The Sixth Seal: More Than Just Manhattan (Revelation 6:12)

New York, NY – In a Quake, Brooklyn Would Shake More Than Manhattan
By Brooklyn Eagle
New York, NY – The last big earthquake in the New York City area, centered in New York Harbor just south of Rockaway, took place in 1884 and registered 5.2 on the Richter Scale.Another earthquake of this size can be expected and could be quite damaging, says Dr. Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.
And Brooklyn, resting on sediment, would shake more than Manhattan, built on solid rock. “There would be more shaking and more damage,” Dr. Kim told the Brooklyn Eagle on Wednesday.
If an earthquake of a similar magnitude were to happen today near Brooklyn, “Many chimneys would topple. Poorly maintained buildings would fall down – some buildings are falling down now even without any shaking. People would not be hit by collapsing buildings, but they would be hit by falling debris. We need to get some of these buildings fixed,” he said.
But a 5.2 is “not comparable to Haiti,” he said. “That was huge.” Haiti’s devastating earthquake measured 7.0.
Brooklyn has a different environment than Haiti, and that makes all the difference, he said. Haiti is situated near tectonic plate.
“The Caribbean plate is moving to the east, while the North American plate is moving towards the west. They move about 20 mm – slightly less than an inch – every year.” The plates are sliding past each other, and the movement is not smooth, leading to jolts, he said.
While we don’t have the opportunity for a large jolt in Brooklyn, we do have small, frequent quakes of a magnitude of 2 or 3 on the Richter Scale. In 2001 alone the city experienced two quakes: one in January, measuring 2.4, and one in October, measuring 2.6. The October quake, occurring soon after Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, “caused a lot of panic,” Dr. Kim said.
“People ask me, ‘Should I get earthquake insurance?’ I tell them no, earthquake insurance is expensive. Instead, use that money to fix chimneys and other things. Rather than panicky preparations, use common sense to make things better.”
Secure bookcases to the wall and make sure hanging furniture does not fall down, Dr. Kim said. “If you have antique porcelains or dishes, make sure they’re safely stored. In California, everything is anchored to the ground.”
While a small earthquake in Brooklyn may cause panic, “In California, a quake of magnitude 2 is called a micro-quake,” he added.

Stoltenberg warns of growing missile threat coming from the Russian Nuclear Horn

Stoltenberg warns of growing missile threat coming from Russia

NATO needs more agreements on arms control, given an increasing missile threat from Russia, the Alliance’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, says.

Speaking at a press conference following the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of foreign ministers on March 24, Stoltenberg said the Allies “agree we should continue to review and adapt our deterrence and defense, including when it comes to the growing Russian missile threat,” according to an UNIAN correspondent.

“Our dual-track approach combines strong deterrence and defence, with openness to dialogue. All Allies remain firmly committed to nuclear arms control,” said the secretary general.

 At the same time, he added the Allies “welcome” the recent decision to extend the New START Treaty.

“This must be the beginning of an effort to further strengthen international nuclear arms control,” believes Jens Stoltenberg.

“We see that Russia continues to deploy new and destabilizing nuclear weapons. We need agreements that cover more weapons and more nations like China. So the arms control regime must take account of new realities,” the top official noted.

Stoltenberg added that NATO has “a strong and long-standing commitment to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation.”

START Treaty

New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation with the formal name of Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. It was signed on April 8, 2010, in Prague, and, after ratification, entered into force on February 5, 2011. It is expected to last until February 5, 2026, having been extended in 2021, as per Wikipedia.

The treaty calls for halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism. It does not limit the number of operationally inactive nuclear warheads that can be stockpiled, a number in the high thousands.

The North Korean Nuclear Horn Tests Babylon the Great

North Korea launched two ballistic missiles, U.S., Japanese officials say

News of the launch comes after it was reported that the country fired at least one missile over the weekend, an action the U.S. downplayed.

