USGS Evidence Shows Power of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New Evidence Shows Power of East Coast Earthquakes
Virginia Earthquake Triggered Landslides at Great Distances
Released: 11/6/2012 8:30:00 AM USGS.govEarthquake shaking in the eastern United States can travel much farther and cause damage over larger areas than previously thought.U.S. Geological Survey scientists found that last year’s magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia triggered landslides at distances four times farther—and over an area 20 times larger—than previous research has shown.“We used landslides as an example and direct physical evidence to see how far-reaching shaking from east coast earthquakes could be,” said Randall Jibson, USGS scientist and lead author of this study. “Not every earthquake will trigger landslides, but we can use landslide distributions to estimate characteristics of earthquake energy and how far regional ground shaking could occur.”“Scientists are confirming with empirical data what more than 50 million people in the eastern U.S. experienced firsthand: this was one powerful earthquake,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “Calibrating the distance over which landslides occur may also help us reach back into the geologic record to look for evidence of past history of major earthquakes from the Virginia seismic zone.”This study will help inform earthquake hazard and risk assessments as well as emergency preparedness, whether for landslides or other earthquake effects.This study also supports existing research showing that although earthquakes  are less frequent in the East, their damaging effects can extend over a much larger area as compared to the western United States.The research is being presented today at the Geological Society of America conference, and will be published in the December 2012 issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.The USGS found that the farthest landslide from the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 245 km (150 miles) from the epicenter. This is by far the greatest landslide distance recorded from any other earthquake of similar magnitude. Previous studies of worldwide earthquakes indicated that landslides occurred no farther than 60 km (36 miles) from the epicenter of a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.“What makes this new study so unique is that it provides direct observational evidence from the largest earthquake to occur in more than 100 years in the eastern U.S,” said Jibson. “Now that we know more about the power of East Coast earthquakes, equations that predict ground shaking might need to be revised.”It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. population could have felt last year’s earthquake in Virginia, more than any earthquake in U.S. history. About 148,000 people reported their ground-shaking experiences caused by the earthquake on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website. Shaking reports came from southeastern Canada to Florida and as far west as Texas.In addition to the great landslide distances recorded, the landslides from the 2011 Virginia earthquake occurred in an area 20 times larger than expected from studies of worldwide earthquakes. Scientists plotted the landslide locations that were farthest out and then calculated the area enclosed by those landslides. The observed landslides from last year’s Virginia earthquake enclose an area of about 33,400 km2, while previous studies indicated an expected area of about 1,500 km2from an earthquake of similar magnitude.“The landslide distances from last year’s Virginia earthquake are remarkable compared to historical landslides across the world and represent the largest distance limit ever recorded,” said Edwin Harp, USGS scientist and co-author of this study. “There are limitations to our research, but the bottom line is that we now have a better understanding of the power of East Coast earthquakes and potential damage scenarios.”The difference between seismic shaking in the East versus the West is due in part to the geologic structure and rock properties that allow seismic waves to travel farther without weakening.Learn more about the 2011 central Virginia earthquake.

Nuclear twilight before the first nuclear war: Revelation 8

Indian and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars and another is entirely possible (file photo).
Yawar Nazir/Getty ImagesIndian and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars and another is entirely possible (file photo).

‘Nuclear twilight’: Something else to worry about

OPINION: As a dreadful year draws to an end and the Omicron variant turns out to be less lethal than its predecessors, premature outbreaks of cheerfulness have been spotted in many quarters. 

As I am under a contractual obligation to keep the readers worried, I was at my wit’s end – but then I interviewed Professor Alan Robock of Rutgers University.

He’s a renowned climate scientist, but recently he led a team of researchers who re-examined the phenomenon of ‘nuclear winter’. 

That’s not really a climate phenomenon. It would be the by-product of a superpower nuclear war, in which the smoke from a thousand burning cities blocks out the sun and leaves the world freezing in the dark for years.

