1884 A Forewarning Of The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

January 20, 2010New York City isn’t immune to earthquakes; a couple of small tremors measuring about 2.5 on the Richter scale even struck back in 2001 and 2002.But on August 10, 1884, a more powerful earthquake hit. Estimated from 4.9 to 5.5 in magnitude, the tremor made houses shake, chimneys fall, and residents wonder what the heck was going on, according to a New York Times article two days later.The quake was subsequently thought to have been centered off Far Rockaway or Coney Island.It wasn’t the first moderate quake, and it won’t be the last. In a 2008 Columbia University study, seismologists reported that the city is crisscrossed with several fault lines, one along 125th Street. With that in mind, New Yorkers should expect a 5.0 or higher earthquake centered here every 100 years, the seismologists say.Translation: We’re about 30 years overdue. Lucky for us the city adopted earthquake-resistant building codes in 1995.1884 A Forewarning Of The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Growing Concern for the China and Russian Nuclear Horns: Daniel 7

Stratcom Leader Describes Growing Threat From Nuclear-Armed China and Russia

May 7, 2021 | BY David Vergun , DOD News
The United States and its allies face an increasing set of threats from potential adversaries such as China, Russia and North Korea. U.S. Strategic Command’s mission is to deter these threats through the deployment of a set of strategic capabilities, including nuclear armed submarines, bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

A bomber sits on a runway.
Navy Adm. Charles A. Richard, the commander of Stratcom, spoke virtually today about how his command is deterring these threats at the Brookings Institution.

“Strategic deterrence is the most important mission in the Department of Defense. It’s our number one priority,” he said.

Now for the first time in history, the U.S. faces two nuclear capable strategic peer competitors at the same time, he said.

Richard said he’d love to see a reduced role of nuclear weapons by the U.S., Russia and China and would like to extend them an olive branch.

The back of a missile is seen inside a tube.
“I’d love for the day that I could report we don’t need a U.S. Strategic Command,” he said, because political agreements have been achieved with verification.

A good starting point on the path to reduction, he said, would be to have a conversation with Russia about its non-treaty accountable weapons. Conversations with China would be tremendously beneficial as well.

“One thing you can say about the U.S. and Russia — even all the way through the Cold War, as tense as that was at certain points — is that we talked all the way through and there was great value in that,” he said, adding that having open communications can certainly bring the threat level down to everyone’s mutual benefit.

A missile launches into the air.
In the meantime, however, Stratcom works diligently to achieve a credible nuclear deterrent that is safe, secure and effective, he said, adding that nuclear deterrence is not just about protecting the U.S., it’s also about protecting allies.

China, he said, is a growing threat. Their strategic and conventional forces are rapidly expanding in all domains.

Russia is undergoing a very extensive nuclear modernization program as well, he added.

Marines work atop a submarine.
Because of these growing threats from China and Russia, modernizing America’s own nuclear triad is of paramount importance, he said.

Richard also highlighted the importance he places on having a highly skilled and motivated workforce to operate and maintain the nuclear triad. These would include scientists, software developers, engineers and technologists.

Why Australia Will Become a Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

China’s Threat to Bomb Australia Shows Need for Aussie Nuclear Deterrent

May 10, 2021 11:01, Last Updated: May 10, 2021 20:44
By Anders Corr


China’s state media recently threatened a military attack against Australia with both long-range H-6K bombers and missiles. The threat came the same day that Australia’s prime minister expressed support for Taiwan and said that, “We always have stood for freedom in our part of the world.”

China’s latest threat, made on May 7 by the editor-in-chief of the Global Times, Hu Xijin, reveals Australia’s military vulnerability to a far larger and more powerful nuclear-armed China. The Global Times is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Given Hu’s threat, which is consistent with the larger pattern of China’s aggression, the United States and allies should immediately support Australia in obtaining an independent submarine-based nuclear deterrent, so that Australia can join countries such as the United States, France, Britain, and India as powerful global defenders of freedom and democracy. The independent strength of individual members of an alliance improves the overall strength of the alliance.

