A Closer Look At The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)

A Look at the Tri-State’s Active Fault Line

Monday, March 14, 2011
The Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast that occasionally makes local headlines when minor tremors cause rock the Tri-State region. 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.”
Robinson said the Ramapo has on occasion registered a measurable quake but has not caused damage: “The Ramapo fault is associated with geological activities back 200 million years ago, but it’s still a little creaky now and again,” he said.
“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.

Nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes)

Rouhani said in letters read out on state television that the U.S. will likely break last year’s nuclear agreement and told Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization to begin building nuclear-propelled ships which could be military in nature.
“Rouhani’s orders today were for Iran’s nuclear agency to begin planning to design maritime nuclear propulsion and to begin research on producing fuel for maritime nuclear reactors – they weren’t orders to actually begin producing any of these things,” John Gay, executive director of the John Quincy Adams Society and coauthor of the book “War With Iran,” told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “This doesn’t meaningfully threaten America’s national security, it doesn’t appear to violate the nuclear deal, and the nuclear deal helped reduce the leverage Iran gets against the United States from the maritime nuclear propulsion option.”
Iran’s renewal of naval nuclear propulsion was in response to a recent vote by American lawmakers to renew 10-year-old sanctions legislation against Iran. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon, claiming that it will not effect last year’s agreement because the White House will continue to suspend all the sanctions linked to Iran’s nuclear programm.
The sanctions were not only about nuclear issues, but also ballistic missile-testing and human rights. The deal Iran is accusing the U.S. of violating belongs to the outgoing Obama administration. The deal was also not a treaty confirmed by the U.S. Senate and, therefore, has no actual legal force.
“A key challenge in the global nuclear nonproliferation regime is that there aren’t many fundamental restrictions on uranium enrichment (a key step in the production of a nuclear weapon), provided the enrichment is for peaceful purposes,” Gay continued. “There are peaceful uses for enriched uranium, and even for the highly enriched uranium used in nuclear weapons – for example, US nuclear submarines use weapons-grade uranium in their propulsion reactors.”
Under the terms of the deal, Iran was supposed to reduce its stockpiles of enriched uranium along with its capacity to enrich new uranium. The deal allowed Iran to enrich uranium over the next 15 years, but limited the level of enrichment to below that required to produce a nuclear weapon. In exchange, U.S., European, and United Nations economic sanctions on Iran were to be lifted.
Iranian lawmakers were previously using the prospect of building nuclear-powered ships and submarines during the height of tensions with the international community over its nuclear program in 2012 as part of threats to escalate. Many analysts think that the threat to build nuclear ships is probably a bluff by Iran, because the costs of doing so would be immense compared to the benefits.
The nuclear-powered ships Iran is considering building would not require the sort of highly enriched uranium which could also be used for weapons.
“Prior to the nuclear deal, Iran was able to threaten that it would enrich uranium to higher levels to develop maritime nuclear propulsion a technology it does not have and does not really need, but, again, not one that the core elements of the nonproliferation regime restricted,” Gay told TheDCNF. “With the nuclear deal, Iran’s threats to develop maritime nuclear propulsion are less concerning, because Iran has committed not to enrich beyond a low level for the next fifteen years and has committed to restrictions on the size of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium.”
As part of the deal with Iran, the U.S. Department of Energy agreed to help modernize Iran’s Arak nuclear reactor. Iran’s porition of the deal was to agree not to build any new uranium-enriching facilities, except the Arak facility.
The Arak modernized reactor will not produce weapons-grade plutonium, but will be redesigned to a lower power level to produce smaller quantities of plutonium that won’t be weapons grade. Lower quality plutonium, however, could still be used to make low-tech nuclear explosives often called “dirty bombs.”
The deal was the result of secret talks by the Obama adminstration which began in March of 2013. Iran and the United States agreed to a deal in 2015 despite heavy opposition from congressional Republicans. House Republican lawmakers rejected the Iran deal last September in a 269 to 162 vote, arguing it was dangerous to legitimize Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Critics also argued Iran could violate the agreement. Senate Republicans, however, failed to get enough Democrats to vote against the Iran deal.
Follow Andrew on Twitter
Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

India building more nuclear submarines

Posted at: Dec 13, 2016, 8:37 PM
Last updated: Dec 13, 2016, 8:37 PM (IST)
Islamabad, December 13
“India is developing atomic submarines and also resorting to unprovoked firing on the line of control and the working boundary. In these circumstances, Pakistan has no option but to keep itself ready for defense,” Additional Secretary (UN and Economic Cooperation) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tasnim Aslam said at a seminar here.
She claimed Pakistan was maintaining minimum deterrence, but was willing to work for regional peace and stability.
“We are prepared to hold negotiations with India for resolution of outstanding disputes,” she said, also accusing India of “unprovoked firing” on the Line of Control and simultaneously making “irresponsible” statements.
She claimed that India being granted a place in the Nuclear Suppliers Group would disturb regional stability.
She claimed Pakistan had proof to India’s involvement in supporting militancy in the country.
“India has accused Pakistan of supporting non-state elements for terrorism but the Indian state has been involved in terrorist activities,” she said.
Aslam said Pakistan’s participation in the Heart of Asia Conference showed its seriousness towards peace and stability in Afghanistan.
“Our decision to attend the conference also foiled the Indian attempt to hijack the Heart of Asia process,” she claimed. — PTI