By Mosheh Gains, Abigail Williams, Olivier Fabre and Dartunorro Clark

March 24, 2021, 9:57 PM EDT / Updated March 25, 2021, 9:21 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — North Korea launched two ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan on Thursday, a U.S. official and Japan’s prime minister said.

South Korea also confirmed the launch.

A U.S. official told NBC News on Wednesday evening Washington time that they were most likely short-range ballistic missiles. Japan’s prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, told reporters that the projectiles were ballistic missiles and that the action marked the first such provocation in a year.

The test “threatens the peace and security of the region and our nation. It is also against the U.N. resolution,” he said. “We strictly and strongly protest this launch.”

He added: “The government’s understanding is that the missile landed outside our exclusive economic zone — this has been confirmed — however, we will still need to remain vigilant. We have convened the National Security Council to assess the situation and are working with the United States and South Korea to protect the lives and the peaceful livelihoods of our citizens.”

In a statement, a spokesman for U.S. Indo-Pacific Command confirmed that the U.S. was “aware of North Korean missile launches this morning into the East Sea.”

“We will continue to monitor the situation and are consulting closely with our allies and partners. This activity highlights the threat that North Korea’s illicit weapons program poses to its neighbors and the international community. The U.S. commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remains ironclad,” said the spokesman, Navy Capt. Mike Kafka.

In a statement via text message, the office of the South Korean joint chiefs of staff said two short-range ballistic missiles were launched from the South Hamgyong Province area into the East Sea early Thursday morning.

According to the office, the projectile flew about 280 miles at the altitude of about 37 miles.

“Currently, SK military is closely monitoring related activities in preparation of possible additional launches,” the office added.

“South Korean military has strengthened surveillance and security measures and is preparing total military preparedness while maintaining close cooperation with the U.S.,” the joint chiefs’ office added. It said South Korea and the U.S. intelligence agencies were working on “detailed analysis for additional information.”

News of the launch came a day after it was reported that the country had fired at least one missile over the weekend. U.S. officials downplayed the action, which an official described as being from North Korea’s “familiar menu of provocations.”

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s sister Kim Yo Jong issued a warning shot to the Biden administration in a statement last week, telling the new president not to proceed with planned joint military exercises with South Korea.

“If it wants to sleep in peace for [the] coming four years, it had better refrain from causing a stink at its first step,” she said of the U.S., according to The Associated Press.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin were in South Korea last week as part of their regional tour to boost America’s Asian alliances. Blinken blasted Pyongyang’s history of human rights abuses. He also called North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs “a threat to the region and to the world.”

Senior administration officials confirmed Tuesday that President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, will meet with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts at the end of next week.

Officials described the Biden administration’s review of its North Korea policy as being in its “final stages.”

Mosheh Gains and Abigail Williams reported from Washington, Olivier Fabre from Tokyo and Dartunorro Clark from New York.

Mosheh Gains

Mosheh Gains is a Pentagon producer for NBC News.

Abigail Williams

Abigail Williams is a producer and reporter for NBC News covering the State Department.

Olivier Fabre

Dartunorro Clark

Dartunorro Clark is a political reporter for NBC News.

Landmarks of the First Nuclear War: Revelation 8

Landmarks of South Asian nuclearisation

March 24, 2021

The regional and  global  environment prevailing in the 1960s compelled India to be ready for nuclearisation. In addition, China’s first atomic test had indeed unleashed a national uproar which was  to kick-start India’s first serious debate in favour of building nuclear  weapons. The  69th annual session of the Indian National Congress which  followed the Chinese test in January 1965,  witnessed a heated debate on the  issue.  Again, during September 1965, over 100 Members of Parliament from various political parties submitted to the government a joint memorandum demanding a prompt and immediate decision to develop nuclear weapons.

