Real Risk, Few Precautions (Revelation 6:12)


Published: October 24, 1989

AN EARTHQUAKE as powerful as the one that struck northern California last week could occur almost anywhere along the East Coast, experts say. And if it did, it would probably cause far more destruction than the West Coast quake.

The chances of such an occurrence are much less in the East than on the West Coast. Geologic stresses in the East build up only a hundredth to a thousandth as fast as in California, and this means that big Eastern quakes are far less frequent. Scientists do not really know what the interval between them might be, nor are the deeper-lying geologic faults that cause them as accessible to study. So seismologists are at a loss to predict when or where they will strike.

But they do know that a temblor with a magnitude estimated at 7 on the Richter scale – about the same magnitude as last week’s California quake – devastated Charleston, S.C., in 1886. And after more than a decade of study, they also know that geologic structures similar to those that caused the Charleston quake exist all along the Eastern Seaboard.

For this reason, ”we can’t preclude that a Charleston-sized earthquake might occur anywhere along the East Coast,” said David Russ, the assistant chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey in Reston, Va. ”It could occur in Washington. It could occur in New York.”

If that happens, many experts agree, the impact will probably be much greater than in California.Easterners, unlike Californians, have paid very little attention to making buildings and other structures earthquake-proof or earthquake-resistant. ”We don’t have that mentality here on the East Coast,” said Robert Silman, a New York structural engineer whose firm has worked on 3,800 buildings in the metropolitan area.

Moreover, buildings, highways, bridges, water and sewer systems and communications networks in the East are all older than in the West and consequently more vulnerable to damage. Even under normal conditions, for instance, water mains routinely rupture in New York City.

The result, said Dr. John Ebel, a geophysicist who is the assistant director of Boston College’s Weston Observatory, is that damage in the East would probably be more widespread, more people could be hurt and killed, depending on circumstances like time of day, and ”it would probably take a lot longer to get these cities back to useful operating levels.”

On top of this, scientists say, an earthquake in the East can shake an area 100 times larger than a quake of the same magnitude in California. This is because the earth’s crust is older, colder and more brittle in the East and tends to transmit seismic energy more efficiently. ”If you had a magnitude 7 earthquake and you put it halfway between New York City and Boston,” Dr. Ebel said, ”you would have the potential of doing damage in both places,” not to mention cities like Hartford and Providence.

Few studies have been done of Eastern cities’ vulnerability to earthquakes. But one, published last June in The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, calculated the effects on New York City of a magnitude 6 earthquake. That is one-tenth the magnitude of last week’s California quake, but about the same as the Whittier, Calif., quake two years ago.

The study found that such an earthquake centered 17 miles southeast of City Hall, off Rockaway Beach, would cause $11 billion in damage to buildings and start 130 fires. By comparison, preliminary estimates place the damage in last week’s California disaster at $4 billion to $10 billion. If the quake’s epicenter were 11 miles southeast of City Hall, the study found, there would be about $18 billion in damage; if 5 miles, about $25 billion.

No estimates on injuries or loss of life were made. But a magnitude 6 earthquake ”would probably be a disaster unparalleled in New York history,” wrote the authors of the study, Charles Scawthorn and Stephen K. Harris of EQE Engineering in San Francisco.

The study was financed by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The research and education center, supported by the National Science Foundation and New York State, was established in 1986 to help reduce damage and loss of life from earthquakes.

The study’s postulated epicenter of 17 miles southeast of City Hall was the location of the strongest quake to strike New York since it has been settled, a magnitude 5 temblor on Aug. 10, 1884. That 1884 quake rattled bottles and crockery in Manhattan and frightened New Yorkers, but caused little damage. Seismologists say a quake of that order is likely to occur within 50 miles of New York City every 300 years. Quakes of magnitude 5 are not rare in the East. The major earthquake zone in the eastern half of the country is the central Mississippi Valley, where a huge underground rift causes frequent geologic dislocations and small temblors. The most powerful quake ever known to strike the United States occurred at New Madrid, Mo., in 1812. It was later estimated at magnitude 8.7 and was one of three quakes to strike that area in 1811-12, all of them stronger than magnitude 8. They were felt as far away as Washington, where they rattled chandeliers, Boston and Quebec.

