Wait, we can get the Sixth Seal? Revelation 6:12

Wait, we can get earthquakes in Western New York?


by: Christine GregoryPosted: May 28, 2021 / 12:40 PM EDT / Updated: May 28, 2021 / 02:34 PM EDT

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (WROC) — The short answer to that is, yes! And Thursday evening was a prime example of that.

At approximately 8:41 P.M., residents from Livingston County reported feeling the light tremor. It occurred about 30 miles southeast of Batavia and rated a 2.4 in magnitude on the Richter scale. USGS confirms earthquake reported in Livingston County

We typically don’t think of New York state for having earthquakes, but they certainly are capable of having them. 

Upon my own investigation, there does appear to be an existing fault line right nearby where the quake happened that may have contributed to the light tremor, but it is not confirmed by official sources.

The Clarendon-Linden fault line consists of a major series of faults that runs from Lake Ontario to Allegany county, that are said to be responsible for much of the seismic activity that occurs in the region. It is a north-south oriented fault system that displays both strike-slip and dip-slip motion. 

Strike-Slip Fault

Dip-Slip Fault

Clarendon-Linden Fault System

Image courtesy: glyfac.buffalo.edu

This fault is actively known for minor quakes, but is said to not be a large threat to the area. According to Genesee county, researchers have identified many potential fault lines both to the east, and to the west of the Clarendon-Linden Fault.

According to the University at Buffalo, they have proof that upstate New York is criss-crossed by fault lines. Through remote sensing by satellite and planes, a research group found that “there are hundreds of faults throughout the Appalachian Plateau, some of which may have been seismically active — albeit sporadically — since Precambrian times, about 1 billion years ago.”

The state of New York averages about a handful of minor earthquakes every year. In Western New York in December of 2019, a 2.1 earthquake occurred near Sodus Point over Lake Ontario, and in March of 2016, a 2.1 earthquake occurred near Attica in Genesee county. 

For an interactive map of recent earthquakes from the USGS click HERE.

~Meteorologist Christine Gregory 

Copyright 2021 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Russia ditches nuclear security amid China visit, Bowls of Wrath ahead: Revelation 16

Russia tests intercontinental ballistic missile in October 2022. Putin throws wrench in nuclear security with U.S. after suspending New START treaty.

Russia ditches nuclear security amid China visit, ‘dangerous decade’ ahead, expert warns

US needs to expand low yield nuclear capabilities to counter Russia in Ukraine, says defense expert

By Caitlin McFall | Fox News

Global security was flung into a state of ambiguity last week after Russian President Vladimir Putin “suspended” Moscow’s participation in the New START treaty and forced the U.S. to re-enter an age of nuclear instability. 

The suspension of the treaty marks the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War that the U.S. and Russia are not actively engaged in a joint nuclear treaty.

“We are entering an extremely dangerous decade of which nuclear employment is once again [a] potential,” Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and an expert on strategic deterrence, told Fox News Digital. “Thinking about it in a realistic way needs to be back into the American consciousness.”

Russia tests intercontinental ballistic missile in October 2022. Putin throws wrench in nuclear security with U.S. after suspending New START treaty. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)

President Biden called Putin’s decision a “big mistake” and reports have since surfaced suggesting that Russia may be planning to deploy new nuclear systems as experts question what is next for nuclear deterrence amid the war in Ukraine. 

Heinrichs explained that nuclear deterrence is no longer just about restricting the number of arms a nation can have at its disposal; it’s about countering nuclear capabilities.

“Whenever you think about deterrence,” she began, “it’s not just about numbers. It’s also about [what] we have.”

The expert explained that deterrence only works if an adversarial nation thinks that any action they carry out could be adequately responded to with an equal or greater threat to their own security. 

Moscow already knows the U.S. has powerful nuclear warheads. The threat of nuclear warfare is not on the same level as it was in the 20th century when the core principle of deterrence was established between Washington and Moscow – mutually assured destruction.

The top threat now lies in how nuclear weapons can be employed in the theater of war and whether the U.S. can appropriately respond to low-yield nuclear capabilities. 

Ukrainian soldiers work with "pion" artillery in the northern direction of the Donbass front line in Donetsk, Ukraine, on Jan. 7, 2023.

