A Lack Of Vigilance Before The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

      

Faults Underlying Exercise Vigilant GuardStory by: (Author NameStaff Sgt. Raymond Drumsta – 138th Public Affairs Detachment
Dated: Thu, Nov 5, 2009
This map illustrates the earthquake fault lines in Western New York. An earthquake in the region is a likely event, says University of Buffalo Professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.
TONAWANDA, NY — An earthquake in western New York, the scenario that Exercise Vigilant Guard is built around, is not that far-fetched, according to University of Buffalo geology professor Dr. Robert Jacobi.
When asked about earthquakes in the area, Jacobi pulls out a computer-generated state map, cross-hatched with diagonal lines representing geological faults.
The faults show that past earthquakes in the state were not random, and could occur again on the same fault systems, he said.
“In western New York, 6.5 magnitude earthquakes are possible,” he said.
This possibility underlies Exercise Vigilant Guard, a joint training opportunity for National Guard and emergency response organizations to build relationships with local, state, regional and federal partners against a variety of different homeland security threats including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.
The exercise was based on an earthquake scenario, and a rubble pile at the Spaulding Fibre site here was used to simulate a collapsed building. The scenario was chosen as a result of extensive consultations with the earthquake experts at the University of Buffalo’s Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), said Brig. Gen. Mike Swezey, commander of 53rd Troop Command, who visited the site on Monday.
Earthquakes of up to 7 magnitude have occurred in the Northeastern part of the continent, and this scenario was calibrated on the magnitude 5.9 earthquake which occurred in Saguenay, Quebec in 1988, said Jacobi and Professor Andre Filiatrault, MCEER director.
“A 5.9 magnitude earthquake in this area is not an unrealistic scenario,” said Filiatrault.
Closer to home, a 1.9 magnitude earthquake occurred about 2.5 miles from the Spaulding Fibre site within the last decade, Jacobi said. He and other earthquake experts impaneled by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada in 1997 found that there’s a 40 percent chance of 6.5 magnitude earthquake occurring along the Clareden-Linden fault system, which lies about halfway between Buffalo and Rochester, Jacobi added.
Jacobi and Filiatrault said the soft soil of western New York, especially in part of downtown Buffalo, would amplify tremors, causing more damage.
“It’s like jello in a bowl,” said Jacobi.
The area’s old infrastructure is vulnerable because it was built without reinforcing steel, said Filiatrault. Damage to industrial areas could release hazardous materials, he added.
“You’ll have significant damage,” Filiatrault said.
Exercise Vigilant Guard involved an earthquake’s aftermath, including infrastructure damage, injuries, deaths, displaced citizens and hazardous material incidents. All this week, more than 1,300 National Guard troops and hundreds of local and regional emergency response professionals have been training at several sites in western New York to respond these types of incidents.
Jacobi called Exercise Vigilant Guard “important and illuminating.”
“I’m proud of the National Guard for organizing and carrying out such an excellent exercise,” he said.
Training concluded Thursday.

Russia’s Armaggedon-ism: Revelation 16

The New Voice of UkraineFri, October 21, 2022, 3:07 AM

Russia began nuclear “signalling” right after its invasion in February by announcing it had placed its nuclear forces on high alert to keep NATO forces from entering the fray. Weeks later, Putin’s attempt to capture Kyiv was repelled, and Russia pivoted to the east and south. By June, it controlled nearly 20 percent of Ukraine’s land mass, up from the 7.5 percent occupied in 2014, but Ukraine roared back, thanks to weaponry and funds from the US and its NATO allies. Since then, Kyiv has clawed back 5 to 7 percent of its territory, and continues to batter Russia’s increasingly demoralized armed forces.

This counter-offensive, and the discovery of Russian war crimes, led to another veiled nuclear threat. On July 6, Putin’s sidekick, and potential successor, Dmitri Medvedev, warned against any attempt by the International Criminal Court to punish Moscow for alleged crimes in Ukraine. “The idea to punish a country that has the largest nuclear arsenal is absurd in and of itself,” he wrote on messaging app Telegram, “and potentially creates a threat to the existence of mankind.” In August, he issued another, after Russians occupied a major nuclear plant in Zaporizhzhia, by referring obliquely to “possible events” at nuclear plants. “The Horsemen of the Apocalypse are already on their way,” he said.

