A Lack Of Vigilance Before The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

     Faults Underlying Exercise Vigilant GuardStory by: (Author NameStaff Sgt. Raymond Drumsta – 138th Public Affairs Detachment
Dated: Thu, Nov 5, 2009
This map illustrates the earthquake fault lines in Western New York. An earthquake in the region is a likely event, says University of Buffalo Professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.
TONAWANDA, NY — An earthquake in western New York, the scenario that Exercise Vigilant Guard is built around, is not that far-fetched, according to University of Buffalo geology professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.
When asked about earthquakes in the area, Jacobi pulls out a computer-generated state map, cross-hatched with diagonal lines representing geological faults.
The faults show that past earthquakes in the state were not random, and could occur again on the same fault systems, he said.
“In western New York, 6.5 magnitude earthquakes are possible,” he said.
This possibility underlies Exercise Vigilant Guard, a joint training opportunity for National Guard and emergency response organizations to build relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners against a variety of different homeland security threats including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.
The exercise was based on an earthquake scenario, and a rubble pile at the Spaulding Fibre site here was used to simulate a collapsed building. The scenario was chosen as a result of extensive consultations with the earthquake experts at the University of Buffalo’s Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), said Brig. Gen. Mike Swezey, commander of 53rd Troop Command, who visited the site on Monday.
Earthquakes of up to 7 magnitude have occurred in the Northeastern part of the continent, and this scenario was calibrated on the magnitude 5.9 earthquake which occurred in Saguenay, Quebec in 1988, said Jacobi and Professor Andre Filiatrault, MCEER director.
“A 5.9 magnitude earthquake in this area is not an unrealistic scenario,” said Filiatrault.
Closer to home, a 1.9 magnitude earthquake occurred about 2.5 miles from the Spaulding Fibre site within the last decade, Jacobi said. He and other earthquake experts impaneled by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada in 1997 found that there’s a 40 percent chance of 6.5 magnitude earthquake occurring along the Clareden-Linden fault system, which lies about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester, Jacobi added.
Jacobi and Filiatrault said the soft soil of western New York, especially in part of downtown Buffalo, would amplify tremors, causing more damage.
“It’s like jello in a bowl,” said Jacobi.
The area’s old infrastructure is vulnerable because it was built without reinforcing steel, said Filiatrault. Damage to industrial areas could release hazardous materials, he added.
“You’ll have significant damage,” Filiatrault said.
Exercise Vigilant Guard involved an earthquake’s aftermath, including infrastructure damage, injuries, deaths, displaced citizens and hazardous material incidents. All this week, more than 1,300 National Guard troops and hundreds of local and regional emergency response professionals have been training at several sites in western New York to respond these types of incidents.
Jacobi called Exercise Vigilant Guard “important and illuminating.”
“I’m proud of the National Guard for organizing and carrying out such an excellent exercise,” he said.
Training concluded Thursday.

20 Years Ago: Beast of the Sea Gives “Axis of Evil” Speech a Year Before Illegal Invasion of Iraq: Revelation 13

20 Years Ago: George W. Bush Gives “Axis of Evil” Speech a Year Before Illegal Invasion of Iraq

Saturday marks 20 years since then-President George W. Bush branded the nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea the “axis of evil” during his first State of the Union address.

President George W. Bush: “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

A little over a year later, the U.S. invaded Iraq, despite lacking any evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The attack was widely considered illegal under international law. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, there have been over 180,000 Iraqi civilians killed by direct violence since the U.S. invasion.

How Babylon the Great Could Nuke Russia

Joe Biden laid over a nuclear explosion

How the US could retaliate against Russia: Two possibilities – including nuclear weapons

THE US is growing increasingly concerned that Russia will launch an invasion of Ukraine in the near future. So, if this scenario were to pass, what options do they have at their disposal to retaliate with?

By James Gray

 12:53, Fri, Jan 28, 2022 | UPDATED: 12:53, Fri, Jan 28, 2022

Russia: Putin ‘will face serious consequences’ says Joe Biden

For a number of months now, fears have escalated in the West that Russia could attack its ex-Soviet neighbour Ukraine, having deployed around 100,000 soldiers to the border the two countries share. On Thursday the US threatened to cut off a key gas pipeline that would significantly impact Russia’s economy. But could nuclear weapons also be considered as a genuine alternative to strike back at a Russian invasion?

Cut off gas pipeline

The US has now threatened, in the event Ukraine is attacked, to halt the opening of a key pipeline that would send Russian gas to Western Europe.

Nord Stream 2 would run from Russia to Germany, and on Thursday officials in Berlin said the project could be subjected to sanctions.