Australia has a limited window of opportunity in which to go nuclear, after which China’s rising power and regional hegemony will make an independent nuclear Australia impossible. At that point, which could be as soon as 5 or 10 years, the window will close and China could more effectively use nuclear brinkmanship, control of Asian seas, check book diplomacy, and its economic trading power, to break Australia from its allies, and bring it under Beijing’s dominance.

NATO should welcome Australia into its alliance as a full member, before China has a chance to create a territorial dispute down under, and thereby make Australian accession more difficult. If Washington came under the influence of Beijing, the bilateral U.S.-Australia alliance would be useless to Australia’s defense.

NATO should no longer be a purely Atlantic affair, given globalization and the rise of China. What matters today in choosing our closest allies is not geography, but shared values in support of democracy, as well as the inclusion of a broader diversity of allies, including countries like Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, that will strengthen the alliance in resisting Beijing’s growing preponderance of power. Today, China has strong alliance partners in Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Welcoming Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and other autocratic powers into an alliance with democracies will keep them from turning against us, and strengthen us all.

The Global Times article includes a prominent photo of an H-6K nuclear-capable bomber flying in formation with two Chinese military Su-35 fighter jets. The caption notes that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force (PLAAF) conducted “patrol training over China’s island of Taiwan on Friday.” The planes reportedly flew over the Bashi Channel for the first time, marking a “new breakthrough in island patrol patterns.” China almost daily threatens Taiwan’s sovereignty with fighter jet flights that force Taiwan to scramble, and thus degrade, its own jets in defense. China also frequently pushes its land, maritime, and air boundaries against Japan, India, Bhutan, Myanmar (Burma), Vietnam, and the Philippines. The same may soon be true for Australia.

“Given that Australian hawks keep hyping or hinting that Australia will assist the US military and participate in war once a military conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Straits, and the Australian media outlets have been actively promoting the sentiment, I suggest China make a plan to impose retaliatory punishment against Australia once it militarily interferes in the cross-Straits situation,” writes Hu. He therefore thinks that China has a right to attack Australia, and apparently believes that a war over Taiwan is not a question of if, but when.

“The plan [to attack Australia] should include long-range strikes on the military facilities and relevant key facilities on Australian soil if it really sends its troops to China’s offshore areas and combats against the PLA,” Hu writes. “If they [Australian hawks] are bold enough to coordinate with the US to militarily interfere in the Taiwan question and send troops to the Taiwan Straits to wage war with the PLA, they must know what disasters they would cause to their country.”

Such fighting words follow the Global Times’ demonization of Australia, and the entire Five-Eyes Alliance (United States, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand) as an “axis of white supremacy.” This characterization is obviously false given the multiethnic nature of these democracies’ leadership, including former U.S. President Barack Obama, current U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris, and current New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta. Yet, the accusation will have currency with some given the colonial history of the Five-Eyes countries, and their current very public and laudable attempts to combat racism within their borders.

Protestors attend a rally for the Uyghur community
Protestors attend a rally for the Uyghur community at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on March 15, 2021. (Sam Mooy/Getty Images)

Conversely, China’s all-powerful 7-member Politburo Standing Committee are all Han males who resolutely deny the existence of racism in China while at the same time engaging in genocide against their Uyghur minority. The real “axis of racial supremacy” is therefore not between the Five-Eyes, but between Beijing and Moscow.

Australia is not the only country that needs an independent nuclear deterrent and membership in NATO. A similar logic applies to other democracies, including Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand, Ukraine, and Georgia, that are under threat from powerful nuclear-armed dictators. All of these countries should be encouraged to join NATO and obtain independent submarine-based nuclear deterrents.

