The Quakes Preceding the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6:12

East Coast Quakes: What to Know About the Tremors Below

By Meteorologist Dominic Ramunni Nationwide PUBLISHED 7:13 PM ET Aug. 11, 2020 PUBLISHED 7:13 PM EDT Aug. 11, 2020

People across the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic were shaken, literally, on a Sunday morning as a magnitude 5.1 earthquake struck in North Carolina on August 9, 2020.

Centered in Sparta, NC, the tremor knocked groceries off shelves and left many wondering just when the next big one could strike.

Items lie on the floor of a grocery store after an earthquake on Sunday, August 9, 2020 in North Carolina.

Fault Lines

Compared to the West Coast, there are far fewer fault lines in the East. This is why earthquakes in the East are relatively uncommon and weaker in magnitude.

That said, earthquakes still occur in the East.

According to Spectrum News Meteorologist Matthew East, “Earthquakes have occurred in every eastern U.S. state, and a majority of states have recorded damaging earthquakes. However, they are pretty rare. For instance, the Sparta earthquake Sunday was the strongest in North Carolina in over 100 years.”

While nowhere near to the extent of the West Coast, damaging earthquakes can and do affect much of the eastern half of the country.

For example, across the Tennesse River Valley lies the New Madrid Fault Line. While much smaller in size than those found farther west, the fault has managed to produce several earthquakes over magnitude 7.0 in the last couple hundred years.

In 1886, an estimated magnitude 7.0 struck Charleston, South Carolina along a previously unknown seismic zone. Nearly the entire town had to be rebuilt.


The eastern half of the U.S. has its own set of vulnerabilities from earthquakes.

Seismic waves actually travel farther in the East as opposed to the West Coast. This is because the rocks that make up the East are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years older than in the West.

These older rocks have had much more time to bond together with other rocks under the tremendous pressure of Earth’s crust. This allows seismic energy to transfer between rocks more efficiently during an earthquake, causing the shaking to be felt much further.

This is why, during the latest quake in North Carolina, impacts were felt not just across the state, but reports of shaking came as far as Atlanta, Georgia, nearly 300 miles away.

Reports of shaking from different earthquakes of similar magnitude.

Quakes in the East can also be more damaging to infrastructure than in the West. This is generally due to the older buildings found east. Architects in the early-to-mid 1900s simply were not accounting for earthquakes in their designs for cities along the East Coast.

When a magnitude 5.8 earthquake struck Virginia in 2011, not only were numerous historical monuments in Washington, D.C. damaged, shaking was reported up and down the East Coast with tremors even reported in Canada.


There is no way to accurately predict when or where an earthquake may strike.

Some quakes will have a smaller earthquake precede the primary one. This is called a foreshock.

The problem is though, it’s difficult to say whether the foreshock is in fact a foreshock and not the primary earthquake. Only time will tell the difference.

The United State Geological Survey (USGS) is experimenting with early warning detection systems in the West Coast.

While this system cannot predict earthquakes before they occur, they can provide warning up to tens of seconds in advance that shaking is imminent. This could provide just enough time to find a secure location before the tremors begin.

Much like hurricanes, tornadoes, or snowstorms, earthquakes are a natural occuring phenomenon that we can prepare for.

The USGS provides an abundance of resources on how to best stay safe when the earth starts to quake.

India’s Nuclear Posture Before the First Nuclear War: Revelation 8

India’s N-project going strong

Capable of meeting challenges faced by national security

G Parthasarathy 
Chancellor, Jammu Central University & former High Commissioner to Pakistan

An important feature of India’s nuclear deterrent has been the calibrated secrecy surrounding its growth. This is essential, as India’s nuclear weapons and missile programmes have a large involvement of dedicated scientists and engineers from the DRDO, the Department of Atomic Energy, academic institutions, and commercial organisations from the public and private sectors. India’s nuclear weapons programme is under continuing worldwide scrutiny, including by specialist organisations like the Federation of American Scientists and similar organisations in the UK, France, Russia, and doubtless, China and Pakistan.

India has produced three nuclear-powered submarines, and could induct the fourth next year.

