East Coast Quakes and the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6

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

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.

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.

Gordon Chang: Russia, China Closer to Using Nukes Than You Think: Revelation 16

Mushroom cloud

This July 16, 1945, photo shows the mushroom cloud of the first atomic explosion at Trinity Test Site near Alamagordo, New Mexico. (AP)

By Charlie McCarthy    |   Friday, 06 May 2022 10:45 AM

A lessening fear of the United States is a major reason China and Russia have been threatening to use nuclear weapons, one Chinese expert said.

Author Gordon Chang, senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, wrote that Russian President Vladimir Putin and China President Xi Jinping have been emboldened since President Joe Biden took office.

In a Gatestone opinion column, Chang quoted Hudson Institute senior fellow Peter Huessy.

“The bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan and the unwillingness to effectively support Ukraine since our 1994 guarantee and especially over the past year have led nuclear-armed enemies to ratchet up threats to the U.S. and its allies,” Huessy told Gatestone in March, Chang wrote. “They sense a growing American weakness.”

Despite Putin and Xi’s nuclear threats, Western leaders have been determined not to believe them, Chang wrote.

“In response to Russian threats, President Joe Biden on February 28 said the American people should not worry about nuclear war,” Chang wrote. “On the contrary, there is every reason to worry.

“In line with Western thinking, presidents and prime ministers have almost always ignored nuclear threats, hoping not to dignify them. Unfortunately, this posture has only emboldened the threat-makers to make more threats. The later the international community confronts belligerent Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans, the more dangerous the confrontations will be.

“The world, therefore, looks like it is fast approaching the worst moment in history.”

Chang referenced several recent Russian threats, including one on a state-owned TV program during which Aleksey Zhuravlyov, chairman of Russia’s pro-Kremlin Rodina Party, urged Putin to nuke Britain with a Sarmat, the world’s largest and heaviest missile.

“The program noted that a missile launched from Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave would take 106 seconds to hit Berlin, 200 seconds to reach Paris, and 202 seconds to obliterate London,” Chang wrote. “The NATO designation of the Sarmat is ‘Satan II.'”

Chang also cited a Russian media executive who called on Putin to launch a “Poseidon underwater drone with a ‘warhead of up to 100 megatons'” that would create a 1,640-foot tidal wave that would “plunge Britain to the depths of the ocean.”

“This tidal wave is also a carrier of extremely high doses of radiation,” executive Dmitry Kiselyov said, Chang wrote. “Surging over Britain, it will turn whatever is left of them into radioactive desert, unusable for anything. How do you like this prospect?”

As for China, Chang said that the country’s defense minister in March promised the “worst consequences” for countries helping Taiwan defend itself.

Chang expounded on why Russia, China, and even North Korea have threatened “to launch the world’s most destructive weaponry.”

Besides a decreasing fear of the U.S., Chang cited the desire to intimidate enemies and “a last-days-in-the-bunker mentality” as reasons for the increased nuclear threats.

Russia, Chang noted, has a nuclear doctrine known as “escalate to deescalate” – more accurately, “escalate to win,” which contemplates threatening or using nuclear weapons early in a conventional conflict.

“Because the Western democracies have largely stood down and are clearly not fighting in Ukraine, Beijing and Pyongyang want similar successes,” Chang wrote.

“These threats may reveal that the leaders of these regimes share a last-days-in-the-bunker mentality. Both Russia and China, albeit in different ways, are ruled by regimes in distress, which means their leaders undoubtedly have low thresholds of risk.”

The Iranian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 8

Nuclear Iran and the Requisites for Protecting the Regime

Friday, 6 May, 2022 – 10:45

Mustafa Fahs

The Supreme Leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Il, had no alternative to the nuclear option to protect his regime. By 1994, the year he took power and succeeded his father, Pyongyang had lost its Soviet protection, and the ideological underpinning of the North Korean regime, Juche, was threatened from within, rendering the establishment of a link between the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the regime’s doctrine the only means for deterring foreign meddling, stabilizing the domestic scene, and extending the life of the regime as it was.

This choice further isolated the North Koreans from the rest of the world. However, it also safeguarded the robustness of Juche and the appeal (spirit of self-reliance or decision-making independence) of its principles, which had been developed by the first North Korean Supreme Leader, who sought to position the country at an equal distance from the Soviets and the Chinese.

