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.

Antichrist bets on keeping PM Kadhimi and using political limbo to edge out rivals

Iraq: Sadr bets on keeping PM Kadhimi and using political limbo to edge out rivals

Unable to form a new government, the cleric has decided there are other ways to sideline the Iran-backed groups, starting with appointing officials

Muqtada al-Sadr meets with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Najaf, Iraq on 6 January (Reuters)

Suadad al-Salhy

Published date: 13 May 2022 10:20 UTC | Last update: 1 week 1 hour ago

Fresh from offering Iraq’s independent MPs the chance to nominate a prime minister, Muqtada al-Sadr is already looking at the next option to break the country’s political stalemate: keep Mustafa al-Kadhimi.

It’s seven months now since Iraqis went to the polls in October’s parliamentary elections, and fierce rivalry between two camps – one led by influential Shia cleric Sadr, the other backed by Iran – has stopped anyone from forming a government.

A week ago, Sadr called on the 40 or so independents elected to parliament to form their own bloc and nominate a prime minister that his alliance – made up of Sadr’s MPs, Sunni parties and the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) – would support.

‘We will not allow the country to be held hostage. We will implement the constitution’

– Prominent Sadrist leader

Yet Iraqi political leaders involved in government-formation talks told Middle East Eye that Sadr has little expectation they will do so, and instead is looking at keeping current prime minister Kadhimi in place for six months to a year.

“Sadr is not in a hurry to form a government. Keeping the current situation as it is for six months or a year is one of the solutions now being strongly proposed,” a prominent leader of Sadr’s Save the Homeland alliance, who is close to KDP leader Masoud Barzani, told MEE.

“There is no circumstance or factor, local or international, pressuring any of the players in the tripartite alliance to expedite the formation of the government,” he added.

“If we talk about the United States, it is busy elsewhere in the world and is not much concerned with what is currently happening in Iraq. As for Iran, the continuation of the situation is less harmful than the outbreak of Shia-Shia fighting.”

Getting parliament moving

Sadr already holds great sway over Kadhimi’s government, and in October his Sairoon Alliance party emerged the clear victor. Since then, he has tried to form a “majority government” alongside his Kurdish and Sunni allies that would sideline Iranian-backed Shia factions, who together are known as the Coordination Framework.

Unhappy about being frozen out of the next government, those factions have boycotted parliament and ensured a quorum cannot be reached to continue the government-formation process. But permanent stasis would also be damaging.

If Sadr is able to continue monopolising control through his control of parliament and Kadhimi’s government, the Iranian-backed groups will find their influence and power waning.

To prove his plan’s seriousness, Sadr has not waited for his two-week deadline to independents to expire before making his next moves. He and his allies have declared parliamentary work will continue, regardless of whether the boycotters attend or not.

Iran piles pressure on Iraq’s Kurdish and Sunni leaders to crack Sadr’s alliance

Though two-thirds of MPs are needed to sit to elect a president and nominate a prime minister, just half (166 MPs) can pass most legislation. Sadr and his allies have 186.

The parliament’s leadership – the speaker and his two deputies – is made up of Mohammed al-Halbousi, head of the Sunni bloc, a Sadrist and a member of the KDP, and they have promised to get parliament moving.

Hakim al-Zamili, the Sadrist deputy speaker, on Monday informed the heads of the parliamentary blocs that appointments to parliamentary committees have been decided and work to appoint them will begin immediately, three MPs told MEE.

As for legislation, first on the list that needs to be passed is the annual budget. But the current disputes, the lack of sessions of parliament and the delay in the formation of parliamentary committees have prevented its approval so far.

With no budget, government projects, offices and social welfare networks could soon run out of cash. To avoid this, Sadr and his allies last month submitted a “mini budget” draft they called the “food security and development” law for an urgent vote.

The law would see monthly amounts of up to 35 trillion Iraqi dinars ($23bn) from the surplus monthly oil sales, international grants and donations, and loans, secured and deposed in a bank account controlled by the finance ministry.

Essentially, it would keep the country going for several months without approving the annual budget.

Voting on the “food security” law was scheduled to take place this week.

“We will not allow the country to be held hostage. We will implement the constitution, and the constitution says that there is a legally recognised parliament, a parliament speaker, a president, a prime minister and a government,” a prominent Sadrist leader told MEE.

