The History Of New York Earthquakes: Before The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)

Historic Earthquakes

Near New York City, New York

1884 08 10 19:07 UTC

Magnitude 5.5

Intensity VII

USGS.gov

This severe earthquake affected an area roughly extending along the Atlantic Coast from southern Maine to central Virginia and westward to Cleveland, Ohio. Chimneys were knocked down and walls were cracked in several States, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Many towns from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Chester,Pennsylvania.

Property damage was severe at Amityville and Jamaica, New York, where several chimneys were “overturned” and large cracks formed in walls. Two chimneys were thrown down and bricks were shaken from other chimneys at Stratford (Fairfield County), Conn.; water in the Housatonic River was agitated violently. At Bloomfield, N.J., and Chester, Pa., several chimneys were downed and crockery was broken. Chimneys also were damaged at Mount Vernon, N.Y., and Allentown, Easton, and Philadelphia, Pa. Three shocks occurred, the second of which was most violent. This earthquake also was reported felt in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Several slight aftershocks were reported on August 11.

Teilen mit:

TwitterFacebook

Two More Winds of God’s Wrath (Jeremiah 23)

Tropical Storm Paulette Becomes Earliest P-Storm on Record

By Meteorologist Justin Gehrts Nationwide PUBLISHED 2:00 PM ET Sep. 07, 2020 PUBLISHED 2:00 PM EDT Sep. 07, 2020

The average peak of the Atlantic hurricane season is this week, and right on cue, two more tropical systems have developed.

Tropical Storm Paulette

Tropical Depression Seventeen developed in the open Atlantic late Sunday, about halfway between the Lesser Antilles and Cabo Verde Islands. It became a tropical storm Monday morning and is moving slowly toward the northwest.

That track and pace will continue this week. By the weekend, it’ll still be in open water northeast of the Lesser Antilles, likely as a tropical storm.

Tropical Depression Eighte❤️

Farther east, Tropical Depression Eighteen is located near the Cabo Verde Islands. It’s heading west and will bring tropical storm conditions to those islands later today into tonight as it strengthens.

It’ll continue moving to the west across open ocean after tomorrow, gradually turning toward the northwest late this week.

Picking Up Again

The average peak of the Atlantic hurricane season is around September 10. This time of year, tropical systems can develop just about anywhere, although it’s common for them to form where these two are. September also has a history of memorable hurricanes.

Before Monday, the earliest P-storm on record was Philippe, which was named on September 17, 2005. The earliest R-storm is Rita on September 18, 2005. This year continues to outpace the record-setting 2005 season.

Israel Sabotaged Iran’s Nuclear Plant

Natanz Blast: Iran Identifies ‘Forces Responsible for Sabotage’ at Largest Nuclear Site

Sputnik News1 day ago

Iranian officials previously said that a fire and explosion on 2 July at the country’s largest uranium enrichment facility was the result of sabotage and vowed to respond if it finds evidence that foreign forces were involved in it.

Tehran has identified those behind the blast and fire at the Natanz nuclear facility, said spokesperson for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation Behrouz Kamalvandi. The official did not reveal whether the explosion was organised within the country or from abroad.

“The security agencies are thoroughly investigating what happened in Natanz, which was sabotage. A far as we know, they have managed to identify the forces [responsible for the sabotage], identify the causes, details, and methods”, Behrouz Kamalvandi told the channel IRIB TV1.

Kamalvandi refused to give more details saying the issue is still under investigation.

Days after the explosion, the Iranian media indirectly blamed the United States and Israel, saying Washington could have greenlighted Israel’s involvement in the blast.

The explosion at the Natanz nuclear facility, the largest in Iran, occurred on 2 July. It did not result in radioactive leaks or significant damage, with Iranian officials saying that the nuclear reactor operates as usual. The incident occurred five days after an explosion occurred at the Parchin military complex. At the time, Iranian officials said the blast occurred due to a gas leak.