This alarmed the United Nations and by September 1 the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived to monitor all activities at the nuclear plant. But as Russia remained bogged down in summer months, speculation surfaced that Putin may deploy tactical, or smaller, nuclear bombs to stop the Ukrainians. Putin stoked the nuclear threat by saying that any attack on Russia itself would be met with “any” means available and that he wasn’t bluffing.

At this point, President Joe Biden waded into the nuclear conversation to warn against the use of smaller, or tactical, nukes. “We’ve got a guy I know fairly well,” he said. “He [Putin] is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological and chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming. I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily use tactical nuclear weapons and not end up with Armageddon.”

Weapons of mass destruction: Tactical nuke fallout range versus strategic nukes

On September 21, Putin escalated the war, but in a non-nuclear way, by announcing the mobilization of another 300,000 troops. He also replaced military leadership in Ukraine with a guy nicknamed “General Armageddon”. These moves, and military intelligence, indicate that Moscow has played the nuclear card merely to frighten off opponents. There are no indications that the Russianhttps://andrewtheprophet.com military is readying deployment of nuclear weapons of any kind in any location, even after the Ukrainians tested Putin’s red lines by sabotaging Putin’s prize infrastructure, the $4-billion Kerch Bridge, linking mainland Russia to Crimea. Putin retaliated by unleashing dozens of missiles against civilian and energy infrastructure targets in Ukrainian cities. But none were weapons of mass destruction.

However, nuclear rhetoric continues. On October 12, former National Security advisor John Bolton said on a British TV show: “We need to make clear if Putin were to order the use of a tactical nuclear weapon he would be signing a suicide note,” Bolton said. “I think that’s what it may take to deter him if he gets into extreme circumstances…You can ask Qassem Soleimani in Iran what happens when we decide somebody is a threat to the U.S.,” he said, referring to the Iranian military commander who was killed in 2020 by a U.S. airstrike in Iraq.”

The next day, on October 13, European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell warned Moscow that its forces would be “annihilated” by the West if Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine. “Putin is saying he’s not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing, and it has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the member states, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing either,” he said. “Any attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer, but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated.”

The same day France’s President Emmanuel Macron clarified that Paris, one of three NATO nuclear powers, would “evidently” not use nuclear weapons in response to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine, but only if France itself was nuked. It was a nuanced remark, criticized by many, but probably designed so Macron could act as a backchannel to get Putin to negotiate a solution.

Shortly afterward, Biden held out hope for negotiations at a press conference by saying that “for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have the threat of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going.

The next day, on October 14, Putin’s patsy – Belarus President Alexandre Lukashenko (who handed over Belarus to him two years ago) – , likely on behalf of Putin. In an interview with NBC Television, he played down the danger of nuclear war, but said that Putin should not be backed into a corner. He added that the West should not cross red lines (attacking Russia itself) and that Putin doesn’t need to use nuclear weapons because he has more than enough firepower to defeat Ukraine. He also announced that Belarus, despite hosting Russian troops and weaponry, won’t invade Ukraine. That same day, Putin that there was no need for more massive strikes on Ukraine and that he does not intend to destroy the country — a strange combination of tough action followed by an olive branch.

It’s obvious that Russian “Armageddon-ism” hasn’t worked. The West’s resolve and Ukraine’s army have strengthened and Putin now pins his hopes on flooding the battlefield with 300,000 reluctant recruits to turn the tide, not nukes. Hopefully, the war remains a clash between traditional armies and, if so, will end in victory for Ukraine, negotiations, or Putin’s departure … and not Armageddon.