While Indian scientists have made discreet statements about our ballistic missile tests, one finds more details of our nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in studies by American scientific publications like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and other organisations like the MacArthur Foundation. Such studies are carefully researched and counterchecked. These are not significantly different from what one periodically finds in writings in India.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, India has enough weapons grade plutonium to produce 150 to 200 nuclear weapons, with a current estimated stockpile of 150 nuclear weapons. There is potential to step up production of fissile material significantly through the growing numbers of fast breeder and other plutonium reactors. According to the infamous Dr AQ Khan, Pakistan provided China with the centrifuge technology for enriched uranium, whose details he had purloined in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. China, in turn, provided Pakistan the knowhow to utilise enriched uranium produced in Pakistan for nuclear weapons. The then US President Jimmy Carter looked the other way at these developments after he was swept off his feet by his ‘friendship’ with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping.

China now possesses 350 nuclear warheads, while Pakistan has 165, and India 156, according to the latest assessment of the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). Apart from its land-based nuclear missiles, India launched its third nuclear submarine barely a month ago. It is said to have a capability to launch eight ballistic missiles. The two earlier submarines can reportedly launch four missiles each. India now has the capability of ‘canisterising’, or storing the missiles in a sealed, climate controlled tube to protect them during transportation. This would apply to the entire range of missiles, including the recently tested Agni-P and the Agni-V, which has a range of 5,500 km. Many studies allude to an important role of the French-built Mirage 2000 and Rafale, as carriers of India’s nuclear weapons.

China has provided Pakistan with the designs for its nuclear weapons and a wide range of missiles. The missiles provided by China to Pakistan extend from the short range (320 km) Ghaznavi missiles to Shaheen 2 (2,500 km) and Shaheen 3 (2,750 km). The Chinese nuclear weapons designs given to Pakistan were transferred by AQ Khan to Islamic countries with nuclear ambitions, like Libya and Iraq. While India now has produced three nuclear-powered submarines, there are reports that a fourth submarine could be inducted next year. There are also reports that India is developing the technology for multiple warheads on its missiles. A recent report by the Federation of American Scientists noted that India carried out the second test of its Agni-P missile. The first test of the missile was reportedly carried out in January 2020. This could lead to the missile being berthed in the growing fleet of India’s nuclear submarines. This would be complemented by submarine-launched Agni-V missiles with multiple warheads.

China will inevitably continue to pretend it has no interest in having any nuclear dialogue with India. India is, in the meantime, also developing a K-4 submarine-launched missile, with a 3,500-km range. It is a naval version of Agni-3, an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). The K-4 has undergone a number of tests but it has yet to be deployed. The missile was tested in January 2020. Though the DRDO did not confirm the test, media reports, quoting officials, claimed that the launch was successful. While Pakistan has not formally enunciated a nuclear doctrine, the long-time head of the Strategic Planning Division of its Nuclear Command Authority, Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai, told a team of physicists from Italy’s Landau Network in 2002 that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were ‘aimed solely at India’. Kidwai added that Pakistan would use nuclear weapons if India conquers a large part of Pakistan’s territory, or destroys a large part of Pakistan’s land and air forces, or if India tries to ‘economically strangle’ Pakistan, or pushes it to political destabilisation.

This elucidation, by the man who has been the de facto custodian of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal for over a decade and a POW in India in 1971-73, was a precise formulation of Pakistan’s nuclear thresholds. It is now clear that a bankrupt Pakistan facing pressure from international finance organisations will have to think carefully before resorting to support for terrorists seeking to destabilise India. With the Taliban supporting Pashtun aspirations on issues like the Durand Line, India’s readiness to provide essential economic assistance to Kabul should be taken forward. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently noted that while India presently stood by its commitment of ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons, ‘what happens in future depends on the circumstances’.

The nation needs to always remember the contribution of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, his team of engineers and scientists, and the distinguished scientists in the Department of Atomic Energy for developing the country’s nuclear and missile potential to meet the challenges to national security, posed jointly by China and Pakistan. There is also need to remember those in the private sector, who discreetly played a key role in this effort.