“Practically, there will be no problem if a new government is not formed for another few months. We have a parliament and a government, which will both carry out their duties without any trouble.”

Sidelining Iran’s allies

Before Sadr’s election victory and his calls for a majority government, Iraq was governed by consensus.

Since 2003, political forces have operated under a power-sharing agreement, where influential offices and positions – both civilian and military – are divvied up between parties along the lines of representation in parliament. Some are given on the basis of courtesy and favouritism, some are given as a reward.

Only parliament can approve appointments to these positions.

But devoid of political consensus and amid fierce competition between the parliamentary blocs, over recent years Kadhimi and his predecessors have had to fill positions by appointing temporary “acting” officials, circumventing the parliamentary process.

How foreign powers are being sucked into Iraq’s political stalemate

For nearly two decades, Iranian-backed forces have dominated the Iraqi government and parliament, and they hold almost two-thirds of senior positions.

This percentage will change “completely”, and appointments without parliamentary approval will “end soon”, Sadrist leaders told MEE.

A prominent Sadrist MP told MEE that Sadr’s alliance has the power to continue or dissolve parliament, and the situation as it stands does not hinder his project.

“On the contrary, it greatly harms its opponents,” he said.

The Sadrist said moves will be made to appoint new officials as soon as the deadline given to independents expires.

“There is a new philosophy for the administration and this philosophy needs new men. Accordingly we will work to replace the old team with a new one,” he said.

“We will end running the country by proxy. This is what everyone wants and this is what we will do.”

Our Next ‘Unthinkable’ Crisis: The First Nuclear War: Revelation 8

India demonstrates drones and Russian-made missiles last year. Russia’s setbacks in its Ukraine war will weaken its reliability as India’s main arms supplier, one of many shifts in the conflicts among India, China and Pakistan. (Press Information Bureau)
India demonstrates drones and Russian-made missiles last year. Russia’s setbacks in its Ukraine war will weaken its reliability as India’s main arms supplier, one of many shifts in the conflicts among India, China and Pakistan. (Press Information Bureau)

Our Next ‘Unthinkable’ Crisis: Nuclear War in Asia?

U.S. policy should seek every chance to reduce risks among China, India, Pakistan.

Thursday, May 19, 2022/ BY: James Rupert

PUBLICATION TYPE: Analysis and Commentary

Our world’s spate of disasters so recently unimaginable — European cities pulverized by war, Earth’s decaying climate or 6 million dead from pandemic disease — evokes a national security question: What other “unthinkable” crises must American citizens and policymakers anticipate? A singular threat is warfare around our planet’s one spot where three nuclear-armed states stubbornly contest long-unresolved border conflicts. Largely unnoted in national security news coverage, the conflicts embroiling China, India and Pakistan are growing more complex and dangerous. A USIP study shows the urgency for U.S. policymakers of working to reduce the risks.

Rising Risks for Nuclear Conflict

The British Empire’s withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent in 1947 left unresolved issues of statehood and borders — and the Himalayan frontiers of China, India and Pakistan have since formed a persistent, unhealed wound. The three nations have clashed in dozens of confrontations, from full-scale, conventional wars to Himalayan border skirmishes and armed standoffs, terrorist attacks or air strikes. India-Pakistan conflicts have escalated since Pakistani terrorists attacked Mumbai in 2008, killing or injuring hundreds of Indians. The India-China border conflict has flared since 2020, including its worst violence in 45 years.

The risks of sudden violence in the region were dramatized in March when India’s military accidentally launched an unarmed, supersonic missile 75 miles into Pakistan. Luckily, the missile’s crash killed no one, and it came in a moment of relative calm in the two countries’ volatile relations. Less noticed outside the region is China’s and India’s continued buildup of military infrastructure and capabilities along their disputed border, including a recent shift of Indian troops to to that zone.

While the rivalries, periodic clashes and armed capacity of the three nations have sharpened over 15 years, policies to protect strategic stability “didn’t really move along with the changes,” said Vikram Singh, an Asia security policy specialist at USIP. Fundamentally, “there is an absolute lack of strategic engagement among the three powers about how they would manage escalation,” and rising uncertainty about “how crises might spiral,” he said. “I think what we’ve seen in Russia and Ukraine gives us reason to think hard about the unthinkable.” Singh spoke at USIP alongside others among 19 Asia and nuclear security specialists who conducted the study, published this week. The report analyzes recent years’ evolution of the conflicts and offers recommendations for U.S. policymakers.

