Fault lines left over from the creation of the Appalachian Mountains can still lead to earthquakes locally, and many faults remain undetected. According to the USGS, few, if any, earthquakes in New England can be linked to named faults.
While earthquakes in New England are generally much weaker compared to those on defined fault lines, their reach is still impressive. Sunday’s 3.6 was felt in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and New Hampshire.
USGS Community Internet Intensity Map
While M 3.6 earthquakes rarely cause damage, some minor cracks were reported on social media from the shaking.
According to the USGS, moderately damaging earthquakes strike somewhere in the region every few decades, and smaller earthquakes are felt roughly twice a year.
Russia and China have been aggressively pursuing the development of hypersonic weapons compared to the US. In an attempt to bridge this gap, the US Air Force is planning to equip its Cold-War-era B-1 bombers with hypersonic weaponry until its super-advanced B-21 stealth bomber is ready for induction.
The B-1B Lancer is a multi-role, long-range bomber. It can fly intercontinental missions without refueling and can also penetrate current and potential advanced enemy defenses.
This Cold War-era bomber was originally designed to carry nuclear weapons onboard. Throughout 1991, the B-1 was a part of the single integrated operational plan (SIOP) and served its nuclear deterrence role under the same.
The conversion of the B-1B to a conventional role was a gradual process that began in 1993. The conversion was completed in October 1997. The bomber is capable of performing a wide variety of missions, including missions that require a conventional weapons carrier for theater operations.The B-1B Lancer. (Wikipedia)The B-1B’s low radar cross-section is complemented by electronic jamming equipment, infrared countermeasures, radar location, and warning systems. Together, they form an integrated defense system for the aircraft.
US Approves First Overseas Squadron Of F-35A Jets; F-35Bs Get Clearance To Operate From Japanese CarrierTempest – UK’s Sixth-Gen Fighter Jet Program Tempts Japan To Join In; London Set To Sign Contract With Key PartnersThe bomber’s swing-wing design and turbofan engines grant it greater range and high speed at low levels. Additionally, they enhance the bomber’s survivability. Once the B-1B is airborne, the wings are positioned for the greatest cruise distance or high-speed penetration.The bomber has several world records for speed, payload, and distance to its credit.
Hypersonic Missile TestThe US plans to add hypersonic weapons to these mighty aircraft that are currently stationed at Dyess Air Force Base. This will essentially turn the B-1 into a ‘missile truck’.
Gone ‘Berserk’ In 2016, US Navy Awards Lockheed Martin Contract To Produce Trident II Sub-Launched Ballistic MissilesThe Cold War-era external weapons carriage capability of the bomber will be reactivated to accommodate the new munitions. Reportedly, thework to reactivate the hardpoints of the B-1 has already begun. Six of the eight external hardpoints of the B-1 can be reinstated.The Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC). (Image: DARPA)It has been confirmed that the modified B-1 bomber will act as the launch platform for boost-glide vehicles as well as air-breathing missiles. This hints towards the potential utilization of the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid-Response Weapon and the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC), respectively.Boeing officials highlighted how the project will enhance the existing B-1 fleet, keeping the B-1 mission active till the Air Force transitions to the B-21 Raider.The bomber, which was earlier equipped for conventional combat, will not be dropping bombs like it used to but would send them at Mach speeds toward a distant target.How the plan shapes us will depend on the funding of the project, which won’t be cheap.The USAF is simultaneously also continuingon with its plans to withdraw the B-1 from service. Most recently, it sent 17 of the 60 remaining aircraft to the boneyard.The B-1B Lancer. (Wikipedia)The planned weapons upgrades for the B-1 are increasingly being viewed not just as a means of keeping up with the rapid hypersonic weapons developments in Russia and China, but also as a way of providing cover for the B-52H Stratofortress fleet.This fleet is currently undergoing improvements, which include an ambitious re-engining program that will see fleet availability reduced while it is underway.With the B-21 slated to enter the service from the mid-2020s, the B-1 might not actually have a lot of time left to serve.Frank Kendall, the US Air Force Secretary, recently announced that Northrop Grumman is producing five B-21 Raider stealth bomber test aircraft at its Palmdale facility in California, the Eurasian Times had earlier reported.The Raider program will utilize decades worth of experience gathered from the development and production of the B-2 stealth bomber. Open-source information regarding the program shows that the B-21 is likely to be a stealth aircraft.It will probably have systems in place to allow manned as well as unmanned flight. As an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV), it could be armed with a wide variety of deadly weapons.There is much speculation over the kind of sensors that will be onboard the Raider. It may come equipped with a sensor similar to the ones the F-35 boasts of. These are top-of-the-line electro-optical targeting systems that enhance the air-to-ground capabilities of the fighter.The first operational examples of the B-21 are expected to enter service at the Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, sometime in the mid-2020s.Until the development of the B-21, as well as the transition to this model, is complete, the B-1 bomber will be upgraded and lined up with hypersonic missiles.Written by Shreya Mundhra/EurAsian Times Desk
Russia‘s Defence Minister has released a terrifying video from the launch of a new cruise missile that is able to target enemy ships more than 250 miles away. The Vulkan-type anti-ship missile was fire from a Russian Varyag class cruiser during naval exercises in the Pacific. The missile was shown flying through the air at high speed before striking a simulated enemy vessel amid mock drills in the event of a World War 3 scale military clash.