Measuring 1,225km (760-mile) in length the pipeline took five years to build and cost $11bn (£8bn).

Russia designed it to double their gas exports to Germany, with the line itself running under the Baltic Sea.

However, it is not yet operational as regulators said in November it does not comply with German law and suspended its approval.

The threat from the White House comes after Western allies said they will target Russia’s economy if it invades Ukraine.

Image of Nord Stream 2 pipeline in Germany

Nuclear weapons

US President Joe Biden has insisted he will not use American forces to directly defend Ukrainian territory against a possible Russian invasion.

But that is no guarantee that the two sides won’t come to blows.

In fact, current and former officials and experts on both sides of the Atlantic worry that were the situation to get out of control, the world’s two biggest nuclear powers could stumble into a deadly confrontation.

A graphic of the nuclear strength of countries

One former senior US Republican official told Politico: “The Russians have something like 4,000 [tactical nuclear weapons] and they have an ‘escalate to win’ nuclear doctrine, which says ‘we use nuclear weapons first if the conventional conflict starts to spin out of our favour’.”

Meanwhile, Nikolai Sokov, a former Russian Foreign Ministry official, said he considers the risk of a conflict over Ukraine spilling into the nuclear arena as “extremely remote”.

Nonetheless, he admitted it’s conceivable one or both sides could dangerously miscalculate.

Mr Sokov gave the example of an accidental clash between Russian and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) aircraft or warships, which he said “may trigger direct confrontation and then it could roll”.

The Kremlin has denied it has any intention of invading Ukraine but last month submitted a series of security demands to the West, including that Ukraine is banned from entering Nato.

To Russia’s displeasure, the US rejected this key demand, while offering what it called a “serious diplomatic path forward” to Moscow.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday the US response left “little ground for optimism”, but added: “There always are prospects for continuing a dialogue, it’s in the interests of both us and the Americans”.

Rocket attack on Babylon the Great

A handout picture shows a damaged stationary aircraft on the tarmac of Baghdad airport, after rockets reportedly tragetted the runway, on January 28. Photo:  Facebook page of Iraqi Ministry of Transportation

Rocket attack on Baghdad airport damages civilian plane

A+ A-ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – A rocket attack targeting Baghdad airport has damaged a civilian plane, Iraqi airways announced on Friday morning.

“Iraqi Airways confirms that the rocket attack that targeted Baghdad International Airport at dawn today, Friday, damaged one of the company’s out-of-service planes perched in the vicinity of the airport,” read a statementfrom the Iraqi ministry of transportation.  

Local media outlets reported at least six rockets having targeted the vicinity of Baghdad airport, which houses the Victoria base hosting US troops in the early hours of Friday.

A security source confirmed to AFP that six rockets fell on civil installations at the airport, damaging a stationary plane.

Baghdad’s Green Zone and other US facilities in Iraq are often attacked with rockets. Pro-Iran militia groups have been widely blamed for most of the attacks. 

The combat mission of the US-led global coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS) ended late December and their role has been changed to an advisory one. However, Popular Mobilization Forces’ (PMF) leaders have called for the complete withdrawal of US troops in the country, threatening to target them if they stay. 

The attack comes following another rocket attack that targeted the parliamentary speaker’s residence on Tuesday night.

Several attacks took place against offices of political parties and figures following the first parliamentary session earlier this month. 

No group has taken responsibility for any of the recent attacks, the perpetrators are strongly believed to also be pro-Iran groups opposed to the October 10 parliamentary elections results and the election of the parliament leadership.

Nuclear fears mount as Ukraine crisis deepens: Revelation 16

Nuclear fears mount as Ukraine crisis deepens – POLITICO

Another concern is that many of its military aircraft and missiles are also designed to carry both non-nuclear and nuclear weapons, a circumstance that could sow even more confusion during hostilities.

“It is very difficult for the West to know, ‘that conventional or nuclear,’ until it’s used,” the former nuclear official said, citing in particular air defense systems.

Nikolai Sokov, a former Russian Foreign Ministry official, said he considers the risk of a conflict over Ukraine spilling over into the nuclear arena as “extremely remote.”

But even he says it’s conceivable that one or both sides could dangerously miscalculate. For example, an accidental clash between Russian and NATO aircraft or warships, he said, “may trigger direct confrontation and then it could roll.”

For leading advocates of reducing nuclear arms, the Ukraine crisis highlights the hugely destabilizing role they play.

“What are nuclear weapons doing for us?” asked Tom Collina, director of policy at the Ploughshares Fund. “We only kind of think about them when we get into these crises, where really all they become is a liability.

