The Quakes Preceding the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6:12

East Coast Quakes: What to Know About the Tremors Below

By Meteorologist Dominic Ramunni Nationwide PUBLISHED 7:13 PM ET Aug. 11, 2020 PUBLISHED 7:13 PM EDT Aug. 11, 2020

People across the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic were shaken, literally, on a Sunday morning as a magnitude 5.1 earthquake struck in North Carolina on August 9, 2020.

Centered in Sparta, NC, the tremor knocked groceries off shelves and left many wondering just when the next big one could strike.

Items lie on the floor of a grocery store after an earthquake on Sunday, August 9, 2020 in North Carolina.

Fault Lines

Compared to the West Coast, there are far fewer fault lines in the East. This is why earthquakes in the East are relatively uncommon and weaker in magnitude.

That said, earthquakes still occur in the East.

According to Spectrum News Meteorologist Matthew East, “Earthquakes have occurred in every eastern U.S. state, and a majority of states have recorded damaging earthquakes. However, they are pretty rare. For instance, the Sparta earthquake Sunday was the strongest in North Carolina in over 100 years.”

While nowhere near to the extent of the West Coast, damaging earthquakes can and do affect much of the eastern half of the country.

For example, across the Tennesse River Valley lies the New Madrid Fault Line. While much smaller in size than those found farther west, the fault has managed to produce several earthquakes over magnitude 7.0 in the last couple hundred years.

In 1886, an estimated magnitude 7.0 struck Charleston, South Carolina along a previously unknown seismic zone. Nearly the entire town had to be rebuilt.

Vulnerabilities

The eastern half of the U.S. has its own set of vulnerabilities from earthquakes.

Seismic waves actually travel farther in the East as opposed to the West Coast. This is because the rocks that make up the East are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years older than in the West.

These older rocks have had much more time to bond together with other rocks under the tremendous pressure of Earth’s crust. This allows seismic energy to transfer between rocks more efficiently during an earthquake, causing the shaking to be felt much further.

This is why, during the latest quake in North Carolina, impacts were felt not just across the state, but reports of shaking came as far as Atlanta, Georgia, nearly 300 miles away.

Reports of shaking from different earthquakes of similar magnitude.

Quakes in the East can also be more damaging to infrastructure than in the West. This is generally due to the older buildings found east. Architects in the early-to-mid 1900s simply were not accounting for earthquakes in their designs for cities along the East Coast.

When a magnitude 5.8 earthquake struck Virginia in 2011, not only were numerous historical monuments in Washington, D.C. damaged, shaking was reported up and down the East Coast with tremors even reported in Canada.

Unpredictable

There is no way to accurately predict when or where an earthquake may strike.

Some quakes will have a smaller earthquake precede the primary one. This is called a foreshock.

The problem is though, it’s difficult to say whether the foreshock is in fact a foreshock and not the primary earthquake. Only time will tell the difference.

The United State Geological Survey (USGS) is experimenting with early warning detection systems in the West Coast.

While this system cannot predict earthquakes before they occur, they can provide warning up to tens of seconds in advance that shaking is imminent. This could provide just enough time to find a secure location before the tremors begin.

Much like hurricanes, tornadoes, or snowstorms, earthquakes are a natural occuring phenomenon that we can prepare for.

The USGS provides an abundance of resources on how to best stay safe when the earth starts to quake.

South Korea Talks of Nuking Up: Daniel 7

South Koreans walk past replicas of missiles at the Korean War Memorial.

Talk of a Nuclear Deterrent in South Korea

North Korea’s resumed activity at Yongbyon has reawakened calls for Seoul to go nuclear.

September 9, 2021, 11:50 AM

SEOUL—Recent resumption of activity at North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex, which is suspected of producing the plutonium needed for the country’s nuclear weapons, has fueled existing convictions among some conservative South Korean politicians that Pyongyang will never agree to give up its nukes so Seoul needs a nuclear deterrent of its own.

The issue has stormed into the early days of the upcoming presidential election, with primary candidates openly pushing for South Korea to host nuclear weapons. Yoo Seong-min, a former lawmaker and primary candidate for the People Power Party, said he would “persuade the U.S. government to sign a nuclear-sharing agreement” with Seoul if he became president. Such an agreement would again allow the deployment of tactical and nonstrategic nuclear weapons on South Korean soil for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Another conservative contender, Hong Joon-pyo, has also argued that a nuclear-sharing agreement is needed lest South Korea end up “slaves to North Korea’s nuclear weapons.”

