Real Risk, Few Precautions (Revelation 6:12)

New York,Earthquake,Nuclear,Sixth Seal,new jersey,revelation 6,nyc,andrewtheprophet,indian point,Andrew the Prophet,

By WILLIAM K. STEVENSPublished: 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.”

The Antichrist’s Sight Set On Premiership

Report: Iraq Cleric Sadr’s Sight Set On Premiership

Influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has long been politically influential in Iraq. His current bloc, Sairoun, had been set to be a leading opposition party trying to hold the rulers to reform promises. Now, they are moving away from that, and toward directly challenging the June vote.

Sadr’s supporters are now on board to run to win, and are talking something modern Iraq has yet to see, an absolute majority in the election, allowing the party to select its own PM. This is fueling speculation that Sadr himself might seek the post.

This isn’t impossible to envision, as Sadr is popular with the Shi’ite majority and probably would be well received. At the same time, he hasn’t expressed personal political aspirations before, and Iraq’ s top Shi’ite leader, Ayatollah Sistani, has long limited direct political involvement, which may be informing the separation of politics and religion.

Comments from the faction could just as easily mean they want to appoint a politician as the PM as opposed to Sadr himself. He’s long commanded the loyalty of his nationalist parties anyhow, which means directly holding the position is not necessary.

Biden WILL Reward Iran

There’s No Reason for Biden to Reward Iran

Sanctions relief didn’t bring stability in 2015. And it won’t now.

Back in September, Joe Biden described his Iran policy in an op-ed for CNN. After several paragraphs criticizing President Trump, Biden made an “unshakable commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” Then he offered Tehran “a credible path back to diplomacy.” The terms were simple. “If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal,” Biden wrote, “the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations.” Sanctions would be lifted. And Biden is sticking with his plan. Recently Tom Friedman asked him if the offer stands. “It’s going to be hard,” Biden replied, “but yeah.”

Sure, Biden admitted, the agreement did not cover Iran’s missile programs, or support for terrorism, or human-rights violations, or malign behavior in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Absolutely, it contained a sunset clause that freed Iran of its obligations, and limited inspections to non-military installations. True, Iran maintained its archive of nuclear weapons research (until Israel revealed it to the world in 2018). And yes, the regional dynamic has changed. But these are secondary issues. “The best way to achieve getting some stability in the region,” Biden said, is “with the nuclear program.”

Come again?

“Stability” is not how most people would describe the Middle East after 2015. Iran continued to launch missiles and send weapons and rockets to Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and Houthis in Yemen. Iran continued to hold captive U.S. citizens and harass and even detain U.S. naval personnel. Iran continued to harbor al-Qaeda’s number two, until he was killed earlier this year.

The economic benefits from sanctions relief went straight to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Its leader, General Qassem Soleimani, used this walking around money to sow murder and chaos before Trump ended his reign of terror last January. The nuclear deal did not bring order to a Greater Middle East where the Islamic State ruled large parts of Iraq and Syria, and where extremist ideologies inspired attacks in America, France, and the United Kingdom.

It is fantastic to think that the Iran deal stabilized anything. But the agreement has replaced the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as a kind of philosopher’s stone that, according to the liberal imagination, transmutes ethno-sectarian animosity into peace and toleration. In reality, the benefits of the nuclear deal were just as illusory as the promise of Oslo. Concessions did nothing but embolden the agents of terror.

That’s because negotiations were not conducted in good faith. One side, earnest and idealistic, was willing to pay a steep price to attain its aims. The other side wanted to pocket its gains while dissembling, diverting from, or otherwise undermining the spirit of diplomacy. This cynicism and double-talk isn’t a function of religion or ethnicity. It is a function of regime. Both the Palestinian Authority and the Islamic Republic of Iran are autocracies. Neither government respects the dignity and liberty of its own people. There is no reason to assume they would respect ours.

Recent weeks have provided remedial instruction for those unwilling or unable to acknowledge the reality of Iran’s outlaw government. On December 9, Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif gave a Persian-language interview in which he said that “America is in no position to set conditions for its return” to the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA. Then he used anti-Semitic slang to express his support for Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s “popular referendum” that would decide whether Israel should continue to exist. “We’re not talking about throwing the k—s into the sea, or about a military attack, or about suicide operations,” Zarif said. A simple up-or-down vote should do the trick.

