The Prophecy is much more than seeing into the future. For the Prophecy sees without the element of time. For the Prophecy sees what is, what was, and what always shall be. 11:11 LLC
New York, NY – In a Quake, Brooklyn Would Shake More Than Manhattan By Brooklyn Eagle New York, NY – The last big earthquake in the New York City area, centered in New York Harbor just south of Rockaway, took place in 1884 and registered 5.2 on the Richter Scale.Another earthquake of this size can be expected and could be quite damaging, says Dr. Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. And Brooklyn, resting on sediment, would shake more than Manhattan, built on solid rock. “There would be more shaking and more damage,” Dr. Kim told the Brooklyn Eagle on Wednesday. If an earthquake of a similar magnitude were to happen today near Brooklyn, “Many chimneys would topple. Poorly maintained buildings would fall down – some buildings are falling down now even without any shaking. People would not be hit by collapsing buildings, but they would be hit by falling debris. We need to get some of these buildings fixed,” he said. But a 5.2 is “not comparable to Haiti,” he said. “That was huge.” Haiti’s devastating earthquake measured 7.0. Brooklyn has a different environment than Haiti, and that makes all the difference, he said. Haiti is situated near tectonic plate. “The Caribbean plate is moving to the east, while the North American plate is moving towards the west. They move about 20 mm – slightly less than an inch – every year.” The plates are sliding past each other, and the movement is not smooth, leading to jolts, he said. While we don’t have the opportunity for a large jolt in Brooklyn, we do have small, frequent quakes of a magnitude of 2 or 3 on the Richter Scale. In 2001 alone the city experienced two quakes: one in January, measuring 2.4, and one in October, measuring 2.6. The October quake, occurring soon after Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, “caused a lot of panic,” Dr. Kim said. “People ask me, ‘Should I get earthquake insurance?’ I tell them no, earthquake insurance is expensive. Instead, use that money to fix chimneys and other things. Rather than panicky preparations, use common sense to make things better.” Secure bookcases to the wall and make sure hanging furniture does not fall down, Dr. Kim said. “If you have antique porcelains or dishes, make sure they’re safely stored. In California, everything is anchored to the ground.” While a small earthquake in Brooklyn may cause panic, “In California, a quake of magnitude 2 is called a micro-quake,” he added.
JERUSALEM (AP) — A new poll has found that nearly 80% of Palestinians want President Mahmoud Abbas to resign, reflecting widespread anger over the death of an activist in security forces’ custody and a crackdown on protests over the summer.
The survey released Tuesday found support for Abbas’ Hamas rivals remained high months after the 11-day Gaza war in May, when the Islamic militant group was widely seen by Palestinians as having scored a victory against a far more powerful Israel while the Western-backed Abbas was sidelined.
A recent article in Foreign Policy by Alia Brahimi suggests that the U.S.-led war on terrorism was a failure and that the poorly managed and chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan has led to a weakening of U.S. power and leadership.
While well written, the piece ignores some realities on the ground in the Middle East. In Iraq, there is a budding, though admittedly fragile, representative form of government. One that has had several successful elections that were relatively peaceful. There is no ongoing civil conflict in Iraq as compared to the situation in Syria and in Libya, and new elections are scheduled to take place in October.
A close and unemotional analysis of the geopolitical realities in that part of the Middle East suggests that a new balance of power is emerging. The emerging balance of power is one that will promote negotiations to end the constant struggle for power between Iran and Saudi Arabia, strengthen the continuing democratic experiment in Iraq, the rise of Israel’s influence in once hostile capitals in the Gulf region, as well as the moderation of Iran’s demands for an end to sanctions as a price to resume nuclear talks with the West. As an example, Iran has agreed to allow the IAEA access to the monitoring equipment that tracks its nuclear research.
It can be argued that the goals of the United States have been met in full, and given time, provide a fertile ground for representative government throughout the region.