For some in South Korea, it’s not just about hosting U.S. weapons but also about developing their own. Lee Jong-kul, a representative from the Liberal Party, has said South Korea should “choose tactical nuclear weapons as the last negotiating card” against North Korea. In 2017, a conservative group, the Korean Patriotic Citizens’ Union, organized protests that included chants like “South Korea should immediately begin to arm itself with nuclear weapons.” Nuclear boosterism has grown so much that the leading primary candidate for the Liberal Party, Lee Jae-myung, decried it as “dangerous populism.”

South Korea, which suffered an invasion by its northern neighbor in 1950, is regularly taunted by Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities, tests, and parades of increasingly capable missiles.

You can support Foreign Policy by becoming a subscriber.

Subscribe Today

“The idea of nuclear weapons in South Korea, in contrast to Japan, has never been fringe. The argument is something like: If North Korea has it, we should have it too,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

According to polls, almost half of all South Koreans surveyed support the development of their own nuclear weapons to deter North Korea’s threat. The urge to unfurl their own nuclear umbrella has grown in recent years due to both Pyongyang’s fissile and missile advances and after four years of former U.S. President Donald Trump disparaging the Korean alliance and urging the country to develop its own nuclear shield.

But it’s not just politicians and polls. South Korea is the latest member of an exclusive club: countries that have successfully firedsubmarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Seven other countries have done that, but they all have nuclear warheads to stick on top. So what are Seoul’s ambitions? 

South Korea “is the only country to develop SLBMs without first developing nuclear weapons, so it makes one wonder,” said Vipin Narang, a professor of nuclear security and political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

SLBMs are hidden underwater, so they offer survivability that could ensure South Korea can hit back against a first strike. But hit back with what? 

“Even with a heavy conventional warhead or multiple warheads on each SLBM, does six tubes on a submarine really provide a credible conventional retaliatory capability if all of South Korea’s land-based missiles were wiped out?” Narang asked.

Read More

South Korean President Moon Jae-in

Moon Wants a Legacy on North Korea That Isn’t Coming

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un listens to US President Donald Trump (not pictured) during a meeting at the Sofitel Legend Metropole hotel in Hanoi on February 27, 2019. (

North Korea Needs the Bomb to Protect Itself From America

It’s not the only nuke-adjacent technology being advanced. With the removal of the country’s range cap on its missiles, South Korea is pushing for missiles that can carry bigger payloads for longer distances. Those “would be good delivery vehicles” if Seoul ever thought about developing nuclear weapons, Narang said.

The problem is nuclear weapons would not actually deliver security for South Korea. Pyongyang has an arsenal of its own and knows it can poke and prod—whether through cyberattacks or other conventional provocations—with little fear.

“In terms of South Korea’s security, nuclear weapons do very little,” Lewis said. “A nuclear-armed North Korea can be much more aggressive in terms of conventional provocations because [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Un knows he is safe from being invaded by the United States or South Korea. South Korean nuclear weapons don’t solve this problem.”

It’s much like the problem facing Israel, which is widely believed to have its ownnuclear capability yet has fought vehemently for years to constrain Iran’s ability to enrich enough uranium to build a bomb.

“Israel has nuclear weapons but is terrified of Iran getting them. Why don’t the Israelis believe deterrence will protect them? Because they are worried that a nuclear-armed Iran will be much more aggressive in terms of using proxies to attack them,” Lewis said. “It’s a very similar problem for South Korea.”

In addition to not delivering deterrence, South Korean nuclear weapons could end up blowing up the Korean economy. It’s one of the most trade-dependent countries on Earth, with trade making up about 70 percent of the country’s GDP; those export industries are dependent on its status as a proliferation-limiting state. A particular concern could be the country’s successful civilian nuclear energy program. South Korea is halfway through a 20-year plan to export 80 nuclear reactors worth $400 billion—deals that could be jeopardized if South Korea opts for proliferation. 

“South Korea is very much a trade-dependent country, basically an economy based on the international economy, and the repercussions from developing nuclear weapons will damage this,” said Yim Man-sung, director of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Education and Research Center at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Seoul. 

South Korea, a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, could withdraw from the accord. But that would create a cascade of legal liabilities, especially for the multibillion-dollar exports of civilian nuclear technology. And that, once realized, could take the wind out of the South Korean public’s push for nukes of their own.