The launch comes following a similar test-firing by the Arctic Expeditionary Group of the Russian Northern Fleet on September 15 in the Barents Sea.
Russia’s P-1000 Vulkan missile is an upgrade on old Soviet-era designs which suffered from a shorter range.
The Vulkan missile can be deployed from surface ships while the similar Granit-type cruise missiles can be fire from one of the Russian Navy’s Omsk nuclear submarines.
Nicknamed the “aircraft carrier-killers” the Vulkan and Granit class of anti-ship missiles present a serious challenge for NATO planners.
Last month, the Ministry of Defence revealed Britain’s armed forces are to begin trials using laser weapons that could revolutionise the battlefields of the future.
On September 14, the MoD announced that a Royal Navy Type 23 frigate is to be fitted with the first laser device as part of the “novel weapons programme”.
The new system – operating without ammunition – will be used to “detect, track, engage and counter” unmanned aerial drones.
An additional laser weapon will be installed in an Army Wolfhound armoured vehicle to assess its capability against UAVs and other aerial targets.
Defence procurement minister Jeremy Quin said: “Directed energy weapons are a key element of our future equipment programmes and we intend to become a world-leader in the research, manufacture and implementation of this next-generation technology.”
The MoD’s director of strategic programmes, Shimon Fhima, said it was important for the UK to move quickly to exploit the new technology.
“These technologies have the potential to revolutionise the future battlefield for our armed forces, enabling the prosecution of new targets in the land, sea and air domains and allowing commanders to meet mission objectives in new ways,” he said.
“We must exploit at pace the cutting-edge technologies developed by the talented scientists and engineers across the UK to capitalise on its benefit.”
The MoD said “directed energy weapons” had the potential to provide troops with “unprecedented offensive and defensive flexibility” while cutting operating costs and reducing the risks of collateral damage.
A series of contracts worth around £72.5 million have been awarded to consortia headed by Thales and Raytheon to develop the new systems.
Trials will take place between 2023 and 2025 to assess whether they can be fully embedded into other defence assets.
The MoD said the programme would create at least 49 new jobs while securing a further 249.
The head of Australia’s domestic intelligence agency has made a bold declaration about Palestinian group Hamas.
The head of Australia’s domestic spy agency has thrown his support behind listing the entirety of Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
ASIO director-general Mike Burgess said he did not have an issue with the listing the entire Palestinian group.
“Yes I would support it, but I am not the decision maker,” Mr Burgess told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday.
“There is a difference between Hamas and people who consider themselves Palestinian. If they support Hamas, then they would be supporting a terrorist organisation.”
At present, Australia only recognises the group’s paramilitary wing as a terror group.
But Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of a pro-Israel group known as the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, said the idea of “wings” within Hamas was fiction.
Dr Schanzer said the Home Affairs Minister should list the entirety of Hamas under the Criminal Code.
“There is no separating the Izz-Add brigades (the paramilitary) from the broader organisation,” he said on Friday.
