The Main Cause of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Indian Point Energy Center

Nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York

Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) is a three-unit nuclear power plant station located in Buchanan, New York, just south of Peekskill. It sits on the east bank of the Hudson River, about 36 miles (58 km) north of Midtown Manhattan. The plant generates over 2,000 megawatts (MWe) of electrical power. For reference, the record peak energy consumption of New York City and Westchester County (the ConEdison Service Territory) was set during a seven-day heat wave on July 19, 2013, at 13,322 megawatts.[3] Electrical energy consumption varies greatly with time of day and season.[4]

Quick Facts: Country, Location …

The plant is owned and operated by Entergy Nuclear Northeast, a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation, and includes two operating Westinghouse pressurized water reactors—designated “Indian Point 2” and “Indian Point 3″—which Entergy bought from Consolidated Edison and the New York Power Authority respectively. The facility also contains the permanently shut-down Indian Point Unit 1 reactor. As of 2015, the number of permanent jobs at the Buchanan plant is approximately 1,000.

The original 40-year operating licenses for units 2 and 3 expired in September 2013 and December 2015, respectively. Entergy had applied for license extensions and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was moving toward granting a twenty-year extension for each reactor. However, after pressure from local environmental groups and New York governor Andrew Cuomo, it was announced that the plant is scheduled to be shut down by 2021.[5] Local groups had cited increasingly frequent issues with the aging units, ongoing environmental releases, and the proximity of the plant to New York City.[6]


History and design

The reactors are built on land that originally housed the Indian Point Amusement Park, but was acquired by Consolidated Edison (ConEdison) on October 14, 1954.[7] Indian Point 1, built by ConEdison, was a 275-megawatt Babcock & Wilcox supplied [8] pressurized water reactor that was issued an operating license on March 26, 1962 and began operations on September 16, 1962.[9] The first core used a thorium-based fuel with stainless steel cladding, but this fuel did not live up to expectations for core life.[10] The plant was operated with uranium dioxide fuel for the remainder of its life. The reactor was shut down on October 31, 1974, because the emergency core cooling system did not meet regulatory requirements. All spent fuel was removed from the reactor vessel by January 1976, but the reactor still stands.[11] The licensee, Entergy, plans to decommission Unit 1 when Unit 2 is decommissioned.[12]

The two additional reactors, Indian Point 2 and 3, are four-loop Westinghouse pressurized water reactors both of similar design. Units 2 and 3 were completed in 1974 and 1976, respectively. Unit 2 has a generating capacity of 1,032 MW, and Unit 3 has a generating capacity of 1,051 MW. Both reactors use uranium dioxide fuel of no more than 4.8% U-235 enrichment. The reactors at Indian Point are protected by containment domes made of steel-reinforced concrete that is 40 inches thick, with a carbon steel liner.[13]

Nuclear capacity in New York state

Units 2 and 3 are two of six operating nuclear energy sources in New York State. New York is one of the five largest states in terms of nuclear capacity and generation, accounting for approximately 5% of the national totals. Indian Point provides 39% of the state’s nuclear capacity. Nuclear power produces 34.2% of the state’s electricity, higher than the U.S. average of 20.6%. In 2017, Indian Point generated approximately 10% of the state’s electricity needs, and 25% of the electricity used in New York City and Westchester County.[14] Its contract with Consolidated Edison is for just 560 megawatts. The New York Power Authority, which built Unit 3, stopped buying electricity from Indian Point in 2012. NYPA supplies the subways, airports, and public schools and housing in NYC and Westchester County. Entergy sells the rest of Indian Point’s output into the NYISO administered electric wholesale markets and elsewhere in New England.[15][16][17][18] In 2013, New York had the fourth highest average electricity prices in the United States. Half of New York’s power demand is in the New York City region; about two-fifths of generation originates there.[19][20]


The currently operating Units 2 and 3 are each refueled on a two-year cycle. At the end of each fuel cycle, one unit is brought offline for refueling and maintenance activities. On March 2, 2015, Indian Point 3 was taken offline for 23 days to perform its refueling operations. Entergy invested $50 million in the refueling and other related projects for Unit 3, of which $30 million went to employee salaries. The unit was brought back online on March 25, 2015.[21]


Economic impact

A June 2015 report by a lobby group called Nuclear Energy Institute found that the operation of Indian Point generates $1.3 billion of annual economic output in local counties, $1.6 billion statewide, and $2.5 billion across the United States. In 2014, Entergy paid $30 million in state and local property taxes. The total tax revenue (direct and secondary) was nearly $340 million to local, state, and federal governments.[15] According to the Village of Buchanan budget for 2016–2017, a payment in lieu of taxes in the amount of $2.62 million was received in 2015-2016, and was projected to be $2.62 million in 2016–2017 – the majority of which can be assumed to come from the Indian Point Energy Center.[22]

Over the last decade, the station has maintained a capacity factor of greater than 93 percent. This is consistently higher than the nuclear industry average and than other forms of generation. The reliability helps offset the severe price volatility of other energy sources (e.g., natural gas) and the indeterminacy of renewable electricity sources (e.g., solar, wind).[15]

Indian Point directly employs about 1,000 full-time workers. This employment creates another 2,800 jobs in the five-county region, and 1,600 in other industries in New York, for a total of 5,400 in-state jobs. Additionally, another 5,300 indirect jobs are created out of state, creating a sum total of 10,700 jobs throughout the United States.[15]

Environmental concerns

Environmentalists have expressed concern about increased carbon emissions with the impending shutdown of Indian Point (generating electricity with nuclear energy creates no carbon emissions). A study undertaken by Environmental Progress found that closure of the plant would cause power emissions to jump 29% in New York, equivalent to the emissions from 1.4 million additional cars on New York roads.[23]

Some environmental groups have expressed concerns about the operation of Indian Point, including radiation pollution and endangerment of wildlife, but whether Indian Point has ever posed a significant danger to wildlife or the public remains controversial. Though anti-nuclear group Riverkeeper notes “Radioactive leakage from the plant containing several radioactive isotopes, such as strontium-90, cesium-137, cobalt-60, nickel-63 and tritium, a rarely-occurring isotope of hydrogen, has flowed into groundwater that eventually enters the Hudson River in the past[24], there is no evidence radiation from the plant has ever posed a significant hazard to local residents or wildlife. In the last year[when?], nine tritium leaks have occurred, however, even at their highest levels the leaks have never exceeded one-tenth of one percent of US Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits.