Some have built their analysis on this precedent. The way they see it, the Iranian regime has been undergoing a transformative phase for their country and the region since 2011, and it is seeking a safeguard for its political regime and the appeal of its ideology. The Welayat-el-Faqih system of governance is under heavy scrutiny domestically, and the majority in Iran opposes the regime and its ideology. It thus had to find a source of power and strength to protect both, especially since the regime’s conundrum is that it needs Welayat-el-Faqih to survive while a post-Khamenei Welayat-el-Faqih would be missing a major source of symbolic legitimacy, and he will be difficult to replace.

And so, the Iranian regime decided to reinforce its sources of strength by doing two things; first, it imposed its ideology on the state and society, and second, it imposed its influence on neighboring states and nations. Nonetheless, they conclude, it needed a deterrent strong enough to protect itself from foreign interference.

At several political junctures, we have seen Iranian officials argue that obtaining nuclear weapons is critical. The Iranian Islamic Consultative Assembly deputy Ali Moshtari is the latest official to do so. “When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was to build a bomb and enhance our deterrence capabilities, but we could not keep this matter secret. As for earlier statements, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani admitted that his country had contemplated acquiring a nuclear bomb during the Iran-Iraq war… Such statements, in addition to suspicions about non-peaceful nuclear activities, created the impression that factions in Tehran favor the development of nuclear weapons to protect the regime and deter its enemies, whatever the cost to Iran.

The regime is struggling to choose between the North Korean and Pakistani models. Regarding the former, which implies isolating Iran and the Iranians, its social, cultural and geographical requisites are not there. As for the latter, the conditions under which the Pakistanis made their decision are totally different.

Pakistan needed to create a balance of terror with its rival India, and it built popular support for its nuclear bomb on ideological grounds; moreover, the regional conflicts and the geopolitical position surrounding it accelerated its admission into the nuclear club.

However, Pakistan’s crisis is that it possessed a bomb to protect it, but as a result of external developments and altered positions on matters that affect it directly, the state apparatus that established Pakistan as a political entity was obliged to make tough concessions in order to protect its bomb.

That is the Iranians’ dilemma. They find themselves caught between the untenability of isolating Iran and the Iranians, like North Korea on the one hand, and the difficulty of making concessions to obtain a nuclear bomb, like Pakistan, on the other.

Being stuck between this rock and hard place is the source of the Iranian regime’s constant fear for its life, which has left it in a state of constant confusion, limiting Iran’s nuclear options. However, it opens the door to contemplating other models… to be continued

Russia Prepares for Nuclear War: Revelation 16

Russian combat units also practised actions in conditions of radiation and chemical contamination. Photo: AFP
Russian combat units also practised “actions in conditions of radiation and chemical contamination”. Photo: AFP 

Russian forces practise simulated nuclear-capable missile strikes

The practice took place on the 70th day of Moscow´s military action in the pro-Western country, with thousands killed and more than 13 million displaced in the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War II

By AFP

May 05, 2022

MOSCOW: Russia said its forces had practised simulated nuclear-capable missile strikes in the western enclave of Kaliningrad, amid Moscow´s military campaign in Ukraine.

The announcement came on the 70th day of Moscow´s military action in the pro-Western country, with thousands killed and more than 13 million displaced in the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War II.

After sending troops to Ukraine in late February, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made thinly veiled threats hinting at a willingness to deploy Russia´s tactical nuclear weapons.

During Wednesday´s war games in the enclave on the Baltic Sea located between EU members Poland and Lithuania, Russia practised simulated “electronic launches” of nuclear-capable Iskander mobile ballistic missile systems, the defence ministry said in a statement.

The Russian forces practised single and multiple strikes at targets imitating launchers of missile systems, airfields, protected infrastructure, military equipment and command posts of a mock enemy, the statement said.

After performing the “electronic” launches, the military personnel carried out a manoeuvre to change their position in order to avoid “a possible retaliatory strike,” the defence ministry added.

The combat units also practised “actions in conditions of radiation and chemical contamination”.

The drills involved more than 100 servicemen.

Russia placed nuclear forces on high alert shortly after Putin sent troops to Ukraine on February 24.

The Kremlin chief has warned of a “lightning fast” retaliation if the West directly intervenes in the Ukraine conflict.

Observers say that in recent days, Russia´s state television has attempted to make nuclear weapons use more palatable to the public.

“For two weeks now, we have been hearing from our television screens that nuclear silos should be opened,” Russian newspaper editor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dmitry Muratov said on Tuesday.