The objectives that the United States set for itself as it began its War on Terror were two-fold; to prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base of operations and the capture or death of Osama bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011 and the Taliban concluded an agreement with the Trump administration last year. While the Taliban have retaken power in Afghanistan, it has also pledged not to allow its territory to be used as a base of operation for groups like Al Qaeda. Whether this actually happens remains to be seen.
While former President George W. Bush has been universally criticized for his invasion of Iraq, and the savage guerrilla war that followed, the fact that a representative form of government has emerged in the middle of despotic regimes cannot be ignored.
The current Iraqi government structure was set up in a time of war and has many shortcomings, reminiscent of the first government of the United States.
Naufel Alhassan, an Iraqi politician, as well as a former senior advisor to former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, has established a number of principles for keeping Iraq’s fragile democracy alive. Among them: Redesigning and restructuring Iraq’s political system; reforming the judicial, supervisory, and legislative systems; the redistribution of wealth; reorganizing the economy; and finally, ensuring a representative form of government that includes voices from across all of Iraqi society.
These are lofty goals, but corruption and waste are holding back the economy, and are radicalizing the young people of Iraq.
An article in Al-Fanar Media expresses the challenges facing the people of Iraq. “The country is in an economic vise, with billions going annually to its civil service. Each government worker has been estimated by the World Bank to get about 17 minutes of work done per day. Iraq is currently the seventh-largest oil-producing country, but oil revenue has been dropping. Little of the money the country earns is being invested in future economic growth or spreading services to a larger share of the population. Meanwhile about 700,000 young Iraqis come onto the job market each year. A primer on job creation in Iraq written for the World Bank estimated the youth unemployment rate at 36 percent.”
The biggest threat to the democratic experiment in Iraq is the lack of capital investment and entrepreneurship. With a large youth population, Iraqi youth need opportunities for employment and establishing small businesses.
The United States needs to find a way to help the more than 32 million young adults in Iraq find an economic future. This method needs to be able to bypass the corrupt bureaucracy of Iraq, and invest directly into the economy of Iraq. Microloans might be the answer.
The United States Small Business Administration provides a working model for a possible microloan project for under-employed Iraqi youth. The microloans could be used for working capital, inventory or supplies, furniture, or fixtures, and or machinery or equipment.
Such a program would have to have the blessing of the Iraqi government and be administered from the U.S. embassy in order to prevent further corrupt officials from diverting money for their own personal use. If possible, it might be advisable to have Iraqi religious leaders assist in the disbursement of funds.
During a recent protest, protestors chanted “Secular, secular, not Shia, not Sunni!” With demands for more economic opportunity, the youth of Iraq may tip the balancetowards a more responsible Iraqi government, and fulfill George Bush’s idea of infecting the Middle East with democracy.
Republic of Korea submarine ROKS Park Wi (SS 065) arrives at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-HIckam for routine training in the Hawaiian operations area and preparations for the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, June 1, 2018.Credit: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Shaun Griffin
After offering SSNs to Australia, it’s time to extend similar support to South Korea.
Jihoon Yu
The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia announced last week that the three will cooperate to allow Australia to develop a nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN). This new pact, dubbed AUKUS, will significantly strengthen the trilateral Australia-U.K.-U.S. relationship, bolstering Australia’s ability to project power throughout the Indo-Pacific region and helping to offset China’s rising naval capabilities. It also presents an opportunity for the United States to rethink its stance on the SSN aspirations of another critical Indo-Pacific ally: South Korea.
Seoul has repeatedly expressed its interest in either purchasing or producing a SSN. Former President Roh Moo-hyun launched a covert effort to explore nuclear propulsion in 2003, and current President Moon Jae-in has emphasized the South Korean need for an SSN force. However, despite South Korea’s longstanding interest in this platform, the United States has been reluctant to provide assistance due to non-proliferation concerns. The Dong-A Ilbo reported that the Trump administration rebuffed South Korean entreaties for low-enriched uranium for naval reactors in 2020.