What to expect when the Obama Deal finally fails

Hopes for a new Iran nuclear deal under Biden are fading fast. Image: Twitter / Al Jazeera / Screengrab

What to expect when Iran nuclear talks finally fail

Hopes for new JCPOA deal fading fast as Iran arms Russia with killer drones and cracks down hard on women-led protests

by Daniel Williams October 21, 2022

Back in 2015, the RAND Corporation think tank laid out the pluses and minuses of reaching a deal to curtail Iran’s quest to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Here are the opposing arguments RAND set out then:

Failure to reach or approve a deal would likely produce one or more of the following:

  • an expanded Iranian nuclear program;
  • an erosion of broad international sanctions without any benefit to regional and global security;
  • heightened potential for military conflict; and
  • the loss of opportunities to work on major areas of common concern to Iran and the United States.

To be sure, there are risks associated with a deal as well, including the possibility that Iran will:

  • fail to implement the agreement;
  • resume a nuclear program once the nuclear agreement expires; or
  • covertly continue elements of its program beyond the surveillance of the international community.

Eight years later, these pros and cons are still being debated even as the chances of cutting a nuclear agreement with Iran are fading.

A complex accord was first signed by the United States, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia in 2015 during the administration of US president Barack Obama.

The ministers of foreign affairs of France, Germany, the European Union, Iran, the United Kingdom and the United States as well as Chinese and Russian diplomats announce the framework for a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program in Lausanne on April 2, 2015. Photo: Wikipedia

Three years later, his successor, Donald Trump, discarded it. Without US acceptance – and a willingness to lift economic sanctions on Iran – the agreement was left to hibernate.

For the past two years, current US President Joe Biden has tried to resuscitate it. Although reluctant to say a final goodbye, the administration has indicated that the chances of success are fast receding.

“We don’t see a deal coming together anytime soon,” Biden spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said on Monday. “The door for diplomacy will always remain open,” she added. 

Pessimism is based not only on the difficulties of reviving an accord that was already controversial. Two recent events involving Iran will likely make it hard for the Biden administration to sign on to a new compromise, if one is reached.

The first is Iran’s sudden role in Russia’s war on Ukraine. The Islamic Republic is supplying armed drones to the Russian army, which in turn is using them to damage Ukrainian infrastructure and kill civilians.

Biden and US allies deem Russia’s invasion illegal and consider its assault on civilians a war crime. Is the West confident that such a regime is trustworthy to honor a major arms control deal?

Moreover, for the past month, the Iranian government has cracked down hard on anti-authoritarian demonstrations, with more than 100 protestors so far killed. Security forces have especially targeted women who have spearheaded the protests.

Biden, who regards himself as a champion of human rights generally and women’s freedoms in particular, will hardly want to be seen coddling a regime whose misogyny is expressed by gunfire and beatings.

Biden was Obama’s vice president and, after ousting Trump in the 2022 presidential elections, reopened negotiations with Iran. But a series of whiplash disputes have kept the agreement from being revived.

Among them:

  • whether the deal should be renewed as if Trump’s intervention never happened;
  • whether Iran has made the old deal kaput by secretly breaching original restrictions on bomb development;
  • whether the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has the capacity to monitor Iran’s traditionally secretive program; and
  • whether future American governments can cancel a new deal as Trump did with the old one.

The original negotiations were headed by Obama’s secretary of state John Kerry, who is now Biden’s special climate change representative. In his previous job, Kerry labored to convince the US public that Iran, charged with sponsoring terrorism, was a promising partner for such a high-stakes accord.US Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Vienna, Austria, on July 13, 2014, before they begin a bilateral meeting focused on Iran’s nuclear program. Photo: Wikimedia Commons / State Department / Public Domain

Kerry insisted that the basis for the deal was not trustworthiness but, rather, verification. It was a throwback to an argument made by president Ronald Reagan. When he negotiated an arms control deal with the Soviet Union Reagan coined the phrase, “Trust but verify.”

Kerry made the same point, if more wordily: “You don’t trust. It’s not based on trust. It’s based on verification,” he said.

He also dismissed concerns that the US was downplaying other conflicts with Iran – in particular Tehran’s support of armed groups in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – in the name of getting an iffy nuclear deal.