The annual session of the  Indian Science Congress in 1966  passed a resolution making the same demand.  At last Homi Bhabha, the founder architect of India’s nuclear establishment, had  to reassure the nation, that, given the political green signal, India’s scientific community could explode a nuclear bomb  in 18 months. And  it is in this context that the then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri was to sanction the proposal put forward by Bhabha on investigating a Subterranean Nuclear Explosion Project. This can be seen as the earliest signal of a pro-bomb tilt in India’s nuclear policy. By the end  of 1966, there was unanimous support for a nuclear weapons programme. Further developments were  the discriminatory aspects of  the Non- Proliferation Treaty of 1968  which India rejected, New Delhi had   decided to sustain its independence on  international security by allowing her development of the peaceful nuclear explosion technology.

The minor shift in policy and  emphasis that we see in India’s nuclear policy is mostly due  to change in regional and global perspectives. The new regional atmosphere on the subject was indicated when India’s Ambassador to the UNO said on 14 May 1968, ‘‘It is a matter of concern to India that across its borders a major power, the People’s Republic of China, continues to conduct nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere in flagrant violation of the will of the quite the international community and  in total disregard of the grave dangers posed  by such  testings.” At the same time it was  also considered in some  quarters that it was in India’s interest to balance Chinese nuclear capabilities by developing an  ‘Asian Balance of Power’ and by acquiring similar nuclear capabilities.

On the other hand, at the close  of the 1960s the international milieu on the nuclear issue was also deteriorating and  discriminatory treaties were  signed one after another. In 1967, in a strategic move, the USA and USSR presented to the  Eighteen Nations Committee on Disarmament at Geneva on 20th August 1967, two separate but identical drafts of a  treaty banning the  spread of nuclear weapons. These were subsequently revised in January 1968  and in March 1968, making some amendments. Later, the UN  General Assembly adopted and  commended the  treaty, but in India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of the country, criticised several articles of the treaty under which  it was improper that each nuclear weapon state party to the treaty undertook not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear  explosive devices or control  over such weapons or explosive device  directly or indirectly, and  not in any way to assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices, or control over such  weapons of explosive devices. India refused to sign  it on these very grounds, though it reiterated its  pledge not  to produce nuclear weapons.

It happened for the first time in the history of international relations that the very  existence of a weapons system devised to enhance the security of great powers had become sufficiently threatening to those powers to provide them with a persistent and strong incentive to settle their differences, rather than to risk getting into  situations where they  might be forced to use the means of warfare they themselves had devised. This was, then, a new  kind of international order, imposed not by design or by principle, but  by fear.

India since  independence had  entirely contributed to the Disarmament  Conference aimed to make the world nuclear-weapon free, but on the other continued to review the emphasis on self-reliance. Earlier the research and  development work which  the Atomic Energy Commission was carrying on, had been in pursuance of the national objective of harnessing atomic energy for peaceful purposes only.

To the contrary, the prevailing situation necessitated the development of Indian nuclear devices and the progress made so far had been  informed to the Lok Sabha by  Mrs Indira Gandhi on  15h November 1972. “The Atomic Energy Commission is studying conditions under which peaceful nuclear explosions carried out underground could  be of economic  benefit to India without environmental hazards.’’ Exactly after one  year, on 15 November 1973,  she informed the members of the  Rajya Sabha of the  continuing interest of the Atomic  Energy Commission in this field and also stated that after satisfactory answers to the problems of the possible effects on environmental and  ecological  conditions became available, the question of actual underground test for peaceful purposes could  be considered.

On 18 May 1974, at 8.05 am, India had detonated its first atomic device  at Pokhran  in Rajasthan.The Nehru- Bhabha combination provided India’s nuclear programme a chain of nuclear research and development facilities, some of them matching the most advanced in the West. Now India had acquired capability in the nuclear sphere which also meant scientific, technological and industrial acquisitions right from the stage of uranium mining to developing fuels for various reactor types-designing, building and operating reactors, and atomic power  stations. The nuclear device tested at Pokhran was the cheapest nuclear device built and tested by any  nation in the world.