Resisting China’s Expansionist Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Resisting China’s Expansionist Designs

Ganesh PuthurSeptember 7, 2020

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”.- Sun Tzu, the Art of war

Twenty Indian soldiers had lost their lives in a violent military confrontation with the troops of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China in the Eastern Ladakh region. Even though PLA faced at least twice the number of causalities as compared to their Indian counterparts, the territorial integrity of India came under question. This skirmish between both the forces threw open the Pandora’s Box of China’s expansionist tendencies. China has been trying a new version of colonisation by capturing smaller nations with their ‘debt-trap’ diplomacy. Being a responsible stakeholder in the Indo-Pacific region, it is high time for India to act against the Chinese aggression and use its diplomatic cum financial clout to resist the economic magnification of China using all available means.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S had been enjoying a unipolar status in the global geopolitics. Since the beginning of 21st century China had been trying to become a viable alternative to the U.S. Due to the availability of cheap labour and ruthless control over its citizens, China emerged as an international manufacturing hub. With its expanding economy the red nation started a strange desire to occupy areas from its neighbourhood. China’s land greed can be better understood by the fact that the nation has boundary disputes with 18 nations while they share land boundaries with just 14 countries. Their territorial ambitions can be traced back to the very beginning of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Within a year of its formation Tibet was annexed to China through a military operation and eastern Turkestan (present-day Xinjiang) was forced to join PRC. China started constructing a highway connecting both Xinjiang and Tibet passing through Aksai- Chin territory in the Indian side. Pandit Nehru’s government took years to diagnose the Chinese intrusion and it was too late when India responded militarily. Following the Indian defeat in the 1962 war, China occupied 38,000 sq.km of land in the Aksai-Chin region. Intelligence outputs also suggest that the Chinese forces had occupied more land in the region through multiple intrusions in the past six decades.

India holds a major place in the Chinese economic ecosystem. China’s exports to India range from crackers to pharmaceutical raw materials. India has a trade deficit of $48.6 billion with China. Chinese phone manufacturers have a 71% share in the Indian smartphone market. Cheap cost, high-end technology and easy availability are the few reasons for customers’ preference for Chinese products. Following the military conflict, there were clarion calls for boycotting Chinese products. Even though a blanket ban on Chinese goods cannot be imposed due to international trading laws, step by step initiatives can slowly take us to that goal

In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping promoted the term ‘China dream’ which emphasised on national rejuvenation. This motto has been closely knit with their ongoing ‘Belt-Road Initiative’ (BRI) project of connecting over 70 counties through rail, road and air, and also improving their healthcare, infrastructure and communication sectors. A controversial periphery of BRI is China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in which China will invest over $46 billion. The proposed road passes through Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and is thoroughly opposed by India. The corridor ends at Gwadar port which is of high strategic importance in the Chinese doctrine of ‘String of Pearls’. This doctrine aims at encircling India in the Indian Ocean Region by building ports or earning access to ports of other nations sharing maritime borders with India. China operating Hambanthota port in South Sri Lanka through their debt-trapping method shows how strategically advanced the Chinese are.

Contrary to the popular perception, China should be seen as the principal opponent of India and not Pakistan. Pakistan, with its non-state actors, had been trying to destabilise India on the behest of China. The nexus between Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and China is well known in the international arena. On multiple occasions, China blocked India’s attempt to list Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azar as a global terrorist by the UN. Following the United States- Taliban peace treaty Afghanistan is staring at a massive political uncertainty. With the withdrawal of U.S troops Taliban could come back to power. The strategic location of Afghanistan is important for India as a passage to central Asia. Hence, China can block India’s access to Afghan using Pakistan which is an ally of the Taliban. India had to cut short its oil imports from Iran following the sanctions imposed by the U.S. The Chabahar port in Iran is of immense importance to India. Recently, there was news of a possible ousting of India from the Chabahar port project, if that happens it could be a big blow to our strategic efforts.  China has a significant role to play in turning Nepal against India. Nepal had released a new map showing Indian territories of Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura as theirs. In Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar, China is developing submarine berthing and operating facility. China had also given loans worth millions of dollars to India’s friendly nations including Maldives, Myanmar and Iran. China with its surplus revenue is trying to create vassal states across the BRI route.