“Initially, when people know nothing about the implications, they may say, ‘oh, we should develop nuclear weapons.’ But once they realize the implications, repercussions of that decision, most of them say no,” Yim said.

The Coastal Destroying Russian Nukes: Revelation 16

Poseidon Torpedo 4 Oct 2021

Coastal city-destroying nuclear-powered and -armed Russian torpedo resembles autonomous unmanned submarine

Oct. 4, 2021Poseidons perhaps could be killed by long-range hypersonic glide vehicles, nuclear depth charges, or rocket-launched anti-submarine torpedoes.

MOSCOW – Russia’s Status-6 Poseidon torpedo is propelled by a nuclear reactor to a speed of 115 miles per hour and operates at deep depths up to 3,300 feet. It is armed with a massive 100-megaton warhead powerful enough to generate a giant tidal wave to destroy coastal cities. The National Interest reports. Continue reading original article

The Military & Aerospace Electronics take:

4 Oct. 2021 — While the precise capabilities of the underwater nuclearweapon are mysterious, it appears to be about 80 feet long — which makes it more like a mini-submarine or an underwater ballistic missile.

One countermeasure would be to seed the seabed with networks of sensor-mines to detect and destroy Poseidons. Stopping weapons like Poseidon likely will require Western navies to develop a new generation of torpedoes.

“The current families of U.S. Navy and Royal Navy torpedoes were developed to counter fast deep-diving Russian submarines,” writes H I Sutton, a naval analyst who runs the Covert Shores blog on naval affairs. “These are likely to be characterized by increases in range and autonomy, blurring the distinction between torpedoes and unmannedunderwater vehicles (UUVs).”

John Keller, chief editor
Military & Aerospace Electronics

The Russian Nuclear Horn test fires submarine-launched hypersonic Tsirkon missile:Daniel 7

Russia test fires submarine-launched hypersonic Tsirkon missile for first time

October 4, 20211:44 AM MDTLast Updated 11 hours ago

MOSCOW, Oct 4 (Reuters) – Russia said on Monday it had successfully test launched a Tsirkon (Zircon) hypersonic cruise missile from a submarine for the first time, a weapon President Vladimir Putin has lauded as part of a new generation of unrivalled arms systems.

The defence ministry, which tested firing the Tsirkon missile from a warship in July, said that the Severodvinsk submarine had fired the missile while deployed in the Barents Sea and had hit its chosen target.

Low-quality video footage released by the ministry showed the missile shooting upwards from a submarine, its glare lighting up the night sky and illuminating the water’s surface.

“The test firing of the Tsirkon missile from a nuclear submarine was deemed successful,” the ministry said.

Some Western experts have questioned how advanced Russia’s new generation of weapons is, while recognising that the combination of speed, manoeuvrability and altitude of hypersonic missiles makes them difficult to track and intercept.

In July, parts of footage showing Russia’s advanced new S-500 surface-to-air missile system appeared to have been deliberately blurred to make it harder to examine in detail

Putin announced an array of new hypersonic weapons in 2018 in one of his most bellicose speeches in years, saying they could hit almost any point in the world and evade a U.S.-built missile shield.

Reporting by Anton Kolodyazhnyy; Writing by Alexander Marrow Editing by Andrew Osborn

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Rules of the Game Impossible in the Era of Nuclear Weapons: Revelation 8

Are Rules of the Game Possible in the Era of Nuclear Weapons?

ByTimofey BordachevOctober 4, 2021

Despite the fact that power competition has historically been the most familiar way of interaction between states, for several centuries there has been a search for a more disciplined order. Moreover, such a task became urgent after the emergence of the “nuclear world order”, the central systemic feature of which is the insurmountable military superiority of a narrow group of states over the rest. It is insurance against the outbreak of destructive wars, but at the same time it guarantees that the conflict between the nuclear powers will be the last in the history of mankind. This makes it necessary to search and establish relatively stable rules, at least at the highest level, regulating the inevitable competition. The question is, to what extent are such rules really necessary for the survival of those who can create them?

The official Russian doctrine is based on an unquestionably positive answer to this question and regards the UN Charter as a set of general “laws” for the world of sovereign states. China and most countries in the world follow the same approach. The United States and its allies in the West believe that the UN is, of course, the main international institution, but in addition to formal equality of rights in world politics, there is a system that gives primacy to the strong. This approach promotes a “rules-based international order” and has often received legitimate criticism from Russia. However, if we take a close look at the modern world order, we see that at the centre are laws that are far more powerful than any formal or informal rules that are under discussion.

