It begins in Pennsylvania, crosses the Delaware River and continues through Hunterdon, Somerset, Morris, Passaic and Bergen counties before crossing the Hudson River near Indian Point nuclear facility.
In the past, it has generated occasional activity that generated a 2.6 magnitude quake in New Jersey’s Peakpack/Gladstone area and 3.0 magnitude quake in Mendham.
“There is occasional seismic activity in New Jersey,” said Robinson. “There have been a few quakes locally that have been felt and done a little bit of damage over the time since colonial settlement — some chimneys knocked down in Manhattan with a quake back in the 18th century, but nothing of a significant magnitude.”
“More recently, in the 1970s and early 1980s, earthquake risk along the Ramapo Fault received attention because of its proximity to Indian Point,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.
Historically, critics of the Indian Point Nuclear facility in Westchester County, New York, did cite its proximity to the Ramapo fault line as a significant risk.
“Subsequent investigations have shown the 1884 Earthquake epicenter was actually located in Brooklyn, New York, at least 25 miles from the Ramapo Fault,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.
The United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces entered Afghanistan in October 2001 with twin objectives: to rid this country of global terrorism and make it democratic and progressive country.
This was also the end of democracy and progressiveness which had begun taking root.
After losing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in these 20 years the US /NATO lost on both the objectives: fight against global terrorism and making Afghanistan & democratic and progressive country.
A major cause of this failure was Pakistan which charged a big fee to join the US-led war against global terrorism but helped those who were the target of this war.
The purpose of this article is not to repeat Pakistan’s well-known duplicity during this war but to point out that the single factor that failed the US aims and objectives in Afghanistan was to cowardly succumbing to Pakistan’s firm No.
The NATO Generals could not check terrorism in Afghanistan without the right to chase terrorist to their safe havens. Pakistan said it could not give this right because that would compromise its geographical honour. Thus terrorists enjoying safe havens in Pakistan, the NATO forces failed to terrorism in Afghanistan. The result was August 15.
But, what about Afghanistan’s own geographical honour? On April 16, the Taliban government said Pakistan had bombarded Afghanistan’s province of Khost and Kunar, killing at least 47 persons including 20 children. While the Taliban government is protesting loudly, Pakistan is keeping quiet.
But who has authorised Pakistan to conduct cross-border bombing of civilian areas? Taliban’s Vice Army Chief Hajji Mali Khan told the Afghan service of voice of America that “Americans also had the rife power that Pakistan has, but we defeated America?
Taliban’s spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid reflected that same thinking among the Taliban. Talking to BBC, he said Pakistan should be careful “If we can fight America, we can also stand up to Pakistan”. He said: “Pakistan should not test our patience, otherwise the Taliban will give reply”.
Pakistan’s Foreign office did not react to this but said attacks on Pakistan had increased. As if to justify bombing of Khost and Kunar, it said the terrorists were using the Afghan soil to target the Pak Army.
It accused the Taliban government of not making border safe. But what border? What Pakistan calls border (the Durand Line) the Taliban reject. How can the Taliban safeguard something which they do not accept? That the Pakistani jets forayed into Afghan territory to bomb on April 16 raises questions about its own commitment to the Durand Line.
But, besides the Durand Line, an irritant forever, there is something else that ails the Pakistan-Taliban relations. Perhaps it is their respective quiet study of each other. In the view of Pakistan, the Taliban is raw and rustic bunch of people who can be exploited but can’t be treated as equals. Pakistan may consider master-orderly equation between itself and the Taliban the best relationship.
It was because of this mentality that many people in Pakistan said that now after their victory in Afghanistan the Taliban could be used against India in Kashmir. Pakistanis could not see that the Taliban had developed a world vision in these 20 years.
Pakistan should not overlook the fact that in these 20 years, the Taliban have seen the world and learnt a lot about diplomacy. It has also seen duplications diplomacy of Pakistan, who tears in eyes, pleads with Muslim countries to recognise the Taliban government but would not do that itself.
Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said that the risk of a global nuclear war is very real. This ominous warning came not from some deranged psychopath – like the ones who regularly demand Kyiv to be nuked on Russian state TV. These were the words of the top diplomat of the Russian Federation.