The Russian Horn’s Plans to Take Over Ukraine: Daniel 7

A service member of the Ukrainian armed forces walks at combat positions near the line of separation from Russian-backed rebels near Horlivka in the Donetsk region, Ukraine
Thirty-two percent of Ukrainians are willing to enlist in ‘popular resistance units’ as tensions with Russia mount [Anna Kudriavtseva/Reuters]

UK accuses Russia of trying to install pro-Kremlin gov’t in Kyiv

Moscow, which maintains it has no plans to invade Ukraine, dismissed the accusations as ‘disinformation’.

The UK has accused the Kremlin of seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine grow.

The Foreign Office said in a statement Russian intelligence officers had been in contact with a number of former Ukrainian politicians as part of plans for an invasion and that former parliamentarian Yevgen Murayev was being considered as a potential leader.

“The information being released today shines a light on the extent of Russian activity designed to subvert Ukraine, and is an insight into Kremlin thinking,” said UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.

“Russia must de-escalate, end its campaigns of aggression and disinformation, and pursue a path of diplomacy.”

The British foreign ministry did not provide evidence to back its accusations.

Russia will face severe economic sanctions if it installs a “puppet regime” in Ukraine, Britain’s deputy prime minister Dominic Raab said on Sunday.

There’ll be very serious consequences if Russia takes this move to try and invade but also install a puppet regime,” Raab told Sky News.

‘Stop spreading nonsense’

Murayev, the man named by London, lost his seat in the Ukrainian parliament when his party failed to win five percent of the vote in the 2019 elections. He is the founder of TV channel Nash, which regulators have been seeking to shut down since last year, accusing it of airing pro-Russian propaganda.

Four other politicians named by the UK as possible Russian picks were Mykola Azarov, Sergiy Arbuzov, Andriy Kluyev, and Volodymyr Sivkovich.

Murayev said on Sunday his country needed new leadership.

“The Ukrainian people need rule of law, peace, sound and pragmatic economic and social policies, and new political leaders,” Murayev wrote on Facebook.

Moscow has insisted it has no plans to invade Ukraine, despite currently having about 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. The Russian foreign ministry dismissed London’s claims as “disinformation” and urged London to “stop spreading nonsense”.

In Washington, DC, US National Security Council spokeswoman Emily Horne said Russia’s alleged “plotting” was “deeply concerning”.

“The Ukrainian people have the sovereign right to determine their own future, and we stand with our democratically elected partners in Ukraine,” Horne said.

The claims came hours after a senior UK defence source said Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu had accepted an invitation to meet his UK counterpart Ben Wallace to discuss the crisis.

Tensions have soared in recent weeks as Russian troops mass on Ukraine’s border along with an arsenal of tanks, fighting vehicles, artillery and missiles.

These accusations came at the end of a week of intense international diplomacy, which concluded with Washington and Moscow’s top diplomats, Antony Blinken and Sergey Lavrov, failing to make a major breakthrough but agreeing to keep working to ease tensions.

‘Very expensive enterprise’

Andrey Kortunov, director of the Russian International Affairs Council, told Al Jazeera the UK allegations were implausible.

“If you want to stage a successful coup you need to have a lot of support from the inside, which Putin apparently doesn’t have,” Kortunov said.

“On top of that, if you change the government, you own Ukraine … and that would be a very expensive enterprise for the Russian leadership.”

The analyst said Moscow may be mobilising troops out of concern that Ukraine may try to regain the Donbas region by force, rather than preparing to invade.

Moscow seized the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 after Ukrainians deposed their pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. A few weeks later, a pro-Russian rebellion broke out in eastern Ukraine that has since killed more than 13,000 people.

The UK is among a handful of Western nations rushing weapons to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, while other countries including Germany have refused to supply arms to Kyiv.

The US has sent 90 tonnes of ammunition to Ukraine as part of an additional $200m of “lethal aid” approved by President Joe Biden in late December.

Ukraine has also been enlisting civilians in military training programmes. Arsen Herasimenko, a university student in plant science, said he had chosen to enlist.

“I have to protect my family,” he told Al Jazeera. “Of course, I hope this situation will de-escalate and that I can continue my scientific work.”

The government is hoping to form at least 25 brigades for deployment around the country.

Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from Kyiv, said the units were part of a new “strategic defence plan” to provide backup in case the army is overwhelmed.

“These [popular resistance] units are now part of the military,” she said. “Thirty-two percent of Ukrainians say they are ready to enlist.”

Obama’s Iran nuclear talks on brink of collapse, diplomats warn: Daniel 8

Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign affairs minister, said that negotiations cannot continue at such a slow pace
Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign affairs minister, said that negotiations cannot continue at such a slow paceREUTERS

Iran nuclear talks on brink of collapse, diplomats warn

Western negotiators have said that talks to rescue the Iran nuclear deal are on the point of collapse because Tehran’s nuclear programme is advancing faster than diplomatic progress towards an agreement.

After talks on Thursday, Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign minister, said the discussions were in a “life-threatening emergency”.

“There is partial, timid and slow progress, but negotiations cannot continue at such a slow pace while, in parallel, Iran’s nuclear programme advances so rapidly,” he said.

President Biden said this week that the talks were moving forward and it was not time to give up. However, European negotiators have been warning for months that there is little sign of a deal being struck any time soon.

Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, said

Rising Antisemitism Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

By Yoni Weissכ”א שבט תשפ”ב

Streaks of light are seen as the Iron Dome antimissile system intercepts rockets launched from the Gaza Strip toward Israel, as seen from Ashkelon, May 12, 2021. (REUTERS/Amir Cohen/File Photo)YERUSHALAYIM – 

The coronavirus pandemic led to a rise in antisemitism around the world in 2021, according to a report by the Diaspora Ministry that will be presented to the government on Sunday, ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Jan. 27.

This report points to a link between rising antisemitism and the pandemic, seeing a rise in conspiratorial rhetoric, painting Jews as profiting from vaccines and exploiting the crisis to strengthen their grip on governments and the world economy.

The report further shows that the pandemic brought about a trend of trivialization of the Holocaust, both by public figures and social media users, with repeated comparisons between health restrictions and the antisemitic discrimination and violence in Nazi Germany.

Many anti-vax protesters around the world have brandished the yellow badge to signify persecution by the authorities.

The report also shows that the past year has seen an upsurge in antisemitic incidents around the world, in part due to the escalation in the Gaza Strip last May, which saw an outburst of anti-Jewish hatred on social media.

In total, in 2021, the Diaspora Ministry’s monitoring system identified 3.5 million antisemitic posts in various languages.

In its report, the ministry says there is a correlation between violent speech on social media and violent actions in the public sphere against Jews, who are seen as collectively responsible for Israel’s actions.

Iraq’s tripartite alliance of the Antichrist

Supporters of Iraq’s Shiite cleric and leader of the Sadrist Movement, Muqtada al-Sadr, display his image in Tahrir Square in Baghdad. Photo: AFP

Iraq’s tripartite alliance is pressing, Framework is threatening

In Qais al-Khazali’s televised interview with BBC Persian on January 18, the leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq discussed the internal debate among the Coordination Framework; the alliance of Shiite factions continuing to object to the results of Iraq’s most recent election, while politicians and parties scramble to form the country’s next government.

“Either we all choose the path of boycotting the political process, or the opposition, and most political forces, are likely to choose to boycott the political process,” the senior member of the Fatih Alliance said. “I do not say that the situation will pass easily,” he added, warning that there were no guarantees against friction, and “that the next government will not be able to succeed in its work and will not be able to provide services or provide job opportunities.”

In contrast, the Sadrist Movement are pushing the formation of a majority government with its partners in a 162 member-strong tripartite alliance known as Homeland Rescue (Enqath Watan), which includes the Sadrists, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Sunnis, with the door open for others to join. The leader of the Sadrist bloc, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, is evidently refusing to give up what he considers to be his electoral entitlement.

Alliance of the strongest

The three political forces that consider themselves to be the most powerful in the political arena marked out by the informal sectarian system of muhasasa have established this alliance to lead the way in a more cohesive, and potentially effective, move.