We argue that the United States should reconsider its decision to withhold support for a South Korea SSN program. The U.S. needs more capable allies in the Indo-Pacific region given the rapid advancements in China’s military power. As the Biden administration has emphasized, China’s growing anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities and emerging power projection capabilities threaten the regional military balance and U.S. interests. Washington doubtless hopes that Australian SSNs developed through the AUKUS pact can help confront this emerging challenge. South Korean SSNs could play a similar role, bolstering a key U.S. partner’s ability to contribute to allied naval operations throughout the broader Indo-Pacific region.
SSNs, while more costly than their diesel-electric (SSK) counterparts, offer enhanced speed, endurance, and range. They can transit more swiftly should conflicts emerge far from the Korean Peninsula in the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea, or Indian Ocean while remaining submerged. Generally speaking, SSNs can support much more capable combat systems and perform more effectively than SSKs in both anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare. Given their ability to operate stealthily beneath the ocean’s surface for months at a time, SSNs are ideally suited to the increasingly contested waters of the Indo-Pacific, where China’s growing arsenal of anti-ship missiles and long-range bombers increasingly threaten surface vessels.
The United States has withheld support for a South Korean SSN program in part due to non-proliferation concerns. Some experts worry that this capability would bring South Korea closer to being able to pursue a nuclear weapon. It is worth noting, however, that Seoul is seriously considering developing a SSN even without U.S. assistance or approval. If the U.S. cooperates with South Korea in developing SSNs, it will be better positioned to ensure appropriate safeguards and accountancy measures are put in place.
Additionally, U.S. support for a South Korean SSN program would bolster the United States’ credibility as an ally. North Korea’s growing ability to strike the U.S. homeland with nuclear weapons, China’s rising regional military and economic influence, and concerns about internal divisions and political turmoil in the U.S. have all contributed to considerable anxiety in Seoul over the dependability of the United States as an ally. A new agreement to share submarine technology with South Korea could serve as a powerful signal of U.S. commitment and would doubtlessly generate considerable goodwill in Seoul. Indeed, U.S. support for a South Korean SSN program could go a long way toward convincing Seoul to step up its support for U.S. efforts to maintain a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific maritime commons. Conversely, if Washington continues to withhold support for Seoul’s SSN aspirations, even after offering the technology to Australia, it may further undermine South Korea’s confidence in its ally’s commitment and reliability.
Of course, any U.S.-South Korea agreement to work toward a Korean SSN would require considerable diplomatic effort. The current U.S.-ROK 123 agreement would need to be revised to allow South Korea to use enriched uranium for SSN reactors. Seoul would have to take concrete measures to address the United States’ legitimate concerns about nuclear proliferation. The U.S. would need to consult with other regional allies, particularly Japan, to alleviate any worries they might have about South Korea’s SSN program.
Diplomat Brief
Weekly Newsletter
N
Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.Get the Newsletter
Overall, however, U.S. efforts to assist a South Korean SSN program would strengthen the allies’ ability to cope with a more assertive and powerful China. The United States has long called on its Indo-Pacific partners to bolster their military capabilities and step up their contributions to regional security. The U.S. should welcome the fact that Seoul is ready to answer this call.Authors
Guest Author
Jihoon Yu
Jihoon Yu is a commander (sel) in the ROK Navy and a professor of military strategy at the ROK Naval Academy. He is also a member of the ROK Navy’s task force on the CVX light aircraft carrier project.
Guest Author
Erik French
Erik French is an assistant professor of international studies at the State University of New York at Brockport and an affiliated scholar with the America in the World Consortium.
ReutersSeptember 20, 202111:11 PM MDTLast Updated 15 hours ago
MANILA, Sept 21 (Reuters) – The Philippines is backing a new defence partnership between the United States, Britain and Australia, hoping it can maintain the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region, a view that contrasts sharply with some of its neighbours.