The inglorious end of the US military intervention in Afghanistan (and in the Middle East) made it possible to speculate that the end of the domination of the Western powers in world affairs has finally come. The only problem standing in the way of a more just international order is America’s inability to recognise the new balance of power in world politics and economics. That is why most modern foreign assessments of American foreign policy are based on the basic hypothesis that this power has lost touch with reality.

We must admit that such an assumption is based on a significant amount of empirical experience that it is difficult to argue with. Moreover, it makes no practical sense to enumerate evidence that the most powerful military and economic power in the world, represented by its elite, is unable to recognise the irreversible nature of changes in the balance of power among the leading states.

There is little doubt that such a failure is objective, since it is impossible to detect even small signs that the foreign policy strategy and culture of that country may change, especially if we take into account that none of the military adventures of the West after the end of the Cold War were connected with its vital interests. Unlike European states after World War II, the United States has not yet suffered a defeat that could have a significant impact on the assessment of its place in the world. And it is unlikely to face this, if we take into account the nuclear weapons factor.

From our partner RIAC

Taiwan Warns of the Chinese Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

China-US superpower showdown: military strength

Taiwan backs AUKUS, warns of threat of war with China

October 4, 2021 — 3.48pm

Singapore: Taiwan has backed Australia’s decision to acquire nuclear submarines to defend the Indo-Pacific after China launched dozens of military planes towards the Taiwan Strait.

The show of force by Beijing and the build-up of defence capability by the United States and its allies has put the region on alert for the threat of future conflict over the disputed democratic island.

Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu on Monday said Taiwan was preparing for conflict and would “fight to the end” if China was to attack its neighbour.

“I’m sure that if China is going to launch an attack against Taiwan,” he told the ABC. “I think they are going to suffer tremendously as well.”

Wu said the strategic partnership signed by Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States (AUKUS), would help balance China’s military ambitions in the region. The deal allows Australia to explore options for acquiring eight nuclear submarines over the next decade that are expected to have enough range to patrol the South and East China Seas.

“We are pleased to see that the like-minded partners of Taiwan — the United States and the UK and Australia — are working closer with each other to acquire more advanced defence articles so that we can defend Indo-Pacific,” he said.

“Australia is a great country, and I’m very glad to see that Australia is going to shoulder more responsibility to maintain peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.”

China has escalated its intimidation of Taiwan over the past two years, peaking with more than 80 warplanes including anti-submarine planes and bombers being sent towards the island at the weekend – 38 aircraft entered the Taiwan air zone on Friday and another 39 on Saturday. But the consensus among military analysts is that the probability of war will not increase significantly until the 2030s when China’s military capability matches that of the United States.

On Sunday the US State Department called on China to put an end to its threats towards Taiwan.

Related Article

A Taiwan Air Force F-16 fighter jet flies alongside a Chinese H-6K bomber during an earlier incursion.

“The US commitment to Taiwan is rock solid and contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and within the region,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said.

“The People’s Republic of China’s provocative military activity near Taiwan is destabilising, risks miscalculations, and undermines regional peace and stability.”

The Taiwanese government has maintained an ambiguous position on its independence, preferring to keep the status quo, which means it operates separately from China, rather than pushing for a formal break from the mainland which could trigger a military response.

Beijing has vowed to unite Taiwan with the mainland by 2049, a century after the Kuomintang set up an alternative government in Taiwan after decades of civil war.

China’s Taiwan Affairs Office last week accused Wu of stirring independent sentiment.

“We are telling people like Joseph Wu: Taiwan independence is a dead end,” it said. “All kinds of Taiwan independence talks are nothing more than flies buzzing. A few screams, a few sobs.”

China-Taiwan tensions rise in Biden's first days

1:09

China-Taiwan tensions rise in Biden’s first days

A US aircraft-carrier group has entered the South China Sea just as rising tensions between China and Taiwan are causing concern in Washington.

Dr Mark Harrison, a senior lecturer in Chinese Studies at the University of Tasmania, said Wu’s comments are careful, but there is a danger that they can be misread.

“Wu’s comments are strong but need to be understood in the context of the government’s overall messaging, both publicly and diplomatically about Taiwan’s sovereignty and democracy,” he said.

Related Article

Taiwan epxlainer

“Taiwan has limited capacity to deter Beijing by itself, but Beijing’s actions are openly threatening and this demands a response from the Taiwan government. Taipei wants to show that it takes Beijing’s threats seriously, and it does, and push back against Beijing’s tactic of normalising the People’s Liberation Army Air Force presence in the Taiwan Strait.”