Farewell to arms control – Welcome Bowls of Wrath: Revelation 16

WB.defense.jpg

Farewell to arms control

by Jamie McIntyre, Senior Writer | 

 | May 05, 2022 11:00 PM

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent nuclear saber-rattling has not only unnerved the West. It has upset what’s known as “the world nuclear order,” a series of arms control agreements that undergird an international consensus that the use of nuclear weapons is to be avoided at all costs.

Putin’s not-so-veiled threats that Russia, if losing in Ukraine, might consider employing a “mini-nuke” to regain likely leverage deals a fatal blow to the notion nuclear weapons will be constrained with any new treaties.

Putin’s pronouncements, along with his doctrine of “escalate to deescalate,” have also eroded the Cold War-era concept of “MAD,” or mutually assured destruction, the deterrence construct that has helped make the idea of nuclear war unthinkable since the end of World War II.

“He’s blown up the global nuclear order that has been developed over the last 70 years, for the most part by the United States and Russia,” writes Siegfried Hecker, a former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

“That order has helped to allow the world to take advantage of the benefits of nuclear energy — such as nuclear electricity and nuclear medicine — while avoiding the worst potential consequences, everything from nuclear weapons use, to lots of countries seeking nuclear weapons.”

Last summer, when President Joe Biden met with Putin in Geneva for the first time as president, he said his goal was a “predictable, stable” relationship with Russia, despite its interference in the 2016 election, its SolarWinds cyberattack on U.S. federal government agencies, and its ominous troop buildup around Ukraine.

As an olive branch of sorts, upon taking office in 2021, one of the first things Biden did was extend for five years the 2010 New START treaty, which caps U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals at 1,550 deployed warheads, something former President Donald Trump had refused to do.

Trump and his advisers, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton, saw most Cold War-era arms treaties as anachronisms, increasingly irrelevant in a world where there were no longer only two major superpowers.

In 2019, Trump withdrew from the landmark 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which Russia was routinely violating, and the next year from the 2002 Open Skies Treaty, which allows for aerial surveillance of military facilities, something these days mostly done by satellite.

New START is the last arms control agreement still standing. Still, the Trump administration saw little benefit in renewing it, given Russia’s aggressive effort to circumvent its provisions with a vast array of new delivery systems, including its new heavy-duty Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (dubbed Satan-2 by NATO), which after a test-launch last month, Putin warned should “provide food for thought” for anyone threatening Russia.

Russia’s ever-expanding nuclear-capable arsenal includes the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, “Skyfall,” a nuclear-powered cruise missile, and “Poseidon,” a nuclear-powered, long-range torpedo.

But for Trump, the bigger problem with the Obama-era treaty was that, as a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia, it did nothing to limit the rapid growth of China’s nuclear arsenal, once thought to number 300 nuclear warheads but now believed to be on a pace to grow to 1,000 before the decade is out, according to the Pentagon’s latest report on Chinese military power.

Trump left office unable to get China and Russia to agree to discuss a future three-way arms agreement, and the incoming Biden administration justified the extension of New START as a way to buy more time to seek a broader trilateral deal.

That all seems like a pipe dream now that Putin describes his “special military operation” in Ukraine as a wider war against the U.S. and the West.

In the past two months, Putin has put his nuclear forces on high alert and threatened “lightning-fast” retaliation with “tools … the likes of which no one else can claim” if any outside power interferes in his unprovoked war in Ukraine.

“This is the greatest challenge for the security of Europe since the end of World War II. And, indeed, you can easily make the case that what’s at stake is the global international security order that was put in place in 1945,” said Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley on CNN last month.

For decades, nuclear deterrence was seen as the key to keeping the peace among the superpowers and preventing a Third World War.

“It’s prevented great power war, and underlining that entire concept is the idea that large nations will not conduct military aggression against smaller nations,” Milley said.

But Russia has flipped the script, using the threat of going nuclear to keep the U.S. and NATO at bay in Ukraine while his undisciplined military kills and terrorizes civilians, levels cities with brute force, and inflicts widespread devastation by launching more than 2,000 missiles.

“If Russia gets away with this cost-free, then so goes the so-called international order,” Milley said. “And if that happens, then we’re heading into an era of seriously increased instability.”