“We believed it would be easier to deal with other differences with Tehran if we weren’t simultaneously confronting a nuclear regime,” Kerry said.

As back in 2015, critics currently contend that an agreement would not actually forbid but rather permit Iran to eventually construct nuclear bombs. They argue that the deal would strengthen a regime hostile to US policy across the Middle East.

They point out that the US and Iran have continually dueled in Iraq; that Tehran supports the dictatorial government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad; and that Iran is emphatically hostile to Israel, America’s chief Middle East ally.

Israel opposes the nuclear deal on the grounds it is lax.

So what if no deal is reached? Hamidreza Azizi, a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, predicts we’ll see “growing tensions between Iran and Israel, especially in terms of Israel’s enhanced covert activities against Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Iran’s nearest neighbors are preparing for the talks to fail. Persian Gulf states have played both sides of the field. Some, including Saudi Arabia, have put out feelers for reductions of tension with Iran. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have opened tentative relations with Israel under the so-called Abraham Accords, midwifed by the Trump administration.

Iran has brandished both carrots and sticks in Persian Gulf relations. On the one hand, it pledges to continue peacefully engaging with Arab countries in its so-called “Neighbors First” policy.

But, just in case, said Javad Heiran-Nia, a researcher at Iran’s Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies, Tehran has warned that if Israel threatens Iran through an Arab country, Iran “will target that Arab country as well,”

Supplementing its threat, Iran has launched a fleet of drone-armed ships for possible use against Gulf countries.

Countries involved in cobbling together the original nuclear deal are currently tensely divided over issues different from those of seven years ago.This file handout picture released by Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization on November 4, 2019, shows atomic enrichment facilities at Natanz nuclear power plant, some 300 kilometers south of Tehran. Photo: AFP / Atomic Energy Organization of Iran

Beijing and Moscow oppose what they consider US global “hegemony.” Russia is at war in Ukraine, and China has stopped short of criticizing Moscow over its invasion while expressing ever-deeper complaints about US policy toward Taiwan.   

Nonetheless, Russia and China want a deal – they appear unwelcoming to the birth of another nuclear power even if it happens to be hostile to the United States.

“China and Russia are concerned about the destabilizing effects of a nuclear Iran and nuclear proliferation,” noted Benjamin Tsai, a former US government intelligence analyst on Northeast Asia and currently a senior associate at TD International, a risk management and security advisory firm.

As for Biden, the possibility of the negotiations’ final failure has opened a search for alternative policies toward Iran. He “has conveyed to the rest of the administration that he wants to make sure that we have other available options to us to potentially achieve that solid outcome of the no nuclear weapons capability for Iran,” his spokesman John Kirby said on September 8.

The Harvard International Review, an affiliate of Harvard University, laid out some options Washington might consider. It should strengthen military ties with Persian Gulf states and discourage Israel from taking unilateral military action that might draw the US into war, while normalizing relations with Iran, the journal said.

The latter step is needed because “a nuclear-equipped state demands active engagement and dialogue,” Harvard International Review wrote

World worries about the Pakistani nuclear horn: Revelation 8

US President Joe Biden

Major world global powers anxious about Pakistan’s nukes

Washington

At a time when US President Joe Biden’s words put the spotlight on Pakistan as “the most dangerous nation in the world”, Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities are also occupying a position of significance and creating anxieties for various major global powers.

US President Biden at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Reception in Los Angeles (California), during which he berated both China and Russia said, “This is a guy (Xi Jinping) who understands what he wants but has an enormous, enormous array of problems. How do we handle that? “

“How do we handle that relative to what’s going on in Russia? And what I think is maybe one of the most dangerous nations in the world: Pakistan. Nuclear weapons without any cohesion,” Biden added.

Pakistan’s government, the Taliban, its various outfits in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and other jihadist groups inside Pakistan have created a worry over the nuclear weaponry falling into terrorist hands.

Pakistan supports the Taliban covertly. The world believes that Pakistan’s nuclear program remains a threat of being stolen by terrorist organizations.