A different team of researchers discovered nuclear winter almost 40 years ago, and it helped to convince the great powers they must never fight a nuclear war. 

The reason we don’t worry much about nuclear winter now is that we think they have finally learned that lesson.

True, there are now other countries with nuclear weapons that don’t seem immune to outbreaks of major war, like India and Pakistan. However, everybody assumed the damage would be confined to their own region. 

If we don’t let it escalate into a superpower clash, the rest of the world should be all right.


The Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals each amount to about 150 warheads now. That’s a modest number compared to the thousands held by the superpowers, but it turns out to be quite enough to cause…let’s call it a nuclear twilight.

What makes this so worrisome is that India and Pakistan have already fought three full-scale wars and half a dozen major skirmishes since they got their independence. 

Another is entirely possible, and the risk of escalation to nuclear weapons would be very high, for two reasons.

First, most of their nuclear-capable aircraft and missiles are vulnerable to being destroyed on the ground in a surprise attack. 

Secondly, the two countries are so close together that only a very brief warning time is available. In these circumstances, a policy of ‘launch on warning’, with all the risk of mistakes that entails, is the only rational option for both sides.

The first victims of such a war would be Pakistani and Indian civilians, because cities will be on the target lists: that’s where the major ports, airfields and critical infrastructure are. 

Robock’s team calculated that those burning cities would loft enough ‘black carbon’ into the stratosphere to create a shroud of soot over the whole world within a few weeks.

It wouldn’t be the full-dress nuclear winter of superpower war, with ‘darkness at noon’. However, 300 nuclear explosions in the Indian subcontinent, most of them airbursts over cities, would dim the sun enough to drop temperatures and severely damage crop yields in the main food-producing regions of the planet.

The main effects would be a severe drop in the average global temperature and a comparable decline in global food production – with the worst-hit areas being in the Northern Hemisphere, north of latitude 30°N. (Almost all of India and Pakistan are south of that.) 

It’s counter-intuitive, but that’s the way the climate system works.

The most important ‘breadbaskets’ of the planet – grain-growing areas that produce a big crop surplus for export – are the United States, Canada and Europe (including European Russia) – and they are all just north of 30. 

The dimming effects of an Indo-Pak nuclear war in 2025, say, would drop the average global temperature by 5 °C over all the continents, but in the key regions of North America and Europe it could reach 10 °C colder. 

That maximum cooling would be reached in the fourth year after the war, and would gradually return to ‘normal’ by around year 15.

Australia, Brazil and Argentina, the Southern Hemisphere’s bread-baskets, might still be able to export some grain, but they would not be remotely capable of compensating for the huge shortfalls of food in the Northern Hemisphere.

Tens, maybe hundreds of millions would starve in the poorer parts of the north, and scrabbling for food in the cold and the dark would certainly take our minds off our longer-term problem: global heating. 

But when the effects of the local nuclear war in the Indian subcontinent finally faded, it would be right back to that bigger climate crisis.

And it would be bigger, for carbon dioxide would not have stopped accumulating during the hungry years. Indeed, the world might find that it was returning not to the average global temperature of +1.3 °C that prevailed when the Indo-Pak war started, but to a climate that was now hovering on the brink of +2.0 °C.

Just thought you’d like to know. Happy New Year.

What you’ve just read was written by a fiercely independent reporter and general good human.

Our journalists tell it like it is. They’re trained to know facts from falsehoods, science from spin, politicking from public interest.

Stuff is 100 per cent Kiwi-owned, and our 380 journalists are free to report the news across Aotearoa without corporate or government influence.

Russian nuclear horn deploys new weapons: Daniel 7

Suspected test of new satellite killing S-550
The S-550 is part of Russia’s strategic air defense structure.

Russia reportedly deploys new missile capable of downing satellites

Mark Moore

​Russia has deployed a new Star Wars-likemissile system that has the capability to strike satellites and shoot down nuclear-armed rockets, state media reports.