Taking into account its nuclear capability, India’s standing was distinct in two respects. First, the  country ranked among top five  nations in technology attainments along the entire nuclear fuel cycle – ahead of China except in the  limited domain of weaponising – India had been  pushed into the wilderness of nuclear have-nots. Secondly, barring the  leading industrial nations, no  country has assimilated and developed plutonium-based technology, both for India’s second  generation atomic  power programme and  weapon- grade plutonium capability, as India had done. However, the whole issue of explosion was clarified by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. She said that India did not intend to make nuclear weapons of destruction. But nuclear technology and  nuclear explosions, whether for peaceful or destructive purposes, cost the same.The main threat comes  from China which has not been a friendly neighbour and has opted for development of nuclear weapons of destruction.The problem of nuclear deterrence by  India is mainly a problem of developing a weapon system which will be adequate to deter the Chinese weapons system. In this situation India should not close her option of making nuclear weapons for defensive purposes.

‘Nuclear deterrence’ as a theory means the threatened use of nuclear weapons, to keep someone else from actually doing what they may  be contemplating doing. The possibility of an adversary possessing such weapons influences the perception of a nuclear weapon threat by a country. The  estimation of the probability of war with the country concerned and of the probability of that country using or threatening to use  nuclear weapons in such  a war, play important roles in the development of threat perception.

It happened for the first time in the history of international relations that the very existence of a weapons system devised to enhance the security of great powers had become sufficiently threatening to those powers to provide them with a persistent and strong incentive to settle their differences, rather than to risk getting into  situations where they  might be forced to use the means of warfare they themselves had devised. This  was,  then, a new  kind of international order, imposed not by design or by principle, but  by fear.

Are India and Pakistan are not really heading towards peace: Revelation 8

Are India and Pakistan really heading towards peace?

A ceasefire at the border, a sporting visit or two, pleasantries between prime ministers Narendra Modi and Imran Khan. It’s all looking up, isn’t it? Not quite, say experts. What looks like positive discussions on the Indus Water Treaty and progress in Kashmir may hide deeper disagreements

After years of tension, violence and even aerial bombings that have brought the two countries to the brink of war, a series of moves have rekindled a hope for peace between the two nuclear-armed nations.

Last month, the two countries made a surprise announcement that their armed forces had agreed to halt all cross-border firing across their shared border, The Line of Control.

The Line of Control is a heavily militarised, turbulent border where frequent exchanges of firing and heavy shelling take place. In 2020, 36 people died and 130 were injured in 5,100 instances of firing and shelling, the most in the last 18 years, according to Indian government data.

Is China behind mystery Kashmir ceasefire between India and Pakistan?

2 Mar 2021

Since the announcement, the two countries have moved swiftly – yet quietly – to consolidate this thaw in their relationship.

Israel Responds to Gaza Rocket Attack by Hitting Hamas Targets Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Israel Responds to Gaza Rocket Attack by Hitting Hamas Targets

Flames rise after Israeli warplanes strike Hamas positions in city of Deir al Balah, in southern Gaza on March 24, 2021. (Ashraf Amra/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

The Media Line Staff


The Israel Defense Forces launched air strikes on Hamas installations in Gaza, hours after a rocket was fired at the southern Israeli city of Beersheba.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was visiting Beersheba on Tuesday when the rocket was fired from Gaza. He was rushed out of a restaurant in the city, where he was meeting supporters, during the attack. Defense Minister Benny Gantz halted his campaign appearances on Tuesday in order to hold consultations on the attack and to decide on an appropriate response.

The IDF said in a statement that fighter jets and attack helicopters struck a Hamas rocket manufacturing site and military post in southern Gaza early on Wednesday morning in response to the attack. There have been no reports yet of damage or injuries.

There was no claim of responsibility from any group in Gaza.

One year ago, a rocket was fired from Gaza at Ashkelon in southern Israel in the middle of a Netanyahu campaign event there.