2.5-new-york-new-jersey-aug-15-2015-earthquakeEarthquake activity in the New York City area

Although the eastern United States is not as seismically active as regions near plate boundaries, large and damaging earthquakes do occur there. Furthermore, when these rare eastern U.S. earthquakes occur, the areas affected by them are much larger than for western U.S. earthquakes of the same magnitude. Thus, earthquakes represent at least a moderate hazard to East Coast cities, including New York City and adjacent areas of very high population density.
Seismicity in the vicinity of New York City. Data are from the U.S. Geological Survey (Top, USGS) and the National Earthquake Information Center (Bottom, NEIC). In the top figure, closed red circles indicate 1924-2006 epicenters and open black circles indicate locations of the larger earthquakes that occurred in 1737, 1783 and 1884. Green lines indicate the trace of the Ramapo fault.
As can be seen in the maps of earthquake activity in this region(shown in the figure), seismicity is scattered throughout most of the New York City area, with some hint of a concentration of earthquakes in the area surrounding Manhattan Island. The largest known earthquake in this region occurred in 1884 and had a magnitude of approximately 5. For this earthquake, observations of fallen bricks and cracked plaster were reported from eastern Pennsylvania to central Connecticut, and the maximum intensity reported was at two sites in western Long Island (Jamaica, New York and Amityville, New York). Two other earthquakes of approximately magnitude 5 occurred in this region in 1737 and 1783. The figure on the right shows maps of the distribution of earthquakes of magnitude 3 and greater that occurred in this region from 1924 to 2010, along with locations of the larger earthquakes that occurred in 1737, 1783 and 1884.


The NYC area is part of the geologically complex structure of the Northern Appalachian Mountains. This complex structure was formed during the past half billion years when the Earth’s crust underlying the Northern Appalachians was the site of two major geological episodes, each of which has left its imprint on the NYC area bedrock. Between about 450 million years ago and about 250 million years ago, the Northern Appalachian region was affected by a continental collision, in which the ancient African continent collided with the ancient North American continent to form the supercontinent Pangaea. Beginning about 200 million years ago, the present-day Atlantic ocean began to form as plate tectonic forces began to rift apart the continent of Pangaea. The last major episode of geological activity to affect the bedrock in the New York area occurred about 100 million years ago, during the Mesozoic era, when continental rifting that led to the opening of the present-day Atlantic ocean formed the Hartford and Newark Mesozoic rift basins.
Earthquake rates in the northeastern United States are about 50 to 200 times lower than in California, but the earthquakes that do occur in the northeastern U.S. are typically felt over a much broader region than earthquakes of the same magnitude in the western U.S.This means the area of damage from an earthquake in the northeastern U.S. could be larger than the area of damage caused by an earthquake of the same magnitude in the western U.S. The cooler rocks in the northeastern U.S. contribute to the seismic energy propagating as much as ten times further than in the warmer rocks of California. A magnitude 4.0 eastern U.S. earthquake typically can be felt as far as 100 km (60 mi) from its epicenter, but it infrequently causes damage near its source. A magnitude 5.5 eastern U.S. earthquake, although uncommon, can be felt as far as 500 km (300 mi) from its epicenter, and can cause damage as far away as 40 km (25 mi) from its epicenter. Earthquakes stronger than about magnitude 5.0 generate ground motions that are strong enough to be damaging in the epicentral area.
At well-studied plate boundaries like the San Andreas fault system in California, scientists can often make observations that allow them to identify the specific fault on which an earthquake took place. In contrast, east of the Rocky Mountains this is rarely the case.  The NYC area is far from the boundaries of the North American plate, which are in the center of the Atlantic Ocean, in the Caribbean Sea, and along the west coast of North America. The seismicity of the northeastern U.S. is generally considered to be due to ancient zones of weakness that are being reactivated in the present-day stress field. In this model, pre-existing faults that were formed during ancient geological episodes persist in the intraplate crust, and the earthquakes occur when the present-day stress is released along these zones of weakness. The stress that causes the earthquakes is generally considered to be derived from present-day rifting at the Mid-Atlantic ridge.

Earthquakes and geologically mapped faults in the Northeastern U.S.