The S-550 defense system has successfully completed trials and “entered combat duty,” Tass reported Tuesday, citing a source inside the Russian defense ministry.

The official called the defense system “absolutely new and unrivaled” and capable of “hitting spacecraft, ballistic missile reentry vehicles and hypersonic targets at altitudes of tens of thousands of kilometers.”

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said last month at defense industry meetings in Sochi that President Vladimir Putin had emphasized the need to deliver the S-550 system to Russian troops, the report said.

The S-550 becomes part of Russia’s strategic air defense structure, along with the long-range S-350, S-400 and S-500 systems.

Suspected test of new satellite killing S-550
The S-550 defense system has successfully completed trials and “entered combat duty,” Tass reported Tuesday.
Suspected test of new satellite killing S-550 at Sary-Shagan test site
The announcement of the new weapon comes as tensions between Moscow and Washington continue to heighten.

The announcement of the new weapon comes amid heightened tensions between Moscow and Washington over Russia’s buildup of military equipment and thousands of troops along its border with Ukraine.

Putin has demanded that the US and its European allies provide security guaranteesthat they will not allow Ukraine to become a member of NATO and will not deploy forces or missiles in the former Soviet republic.

Talks between American and Russian officials have been set for Jan. 10 in Geneva. 

Sergey Shoigu
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said last month that President Vladimir Putin had emphasized the need to deliver the S-550 system to Russian troops.

Russia last month ​test-fired a missile that destroyed one of its satellites, creating a debris field that endangered astronauts on the International Space Station.

It’s unclear whether the missile fired was a S-550.

A military expert told Tass that the new Russian missile system uses the kinetic energy interceptor​ principle to avoid a nuclear detonation when hitting a nuclear warhead.

Dmitry Litovkin​ told the outlet that the interceptor allows the missile to “physically destroy the warhead and prevent nuclear blasts​.”

“In the case that a warhead is destroyed, its fragments will create a radioactive background, albeit to a lesser degree compared to a shell explosion,” ​he said.

Kinetic interceptors are designed to hit a target at high velocity in order to destroy it and do not contain an explosive warhead.

After Iraqi election ratification, the Antichrist calls for gov’t formation

NAJAF, IRAQ - NOVEMBER 18: Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr holds a press conference in Najaf, Iraq on November 18, 2021. ( Karar Essa - Anadolu Agency )

After Iraqi election ratification, Sadr calls for gov’t formation

December 1, 2021

Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr holds a press conference in Najaf, Iraq on November 18, 2021. [Karar Essa – Anadolu Agency]December 28, 2021 at 4:49 pm 

Leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada Al-Sadr, yesterday called for the formation of a “majority government” in Iraq, a day after a federal court approved the results of the country’s parliamentary elections.

“I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this national democratic event, specifically the supreme judiciary, the federal court, the electoral commission, and the United Nations Secretary General’s special representative to Iraq, Jeanine Plasschaert,” Al-Sadr said on Twitter.

He called for “preserving peace by accelerating the formation of a national majority government, neither eastern nor western.”

Iraq’s top court yesterday ratified the results of the country’s parliamentary elections, which took place on 10 October 2021. Under the Iraqi law, the ratification clears the way for a new parliament to hold its inaugural session within 15 days.

For the Antichrist, deal-making and tough choices start now

A file picture shows Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr speaking after preliminary results of Iraq's parliamentary election were announced in Najaf, Iraq, October 11, 2021. (REUTERS)

For Iraq’s Sadr, deal-making and tough choices start now


With the Federal Supreme Court’s ratification of the disputed election results, the leader of the Sadrist movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, now has to reckon with the need to strike deals with various political blocs in order to form the cabinet and run the government.

To start with, he will have to quickly flesh out his ideas on the priorities of the new government and how it should work, now that he leads the largest bloc in the parliament. That bloc must build the required parliamentary alliances which will underlie the formation of the government.

