A Look at the Tri-State’s Active Fault LineMonday, March 14, 2011By Bob HennellyThe Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast that occasionally makes local headlines when minor tremors cause rock the Tri-State region. It begins in Pennsylvania, crosses the Delaware River and continues through Hunterdon, Somerset, Morris, Passaic and Bergen counties before crossing the Hudson River near Indian Point nuclear facility.In the past, it has generated occasional activity that generated a 2.6 magnitude quake in New Jersey’s Peakpack/Gladstone area and 3.0 magnitude quake in Mendham.But the New Jersey-New York region is relatively seismically stable according to Dr. Dave Robinson, Professor of Geography at Rutgers. Although it does have activity.„There is occasional seismic activity in New Jersey,“ said Robinson. „There have been a few quakes locally that have been felt and done a little bit of damage over the time since colonial settlement — some chimneys knocked down in Manhattan with a quake back in the 18th century, but nothing of a significant magnitude.“Robinson said the Ramapo has on occasion registered a measurable quake but has not caused damage: „The Ramapo fault is associated with geological activities back 200 million years ago, but it’s still a little creaky now and again,“ he said.„More recently, in the 1970s and early 1980s, earthquake risk along the Ramapo Fault received attention because of its proximity to Indian Point,“ according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.Historically, critics of the Indian Point Nuclear facility in Westchester County, New York, did cite its proximity to the Ramapo fault line as a significant risk.In 1884, according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website, the Rampao Fault was blamed for a 5.5 quake that toppled chimneys in New York City and New Jersey that was felt from Maine to Virginia.„Subsequent investigations have shown the 1884 Earthquake epicenter was actually located in Brooklyn, New York, at least 25 miles from the Ramapo Fault,“ according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.
Day: March 12, 2022
Being This Close to Nuclear War is Part of Prophecy: Revelation 16
Being This Close to Nuclear War Should Not Be Possible
The prospect of nuclear war may seem distant and improbable. It isn’t—and that’s what needs to change.
March 10, 2022
Could the Russian invasion of Ukraine escalate to nuclear war? It’s unlikely but not impossible. That should terrify us.
The world is closer to nuclear combat now than it has been at any other time in the last half-century. Both Russia and the United States have developed tactical nuclear weapons designed for use on battlefields. Some of them are one-third as powerful as the atomic bombs with which the United States incinerated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
Soon after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his army to invade Ukraine last month, he took the wildly irresponsible step of publicly announcing that he was placing his nation’s nuclear forces on “high combat alert.” He has made clear that he considers a hostile Ukraine to be a mortal threat to his country. If his forces do not quickly win this war, and especially if other countries come to Ukraine’s aid, he may be tempted to use his full arsenal — including nuclear weapons. I doubt he would do it, but I also doubted he would invade Ukraine in the first place.
President Biden deserves credit for not replying to Putin’s nuclear threats with counterthreats. Yet Americans are now caught in a spiral of emotion even more intense than the anti-Saddam frenzy that preceded our invasion of Iraq. Relentless images of Russian bombing and suffering Ukrainians provoke outrage and demands for punishing revenge. That can lead us to lose sight of the terrible stakes. By arming Ukraine and seeking to smack Russia, we may be sleepwalking toward the ultimate nightmare.
Using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would break a longstanding taboo and turn Putin into the most despised world leader since Hitler. More important, the situation could quickly escalate. When the Pentagon conducts “war games” based on this possibility, the result is always the same. In these simulations, one side uses a battlefield nuclear weapon, the other side responds in kind, and soon both countries’ cities are in ashes.
“It escalates; it doesn’t stop,” says Joseph Cirincione, a fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, in Washington, who is a leading student of nuclear weaponry. “Each side thinks their use will be decisive. There’s no way to avoid these risks. And if Putin feels he’s losing, the risk increases. Russia’s doctrine of ‘escalate to de-escalate’ is specifically designed for these situations. It says that if Russia is losing, they will use nuclear weapons first. The military believes in this doctrine, which means that if Putin gives the order, they will likely obey.”