In diplomatic parlance, Lavrov essentially admitted that their vaunted offensive in Donbas is stalling, the war is lost, and Russia has nothing to counter Western weapons pouring in Ukraine. Politically and militarily, Russia is backed into a corner.
Since Putin can’t accept defeat, the Kremlin is indicating that nuclear weapons are on the table as its last resort in this war.
This is nothing less than a threat to unleash an atomic war on the world. Even if Lavrov personally may not be eager to bring the end of days – being but a minister of the Russian state – his overlord is perfectly capable of and ready for the apocalypse. Lavrov merely broadcasts his master’s will.
Lavrov threatens the world with destruction, if it prevents Putin from annihilating Ukraine. Both him and Putin are dead serious. In my opinion, the international community should respond to these threats in a way that runs contrary to Putin’s expectations.
After launching its mad, irrational, and barbaric invasion of Ukraine, Russia has revealed that it’s no longer a credible, rational actor in the international arena. World leaders realize that Russian nuclear threats are best taken seriously, because the failure to do so would be prohibitively expensive. After all, the continued existence of human civilization is at stake. One person is currently openly threatening to destroy our civilization if his ludicrous demands are not met. This is nuclear terrorism on a grand scale – it’s not just some major city like New York that’s at stake, it’s all of humanity.
Giving in to the terrorist’s demands is out of the question, it would only embolden him to make further demands, and inspire copycats. Sooner or later, the world will have to call his bluff at one red line or another, risking a global nuclear war. The only difference is that the longer we appease the terrorist, the more powerful he becomes, and the weaker and more demoralized the rest of the world will be. Appeasement is not an option.
What’s left to do then? Any security service official can answer that: the only option available is to eliminate the terrorist, who is holding the whole planet hostage, trying to force us all to meet his political demands. Not unlike a hypothetical asteroid, hurtling to wards Earth, this is a global problem that demands a global solution.
In other words, scientists, diplomats, politicians, doctors, spies, soldiers, all have to put aside their grievances and work towards the resolution of one common problem. The West has started to realize the scope of the threat, and the EU, G7, and NATO are all working together, hand-in-glove.
They will be followed by China – another crucial center of the modern world. Not to mention that Russia is relegated to being China’s vassal now. Beijing is in a position to order Putin around.
Being somewhat hostile to the United States, the CCP looked upon Putin very favorably. China’s President Xi Jinping gave Putin the green light to invade Ukraine only after the conclusion of the Beijing Olympics, and Russia obeyed.
But despite favoring Russia over the United States, China isn’t looking forward to perishing in the fires of nuclear Armageddon for Putin’s obsession with Ukraine. I think Jinping told Putin: “Go ahead, capture Ukraine if you can, but no nukes – we definitely don’t need that.” China famously has the long-term perspective of becoming the primary economic, cultural, and scientific powerhouse of the planet. It has no ambition to transform into a radioactive wasteland – something Putin’s gamble is pushing them towards.
That’s why, following Lavrov’s threat, China’s foreign ministry issued a rather harsh, by Chinese standards, statement: “No one wants WWIII. All sides must show restraint around the Ukrainian crisis and avoid escalating the conflict.” Beijing is signaling to Putin that Russia won’t receive financial, technological, or military aid from China. Not even sympathies. And without Chinese support, the proverbial Russian warship has but one course to follow.
He brainwashed his populace into expecting a triumph, but as it turns out, it will be Ukraine parading its troops across Moscow. The problem is that Putin has no other way out. Nuclear war is all he thinks about now. That’s his only perceived salvation from a humiliating military defeat in Ukraine.
Putin doesn’t know what to do next, so his finger is creeping towards the nuclear “button.” That’s why I’m certain that Chinese security service will soon join their Western counterparts in figuring out a way to neutralize the Russian dictator – if it hasn’t happened already. Everyone around the globe will be pooling their resources towards stopping Putin. After all, nuclear war must be averted.
Kinzinger (R-Ill.) revealed on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he introduced the resolution, which, if passed by Congress, would give President Biden the authorization to allow the US to help militarily Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.
“I don’t think we need to be using force in Ukraine right now. I just introduced an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force, giving the president basically congressional leverage for permission to use it if [weapons of mass destruction] — nuclear, biological or chemical — are used in Ukraine,” Kinzinger told host Margaret Brennan.