Iraqi political sources say that the leader of the Sadrist movement will face a real challenge with such alliances. They wonder if Sadr will be able to win the support of the Sunni, Kurdish and independent blocs without making the necessary concessions to achieve that goal. Another question, given his opposition to the quota system, will be if he is prepared to share portfolios with other blocs to satisfy supportive MPs.

These sources said that it is not possible to talk about “forming a national majority government,” as advocated by Sadr, without providing sufficient guarantees to the parliamentarians who would be willing to back it. The most important guarantee would be ministerial portfolios for their blocs as well as positions and dividends for the parliamentarians themselves and their supporters. The sources say that speaking of a national majority government is just loose talk as long as Sadr and his bloc’s representatives do not sit with representatives of the various other blocs and convince them to support the government. Without such meetings, he could lose everyone’s support.

Sadr called on Monday for the expedited formation of a “national majority government” without recourse to the quota system. The content of his proposal has remained ambiguous since his meeting at the beginning of December with the leaders of the Coordination Framework, composed of Shia parties loyal to Iran.

If Sadr wants to be free from the pressures of the Coordination Framework member-parties, he will have to show greater flexibility in managing relations with the Sunni blocs over the choice of the parliamentary speaker in exchange for explicit support for a government and the creation of a parliamentary and political support base for that government.

The comments of the main Sunni blocs have shown a willingness to examine any proposals on joining the government. The leader of the “Taqddom” (Progress) coalition, Muhammad al-Halbousi, said in a tweet, “The consensus agreement to abide by the decisions of the Federal Court regarding ratification of the election results is a step forward towards advancing on the democratic path away from chaos and lawlessness.”

Sadr needs to reach out to the informally-named Independent bloc in the new parliament, which represents the Iraqi political protest movement opposed to government policies and the quota system. Members of the Independent bloc have been instrumental in weakening the political standing of the Hashed Shaabi bloc and Rule of Law coalition.

The leader of the Sadrist movement will also have to decide how to deal with the Kurds and whether he will manoeuvre to keep Barham Salih in the presidency without clashing with Massoud Barzani.

It is not known whether Sadr will choose for a prime minister an “independent” figure behind whom he will operate so that he and the Sadrist movement can distance themselves from all shortcomings or if he will risk naming a prime minister from his own people, even if that would mean bearing the consequences of the cabinet’s failures as well as its successes.

Iraqi observers say Sadr will eventually choose the option that will enable him to remain the influential party behind the scenes. They believe the closest to a possible consensus figure may be Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, through whom the Sadrist movement can expect the government to earn international recognition and gain support from the United States and countries of the region, especially if Barham Salih is maintained in the presidency.

Kadhimi’s nomination would have the added benefit of scotching the influence of former Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a contender for the office of prime minister, especially since Iran could use Maliki as a means to pressure and blackmail Sadr.

It is expected that the factions that make up the Coordination Framework will start putting obstacles in front of Sadr to prevent him from forming a government without them.

On Monday, one of them, Kata’ib Hezbollah announced its boycott of the formation of the next government, after the Federal Supreme Court approved the election results.

It said in a statement that “the parties that confiscated the rights of the Iraqi people were supported by the Saudi-American Zionist coalition, to pass their agendas.” And it claimed that “the Electoral Commission was subjected to the most abject forms of exploitation by those parties, during and after the elections.”

However, observers believe that the first step for the pro-Iranian factions will be to send threatening messages to the Sadrist movement and its leader in the hope of forcing their participation in the government and obtaining clear concessions.

The Coordination Framework had anticipated the court’s decision by presenting a nine-point alternative initiative, which includes a call to “address the parliamentary imbalance resulting from the flawed election results” by making sure that laws and legislations are not enacted with the exclusion of other parties.”

The initiative also proposed that the top positions of the three branches of government “should be subject to the agreement of the political forces and take into account the prevailing constitutional customs.” This is a call for consensus-based solutions that guarantee acceptable positions for the Coordination Framework despite its loss in the elections.