“We see an evolution, both in terms of the capabilities” of the rival states, notably “more and different types of weapons of technology,” and perhaps more importantly, in deteriorating relationships, “particularly between India and China, and India and Pakistan,” said Daniel Markey, a scholar and policy practitioner on South Asia and USIP advisor. These evolutions lead “to possibilities for even the potential of nuclear use in the region that are very worrisome,” he said.

Analysts from the USIP-convened Senior Study Group on Strategic Stability in Southern Asia discussed specific evolutions that are increasing the risks. One is that China is significantly expanding its nuclear arsenal, which is expected to reach “up to 700 deployed warheads within the next five years,” said Lynn Rusten, who leads efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons at the nonpartisan Nuclear Threat Initiative. Another problem is that the return to power of Afghanistan’s Taliban creates new space for violent extremist groups bent on attacking India through Pakistan. Such attacks have been a frequent trigger for India-Pakistan military clashes.

Southern Asia has gradually become a theater of rival alliances — between the United States and India on one hand and China and Pakistan on the other, a polarization that has been accelerated by the global strategic rivalry between China and the United States, noted Yun Sun, an expert on Chinese foreign policy at the Stimson Center. While both countries have sought to calm previous eruptions of violent conflict between India and Pakistan, the increasingly pronounced alignments of the United States and China now will make it more difficult for them to play a mediating role in future crises, Sun and other analysts said.

The ‘Ukraine Effect’

The study group expressed concern that China, India and Pakistan all underestimate the risks that a next flareup in any of their conflicts could escalate out of control, whether by miscalculation or accident, Singh said. “Across all three there is a level of comfort … that this isn’t going to be a major problem,” he said. Sun and Andrew Scobell, a specialist on Chinese foreign relations at USIP, echoed the concern, and Scobell said Beijing could deepen that false sense of comfort if the Ukraine war avoids a nuclear escalation following public alarm about that risk.

While some commentators have suggested that Russia’s setbacks in the Ukraine war will largely indicate caution to China over any military effort to seize control over Taiwan, study group members said it remains unclear what lessons China will absorb about the various conflicts along its periphery. “I’d be wary of thinking that they’re drawing the lessons … we hope they’re drawing,” said Scobell. “The Chinese conclusion is likely that they [Russia] didn’t prepare properly, and we’re going to prepare properly” for any strike on Taiwan, he said.

In southern Asia, the Ukraine conflict is likely to disadvantage India by weakening Russia as a reliable supplier of the vast majority of Indian weapons — from tanks to missiles to submarines, Singh and Sun said. Singh asked whether such a tilting of the military balance might help prompt Beijing to consider pushing “a little harder” in the countries’ border dispute — and what the response of an uncertain India might be.

Reducing the Risks

The recent changes in southern Asia’s conflicts pose serious new implications “for the potential onset of conflict and for the ability of the United States to manage any crises that may emerge from the region,” noted former assistant Secretary of State George Moose, now USIP’s board chair, who led the discussion among the study group members. To improve that U.S. ability, the study offered three sets of recommendations:

  • The United States should seek every opportunity to reduce the conflicts among India, China and Pakistan, even in small ways. Among other steps, it should work with partners worldwide to develop economic and financial tools to deter Chinese territorial aggression, and it should sharply press Pakistan and Afghanistan’s Taliban to crack down on violent groups targeting India.
  • U.S. diplomacy should advance strategic stability in southern Asia by encouraging India and Pakistan to build a strong communications hotline that the countries’ leaderships can use to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations amid crises. It should promote strategic stability talks between India and China, and among a new “N-7” group of nuclear powers: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia and the United States. U.S. defense cooperation with India should strengthen its military deterrent capacities in ways that avoid worsening the region’s arms race.
  • The United States should better prepare policymakers for the increasingly complex crises that may emerge from recent years’ changes in weapons technologies, regional politics and increased polarization. This would require more detailed planning for crisis response, and frequent scenario exercises to let U.S. officials practice responding to the disparate ways in which southern Asia crises could escalate into nuclear confrontations or war. U.S. agencies should prepare ways to share information publicly and with other governments to combat disinformation that heightens risks of conflict, and American diplomacy should work with third parties that could prepare for roles as intermediaries in future crises.