China’s much aggressive ‘wolf-warrior diplomacy’ can be better understood only by keeping their history in mind. After annexing territories they ran a ‘cultural revolution’ which was barbaric in nature. Critics of Mao were publically executed or sent to Laogai prison camps by branding them as counter-revolutionaries. Citizens were indoctrinated with party lessons and are still monitored through a strict surveillance system. People residing in China sees what their government wants them to see. Internet is censored with ‘the great firewall’. Facebook, Twitter and Google are all banned in China. In their Xinjiang province, Uighur Muslims are oppressed and they fall prey to the government’s ‘organ harvesting’. Dissidents of Chinese Communist Party, even while being in exile are physically targeted through operation ‘Fox Hunt’. Chinese government has recently passed several laws to curb freedom of people in Hong Kong which is China’s special administrative unit. Taiwan is also under the radar of Xi. Here India has to deal with a party or government which have created a utopia for its 1.4 billion people; hence strategy to checkmate China needs to be multifaceted.

India has to flex its muscle while dealing with China. China’s $14 Trillion economy makes it a major force to reckon with. China also controls much of the world’s supply chain; hence any disruption to it can create tremors in the global economy. Relocating the supply chain to trusted countries or democracies can reduce the transnational dependence on China for finished products. The recently formed informal alliance called the QUAD comprising of United States-Japan-Australia-India has put the onus on China in the Indo-Pacific region. With the QUAD extending its influence over smaller countries in the South China Sea with whom China has border disputes, the anti-China block can stand as a barrier against the Chinese aggression. China’s global dominance in 5G technology needs to be challenged and met with alternative options. For that cooperation among free democracies is essential.

 Recently, a small town in Gujarat ‘Morbi’ was in news for emerging as a toy manufacturing hub in response to the Prime Minister’s call for “Atmanirbhar Bharat’ (Self sufficient India). Similarly, manufacturing hubs for various products needs to be established in various parts of India, hence reducing and later eliminating our reliance on China. Millions of new employment opportunities can be generated in the manufacturing sector in India and thereby solving our unemployment crisis. Over a hundred companies have decided to shift their manufacturing bases outside China. Since India had been improving its position in the Ease of Doing Business index, many of them would be investing in India. Taiwanese electronics manufacturer Foxconn has announced investment of $1 billion to expand their iphone assembling unit in Chennai. Government of India’s infrastructural development and simplification of business approval process have helped India to emerge as a viable alternative manufacturing hub to China.

Following the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan and PLA’s muscle flexing, many nations have come forward to resist China’s belligerence. China is the second largest economy after U.S and has a strong military. Experts may differ on the accuracy of their war machines. But in the era of globalisation and mutual cooperation, any physical conflict needs to be avoided. Economics is a sharp weapon that nations including India can use to inflict heavy loss on China. Even though India of today has multiplied many folds from its position in 1962, but still we are a developing economy with a GDP of $3 Trillion. China’s expansionist mindset is not going to fade away. They have always claimed that even Arunachal Pradesh (Indian state) is a part of Tibet, which is a part of China. India should prevent the flow of capital through trade to China. By forming a strategic cum economic alliance as an anti-China block, India has high chance of improving its own economy and to safeguard its boundaries in case of any eventuality.

The Author is currently pursuing Post Graduate degree in History from the Department of History, University of Hyderabad

The Growing Risk of Nuclear War (Revelation 16)

Risk of nuclear war and N. Korea | The Korea Times

With the continuing nuclear and missile development by China and North Korea, amid a prolonged stalemate on nuclear talks with the North, the existential risk of a nuclear conflict ― either between China and the U.S. or between North Korea and the U.S. ― is lingering, if not rising, in Northeast Asia.

For a quarter of a century, the United States has tried and failed different forms and approaches to denuclearizing North Korea. It failed with the 1994 Agreed Framework, the 2004 joint statement of the 6-party talks, the 2012 Leap Day agreement, and the 2018 Singapore summit agreement.

Did neither the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Pyongyang joined in 1986 and withdrew from it in 2003, nor well-intended arms reduction treaties help prevent North Korea’s breakout as a de facto nuclear state?

The NPT has three goals: non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the NPT, non-nuclear-weapon states pledge not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons, and the five recognized nuclear states ― the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France ― agree not to transfer nuclear weapons to or assist non-nuclear states in developing a nuclear weapon.