The Air Force veteran, who twice served in Iraq, said the authorization would provide Biden leverage while also serving as a deterrent to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The resolution wouldn’t “compel the president to [use military force]. It just says if [WMDs are] used, he has that leverage. It gives him a better flexibility, but also it is a deterrent to Vladimir Putin,” the congressman said.
In a statement released by his congressional office shortly after his appearance on CBS, Kinzinger said, “Words matter, but so do our actions.
Kinzinger said the US must now be ready to act on Ukraine’s behalf, too.
“Prior to World War II, there were moments nobody ever wanted to get involved and eventually came to realize they had to. I hope we don’t get to that point here, but we should be ready if we do,” he said on CBS.
By Lt.-Col. (ret.) Michael Segall web posted May 2, 2022
Amid the moribund nuclear talks in Vienna, on April 24, 2022, former Deputy Chairman of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Motahhari, said in an interview with the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA) that from the start of its nuclear program, Iran sought to produce nuclear weapons but changed the policy at a later stage. “At the beginning, when we launched the nuclear program, our aim was to develop the bomb and improve our deterrent power.” Motahhari quoted parts of Surah al Anfal (60): “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” “However,” Motahhari continued, “we failed to keep it a secret, and our confidential reports were revealed by the monafeqin (hypocrites) [i.e., the exiled opposition organization, Mujahideen Khalq].”
A country that wants to have a peaceful nuclear program never starts with enrichment but constructs a reactor and then starts the enrichment process. When we enrich [uranium] straight away, it creates the impression that we want to develop the bomb…. If we could have developed a bomb secretly and tested it like Pakistan did, it would have been a strong deterrent and international players would have been more considerate of Iran’s status. Other countries rely on nuclear strength. I believe that when we start something, we should see it through to the end…. Iran can build a nuclear bomb because sharia law prohibits only the use of it and not the production of the atomic bomb. [But] Now, the opinion of the Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei] is that developing a nuclear bomb is definitely haram [religiously forbidden].
Motahhari, asked if his words might influence the future of the faltering Vienna nuclear talks, said, “No one listens to what I say. I have no official post, and my words are my opinion only.”
Ali Motahhari is the son of Ayatollah Morteza Motahhari, one of the founders of the Islamic Republic of Iran and an ideologist who was close to Khomeini and headed the Revolutionary Council during the inception of the Islamic Revolution. He is also the brother-in-law of Ali Larijani, who was chairman of the Iranian parliament for 12 years and one of the strong critics of former President Ahmadinejad. Motahhari was considered a senior conservative politician and was the second deputy of the Majlis (parliament) chairman from 2016 to 2019. In 2020, however, he was disqualified from running in the 2020 Majlis elections by the Guardian Council, and he urged Khamenei to launch an investigation into the mass disqualification of Majlis candidates. Motahhari had begun to voice more pragmatic positions and affiliate with the conservative-pragmatic camp. In February 2021, he submitted his candidacy for the elections for the Iranian presidency.
The Problematic Parts Were Expunged
Motahhari’s words sparked great interest in the social networks and the world media, and various state-run Iranian media hastened to deny them. Apparently, under tremendous pressure within Iran, the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA) that published the Motahhari interview re-edited it and removed the problematic parts on the nuclear program and Iran’s original intentions to produce nuclear weapons. The only item the outlet kept was Motahhari’s claim that Khamenei is now opposed to the use of nuclear weapons and considers it as haram.
A short time after the interview was broadcast, a “knowledgeable” source denied Motahhari’s assertions. In an interview with the Nour News Agency, which is affiliated with the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the official said Iran’s nuclear program “never had a military dimension and that irresponsible people made statements based on a lack of knowledge or their subjective political opinions.” Iran’s enemies, the official remarked, had been claiming for years that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons clandestinely, and their aim was to curtail its peaceful nuclear program.4 The Tasnim News Agency quoted Motahhari as retracting his assertion that Iran had sought nuclear weapons, saying in a clarification that “the hypocrites distorted Iran’s involvement with the issue.” Much of the Iranian media quoted the Nour Agency and published Motahhari’s clarification.
Motahhari: I Was Misunderstood
After the heavy pressure apparently exerted on him, on April 25, Motahhari issued a denial on his Instagram account, saying his words were taken out of context and Iran had never sought nuclear weapons.
What I said was that at the beginning, there were people who believed that building bombs to scare the enemy away was acceptable…the sentence has not been properly reflected by ISCA.