In February 2016, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo called for a full investigation by state environment[25] and health officials and is partnering with organizations like Sierra Club, Riverkeepers, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, Scenic Hudson and Physicians for Social Responsibility in seeking the permanent closure of the plant.[citation needed] However, Cuomo’s motivation for closing the plant was called into question after it was revealed two top former aides, under federal prosecution for influence-peddling, had lobbied on behalf of natural gas company Competitive Power Ventures (CPV) to kill Indian Point. In his indictment, US attorney Preet Bharara wrote “the importance of the plant [CPV’s proposed Valley Energy Center, a plant powered by natural gas] to the State depended at least in part, on whether [Indian Point] was going to be shut down.”[26]

In April 2016 climate scientist James Hansen took issue with calls to shut the plant down, including those from presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. “The last few weeks have seen an orchestrated campaign to mislead the people of New York about the essential safety and importance of Indian Point nuclear plant to address climate change,” wrote Hansen, adding “Sanders has offered no evidence that NRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has failed to do its job, and he has no expertise in over-riding NRC’s judgement. For the sake of future generations who could be harmed by irreversible climate change, I urge New Yorkers to reject this fear mongering and uphold science against ideology.”[27]

Indian Point removes water from the nearby Hudson River. Despite the use of fish screens, the cooling system kills over a billion fish eggs and larvae annually.[28] According to one NRC report from 2010, as few as 38% of alewives survive the screens.[29] On September 14, 2015, a state hearing began in regards to the deaths of fish in the river, and possibly implementing a shutdown period from May to August. An Indian Point spokesman stated that such a period would be unnecessary, as Indian Point “is fully protective of life in the Hudson River and $75 million has been spent over the last 30 years on scientific studies demonstrating that the plant has no harmful impact to adult fish.” The hearings lasted three weeks.[30] Concerns were also raised over the planned building of new cooling towers, which would cut down forest land that is suspected to be used as breeding ground by muskrat and mink. At the time of the report, no minks or muskrats were spotted there.[29]


Indian Point Energy Center has been given an incredible amount of scrutiny from the media and politicians and is regulated more heavily than various other power plants in the state of New York (i.e., by the NRC in addition to FERC, the NYSPSC, the NYISO, the NYSDEC, and the EPA). On a forced outage basis – incidents related to electrical equipment failure that force a plant stoppage – it provides a much more reliable operating history than most other power plants in New York.[31][32] Beginning at the end of 2015, Governor Cuomo began to ramp up political action against the Indian Point facility, opening an investigation with the state public utility commission, the department of health, and the department of environmental conservation.[33][34][35][30][36][37] To put the public service commission investigation in perspective: most electric outage investigations conducted by the commission are in response to outages with a known number of affected retail electric customers.[38] By November 17, 2017, the NYISO accepted Indian Point’s retirement notice.[39]

In 1997, Indian Point Unit 3 was removed from the NRC’s list of plants that receive increased attention from the regulator. An engineer for the NRC noted that the plant had been experiencing increasingly fewer problems during inspections.[40] On March 10, 2009 the Indian Point Power Plant was awarded the fifth consecutive top safety rating for annual operations by the Federal regulators. According to the Hudson Valley Journal News, the plant had shown substantial improvement in its safety culture in the previous two years.[41] A 2003 report commissioned by then-Governor George Pataki concluded that the “current radiological response system and capabilities are not adequate to…protect the people from an unacceptable dose of radiation in the event of a release from Indian Point”.[42] More recently, in December 2012 Entergy commissioned a 400-page report on the estimates of evacuation times. This report, performed by emergency planning company KLD Engineering, concluded that the existing traffic management plans provided by Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester Counties are adequate and require no changes.[43] According to one list that ranks U.S. nuclear power plants by their likelihood of having a major natural disaster related incident, Indian Point is the most likely to be hit by a natural disaster, mainly an earthquake.[44][45][46][47] Despite this, the owners of the plant still say that safety is a selling point for the nuclear power plant.[48]Incidents

▪ In 1973, five months after Indian Point 2 opened, the plant was shut down when engineers discovered buckling in the steel liner of the concrete dome in which the nuclear reactor is housed.[49]

▪ On October 17, 1980,[50] 100,000 gallons of Hudson River water leaked into the Indian Point 2 containment building from the fan cooling unit, undetected by a safety device designed to detect hot water. The flooding, covering the first nine feet of the reactor vessel, was discovered when technicians entered the building. Two pumps that should have removed the water were found to be inoperative. NRC proposed a $2,100,000 fine for the incident.

▪ In February 2000, Unit 2 experienced a Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR), which allowed primary water to leak into the secondary system through one of the steam generators.[51] All four steam generators were subsequently replaced.[citation needed]

▪ In 2005, Entergy workers while digging discovered a small leak in a spent fuel pool. Water containing tritium and strontium-90 was leaking through a crack in the pool building and then finding its way into the nearby Hudson River. Workers were able to keep the spent fuel rods safely covered despite the leak.[52] On March 22, 2006 The New York Times also reported finding radioactive nickel-63 and strontium in groundwater on site.[53]

▪ In 2007, a transformer at Unit 3 caught fire, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission raised its level of inspections, because the plant had experienced many unplanned shutdowns. According to The New York Times, Indian Point “has a history of transformer problems”.[54]

▪ On April 23, 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined the owner of the Indian Point nuclear plant $130,000 for failing to meet a deadline for a new emergency siren plan. The 150 sirens at the plant are meant to alert residents within 10 miles to a plant emergency.[55]

▪ On January 7, 2010, NRC inspectors reported that an estimated 600,000 gallons of mildly radioactive steam was intentionally vented to the atmosphere after an automatic shutdown of Unit 2. After the vent, one of the vent valves unintentionally remained slightly open for two days. The levels of tritium in the steam were within the allowable safety limits defined in NRC standards.[56]

▪ On November 7, 2010, an explosion occurred in a main transformer for Indian Point 2, spilling oil into the Hudson River.[57] Entergy later agreed to pay a $1.2 million penalty for the transformer explosion.[54]

▪ July 2013, a former supervisor, who worked at the Indian Point nuclear power plant for twenty-nine years, was arrested for falsifying the amount of particulate in the diesel fuel for the plant’s backup generators.[58]