“This is a fiction perpetuated by those who wish to engage with elements of the terrorist group.
“The entry of Hamas should be listed as a terrorist group in Australia and around the world.”
Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan and the United States have designated the entirety of Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
In order to be listed as a terrorist organisation, an agency would need to nominate Hamas to the Department of Home Affairs.
There is no nomination for the broader group before the department, but representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Home Affairs confirmed to the committee they could make a nomination themselves.
Mr Burgess said broadening the listing to include the entire organisation would not have an impact on ASIO’s work, nor would it “present broader national security concerns”.
He said Hamas brigades were assessed as a threat to military and civilian targets in Israel.
“As a consequence, they remain a security concern to ASIO, and we support the listing,” Mr Burgess said.
“ASIO has assessed (the brigades) as a highly capable terror organisation that are committed to using terror tactics in targeting Israel.”
Listing all of Hamas as a terrorist organisation would expose its supporters to counter-terrorism laws. The committee has been asked to review whether Al-Shabaab; the Kurdistan Workers’ Party; Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Palestinian Islamic Jihad; as well as Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades will continue to be listed as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.
This will be the ninth time Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades will be relisted.
The US Navy’s Virginia-class submarine the USS Illinois (SSN-786), sets down its anchor in Hawaii on Sept. 13. (provided by the US Navy) Considering that the first objective of the AUKUS trilateral defense pact that the US, the UK and Australia launched on Sept. 15 is helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, observers are wondering how this will impact South Korea’s own plan to develop nuclear-powered submarines.Developing nuclear submarines was one of South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s campaign pledges. “We have entered an era where we need nuclear-powered submarines. To accomplish that, we will discuss revising our nuclear power agreement with the US,” Moon said during a presidential debate in April 2017, when he was still a candidate. Since his election, Moon has shown considerable interest in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. He reportedly brought up the topic of developing them during a phone call with former US President Donald Trump that August. Kim Hyun-jong, second deputy director of the Blue House’s National Security Office at the time, expressed a similar commitment to acquiring nuclear-powered submarines in an interview with the press in July 2020. “The next generation of submarines will be equipped with engines that run on nuclear fuel,” Kim said.
Is Korea moving toward nuclear propulsion for its 4,000-ton submarines?The military case for nuclear submarines gained a major boost from the news that North Korea was developing the Pukguksong submarine-launched ballistic missile in the mid- and late-2010s. After launching its first missile in the Pukguksong line in May 2015, North Korea proceeded with a test of Pukguksong-3 in October 2019. The North has also featured Pukguksong-4ㅅ and Pukguksong-5ㅅ in military parades in October 2020 and January 2021, respectively. (ㅅ is a Korean letter; it’s thought to stand for a Korean word meaning “for use in water”). Around that time, North Korea sent submarines on a clandestine mission deep in South Korean waters, kindling concerns that South Korea would be defenseless against a Pukguksong attack from the rear. That led to calls for Korea to develop nuclear-powered submarines. Advocates say that South Korea could secretly deploy nuclear-powered submarines to lurk near North Korea’s submarine bases. The South Korean submarines could then shadow their North Korean counterparts and sink them upon detecting signs of an imminent Pukguksong missile launch. The “2021-2025 Mid-term Defense Plan” published by South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense in August 2020 leaves open the possibility of developing nuclear-powered submarines. The ministry described the Jang Bogo III program for building nine submarines of 3,000 tons or greater: three at 3,000 tons, three at 3,600 tons, and three at 4,000 tons. The ROKS Dosan Ahn Changho, which carried out Korea’s first successful test launch of a submarine-launched ballistic missile on Sept. 15, is a 3,000-ton submarine that was built as part of that plan. While the Defense Ministry has made clear that it intends to use the conventional diesel-electric propulsion system for the 3,000-ton and 3,600-ton submarines in the pipeline, it has been warier about the 4,000-ton submarines. Officials only say that it is “not appropriate to talk about the propulsion method at the current stage.” The implication is that Korea will keep an eye on developments as it decides whether to pursue diesel-electric or nuclear propulsion systems for those submarines.