Iraq Says Babylon the Great Must Withdraw

US forces Iraq

Iraqi Resistance Insists on US Withdrawal: American Dream Will Never Come True

The Iraqi Resistance Coordination Commission (IRCC) has said the United States is not serious about leaving the Arab country, stressing that the American dream that its troops will be at peace in Iraq is a mere “illusion” that will never come true.

“It becomes clearer to us every day that the occupying forces of the United States are not serious in fulfilling the demand of our dear nation to implement the Iraqi parliament’s bill regarding their withdrawal,” the IRCC said in a statement on Tuesday.

It was referring to a bill that was passed into law on January 3, 2020 by the Iraqi parliament requiring the Iraqi government to end the presence of the US-led foreign forces in the country.

The bill came two days after the US assassination of Iran’s top anti-terror commander Lieutenant General Qassem Suleimani and deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis near the Baghdad International Airport.

Tuesday’s statement said the Iraqi resistance groups have waited so far so as to give yet another chance to the American forces to leave the country as demanded by the law.

It called on the Iraqi government to fulfill its duty of expelling the occupying forces from Iraq, but added that it seems the US insists on maintaining its occupying troops in the Arab country.

The US, according to the statement, intends to retain its forces in the current bases and also take control of Iraqi airspace in order to spy on areas that are bereft of the Daesh Takfiri terrorists.

“The US dream that its occupying soldiers will feel at ease and that their bases will be in peace and stability in Iraq is an illusion that will never come true,” the IRCC added.

Meanwhile, the secretary general of the Badr Organization Hadi Al-Amiri also reiterated the call to fully expel foreign combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2021.

Al-Amiri said all bases in which foreign troops were active must be handed over to the Iraqi army by the end of the current year.

“The entry and exit of advisers, technical forces, and trainers must be done in accordance with the law and with respect for the Iraqi government,” Al-Amiri, who is also the leader of the Fatah Alliance (Conquest Alliance) political coalition, maintained.

Source: Press TV

Nuclear Showdown – Revelation 8

Nuclear Showdown – Why Could India Be Preparing For A ‘Nuclear Clash’ With China Despite Their No First Use Policy?

December 28, 2021

Whether it is a coincidence or not, over the 20-month-long border standoff with China in Ladakh, India has tested several missile systems, ranging from SRBM to MRBM to ASCM to SLBM to ICBM to hypersonic cruise missiles verities, some of whom could carry nuclear warheads.

More than being perceived to be closing the missile gap with China, these tests have led to speculations about whether India is reconsidering its stated official policy of “no first use” (NFU) of its nuclear weapons.In the past fortnight alone, India has tested two important systems. On December 22, it tested “Pralay” SRBM (short-range ballistic missile) that is maneuverable on its trajectory and can carry a payload capacity of 500-1000kg with 350-500 km short-range. It has the potential to change the tactical battlefield dynamics.

Series Of Missile Tests

On December 18, India tested for the second time (the first time was in June) its new “Agni-P” medium-range ballistic missile. It was officially described by New Delhi as a “new generation” nuclear-capable ballistic missile. “As our ballistic missiles grew in range, our technology grew in sophistication. 

Now the early, short-range missiles, which incorporate older technologies, will be replaced by missiles with more advanced technologies. Call it backward integration of technology”, it was said.  

The Agni-P is India’s first shorter-range missile to incorporate technologies now found in the newer Agni-IV and -V ballistic missiles, including more advanced rocket motors, propellants, avionics, and navigation systems. It is being developed as a successor to Agni-I and Agni-II missiles in the operational service of Strategic Forces Command.

It may also be noted that India tested new Agni-V intermediate-range ballistic missiles in October last year. Although ICBMs are typically defined as having a range of 5,500 kilometers or more, independent assessments put the full range of the Agni-5 at 8,000 kilometers with a 1.5-ton warhead.File Image: Agni-5 Missile – Wiki

This test, unlike the five previous tests of the Agni-V, was launched in full operational configuration by the Strategic Forces Command, and that too for the first time the system was launched at night.