“It’s hard to argue that nuclear weapons are adding to anybody’s security in this situation, but they seem to be the thing you can stumble into by mistake,” he added.

Also looming over the crisis is Russia’s history of using cyber-attacks as a key element of its military strategy, which could potentially disrupt or confuse nuclear command and control systems.

“It’s hard to argue that nuclear weapons are adding to anybody’s security in this situation, but they seem to be the thing you can stumble into by mistake.”

Tom Collina, director of policy at the Ploughshares Fund

Chris Painter, a former top government cyber official, warned this week of the risk of a nuclear escalation caused by a cyber attack impacting nuclear forces.

“We do know that Russia and other services are intent on intruding into U.S. systems,” he told an event hosted by the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative. “Obviously, nuclear command and control would be a target they’d want to go after and get a foothold in. This is a really dangerous thing … if those systems are seen to be unreliable … that does have a real effect on deterrence. It’s hugely escalatory.”

Avoiding the Impossible- the First Nuclear War: Revelation 8

nuclear missile win india and pakistan flags

Avoiding Nuclear War: India and Pakistan

For all the talk of a Russian invasion of Ukraine and China attacking Taiwan, there have been four wars over Kashmir between India and Pakistan. The last one was in 1999 after India and Pakistan detonated nuclear devices.

In the last 20 years, as both countries have been building nuclear weapons, there have been a series of standoffs that have nearly resulted in another major war. The most dangerous standoff occurred in February 2019 when an Indian fighter jet crossed the Line of Control for the first time since 1971.

This Indian airstrike was in reaction to a terrorist attack by Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM). Pakistan has provided shelter to several terrorist groups including JEM.

The Indian pilots tried to strike a JEM training camp. In response, the Pakistanis launched a strike of their own.

In a dogfight, the Pakistanis shot down an Indian MiG-21 plane and captured the pilot. Fortunately, the Pakistanis returned the pilot within days and both sides were able to deconflict the situation.

The real question is why should we wait for the next crisis? Instead of hoping that every crisis can be managed, it is time for the Line of Control to become the permanent border between India and Pakistan.

The Line of Control was established under the 1972 Simla Agreement. At the time, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto agreed that, “Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.”

The major flaw in the agreement was that India and Pakistan agreed, “That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.”

Bilateral diplomacy has failed. In the past, India has rejected a multilateral solution more because inviting external powers to the bargaining table will only strengthen Pakistan.

India rejected the Trump administration’s offer to help mediate this dispute as recently as 2019. If this problem could be solved bilaterally, it would have been solved a long time ago.

According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, India has approximately 150 nuclear weapons. Pakistan has approximately 160 to 165 nuclear weapons.

The nuclear warheads used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had an explosive yield of 15 kilotons and 20 kilotons respectively. India and Pakistan have nuclear warheads with yields ranging from 12 to 40 kilotons.

In 2019, a group of scientists calculated that a nuclear exchange between these two countries could kill between 50 million to 125 million people. It would also produce catastrophic effects to the environment across the globe.

We need to convince both countries that we shouldn’t wait for another crisis to potentially spiral out of control. If India and Pakistan are going to accept the Line of Control as a permanent border, both sides would likely require further assurances.

India would require Pakistan to fight and disarm the 12 foreign terrorist groups that are operating in Pakistan such as al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM). If Pakistan is expected to fight terrorists, than it will require India to work with Pakistan for mutual withdrawals of their forces from Kashmir.

India should be more worried about China than Pakistan. If India and Pakistan can settle their differences, India can help the United States deter China more effectively.

Since 1962, China has occupied Aksai Chin, which is a part of Kashmir. China also claims the Indian state Arunachal Pradesh.

For decades, India and Pakistan have wasted billions of dollars on defense to achieve a stalemate in Kashmir. In 1953, President Eisenhower warned that the arms race was forcing both the United States and the Soviet Union to spend money that could have been better spent developing their countries.

According to President Eisenhower, in 1953, “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.”

According to the World Bank, in 2020, the per capita GDP of India was $1,928 dollars and Pakistan was only $1,189 dollars. These two countries are significantly below both the per capita GDP of the United States ($63,414) and the global average ($10,910).

Hopefully, India and Pakistan can make peace and focus on their economic growth. These two countries have everything to gain and nothing to lose from the effort.

Robert Zapesochny is a researcher and writer whose work focuses on foreign affairs, national security and presidential history. He has been published in numerous outlets, including The American Spectator, the Washington Times, and The American Conservative. When he’s not writing, Robert works for a medical research company in New York. Read Robert Zapesochny’s Reports — More Here.