Our Next ‘Unthinkable’ Crisis: Nuclear War in Asia?

U.S. policy should seek every chance to reduce risks among China, India, Pakistan.

Thursday, May 19, 2022/ BY: James Rupert

Our world’s spate of disasters so recently unimaginable — European cities pulverized by war, Earth’s decaying climate or 6 million dead from pandemic disease — evokes a national security question: What other “unthinkable” crises must American citizens and policymakers anticipate? A singular threat is warfare around our planet’s one spot where three nuclear-armed states stubbornly contest long-unresolved border conflicts. Largely unnoted in national security news coverage, the conflicts embroiling China, India and Pakistan are growing more complex and dangerous. A USIP study shows the urgency for U.S. policymakers of working to reduce the risks.

India demonstrates drones and Russian-made missiles last year. Russia’s setbacks in its Ukraine war will weaken its reliability as India’s main arms supplier, one of many shifts in the conflicts among India, China and Pakistan. (Press Information Bureau)
India demonstrates drones and Russian-made missiles last year. Russia’s setbacks in its Ukraine war will weaken its reliability as India’s main arms supplier, one of many shifts in the conflicts among India, China and Pakistan. (Press Information Bureau)

Rising Risks for Nuclear Conflict

The British Empire’s withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent in 1947 left unresolved issues of statehood and borders — and the Himalayan frontiers of China, India and Pakistan have since formed a persistent, unhealed wound. The three nations have clashed in dozens of confrontations, from full-scale, conventional wars to Himalayan border skirmishes and armed standoffs, terrorist attacks or air strikes. India-Pakistan conflicts have escalated since Pakistani terrorists attacked Mumbai in 2008, killing or injuring hundreds of Indians. The India-China border conflict has flared since 2020, including its worst violence in 45 years

The risks of sudden violence in the region were dramatized in March when India’s military accidentally launched an unarmed, supersonic missile 75 miles into Pakistan. Luckily, the missile’s crash killed no one, and it came in a moment of relative calm in the two countries’ volatile relations. Less noticed outside the region is China’s and India’s continued buildup of military infrastructure and capabilities along their disputed border, including a recent shift of Indian troops to to that zone.

While the rivalries, periodic clashes and armed capacity of the three nations have sharpened over 15 years, policies to protect strategic stability “didn’t really move along with the changes,” said Vikram Singh, an Asia security policy specialist at USIP. Fundamentally, “there is an absolute lack of strategic engagement among the three powers about how they would manage escalation,” and rising uncertainty about “how crises might spiral,” he said. “I think what we’ve seen in Russia and Ukraine gives us reason to think hard about the unthinkable.” Singh spoke at USIP alongside others among 19 Asia and nuclear security specialists who conducted the study, published this week. The report analyzes recent years’ evolution of the conflicts and offers recommendations for U.S. policymakers.

“We see an evolution, both in terms of the capabilities” of the rival states, notably “more and different types of weapons of technology,” and perhaps more importantly, in deteriorating relationships, “particularly between India and China, and India and Pakistan,” said Daniel Markey, a scholar and policy practitioner on South Asia and USIP advisor. These evolutions lead “to possibilities for even the potential of nuclear use in the region that are very worrisome,” he said.

Analysts from the USIP-convened Senior Study Group on Strategic Stability in Southern Asia discussed specific evolutions that are increasing the risks. One is that China is significantly expanding its nuclear arsenal, which is expected to reach “up to 700 deployed warheads within the next five years,” said Lynn Rusten, who leads efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons at the nonpartisan Nuclear Threat Initiative. Another problem is that the return to power of Afghanistan’s Taliban creates new space for violent extremist groups bent on attacking India through Pakistan. Such attacks have been a frequent trigger for India-Pakistan military clashes.

Southern Asia has gradually become a theater of rival alliances — between the United States and India on one hand and China and Pakistan on the other, a polarization that has been accelerated by the global strategic rivalry between China and the United States, noted Yun Sun, an expert on Chinese foreign policy at the Stimson Center. While both countries have sought to calm previous eruptions of violent conflict between India and Pakistan, the increasingly pronounced alignments of the United States and China now will make it more difficult for them to play a mediating role in future crises, Sun and other analysts said.