Known as AUKUS, the alliance will see Australia get technology to deploy nuclear-powered submarines as part of the agreement intended to respond to growing Chinese power.
“The enhancement of a near-abroad ally’s ability to project power should restore and keep the balance rather than destabilise it,” Philippines foreign minister, Teodoro Locsin, said in a statement on Tuesday.
Locsin’s remarks, dated Sept. 19, differ to the stance of Indonesia and Malaysia, which sounded the alarm about the nuclear power submarines amid a burgeoning superpower rivalry in Southeast Asia.
The South China Sea continues to be a source of tension, with the United States – a defence treaty partner of the Philippines – and Western allies regularly conducting “freedom of navigation” operations that China has reacted angrily to.
China sees those as outside interference in waters it claims as its own, in conflict with other coastal states, like the Philippines and Vietnam, which have accused China of harassing fishermen and energy activities.
A brief period of rapprochement is all but over this year, with the Philippines furious about the “threatening” presence of hundreds of Chinese “maritime militia”vessels inside its exclusive economic zone.
“Proximity breeds brevity in response time; thereby enhancing an ASEAN near friend and ally’s military capacity to respond to a threat to the region or challenge the status quo,” Locsin added, without specifying the threat.
“This requires enhancing Australia’s ability, added to that of its main military ally, to achieve that calibration.”
A recently completed, confidential International Atomic Energy Agency report to the U.N. Security Council on Iran’s nuclear program claims Tehran continues to swiftly advance its atomic activities.
Indeed, the Iranian regime is turning the heat up on the Biden administration and the stalemated negotiations to revive, reconfigure, or even replace the flawed, Obama-era, eight-party Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—is essentially a negotiation between the U.S. and Iran, but also involves Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and the European Union as the principal parties to the agreement as well as the new negotiations.
Other harrowing highlights of the International Atomic Energy Agency document reportedly include, according to the Institute for Science and International Security’s reporting, the following:
Iran is enriching uranium to 60% purity, well beyond its Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action-allowed level of just under 4%, and approaching the weapons-grade level of 90%.
Tehran is utilizing advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium in contravention of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Iran is experimenting with shortcuts in the enrichment of uranium to potentially accelerate the production of fissile material for nukes.
Tehran is producing uranium metal in violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for likely use in nuclear weapons.
While all of this is bad news and seemingly a good reason to panic, Iran still isn’t believed to be able to conduct a nuclear test or build a viable nuclear device for mating with a delivery platform such as a missile or an aircraft.
Like nuclear testing, developing a nuclear warhead is a significant scientific and engineering feat.
The weapon must be miniaturized to fit inside a gravity bomb or a missile warhead. In the case of a missile, the warhead must be able to survive flight en route to its target despite vibrations, G-force pressures, and high temperatures.
Fortunately, Iran isn’t there yet.
Of course, that’s small comfort considering the robustness of Iran’s missile program, which can currently range all of the Middle East, including Israel, and its intercontinentalballistic missile aspirations as evidenced by it “not so civilian” space program.
Shockingly, the ballistic missile program—the most likely platform for delivering a nuke—was never included in the Obama-Biden Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action doesn’t allow monitoring of all potential nuclear sites and Tehran has hindered the International Atomic Energy Agency’s surveillance of its nuclear program since February, who knows what else is going on in Iran’s nuclear programs?
Indeed, the mullahs have also never come clean on the full extent of its nuclear program to the International Atomic Energy Agency as was expected.
Right now, Washington, D.C., is waiting for Tehran’s new government to fully form and possibly return to the bargaining table to discuss the flawed nuclear deal, which the U.S. exited in 2018 due to its numerous shortcomings.
All of Iran’s agreement-busting atomic acts are meant to shake the White House with nightmarish visions of Iran joining the roguish regime, which now has a threatening arsenal.