Ukrainian soldiers work with “pion” artillery in the northern direction of the Donbass front line in Donetsk, Ukraine, on Jan. 7, 2023. (Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

“If the Russians are going to threaten to launch a weapon in the European theater, do we have sufficient kinds of weapons that they would believe that we would respond [with]?” Heinrichs questioned.  “Are they really going to believe that we’re going to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile at their missile sites if they launch a low yield nuclear weapon in Ukraine? No.”

Heinrichs said that Russia has been “doggedly” focused on creating more advanced capabilities than the U.S. in terms of “nuclear delivery systems” for the last 15 years. 

“When we think about nuclear modernization for ourselves, we’re talking about maintaining our systems,” she said. “Russians think about modernizing their nuclear weapons [by making] new ones.”

But Russia’s withdrawal from the treaty also points to an emerging threat that has become increasing evident following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine – Russia’s burgeoning ties with China. 

Putin’s decision to ditch the New START treaty coincided with a visit from China’s top diplomat just days after Secretary of State Antony Blinken revealed that Beijing was considering providing lethal aid to Russia – a move that would not only escalate the war in Ukraine but would exacerbate already strained geopolitical relations between China and the West.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Beijing, China on Feb. 4, 2022.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Beijing, China on Feb. 4, 2022. (Alexei Druzhinin, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

China has said it has no plans to provide Russia with arms, but security officials remain wary of the relationship.

“Everything is timed,” Heinrichs said when asked about the significance of Putin’s announcement. “Those two countries continue to move closer.

“We’re back to the point where you have enemies that, no kidding, want to replace the United States as the preeminent power, and they’re investing in nuclear weapons,” she added. 

Heinrichs pointed not only to the shared rhetoric that Putin and his Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping have used in demonizing the U.S., but in China’s expanding nuclear program.

The security expert said she could not speculate on nuclear cooperation between the two nations but highlighted that the Russia-China partnership has expanded because they share a common objective in removing the U.S. as top dog from the world order. 

“From a U.S. defense perspective, we have to assume the worst,” she said regarding nuclear security when it comes to both Russia and China. 

Despite China’s unchecked nuclear expansion, the U.S. and Russia still account for roughly 90% of world’s nuclear arsenal, according to data provided by the Arms Control Association (ACA), with nearly 12,000 nuclear warheads in existence between the two. 

President Vladimir Putin greets members of the military during a concert in Luzhniki Stadium on Feb. 22, 2023, in Moscow, the same day he announced he was suspending Russian involvement in the New START treaty.

President Vladimir Putin greets members of the military during a concert in Luzhniki Stadium on Feb. 22, 2023, in Moscow, the same day he announced he was suspending Russian involvement in the New START treaty. (Contributor/Getty Images)

Under the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington and Moscow agreed to start clearing out their nuclear stockpiles – which reached their peak in 1985 when more than 70,000 warheads reportedly made up global inventories.

The State Department warned last month that Russia was not complying with the stipulations laid out under the New START treaty – which was renewed by Russia and the U.S. in February 2021 for another five years – by refusing to facilitate inspection activities and bilateral consultive meetings. 

It is unclear how Russia will proceed now that it is no longer adhering to the treaty that restricted either Washington or Moscow from deploying more than 1,550 nuclear warheads at a time on delivery systems like intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missile or heavy bombers.

However, the nuclear security expert said she is not concerned that a nuclear war is looming. Instead, Heinrichs encouraged Americans to press their leaders on what is being done to ensure U.S. nuclear capabilities can adequately hold up against modern adversaries. 

The White House is Provoking Nuclear War: Revelation 16

Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council Medvedev gives an interview outside Moscow
Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev gives an interview at the Gorki state residence outside Moscow, Russia on January 25, 2022. Picture taken January 25, 2022. Sputnik/Yulia Zyryanova/Pool via REUTERS

Russia’s Medvedev says arms supplies to Kyiv threaten global nuclear catastrophe


Feb 27 (Reuters) – Russia’s former president and an ally of President Vladimir Putin said in remarks published on Monday that the continued arms supply to Kyiv risks a global nuclear catastrophe, reiterating his threat of nuclear war over Ukraine.