The political upheaval in Afghanistan also has regional repercussions, especially for those in neighbouring Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s continued production of fissile material and subsequent weapons, as well as the potential deployment of more tactical nuclear weapons, only makes the increasing possibility of the misuse of these materials more glaring and plausible.

A London-based Pakistani journalist Farooq Sulehria said, “The Talibanization of the Pakistan military is something we can’t overlook. What if there is an internal Taliban takeover of the nuclear assets?”

There have been multiple instances when experts and US Presidents have expressed their concerns over Pakistan’s nukes.

During the time of the Obama administration, a Harvard nuclear expert, Graham Allison, stated, “When you map weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, all roads intersect in Pakistan.”

He said this while sitting on the US Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.

Moreover, ex-US President Bill Clinton also had similar apprehension regarding Pakistan’s strides towards nuclear testing. Clinton was worried about the geopolitical threat of South Asia if Islamabad was to go ahead with its nuclear armament.

He publicly condemned Islamabad’s move. Clinton described the nuke tests “dangerously destabilizing.” Pakistan went ahead with its testing, and the US imposed crippling economic sanctions in retaliation.

Simulating the Bowls of Wrath: Revelation 16

Researchers have developed a terrifying simulation that shows how an escalating nuclear war between the United States/NATO and Russia would play out

What could happen if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine: Terrifying computer simulation reveals how a Russian strike could trigger a war that kills 34 MILLION people in just five hours

  • A nuclear war simulator has revealed how a Russian nuclear strike could trigger a golobal war
  • The model by Princeton University, known as Plan A, predicts 34.1 million deaths and 55.9 million injured
  • It was created in 2017, but has gained new interest since Russia invaded Ukraine in February this year

By FIONA JACKSON FOR MAILONLINE 

PUBLISHED: 09:33 EDT, 20 October 2022 | UPDATED: 09:52 EDT, 20 October 2022

A terrifying simulation shows how a nuclear strike from Russia could trigger a war that kills 34 million people in just five hours. 

Known as ‘Plan A’, the four-minute animation aims to highlight the ‘potentially catastrophic’ consequences of conflict between Russia and NATO countries.

It was developed by Princeton University researchers associated with the Program on Science & Global Security (SGS), and was originally released in 2017.

However, the Ukraine war has reignited discussions around the prospect of nuclear war, and renewed interest in models like this one. 

Dr Alex Glaser, one the creators of Plan A, told Newsweek: ‘As far as one can tell, this is the most serious crisis with a potential nuclear dimension involving Russia and the United States/NATO since the end of the Cold War, even if the risk of a nuclear war is still considered ‘small’—as many analysts would argue.

‘A crisis like the one we are currently facing often results in miscommunication between parties, exacerbated by the fact that there remain very few active lines of communication between Russia and the US/NATO.’

Simulation reveals bleak outcome of a US and Russia nuclear wa

Researchers have developed a terrifying simulation that shows how an escalating nuclear war between the United States/NATO and Russia would play out

HOW WOULD THE WAR PROGRESS? 

The simulation begins with a conventional, non-nuclear conflict.

Russia fires a nuclear warning shot from a base on the Black Sea, with the aim of halting a US–NATO advance.

In response, NATO hits Russia with a single tactical nuclear air strike.

After this, the conflict escalates thus: 

PHASE 1: Tactical Targeting

Russia hits NATO bases/troops with 300 nukes.

NATO responds with 180 nukes.

2.6 million casualties in three hours. 

PHASE 2: Strategic Targeting

Each side strives to take out the other’s offensive nuclear capacity.

In 45 minutes, 3.4 million casualties result. 

PHASE 3: Key City Targeting

Both sides fire 5–10 nukes at the opposition’s 30 most populated cities or economic centres.

This causes 85.3 million deaths and injuries in 45 minutes.

TOTAL FATALITIES: 34.1 MILLION

The model – based on realistic data on nuclear force postures, targets and causality estimates – predicts that 34.1 million people would die within hours.

The catastrophic conflict would leave another 55.9 million injured — figures which do not include subsequent deaths from nuclear fallout and other effects.