NATO should also strengthen itself by encouraging its most powerful and democratic members, including Germany, Italy, and Canada, to obtain independent nuclear deterrent forces. Against a nuclear-armed foe, no country can entirely rely on another for its defense. Frequent breach of contract between democratic allies, such as the United States and Canada, Britain and the European Union, and Italy and Ireland, over vaccines and personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, proves that even democracies violate agreements with each other over issues of far less consequence than military conflict in the nuclear age.

Only democracies should have nuclear weapons, because only democracies have the sovereign legitimacy that free and broad-based political participation provides and that tends to (but unfortunately has not always) limited the use of such weapons against civilian targets. But democracies should come to the defense of allied autocracies, for example Saudi Arabia, which is under military pressure from Iran, and Vietnam, which is under threat from China. Maintenance of global political diversity requires the protection of these less powerful autocracies, with all their failings, from larger autocratic threats. Less powerful autocratic allies will eventually undergo a natural and peaceful political evolution towards democracy and improved human rights.

Democracies must not only defend themselves, but the international system of diverse nation-states, in order to keep China and Russia from creating a sufficiently powerful alliance to fold the world’s less powerful states into their plans for regional hegemony and the resulting balkanization and destabilization of the post-1945 rules-based international system. States under threat from these aspiring illiberal hegemons must band together in a powerful alliance, but be sufficiently strong individually, to independently defend their own sovereignty.

Anders Corr has a BA/MA in political science from Yale University (2001) and a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University (2008). He is a Principal at Corr Analytics Inc., Publisher of the Journal of Political Risk, and has conducted extensive research in North America, Europe, and Asia. He authored “The Concentration of Power” (forthcoming 2021) and “No Trespassing,” and edited “Great Powers, Grand Strategies.”

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.Follow Anders on Twitter: @anderscorr

Babylon the Great’s Nuclear Weapons Systems Facing Risk

US Nuclear Weapons Systems Facing Risk with Replacements
May 11, 2021 | Walter Pincus

Walter Pincus
Contributing Sr. National Security Columnist, The Cipher Brief

Walter Pincus is a contributing senior national security columnist for The Cipher Brief. He spent forty years at The Washington Post, writing on topics from nuclear weapons to politics.

OPINION — Last Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office released a declassified version of a once-secret June 2020 report titled: Nuclear Triad: DOD and DOE Face Challenges Mitigating Risks to US Deterrence Efforts.

Conducted under the Trump administration, the report raised questions about whether the Defense Department’s (DOD) replacement programs for today’s strategic nuclear weapon delivery systems [submarines, bombers, ICBMs] “face schedule risks that could exacerbate challenges with existing triad systems.”

In addition, the nearly year-old report questioned whether the Department of Energy’s (DOE) nuclear warhead life extension programs, which depend on manufacturing and assembly facilities that are “outdated or obsolete,” also face schedule risks.

As a result, the GAO said, “DOD and DOE have limited ability to mitigate risks to the efficacy of the nuclear deterrent with their current strategy and are beginning to consider alternatives.”

The GAO said it did the 2020 study because “DOD has reported that due to prior delays and challenges with aging nuclear Triad systems, there is little to no margin for delaying replacement systems without incurring risk to the nuclear deterrent. Similarly, DOE faces a demanding schedule for infrastructure projects and programs for the life extension and production of warheads and bombs.”

The report went on, “We found that every nuclear Triad replacement program—including the B-21 [new strategic bomber], LRSO [new long-range, stand-off, air-launched, nuclear cruise missile], GBSD [new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Intercontinental Missile], and Columbia class submarine, and every ongoing bomb and warhead modernization program—faces the prospect of delays due to program-specific and DOD-and DOE-wide risk factors. These risk factors include an insufficient DOD nuclear certification workforce, limited DOE infrastructure capacity, and supply-chain risks. If realized, these delays would prolong DOD’s operation of existing Triad systems.”

Two points about this report make it interesting.

It was based on requirements set by the 2018 Trump Nuclear Posture Review, and — as the GAO pointed out in the declassified version released last week — the report “does not reflect the effects of these COVID-19 measures on program schedules or progress.”