Dmitry Medvedev’s apocalyptic rhetoric has been seen as an attempt to deter the U.S-led NATO military alliance and Kyiv’s Western allies from getting even more involved in the year-old war that has dealt Moscow setbacks on the battlefield.

The latest comments by Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Putin’s powerful security council, follow Putin’s nuclear warning last week and his Sunday remarks casting Moscow’s confrontation with the West as an existential battle for the survival of Russia and the Russian people.

“Of course, the pumping in of weapons can continue …. and prevent any possibility of reviving negotiations,” Medvedev said in remarks published in the daily Izvestia.

“Our enemies are doing just that, not wanting to understand that their goals will certainly lead to a total fiasco. Loss for everyone. A collapse. Apocalypse. Where you forget for centuries about your former life, until the rubble ceases to emit radiation.”

Reporting by David Ljunggren and Lidia Kelly; Writing by Lidia Kelly in Melbourne; Editing by Michael Perry

Israel launches airstrikes outside the temple walls as violence escalates: Revelation 11

Israel launches airstrikes on Gaza after rocket attacks as violence escalates

By Hadas Gold, Abeer Salman, Mohammed Tawfeeq, Richard Roth and Sana Noor Haq, CNN

 CNNFebruary 25, 2023

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Israel launched airstrikes targeting alleged weapons manufacturing and storage sites in Gaza on Thursday, following a rocket attack from the coastal enclave, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said.

In a statement, the IDF said “fighter jets struck a weapons manufacturing site” in central Gaza owned by Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that runs Gaza.

“In parallel, a military compound belonging to the Hamas Terrorist Organization in the northern Gaza Strip which also was used as a naval weapons storage warehouse was struck,” the statement said.

Earlier Thursday, the IDF said five rockets fired from Gaza toward Israeli territory, including the cities of Ashkelon and Sderot, were intercepted and another rocket fell in an open area.

The airstrikes come after the deaths of at least 11 Palestinians in Nablus in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday, which occurred during a raid by the Israeli military that also left at least 500 injured, Palestinian officials said Thursday. One of the dead targeted in the Nablus raid was a Hamas member, and two were Islamic Jihad commanders, the two militant groups said earlier.

“Our teams dealt with 488 injuries during the occupation forces’ invasion into Nablus, including 103 injuries of live bullets taken to hospitals in Nablus,” the Palestinian Red Crescent said. The other injuries included tear gas inhalation and shrapnel wounds, they said. The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed the numbers.

The raid in Nablus lasted about four hours and, unusually, took place in broad daylight because the IDF said it had intelligence on where the suspects were. The IDF accused them of being responsible for the death of an Israeli soldier and of posing an imminent threat.

Smoke plumes rise as rockets are fired from Gaza City towards Israel at sunrise on Thursday.

Smoke plumes rise as rockets are fired from Gaza City towards Israel at sunrise on Thursday.

Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images

A Palestinian man, pictured on Thursday, stands inside a house that was demolished during the Israeli military raid in Nablus.

A Palestinian man, pictured on Thursday, stands inside a house that was demolished during the Israeli military raid in Nablus.

Zain Jaafar/AFP/Getty Images

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Thursday that Israel would “settle accounts with those who attack Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers,” praising the previous day’s Israeli military raid into Nablus.

Netanyahu said that raid targeted “three terrorists” who “shot and murdered Staff Sergeant Ido Baruch last October and they were about to carry out additional attacks against us.”

“I would like to commend the ISA and IDF Intelligence for the precise intelligence,” that led to the raid, the Israeli prime minister said, referring to the Israeli Security Agency, the Shin Bet, and the Israel Defense Forces. He also thanked “the soldiers who acted with heroism and confidence under fire.”

The United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process said late Wednesday he was “appalled by the loss of civilian lives” in the raid.

“I am deeply disturbed by the continuing cycle of violence,” Tor Wennesland said in a statement. “I urge all sides to refrain from steps that could further enflame an already volatile situation.”

A Palestinian faces an Israeli military vehicle during a raid on the West Bank city of Nablus, on February 22, 2023.

A Palestinian faces an Israeli military vehicle during a raid on the West Bank city of Nablus, on February 22, 2023.