▪ On May 9, 2015, a transformer failed at Indian Point 3, causing the automated shutdown of reactor 3. A fire that resulted from the failure was extinguished, and the reactor was placed in a safe and stable condition.[59] The failed transformer contained about 24,000 gallons of dielectric fluid, which is used as an insulator and coolant when the transformer is energized. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that about 3,000 gallons of dielectric fluid entered the river following the failure.[60]

▪ In June 2015, a mylar balloon floated into a switchyard, causing an electrical problem resulting in the shutdown of Reactor 3.[61]

▪ In July 2015, Reactor 3 was shut down after a water pump failure.[citation needed]

▪ On December 5, 2015, Indian Point 2 was shut down after several control rods lost power.[62]

▪ On February 6, 2016, Governor Andrew Cuomo informed the public that radioactive tritium-contaminated water leaked into the groundwater at the Indian Point Nuclear facility.[25]

Spent fuel

Indian Point stores used fuel rods in two spent fuel pools at the facility.[52] The spent fuel pools at Indian Point are not stored under a containment dome like the reactor, but rather they are contained within an indoor 40-foot-deep pool and submerged under 27 feet of water. Water is a natural and effective barrier to radiation. The spent fuel pools at Indian Point are set in bedrock and are constructed of concrete walls that are four to six feet wide, with a quarter-inch thick stainless steel inner liner. The pools each have multiple redundant backup cooling systems.[52][63]

Indian Point began dry cask storage of spent fuel rods in 2008, which is a safe and environmentally sound option according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[64] Some rods have already been moved to casks from the spent fuel pools. The pools will be kept nearly full of spent fuel, leaving enough space to allow emptying the reactor completely.[65] Dry cask storage systems are designed to resist floods, tornadoes, projectiles, temperature extremes, and other unusual scenarios. The NRC requires the spent fuel to be cooled and stored in the spent fuel pool for at least five years before being transferred to dry casks.[66]

Earthquake risk

In 2008, researchers from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory located a previously unknown active seismic zone running from Stamford, Connecticut, to the Hudson Valley town of Peekskill, New York—the intersection of the Stamford-Peekskill line with the well-known Ramapo Fault—which passes less than a mile north of the Indian Point nuclear power plant.[67] The Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast, but scientists dispute how active this roughly 200-million-year-old fault really is. Many earthquakes in the state’s surprisingly varied seismic history are believed to have occurred on or near it. Visible at ground level, the fault line likely extends as deep as nine miles below the surface.[68]

In July 2013, Entergy engineers reassessed the risk of seismic damage to Unit 3 and submitted their findings in a report to the NRC. It was found that risk leading to reactor core damage is 1 in 106,000 reactor years using U.S. Geological Survey data; and 1 in 141,000 reactor years using Electric Power Research Institute data. Unit 3’s previous owner, the New York Power Authority, had conducted a more limited analysis in the 1990s than Unit 2’s previous owner, Con Edison, leading to the impression that Unit 3 had fewer seismic protections than Unit 2. Neither submission of data from the previous owners was incorrect.[69]

According to a company spokesman, Indian Point was built to withstand an earthquake of 6.1 on the Richter scale.[70] Entergy executives have also noted “that Indian Point had been designed to withstand an earthquake much stronger than any on record in the region, though not one as powerful as the quake that rocked Japan.”[71]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Indian Point was Reactor 2: 1 in 30,303; Reactor 3: 1 in 10,000, according to an NRC study published in August 2010. reported based on the NRC data that “Indian Point nuclear reactor No. 3 has the highest risk of earthquake damage in the country, according to new NRC risk estimates provided to” According to the report, the reason is that plants in known earthquake zones like California were designed to be more quake-resistant than those in less affected areas like New York.[72][73] The NRC did not dispute the numbers but responded in a release that “The NRC results to date should not be interpreted as definitive estimates of seismic risk,” because the NRC does not rank plants by seismic risk.[74]

IPEC Units 2 and 3 both operated at 100% full power before, during, and after the Virginia earthquake on August 23, 2011. A thorough inspection of both units by plant personnel immediately following this event verified no significant damage occurred at either unit.

Emergency planning

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of 10 miles (16 km), concerned primarily with exposure to, and inhalation of, airborne radioactive contamination, and an ingestion pathway zone of about 50 miles (80 km), concerned primarily with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity.[75]

According to an analysis of U.S. Census data for MSNBC, the 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Indian Point was 272,539, an increase of 17.6 percent during the previous ten years. The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 17,220,895, an increase of 5.1 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles include New York (41 miles to city center); Bridgeport, Conn. (40 miles); Newark, N.J. (39 miles); and Stamford, Conn. (24 miles).[76]

In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima incident in Japan, the State Department recommended that any Americans in Japan stay beyond fifty miles from the area.[citation needed] Columnist Peter Applebome, writing in The New York Times, noted that such an area around Indian Point would include “almost all of New York City except for Staten Island; almost all of Nassau County and much of Suffolk County; all of Bergen County, N.J.; all of Fairfield, Conn.” He quotes Purdue University professor Daniel Aldrich as saying “Many scholars have already argued that any evacuation plans shouldn’t be called plans, but rather “fantasy documents””.[42]

The current 10-mile plume-exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is one of two EPZs intended to facilitate a strategy for protective action during an emergency and comply with NRC regulations. “The exact size and shape of each EPZ is a result of detailed planning which includes consideration of the specific conditions at each site, unique geographical features of the area, and demographic information. This preplanned strategy for an EPZ provides a substantial basis to support activity beyond the planning zone in the extremely unlikely event it would be needed.”[77]

In an interview, Entergy executives said they doubt that the evacuation zone would be expanded to reach as far as New York City.[71]

Indian Point is protected by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, including a National Guard base within a mile of the facility, as well as by private off-site security forces.[78]

During the September 11 attacks, American Airlines Flight 11 flew near the Indian Point Energy Center en route to the World Trade Center. Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers/plotters, had considered nuclear facilities for targeting in a terrorist attack.[79] Entergy says it is prepared for a terrorist attack, and asserts that a large airliner crash into the containment building would not cause reactor damage.[80] Following 9/11 the NRC required operators of nuclear facilities in the U.S. to examine the effects of terrorist events and provide planned responses.[81] In September 2006, the Indian Point Security Department successfully completed mock assault exercises required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[citation needed] However, according to environmental group Riverkeeper, these NRC exercises are inadequate because they do not envision a sufficiently large group of attackers.[citation needed]

According to The New York Times, fuel stored in dry casks is less vulnerable to terrorist attack than fuel in the storage pools.[65]


Units 2 and 3 were both originally licensed by the NRC for 40 years of operation. The NRC limits commercial power reactor licenses to an initial 40 years, but also permits such licenses to be renewed. This original 40-year term for reactor licenses was based on economic and antitrust considerations, not on limitations of nuclear technology. Due to this selected period, however, some structures and components may have been engineered on the basis of an expected 40-year service life.[82] The original federal license for Unit Two expired on September 28, 2013,[83][84] and the license for Unit Three was due to expire in December 2015.[85] On April 30, 2007, Entergy submitted an application for a 20-year renewal of the licenses for both units. On May 2, 2007, the NRC announced that this application is available for public review.[86] Because the owner submitted license renewal applications at least five years prior to the original expiration date, the units are allowed to continue operation past this date while the NRC considers the renewal application.