The ‘Ukraine Effect’

The study group expressed concern that China, India and Pakistan all underestimate the risks that a next flareup in any of their conflicts could escalate out of control, whether by miscalculation or accident, Singh said. “Across all three there is a level of comfort … that this isn’t going to be a major problem,” he said. Sun and Andrew Scobell, a specialist on Chinese foreign relations at USIP, echoed the concern, and Scobell said Beijing could deepen that false sense of comfort if the Ukraine war avoids a nuclear escalation following public alarm about that risk.

While some commentators have suggested that Russia’s setbacks in the Ukraine war will largely indicate caution to China over any military effort to seize control over Taiwan, study group members said it remains unclear what lessons China will absorb about the various conflicts along its periphery. “I’d be wary of thinking that they’re drawing the lessons … we hope they’re drawing,” said Scobell. “The Chinese conclusion is likely that they [Russia] didn’t prepare properly, and we’re going to prepare properly” for any strike on Taiwan, he said.

In southern Asia, the Ukraine conflict is likely to disadvantage India by weakening Russia as a reliable supplier of the vast majority of Indian weapons — from tanks to missiles to submarines, Singh and Sun said. Singh asked whether such a tilting of the military balance might help prompt Beijing to consider pushing “a little harder” in the countries’ border dispute — and what the response of an uncertain India might be.

Reducing the Risks

The recent changes in southern Asia’s conflicts pose serious new implications “for the potential onset of conflict and for the ability of the United States to manage any crises that may emerge from the region,” noted former assistant secretary of state George Moose, now USIP’s board chair, who led the discussion among the study group members. To improve that U.S. ability, the study offered three sets of recommendations:

  • The United States should seek every opportunity to reduce the conflicts among India, China and Pakistan, even in small ways. Among other steps, it should work with partners worldwide to develop economic and financial tools to deter Chinese territorial aggression, and it should sharply press Pakistan and Afghanistan’s Taliban to crack down on violent groups targeting India.
  • U.S. diplomacy should advance strategic stability in southern Asia by encouraging India and Pakistan to build a strong communications hotline that the countries’ leaderships can use to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations amid crises. It should promote strategic stability talks between India and China, and among a new “N-7” group of nuclear powers: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia and the United States. U.S. defense cooperation with India should strengthen its military deterrent capacities in ways that avoid worsening the region’s arms race.
  • The United States should better prepare policymakers for the increasingly complex crises that may emerge from recent years’ changes in weapons technologies, regional politics and increased polarization. This would require more detailed planning for crisis response, and frequent scenario exercises to let U.S. officials practice responding to the disparate ways in which southern Asia crises could escalate into nuclear confrontations or war. U.S. agencies should prepare ways to share information publicly and with other governments to combat disinformation that heightens risks of conflict, and American diplomacy should work with third parties that could prepare for roles as intermediaries in future crises.

Israel to Hold Military Exercise Simulating Large-Scale Attack on Iran

Israel jet
 An Israel jet taking part in an air force exercise. Photo: JACK GUEZ/AFP

 Home/Exercises/Israel to Hold Military Exercise Simulating Large-Scale Attack on Iran

EXERCISESMIDDLE EAST

 JOE SABALLA  MAY 19, 2022

The Israeli Air Force plans to conduct a military exercise later this month simulating a large-scale strike on Iran, according to The Times of Israel.

The drill, dubbed Chariots of Fire, comes amid uncertainty about Iran’s return to the 2015 nuclear deal, which involves the US, China, Russia, France, Germany, and the UK.

According to the report, the simulation would focus on Iranian nuclear targets and take place over the Mediterranean Sea beginning on May 29.

Nearly all Israel Defense Force (IDF) units are expected to participate.

Apart from simulated strikes, Israel will focus on responding to potential retaliation by Iran and its allies.

Careful Planning

Last year, IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi said that the military had been instructed to create fresh attack plans against Iran and its nuclear assets.

He further revealed that the Israeli armed forces had “greatly accelerated” preparations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Despite earlier claiming to have formulated a plan against Tehran’s nuclear facilities, several defense analysts said that aspects of the strike plan could take a year to become fully actionable.