Zain Jaafar/AFP/Getty Images

‘Violent and deadly’

The occupied West Bank has been rocked by a series of lethal Israeli military raids in the past year, as tensions in Israel and the Palestinian territories remain sky-high in a region riven by bloodshed.

An Israeli raid in the city of Jenin in January caused the deadliest day for Palestinians in the West Bank in over a year, according to CNN records, with at least 10 Palestinians killed on the day and one dying later of his wounds. One day later, at least seven civilians died in a shooting near a synagogue in Jerusalem – which Israel deemed one of its worst terror attacks in recent years.

This comes as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads a cabinet that has been described as the most far right and religious in the country’s history.

Netanyahu previously told CNN’s Jake Tapper that people can get “hung up” on peace negotiations with the Palestinians, saying he has opted for a different approach.

As relations between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants boil over, CNN’s Hadas Gold said the scenes on Wednesday reflected those “not seen since the second intifada,” or uprising.

“Even for the last year and a half or so here, that has been a very violent and deadly year, these numbers are some of the highest I’ve seen in my time here,” she added.

The Iranian Horn Can Nuke Up In Weeks: Daniel 8

CIA chief: Iran could enrich uranium to weapons-grade within weeks if it chooses

William Burns says US doesn’t believe Iranian supreme leader has made decision to pursue weaponization, after Tehran found to have enriched uranium to 84% purity

By TOI STAFF and APToday, 9:26 am  

FILE – US Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns speaks at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, July 8, 2022. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

The head of the Central Intelligence Agency has warned that Iran could enrich uranium to weapons-grade within weeks, but said the United States does not believe Iranian leaders have yet decided to do so.

The comment by William Burns, made during an interview with CBS News aired Saturday, came after inspectors from the UN atomic agency found uranium in Iran enriched to 84 percent purity, the closest its been to the 90% purity needed for nuclear weapons.

“To the best of our knowledge, we don’t believe that the supreme leader in Iran has yet made a decision to resume the weaponization program that we judge they suspended or stopped at the end of 2003,” Burns said.

“But the other two legs of the stool, meaning enrichment programs, have obviously advanced very far,” he added.

The interviewer then noted the International Atomic Energy Organization’s recent finding that Iran has enriched uranium to 84%.

“They’ve advanced very far to the point where it would only be a matter of weeks before they could enrich to 90%, if they chose to cross that line, and also in terms of their missile systems, their ability to deliver a nuclear weapon once they’ve developed it has also been advancing as well,” the CIA chief warned.

“We don’t see evidence that they’ve made a decision to resume that weaponization program,” he stressed again, “but the other dimensions of this challenge I think are growing at a worrisome pace to.”

The latest revelations about Iran’s nuclear capabilities renew pressure on the West to address Tehran’s program, which had been publicly contained by the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers that the US unilaterally withdrew from in 2018.

It wasn’t immediately clear where the 84% enrichment allegedly took place, though the IAEA has said it found two cascades of advanced IR-6 centrifuges at Iran’s underground Fordo facility “interconnected in a way that was substantially different from the mode of operation declared by Iran to the agency in November last year.” Iran is known to have been enriching uranium at Fordo up to 60% purity — a level that nonproliferation experts already say has no civilian use for Tehran.

Iran also enriches uranium at its Natanz nuclear site.

Weapons-grade uranium is enriched up to 90%. While the IAEA’s director-general has warned Iran now has enough uranium to produce “several” nuclear bombs if it chooses, it likely would take months more to build a weapon and potentially miniaturize it to put on a missile.

In this image made from April 17, 2021, video released by the Islamic Republic Iran Broadcasting, IRIB, state-run TV, various centrifuge machines line the hall damaged on April 11, 2021, at the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility, some 200 miles (322 km) south of the capital Tehran. (IRIB via AP)

The new tensions over Iran’s program also take place against the backdrop of a shadow war between Iran and Israel that has spilled out across the wider Middle East. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who long has advocated military action against Iran, mentioned it again in a talk last week.

“How do you stop a rogue nation from acquiring nuclear weapons?” Netanyahu rhetorically asked. “You had one that’s called Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It was stopped by military force, ours. You had a second one that is called Syria that tried to develop nuclear weapons. And it was stopped by military action, ours.”