On September 23, 2007, the antinuclear group Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) filed legal papers with the NRC opposing the relicensing of the Indian Point 2 reactor. The group contended that the NRC improperly held Indian Point to less stringent design requirements. The NRC responded that the newer requirements were put in place after the plant was complete.[87]

On December 1, 2007, Westchester County Executive Andrew J. Spano, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer called a press conference with the participation of environmental advocacy groups Clearwater and Riverkeeper to announce their united opposition to the re-licensing of the Indian Point nuclear power plants. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Office of the Attorney General requested a hearing as part of the process put forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[citation needed] In September 2007 The New York Times reported on the rigorous legal opposition Entergy faces in its request for a 20-year licensing extension for Indian Point Nuclear Reactor 2.[87]

A water quality certificate is a prerequisite for a twenty-year renewal by the NRC.[citation needed] On April 3, 2010, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ruled that Indian Point violates the federal Clean Water Act,[88] because “the power plant’s water-intake system kills nearly a billion aquatic organisms a year, including the shortnose sturgeon, an endangered species.”[citation needed] The state is demanding that Entergy constructs new closed-cycle cooling towers at a cost of over $1 billion, a decision that will effectively close the plant for nearly a year. Regulators denied Entergy’s request to install fish screens that they said would improve fish mortality more than new cooling towers. Anti-nuclear groups and environmentalists have in the past tried to close the plant,[citation needed] which is in a more densely populated area than any of the 66 other nuclear plant sites in the US.[citation needed] Opposition to the plant[from whom?] increased after the September 2001 terror attacks,[citation needed] when one of the hijacked jets flew close to the plant on its way to the World Trade Center.[citation needed] Public worries also increased after the 2011 Japanese Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and after a report highlighting the Indian Point plant’s proximity to the Ramapo Fault.[citation needed]

Advocates of recertifying Indian Point include former New York City mayors Michael Bloomberg and Rudolph W. Giuliani. Bloomberg says that “Indian Point is critical to the city’s economic viability”.[89] The New York Independent System Operator maintains that in the absence of Indian Point, grid voltages would degrade, which would limit the ability to transfer power from upstate New York resources through the Hudson Valley to New York City.[90]

As the current governor, Andrew Cuomo continues to call for closure of Indian Point.[91] In late June 2011, a Cuomo advisor in a meeting with Entergy executives informed them for the first time directly of the Governor’s intention to close the plant, while the legislature approved a bill to streamline the process of siting replacement plants.[92]

Nuclear energy industry figures and analysts responded to Cuomo’s initiative by questioning whether replacement electrical plants could be certified and built rapidly enough to replace Indian Point, given New York state’s “cumbersome regulation process”, and also noted that replacement power from out of state sources will be hard to obtain because New York has weak ties to generation capacity in other states.[citation needed] They said that possible consequences of closure will be a sharp increase in the cost of electricity for downstate users and even “rotating black-outs”.[93]

Several members of the House of Representatives representing districts near the plant have also opposed recertification, including Democrats Nita Lowey, Maurice Hinchey, and Eliot Engel and then Republican member Sue Kelly.[94]

In November 2016 the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the application to renew the NRC operating licences must be reviewed against the state’s coastal management program, which The New York State Department of State had already decided was inconsistent with coastal management requirements. Entergy has filed a lawsuit regarding the validity of Department of State’s decision.[95]


Beginning at the end of 2015, Governor Cuomo began to ramp up political action against the Indian Point facility, opening investigations with the state public utility commission, the department of health and the department of environmental conservation.[33][34][35][30][36][37] To put the public service commission investigation in perspective, most electric outage investigations conducted by the commission are in response to outages with a known number of affected retail electric customers.[38] By November 17, 2017, the NYISO accepted Indian Point’s retirement notice.[39]

In January 2017, the governor’s office announced closure by 2020-21.[96] The closure, along with pollution control, challenges New York’s ability to be supplied.[citation needed] Among the solution proposals are storage, renewables (solar and wind), a new transmission cables from Canada [97][98] and a 650MW natural gas plant located in Wawayanda, New York.[99] There was also a 1,000 MW merchant HVDC transmission line proposed in 2013 to the public service commission that would have interconnected at Athens, New York and Buchanan, New York, however this project was indefinitely stalled when its proposed southern converter station site was bought by the Town of Cortlandt in a land auction administered by Con Edison.[100][101][102] As of October 1, 2018, the 650 MW plant built in Wawayanda, New York, by CPV Valley, is operating commercially.[103] The CPV Valley plant has been associated with Governor Cuomo’s close aid, Joe Percoco, and the associated corruption trial.[104] Another plant being built, Cricket Valley Energy Center, rated at 1,100 MW, is on schedule to provide energy by 2020 in Dover, New York.[105] An Indian Point contingency plan, initiated in 2012 by the NYSPSC under the administration of Cuomo, solicited energy solutions from which a Transmission Owner Transmission Solutions (TOTS) plan was selected. The TOTS projects provide 450 MW[106] of additional transfer capability across a NYISO defined electric transmission corridor in the form of three projects: series compensation at a station in Marcy, New York, reconductoring a transmission line, adding an additional transmission line, and “unbottling” Staten Island capacity. These projects, with the exception of part of the Staten Island “unbottling” were in service by mid-2016. The cost of the TOTS projects are distributed among various utilities in their rate cases before the public service commission and the cost allocation amongst themselves was approved by FERC. NYPA and LIPA are also receiving a portion. The cost of the TOTS projects has been estimated in the range of $27 million to $228 million.[107][108][109][110][111] An energy highway initiative was also prompted by this order (generally speaking, additional lines on the Edic-Pleasant Valley and the Oakdale-Fraser transmission corridors) which is still going through the regulatory process in both the NYISO and NYSPSC.