Sadr leads the tripartite alliance. As a key instigator of the majority government project, he wants to break away from the political consensus that has produced governments since 2006. Sadr derives his strength from the size of his bloc of 75 members (the Sadrist Movement won 73 seats, and have been joined by a member from Diyala, and a member from the party formed by Wasit Governor Mohammed al-Mayahi), and also from his complete control over the bloc’s direction.

Sadr is running negotiations and planning to form the next government with his partners while keeping the door open for other Shiite forces to join him, helping to cross the comfortable majority barrier.

The KDP enjoys the strength of a 31-member bloc, and hopes to enhance its political strength by attaining the Iraqi presidency, deputy prime minister, and several ministries, in addition to its current positions of parliamentary deputy speaker, as well as the presidency and premiership within the Kurdistan Region. The party and its leader, Masoud Barzani, have played a significant role in uniting the Sunni parties which has, in turn, enhanced the KDP’s political influence, and could well be parallel to the influence of Sadr in the political arena.

The leader of the Taqadum Alliance, Mohammad al-Halbousi, for his part, was able to form a strong bloc before the election and achieved a landslide victory, winning 37 seats from the Sunni component; the first time that more than half of the Sunni representatives have belonged to one bloc. His strength was further enhanced by striking an alliance with his rival, the al-Azm alliance leader Khamis al-Khanjar. Furthermore, in a first-time achievement by any Sunni politician since 2003, Halbousi won the speakership of parliament for a second term when the new parliamentarians convened earlier this month.

The tripartite alliance will become the nucleus of forming the next government. Some observers believe that a government formed of the strongest performing factions will be best equipped to carry out the reforms demanded by the Iraqi people. Unlike previous national consensus governments, a majority government – and its opposition – would mean one less likely to evade responsibility. In addition, these blocs could pass the required legislation and take meaningful decisions to determine the course of governance over the coming years.

Critics argue that a government formed along these lines would face other problems, most notably deriving from the lack of participation of influential political forces, with military backing, and the presence of a strong opposition that has been hitherto absent in Iraqi politics.

Dialogue of the deaf

Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Fatih Alliance, visited Najaf and met Sadr alone in al-Hanana on January 15. He tried hard to persuade Sadr to form a consensus government in which everyone would participate. Despite this, Sadr has refused the participation of Framework forces as it intersects with his project to form a national majority government. As a compromise, Sadr offered the Fatih Alliance four ministries in return for their participation, on the condition that he selects the prime minister without their objection. Amiri rejected the offer.

Observers suggest that the political blocs within the Coordination Framework fear that Sadr will exploit his numerical superiority and dominance on the political scene to weaken his political opponents by not providing them with the opportunity to reorganize their ranks.

Amiri also visited Erbil, where he met with KDP leaders, trying to convince them that consensus would be the best option for Iraqi and Kurdish-Shiite relations. He cautioned them with a theme that the Coordination Framework shares, telling them that if Shiite differences disappear, then the Shiites would become the majority. By then, they could not be blamed for monopolizing positions or passing decisions, and might leave the Kurds vulnerable. He returned to Baghdad without reaching any agreement with the KDP.

The KDP and PUK at odds with each other

The two Kurdish parties of the KDP and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) have tried to unify their negotiations with Baghdad, and agreed to form a joint committee. An informed source in the PUK explained that the committee met four times and drafted a document agreed upon by the two parties to present to the political forces in Baghdad.

The joint committee began their visit to Baghdad on January 7, and their first appointment was with the Sadrist Movement’s political body. The source added that the PUK was surprised by the existence of a separate paper agreed upon between the KDP and the Sadrist Movement; they knew nothing about it, and only saw the details hours before the meeting. The visit of the joint delegation to the political forces was limited to heterogeneous protocol meetings that did not lead to any significant results. The KDP signed a unilateral agreement with the Sadrists, leaving the PUK behind.

A power-sharing agreement between the two sides since 2006 has meant that the PUK holds the presidency of Iraq in exchange for the KDP holding the presidency of the Kurdistan Region. Disagreements between the two sides deepened when the KDP nominatedHoshyar Zebari as a candidate for Iraq’s president on January 12.

Commentators believe that Zebari’s nomination is clear evidence that the KDP intends to seriously obtain the presidency and that this position falls within the party’s scheme to dominate the political scene in the region and Iraq alike in the future.

