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.
“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.”
“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.
“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.
“This government (the US administration) should be held responsible to the oppressed peoples, who have lost their lives as a result of terrorism, sanctions, aggression, and occupation,” Gharibabadi added.
He cited the example of the people of Yemen, where Saudi Arabia and its allies have been waging a US-backed war, Press TV reported.
The Yemenis were still being deprived of receiving the most basic humanitarian assistance due to the invaders and their supporters’ “imperialist disposition of and great human rights violations,” the official noted.
Several nations have announced to increase their nuclear warhead capacities
Nuclear-armed nations are projected to seek out more weapons in the coming decade, despite the fact that there has been a drastic decline in the number of nuclear warheads worldwide during the past 50 years.
According to the data gathered by Anadolu Agency from Stockholm Institute for Peace Research (SIPRI) and other related sources, the number of nuclear warheads could rise globally.
The agreement is based on three basic principles: the prevention of nuclear proliferation, the use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes and nuclear disarmament.
Nine countries have nuclear warheads with the US and Russia owning about 90% of these warheads, which total 12,705. As of January 2022, the US has 5,428 warheads while Russia has 5,997.
China has 350 warheads, France 290, and the UK possesses 225 warheads. The list continues with Pakistan having 165, India 156, Israel 90, and North Korea 20 nuclear warheads.
Increase in number of warheads
SIPRI’s “2022 Yearbook” report warned that the number of nuclear warheads could rise globally again after the Cold War if countries with nuclear weapons do not take concrete action on disarmament as soon as possible.
According to the report, the present decrease in the nuclear warheads of the US and Russia compared to 2021 and the previous years is due to the dismantling of obsolete warheads within the framework of modernisation efforts.
China is at an important threshold of increasing its nuclear weapons capacity. Satellite images taken from the country show 300 new missile silos under construction.
In 2021, the UK announced its decision to increase its nuclear warhead capacity to 260. The UK also reported that the country would not publicly release figures on its operational nuclear warhead capacity, deployed warheads and missiles.
North Korea has also made its current military nuclear programme a central element of its national security strategy. It is estimated that the country has enough material to produce 40-45 warheads, although the number of warheads at its disposal currently is about 20.
France has also announced the launch of a programme to develop a nuclear-fueled ballistic missile submarine.
There are about 13,000 nuclear warheads in the world today. In 1945, the US became the first country to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After this attack, which killed thousands, many countries wanted to acquire nuclear power and status in the early stages of the Cold War due to the high destructive power of nuclear bombs, their permanent harmful effects, and military and psychological superiority.
The Soviet Union also conducted its first nuclear test in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan in 1949, becoming the second country after the US to develop nuclear weapons.
The UK conducted its first nuclear test in 1952 on the Montebello Islands, located off the west coast of Australia. The country was followed by France, which conducted the first test in the Sahara Desert in the north of Africa in 1960, and then moved the nuclear tests to the South Pacific.
China conducted its first nuclear test in 1964 at the Lop Nur test site of the Gobi Desert in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of the country.
India also refused to sign the NPT and conducted an underground test in the Pokhran region of the country’s Rajasthan Desert in 1974. After India, Pakistan conducted its first nuclear test in 1998.
North Korea also began nuclear tests in 2006 after withdrawing from the NPT agreement.
Worries over a Taiwan contingency, North Korea and an assertive China have led South Korea and Japan to contemplate their security responses. The programme When Titans Clash takes stock of what’s at play in East Asia.
North Korea firing a missile. Its nuclear threat could possibly see a future pushback of a nuclear kind too. (Image source: AP)
TOKYO and SEOUL: He was 11 months old when the United States dropped an atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. Each year on the anniversary of the bombing, Yasuhiro Asaeda will head to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.
His hope is that there will be no repeat of the tragedy. On its 75th anniversary, the survivor of the bombing told The Associated Press: “If the world could be peaceful, that would be the best.”
For example, amid the worst military tensions between China and Taiwan in 40 years, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted some analysts to question whether Taiwan is next.
An emergency preparedness workshop in Taiwan.
China has been sending more and more military jets into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone since 2020 to signal dissatisfaction and keep the island’s fighter fleet stressed.
This zone stretches beyond Taiwan’s airspace, covering a broader area that Taiwan monitors for threats.
From this January to May, Taiwan reported 465 incursions by Chinese aircraft, an increase of nearly 50 per cent from the same period last year, according to Agence France-Presse’s database.
The superpower rivalry between the US and China has also cast a shadow on Taiwan Strait tensions and other East Asian issues, including North Korea’s nuclear threat as well as sour relations between Beijing and Tokyo, and Beijing and Seoul.
For Japan and South Korea, nuclear deterrence has become a bigger consideration in recent months, although any moves on that front would destabilise the region, said some experts.
Both countries come under the US’ nuclear umbrella — its promise to protect them with its nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack.
Days after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 24, however, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called on his country to consider hosting US nuclear weapons, saying the topic should be discussed without “taboo”.