Nuclear war simulators may seem scary, but they can be used by governments to develop contingency plans, and educate the public on how to survive an attack. 

This simulation begins within the context of a conventional, non-nuclear conflict. 

Russia fires a warning shot from a base near Kaliningrad, on the Black Sea, to stop a US-NATO advancement, before they retaliate with a single, tactical air strike.

Russia then sends 300 warhead explosives, carried either by aircraft or short-range missiles, towards NATO bases and advancing troops in Europe.

The international military alliance would then respond with around 180 aircraft-borne nukes.

At this stage, casualties would be expected to reach around 2.6 million people within a three-hour period and Europe is left essentially destroyed.

Following this, NATO acts from the continental US and nuclear submarine fleets, launching a strategic nuclear strike of around 600 warheads.

Before this strike hits and its weapons systems are destroyed, Russia launches nukes from its complement of missile silos, submarines and mobile launch pads.

The model projects 3.4 million casualties from this phase of the war, which would last only 45 minutes.

In the final phase of the conflict, both sides take aim at each other’s 30 most populated cities and economic centres — deploying 5 to 10 nukes for each one — to attempt to inhibit each side’s recovery from the war.

Such a move, the researchers conclude, would see another 85.3 million casualties within the space of 45 minutes.

World horns concerned about the Pakistani Nuclear Horn: Daniel 8

Major world global powers anxious about Pakistan's nukes
Representative Image

Major world global powers anxious about Pakistan’s nukes

ANI

21 October, 2022 06:13 am IST

Text Size: A-A+

Washington [US], October 21 (ANI): At a time when US President Joe Biden’s words put the spotlight on Pakistan as “the most dangerous nation in the world”, Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities are also occupying a position of significance and creating anxieties for various major global powers.

US President Biden at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Reception in Los Angeles (California), during which he berated both China and Russia said, “This is a guy (Xi Jinping) who understands what he wants but has an enormous, enormous array of problems. How do we handle that? How do we handle that relative to what’s going on in Russia? And what I think is maybe one of the most dangerous nations in the world: Pakistan. Nuclear weapons without any cohesion.”

Pakistan’s government, the Taliban, its various outfits in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and other jihadist groups inside Pakistan have created a worry over the nuclear weaponry falling into terrorist hands, reported Global Strat View.

Pakistan supports the Taliban covertly. The world believes that Pakistan’s nuclear program remains a threat of being stolen by terrorist organizations. Last year in August, after the withdrawal of US troops from Afghan soil, Afghanistan has quickly fallen into the Taliban’s extremist clutches.

The political upheaval in Afghanistan also has regional repercussions, especially for those in neighbouring Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s continued production of fissile material and subsequent weapons, as well as the potential deployment of more tactical nuclear weapons, only makes the increasing possibility of the misuse of these materials more glaring and plausible, reported Global Strat View.

A London-based Pakistani journalist Farooq Sulehria said, “The Talibanization of the Pakistan military is something we can’t overlook. What if there is an internal Taliban takeover of the nuclear assets?”

There has been multiple instance when experts and US Presidents have expressed their concerns over Pakistan’s nukes. During the time of the Obama administration, a Harvard nuclear expert, Graham Allison, stated, “When you map weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, all roads intersect in Pakistan.”

He said this while sitting on the US Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.

Moreover, ex-US President Bill Clinton also had similar apprehension regarding Pakistan’s strides towards nuclear testing. Clinton, worried about the geopolitical threat of South Asia if Islamabad was to go ahead with its nuclear armament.

Clinton made all sorts of offers within his ambit. Whether it was a state dinner to billions of dollars in assistance to the country, Clinton tried to persuade the then-Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to put off the nuclear testing.

However, once Clinton was unable to succeed in getting his way, he publicly condemned Islamabad’s move. Clinton described the nuke tests “dangerously destabilizing.” Pakistan went ahead with its testing, and the US imposed crippling economic sanctions in retaliation.

Along the same lines, Generals Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with their high-ranking generals, claimed their awareness of the risks the Afghanistan move would pose for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and its national security. (ANI)

This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.