He added: “A necessary condition, and an often sufficient condition, is credible military action. The longer you wait, the harder that becomes. We’ve waited very long.”

Things Are About To Get Ugly: Revelation 16

Things Get Ugly if Russia Pulls the Nuclear Trigger in Ukraine

The United States must think several steps ahead in considering how it would respond to Russian nuclear use.

by Matthew Bunn

Not long ago, one of my students asked: “So, if my phone tells me the Russians have used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, should I do anything different here?” In other words: should I head for the hills?

My answer is “no.” The U.S. and Russian governments know full well that lobbing nuclear weapons at each other would be suicidal—each has enough powerful, survivable nuclear weapons to obliterate the other as a functioning society. No one is going to march down that road on purpose.

But it’s a nervous “no,” because the key lesson of the crises of the last several decades is that there is a fog of crisis, just as there is a fog of war, and things can happen that no leader originally intended. And in this case, thinking about how the United States might respond to Russian nuclear use makes clear just how rapidly things could get very dicey.

The danger that Russia might turn to nuclear weapons is real. So far, Russian president Vladimir Putin has found it in his interest to talk a big game about possibly using nuclear weapons—while instructing his government to deny that any of his nuclear threats ever happened—but not to actually do very much. Russia’s nuclear weapons have not been placed on high alert, and the short-range “tactical” nuclear weapons most likely to be used in Ukraine have not been moved from their central storage facilities. But Putin can’t afford to lose this war, having spent tens of thousands of Russian lives on it, and he now has few realistic options to win. Putin knows there would be huge costs and risks from crossing the nuclear threshold, but if the choice was between that and a humiliating defeat that might cause him to lose power, he might well reach for the nuclear button.

Using nuclear weapons would be unlikely to result in major gains on the battlefield. The Ukrainians haven’t been concentrating forces in ways that make them vulnerable to nuclear blasts, and most targets that could be destroyed with nuclear weapons could be destroyed with Russia’s conventional missiles and drones.

But Putin might believe that a nuclear attack could force the Ukrainians to capitulate. He might, for example, use a handful of nuclear weapons on the battlefield and then say: “Unless you agree to Russia’s terms, Kharkiv is next, and then Odessa, and then…” Putin has referred to the “precedent” the United States set in dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then demanding Japan surrender.

President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, has publicly warned that if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, the response would be “catastrophic” for Russia, and has offered Russia more specifics in private. The difficulty is coming up with a response severe enough to match the outrage of the use of nuclear weapons but not so severe as to create massive escalation risks with a state ruled by a leader desperate enough to launch a nuclear strike despite the warnings.

As Sullivan’s blunt warning makes clear, the Biden administration is considering responses that include not just political condemnation and additional sanctions but also military action. Most U.S. analysts and officials are not talking about using nuclear weapons in response, but rather conventional strikes—perhaps not on the Russian homeland given the risks of nuclear retaliation that might entail, but on Russian forces in Ukraine and elsewh

For better or for worse, that would make the United States a direct belligerent in the war. That is exactly what Biden has been trying to avoid, fearing, as he puts it, that direct U.S.-Russian fighting would lead to “World War III.” Russia would almost certainly strike back in some way, in part to deter the United States from going any further. That, then, would call into play Article V of the NATO treaty, under which an attack on one is an attack on all. From there, things could get very ugly, very fast. There can be little confidence that every action by every military unit could be carefully controlled, and every intended signal understood.

As one example, if U.S. strikes really were “catastrophic” for Russia, Russian forces in Ukraine would be greatly weakened. Ukrainian forces would have a dramatic new opportunity to surge forward. Russia’s diminished forces might not be able to stop them, which might then lead Putin to reach for the nuclear button again.

The longer the war continues, the more people will die and the more the nuclear danger will rise. It is time to work with Ukraine to begin exploring a negotiated end to the conflict. That’s not likely to happen soon, though, as both sides are optimistic that they might end up in a stronger position after more fighting. To reduce the risk of catastrophic escalation, the Biden team needs to continue using tabletop exercises to game out different scenarios, going several steps in to consider all the dangers and implications. And the Biden administration must continue exploring how it could reassure a paranoid Putin, even in such an awful situation, that the United States will not escalate further if Russia does not and won’t take action to destroy Russia or oust Putin from power.