The northeastern U.S. has many known faults, but virtually all of the known faults have not been active for perhaps 90 million years or more. Also, the locations of the known faults are not well determined at earthquake depths. Accordingly, few (if any) earthquakes in the region can be unambiguously linked to known faults. Given the current geological and seismological data, it is difficult to determine if a known fault in this region is still active today and could produce a modern earthquake. As in most other areas east of the Rocky Mountains, the best guide to earthquake hazard in the northeastern U.S. is probably the locations of the past earthquakes themselves.

The Ramapo fault and other New York City area faults

The Ramapo Fault, which marks the western boundary of the Newark rift basin, has been argued to be a major seismically active feature of this region,but it is difficult to discern the extent to which the Ramapo fault (or any other specific mapped fault in the area) might be any more of a source of future earthquakes than any other parts of the region. The Ramapo Fault zone spans more than 185 miles (300 kilometers) in New YorkNew Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It is a system of faults between the northern Appalachian Mountains and Piedmont areas to the east. This fault is perhaps the best known fault zone in the Mid-Atlantic region, and some small earthquakes have been known to occur in its vicinity. Recently, public knowledge about the fault has increased – especially after the 1970s, when the fault’s proximity to the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York was noticed.
There is insufficient evidence to unequivocally demonstrate any strong correlation of earthquakes in the New York City area with specific faults or other geologic structures in this region. The damaging earthquake affecting New York City in 1884 was probably not associated with the Ramapo fault because the strongest shaking from that earthquake occurred on Long Island (quite far from the trace of the Ramapo fault). The relationship between faults and earthquakes in the New York City area is currently understood to be more complex than any simple association of a specific earthquake with a specific mapped fault.
A 2008 study argued that a magnitude 6 or 7 earthquake might originate from the Ramapo fault zone, which would almost definitely spawn hundreds or even thousands of fatalities and billions of dollars in damage. Studying around 400 earthquakes over the past 300 years, the study also argued that there was an additional fault zone extending from the Ramapo Fault zone into southwestern Connecticut. As can be seen in the above figure of seismicity, earthquakes are scattered throughout this region, with no particular concentration of activity along the Ramapo fault, or along the hypothesized fault zone extending into southwestern Connecticut.
Just off the northern terminus of the Ramapo fault is the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, built between 1956 and 1960 by Consolidated Edison Company. The plant began operating in 1963, and it has been the subject of a controversy over concerns that an earthquake from the Ramapo fault will affect the power plant. Whether or not the Ramapo fault actually does pose a threat to this nuclear power plant remains an open question.

Trump’s Nuclear Deal (Revelation 15)