However, what is most noteworthy in all these missile tests is that the Agni-P and Agni–V are marked by the feature of  “canisterization”, which, in turn, has invited speculations about India changing its nuclear posture of NFU. 

Canisterization implies storing missiles inside a sealed, climate-controlled tube to protect them from the outside elements during transportation. In this configuration, the warhead can be permanently mated with the missile instead of having to be installed prior to launch, which would significantly reduce the amount of time needed to launch nuclear weapons in a crisis. 

Canisterization is a new feature of India’s Strategic Forces, which, earlier was against “pre-mating” of warheads with missiles. Warheads were kept separately, thereby meaning that India will not be using nuclear weapons at a short notice and that it would only consider using them only when attacked with nuclear weapons by any adversary. via Twitter

The basic point that some nuclear experts make is that If Indian warheads are increasingly mated to their delivery systems, then it would be harder for an adversary to detect when a crisis is about to rise to the nuclear threshold.

With separated warheads and delivery systems, the signals involved with mating the two would be more visible in a crisis, and the process itself would take longer. But widespread canisterization with fully armed missiles that could be possibly stored at select airbases would shorten warning time.

India’s Defense Minister Rajnath Singh has further interested these analysts by publicly questioning India’s future commitment to its no NFU policy in a tweet in August 2019 that “India has strictly adhered to this doctrine. What happens in the future depends on the circumstances”  

It may be noted that in the strict sense of the term, India does not have a proper nuclear doctrine. Possibly, it is a part of India’s strategic culture to keep things and policies as ambiguous as possible, leaving them to many and different interpretations.

What India actually has is a “draft nuclear doctrine”, released on August 17, 1999, by the then-National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra. Some clarifications on this draft were “shared with the public” on January 4, 2003, through a press release by the then Cabinet Committee on Security. 

India’s draft doctrine at the moment has the following key features:

• While committed to the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world through global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament, India, till the realization of this goal, will possess nuclear weapons.

• India will build and maintain a credible minimum deterrent.

• India will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states.

• India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. But if it is attacked by nuclear weapons in its territory or on Indian forces anywhere, then its nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage to the aggressor.

• In the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will also retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.

• India will continue strict controls on the export of nuclear and missile-related materials and technologies, participation in the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations, and continued observance of the moratorium on nuclear tests.

• India’s Nuclear Command Authority comprises a Political Council and an Executive Council. The Political Council is chaired by the Prime Minister. It is the sole body, which can authorize the use of nuclear weapons. The Executive Council is chaired by the National Security Advisor. It provides inputs for decision-making by the Nuclear Command Authority and executes the directives given to it by the Political Council.

In the clarifications that were given in 2003, two important changes were made to the draft doctrine of 1999. The draft doctrine had said: “Any nuclear attack on India and its forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor.”Credit: Arms Control Association

The 2003 clarifications said: “Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage to the aggressor.” The emphasis here should be given to the addition of the word “massive”.

The second important change in the 2003 clarifications was that a new scenario was added under which India would retaliate with nuclear weapons, and that was the attack through biological or chemical weapons on India or on Indian forces anywhere.

What emerges from the above is that India’s nuclear weapons posture, after the country went officially nuclear in 1998, did undergo changes during the Vajpayee regime itself. The point is that beliefs and principles are not immutable. 

Nations and their leaderships change with the efflux of time. And circumstances require their national doctrines to be revisited, reviewed, and recast if deemed necessary.

Many pundits argue that India’s NFU policy really needs a healthy debate. The United States or for that matter, other western nuclear powers such as Britain and France do not have the NFU policy. Russia, which initially had an NFU pledge, has withdrawn it long ago. China, another country that professed NFU policy, is now ambiguous on it.