French President Emmanuel Macron (second from left) and former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (center) stand on the deck of the HMAS Waller, a Collins-class submarine operated by the Royal Australian Navy, in Sydney, May 2018. (AP/Yonhap News)
Will the US apply the same standards to Korea as it did to Australia? But if the Korean military is to move forward with developing nuclear-powered submarines, it will have to overcome regulations — as well as staunch opposition and resistance from the US. The biggest obstacle is that Korea can’t acquire enriched uranium, the fuel used in nuclear-powered submarines, without American consent. Article 11 of the South Korea-US nuclear cooperation agreement, which was revised in 2015, allows Korea to enrich uranium of up to 20 percent purity, but only with a written agreement between the two countries. Without the consent of the US, therefore, Korea has no way to enrich the uranium needed to fuel nuclear-powered submarines. Some have argued that the nuclear cooperation agreement between the US and South Korea — also known as a 123 agreement — is designed for civilian nuclear reactors and thus isn’t binding when it comes to military application. But that argument is of dubious merit considering that Article 13 of the agreement states that nuclear, moderator, and byproduct materials cannot be used for any military purposes.Another option would be to buy enriched uranium for submarine reactors on the international market. That’s how Korea acquired all the enriched uranium that’s currently in use at its civilian nuclear power plants. But American approval is also required for commercial transactions on the international market. No member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group would be willing to sell enriched uranium to Korea at the risk of friction with the US. It’s unlikely that the US would overlook the purchase of enriched uranium for military purposes as it might do with uranium for civilian use. In fact, the US has reportedly been critical of the idea of Korea developing nuclear-powered submarines. When Kim Hyun-jong visited the US in September 2020, some newspapers reported that the US had rejected the plan for building nuclear-powered submarines and acquiring nuclear fuel that Kim supposedly laid out. The Blue House declined to either confirm or deny the reports, stating it couldn’t comment about foreign policy and national security matters.But now the US has agreed to join with the UK and Australia for an 18-month joint research project into finding the optimal way for Australia to develop nuclear-powered submarines. That suggests the US’ attitude has drastically changed. The fact is that the last country to which the US transferred technology for nuclear-powered submarines was the UK, and that was back in 1958. That leads some to think the US may adopt a more generous attitude toward Korea developing nuclear-powered submarines than it has in the past. To be sure, the US has advised against reading too much into what it describes as an “exceptional” decision to help Australia develop nuclear-powered submarines. “This is frankly an exception to our policy in many respects. I do not anticipate that this will be undertaken in other circumstances going forward. We view this as a one-off,” said a senior US official, who described the nuclear-powered submarine technology as extremely sensitive. This official stressed that “Australia has no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons” and that “the Biden administration remains deeply committed to American leadership in nonproliferation.”These comments suggest that the US could apply a different standard to Korea’s development of nuclear-powered submarines than Australia’s. Given the geopolitical environment in Northeast Asia, it wouldn’t be easy for the US to even allow Korea to move ahead with such a program, let alone provide technical support. Doing so would leave the US no grounds to block Japan from developing its own nuclear-powered submarines, given its competitive relationship with Korea. That could have a domino effect on nuclear-powered submarine development and potentially provoke an even greater backlash from Beijing, further heightening military tensions in Northeast Asia.