One example is finding effective ways to strike Iranian facilities buried deep underground, as this requires specialized munitions and carefully-crafted tactics.

Additionally, the Israeli Air Force must find ways to neutralize increasingly sophisticated Iranian air defenses to carry out a successful offensive.

Purported US Involvement

In a separate report, The Times of Israel said that the US would participate in the large-scale exercise.

Citing Israeli TV channel Channel 13, the news outlet claimed that the US Air Force would only serve as a “complementary force” tasked with refueling Israeli planes as they simulate entering Iranian territory.

The alleged Israel-US aerial collaboration is seen as a “potential message” to Iran amid negotiations on the potential return of the 2015 nuclear deal.

However, a spokesman for the US Central Command has announced that the US Air Force refueling off the coast of Israel had no connection with the exercise.

“The tanker refuel (it was actually a dry refueling mission – no actual fuel was delivered) was not tied to the Israeli exercise,” Army Col. Joe Buccino told The War Zone.

Weaponization Of South Asia – Before the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6

china nepal pakistan india globe map south asia

Weaponization Of South Asia – OpEd

   Eurasia Review  

By Asad Ali

South Asia has become volatile region due to the warmongering approach of Modi government. The aggressive statements of Indian officials, strengthening its military might by increasing defense spending, hegemonic and Hindutva driven designs of government are putting entire regional peace in jeopardy, creating panic in the region. The BJP and RSS led Indian establishment making the lives of minorities miserable by attacking them and vandalizing their properties.

By increasing arms race, Indian government is playing with fire while creating chaos in the region. It will gain nothing out of it: hence it is likely to create disturb balance of power severely. Nuclearisation of South Asia by India, a deplorable step, permanently endangering the peace of this region and depriving the population of prosperous life due to diversion of resources towards an arms race. This must be stopped right now before its too late. The leaders in India must not forget that Pakistan has more sophisticated nuclear arsenals than India. It has outclassed India many times in conventional and non-conventional battlefield. The recently dog-fight between Indian Air Force and Pakistan Air Force in the aftermath of Balakot airstrikes had proved Pakistan’s strategic superiority over India when Pakistani Air Force shot down two Indian aircraft and captured pilot Wing Commander Abinandhaan. That was eye opener for India its also compelled New Delhi to reconsider its hostile approach towards Pakistan. In addition to this, Pakistan had identified more strategic targets inside India after the New Delhi’s blatant violations of Islamabad’s airspace, but it acted in a mature and responsible way. Pakistan showed its military might in retaliation only in defense. Pakistan had to compete as existential threats were posed by Indian leaders of myopic views.  Remember, it was India who violated all diplomatic and international military norms. 

Likewise, after facing humiliating defeat in dog-fight, India had decided to further enhance its strategic capabilities and for that matter it approached Russia and France for latest military equipment. New Delhi purchased latest Rafale aircraft from France to beat Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunders and F-16 aircraft. It had also signed deal with Russia worth billions of dollars to acquire S-400 missile defense system and other defense equipment such as Su-35 aircraft. All these Indian actions and deals are against the already existing international and bilateral rules, which are aimed at increasing arms race in the region. The warmongering designs of Indian government are creating hunger and poverty within the country. Instead of improving the basic life style of masses, New Delhi is interested in strengthening military might. Tens of thousands of Indian people are living below the poverty line having no access to basic necessities of life. They are dying of hunger. But, Modi government is more interested in warmongering. 

Indian liberal political elite, academicians and human rights watchdogs have vehemently denied Modi government’s priorities. They have been asking the government to focus more on health, education and human development instead of wasting money on defense sector. Even, Pakistani government asked India many times to join hands, end animosity and work for peace and stability in the region. Recently, former Prime Minister Imran Khan had asked Premier Modi to come forward and fight against hunger and poverty. He also offered to reduce defense spending and use of that money for human development. Indian government must understand that investing massively in defense sector is not good omen for human and economic development of the region. This will only create further security threat in the region. It must abandoned this approach and come forward to work for the overall economic and political integration of South Asia. 

To conclude my argument, I must say that Indian Army’s prevailing doctrine leaves the military with two main choices: do nothing or risk wars it cannot win. The Indian Army needs to rethink its use of force and must work in a professional way like Pakistan Army is working to maintain regional peace and stability. 