Leaving the PUK outside of the federal government and taking away its influence over the presidency would undoubtedly complicate the political scene. The PUK shares power within the KRG, controlling the regions of Sulaimani, Halabja, and Garmian, and it has extensive political influence in Kirkuk. Its fighting forces control the contact lines with the Islamic State (ISIS), from the Iranian border in Diyala to the Hamrin Mountains.

The soft role of America and Iran

Contrary to the usual practice during the government formation process in Iraq, the Iranians and Americans have been absent from the scene, especially compared to the role they both played in the 2018 process. The role of Iran and the United States has become limited to monitoring political developments from a distance without direct intervention.

In the BBC Persian interview, al-Khazali also noted that, “the management of the relevant institutions in Iran in dealing with the Iraqi file has changed greatly after the martyrdom of Haj Qasem Soleimani,” explaining that the Iranians have promised to not interfere. “We do not have a decision, but the decision is what the Iraqis decide,” he recounted.

Commentators argue that Iran has already defined its strategic interests in Iraq and works to achieve these interests with Iraqi political actors without having to choose or favor one party. They follow political developments closely and have follow-ups with the political blocs, and one of their priorities is to unify the Shiite position and prevent its fragmentation.

What is noticeable here is the lack of Iranian mediation between the political blocs and their emphasis that they stand at the same distance from all parties, including the Sadrist Movement. It is worth noting that Quds Force commander Ismail Qaani has been in Baghdad since January 16, and has not yet met with the Sadrist leader. He did not even request to meet him despite his visit to Najaf; evidence that the Iranian side is watching and not directly interfering.

Similarly, the Americans are not on the scene. Unlike what the country has previously witnessed, there have been no high-level delegation visits. The American representation is left to the US ambassador and his diplomatic team, who closely monitor the situation while observing what is happening in the political arena without direct intervention.

The non-interference of the US and Iran does not necessarily mean the granting of their approval for what is happening in the political arena. Still, they are allowing Iraqi political forces to organize their understanding away from their influence, which gives a positive impression to all parties.

Dialogue of understanding – or breaking of will

The political scene has become complicated with the approach of the governing constitutional dates. There are no signs on the horizon to resolve the differences between the political blocs; the road is uneven, and it is tinged with anxiety. Iraqis are living in dire conditions amid a series of crises that continue to threaten the country. The tripartite alliance does not show flexibility by changing its positions, as it still adheres to the approved negotiation strategy, and it has no intention of reaching a consensus with all partners.

In the recent past, initiatives launched by some influential political figures were enough to bring the parties together to compromise on solutions, achieve understanding and consensus, and ultimately defuse crises. This does not seem as likely now. As for trying to satisfy them by sharing the spoils of electoral victory, observers consider the position of the winning forces to be constitutional and reflect the origin and spirit of democracy.

However, they also believe that the reality of Iraq does not tolerate the sudden exclusion of influential political forces. In the end, all parties should make reasonable concessions to ensure overcoming the obstruction of the current situation to meet the country’s needs and guarantee the achievement of common objectives to serve the present and future of Iraq.

Farhad Alaaldin is the chairman of the Iraqi Advisory Council. He was the political adviser to former Iraqi President Fuad Masum, the former chief of staff to the KRG prime minister from 2009 to 2011, and former senior adviser to the KRG prime minister from 2011 to 2012.

China hits back at Babylon the Great over nuclear transparency call

The US and Japan have raised alarm at China’s growing nuclear strength. Photo: PLA Daily

China hits back at US, Japan over nuclear transparency call

Beijing says Washington is the biggest threat to global stability and should make the first move by reducing its stockpile Tokyo should also adopt a more responsible approach on nuclear policy, foreign ministry says

“Noting the People’s Republic of China’s ongoing increase in its nuclear capabilities, Japan and the United States request [China] to contribute to arrangements that reduce nuclear risks, increase transparency, and advance nuclear disarmament,” the US and Japan said.

US, China, Russia, Britain and France pledge to only use nuclear weapons for defence

US, China, Russia, Britain and France pledge to only use nuclear weapons for defence

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the US was the bigger threat.