Despite what the Mujahideen Khalq claimed, Motahhari said, “The Islamic Republic has never sought to develop atomic bombs in policy and purpose. The Supreme Leader has also issued a religious decree [fatwa] prohibiting them.” The Mujahideen Khalq responded by rebroadcasting Motahhari’s original interview with ISCA in social and international media.
Was There Ever a Fatwa Prohibiting Use of Nuclear Weapons?
In recent years, Iran has claimed that Khamenei issued a fatwa prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, and he periodically reiterates this point in the section of Khamenei’s website dealing with religious-law issues. Toward the end, there is a reference to “the sacred prohibition [haram] of weapons of mass destruction.”
One area of the site presents a message from Khamenei in four languages (Farsi, Arabic, English, and Spanish) to the 2011 session of the Conference on Disarmament, stating: “We believe that alongside nuclear weapons, all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, pose a serious danger to the human race…. Iran has had the experience of this…. We see the use/deployment [كاربرد] of such weapons as haram and believe that everyone is obligated to invest all efforts in safeguarding the future of humanity against such a catastrophe.” The message (defined as a fatwa) was conveyed to the United Nations and officially recorded.
On the issue of prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, Khamenei also referred to the conference of Iran’s Assembly of Experts on February 22, 2021. He wrote:
“Our Islamic thought says that weapons whose use will cause the killing of innocent people, and not military personnel, are prohibited. Such weapons are prohibited, whether they are nuclear or chemical. Such weapons are prohibited because this is the position of Islam, and because of the position of Islam, we have not sought nuclear weapons; otherwise, if we wanted to do so, who are you, what is your role [Israel and the West], that you could prevent us.”
In any case, Motahhari’s words, amid the crisis in the Vienna nuclear talks, reflect the disagreements within Iran’s military-religious leadership on the development and use of nuclear weapons as well as the negotiating strategy in Vienna. It appears that, at present, Iran prefers to take the stance touting Khamenei’s fatwa, which prohibits the use of nuclear weapons, but it does not necessarily ban their continued clandestine development and production for purposes of deterrence.
IDF Lt.-Col. (ret.) Michael (Mickey) Segall, an expert on strategic issues with a focus on Iran, terrorism, and the Middle East, is a senior analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and at Acumen Risk Advisors.
Palestinians shout slogans at the compound that houses al-Aqsa Mosque, known to Muslims as Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as Temple Mount, following clashes with Israeli security forces in Jerusalem’s Old City on April 15, 2022. (Reuters)
Hamas warns of synagogue attacks in case of new al-Aqsa raid
Published: 30 April ,2022: 09:40 PM GSTUpdated: 30 April ,2022: 09:47 PM GST
The Palestinian movement Hamas warned Saturday of attacks on synagogues if Israeli forces carry out another raid on the flashpoint al-Aqsa mosque in annexed east Jerusalem.
“Whoever takes the decision to repeat this scene [of a deployment inside the mosque] will be taking the decision to destroy thousands of synagogues across the world,” Yahya Sinwar, Hamas chief in the Gaza Strip, said in a speech.
Israeli police have over the past two weeks clashed repeatedly with Palestinian protesters at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, with footage showing them firing tear gas inside the mosque, sparking condemnation from across the Muslim world.
07:59, Sun, May 1, 2022 | UPDATED: 07:59, Sun, May 1, 2022
NATO ‘active’ in supporting war with weaponry expert
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info
The stark claim comes as they warn he will not be satisfied with territorial gains in eastern Ukraine, and will return “after a period of consolidation” to mount a new offensive in Moldova and possibly Poland. Last night separate sources revealed Russia already has detailed plans to invade Moldova – which it shelved when it failed to take Western Ukraine.
The information is said to have been briefed by a senior serving Russian Air Force official who has been instrumental in helping Ukraine and the West to gauge what level of weaponry is needed to counter separate Russia offensives in Ukraine.
“The plan was that, following a quick victory over Ukraine, the door would be wide open for a follow-up operation involving Moldova,” said a Whitehall intelligence source.
“The night invasion plan involved two Rifle Brigades moving over the border, backed by a massive low-level attack by several Russian Air Force squadrons
“Whether it is still relevant following stiff resistance from Ukraine forces is open to question.”