Russia’s arsenal of battlefield nuclear weapons makes the Ukraine crisis uniquely dangerous. The firing of a single nuclear-tipped rocket — to destroy a Ukrainian town, to wipe out an enemy combat formation, or even simply as a demonstration — might well set off quick and disastrous reactions.
The Western response to this invasion has been strong and nearly unanimous. Some of it is symbolic virtue signaling that borders on silliness. Russian conductors have been fired from the Munich Philharmonic and La Scala in Milan after refusing to condemn the invasion, and the International Cat Federation has banned Russian cats from competition. Other reactions, however, are deadly serious and could affect global politics for decades.
Harsh economic sanctions on Russia will reshape life in what until last month seemed to be emerging as a stable and prosperous globalized society. Major oil companies have pulled out of Russia despite its position as one of the world’s leading oil producers. Germany is sharply increasing its defense budget. Finland and Sweden are considering applying for NATO membership. Switzerland broke with its longstanding policy of neutrality to adopt the European Union’s potent sanctions against Russia. Each of these steps may be seen as reasonable. Together they could give Putin the sense that he is being forced into a corner and has no choice but to use his ultimate weapon.
In 2008, four ancient veterans of geopolitical conflict — Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, and Wiliam Perry — warned that the steps the world was taking to address the threat of nuclear war were “not adequate to the danger.” The danger has increased since then. “The goal of a world free of nuclear weapons is like the top of a very tall mountain,” the four statesmen wrote, drawing on more than a century of combined experience in dealing with nuclear security. “But the risks from continuing to go down the mountain or standing pat are too real to ignore.” Yet we do ignore them. More Americans seem afraid of taking the COVID vaccine than are afraid of nuclear war.
Both Russian and American military planners have placed nuclear combat on their list of possible tools in wartime. It’s right there on the “threat continuum” after covert action, sanctions, cyberattacks and conventional war — as if it’s simply another step up the coercive ladder. Until we remove that step, the danger of holocaust will hang over our planet.
Nuclear war is beyond our lived experience and even our imagination. The prospect seems distant and improbable. It isn’t. One way to lessen the immediate danger would be for the United States and NATO to declare unequivocally that we will never use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and ask Russia to pledge the same. Then, if we emerge from this crisis alive, all nuclear powers should devote themselves urgently to assuring that we never reach such a dangerous threshold again.
The responsibility lies mainly with Russia and the United States, which have more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. If these two countries could assure each other that neither would ever be the first to use those weapons, the world would instantly become far safer.
Why the Antichrist Failed to Reform Iraq
Why Muqtada al-Sadr Failed to Reform Iraq
Iraq’s most recent election promised change but ended up entrenching the establishment.
Renad MansourMarch 10, 2022, 9:27 AM
Many observers predicted that Iraq’s elections last October would be a potential turning point in the country’s long struggle to find stability since 2003. Instead, the protracted government formation process has featured political violence against opponents, including tit-for-tat assassinations in the south, bombings of political offices and linked businesses, and even an attempt on the prime minister’s life. It has seen the judiciary weaponized to target opponents with lawsuits and disqualify candidates. Foreign powers, including Iran, have also directly intervened to prevent a change to the system of government.
All of this suggests that change is not on the horizon for Iraq. The country is still stuck in familiar cycles of violence with no clear path out.
Some experts have found this especially disappointing because the election results had initially hinted at change. Shiite populist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr defeated his competitors by a significant margin, winning 73 seats. His rivals from the previous election, the Iran-allied Fatah Alliance, lost 31 seats and now only has 17 seats. His other rival, former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition, has only 35 seats. Sadr was widely predicted to play the role of kingmaker.