Julian Borger World affairs correspondent
Friday 11 November 2016 06.15 EST Last modified on Friday 11 November 2016 17.00 EST
Some presidents have chosen to keep the “biscuit” on them, though that is not foolproof. Jimmy Carter left his in his clothes when he sent them to the dry-cleaners. Bill Clinton had it in his wallet with his credit cards, but then lost the wallet.
Others have chosen to give the card to an aide to keep in a briefcase, known as the “nuclear football”, together with a manual containing US war plans for different contingencies and one on “continuity of government”, where to go to ensure executive authority survives a first nuclear strike.
The “biscuit” and “football” are the embodiment of the awesome, civilisation-ending power that will be put in Trump’s hands on 20 January. They only become relevant in very rare moments of extreme crisis, but a US president’s ability to manage crises around the world will help determine whether they become extreme.
There is one such situation already in the in-tray Trump will find on his desk, on the Korean peninsula, where the North Korean regime is rapidly developing a long-range nuclear missile. Another could blow up at any time with Russia, whose warplanes are flying increasingly close to Nato planes and ships in a high-stakes game of chicken. And Trump could trigger a third crisis, with Iran, if he follows through with his threat to tear up last year’s agreement curbing its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief.
Trump’s election has added a new layer of uncertainty to all these potential flashpoints.
“I have no idea what he would do, and neither I suspect, does he,” said James Acton, the co-director of the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Let’s not kid ourselves he has policies for these issues. He doesn’t have a team that has done deep dives into these questions.”
The temperament question
One of those former officers, Bruce Blair, said that if US early warning radar showed the country was under attack by nuclear missiles, there would be time for a president to receive a briefing that could be as short as 30 seconds and the commander-in-chief would then have between three and 12 minutes to make up his mind. He would have to take into account that the early warning system had been wrong before and could be vulnerable to ever more sophisticated hacking.
“I think [Trump] lacks knowledge of the world, and knowledge of nuclear weapons and the consequences of their use. He’s not competent. He lashes out at the smallest provocation and he divides the world into winners and losers,” Blair said. “He’s a bully and I wouldn’t have confidence that he would be reasoned and restrained in a crisis.”
Others have argued that in reality, the decision time is not that short. The fact that the US has so many options – land- and sea-based missiles as well as bombers – means it does not have to launch on warning of an attack. There would be more time for Trump to think and ask for advice.
“The prompt launch of our nuclear missiles is not required nor is it US policy,” Peter Huessy, president of Geostrategic Analysis and a guest lecturer at the US Naval Academy, argued.
North Korea
Kim Jong-un has accelerated testing of nuclear weapons and missiles, and most analysts believe he will reach the capability of making a miniaturised warhead that could be put on an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the US west coast within Trump’s first term as president.
Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said that Pyongyang could seize the opportunity of presidential transition to test Trump’s mettle.
“I am worried about the people Trump is going to put in charge on that file,” Kimball said. “He is facing a very empty bench. Many of the Republican foreign policy establishment are ‘never-Trumpers’, and the North Korea problem is not going to wait.”
Trump has offered to talk to Kim, offering the possibility of breaking through the diplomatic impasse that has cut off almost all engagement with the regime. But a unilateral move could unnerve US allies in the region, already anxious about Trump’s remarks during the campaign suggesting they do not contribute enough to deserve the shelter of the US nuclear umbrella.
“He has talked about Nato and our alliances with South Korea and Japan as though they are protection rackets,” Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Programme at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. “This is particularly dangerous in South Korea, where there is a significant group of people who think Seoul should be more independent of Washington and acquire nuclear weapons. Asked about Japan or South Korea building nuclear weapons, Trump said ‘have a good time’. Japan probably won’t take him up on the offer, but South Korea might. I worry South Korea might be followed by Taiwan.”
Trump has threatened to tear up the nuclear deal six major powers signed with Iran last year, in which Iran scaled down its nuclear programme in return for relief from international sanctions. He and other Republicans have argued that the US would get more concessions if they reapplied sanctions.
“That would be a catastrophic decision,” Acton said. “The other parties to this deal would still consider themselves bound by it, whether or not the US did. If we withdrew, the Iranians would demand redress, and the other parties would be sympathetic. If you want to put pressure on Iran you need multilateral sanctions. Behaving unilaterally is very unlikely to work.”
Even before taking office, Trump would be under heavy pressure from the other parties to the deal – the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China – who have started investing and trading with Iran, not to deliver on his threat.
Doing so could isolate the US and potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Gulf.
Russian dolls in the likeness of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and the US president-elect, Donald Trump.
Russian dolls in the likeness of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and the US president-elect, Donald Trump. Photograph: Tass / Barcroft Images
Trump has claimed he could improve relations with Russia, and in particular with Vladimir Putin personally, that would defuse the high tensions over Ukraine and Syria. Such deals could well be at the expense of the people of those countries, but could conceivably lessen the chances of a complete end to arms control and the return to an expensive and dangerous nuclear arms race. Hans Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), points out that the deepest cuts in nuclear arsenals have been achieved by Republican administrations.
“Republicans love nuclear weapons reductions, as long as they’re not proposed by a Democratic president,” Kristensen wrote on an FAS blog
“That is the lesson from decades of US nuclear weapons and arms control management. If that trend continues, then we can expect the new Donald Trump administration to reduce the US nuclear weapons arsenal more than the Obama administration did.”
The current arms treaty limiting the strategic arsenals of both countries, New Start, expires in 2021. A decision will have to be made whether to replace it or let arms control wither. Both Putin and Trump could save tens of billions of dollars by cutting arsenals. As part of any deal, however, Putin would ask for the scrapping of the US missile defence system currently being erected in eastern Europe. Any concessions on the US trillion-dollar nuclear weapon modernisation programme, which Trump endorses in his transition website, would bring him in direct conflict with the Republican establishment.
“I could imagine Trump personally being more flexible,” Acton said. “But it would set up a huge fight with Congress. Congress loves missile defence.”