Under the current plan, one reactor is scheduled to be shut down in April 2020 and the second by April 2021.[112] A report by the New York Building Congress, a construction industry association, has said that NYC will need additional natural gas pipelines to accommodate the city’s increasing demand for energy. Environmentalists have argued that the power provided by Indian point can be replaced by renewable energy, combined with conservation measures and improvements to the efficiency of the electrical grid.[113]

India and Pakistan WILL NOT Avoid Nuclear War: Revelation 8

October 9, 2022  Topic: India-Pakistan War  Region: Asia  Tags: India-Pakistan WarIndiaPakistanNuclear WeaponsWorld War IKashmirTerrorismChinaGreat Power Competition

World War I Redux: Can India and Pakistan Avoid Nuclear War?

The graves of the fallen in World War I serve as a dire reminder of how the failure of diplomatic engagement and crisis prevention could be catastrophic.

by Ahmed S. Cheema

Almost 104 years have passed since the conclusion of World War I, yet its lessons have never been more pertinent. This is especially relevant for South Asia—where India and Pakistan find themselves at odds over Kashmir, a conflict that has been made more deadly by the introduction of nuclear weapons. The similarities between modern South Asia and WWI Europe are notable. In 1914, France desired the return of Alsace Lorraine; today, both Pakistan and India seek to resolve historic disagreements over to whom Kashmir belongs. A century ago, Serbian separatism and nationalist groups like the Black Hand posed a strategic challenge for Austro–Hungarian leaders; today, Kashmiri separatism remains a thorn in New Delhi’s foot. Islamabad’s patronage of groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008, only adds fuel to the fire, eerily reminding us of Serbia tolerating the activities of Black Hand. At the same time, Pakistan blames Indian intelligence for fomenting dissent in Balochistan province, an allegation the Indians repeatedly deny. A military engagement between the Indian and Pakistani Air Forces in 2019 following a bomb attack in Pulwama, Kashmir, that killed forty-six Indian police officers serves as a stark reminder of how the actions of insurgents, even when acting on their own accord, and spark interstate conflict. Another such future incident, followed subsequently by a military clash, might escalate out of control.

The deeply rooted Indo-Pak rivalry can be traced back to their independence from Britain in 1947. What has changed is that today’s relations are being influenced by a renewed struggle for global primacy between the United States and China. The United States views India as an integral part of its Indo-Pacific strategy to contain China. Pakistan, on the other hand, has been a long-standing Chinese ally and has benefitted from Chinese military sales and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Just as Britain regarded German infrastructure development in the Ottoman Empire with suspicion, New Delhi (and perhaps Washington) views the CPEC with an apprehensive gaze. Indian interpretations of the strategic threat posed by a Sino-Pakistani alliance are only magnified by the clashes between Indian and Chinese troops along their border from 2020 to 2022. India and China have already fought one war in 1962 and strategists in New Delhi now routinely talk about the “two front” threats their country faces. Just like Europe in 1914, the stage is set for a catastrophic clash in South Asia, one that might drag the Chinese to prevent the fall of Pakistan.

India’s economic rise has resulted in military modernization, but leaders in New Delhi still face the daunting task of pulling 300 million citizens out of poverty, especially if they wish to emulate China. On the other hand, Islamabad faces a perpetual economic crisis and should, ideally, have no interest in any conflict. Yet, Pakistan’s historic patronage of insurgent groups that target India has provoked an angry response from the Modi government. Fearing getting blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force, Pakistan has been reining in these groups and jailing their leaders. However, the possibility remains that a few of them might act autonomously, especially after Indian authorities abrogated Kashmir’s special privileges and bifurcated the state. A repetition of the Mumbai 2008 attacks by a few insurgents, even in defiance of Pakistani authorities, would spark a conflict in South Asia, albeit with the added specter of nuclear weapons. The question then becomes whether the Chinese will sit by and watch an allied nation be defeated or mobilize on India’s northern border to prevent an outright Indian victory. The United States would then face pressures to act, either by providing India with intelligence and weaponry, or even mobilizing its naval forces on China’s eastern coast in order to prevent an Indian collapse. Alternatively, the United States could sit tight and do nothing, and accept the consequences of inaction. Such a scenario is highly unlikely, but then again, most of us never thought a global pandemic would bring the world to a standstill either.

In his seminal book Leaders, U.S. president Richard Nixon noted that the essence of statesmanship was to accurately predict a crisis before it occurs and act to prevent it from materializing. Good leaders learn from their mistakes; visionary leaders learn from the mistakes of others. The failure of the Serbs to rein in Black Hand and prevent the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the streets of Sarajevo in 1914 serves as a dire reminder to policymakers in Islamabad about the consequences of using violent groups for geostrategic objectives. Turning a blind eye or failing to prevent another Mumbai-style attack by Lashkar-e-Taiba would result in a clash with India that would be highly detrimental, especially if Pakistan wishes to recover from this year’s devastating floods and get its economy back on track. Pakistan might draw a lesson from the failures of the Ottoman Empire in allaying British concerns about German influence in the Middle East. Islamabad should dedicate considerable time and effort to assuage the Indians that China’s infrastructure projects are only economic in nature and do not pose a military or strategic threat to India.

As for New Delhi, angrily snubbing Islamabad is an emotion, not a policy. The current government in New Delhi might find it useful to castigate Pakistan publically for electoral benefits but a visionary long-term strategy would entail diplomatic engagement. After all, both countries are neighbors, and the cold logic of geography cannot be wished away. Emulating the path taken by Austria-Hungary and embarking on an endeavor to teach the other side a lesson might seem tempting to Indian policymakers. However, just as the Austro–Hungarians discovered, imparting lessons by using military force may turn out to be a costly endeavor. The nuclear missiles that both sides gleefully parade on their national days would kill 125 million people if used. India might also learn a few lessons from Austria-Hungary’s mishandling of ethnic grievances. The key to lasting peace lies in winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiri Muslims, not in declaring martial law or perpetually putting Srinagar under a curfew. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s concerns about Indian patronage of separatist groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army in its Balochistan province have to be addressed if India expects Pakistan to crack down on groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad.