Joe Biden’s Incredible Weakness Has Started World War III
Joe Biden’s Incredible Weakness May Start World War III
Posted on February 14, 2022
Joe Biden and Putin spoke Saturday, but “Putin has already indicated he’s not interested in dialogue,” said Fred Fleitz, the vice chairman of the America First Policy Institute and the former chief of staff for the National Security Council. “He has a very low regard for Joe Biden. He and his officials have mocked Biden as being incompetent, too old on many occasions.”
Amazing. Fleitz is the spokesmen for conservatives, Republicans and Trump supporters. Until the last few years, Republicans were on the side of military interventions, while Democrats were generally on the opposite side. Now it’s all reversed. Biden is about to get the United States into a dangerous conflict with Russia — for what purpose? — while Republicans say we should limit our military interventions to strict self-defense. How times have changed.
Joe Biden is perceived as weak because he’s actually weak. We saw this situation most acutely during the Jimmy Carter years, more than 40 years ago. The Biden weakness is far more extreme. Jimmy Carter treaded carefully — incompetently, but carefully — and while he seemed foolish he didn’t seem like a buffoon, as Biden always has been. And Jimmy Carter did not suffer from dementia, as Biden clearly does.
Most leftists don’t grasp how dangerous this situation might be. Biden could actually start World War III, especially if China decides to get involved.
Leftists are not worried about World War III. They’re far, far more concerned that somebody — somewhere, even one person — might not be wearing a mask.
I call this insanity merged with unspeakable evil, and evasion.
China and Russia are much more of a threat when the United States is weak than when the United States is strong, and means what it says. Putin clearly knows — like the rest of us know — that Biden has thrown its most independent and freedom-loving soldiers out of the military, because of the vax mandates. Putin also knows — like the rest of us — that the U.S. military is more concerned with promoting the transgendered and appearing woke in a way that leftist activists who could never operate a gun approve of. If you don’t think this looks like weakness to Putin and China, you’re out of your mind. If you don’t think they’re going to exploit this obvious weakness at some point by doing whatever the hell they want (something they never would have done during Trump’s presidency, or even Obama’s), then you’re beyond naive.
Everything Biden did has escalated this conflict and brought it to the point where (according to the evidence available) the Russians WILL invade Ukraine — because they can.
It’s power for its own sake. Putin is doing to Biden precisely what Biden has done to America: Exercise power for its own sake, because he can get away with it. In a way, there’s a perverse form of justice in it all. But everyone else will suffer, and thousands or even millions could end up dying because of it.
Dictatorship begets dictatorship. It’s not a good time for the world, especially when the United States has an inept dictatorship competing with the far more seasoned and experienced dictatorships of Russia and China.
Thank you, Joe Biden, for creating all this disaster. Thank you, Biden voters, for your ignorance and malfeasance which placed your neurotic desire to remove President Trump’s brash style and replace it with something like the Biblical end of days. I hold each and every one of you responsible for your errors and evasions. Whatever bad happens, you will be the ones who deserve it all.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, DrMichaelHurd on GETTR.
Tenth Shake Before the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6
20th earthquake strikes in Kershaw County since December
The area has seen 20 small earthquakes since December.
Published: 3:52 PM EST March 9, 2022
Updated: 11:49 PM EST March 9, 2022
KERSHAW COUNTY, S.C. — Kershaw County has recorded its second earthquake this month, continuing a trend of minor tremors in that area that began late last year.
The quake is on the lower end of the strength scale and it’s unlikely anyone felt it unless they were near the epicenter.
Just four days ago–on March 5–a 1.8 magnitude quake was recorded only a few miles from this latest tremor. Since December 27, a total of 20 earthquakes have rattled the same region, 17 of those presumed to be aftershocks of a considerably larger magnitude 3.3 earthquake that preceded them.
It’s not known why this area has seen so many earthquakes in such a short amount of time.
Earthquakes happen throughout the state but most occur near the coast. Approximately 70 percent of earthquakes are in the coastal plain, with most happening in the Lowcountry.
Back in 1886, Charleston was hit by a catastrophic earthquake. It had an estimated magnitude of 7.3, and was felt as far away and Cuba and New York. At least 60 people were killed, and thousands of building were damaged.