In short, the report showed the Trump administration was pushing ahead with programs to replace its three major strategic nuclear delivery systems, at costs in the hundreds-of-billions of dollars, in the face of what the GAO said were “risk factors that include concurrency between phases of acquisition programs from development through production, immature technologies, and limited schedule margins.”

I write about the GAO report today because the Biden administration has its own Nuclear Posture Review underway, which will allow reassessment of Trump’s nuclear programs, and possibly offer the prospect of slowing down the new Columbia submarine, GBSD ICBM, and B-21 systems to reduce some risks pointed out by the GAO.

Will that harm today’s deterrence effect?

The GAO report notes that much of the concern raised by Trump Pentagon personnel rested on the ability to generate additional numbers of strategic nuclear systems – called force generation – based on U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) operational requirements in some future crisis. Those requirements could very well change under the Biden administration given President Biden’s intention to try to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national security. Meanwhile, as the GAO report points out, the Navy already apparently has not met STRATCOM’s current force generation requirements – having operational and available 10 SSBNs [strategic ballistic missile submarines] — because the current Ohio SSBNs have faced months of unplanned delays in extended mid-life maintenance, refueling overhauls and refit periods.

However, no one has claimed the U.S. deterrent is currently ineffective.

The Cipher Brief is proud to present an all-virtual International Summit. Join us for three days of expert-led sessions on China, western alliances, Intelligence, Space, and emerging technologies. Registration is free for Cipher Brief members. See how $10/month brings the most experienced national security experts to you.

Meanwhile, President Biden has agreed with Russian President Vladimir Putin to extend the New START (Strategic Arms Treaty) for five years. That extension keeps in place inspection and verification rules and, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said, “Provides us with greater insight into Russia’s nuclear posture, including through data exchanges and onsite inspections that allow U.S. inspectors to have eyes on Russian nuclear forces and facilities.”

Just what are the risks that the GAO said relate to replacement of the new delivery systems?

The first, new Columbia-class strategic submarine went into production in October 2020, despite the finding that “additional development and testing are required to demonstrate the maturity of several technologies critical to performance,” according to the GAO report. In addition, the GAO described as “aggressive” the Navy’s Columbia production plan noting it “plans to build the lead submarine over 7 years—or 84 months…This duration is shorter than what the Navy achieved on any recent lead submarine construction effort—including during high levels of Cold War submarine production. The average construction time for the first of class submarine for the last four classes has been approximately 91 months.”

A February 2021 Congressional Research Service report also raised risks to the Columbia program, citing “the COVID-19 pandemic, technical challenges, and/or funding-related issues—of a delay in designing and building the lead Columbia-class boat, which could put at risk. the Navy’s ability to have the boat ready for its first scheduled deterrent patrol in 2031, when it is scheduled to deploy in the place of the first retiring Ohio-class SSBN.”

The GAO report also claims that Pentagon officials called the current schedule for the GBSD “aggressive and compressed compared to prior ICBM programs.” Designed to replace the currently deployed 400 Minuteman IIIs beginning in 2029, The Air Force plans to deliver the first production unit of the GBSD missile at the earliest feasible date and reach initial operational capability in fiscal year 2029.

GAO said the missile’s program schedule delays are likely because of several risks starting with the use of “immature technology.” To meet the planned first delivery, the Air Force developed an acquisition approach that calls for the use of mature technologies, but “GBSD program officials acknowledge in the program’s acquisition strategy that there is a risk that the program could be delayed if it does not demonstrate a mature design based on mature technologies,” according to the GAO.

Another risk is “the GBSD program’s draft developmental testing schedule only includes two months to address deficiencies found in flight testing before the next test is expected to begin, including any resulting design changes.” The GAO said, “Our work on other acquisition programs shows that testing is a process of discovery and that programs need time to incorporate necessary changes and retest.”