No one in the English-speaking world would have known about Zarif’s comments were it not for the indefatigable translators at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Needless to say, when his despicable language was publicized, Zarif claimed in a tweet that, ha-ha-ha, he was just joking. “I was mocking the allegation that Iran seeks to ‘throw the Jews into the sea’ and reiterating our solution is a referendum with participation of ALL: Jews, Muslims, Christians,” he wrote. In a favorite trick of demagogues everywhere, Zarif cast himself as the victim, and said it was really his critics who were biased and beneath contempt. How could anyone accuse Minister Zarif or his government of anti-Semitism? It’s not like his supreme leader denies the Holocaust and says Israel won’t exist in 20 years. “MEMRI,” Zarif wrote, “has sunk to a new low.”

It is Zarif who’s hit bottom. Around the time the foreign minister dropped the k-bomb, Iran executed the 47-year-old Ruhollah Zam, an Iranian journalist and dissident who had been living in France until Tehran’s agents lured him under false pretenses to Iraq, where they kidnapped and arrested him. Zam’s killing was intended to demonstrate that no Iranian who speaks out against the mullahs is safe. It also sparked an international outcry from the very people whose good opinion Iran needs the most. It’s “another horrifying human rights violation by the Iranian regime,” tweeted incoming national security adviser Jake Sullivan. “We will join our partners in calling out and standing up to Iran’s abuses.”

One way to stand up to “Iran’s abuses” would be resisting the temptation to reenter the nuclear deal. Using the sanctions leverage bequeathed to him by Trump, Biden might try linking not only missiles and terrorism but also human rights to a renewal of negotiations. Iranian refusal would not be a “failure of diplomacy.” It would be confirmation that Tehran has no interest in changing its ways. The mullahs understand that the second they relax their grip, or appear weak vis-à-vis America, their government will crumble. Paying them off to abide by an agreement whose terms they set is an evasion. Stability in the Middle East won’t come when America rejoins the JCPOA. It will arrive when the Iranian people put an end to the Islamic revolution.

Matthew Continetti is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the founding editor of The Washington Free Beacon. For more from the Free Beacon, sign up free of charge for the Morning Beacon email.

Biden will need to prepare for nuclear war: Revelation 16

Jon Kyl & Tim Morrison: Biden faces big decisions on nuclear arms control — here’s what he should do

History warns what happens when arms control is hastily negotiated and bipartisan concerns are ignored

By Jon Kyl , Tim Morrison | Fox News

President-elect Joe Biden promised during his election campaign to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires in February, for another five years and then pursue a new nuclear arms reduction treaty.

Recently, others in the Democratic Party have begun to publicly advocate a shorter-term extension to afford the incoming Biden administration a chance to pursue its own nuclear arms reduction agreement more quickly.

Such a potential agreement should have to pass three conditions when submitted to the U.S. Senate: first, the treaty should cover all nuclear weapons; second, it is time to abandon the Cold War paradigm and include rising powers, like China, in arms control; and, third, the U.S. must remain committed to a robust modernization of its nuclear weapons complex and triad.

Conceding the Russian position when it negotiated a successor to the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, President Barack Obama’s administration continued the Cold War legacy of only covering certain types of Russian nuclear forces, even though it was well-understood that Russia possessed a 10-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in uncovered so-called “non-strategic” nuclear weapons.

That is among the reasons why the 2010 Senate Resolution of Ratification on the New START passed by the narrowest margin in the nearly 50-year history of strategic nuclear arms control treaties.

This is also why that resolution included a requirement that the Obama administration immediately seek to pursue a follow-on treaty that would capture these other nuclear weapons (though Russian leaders never took seriously attempts by the Obama administration to obtain such an agreement — and why would they?).

New START was a one-sided deal in Russia’s favor, as Russia was actually allowed to increase its strategic nuclear forces to reach the treaty limits, while the U.S. was obligated to reduce its nuclear forces.

Indeed, 10 years after New START was ratified, Russia’s advantage has only grown, according to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Pompeo said that “only 45 percent of Russia’s nuclear arsenal is subject to numerical limits … meanwhile, that agreement restricts 92 percent of America’s arsenal.”

This imbalance is why President Trump was correct to insist that, in exchange for an extension of New START, Russia must agree to include all of its nuclear weapons in a future arms control deal.

The second necessary condition is to include the People’s Republic of China in the treaty. Communist China has become a major nuclear power, growing its nuclear forces behind what U.S. Ambassador Marshall Billingslea, the special presidential envoy for arms control, calls the “Great Wall of Secrecy.”

According to U.S. intelligence officials, China is on a path to field a triad (like that of the U.S. and Russia), at least double the size of its nuclear weapons stockpile, and it is conducting more ballistic missile tests than the rest of the world combined. Obviously, it does little good (and puts the U.S. at a disadvantage) if only two of the three major powers are limited by the treaty.