Earlier this year, Russia was one of five nuclear-weapon states including China, France, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. to sign a renewed pledge declaring “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

In an April 25 interview on Russian television, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed it was Russia that pushed for the group statement, which was a reaffirmation of a pledge made by Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Lavrov said there had been “two useful rounds of talks” with the Biden administration last year about what might replace New START when it expires in 2026 but that the U.S. “canceled almost all contacts” after February.

Now, Lavrov calls the risks of nuclear war “quite high.”

“I would not like to see them blown out of proportion,” Lavrov said, but then added ominously, “This threat is serious and real. It must not be underestimated.”

In response, President Joe Biden called the Russian rhetoric “irresponsible.”

“No one should be making idle comments about the use of nuclear weapons or the possibility that they’d use that,” he said.

Russia isn’t the only one engaging in loose talk about using nuclear weapons.

Since the collapse of denuclearization talks during the last year of the Trump administration, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has been making increasingly bellicose statements about not only building up his arsenal of missiles and warheads but also the preemptive use of nuclear weapons if he feels threatened.

The North Korean leader was quoted by the Korean Central News Agency this month as telling his senior military officers that they may consider the use of nuclear weapons “to preemptively and thoroughly contain and frustrate all dangerous attempts and threatening moves.”

In a speech at a military parade in Pyongyang a week earlier, Kim vowed to “take measures for further developing the nuclear forces of our state at the fastest possible speed.”

But it’s Russia, not North Korea, that is the key to any future nuclear arms control treaty.

“Russia may have also delivered the death knell to arms control, which has already been on the ropes over the past 20 years — being diminished by both Russian and American governments,” Hecker said. “It’s going to be difficult to see how we’re going to live with an international system, where we have a formerly responsible nuclear state that’s now become a pariah state — a country we can no longer count on to be responsible in nuclear matters.”

Before the Ukraine invasion, Russia was the leader in foreign nuclear power plant construction and in providing nuclear fuel services, its biggest high-tech export.

“Now that Russia has shelled the Zaporizhzhia operating nuclear plant in Ukraine and had its soldiers overrun the Chernobyl radioactive exclusion area, what country is going to have Russia build it a new nuclear power plant?” Hecker asked.

“On the issue of nuclear power, what he’s really done is he’s shot himself in the foot.”

Jamie McIntyre is the Washington Examiner’s senior writer on defense and national security. His morning newsletter, “Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense,” is free and available by email subscription at dailyondefense.com.

Russian Horn Backs Off On Nuclear Threats

Will Not Use Nuclear Weapons In Ukraine: Russia Foreign Ministry

Will Not Use Nuclear Weapons In Ukraine: Russia Foreign Ministry

Russia-Ukraine War: Foreign ministry spokesman Alexei Zaitsev told reporters the use of nuclear weapons by Russia – a risk that Western officials have publicly discussed – was not applicable to what Moscow calls its special military operation in Ukraine.

WorldReutersUpdated: May 06, 2022 2:52 pm IST

Russia-Ukraine War: Russia denies the use of nucear weapons in its military operation in Kyiv.

Moscow: 

Russia will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, foreign ministry spokesman Alexei Zaitsev said on Friday.

Zaitsev told reporters the use of nuclear weapons by Russia – a risk that Western officials have publicly discussed – was not applicable to what Moscow calls its special military operation in Ukraine.

CIA director William Burns said on April 14 that given the setbacks Russia had suffered in Ukraine, “none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons.”

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

More Lies From the Iranian Horn: Daniel 7

No place for weapons of mass destruction in Islamic approach: IRGC chief

May 6, 2022 – 13:58

TEHRAN – Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps General Hossein Salami has said that weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have no place in Islamic teachings.

He said that weapons of mass destruction, as the Leader of the Islamic Revolution pointed out, do not have any place in the Islamic approach, indicating that this is not a tactical decision, but a religious ruling.

General Salami made the remarks during the closing ceremony of the Holy Quran competitions of the Revolution Guards, which was held on Thursday in the Holy Razavi Shrine in the city of Mashhad.

The senior commander added that nuclear weapons, as a type of weapons of mass destruction, do not have any status in the Islamic system, noting that the true religion does not support resorting to this approach in confronting the enemy, Al Alam reported.

He added that the Leader announced this position to confront the world powers that possess nuclear weapons, and he decided, in the context of complying with the teachings of the Holy Quran, to ban the use of weapons of mass destruction.

“This approach is an indication that His Eminence grew up in the presence of the Holy Quran,” General Salami said of Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.