Another risk factor is the time it would take to convert Minuteman III launch facilities into the configuration needed for the GBSD. Current plans call for averaging 50 conversions per year with slightly more than that number going through the process before the first new ICBM is turned over to the Air Force. Under current deployments, there are 50 former Minuteman III launch facilities without missiles, a reduction undertaken under the New START treaty. The current estimate is that it could take up to six months to restore and convert a launch facility to handle a GBSD missile.

“The Air Force has yet to evaluate all of the launch facilities and, accordingly, the full scope of work necessary to prepare the facilities for use by the GBSD program has yet to be determined. If the Air Force does not resolve the issues with the launch facilities in advance of the transition to GBSD, additional time could be needed for construction, which could result in delays to GBSD fielding,” according to the GAO report.

As for programs to upgrade aging U.S. nuclear warheads, the GAO had previously, in 2019, “found that the next decade is particularly challenging for DOE’s nuclear modernization efforts because the agency needs to ensure sufficient production capacity to execute LEPs [Life Extension Programs] and modernization programs while conducting major construction projects and programs to modernize its uranium and plutonium capabilities.” The GAO report goes over problems related to not only producing plutonium pits, the triggering devices for thermonuclear weapons, but also the availability of weapons-grade uranium, tritium, lithium, as well as specialized explosive materials “that meet the exacting standards required for use in nuclear weapons.”

What is clear from analysis of last week’s GAO report is that the long-planned, costly replacement of strategic nuclear delivery systems was already running behind meeting the Trump administration’s schedule before the Biden presidency began. Nonetheless, America’s nuclear deterrent, in the form of today’s deployed triad of submarines, ICBMs and bombers, remains unchallenged.

It follows, therefore, that there is some timing flexibility for the Biden administration’s national security team to put together its own nuclear weapons policy, relate it to arms control approaches, and continue the Triad delivery systems replacement programs, although probably at a more responsible pace and perhaps calling for lesser numbers.

Chaos Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Jerusalem in Tumult, 9 dead in Gaza, as Israel and Hamas Exchange Fire

The rockets, fired by the Palestinian militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip, came as Jerusalem has been enduring weeks of violence.

05/10/2021 2:51 PM
Israeli security forces clash with protesters during a protest against Israel’s plan to evict Palestinians from the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah on May 10, 2021. Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right Israeli lawmaker, is at right wearing a white kippah.
Israeli security forces clash with protesters during a protest against Israel’s plan to evict Palestinians from the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah on May 10, 2021. Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right Israeli lawmaker, is at right wearing a white kippah. (Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90 via JTA)
(JTA) — Israel’s parliament was evacuated and crowded streets in Jerusalem were sent into tumult as air raid sirens sounded ahead of a rocket barrage from Gaza, an attack that could spark a broader conflict in the city and region.

The rockets, fired by the Palestinian militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip, came as Jerusalem has been enduring weeks of violence, which have taken place during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and have centered around the city’s holiest sites for Jews and Muslims.

The violence is now threatening to spiral into a broader conflict, as Israel has bombed Gaza and Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz has vowed to respond with an “iron fist.” Hamas reported that nine people were killed in Gaza, including three children.

The rockets came as Israeli police have repeatedly fought with Palestinians on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, which Muslims revere as the Noble Sanctuary and which is the site of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Hundreds of Palestinians and dozens of Israeli officers have been injured in the fighting there and elsewhere.

The violence threatened to get even worse later on Monday. In the afternoon, hundreds of right-wing Israelis gathered for a nationalist march through the Old City to celebrate Jerusalem Day, which marks the reunification of Jerusalem following Israel’s capturing the eastern half of the city during the 1967 Six Day War.

The march was due to go through the Old City’s Arab Quarter. In the past, it has featured racist chants and led to conflict between marchers and Palestinians. Because of the recent violence, police changed the route of the march to avoid flashpoints for conflict. The march’s organizers briefly canceled it in protest before changing their minds.