In September, former Chinese ambassador for disarmament affairs to the UN in Geneva, Sha Zukang, said China should review its policy of not being the first to use a nuclear weapon in a conflict.  

Though China had pledged the NFU policy way back in 1964, Sha suggested that Beijing should now “fine-tune” that policy to counter a US military presence that had grown in the region since America started to regard China as a major rival, or even an adversary.

Even otherwise, China had asserted before that its NFU would not apply against countries that are in possession of the Chinese territory. That means that China’s NFU does not apply to India as it asserts claims to Indian territories in Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, and Arunachal Pradesh.Nasr Missile: Via Pakistan Media – The Nation

That leaves Pakistan, India’s other major adversary. But Pakistan too does not believe in NFU. It has developed “Nasr” ballistic missiles with a range of 60 km that is capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

These have been specifically built with the intention of targeting not only Indian cities but also Indian military formations on the battlefield.

The concept of NFU has other problems as well. For one, imagine that there is a conventional war between India and Pakistan (or for that matter China), and Indian forces target military establishments within the enemy territory. 

They do not know which of these establishments are nuclear or nonnuclear and in the process of their operations, they hit an enemy target that turns out to be a nuclear one and the consequent results are strategically horrible. Will it mean that India did not observe its NFU pledge?

For another, imagine also a situation when the Indian forces engaged in conventional wars simultaneously against China and Pakistan find it difficult to carry on. And here, as the situation challenges the very integrity of the country, should one not exercise the nuclear option?

After all, India has already modified its nuclear posture in the events of chemical and biological attacks. Why should then it tie its hands with the NFU when faced with multi-fronted attacks on our territories or forces?

Thirdly, a review is also argued to be due on the concept of India’s “massive” nuclear retaliation when attacked by nuclear weapons, particularly when Pakistan is openly preparing to use what it says tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) through “Nasr” missiles against India’s superior conventional forces. 

Now, suppose, one of India’s  Army’s tank columns is attacked by Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons. Should then India go for a massive retaliation to destroy the whole of Karachi or Lahore? Will not that be highly disproportionate and unethical? If so, should India not go for a proportionate retaliation with its own TNW?

And if India really goes for tactical nuclear weapons, then there will be a new problem. By their very nature, the TNWs and their eventual uses are better determined on the spot, that is, on the battlefield itself, by the military commanders concerned. How then will that go with the country’s strict provision that it is only the Prime Minister who will decide when and where to use our nuclear weapons?

All these are very tricky but vital questions. But answers to them are overdue, analysts say. 

  • Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of Editorial Board – EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy on strategic affairs for nearly three decades. A former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship, he is also a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. CONTACT:
  • Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

Iraq attacks the Chinese nuclear horn

Rocket fired in attack on Chinese company in Iraq

Updated 28 December 2021 


December 28, 2021 10:28

NASIRIYAH: A rocket and gunfire targeted the premises of a Chinese oil services company in southern Iraq at dawn on Tuesday, without causing any casualties or damage, officials said.
Six people have been arrested as part of the investigation into the attack, said a security official in the restive, poverty-stricken province of Dhi Qar.
“The headquarters of the Chinese company ZPEC, which operates in the Al-Gharraf field north of Nasiriyah, was targeted with a rocket and live ammunition,” said Karim Al-Jandil, spokesman for the state oil company in Dhi Qar.
Another security official said the rocket failed to explode and that the only damage to the site was bullet holes on a nearby trailer.
The Chinese company is in charge of drilling wells in the Al-Gharraf oil field.
The attack was motivated by “blackmail” to put pressure on the company and secure jobs for locals, an official of the state oil company alleged.
The province of Dhi Qar, including its capital Nasiriyah, has been hit by bloody protests against corruption and unemployment since the second half of 2019.
Iraq is the second-largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and oil accounts for more than 90 percent of its revenues.
In November, the country exported more than 98 million barrels of crude that brought in more than $7.6 billion, the oil ministry says.