Korea faces uphill battle in developing nuclear-powered submarines North Korea appears to have beaten South Korea to the chase in developing nuclear-powered submarines. At the eighth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea in January, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said that the country’s researchers had completed the design phases and entered the final review phase for new nuclear-powered submarines. Even if South Korea does gain US’ consent to begin independently developing nuclear-powered submarines, there are many obstacles to overcome. Korea is capable of designing its own submarines, including the 3,000-ton submarines in the Jang Bogo III program. That was based on the technological expertise accrued while building ten submarines in the 1,200-ton class (Jang Bogo I program) and in the 1,800-ton class (Jang Bogo II program), with technical assistance from Germany, over the past few decades. Korea also appears to have the basic technology for building the nuclear reactors that propel advanced submarines. Since the late 1990s, South Korea has developed the SMART reactor (330 megawatts thermal power), a small system-integrated reactor intended for seawater desalination, with Russian technical support. Korean researchers have also developed a proven reactor called SMART-P (65 megawatts thermal power) that’s just one-fifth the size of SMART. Korea’s military authorities expect that existing technology could serve as the basis for acquiring a reactor to power submarines within a few years. But critics say that independently building nuclear-powered facilities isn’t within Korea’s technological reach yet. A nuclear-powered submarine means more than simply sticking a nuclear propulsion system onto a conventional submarine. A nuclear-powered submarine travels much faster and much deeper than a conventional submarine, so it must be designed anew for those requirements. That means that engineers who’ve only designed conventional submarines up to now could run into unexpected challenges while trying to design and build nuclear-powered submarines. Some experts cite noise as being one technical hurdle posed by nuclear-powered submarines. Submarines depend upon their stealth and silence, but nuclear-powered submarines are much louder than conventional submarines.Sources say that even the US, a leader in the field, needed years of experience and technological development to successfully dampen the noise of its nuclear-powered submarines. The implication is that Korea, which is just dipping its toe into the field, would have trouble developing technology to dampen the noise of the reactor’s cooling system and speed reduction gear without technical assistance from the US or another country. By Park Byong-su, senior staff writer Please direct questions or comments to [firstname.lastname@example.org]
The Israel Defense Forces told Sputnik that the soldiers had responded to the routine unrest that took place in the area every week.
Over the last three months, the area of Beita to the south of Nablus has been witnessing clashes between Palestinians and the Israeli forces. According to media reports, the confrontation was caused by the building of a new Israeli settlement in this area that started in May. UNI/SPUTNIK GNK 0806
The United States is already working to bypass Pakistan’s geographical advantage in the region, and it isn’t as invested in maintaining the geopolitical order in the Middle East any more.
File image: Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan. US President Joe Biden has chosen to snub Prime Minister Khan by choosing not to arrange a phone conversation, in normal circumstances a small diplomatic courtesy.
Thousands had gathered, one November morning in 1974, outside the United States Embassy in Islamabad, vowing vengeance against America. A day earlier, the millenarian Islamist leader Juhayman al-Otaybi had seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, seeking to replace the Saudi monarchy with a theocracy. Islamist student leaders at Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam university spread rumours that America was behind the outrage. Jama’at-e-Islami cadre, bussed in under the benign gaze of the police, torched the diplomatic mission.
Embassy personnel desperately tried to call Pakistan’s military leader, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, for help. The calls weren’t taken, recalled Barrington King, a diplomat present in the embassy that day: General Zia’s staff claimed their boss “had taken to riding bicycles, and he was having a bicycle ride, and he was greeting his constituents”.
“I think the non-arrival of the Army for the next five hours is very suspicious,” King noted. “The response was unsatisfactory, to say the least. Some people explain that they wanted to teach us a lesson about a few thing.”
For months now, the United States seems to have set about returning the favour—with interest. US President Joe Biden has chosen to snub Prime Minister Imran Khan by choosing not to arrange a phone conversation, in normal circumstances a small diplomatic courtesy. Even though Pakistan has complained bitterly of the slight—with National Security Adviser Moeed Yusuf using language more commonamong spurned teenagers than diplomats—the White House hasn’t relented.
Is the United States to finally walk out of its decades-old, toxic relationship relationship with Pakistan? The answer isn’t a simple one—and what happened in 1979 understands the complex calculations at work.
From 1953 to 1961, Pakistan had received billions of dollars in aid because of its participation in the anti-Communist treaty system; in turn, it allowed United States spy planes to operate against the Soviet Union from Peshawar, and brokered talks with China. General Zia’s military coup in 1977, and a steady flow of intelligence on Pakistan’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon, began to sour that relationship, though—and in the summer of 1979, US President Jimmy Carter cut off aid.
The embassy attack of 1979 was, possibly, an unsubtle message from the General about what a breakdown of the relationship could mean, in a region plunged into crisis because of the Islamic revolution in Iran.
In December 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan—settling the debate in Washington on how best to handle Pakistan. The invasion proved a gift from General Zia, just as 9/11 would be for another military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf: in return for Islamabad becoming the main conduit for aid to jihadists fighting the Soviet Union, US President Ronald Reagan’s administration agreed to a five-year, $3.2 billion economic and military aid package.