The rockets, fired by the Palestinian militant group Hamas, came during the march. Hamas reportedly shot seven rockets at Jerusalem and dozens more at Israeli towns that border the Gaza Strip, which Hamas controls.

No injuries were reported from the rocket fire, but the sirens sent the city into panic. Videos circulating on social media showed parents shielding their children and crowds scrambling at the sound of the alert, which rang throughout the city.

One video, posted by Times of Israel reporter Tal Schneider, showed Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, evacuating at the sound of the siren.

A tree on the Temple Mount caught on fire, and the blaze was visible from the Western Wall Plaza. The fire has been extinguished.

Palestinian protesters have repeatedly clashed with police in and around Jerusalem’s Old City in recent weeks, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. At first, the conflicts centered on barriers that Israeli police erected at the Old City’s Damascus Gate, which prevented crowds of Muslims from gathering there. Later, a crowd of right-wing Israelis chanting racist slogans clashed with Palestinian counter protesters.

More recently, tensions have focused on the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, which Israelis sometimes refer to as Shimon Hatzaddik, where hundreds of Palestinians face eviction by court order. Jewish Israelis claim to be the rightful owners of the property based on land claims that predate Israel’s establishment in 1948, when Jews were expelled from eastern Jerusalem.

While Israel has sought to portray the potential evictions as a private real estate dispute, Palestinians see the evictions as ethnic cleansing. Palestinians as well as left-wing Israelis have been protesting such evictions in the neighborhood for years. But this year, the protests have spread to elsewhere in East Jerusalem, as well as to Arab-Israeli neighborhoods and communities throughout the country.

Israel’s Supreme Court was set to rule on the evictions this week but postponed the ruling due to the clashes surrounding the neighborhood.

Approaching the First Nuclear War: Revelation 8

World’s most dangerous fastest-growing nuclear weapons programme

Nowadays, South Asia is categorized by international analysts as one of the unstable regions of the world, where the chances of nuclear brinkmanship are high because of the longstanding rivalry between Pakistan and India

Syed Zain Jaffery12:13 AM | May 11, 2021
The former Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, during his election campaign in February 1998, chauvinistically declared that his government would, “take back that part of Kashmir that is under Pakistan’s occupation”. Maybe it was just an offensive electoral activity, in which Vajpayee concentrated on manipulating the subject of national security for political gains. But when India declared itself an overt nuclear-armed state, in May 1998, it was evident that India had the offensive aims to openly threaten, deploy and use nuclear weapons against the neighboring countries to achieve its hegemonic interests.

Nowadays, South Asia is categorized by international analysts as one of the unstable regions of the world, where the chances of nuclear brinkmanship are high because of the longstanding rivalry between Pakistan and India. India’s vision for regional supremacy, which seeks dominance through coercion and military power, is the main cause of insecurity and volatility in the region. For the last 23 years, Indian politicians, instead of politically engaging its regional rivals, have pursued dangerous delusions of suicidal nuclear warmongering. India’s reckless conduct as a so-called prestigious nuclear weapon state is more dangerous than the actual threat of nuclear war.

Turkey condemns Israel’s continued attacks on Palestinians at Al-Aqsa Mosque
Since 1974, while disregarding the international nuclear nonproliferation regimes, India has pushed the region into a protracted nuclear arms race. India is operating the world’s most dangerous fastest-growing nuclear weapons and missile programs in the world, which are not only threatening for the region but world peace because of flawed nuclear safety and security standards. Increasing stocks of Indian fissile material and the development of nuclear triad capability – bombers, missiles and nuclear power/capable submarines – have increased the capability of New Delhi in the strategic realm. Contrary to International media claims, the Indian triad consists almost 500 nuclear weapons including thermonuclear weapons and has the capacity to produce over 2,600 nuclear weapons for tactical and strategic use.