The Germans and French learned that using violence to readdress historical claims over territory or revise boundary disputes was a suicidal policy. It took the slaughter at battles such as Verdun to drill this harsh reality into the German and French publics (although they still went on to fight World War II). Islamabad and New Delhi have a choice: repeat the same mistake or resolve territorial disputes via dialogue. Seventy-five years after the partition of India and creation of Pakistan, demographic change all but rules out the idea that either side can assert sovereignty over the entire Kashmiri region. It would be unreasonable for India to imagine it could administer the Pakistani side of Kashmir, with its 99.5 percent Muslim population that has grown accustomed to viewing India as a foreign entity. Likewise, the Jammu region now features a Hindu and Sikh majority, ruling out any chance of Islamabad governing the area. The best strategy for both sides is diplomatic engagement—not inaction and angry snubs. Specific strategies that could mitigate tensions would include a resumption of trade, reviving the Track II dialogue between retired government officials, resuming sporting events, and toning down antagonistic rhetoric. Furthermore, if New Delhi feels apprehensive about China’s increasing influence in South Asia, then a proper counter would involve stepping up and strategizing India’s own regional infrastructure development plan and investment initiative in the region—if not in Pakistan, then at least in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. A policy that only involves publically criticizing China will merely make the Indian government appear more belligerent in the eyes of other South Asian leaders, particularly those in Islamabad.  

As for the United States, the appeal to side with the Indians might seem tempting, especially now that the long war in Afghanistan is over. Some might even feel inclined to punish Islamabad for the fall of Kabul. However, it would be precarious to give off any signal that could be mistakenly understood by Delhi as approval to resort to military action—similar to the one the Austrians received from Germany. WWI teaches us that intelligent statecraft necessitates crisis prevention—not duking it out on the battlefield. An Austro-Hungarian-German alliance on one side and a Russo-Serbian pact on the other doomed Central Europe and killed millions. A scenario that sets an Indo-American entente against a Sino-Pakistani alliance is destined to repeat the same mistakes.

Therefore, one of the objectives of American foreign policy in South Asia ought to be the prevention of a war caused by the actions of a few terrorists. A policy focused on crisis prevention would require diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi to prevent a regional conflict as well as cooperation with Beijing, since a nuclear war in South Asia is none of their national interests. Other countries with long-standing ties with both countries, such as Britain and the United Arab Emirates, can also mediate by urging New Delhi and Islamabad to resume dialogue. The graves of the fallen in World War I serve as a dire reminder of how the failure of diplomatic engagement and crisis prevention could be catastrophic.

The Growing Chinese Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

China’s next aircraft carrier likely to be nuclear

Official line is that China’s fourth planned carrier will be conventional but recent reports point to more powerful ambitions


China aims to build a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to protect its growing strategic interests abroad, the latest flex of Beijing’s growing naval power and clout.

This month, the South China Morning Post reported that analysts believe China’s follow-up to the recent successful launch of its Fujian aircraft carrier will probably be nuclear-powered, with some noting the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) has stated that it must achieve a breakthrough in nuclear-powered technology by 2027.

An article in the Wave of South China Sea, a military affairs social media account, states that the shipyards responsible for China’s carriers have not yet been given the necessary permission and that it is not sure if China can acquire the technology to build nuclear-powered carriers. It also stated that a diesel-powered vessel would be more suited to China’s needs.

It’s not the first time China has voiced its ambitions to build a nuclear-powered carrier. This May, Asia Times reported that in February 2018 CSSC started developing a nuclear-powered carrier that would help the PLA Navy by 2025.

The report also cites an article by Popular Science mentioning a CSSC leak that appears to show a mock-up of China’s planned nuclear-powered carrier, tentatively designated “Type 003.”

Leaked CSSC details claim that the new class “will displace between ninety thousand and one hundred thousand tons and have electromagnetically assisted launch system (EMALS) catapults for getting aircraft off the deck. It’ll likely carry a large air wing of J-15 fighters, J-31 stealth fighters, KJ-600 airborne early warning and control aircraft, anti-submarine warfare helicopters, and stealth attack drones.”

China’s nuclear-powered carrier, partnered with Type 055 cruisers and next-generation submarines, would have the potential to become a formidable force for global missions. Such specifications put China’s planned nuclear carrier at par with current US supercarriers, at least on paper.

The South China Morning Post report mentions that China has completed design work for its fourth carrier, expected between 2025 and 2027. However, military sources to date have stated that it will be conventionally powered.

The report notes that conventional carriers require less maintenance and are cheaper to build than their nuclear-powered counterparts. However, nuclear power is more suited for catapult-equipped carriers such as the Fujian, as their reactors give the vessel practically unlimited range and generate steam to power aircraft catapults.

The Fujian is China’s first carrier to feature an electromagnetic launch system (EMALS), which uses powerful electromagnets rather than steam catapults to launch aircraft. EMALS is said to be gentler on airframes, potentially reducing maintenance downtime and increasing service life, and allows the Fujian to launch fighters carrying more fuel and weapons or heavier types of aircraft.

So far, only the US and France operate nuclear-powered carriers, with the US using the Nimitz and Ford classes and the French deploying the Charles de Gaulle.

The South China Morning Post report presents a convergence of views that China’s next carrier will put it in the same nuclear class.

Malcolm Davis, a senior security analyst from the Canberra-based Australian Strategic Policy Institute, opines that China’s next carrier will be nuclear-powered, noting two key reasons.

First, Davis notes a nuclear-powered carrier fits into China’s ambition to have a world-class navy with long-range power projection capabilities, thus reducing the need for forward bases and replenishment ships. Second, Davis says that nuclear-powered carriers are considered prestige assets, which if acquired would reinforce China’s image as a global superpower.

Brad Martin, a senior policy researcher at RAND, concurs that China’s next carrier will probably be nuclear-powered, noting that the EMALS technology in use with Fujian requires significant amounts of energy that is difficult for a conventionally-powered carrier to provide. Martin also notes that China already operates nuclear-powered submarines and that a nuclear-powered carrier would appear to be the next logical step.

China’s global ambitions are reflected in its Maritime Silk Road, a network of Chinese-leased or funded ports stretching from Europe to Asia. This network serves as a China-centered maritime trade route that may require long-range power projection capabilities to secure, with nuclear-powered carriers fitting the capability requirements.

But, as previously noted by Asia Times, an aircraft carrier may be an overly capable and costly asset for relatively humdrum missions such as escorting merchant convoys.

Moreover, risk aversion to losing a carrier in combat operations may relegate China’s carriers to political assets to showcase its great power status. Ever since the end of World War II, the US has only operated carriers in permissive environments against adversaries who have no means of contesting sea control.