A similar arrangement exists within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), whereby Germany and some other non-nuclear NATO states store US nuclear weapons in their territories and maintain their own means of weapons delivery. This is known as nuclear sharing.
In the aftermath of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy was more candid. Speaking at American University, he said: “A single nuclear weapon contains almost 10 times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War.” Kennedy also noted, “The deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.” Finally, he added, “All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours.”
Kennedy was no dove. He affirmed willingness to use nuclear weapons. But his speech offered some essential honesty about nuclear war — and the need to seriously negotiate with the Kremlin in the interests of averting planetary incineration — an approach sorely lacking from the United States government today.
At the time of Kennedy’s presidency, nuclear war would have been indescribably catastrophic. Now — with large arsenals of hydrogen bombs and what scientists know about “nuclear winter” — experts have concluded that a nuclear war would virtually end agriculture and amount to omnicide (the destruction of human life on earth).
What I discovered — to my horror, I have to say — is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff contemplated causing with our own first strike 600 million deaths, including 100 million in our own allies. Now, that was an underestimate even then because they weren’t including fire, which they found was too incalculable in its effects. And of course, fire is the greatest casualty-producing effect of thermonuclear weapons. So the real effect would’ve been over a billion — not 600 million — about a third of the Earth’s population then at that time.
What turned out to be the case 20 years later in 1983 and confirmed in the last 10 years very thoroughly by climate scientists and environmental scientists is that that high ceiling of a billion or so was wrong. Firing weapons over the cities, even if you call them military targets, would cause firestorms in those cities like the one in Tokyo in March of 1945, which would loft into the stratosphere many millions of tons of soot and black smoke from the burning cities. It wouldn’t be rained out in the stratosphere. It would go around the globe very quickly and reduce sunlight by as much as 70 percent, causing temperatures like that of the Little Ice Age, killing harvests worldwide and starving to death nearly everyone on Earth. It probably wouldn’t cause extinction. We’re so adaptable. Maybe 1 percent of our current population of 7.4 billion could survive, but 98 or 99 percent would not.
Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine four months ago, the risks of global nuclear annihilation were at a peak. In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set its Doomsday Clock at a mere 100 seconds from apocalyptic Midnight, compared to six minutes a decade ago. As Russia’s horrific war on Ukraine has persisted and the U.S. government has bypassed diplomacy in favor of massive arms shipments, the hazards of a nuclear war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers have increased.
But the Biden administration has not only remained mum about current nuclear war dangers; it’s actively exacerbating them. Those at the helm of U.S. foreign policy now are ignoring the profound lessons that President Kennedy drew from the October 1962 confrontation with Russia over its nuclear missiles in Cuba. “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war,” Kennedy said. “To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy — or of a collective death-wish for the world.”
As scholar Alfred McCoy just wrote, “With the specter of mass starvation looming for some 270 million people and, as the [United Nations] recently warned, political instability growing in those volatile regions, the West will, sooner or later, have to reach some understanding with Russia.” Only diplomacy can halt the carnage in Ukraine and save the lives of millions now at risk of starvation. And the dangers of nuclear war can be reduced by rejecting the fantasy of a military solution to the Ukraine conflict.
In recent months, the Russian government has made thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been shipping huge quantities of weapons to Ukraine, while Washington has participated in escalating the dangerous rhetoric. President Biden doubled down on conveying that he seeks regime change in Moscow, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has declared that the U.S. wants the Russian military “weakened” — an approach that is opposite from Kennedy’s warning against “confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.”
We’d be gravely mistaken to wait for Washington’s officialdom to level with us about nuclear war dangers, much less take steps to mitigate them. The power corridors along Pennsylvania Avenue won’t initiate the needed changes. The initiatives and the necessary political pressure must come from grassroots organizing.
A new “Defuse Nuclear War” coalition of about 90 national and regional organizations (which I’m helping to coordinate) launched in mid-June with a livestream video featuring an array of activists and other eloquent speakers, drawn together by the imperative of preventing nuclear war. (They included antiwar activists, organizers, scholars and writers Daniel Ellsberg, Mandy Carter, David Swanson, Medea Benjamin, Leslie Cagan, Pastor Michael McBride, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Hanieh Jodat Barnes, Judith Ehrlich, Khury Petersen-Smith, India Walton, Emma Claire Foley, retired Army Col. Ann Wright and former California Gov. Jerry Brown.)
The U.S. government’s willingness to boost the odds of nuclear war is essentially a political problem. It pits the interests of the people of the world — in desperate need of devoting adequate resources to human needs and protection of the environment — against the rapacious greed of military contractors intertwined with the unhinged priorities of top elected officials.
Media sources reported on Saturday that several explosions occured at the US Victoria base near Baghdad International Airport which is considered one of the centers of deployment of American occupying forces in Iraq.
According to Iraqi sources, alarm systems sounded in Victoria base following these explosions.
No further details about the explosion have been released.