Australian cabinet minister Greg Hunt on Monday declined to comment on whether Australia would welcome increased intelligence and security sharing with Taiwan.

“Our hope is peace,” said Hunt. “Our belief is that this can be maintained.”

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs used its last press conference before China’s national holidays started on Friday to accuse Australia and the US of hypocrisy in calling for Iran and North Korea to end their nuclear weapons programs.

Related Article

China is building a hypersonic wind-tunnel to help it test faster aircraft.

Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the AUKUS submarine deal could bring five dangers to the region: triggering an arms race, nuclear proliferation, undermining regional stability and ASEAN’s push for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.

“Fifth, it could lead to the resurgence of Cold War mentality, provoke bloc confrontation and zero-sum geopolitical games in the region,” she said.

Get a note direct from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.

Danger of Starting the First Nuclear War: Revelation 8

Source: IANS

Danger of Pakistan nuclear assets landing with rogue elements

Source: IANSNew Delhi:

Pakistan’s association with its nuclear programme and adherence to nuclear safety norms has always been marred by lack of clarity and shrouded in mystery, including the very acquisition of nuclear know how, Jacquard said. 

From the very inception of the process of creating a nuclear weapon, Pakistan was aware that it was not in a position to put together a weapon system on its own. Moreover, Pakistan’s aspiration for acquiring a nuclear weapon saw an element of urgency as it needed to keep pace with India, which was confidently surging ahead with its own self sufficient nuclear program. This desperation compelled Pakistan to resort to unethical means to acquire sub systems for their nuclear program from different sources. Jacquard said. 

With the Taliban coming to power setting up the ‘Islamic Emirate’ and trying to evolve as a viable nation, the overall political dynamics in the Pakistan – Afghanistan theatre is bound to remain fluid for some time to come. Given the several challenges Pakistan faces in sustaining itself as a stable and responsible member of the global community inspite of a weak political establishment in place, the international community should closely focus on ensuring the safety and security of vital assets including the nuclear assets in Pakistan, he writes. 

With the Taliban coming to power, there has been an enthusiastic narrative among the conservative members of the Pakistani society including government establishment who are excited and motivated by this development. In the event of any deteriorating political situation, the threat of hard core radical elements taking over the government or the vital national assets cannot anymore be considered remote. The role of IAEA and the larger global community would be crucial in this regard, Jacquard writes. 

Most significantly, in the past, Taliban-linked groups have successfully attacked government and military targets in the country. In 2012, armed Islamist militants used rocket propelled grenades to attack the sensitive Minhas (Kamra) Air Force base which hosts the Pakistan air Force’s Research and Development facilities. Significantly, the then Taliban spokesperson Ehsanullah Ehsan stated that the Taliban was proud of the operation as their leadership had decided to attack the Kamra air base a long time ago. The base was also targeted earlier in 2007 and 2009 by suicide bombers. 

In the past, Al Qaeda leaders had called for attacks on Pakistani nuclear facilities as well. Likewise, in September 2014, an attack was carried out by AQIS on Pakistani nuclear ship Zulfikar, docked at Karachi Naval Dockyard which had also drawn concern from the international community on the capability of such cadres to target vital facilities in Pakistan. Authorities in Pakistan had even alleged that the ship had been taken over by the AQIS operatives, Jacquard writes. 

The years of recruitment of conservative minded individuals in the Pakistani armed forces has also ensured the presence of large number of service personnel who could get easily influenced by radical groups and leaders to pursue their agenda. Several members of ISI and Pakistani Army and Navy are also incorporated within the cadres of AQIS and affiliated organisations for coordination and facilitation. A classic case was that of Adil Abdul Qudoos, a senior AQIS leader, who was a Major in the Pakistani Army’s Signals Corps. It is from his home in Rawalpindi from where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (9/11 mastermind) was arrested in 2003. There have been other such cases in the past of defence personnel being linked to these organisations. 

It has also been noticed that the Taliban inevitably maintains links with the Al Qaeda and its affiliates such as AQIS, LeT, Al Badr, IMU etc., which continue to operate in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban. The AQIS has operated very closely with the Taliban and were involved in fighting foreign forces alongside the Taliban. Such association from the battlefield cannot be written off overnight and the Taliban will continue to maintain these links while denying such connections.