The Antichrist Opposes Trump (Revelation 13)

He says: “We advise the American people not to be affected by the radicalism of their president, and they should not allow him to impose his influence.”
He added: “Peace be upon the American people, those who like moderation and who want peace and peaceful coexistence between religions and ethnicities.”

The Future Division Between The Iraq And US Horns (Daniel 7-8)

By Alex Emmons and Naomi LaChance
Global Research, November 09, 2016
The Intercept 12 September 2016
Donald Trump named former CIA director and extremist neoconservative James Woolsey his senior adviser on national security issues on Monday. Woolsey, who left the CIA in 1995, went on to become one of Washington’s most outspoken promoters of U.S. war in Iraq and the Middle East.
As such, Woolsey’s selection either clashes with Trump’s noninterventionist rhetoric — or represents a pivot towards a more muscular, neoconservative approach to resolving international conflicts.
Trump has called the Iraq War “a disaster.”
Woolsey, by contrast, was a key member of the Project for the New American Century — a neoconservative think tank largely founded to encourage a second war with Iraq. Woolsey signed a letter in 1998 calling on Clinton to depose Saddam Hussein and only hours after the 9/11 attacks appeared on CNNand blamed the attacks on Iraq. Woolsey has continued to insist on such a connection despite the complete lack of evidence to support his argument. He also blames Iran.
Woolsey has also put himself in a position to profit from the wars he has promoted. He has served as vice president of Pentagon contracting giant Booz Allen, and as chairman of Paladin Capital Group, a private equity fund that invests in national security and cybersecurity.
He chairs the leadership council at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a hawkish national security nonprofit, and is a venture partner with Lux Capital Management, which invests in emerging technologies like drones, satellite imaging, and artificial intelligence.
Woolsey went on CNN on Monday and said that he was principally motivated to support Trump because of his plans to expand U.S. military spending.
Trump gave a speech last week in which he proposed dramatic expansions of the Army and Marines, and hundred-billion-dollar weapons systems for the Navy and Air Force. He offered no justification — aside from citing a few officials who claimed they wanted more firepower.
Woolsey stood by Trump’s proposal on Monday.
“I think the problem is her budget,” Woolsey said of Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. “She is spending so much money on domestic programs — including ones that we don’t even have now, and the ones we have now are underfunded — I think there can be very little room for the improvements in defense and intelligence that have to be made.”
In the past, Woolsey has publicly disagreed with Trump on a number of national security issues — including Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration. On Monday, Woolsey told CNN that such a plan would raise First Amendment issues, but that he supported a temporary immigration block from certain Muslim countries.
Thus far, at least, most prominent war hawks have found they had more in common with Clinton than Trump. “I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan told a group in July.

South Korea One Of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

By Elizabeth Shim Contact the Author
Nov. 10, 2016 at 10:01 AM
The 10-minute phone call between Trump and Park occurred a day after the Republican nominee’s victory made headlines and took the world by surprise.
Markets in Asia, including South Korea, reacted negatively to the news on Wednesday, but bounced back on Thursday, the BBC reported.
The conversations between Trump and Park focused on themes that emphasized continuity of current U.S. North Korea policy: strengthening the U.S.-South Korea alliance and close cooperation in response to North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats, Yonhap reported.
According to the presidential Blue House, Park said the “strong U.S.-South Korea alliance is the cornerstone of robust U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific region,” adding the alliance should be developed in the mutual interest of both countries.
Trump had previously criticized South Korea, as well as Japan, for their dependence on U.S. forces for defense against North Korea’s military threats.
Trump had said both countries “don’t pay us,” although burden sharing has prevailed in Seoul and Tokyo.
The president-elect appeared to take a different approach to relations with Seoul, and said to Park, “We are with you all the way and we will not waver,” according to Yonhap.