Structural damage extended hundreds of miles to cities in Alabama, Ohio, and Kentucky.
Geologists say that Charleston lies in one of the most seismically active areas in the eastern United States.
China Horn engaged in largest nuclear buildup in history: Daniel 7
DNI: China engaged in largest nuclear buildup in history, preparing ground to take Taiwan
By Bill Gertz – The Washington Times – Tuesday, March 8, 2022
China is engaged in a massive nuclear weapons buildup that includes hundreds of new strategic missiles, and Chinese President Xi Jinping is preparing the military to retake Taiwan, the nation’s most senior intelligence official told Congress on Tuesday.
Avril Haines, director of national intelligence, and four other intelligence agency leaders disclosed new information on threats from China and dangers posed by Russia, North Korea and Iran at the annual briefing on threats to U.S. security around the globe.
China’s military buildup includes “the largest ever nuclear force expansion and arsenal diversification in its history,” Ms. Haines told a hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Why the Other Horns Will Nuke Up: Daniel
Should Ukraine Have Kept Soviet Nuclear Weapons?
Posted March 8, 2022 by Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer & filed under Regions and Powers
It is widely believed that Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons that it could have used to deter Russia from the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the war of aggression launched last month. This is problematic for several reasons.
Photo: Ministry of Defense of Ukraine / CC BY-SA 2.0
Russia is using nuclear threats in order to deter NATO and European countries from direct military engagement in the war in Ukraine. Last week, Russian forces this week attacked Ukraine’s largest nuclear power plant. The Russian nuclear threat poses an important challenge for European and international security.
For Ukraine, Russia’s nuclear threats and its attack on a nuclear reactor are doubly tragic and concerning.
The country experienced the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986. In the 1990s, the Ukrainian authorities sent nuclear weapons inherited from the dissolved Soviet Union to Russia. Now the Russian government is accusing Ukraine of attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. In addition, Russia described the attack on the nuclear power plant as an act of provocation by Ukraine.When it comes to nuclear threats and the prospect of
nuclear war, the prevailing perspective is often that of the superpowers.
When it comes to nuclear threats and the prospect of nuclear war, the prevailing perspective is often that of the superpowers. The discussion about Russia’s nuclear threats has primarily focused (with good reason) on what Putin is actually willing to do, and what steps NATO and the USA should take to avoid further escalation. These are crucial questions and challenges that Norway and our allies will continue to debate in the years to come. It is important, however, that the Ukrainian perspective on its nuclear history and the current events is not allowed to disappear or be misinterpreted.
There is a widespread belief that Ukraine gave up Soviet nuclear weapons that it could have used to deter Russia from both the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the war of aggression launched last month. This belief is problematic for several reasons.
Ukrainian nuclear weapons?
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the stockpile of Soviet nuclear weapons left in Ukraine comprised what was then the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal. These weapons had been under the operational control of Soviet forces.
The United States were concerned that several former Soviet states might gain control over Soviet nuclear weapons, and that a lack of control over former Soviet nuclear expertise and materials could create new challenges for nuclear proliferation. Senior U.S. officials preferred that Russia became the sole inheritor of the Soviet nuclear arsenal.… the Ukrainian government was concerned about Russia receiving a monopoly on
nuclear weapons among the former Soviet states.
For their part, the Ukrainian government was concerned about Russia receiving a monopoly on nuclear weapons among the former Soviet states. According to Harvard scholar Mariana Budjeryn, whose forthcoming monograph sheds new light on Ukraine’s nuclear options and choices, the new Ukrainian government was deeply concerned about the implications of a Russian nuclear monopoly among former Soviet states for regional and Ukrainian security.
The Ukrainian government initially sought security guarantees in exchange for sending the Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia. Ukraine also proposed a gradual phasing out of the Soviet nuclear arsenal and also took certain limited steps toward assuming military command over the remaining Soviet nuclear forces in the period 1992–1994.