These Persian provocations are a form of nuclear brinkmanship and blackmail that accrue added diplomatic to Iran at the negotiating table, increasing pressure on the U.S. to make big concessions on any future nuclear deal.
While Tehran insists that it only has interest in a peaceful nuclear program, its nuclear and missile tell quite a different story—a fairy tale narrative the Biden administration shouldn’t buy into.
News that China is revamping its nuclear arsenal has the secretary of the U.S. Air Force on edge, he admitted on Monday. Frank Kendall, who took the Air Force’s top post in July, said China’s expansion of its intercontinental ballistic missile silos could indicate the nation is developing a “first strike” capability that could allow it to attack American nuclear arsenals before the U.S. would have a chance to fire back.
“No one could rationally desire or plan to initiate a nuclear war, and I’m convinced China does not,” Kendall told listeners in a speech at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber conference. “But as a 20-year veteran of the Cold War who saw the world come far too close to nuclear exchanges between the Soviet Union and the United States, I am deeply concerned about the implications of China’s change in policy for nuclear stability and the potential for a catastrophic mistake.”
Kendall noted his concern about China’s nuclear capability as part of a larger mission statement that the Air Force and Space Force must radically change its technology and practices to keep pace with that rising power. That was the theme throughout the conference, which is the largest public Air Force event of the year. Even the branch’sown press release about Kendall’s speech noted that the secretary mentioned China 27 times in the speech, as opposed to one mention of Russia and three of Afghanistan.
“At a breakfast on Capitol Hill shortly after I was sworn in, I was asked by Sen. Jon Tester what my priorities were,” Kendall recalled in his speech. “My answer was that I had three; China, China, and China.”
Just a few hours after the speech, Kendall warned reporters at the start of a media roundtable that “you’re going to get tired of hearing me talk about China.”
Kendall’s fears stem not only from China’s nuclear arsenal, but also from the modernization of its conventional weapons. These days, the Chinese military fields long-range anti-aircraft missiles; the largest navy in the world, fifth-generation fighter jets, anti-satellite weapons and other tools over which the U.S. and its allies once enjoyed total dominance 20 years ago. A West Point graduate who worked in the defense industry for 15 years, Kendall said he returned to government work in 2010 specifically to “pound the drum” about the threat of China’s military modernization program.
“While there are a number of areas in which the U.S. maintains strong leads, China has invested smartly in anti-access/area denial systems designed to defeat U.S. power projection,” Kendall said. “We are being more effectively challenged militarily today than at any other time in our history.”
China’s military modernization and missile silo expansion efforts are well-documented. However, it was unclear what proof Kendall had to show that China was pursuing a first-strike nuclear capability.
“Anyone with nuclear weapons can potentially conduct a first strike and China has for decades had the capability to do so if it wanted to,” Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, toldDefense One on Monday. “But the ‘capability’ doesn’t say much about strategy or intent and [Adm. Charles Richard] and Kendall don’t provide any evidence that’s what China is aiming for.”
Kristensen and fellow nuclear arms researcher Matt Korda wrote in July that China appears to be in the process of building 250 nuclear missile silos in the country’s western Xinjiang region, in addition to around 100 road-mobile ICBM launchers deployed at more than a dozen bases, they wrote.
“There are no limits on what they can put in those silos,” the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. John Hyten, said earlier this month, according to U.S. Naval Institute News.
Kendall was just as wary. China used to have just “a small nuclear force that was clearly intended to be a minimal deterrent and a second strike capability,” he said on Monday.
That small nuclear force provided more than adequate deterrence and “kept the risk of unintended nuclear use very low,” Kendall explained. But the new ICBM silos indicate a shift away from that policy, he said, though he was unsure why China would take such a route.
“I don’t know what China’s intentions are … we really don’t have a good explanation for that,” the secretary told reporters on Monday. “But inherently it is a destabilizing move on their part, and I’m not sure they fully appreciate the risks that they’re adding to the entire global nuclear equation by doing it.”
The Prophecy Blog 