Pakistan Continues to Expand Her Nuclear Horn: Daniel 8

Pakistan likely to continue to modernise and expand its nuclear capabilities, says US intelligence official

A US official said that Pakistan “perceives nuclear weapons as key to its national survival, given India’s nuclear arsenal and conventional force superiority.”

Pakistan is likely to continue to modernise and expand its nuclear capabilities by conducting training with its deployed weapons and developing new delivery systems in 2022 as it perceives it as key to its survival, given India’s nuclear arsenal and conventional force superiority, the Pentagon’s top intelligence official has told lawmakers.

Lt Gen Scott Berrier, Director, Defence Intelligence Agency told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee during a recent Congressional hearing that Pakistan’s tense relationship with India will continue to drive its defence policy.

He said Pakistan “perceives nuclear weapons as key to its national survival, given India’s nuclear arsenal and conventional force superiority.”

“Pakistan very likely will continue to modernise and expand its nuclear capabilities by conducting training with its deployed weapons and developing new delivery systems in 2022,” Berrier said.

“Pakistan’s relations with India remain strained since a high-profile anti-India militant attack in the Union Territory of Kashmir in February 2019,” he said, referring to the Pulwama attack in which 40 Indian paramilitary troopers were killed.

“New Delhi’s August 2019 revocation of Kashmir’s semiautonomous status added to these tensions. However, cross-border violence has decreased since February 2021, when both countries recommitted to a ceasefire,” Berrier said, adding, “India and Pakistan have not made meaningful progress toward a long-lasting diplomatic solution since then.” India announced withdrawing the special powers of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcation of the state into two union territories in August 2019.

India’s move to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 outraged Pakistan, which downgraded diplomatic ties and expelled the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad.

India has said that it desires normal neighbourly relations with Pakistan in an environment free of terror, hostility, and violence. India has said the onus is on Pakistan to create an environment free of terror and hostility.

Last year, India and Pakistan announced that they have agreed to strictly observe all agreements on a ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir and other sectors.

In his testimony, Berrier said that on April 11, Shehbaz Sharif was elected as Pakistan’s new prime minister after a no-confidence vote removed Imran Khan from the post. In his first speech as prime minister, Sharif called for rebuilding the US-Pakistan relationship and denounced Khan’s conspiracy theory that the US had orchestrated his removal.

“Sharif probably will give priority to addressing Pakistan’s economy while deferring to the Army on security issues for at least the first 6 months of his term,” he said.

“Khan’s removal almost certainly portends a period of political instability as the Sharif government transitions and as Pakistan prepares for elections due no later than August 2023,” he added

Bush the beast of the sea finally tells the truth: Revelation 13

Trying to condemn the war in Ukraine, Bush inadvertently calls Iraq war unjustified

Former President George W. Bush was criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday when his old nemesis, the verbal slip, struck again. Bush eventually condemned Putin’s invasion of Ukraine — but not before he condemned “a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq.”

Bush was drawing a parallel between how countries conduct elections and their stance toward other nations when his tongue went rogue.

“The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia, and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq — I mean of Ukraine,” Bush said.

Iraq… anyway,” he said with a shake of his head, as members of the audience chuckled. He then cited his age, 75, before returning to his speech.

Bush was speaking to an audience at his presidential library in Dallas, Texas, at an event focused on the importance of ensuring free, fair and secure elections, aiming to bolster voters’ confidence in U.S. elections. But the former president’s verbal gaffe quickly drew notice on social media and in headlines.

In 2003, Bush led the U.S. into an invasion and war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction and was working toward a nuclear weapon. No evidence of such threats was found in the country. Members of his administration have insisted they were acting on faulty intelligence.

In Thursday’s speech, Bush was comparing the free and fair election of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Putin’s suppression of his political opponents.

He also said he recently spoke to Zelenskyy via Zoom, declaring the Ukrainian leader to be a “cool little guy — the Churchill of the 21stcentury.”

Bush has famously been a wellspring of malapropisms, even prompting the term “Bushisms” and sparking research into slips of the tongue. His latest high-profile foray into mangled speech adds to what is shaping up as an odd return to the early 2000s, when news outlets tracked Brittney Spears and reported on the Taliban’s rule of Afghanistan.

Copyright 2022 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.