China’s carriers, however, will encounter very different areas of operations. The New York Times reported this month that the US is aiming to turn Taiwan into a “giant weapons depot” as part of a “porcupine strategy.”

That strategy, the report says, involves numerous but highly mobile, dispersed and survivable weapons such as anti-ship missiles, man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), naval mines and surface-to-air missiles (SAM) that can survive China’s initial strikes, and inflict severe casualties on an invasion force while putting China’s prized aircraft carriers at risk.

The US has substantial capabilities to break a potential Chinese blockade of Taiwan. This month, Nikkei cited Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of the US Pacific Fleet, as saying that the US can break China’s blockade of Taiwan, referencing America’s nuclear submarine fleet and other undersea warfare capabilities.

In a Taiwan conflict scenario, it is plausible that China is aiming for a six-carrier navy, with its three fleets operating two carriers. That would follow the Royal Navy model where one carrier would be on deployment while the other is undergoing maintenance, refit and crew training.

In such a Taiwan scenario, carrier battlegroups from China’s North Sea Fleet, East Sea Fleet, and South Sea Fleet would perform flanking maneuvers in the Miyako Strait, Taiwan Strait and Bashi Channel to enforce a blockade of Taiwan.

In one view, analysts believe conventional carriers would be better suited to China’s needs in a conflict over nearby Taiwan due to the short distances involved. Even so, a nuclear-powered carrier would still be a powerful asset for China should it decide to build such a warship.

Specifically, a nuclear-powered carrier can reduce the need to break off operations to refuel and resupply, increase sortie rates by China’s combat aircraft and strengthen China’s blockade of Taiwan compared to conventionally-powered vessels by providing a persistent presence.

More Violence Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Israeli troops hunt for shooter in Jerusalem checkpoint attack

The New Arab Staff & Agencies

09 October, 2022

Israeli forces are hunting for a Palestinian man who attacked Israeli soldiers hours after Israeli forces killed two Palestinians during a raid in the occupied West Bank.

Israeli forces conduct routine raids on Palestinian villages and cities in the West Bank [Getty]

Israeli police arrested at least three Palestinian suspects on Sunday in connection with a deadly shooting at a Jerusalem checkpoint, as security forces searched for the suspected gunman.

The shooter opened fire on a military checkpoint in east Jerusalem late Saturday, killing an Israeli soldier and wounding three other soldiers, one of them seriously. The Israeli military identified the soldier as 18-year-old Noa Lazar.

It was the latest bloodshed in the deadliest year in the West Bank since 2015, marked by near-nightly raids in Palestinian cities and villages in the occupied territory. It also came less than a day before Israel was to begin celebrating the weeklong Sukkot holiday, a time when tens of thousands of Jews visit the holy city.

The attack followed the killing of two Palestinian teenagers by Israeli forces during a raid in the occupied West Bank. A day earlier, two other Palestinian teenagers, ages 14 and 17, were killed by Israeli forces in separate incidents elsewhere in the West Bank.

Rights groups accuse Israeli forces of using excessive force in their dealings with the Palestinians, particularly young men, without being held accountable. 

Two Palestinians killed as Israel raids Jenin refugee camp


The New Arab Staff

Police said a large force of officers, soldiers and Shin Bet security agency operatives were involved in the search to apprehend Saturday’s attacker.

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid offered condolences to Lazar’s family. “We will not be silent and we will not rest until we bring the abominable killers to justice,” he said.

Kremlin insiders warn Putin will use Nukes: Revelation 16


Gremlin insiders warn Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons as fears of World War 3 soar

Many analysts believe that a military defeat would pose an existential threat to the Russian President and his regime and that Putin will do anything to avoid such an outcome.

By John Varga

 10:00, Sun, Oct 9, 2022 | UPDATED: 10:00, Sun, Oct 9, 2022

Russia: Putin ‘considering the nuclear option’ says Yatsenyuk

Vladimir Putin will be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons rather than back down in Ukraine, according to Kremlin insiders. The Russian leader has suffered a succession of humiliations on the battlefield, that threaten to seriously undermine his authority. His army was routed on the Kharkiv front and continues to lose ground in the east and south.

Ukrainian troops are reported to be closing in on Kherson, with some experts predicting the port city could fall before winter sets in.

Putin’s military woes have added to speculation that the Russian leader will resort to extreme measures to ensure his army triumphs in Ukraine.

Many analysts believe that a military defeat would pose an existential threat to the Russian President and his regime and that Putin will do anything to avoid such an outcome.

The Kremlin despot has introduced “partial mobilisation” in an attempt to turn around his military fortunes.

However, Kremlin insiders believe this is just the first step down a path that may well lead to nuclear confrontation.

Farida Rustamova, a Russian investigative journalist, recently conducted a series of interviews with Russian elites for her Fairdaily blog.


Commenting on the recent mobilisation orders, one Kremlin insider told her: “The 300,000 [reservists) are just a distraction.

“Now it’s partial, but then there will be mass mobilisation, and after that tactical nuclear weapons.”

Another member of the elite who has worked closely with Putin, predicted the Russian leader would continue to ratchet up the nuclear rhetoric.

He said: “Putin always chooses escalation.

“And he will continue to choose escalation at any unpleasant juncture, up to and including nuclear weapons.”

The Russian president has persistently threatened to deploy his nuclear arsenal to ensure he achieves his war goals in Ukraine.


During the ceremony to officially annex four more Ukrainian provinces, Putin once again raised the spectre of atomic war.

He told his audience that he would use all “forces and means at our disposal” to protect Russian territory and sovereignty.

Military experts believe that the Russian president could be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons, which are smaller and less destructive than strategic ones.

However, the US President warned that even tactical nuclear weapons would lead to “Armageddon”.

Joe Biden told a Democratic fundraiser last week: “First time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going.

Crimea bridge explosion mystery as ‘wave’ spotted before explosion
Putin rocked as drone attack in Russia destroys two bombers

“I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”

It comes as Putin made further changes to his military command in an attempt to regain the initiative on the battlefield.



This column originally appeared on October 5, 2022, in the South China Morning Post

CLINICAL PROFESSOR TOM PLATE WRITES – To lose one’s sense of decency by raising the threat of nuclear weapons just once – here we’re talking directly to you, Mr. Vladimir Putin – may be dismissed as a mere unfortunate slip; but to raise it more than once can suggest mindlessness, or madness. A measure of narcissism may be acceptable as a common human foible; but as a defining characteristic of a major global political figure, it is rarely without cost to others. Indeed, for the rampant egomaniac, prolonged reflection becomes irresistible generally only when admiring oneself in a mirror.