China’s Nuclear Warning To Trump (Daniel 7)

China flies nuclear bomber over South China Sea to send message to Trump

China flies nuclear bomber over South China Sea to send message to Trump
© Getty Images
The flight was the first of its kind since March 2015, though other shorter flights have occurred since, officials told Fox News.
The Pentagon was reportedly alerted about the flight on Friday.
Read more from The Hill: 

Pushing Towards The First Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

Are Nuclear Weapons Pushing India and Pakistan towards War?

December 8, 2016
The nuclear doctrines of India and Pakistan have more or less clearly defined contours, especially in the event of an Indo-Pak conflict. The twin pillars of “No First Use” and “Credible Minimum Deterrence” define India’s policy. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is still not officially declared, though the missiles, named after medieval invaders who plundered the Indian subcontinent, leave no doubt that India is their destination. As bilateral relations continue to experience a downward spiral, both nations are looking for new strategies to inflict maximum punishment on each other, further stretching the limits of their nuclear umbrellas.
Anchoring the Threshold
With Pakistan going nuclear, India’s superiority in conventional strength got blunted and the more balanced equation gave further impetus to protracted sub-conventional warfare with India. The emergence of a wide spectral vacuum allowed Pakistan to escalate tensions, yet discouraged New Delhi to engage conventionally. Only a year after its nuclear tests in 1998, Pakistan launched a limited war in Kargil. Although India responded firmly and recaptured the intruded positions, the Kargil misadventure also prompted Pakistan to develop a successful deterrence strategy which would later thwart New Delhi’s ability to engage with a nuclear Pakistan following the 2001 Parliament Attack and the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Pakistan’s addition of tactical nuclear weapons or the Hatf-IX Short Range Ballistic Missiles, equipped with low yield nuclear warheads, to its arsenal has lowered the threshold, as not only they miniaturize the theatre of conflict but also point toward a shift from centralized to delegated command and control (an authorization to junior officers). According to leading Indian military strategist Brigadier (Ret.) Gurmeet Kanwal, Pakistan is developing “nuclear weapons designed for battlefield use.” The Pakistani army claims that it is willing to use these weapons against the Indian army if it crosses into the Pakistani territory, which shows its resolve to deter the Indian army from even planning any move on these lines.
Adjustments Under the Modi Government
India’s ineffectiveness in pressurizing Pakistan after 2008 Mumbai attacks and the series of border skirmishes in 2013 fueled anger among Indian citizens. Pakistan loomed large during the 2014 general elections with the then-opposition Bharatiya Janata Party accusing the ruling UPA-led government of failing to contain Pakistan. As promised, the Modi-led government began developing new policies to engage with Pakistan after initial peace overtures failed. Halfway through the present government’s tenure, the intensity and magnitude of asymmetric warfare against India has only grown. Notable was the attack on the Indian Air Force base at Pathankot merely a few days after Prime Minister Modi paid a surprise visit to his Pakistani counterpart in Lahore.
After Pathankot, the escalation has only grown in Kashmir Valley with a steep rise in attacks against troops stationed in Jammu and Kashmir. When the Indian army launched “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control in response to an attack on its army base along the LoC, the move was hailed as a doctrinal shiftaimed at curbing cross-border terrorist attacks. This was followed by a statement from India’s Defense Minister, who called for an overhaul of the nation’s nuclear doctrine to redefine it on more subtle lines as a means of strengthening deterrence. According to the defense minister, India’s policy of “No First Use” had outlived its utility.
Pakistan has adapted to New Delhi’s policy in innovative ways, chasing an Indian submarine out of Pakistan’s territorial waters and shooting down an Indian drone which had reportedly crossed the Line of Control. Ceasefire violations after the surgical strikes have reached up to three hundred incidents. Surgical strikes seem to have had no impact on Pakistan’s policy towards India. More alarmingly, the attacks on Indian troops have taken a gruesome form. The Indian Army blames the mutilation of dead soldiers’ bodies on the Border Action Team (BAT) Commandos of the Pakistan Army. Further, the recent appointment of Pakistan’s new army chief — someone with extensive experience on Line of Control postings — is not a coincidence.
India’s much-hailed surgical strikes have failed to achieve their desired results. With Pakistan’s asymmetric warfare on India intensifying, New Delhi is likely to exhaust all available punishment strategies as long as the nuclear umbrella remains unbreached.
Prateek Joshi is a postgraduate in International Relations from South Asian University (a SAARC nations project) and a researcher on South Asia’s strategic issues.
Image: Pixabay/Public domain