A final matter concerns what happens if there is cheating — an important issue given Russia’s penchant for doing just that. The U.S. will undoubtedly require verification of compliance with treaty terms. But that’s just the first step.

How will we follow up on verified cheating? The fact is, there are few options for enforcing treaty obligations against sovereign nations bent upon cheating. Ultimately, the best way is to deter cheating in the first place.

The best way to do that is to convince Russia and China that there is no profit in cheating. The U.S. must be able to control its own destiny by maintaining and modernizing our nuclear deterrent. If Russian or Chinese cheating requires changes to the U.S. nuclear force, we must have the capability to make those changes quickly.

When New START was ratified, there was a significant effort by supporters and skeptics alike to ensure as a condition to ratification that the U.S. would be committed to a robust weapons modernization program that included an agreement for specific funding for specific capabilities. President Obama agreed to that, and President Trump’s budgets have largely supported that program, though many of the key capabilities are woefully behind schedule.

The modernization of the nuclear triad of delivery systems is largely on track, though there is no margin for any delay in their development and deployment. A complication to any future arms control plans is the effort by some, in the face of Russian and Chinese arms racing, to radically reverse the longstanding bipartisan defense strategy that has relied upon a robust U.S. nuclear triad to deter attacks on the American people and our allies.

History warns what happens when arms control is hastily negotiated and bipartisan concerns are ignored. For example, in a grave miscalculation, President Bill Clinton’s administration sought Senate ratification of a flawed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999 and was soundly defeated. Recent revelations of Russian and Chinese low-yield testing prove why the Senate was right to reject this treaty 21 years ago and would be right to do so again.

Arms control is serious business and is difficult to encapsulate in campaign promises. Whether after a five-year extension of New START or in the event the incoming Biden administration attempts to negotiate its own deal, any future agreement must cover all nuclear weapons; it must include all three of the major military powers; and the new administration and Congress must continue to support the modernization program committed to in 2010.

Tim Morrison was a deputy assistant to the president for national security for President Trump and is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Iran’s Khamenei reappears in public, hits out at Babylon the Great

Iran’s Khamenei reappears in public, hits out at US


MENAFN – Gulf Times) Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei yesterday used his first public appearance in weeks to suggest the United States would remain hostile towards the Islamic Republic even after President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

Speaking at his first public function since rumours surfaced in early December that his health was deteriorating, Khamenei said Washington could not be trusted — a remark indicating a wary attitude towards President Donald Trump’s successor.

In a meeting with organisers of events to mark the first anniversary of the killing of military commander General Qassem Soleimani in a US attack in Iraq, Khamenei said American antagonism would not disappear with the end of the Trump administration.

‘My firm recommendation is not to trust the enemy, Khamenei said in remarks carried by state TV.

‘The hostility (against Iran) is not just from Trump’s America, which supposedly some could say would end when he leaves, as (President Barack) Obama’s America also did bad things to the Iranian nation.

Biden was Obama’s vice president.

Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers in 2018 and imposed new sanctions.

Biden’s coming to power has raised the possibility that Washington could rejoin the agreement.Some hardline Iranian officials and lawmakers close to Khamenei have questioned President Hassan Rouhani’s stand that a revival of the deal may lead to a lifting of sanctions.

But Khamenei said he was not opposed to government efforts towards that end. ‘If the sanctions can be lifted, we should not delay even one hour…If the sanctions can be lifted in the right, wise…and dignified way, this must be done, he said, addressing government officials.

Earlier, Rouhani said he was happy Trump was leaving office, calling him ‘the most lawless US president for hampering Iran’s access to Covid-19 vaccines.

‘We are not overjoyed about Mr Biden’s arrival, but we are happy about Trump leaving, Rouhani said in a televised speech to the cabinet.

In Washington, the United States yesterday announced sanctions on companies based in China and the United Arab Emirates, accusing them of supporting the sale of Iranian petrochemicals. Iran says US sanctions are making it difficult for Iran to purchase medicine from abroad, including Covid-19 vaccines needed to contain the worst outbreak in the Middle East. The Trump administration’s sanctions have targeted Iran’s banking sector and its vital oil industry. While Washington says medicines and humanitarian goods are exempt from sanctions, the sanctions have deterred some foreign banks from processing Iran’s financial transactions.

As agreed under the nuclear deal, a United Nations weapons embargo on Iran expired in October, although the United States has said it would blacklist anyone assisting Iran’s arms programme.