In an aggressive pursuit to complete its triad, India is rapidly expanding its nuclear programme for military purposes, under several covert projects. For instance, the Dhruva plutonium reactor, which already in operation, is not covered by IAEA safeguards. India is also working to build more than five breeder reactors to expand its production capability of plutonium-grade nuclear weapons to almost 700kg annually. Indian scientists are advocating to avoid placing the fast breeder programme under the IAEA safeguards because of the military utility of this reactor type. India is also building a covert nuclear cityto produce thermonuclear weapons – the largest military complex of nuclear centrifuges and atomic research laboratories in South Asia. This complex infrastructure will allow New Delhi to assemble large-yield nuclear arms & hydrogen bombs. Ironically, when the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is claiming that India has 150 nuclear warheads, according to an Indian nuclear physicist, Dr R. Rajaraman, Indian Defense Ministry sources had covert plans in 2005 to increase nuclear inventory up to 300-400 warheads, in next decade.

Sindh reports 11 death, 782 newly infected COVID-19 cases
Today, the undisclosed plutonium stocks have not been under IAEA’s inspection and left with Indian arms production facilities under the discriminatory nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India. The civilian Plutonium reserves that are outside the safeguards of the IAEA and designated for strategic purposes are the main cause of concern. In a three-stage plan, India is continuing to expand its unsafeguarded nuclear power program. The installation of several nuclear reactors has also been announced by New Delhi. This capability will generate excessive fissile material, other than the fuel necessary for breeder and naval reactors. Over the next few years, India will be capable to replace China, France and the United Kingdom in terms of its abilities to produce nuclear weapons to become the third behind the US and Russia.

Under the influence of the rising economy of India, like-minded Western analysts are trying to divert the consideration of the international community from the fastest growing Indian nuclear weapons program and threats associated with it to the peaceful neighboring countries. Since 1974, the Indian intentions are clear that it will use any kind of advanced technology, which provided under the rubric of peaceful purposes, for military use and will violate any international law related to nuclear, space and missiles program to exercise hegemony in the region. The Indian policy aims, concerning nuclear weapons, are solely constructed to push its hegemony in the region. Now it is time for the international community to realize the Indian nuclear threat.

Israel bombs Hamas target outside the Temple Walls amid tensions in Jerusalem

Israel bombs Hamas target in Gaza amid tensions in Jerusalem
Online News EditorMay 9, 2021

Jerusalem, May 9 (EFE).- Israel bombed a target of the Islamist Hamas movement in the Gaza strip early Sunday in retaliation to a rocket attack amid tensions in the occupied East Jerusalem.

“Terrorists in Gaza fired a rocket toward Israel earlier tonight. In response, our aircraft just struck a Hamas military post in southern Gaza. Terror has consequences,” the Israel military said on Twitter.

The airstrike came after clashes between Israeli police and Palestinian worshipers broke out at the Holy Esplanade, where thousands of Muslims had gathered for prayers at the nearby Al-Aqsa mosque on the last Friday of Ramadan.

The Israeli army reported the retaliatory strike as it usually does.

On Sunday, groups of Palestinian youths again fired incendiary balloons from Gaza towards Israel and announced that they would continue their activities at the separation barrier.

Escalated tensions in Jerusalem have reverberated in the Gaza Strip since the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which ends on Wednesday.

Militants in the Gaza Strip fired 36 rockets on the night of Apr. 23-24, coinciding with another day of escalated tensions due to blockades placed by Israel around the Damascus Gate, the main entrance to the Old City, which led to protests by Palestinians.

Sunday morning coincided with Islam’s holy night of Lailat al-Qadr, which saw fresh clashes that caused injuries to dozens.

More than 200 people were injured in Friday clashes, which came amid a week of violent night encounters.

Israeli security forces clashed with Palestinians protesting the eviction of families from their houses in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, which is claimed by Jewish settlement organizations.

The European Union condemned the flaring tension in Jerusalem as “unacceptable,” saying those responsible for the violence “on all sides must be held accountable.”

“The European Union calls on the authorities to act urgently to de-escalate the current tensions in Jerusalem,” the bloc’s foreign affairs office said in a statement. EFE