It is very hard to imagine the full extent of an unprecedented catastrophe until the blow-up happens in front of you. The predictions of loss from a nuclear war range from regional obliteration to planetary catastrophe.

To be sure, “experts” could be dug up to downplay the worst that could happen – or even deny that it ever would happen at all. But that sort of radioactive denial was anything but the case last week in Santa Barbara, California, fortunately, where an important international Zoom seminar took place.

Santa Barbara, draping decorously on the sun-splashed coast of the Pacific Ocean about 90 miles north of far-more populous Los Angeles, is a lively intellectual centre of West Coast policy thinking that includes a major university and high-level, non-profit think tanks.

One of the most relevant these days is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), founded in 1982 as a non-profit, non-partisan international education and advocacy organization. NAPF’s policy aspirations include not only global nuclear non-proliferation but also complete elimination of all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.

That’s an excellent idea. As Richard A. Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton, stated, “nuclear dangers have become more salient than any time at least in this century”. The always provocative policy sage was the lead star in a mostly grave NAPF international panel discussion on the nuclear dangers intensified by the Ukraine war.

But Falk being Falk – his extraordinary 1971 book This Endangered Planet: Prospects and Proposals for Human Survival was recently named one of only six “Books for the Century” by America’s very influential Foreign Affairs magazine – he insists that the deadly swirl of crisis interconnectedness cannot be contained by a sloppy system of roiling national interests; it is all related. It demands systemic, careful, persistent attention by powerful global consensus.

Falk’s landmark book, an examination of existential environmental crises as well as nuclear, called for “a revolution in consciousness that would reimagine how peoples and societies could organise themselves for sustainable life”.

Well, that hasn’t happened yet. Falk – now 91 – conceded that “we know what to do, but we don’t know how to get it done”. The credentialed discussants also concurred with Falk’s curt dismissal of the timeworn geopolitical method of divide and conquer. The tactic can yield short-term success to make leaders look good; but it is obviously a toxic deterrent against reaching consensus on big global challenges. The Ukraine war – so tragic, so unnecessary – stands out as a severe regression in world reordering. The unseemly primal lust with which Washington by proxy jumped into the regional crisis and made it an increasingly global one stunned many.

In effect, knee-jerk muscular policies inadvertently hop on to the road to war. Propaganda blasts in all directions make all who disagree with you the devils of our epoch. Demonisation swells up further during the run-up to war. In the process of painting the enemy into a corner of evil, you invite a commensurate counter-reaction from the designated devil.

That cycle takes you over the edge of reason: you may forget that only God is perfect, and the fact of the matter is that you’re not God. Any suggestion that you think you might be puts you into the category of the super-narcissist. Fair-minded sceptics become very uncomfortable with simple-minded binary thinking and will quickly look for third options to escape.

Falk asked: why is it that it’s the largest states which tend to be the most simplistic explainers of the difference between the forces of good and evil? China and Russia are no saints in this respect, of course, but the United States itself has parlayed its international brand of American exceptionalism into, in Falk’s words, a preposterous “permanent innocence”.

Take the mounting Taiwan tension. You cannot send a message to China that it would face what Russia is now facing, to no small extent due to Western proxy involvement, if it tried to take Taiwan by military means, without in effect firing up the Chinese military further. It is close to hyper as it is; so further US threats are a puerile prescription for peace.

The same goes for the dealings with Moscow, which are so misdirected now. In effect the West is challenging Russia’s right to be one of the hegemonic powers. What if the obvious-to-everyone proxy US campaign in the Ukraine doesn’t lead to regime downfall but instead to a desperate Putin using nuclear weapons?

Note that at the United Nations, all five of the permanent members of the Security Council are nuclear-armed; worse yet, four of these five do not even renounce the first use of these heinous weapons whose genetic effects last for generations. Only China does.

But would Beijing stick to that long-held policy in a severe showdown that began with conventional weapons? Who knows? But at least it starts in the right place, as should the other four supposed UN leaders. Professor Falk gets it right: humanity’s existence is not worth putting at risk.

Tom Plate, distinguished scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies at LMU in Los Angeles, is the Pacific Century Institute’s vice-president. His first book – Understanding Doomsday, on the nuclear arms race – was published in 1971.

Two Palestinians Killed In Israel Raid Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Two Palestinians Killed In Israel West Bank Raid: Palestinian Ministry

By AFP – Agence France Presse

October 8, 2022

UPDATES toll, ADDS army, Hamas statements, CHANGES dateline

Two Palestinians were shot dead in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin on Saturday, the Palestinian health ministry said, as Israeli troops carried out an arrest operation.

In a statement, the ministry announced the killing of “two citizens by occupation (Israeli) bullets in Jenin”, a flashpoint in the northern West Bank.

Eleven others were wounded, three of them seriously, the ministry added.

The Israeli military said troops entered the city to detain a 25-year-old Palestinian it said is a member of the Islamic Jihad militant group and suspected of shooting at troops in the area.

“During the activity, dozens of Palestinians hurled explosive devices and Molotov cocktails at IDF (Israeli army) soldiers and shots were fired at them. The soldiers responded with live fire towards the armed suspects,” an army statement said.

The official Palestinian news agency Wafa reported Israeli forces fired directly at journalists during the raid.

It comes after two reporters were wounded on Wednesday while covering a military operation witnessed by an AFP journalist near the West Bank city of Nablus, in which one Palestinian was killed.

Palestinian militant group Hamas said the Jenin raid demonstrated the Israeli military’s weakness against “the resistance in the West Bank”.

“So it resorts to mobilising military machines and helicopters to arrest one person,” Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, said in a statement.

Saturday’s violence in Jenin comes a day after two other Palestinians, one a 14-year-old boy, were shot dead by Israeli forces, according to the health ministry.

The child was killed in Qalqilya, in the northern West Bank, while the second Palestinian was killed near the city of Ramallah.

The Israeli military said its soldiers fired at a suspect who threw Molotov cocktails at troops in Qalqilya and responded to a “violent riot” outside Ramallah.

The Palestinian foreign ministry described the deaths on Friday as “executions”.

The army has launched frequent and often deadly raids in Jenin and other parts of the West Bank in recent months, often targeting Palestinian militants.

Dozens of Palestinians have been killed, including fighters and civilians.

Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot dead in May while covering an Israeli raid in Jenin.