Because the New Madrid rift is so active, it has been well studied, and scientists have been able to come up with predictions for the central Mississippi valley, which includes St. Louis and Memphis. According to Dr. Russ, there is a 40 to 63 percent chance that a quake of magnitude 6 will strike that area between now and the year 2000, and an 86 to 97 percent chance that it will do so by 2035. The Federal geologists say there is a 1 percent chance or less of a quake greater than magnitude 7 by 2000, and a 4 percent chance or less by 2035.

Elsewhere in the East, scientists are limited in their knowledge of probabilities partly because faults that could cause big earthquakes are buried deeper in the earth’s crust. In contrast to California, where the boundary between two major tectonic plates creates the San Andreas and related faults, the eastern United States lies in the middle of a major tectonic plate. Its faults are far less obvious, their activity far more subtle, and their slippage far slower. 

Any large earthquake would be ”vastly more serious” in the older cities of the East than in California,  said Dr. Tsu T. Soong, a professor of civil engineering at the State University of New York at Buffalo who is a researcher in earthquake-mitigation technology at the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. First, he said, many buildings are simply older, and therefore weaker and more  vulnerable to collapse. Second, there is no seismic construction code in most of the East as there is in California, where such codes have been in place for decades.

The vulnerability is evident in many ways. ”I’m sitting here looking out my window,” said Mr. Silman, the structural engineer in New York, ”and I see a bunch of water tanks all over the place” on rooftops. ”They are not anchored down at all, and it’s very possible they would fall in an earthquake.”

 Many brownstones, he said, constructed as they are of unreinforced masonry walls with wood joists between, ”would just go like a house of cards.” Unreinforced masonry, in fact, is the single most vulnerable structure, engineers say. Such buildings are abundant, even predominant, in many older cities. The Scawthorn-Harris study reviewed inventories of all buildings in Manhattan as of 1972 and found that 28,884, or more than half, were built of unreinforced masonry. Of those, 23,064 were three to five stories high.

Buildings of reinforced masonry, reinforced concrete and steel would hold up much better, engineers say, and wooden structures are considered intrinsically tough in ordinary circumstances. The best performers, they say, would probably be skyscrapers built in the last 20 years. As Mr. Silman explained, they have been built to withstand high winds, and the same structural features that enable them to do so also help them resist an earthquake’s force. But even these new towers have not been provided with the seismic protections required in California and so are more vulnerable than similar structures on the West Coast.

Buildings in New York are not generally constructed with such seismic protections as base-isolated structures, in which the building is allowed to shift with the ground movement; or with flexible frames that absorb and distribute energy through columns and beams so that floors can flex from side to side, or with reinforced frames that help resist distortion.

”If you’re trying to make a building ductile – able to absorb energy – we’re not geared to think that way,” said Mr. Silman.

New York buildings also contain a lot of decorative stonework, which can be dislodged and turned into lethal missiles by an earthquake. In California, building codes strictly regulate such architectural details.

Manhattan does, however, have at least one mitigating factor: ”We are blessed with this bedrock island,” said Mr. Silman. ”That should work to our benefit; we don’t have shifting soils. But there are plenty of places that are problem areas, particularly the shoreline areas,” where landfills make the ground soft and unstable.

As scientists have learned more about geologic faults in the Northeast, the nation’s uniform building code – the basic, minimum code followed throughout the country – has been revised accordingly. Until recently, the code required newly constructed buildings in New York City to withstand at least 19 percent of the side-to-side seismic force that a comparable building in the seismically active areas of California must handle. Now the threshold has been raised to 25 percent.

