewer weapons, like North Korea or Israel, fired off relatively few nuclear weapons and triggered nuclear autumn and were not hit by any in return or suffer retaliation, they would be harming themselves. Our model shows that they would lose 60 percent and 80 percent of their populations, respectively.

China would expect to lose 70 percent of its population in a nuclear autumn, even if they were the ones lobbing the missiles.

Overall, we found that limiting America’s arsenal to 100 nuclear weapons still provides nuclear deterrence, but avoids the worst of the probable effects of a nuclear autumn. It is clear by cutting down on nuclear weapons, the U.S. actually would save money making the safe decision.

Joshua M. Pearce is professor of materials science and engineering; and electrical and computer engineering at Michigan Technological University.

We May Not Be, But Russia is Nuclear Ready

Russia Is Ready for a Nuclear, Chemical or Biological Weapons-Based War

They have the training and the equipment–just incase.

The threat of chemical and nuclear warfare loomed large over most militaries during the Cold War. The development of new nerve agents during the 1940s, as well as advanced delivery systems later on meant that chemical weapons could be delivered with precision and deadly effect. As such, most militaries trained extensively for the chemical threat. However, those on the “Eastern” side, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states, developed a reputation for extensive preparation.

But how much of this remains today?

In the Russian CBRN (РХБЗ) troops, the legacy of Soviet preparation has not only survived, but thrived. New CBRN defense vehicles and equipment continue to be procured, and CBRN equipment is often displayed prominently at large expositions, like Army 2019. The special battlefield role of the Russian CBRN troops is also probably a reason why their capabilities are exercised more. In addition to chemical attack and defense, CBRN troops are in charge of operating battlefield smoke generators and the powerful TOS-1 and TOS-1A heavy flamethrower systems which can fire incendiary and thermobaric rounds. CBRN troops are also armed with the powerful RPO-A thermobaric rocket launcher, which can level weak houses in a single shot.

The Russian military also undertakes more CBRN training as a whole. In addition to larger drills involving the CBRN troops, there are weekly drills in most combat units every Wednesday, which involve use of CBRN protective equipment and the completion of tasks with it on. Gas masks are also carried regularly regardless of the situation. Training drills with full-body rubber suits also often occur, as well as practice decontamination washes of armored vehicles. Larger scale CBRN exercises are also common, with one occurring in August 2019. Comparatively, most NATO soldiers seem to only train occasionally with CBRN equipment, with monthly familiarization at most.

On the civil side, stocks of gas masks, decontamination sets, and other chemical and biological defense equipment are placed in strategic locations around Russia. Federal documents about the responsibilities of Russian civil defense specifically state that defense against CBRN threats is part of the civil defense mandate. The current civilian AI-4 individual first aid kit held in Russian civil defense stocks contains antibacterial agents, radioprotective agents, an agent to treat carbon monoxide poisoning and antidotes against some chemical poisoning. Compared to regular first aid kits, most American or European civilians have, the AI-4 offers far better capability to treat victims of a CBRN threat.

However, in NATO, CBRN training has lapsed. While Czechia retains one of the only live-agent chemical weapons training facilities in NATO, there is far less focus on the CBRN threat in NATO nations, in both civil defense and military settings. While Russia has upgraded its CBRN reconnaissance vehicles twice since the 2000s, the United States last procured an upgrade for its German M93 Fox CBRN reconnaissance vehicles in 2007.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues.

Quakes Before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Earthquake in New York felt across region

The U.S. Geological Survey reported an earthquake in upstate New York Wednesday that was felt across the region.

The magnitude 3.1 quake was reported at 6:43 a.m. just southwest of the Village of South Glens Falls which is about 200 miles north of Manhattan.

People across central New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and as far south as Long Island, NY reported feeling the temblor.

A few reports to the USGS claimed the earthquake was even felt in New Jersey.

The quake which lasted about four of five seconds shook homes in the Glens Falls region.


What a week. 3.1 earthquake shook me awake this morning. Up next, swarms of locusts.

“At first I thought it was a log truck that went ripping by,” Warrensburg resident Jim Coughlin told the Post Star. “Then I got an alert from my weather app that it was an earthquake.”

“At first I thought it was a log truck that went ripping by. Then I got an alert from my weather app that it was an earthquake.”

— Warrensburg resident Jim Coughlin told The Post-Star

There were no injuries or damage reported from the earthquake, which had a depth of just over eight miles below the surface.

Most reports indicate shaking was light.

The quake hit in an area just east of the Adirondack Mountains.

New York actually has a long history of earthquake activity but they are generally small and usually cause little or no damage.

The largest earthquake centered in New York took place on September 5, 1944.  With a magnitude of 5.9 and an epicenter beneath the New York-Canada border.  It did major damage in the towns of Massena, NY and Cornwall, Ontario.

Protecting the City From Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Palestinians prepare an incendiary device to be flown towards Israel, near the Israel-Gaza border in the central Gaza Strip, Feb. 10, 2020. Photo by Ali Ahmed/Flash90.
OptiDefense’s laser system is the first to target autonomous airborne incendiary devices and can also be used to down drones.

Palestinians prepare an incendiary device to be flown towards Israel, near the Israel-Gaza border in the central Gaza Strip, Feb. 10, 2020. Photo by Ali Ahmed/Flash90.

 In early 2018, professor Udi Ben-Ami at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev was working on a laser system for cutting thick plastic for greenhouses.

But when terrorists from the Gaza Strip started sending explosive devices over the border carried by simple balloons and kites also made of plastic, Ben-Ami had another idea for how to use the technology.

He called up his friend and colleague professor Amiel Ishaaya, an expert on lasers at BGU’s School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He suggested the pair collaborate on a laser-based defense system.