Ultimately, however, Ukraine decided to transfer the remaining ex-Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia. After several years of negotiations and diplomatic pressure, Ukraine, the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom signed the so-called Budapest Memorandum in December 1994. This memorandum contained assurances that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be respected. Ukraine accordingly did not obtain the security guarantees it wanted. Even so, Russia undertook to respect Ukraine’s borders and sovereignty. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea in violation of this undertaking.
Russia is not confining itself to nuclear threats in order to achieve its military goals in its war in Ukraine. The Russian government is also making allegations about Ukraine’s nuclear capacity in an attempt to justify the war. Russian officials, including the foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, claim that Ukraine has Soviet nuclear technology and delivery systems. It also accuses the Ukrainian government of having plans to develop nuclear weapons within a few months. This week, Lavrov said, among other things, that Russia was forced to intervene to prevent Ukraine from developing its own nuclear weapons.
Russia is unlikely to persuade many that this war was a preemptive or preventive attack intended to deny Ukraine from developing nuclear weapons. Even so, the allegation supports a Russian narrative that blames the Ukraine (and NATO) for the war.
Iraq, Libya and Ukraine?
- What should we make of Ukraine’s choice to give up the Soviet nuclear arsenal in light of current events?
- Should Ukraine have kept its Soviet nuclear weapons?
- Could this have allowed Ukraine to avoid annexation and war?
The answers to these questions have become part of the broader debate about the current crisis, and are likely to feature in future debates about nuclear weapons and international security.
U.S. accounts of this process suggest that Ukraine did not have adequate control over the nuclear arsenal, and had no realistic choice but to hand over the weapons. From this perspective, then, Ukraine did not really have much of a choice with regards to the fate of the inherited Soviet nuclear arsenal.
In contrast, one might argue that Ukraine’s government could have chosen a different path in the 1990s. Notably, Budjeryn emphasizes that the Ukrainians did have a choice, and that they made the right one by not retaining the Soviet weapons, despite their misgivings about Russia’s intentions. Ukraine was under strong diplomatic pressure, including from the United States, which limited the set of feasible options available to the new state in the early 1990s.
Countries such as North Korea and Iran have previously pointed to countries such as Iraq and Libya, which phased out their nuclear weapons programmes and whose regimes were later toppled, as an argument for being wary of dismantling nuclear weapons programs due to pressure or as part of agreements with other states.
Last week, North Korea conducted a new missile test. Negotiations about a much-weakened Iran agreement are at a critical juncture. It is possible that the case of Ukraine will be perceived or cited by other states as an example of why a country should not disarm of nuclear weapons due to risks of future aggression.
For this reason, it is important to emphasize that the situation of Ukraine differs from that of countries that dismantled nuclear weapons programmes, such as Iraq and Libya, prior to acquiring nuclear weapons. Ukraine chose to give up Soviet nuclear weapons in return for a Russian assurance that it would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As Ukraine’s nuclear history is becoming part of Russia’s narrative about the war, and even its casus belli, it is important to emphasize these facts.
What does this mean for Norway?
Russia’s nuclear threats and behavior illustrate how nuclear weapons states can use nuclear weapons as a shield for conducting conventional aggression against other states.… it could become even more
challenging to put in place nuclear risk reduction measures and arms control agreements that can reduce the risks of a
destabilizing arms race …
This is, unfortunately, not an unprecedented challenge for NATO or other states with nuclear-armed adversaries. Pakistan has adopted similar tactics against India in the past. There are fears that China will do the same against Taiwan. The best response to such threats in Europe and Asia is to strengthen conventional military capabilities. This will be a key challenge for Norway and our NATO allies in the future.
These challenges have implications for Norwegian security. For several years, Norway’s intelligence service has pointed to arms races and regional rivalries as a key concern. The Russian nuclear threats illustrate the challenges that this can entail for European security.
Looking ahead, it could become even more challenging to put in place nuclear risk reduction measures and arms control agreements that can reduce the risks of a destabilizing arms race near our borders.