New York City, for the first time, is moving to adopt seismic standards as part of its own building code. Local and state building codes can and do go beyond the national code. Charles M. Smith Jr., the city Building Commissioner, last spring formed a committee of scientists, engineers, architects and government officials to recommend the changes.

”They all agree that New York City should anticipate an earthquake,” Mr. Smith said. As to how big an earthquake, ”I don’t think anybody would bet on a magnitude greater than 6.5,” he said. ”I don’t know,” he added, ”that our committee will go so far as to acknowledge” the damage levels in the Scawthorn-Harris study, characterizing it as ”not without controversy.”

For the most part, neither New York nor any other Eastern city has done a detailed survey of just how individual buildings and other structures would be affected, and how or whether to modify them.

”The thing I think is needed in the East is a program to investigate all the bridges” to see how they would stand up to various magnitudes of earthquake,” said Bill Geyer, the executive vice president of the New York engineering firm of Steinman, Boynton, Gronquist and Birdsall, which is rehabilitating the cable on the Williamsburg Bridge. ”No one has gone through and done any analysis of the existing bridges.”

In general, he said, the large suspension bridges, by their nature, ”are not susceptible to the magnitude of earthquake you’d expect in the East.” But the approaches and side spans of some of them might be, he said, and only a bridge-by-bridge analysis would tell. Nor, experts say, are some elevated highways in New York designed with the flexibility and ability to accommodate motion that would enable them to withstand a big temblor.

Tunnels Vulnerable

The underground tunnels that carry travelers under the rivers into Manhattan, those that contain the subways and those that carry water, sewers and natural gas would all be vulnerable to rupture, engineers say. The Lincoln, Holland, PATH and Amtrak tunnels, for instance, go from bedrock in Manhattan to soft soil under the Hudson River to bedrock again in New Jersey, said Mark Carter, a partner in Raamot Associates, geotechnical engineers specializing in soils and foundations.

Likewise, he said, subway tunnels between Manhattan and Queens go from hard rock to soft soil to hard rock on Roosevelt Island, to soft soil again and back to rock. The boundaries between soft soil and rock are points of weakness, he said.

”These structures are old,” he said, ”and as far as I know they have not been designed for earthquake loadings.”

Even if it is possible to survey all major buildings and facilities to determine what corrections can be made, cities like New York would then face a major decision: Is it worth spending the money to modify buildings and other structures to cope with a quake that might or might not come in 100, or 200 300 years or more?

”That is a classical problem” in risk-benefit analysis, said Dr. George Lee, the acting director of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center in Buffalo. As more is learned about Eastern earthquakes, he said, it should become ”possible to talk about decision-making.” But for now, he said, ”I think it’s premature for us to consider that question.”

IAEA must investigate the Saudi Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

IAEA must investigate Saudi violation of NPT

TEHRAN – Professor Frank N. von Hippel, former assistant director for national security in the White House Office, believes that some US companies are assisting Saudi Arabia with its Nuclear activities.

Professor Frank N. von Hippel, says that Saudi Arabia should be required to inform the IAEA of nuclear facilities at the design and construction stage as Iran has agreed to do.

“I hope the report on construction of a uranium mill will result in the IAEA demanding access as it did in Iran,” Frank N. von Hippel tells Mehr News in an exclusive interview.

The following is the interview:

Q: According to the New York Times, US intelligence agencies have in recent weeks published a confidential analysis of current actions inside Saudi Arabia and in cooperation with China to build the industrial capacity needed to produce nuclear fuel. The analysis has raised alarms that there may be covert moves by Saudi Arabia and China to produce unenriched uranium so that it can later be enriched to fuel nuclear weapons. What will be the reaction of the Trump administration to this report?

A: Exports/imports of technology for mining and separation of uranium from uranium ore are not considered sensitive.  However, it is a concern that Saudi Arabia is not transparent.  If it has not informed the IAEA about its facilities, it may violate its NPT safeguards commitment. You may recall that the IAEA Board declared Iran in violation because it had not informed the IAEA of its enrichment program before it became public in 2003.