The result is a new company called OptiDefense, which the professors, along with colleagues from industry, formed to develop and commercialize a system that takes Star Wars out of the realm of science fiction.

Systems to neutralize attack drones are already available—they often stop drones by means of a “soft kill,” interrupting a drone’s GPS connection to its base. But future drones won’t necessarily need such a communication link. As a result, a “hard kill” option is needed to physically target and shoot down drones.

The incendiary kites and balloons are not nearly as sophisticated as attack drones, but are similarly autonomous.Moreover, Ishaaya realized that no one else was working on a technology to combat these simple but deadly devices.

Operating on a shoestring budget of just a few million shekels, the OptiDefense team scaled the laser up to take out the balloons at a distance.

The technology’s development received support—as well as funding, materials and testing grounds—from the Israel Border Police. When paired with the SupervisIR threat detection system manufactured by Israeli defense company Elbit Systems, “we succeeded in downing everything that came within our field of fire,” said Ishaaya.

The biggest advantage to OptiDefense’s laser technology is that it can work safely in urban environments.

“Most high-powered defense systems [require that] the airspace be cleared for many kilometers around so the laser does not accidentally blind anyone,” explained Ishaaya. “Our system operates on a lower frequency, which makes it safe for urban environments. Airports, for example, could station our systems around to provide complete coverage without endangering any pilots or passengers.”

Other potential applications include defending public events such as concerts or speeches. The system’s approximate range is several kilometers.

OptiDefense’s laser tech has been dubbed “Light Blade” (Lahav Or in Hebrew). The company is currently raising additional funds to further roll out the technology.

JNS is more than just another news website and syndication service. It is an organization devoted to nonstop reporting, and telling the truth about Israel and Jewish issues unburdened by the biases and institutional blinders that distort so much of what we read, hear and see about these topics elsewhere in the secular and even Jewish press.


Iranian Horn Months From Being Nuclear (Daniel 8:4)

The exterior of the Arak heavy water production facility in Arak, Iran, 360 kilometers southwest of Tehran, October 27, 2004. (AP Photo)

The exterior of the Arak heavy water production facility in Arak, Iran, 360 kilometers southwest of Tehran, October 27, 2004. (AP Photo)

VIENNA, Austria (AFP) — Tehran’s nuclear program is back under the spotlight after the UN’s nuclear watchdog revealed the extent of Iran’s uranium enrichment drive and reprimanded it for denying access to two locations.

Iran’s nuclear deal breaches mean breakout time could be mere months — experts

Tehran’s atomic program under renewed scrutiny as International Atomic Energy Agency governors meet Monday in Vienna

The revelations may lead to heated exchanges at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) latest quarterly board of governors meeting which starts on Monday in Vienna.

Which limits is Iran breaking?

Since May 2019, Iran has announced successive breaches of the deal struck four years earlierwith world powers which restricted its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

The breaches were in reaction to US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 and reimposition of harsh sanctions on Iran.

The latest announcement came in January, when Iran said it was no longer bound by any restrictions on its nuclear program.

An IAEA report issued on March 3 said that the announcement itself did not lead to any noticeable changes, but also revealed the cumulative effect of Iran’s previous breaches.

The centrifuges being used for enrichment are also more numerous and more advanced than foreseen under the deal.

Experts say the latest developments mean Iran’s so-called “breakout time” (the period needed to acquire the weapons-grade fissile material for a bomb) may well have fallen to a matter of months.

The 2015 deal was meant to ensure the breakout time was at least a year.

However, diplomats caution that none of the current stockpile is enriched beyond 4.5 percent, with much of it at a lower level than that.

It would need to be enriched to roughly 90% for use in a bomb, not to mention all the other work required to produce a weapon.

Moreover, the IAEA’s extensive monitoring of Iran’s current nuclear activities — often cited as an achievement of the 2015 deal — is continuing.

Iran insists its nuclear program is purely for civilian ends.

Why were two inspections refused?

In a second report the IAEA issued last week it reprimanded Iran for barring inspections at two sites.

They are among three locations about which the IAEA said it had questions over “possible undeclared nuclear material and nuclear-related activities.”

However, diplomatic sources say these activities date back to the 2000s and do not directly relate to Iran’s current program.

The amounts of material concerned are not significant and the agency’s queries should not be difficult to answer, diplomats say.

“I’m sure that if they got access to these sites, they wouldn’t find much,” France’s former ambassador to Tehran Francois Nicoullaud told AFP.

“The IAEA is a technical agency so it has the obligation to clear up this question,” he added, saying the agency “doesn’t have much room for maneuver.”

Nevertheless Iran reacted sharply, telling the IAEA that it does “not recognize any allegation on past activities.”

In a subsequent statement Iran said “intelligence services’ fabricated information… creates no obligation for Iran to consider such requests” and accused the US and Israel of trying to pressure the watchdog.

Israel has claimed that a trove of information obtained by its intelligence services contains new detail on a previous Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Have there been other tensions?

In October an IAEA inspector was briefly prevented from leaving Iran after authorities said she triggered an alarm at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant.

The IAEA said the incident was “not acceptable.”

The rows over the inspector and the agency’s unanswered questions have highlighted potential friction between the IAEA and Iran.

At a special IAEA board meeting in November, Iran warned the agency — and unnamed member states — to avoid “aggrandizing” issues unnecessarily, adding that this could “have a detrimental effect on ongoing cooperation.”

And in a January move which added to the already strained atmosphere, the European parties to the 2015 accord — France, Germany and the UK — launched the deal’s dispute resolution mechanism in protest at Iran’s breaches.