Mysterious explosions this week in Transnistria – the breakaway territory in Moldova which boasts 1,500 Russian troops – caused speculation that Moscow was preparing to make a move on Moldova’s capital, Chisnau.
But analysts believe Russia doesn’t have enough soldiers for this while it is engaged in Donbas, and dismissed the attacks as a way of persuading Ukrainian forces to remain in the west.
Following its failure to achieve a lightning strike against Kyiv’s government, Russian forces are now aiming to establish a land corridor from Donbas all the way to Moldova, which would cut off the rest of Ukraine from the sea.
Sources revealed Russia already has detailed plans to invade Moldova (Image: Getty)
This operation is expected to be completed within six months though, privately, Russian generals are already conceding they will not be able to take the strategic port of Odesa following the sinking of the flagship Moskva.
“We expect to have established a land corridor to the outskirts of Odesa by Christmas. This is something Putin will never give up,” said one recently-retired commander from his home in Crimea last night.
“But this will not be the end of the story. It is already clear from what is being discussed at the highest levels that Putin has a second campaign in mind.”
The shape of that conflict will “depend on Nato”, he said.
“The thinking today is that if Nato increases its presence in Romania and Bulgaria and the Black Sea coast, Russia will challenge it to prompt a conclusion.
“This will continue efforts to take Odesa and, from there, to enter Transnistria and then Moldova, allowing a joining of Russian forces from Belarus. “
He added: “It may also mean entering Poland or Lithuania to secure a bridge to Kaliningrad.
“These aims are based on a firm belief that Nato lacks the moral courage to use nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Putin does not. Many of us are privately concerned at this level of escalation.”
Putin has threatened “lightning-fast” retaliation against nations that intervene in his faltering invasion of Ukraine.
Speaking in St Petersburg last week, he warned: “We have all the tools for this, and we will use them if necessary.”
The comments have been taken as a reference to tactical nuclear weapons, and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is reported to be taking the threat seriously.
“We have to understand that Russia has a different approach to nuclear weapons to us,” said Bob Seely, the Tory MP for the Isle of Wight, a former soldier and an expert in Russian military strategy. “So many assessments before this war have proved wrong. Russia miscalculated. So did Ukraine. We miscalculated too. We have to ensure we don’t miscalculate again now.”
And the great-granddaughter of ex-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev yesterday said Russia and the West are closer to nuclear war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Nina Khrushcheva said despite a “war of words”, both President John F Kennedy and her great-grandfather agreed to de-escalate as soon as there was a real threat of nuclear action in 1962.
But of the current situation she said: “I don’t see today any side, particularly the Russian side, backing off, and that’s what really scares me the most.”
Ms Khrushcheva’s words come as Russian state TV broadcast a provocative simulation of a nuclear missile strike on London, Paris and Berlin.
Hosts on Russia One’s 60 Minutes said the cities could be hit within 200 seconds of nuclear missiles being launched.
In a separate broadcast 60 minutes host Olga Skabeeva – dubbed the “Iron Doll of Putin TV” and married to pro-Kremlin Russian MP, Evgenii Popov – announced that World War Three had already started.
“They declared war against us, what else are we waiting for – we’ll have to conduct a special operation to demilitarise Nato,” she said.
Last week’s meeting of 40 countries at the US Ramstein Air Base in Germany was referred to as a “collective Hitler”.
And in prime time show “The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov”, the head of Russia Today (RT) Margarita Simonyan said: “Either we lose in Ukraine or the Third World War starts. I think World War Three is more realistic. Knowing our leader Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the most incredible outcome that all this will end with a nuclear strike seems more probable to me than the other course of events.”
Host Vladimir Solovyov then added: “But we will go to heaven, while they will simply croak.”
Speaking last night, Russia expert Dr Jade McGlynn of the Henry Jackson Society think tank said: “What’s really disturbing about this casual mention of nuclear war and World War Three on Russian TV is that it has government approval.
“It shows how militarised Russian society has become, and the extent to which many in Russia view this as an existential war.”
Viktorija Starych-Samuolienė, of the Council on Geostrategy, added: “People think this war started in February. Actually, it started in 2008 with Russia’s invasion of Georgia and continued in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and incursion into Eastern Ukraine
“What we are witnessing is a continuation of deeply-held political objectives which have never changed.”