With regard to the view within the Trump White House, President Trump does not care about international law.  He divides the world into his friends and enemies – often depending upon whether they provide profitable business to him and his family. Friends like Saudi Arabia can do whatever they want. Enemies like Iran should be punished whether they have violated international law or not.

Congress has a more balanced view and has been fighting with the Trump White House about “turning a blind eye” toward Saudi Arabia’s transgressions, including Saudi Arabia’s war crimes in Yemen and its murder of the journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.

The State Department position is between. Secretary Pompeo supports the White House, and the professionals support international law.

Q: Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is a member of NPT and has a comprehensive bilateral safeguards agreement in place with the IAEA, but unfortunately still refuses to accept the Agency’s safeguards inspections, and despite repeated requests for several years, the Agency has not amended its obligations to allow the Agency to inspect. According to the New York Times, Saudi Arabia is trying to build a yellow cake factory. Accordingly, Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program has entered a critical phase, which requires the IAEA to adopt bilateral agreements with the country to these sensitivities. Why does the IAEA not put pressure on Saudi Arabia in this regard, and the IAEA’s Board of Governors does not make a serious decision?

A: Saudi Arabia should be required to inform the IAEA of nuclear facilities at the design and construction stage as Iran has agreed to do. I hope the report on the construction of a uranium mill will result in the IAEA demanding access as it did in Iran.

Q: Some members of the Trump administration, including Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser to the Trump administration, have been accused of providing sensitive nuclear equipment to Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia appears to have secret ties to both the United States and China over its nuclear program. What is your assessment?

A: I understand that US nuclear equipment suppliers provided some design information to Saudi Arabia.  Congress put pressure on the Department of Energy, which had given permission for transferring this design information, and I believe it was stopped.  To my knowledge, the US has not provided any nuclear technologies to Saudi Arabia.

Q: Why is China trying to have a secret nuclear plan with Saudi Arabia? What are the goals of this issue?

A: In the past, Chinese companies’ violations of nuclear export controls have been due to their interest in contracts and inadequate enforcement of international standards by China’s government.

Q: Some experts have previously said that if the United States does not cooperate with Saudi Arabia under the 123 agreement and does not allow the country to enrich uranium and have a full fuel cycle, the country may resort to a secret program to have a full fuel cycle. Do you think the United States will be willing to give Saudi Arabia the right to enrich uranium, or does it want an agreement like the United Arab Emirates that does not allow uranium enrichment and reprocessing of plutonium (golden standards)?

A: There have been proposals within the US debate to loosen the “Gold Standard” on Saudi Arabia because otherwise, Saudi Arabia will take its nuclear business to other countries that don’t require the Gold Standard.  Congress has pushed back, however, and forced the Trump Administration to adhere to the Gold Standard.

Trump Loses the ‘Art of the Deal’

U.S. loses Iran arms embargo bid as Putin pushes summit to avoid nuclear deal showdown

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announces that the US will designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) during a press conference at the State Department in Washington, DC, April 8, 2019.

Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images

The United States lost a bid to extend a U.N. arms embargo on Iran on Friday as Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a summit of world leaders to avoid “confrontation” over a U.S. threat to trigger a return of all U.N. sanctions on Tehran.

Russia and China opposed extending the weapons ban, which is due to expire in October under a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. Eleven members abstained, including France, Germany and Britain, while Washington and the Dominican Republic were the only yes votes.

“The Security Council’s failure to act decisively in defense of international peace and security is inexcusable,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. “The Security Council rejected direct appeals to extend the arms embargo from numerous countries in the Middle East endangered by Iran’s violence.”

The United States could now follow through on a threat to trigger a return of all U.N. sanctions on Iran using a provision in the nuclear deal, known as snapback, even though President Donald Trump abandoned the accord in 2018. Diplomats have said the United States could do this as early as next week, but would face a tough, messy battle.

Diplomats have said such a move would put the fragile nuclear deal further at risk because Iran would lose a major incentive for limiting its nuclear activities. Iran already has breached parts of the nuclear deal in response to the U.S. withdrawal from the pact and unilateral sanctions.