The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, though, saw the United States turn away from its ally, and onset of a long chill in the Islamabad-Washington relationship. The issue of nuclear weapons again acquired centre-stage, with the United States slashing both military and economic aid, and refusing to deliver 71 F-16 fighters ordered by Pakistan.
It wasn’t until 1998 that Washington refunded $324.6 million Islamabad had paid for the F16s, and resumed some limited economic aid—part of a wider effort to re-engage with the region, notably by seeking to establish a relationship with the new Taliban emirate in Afghanistan.
The tilt towards New Delhi, though, was accelerated by the Kargil war in 1999, and General Musharraf’s military coup later that year. India’s growing economy appeared, to many in Washington, to make it a much more attractive and reliable partner than a crisis-mired Islamabad.
Like in 1979, 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan led to a surge in aid for Pakistan—followed by disillusionment, as General Musharraf and his successors failed to act against the Taliban. The United States’ strained relationship with both Iran and Russia left it completely dependent on Pakistan for the logistical routes needed to sustain its war effort in Afghanistan. Even though the United States knew the jihadists attacking its forces in Afghanistan had the patronage of Islamabad, there seemed to be no option other than to make the most possible from this bad situation.
For the Generals, the decision not to act against their jihadist proxies was a pragmatic one. General Musharraf’s limited actions against some jihadist groups after 9/11 led to a fracture with the Pakistan Army’s clients, leading many to turn against the State. This led Pakistan into a savage confrontation with terrorist groups, and a breakdown of a long relationship with political Islamists who had legitimised the Army’s control of politics.
The strains in the relationship, though, finally reached the point of no-return after al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was killed in a raid inside Pakistan in May 2011—followed, in quick order, with a United States attack on Pakistani military positions along the Afghanistan border, which killed 26 of its soldiers. Even though both sides attempted to heal the fracture, there was little success; aid, data from the United States Congressional Research Service show, steadily declined thereafter.
The Generals, in essence, gambled thus: in spite of their continued sponsorship of jihadist groups, the United States would have no choice but to do business with Islamabad, in pursuance of its wider interests.
For three reasons, that gamble now seems ill-judged. First, Pakistan doesn’t really have the option of risking its relationship with the West. Even though significant investments have come from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the costs have been high, and returns lower than expected; Islamabad has been compelled to seek debt rescheduling from Beijing. Islamabad remains dependent, moreover, on finance from Western-led institutions like the International Monetary Fund, and access to the markets of the United States and Europe.
Secondly, the United States is working to bypass Pakistan’s geographical advantage. Talks are already underway with Russia for joint use of military bases in Central Asia towards counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan. It’s not inconceivable, either, that ongoing negotiations with Iran on its missile and nuclear-weapons programmes could end in entente.
Third, the United States has much less interest in maintaining the geopolitical order in the Middle-East, than it once had when it was dependent on the region’s hydrocarbons. Today, the United States produces almost all of its own natural gas, and can replace imported oil with domestic production, if needed.
Little clarity exists on what has provoked President Biden’s extraordinary coolness to Prime Minister Khan, but one plausible explanation is that the message is in fact directed at the country’s all-powerful Generals. In the long build-up to the collapse of Afghanistan’s government, Islamabad promised to use its influence with the Taliban to build an inclusive political order, and ensure terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and the Haqqani Network were shut down.
Irrespective of whether Islamabad wouldn’t, or couldn’t, keep its promises, it is now facing the consequence.
How far will the United States be willing to go? In 2011, US President Barack Obama famously told the movie star George Clooney that Pakistan was the one country that kept him awake at night. The prospect of Islamabad exporting its nuclear weapons technology to rogue regimes, or the state itself being captured by jihadists, he appeared to suggest, were nightmares that world leaders had to confront. Those strategic threats remain.President Biden, for now, appears to be willing to bet that pressure will compel Islamabad to alter its behaviour—an argument New Delhi has long made. Islamabad, though, will hoping another geopolitical crisis might change America’s calculations, as it did so often in the past.