The treaty also encourages good faith negotiations for total nuclear disarmament. However, no such negotiations have ever been held. Interestingly, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for making a political statement in Prague in 2009 that he would work to build a world free of nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, the termination of arms control treaties can have a negative impact. Yet, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002, and from the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty in February 2019, which banned all land-based mid and short-range missiles of 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers in range, and their missile launchers.

The New START that limits deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 will probably be terminated by expiration next February. Both parties ― the U.S. and Russia ― appear to have little interest in renegotiating an extension of the treaty. Without a new arms control mechanism in place, it appears that China, Russia, North Korea and the U.S. will be heading for an accelerated nuclear arms race.

The Trump administration has revealed some alarming signals in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Under the NPR, the U.S., while reserving the option of first-use of nuclear weapons, will modernize and enhance its nuclear capabilities. It will develop a low-yield nuclear warhead as a deterrent to a limited nuclear conflict. It also will sustain and replace the TRIAD ― a three-leg delivery system of land-based ICBMs, heavy bombers, and submarine launchers ― with new advanced systems.

The U.S. believes that its nuclear arsenal serves as a deterrence to nuclear and other types of war. It also believes its extended nuclear deterrence to its allies and partners has a non-proliferation effect, since their reliance on U.S. commitment should preempt the development of their own nuclear weapons.

While the U.S. says it will support non-proliferation and arms reduction efforts, it will not ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which is not yet in force due to the rejection by some states including the U.S., China, and North Korea. However, the U.S. will keep a moratorium on testing and asks others to do the same.

Currently, North Korea is believed to possess 20 to 60 warheads and demonstrated delivery systems for short to long ranges. China’s arsenal ranges from 200 to 300 nuclear weapons according to varying assessments. China has announced a no-first-use policy, with its credibility in question.

Nevertheless, if the U.S. also declares a no-first-use policy, it will contribute to stabilizing the turbulent security environment in the region. Will this undermine the deterrent effect of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

A denuclearized Korean Peninsula can serve as a buffer between the U.S. and China, minimizing the chance for an apocalyptic nuclear clash in Northeast Asia, if it is incorporated in the framework of a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) that will include the two Koreas and Japan.

A key to a successful NWFZ is a protocol that legally assures the security of the Zone by the recognized nuclear weapons states against external nuclear threats. In the 1980’s, the North proposed establishment of an NWFZ on and around the peninsula.

A new denuclearization approach can borrow a positive input from the concept of an NWFZ, in addition to pursuing a familiar approach to three tasks: normalization; a peace regime; and a phased, reciprocal process to complete denuclearization with the conditions of lifting sanctions, with snap-back measures. It is time to try something different.

Tong Kim (tong.kim8@yahoo.com) is a visiting professor with the University of North Korean Studies, a visiting scholar with Korea University, a fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies, and a columnist for The Korea Times.

The Iranian Horn is Nuclear Ready (Daniel 8:4)

IAEA: Iran’s Uranium Stockpile 10 Times Over Limit Set in 2015 Nuke Deal

VIENNA—Iran continues to increase its stockpile of enriched uranium in violation of limitations set in a landmark deal with world powers, the U.N.’s atomic watchdog agency said Friday after the country allowed the regulator access to sites where it was suspected of having stored or used undeclared nuclear material and possibly conducted nuclear-related activities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in a confidential document distributed to member countries and seen by The Associated Press that Iran as of Aug. 25 had stockpiled 2,105.4 kilograms (2.32 tons) of low-enriched uranium—up from 1,571.6 kilograms (1.73 tons) last reported on May 20.

Babylon the Great’s New ‘Nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile’

The U.S. Military Will Soon Have a New ‘Nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile’ | The National Interest

“We are going to be unveiling the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile, which is our response to Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons,” Dr. Robert Soofer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, told The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, according to a Pentagon transcript. 

The Pentagon will be unveiling a new tactical nuclear weapon as part of a broad effort to further deter Russia and China while also implementing the aims of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, which called for the addition of several low-yield nuclear weapons to the U.S. arsenal. 

“We are going to be unveiling the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile, which is our response to Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons,” Dr. Robert Soofer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, told The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, according to a Pentagon transcript. 

The emerging sea-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missile will complement the already delivered W76-2 tactical nuclear weapon. The Pentagon has configured a lower-yield warhead and reentry body to operate as part of an adapted Trident II D5 variant. 