Putin on Friday proposed a video summit with the United States and the remaining parties to the nuclear deal – Britain, France, China, Germany and Iran – to try to avoid further “confrontation and escalation” at the United Nations over Iran.

“The issue is urgent,” Putin said in a statement, adding that the alternative was “only further escalation of tensions, increasing risk of conflict – such a scenario must be avoided.”

Asked if he would take part, Trump told reporters, “I hear there’s something, but I haven’t been told of it yet.” French President Emmanuel Macron is open to taking part in a video summit, the Elysee palace said.

The United States has argued that it can trigger a sanctions snapback because a U.N. Security Council resolution enshrining the nuclear deal named Washington as a participant. But the remaining parties to the deal are opposed to the move.

Putin said Russia, an ally of Iran in the Syrian civil war, remained fully committed to the nuclear deal and that the aim of a summit would be to outline steps aimed at avoiding “confrontation and escalation of the situation in the Security Council.”

Trump has said he wants to negotiate a new deal with Iran that would prevent it from developing nuclear weapons and also curb its activities in the region and elsewhere. Trump, who has walked away from a series of international agreements, has dubbed the 2015 nuclear deal – reached under his predecessor Barack Obama – “the worst deal ever.”

Diplomats have said several countries would argue that the United States legally could not activate a return of sanctions and therefore simply would not reimpose the measures on Iran themselves.

Russia’s Giant Nukes Return (Daniel 7)

Russia’s Giant Battle Cruiser Will Return

Aug 15, 2020,

The Russia Navy’s most powerful warship, the battle cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, may be about to be relaunched. It is part of a massive modernization which will see it armed with new weapons. The nuclear-powered ship is almost as large as the famous Iowa Class battleships of the U.S. Navy, but it is considerably more modern in armament and thinking. With the latest weapons and sensors it will be, arguably, the most powerful surface combatant in the world.


H I Sutton, Includes material © CNES 2020, Distribution Airbus DS all rights reserved / PLEIADES satellite imagery | Acquired through ShadowBreak Intl

‘Battle Cruiser’ is not a category of warship that is used very often, not since World War II. Like battleships, modern warships just do not stack up to these titles, except for the Project 1144.2 Kirov Class nuclear cruisers, of which Admiral Nakhimov is one. These were built toward the end of the Cold War to specifications which dwarf any other surface combatant then or now.

They are armed with an incredible array of weapons. Their main ‘carrier killer’ armament was 20 giant P-700 Granite supersonic missiles. Against air threats they carried 96 S-300 long-range missiles and 40 9K33 Osa short-range missiles. Then there were no less than six Kashtan close-in weapons systems (CIWS). Each has two 30mm Gatling guns and eight 9M311 short-range missiles, plus 24 reloads for a total of 192 missiles.

Because of the size and complexity these vessels are incredibly expensive to crew and maintain. Of the four built out of five planned, only two are still in service. The other one, Peter the Great (’Pyotr Velikiy’), is with the Russian Navy’s arctic-based Northern Fleet. That ship is newer and already equipped with comparatively modern systems.

The Admiral Nakhimov was due for modernization. Although the Kirov Class battle cruisers are impressive warships, much of their original technology is antiquated today. The modernization should bring her back up to date.

According to Russian state media RIA Novosti, she will be armed with the 3M22 Zircron hypersonic anti-ship missile. This is an ultra-modern weapon which is becoming a priority system for the resurgent Russian Navy. President Putin emphasizes this weapon, most recently during his Navy Day speech in St. Petersburg. Zircon is much smaller than the original P-700 Granite missiles so possibly more will be carried. Also carried by the Oscar-II class submarine, three Zircon could be carried for each Granite, so a total of 60 missiles.

It is unknown whether the Kalibr land-attack cruise missile or Oniks dual-purpose anti-ship and land attack missile will be carried. But given that they are sometimes loaded interchangeably with Zircon this is a distinct possibility. These would give Admiral Nakhimov a greater land-attack capability than her sister-ship Peter the Great.

RIA Novosti also says that the main air defense complex will be upgraded to the Fort-M system, which is a more advanced version of the S-300. That system is still about 30 years old and doesn’t compare to the latest S-350 or S-400 systems. But those have not been fitted to ships so it might be a question of development cost. Either way, Fort-M is a reputable system.

Other upgrades include more modern close in air defenses and anti-submarine armament. I expect that her massive twin 130mm main gun might be replaced with the newer single-barrel AK-192 gun.

There are indications that the mighty warship might be launched very soon. Russian media reported (in Russian) that the basin where the ship is being worked on is slowly being flooded and I had been observing this through open sources. Recent satellite imagery shows that she is still a construction site though. So she may need several years alongside in Severodvinsk after launch before the modernization is complete.

Get the best of Forbes to your inbox with the latest insights from experts across the globe.

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here. 

Using OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) to get to the stories first. Author of several books on Submarines, Special Forces and Narco subs. I mostly write about submarines

Trump Claims the Obvious About Iran

Trump claims Iran preparing ‘sneak assault’ on US troops in Iraq

August 14, 20202 Min Read

President Trump asserted on Twitter Wednesday that Iran was plotting a “sneak assault” on US troops or amenities in Iraq — together with the bottom that was hit in a previous missile strike after the USA killed a high Iranian navy chief.

“Upon data and perception, Iran or its proxies are planning a sneak assault on U.S. troops and/or belongings in Iraq. If this occurs, Iran can pay a really heavy value, certainly!” Trump wrote.

The tweet adopted the revelation that the US had deployed Patriot air-defense techniques to an Iraqi navy base as a precaution towards Iranian-backed militia assaults, the web site Center East Eye reported, citing US and Iraqi navy sources.

One battery was deployed to the Ain al-Asad base final week and was being assembled, in line with the report.

The bottom was focused by Iran in January, following a US strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, whom the Washington accused of plotting terrorist operations.

The White Home didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark.

Trump’s tweet got here as each nations have been struggling to comprise the coronavirus outbreak.

Iran has 47,593 circumstances and three,036 deaths so far.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo mentioned late final month that Iran had rejected gives of US assist to fight the pandemic.

Pompeo additionally ­condemned Iranian Supreme Chief Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for promulgating conspiracy theories that the USA was accountable for the outbreak, and identified Iran’s personal misdeeds that he claimed exacerbated the unfold of the virus.

“The U.S. has provided $100M+ in medical assist to different nations—together with Iran—and our scientists are working 24/7 to develop a vaccine. @khamenei_ir has rejected American gives and spends 24/7 concocting conspiracy theories. How does that assist the Iranian individuals?” Pompeo tweeted, ­referring to Khamenei.

US-Iranian relations have been bitter for the reason that Islamic Revolution ­toppled the US-backed shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, in 1979 and ushered in an period of ­theocratic rule.

Whereas there was a ­detente with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, relations have deteriorated with Trump’s choice practically two years in the past to desert that multilateral settlement and to reimpose US sanctions, which have have severely crippled the Iranian financial system.

IDF attacks Hamas targets outside the Temple Walls in response to incendiary balloons (Revelation 11)

IDF attacks Hamas targets in Gaza in response to incendiary balloons

The IDF stated that the attack comes in response to the number of incendiary balloons sent from Gaza not only on Friday, but throughout the week.

IDF tanks and fighter jets attacked a number of targets belonging to the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip on Friday, according to the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit. The attack came in response to incendiary balloons sent from Gaza and landing in Israeli territory, causing some 21 fires to break out on Friday alone, following a pattern of attacks that have been occurring all week.

Palestinian sources report that the Friday attack occurred east of the al-Bureij refugee camp located in the center of the Gaza Strip. 

During the attack, a naval force compound, underground infrastructure and observation posts belonging to Hamas were struck, according to the IDF’s Spokesperson’s Unit.