A cruise missile, able to fly at lower altitudes parallel to the ocean or terrain can in some cases better elude enemy air defenses, radar systems, or interceptor missiles and offer additional options to warfare commanders seeking to match and therefore deter potential Russian activity. 

While taking time to carefully and thoughtfully entertain elements of the longstanding debate about the rationale for engineering and deploying new tactical nuclear weapons, Soofer articulated several concepts now defining the Pentagon’s current position. 

He was careful and deliberate about entertaining the argument that adding these weapons could lower the threshold to nuclear engagement and complicate the importance of an all-out response deterrence strategy. 

Saying “reasonable people can disagree,” Soofer embraced the concern from those who argue that U.S. deterrence policy should include an unambiguous assurance that “any” use of nuclear weapons will result in the complete destruction of the attacker.  

In response, Soofer delineated some of the tenets of the current DoD posture regarding deterrence theory, explaining that additional “flexibility” was needed to effectively counter an aggressive Russian nuclear weapons policy. Russia’s rapid addition of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, as part of an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy, required a specific response, Soofer explained. 

“We had to do something to counter Russia’s perceived perception that they could use these weapons to coerce us in a — in a regional conflict, and this led to the recommendation for the 76-2 and to the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile.The requirements for such a nuclear strategy place a premium on the survivability, flexibility and readiness of U.S. and allied nuclear capabilities. It requires a range of delivery systems and nuclear yields,” Soofer said. 

Given the existence of a wider sphere of enemy weapons, the U.S. needed to adjust to more “diverse circumstances,” he added. 

“We don’t need to match them weapon for weapon, but we do need to be able to — to give the president and our regional combatant commanders another option to address these Russian capabilities,” Soofer said. 

Kris Osborn is Defense Editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Hamas leader threatens Tel Aviv (Revelation 11)

Hamas leader says group has missiles that can hit Tel Aviv

Associated Press

BEIRUT — The leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas on Sunday warned Israel that his organization has missiles capable of striking the city of Tel Aviv, Israel’s commercial and cultural center, and areas beyond it.

Ismail Haniyeh’s comments during a visit to Lebanon followed an escalation in recent weeks in which Hamas-affiliated groups fired rockets into Israel and Israeli warplanes struck areas in the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas.

Hamas announced last week that international mediators had brokered a new set of “understandings” with Israel, halting the latest round of fighting for the time being in exchange for an easing of Israeli restrictions on the Gaza Strip.

Haniyeh gave a speech in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ein el-Hilweh near the southern port city of Sidon, where he received a hero’s welcome by armed men who carried him on their shoulders.

Haniyeh and a Hamas delegation met earlier with the leader of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, during which they discussed the situation in the Middle East and the recent normalization of relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel, a Hezbollah statement said.

Our missiles had a range of several kilometers (miles) from the border with Gaza,” Haniyeh said. “Today the resistance in Gaza has missiles that can hit Tel Aviv and beyond Tel Aviv.”

Hamas rockets have reached Tel Aviv and beyond in previous rounds of fighting, but such launches are rare and considered a serious escalation by Israel. The seaside metropolis is located some 70 kilometers (45 miles) north of Gaza.

Israel and Hamas have fought three wars and several smaller battles over the last 13 years. Neither side is believed to be seeking war, but any casualties could ignite a wider conflict.

In recent weeks, groups affiliated with Hamas launched incendiary balloons into Israel, igniting farmland in a bid to pressure Israel to ease the blockade it imposed on Gaza when Hamas seized power in 2007. The group had also fired rockets into Israel in recent weeks, which was seen as a significant escalation.

Haniyeh was criticized during his visit by some in Lebanon on social media. One post sarcastically asked whether it would be better for him to threaten Israel from the West Bank, which is ruled by the Palestinian Authority and with whom Hamas has a longstanding feud. Another post said Lebanon has enough problems at the moment, and doesn’t need Hamas on top of that.

Lebanon is grappling with its worst economic and financial crisis in decades, and the capital Beirut was devastated one month ago by a massive explosion, the result of nearly 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrates igniting at the port. The blast killed more than 190 and injured thousands.