The IDF stated that the attack came in response to the number of incendiary balloons sent from Gaza not only on Friday, but throughout the week, adding that “all terrorist activity against Israel” is taken very seriously, and that the IDF “will do whatever is necessary to act in response to attempts to harm the citizens of Israel.”

Earlier on Friday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi made a similar comment following a number of fires having already broken out. He told the Gaza border community that incendiary and explosive balloon launches will end in the following days, Walla! reported. 

The IDF has been acting in response to incendiary balloon attacks for days, the most recent of which, prior to Friday’s attack, occurred in between Thursday night and Friday morning, wherein IDF fighter jets and helicopters struck Hamas air defense, underground infrastructure, and observation posts. 

The incendiary balloons caused some 27 fires to break out in the Gaza envelope on Thursday, and at least 120 had been reported throughout the week. Thursday’s incendiary balloon attacks came despite the Defense Ministry’s Thursday morning efforts to try and quell the attacks by halting the transfer of fuel into the Gaza Strip.“Hamas is accountable for all that is done in the Gaza Strip, as well as for actions launched from Gaza against Israel,” the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) said. “Therefore, Hamas will have to bear the consequences of the violence committed against the citizens of the State of Israel.”Fuel is essential for Gaza because it is used to power its electricity plant. COGAT said it had stopped the fuel transfers in light of the continued launching of incendiary balloons toward Israel.On Wednesday morning IDF fighter jets, helicopters and tanks attacked Hamas terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip following numbers of incendiary balloon attacks having taken place over the course of the proceeding days. 

After the IDF’s early morning strikes, terrorist balloon units warned that they would continue to launch the incendiary and explosive balloons, and at least 24 fires were sparked in Israeli territories by way of the landing balloons as a result.The day before, on Tuesday, the IDF  put a stop to the passage of all but essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza at the Kerem Shalom Gaza crossing, and had limited the nautical fishing miles from 15 to eight, in response to previous incendiary balloon attacks.The attempt to try and halt the balloon attacks seemingly failed, as that same day, 68 fires were sparked by incendiary and explosive balloons throughout the Gaza envelope, burning about 200 hectares of land.

Restrictions at Kerem Shalom are a measure of the level of tension between Hamas and Israel, which often precedes a serious outbreak of violence.In recent years, countless incendiary and explosive balloons have been launched by Gaza’s terrorists. They sometimes have books or toys attached to lure children. Some have sparked large wildfires, such as on Tuesday, and mainly damage crops.

Aaron Reich, Tzvi Joffre, Tovah Lazaroff, and Anna Ahronheim contributed to this report.

Pakistan Preparation for the First Nuclear War (Revelation 8 )

Satellite images show Pakistan’s military build-up at sea, says report

Pakistan continues to engage with China and conduct military exercises — and that too, not far away from India’s coastal borders.

According to a Forbes report, Pakistani Navy submarines were seen parked in the middle of Chinese Navy warships near Karachi.

Also, Pakistan is reportedly set to add eight Chinese-made Type-039B Yuan Class warships to its fleet.

Satellite imageries picked up by private intelligence consultancy named ShadowBreak Intl confirmed that Pakistan Navy’s Agosta-90B type submarine – Hashmat-class – was docked next to Chinese ships near Karachi.

The Forbes report say the Chinese naval ships were on a joint exercise with the Pakistani fleet in January, called ‘Sea Guardian-2020’. The submarine exercise was conducted in one of Karachi’s cordoned-off commercial docks, not their usual ones.

Islamabad operates five French-designed Agosta-class submarines, of which three are improved versions with the Air independent Power (AIP) technology. This class of submarines is potent and one of the more modern machines in the Pakistani arsenal. 

Besides the AIP, the subs have AS-39 Exocet anti-ship missiles and state-of-the-art combat systems. It’s also expected to be the launchpad for the country’s homegrown Babur-3 nuclear-capable cruise missile.