Any use of nuclear weapons would pose devastating dangers. The United States and its allies need to find ways to reduce the danger, and they need to think several steps ahead in considering how they would respond to Russian nuclear use and what they should say to Russia now to convince it not to consider going down the nuclear road. Biden should continue to do everything he can to make sure the seventy-seven-year-old nuclear taboo continues.

Matthew Bunn is the James R. Schlesinger Professor of the Practice of Energy, National Security, and Foreign Policy at Harvard Kennedy School and Co-Principal Investigator for the Project on Managing the Atom at the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Image: Fasttailwind/Shutterstock.com.

The Iranian Horn Seeks to Kill Trump

Former US President Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the Iran nuclear deal in the Diplomatic Room of the White House in Washington, US, October 13, 2017.
Former US President Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the Iran nuclear deal in the Diplomatic Room of the White House in Washington, US, October 13, 2017. (Reuters Archive)

Iranian military official warns his country is still seeking to kill Trump

Tehran has repeatedly vowed to avenge the killing of Soleimani, the head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps’ foreign operations, in a US drone strike on Baghdad airport in January 2020.

An Iranian military official warned his country is still seeking to kill former US president Donald Trump and his secretary of state Mike Pompeo in revenge for assassinating top commander Qasem Soleimani.

“We hope we can kill Trump, Pompeo, (former US general Kenneth) McKenzie and the military commanders who gave the order” to kill Soleimani, Amirali Hajizadeh, the Guards’ aerospace unit commander, said on television late Friday.

Tehran has repeatedly vowed to avenge the killing of Soleimani, the head of the commander of the Quds Force in Revolutionary Guard in a US drone strike on Baghdad airport in January 2020.

Trump had ordered the strike in response to a number of attacks on US interests in Iraq that his administration blamed on Iran.

Days later, Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a US airbase in Iraq that housed US troops. None were killed, but Washington said dozens suffered traumatic brain damage.

‘Destabilising’ role in Middle East

The United States and its allies have repeatedly expressed concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile programme as well as its “destabilising” role in the Middle East.

In his televised remarks, Hajizadeh said Iran was “now able to hit American ships at a distance of 2,000 kilometres (1,243 miles)”.

“We have set this limit of 2,000 kilometres out of respect for the Europeans and we hope that the Europeans show themselves worthy of this respect,” the Iranian official said.

On Saturday, Iranian state television aired a video of what it said was a newly unveiled “Paveh cruise missile with a range of 1,650 kilometres (1,025 miles)” developed by the Guard.

The official broadcaster reported on Friday that Iran was likely to provide Syria with the 15-Khordad surface-to-air missile system to “reinforce” its defensive capabilities.

East Coast Quakes and the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6

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

East Coast Quakes: What to Know About the Tremors Below

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

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

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

Fault Lines

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

That said, earthquakes still occur in the East.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Reports of shaking from different earthquakes of similar magnitude.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first nuclear war could kill a third of world’s population: Revelation 8

People watch a TV showing a file image of a North Korea's missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2019. North Korea launched at least two unidentified projectiles toward the sea on Tuesday, South Korea's military said, hours after the North offered to resume nuclear diplomacy with the United States but warned its dealings with Washington may end without new U.S. proposals. The sign reads "North Korea launched at least two unidentified projectiles." (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)
People watch a TV showing a file image of a North Korea missile launch in the fall of 2019. (Associated Press)

Even a limited nuclear war could kill a third of world’s population, study shows

Alex Wigglesworth

August 15, 2022·8 min read

As escalating tensions among the United States, Russia and China revive old fears of nuclear war, some researchers are warning that even a limited-scale exchange between such nations as India and Pakistan could have catastrophic consequences for global food supplies and trigger mass death worldwide.

A nuclear conflict involving less than 3% of the world’s stockpiles could kill a third of the world’s population within two years, according to a new international study led by scientists at Rutgers University. A larger nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States could kill three-fourths of the world’s population in the same timeframe, according to the research published Monday in Nature Food.

“It’s really a cautionary tale that any use of nuclear weapons could be a catastrophe for the world,” said climate scientist and study author Alan Robock, a distinguished professor in Rutgers’ Department of Environmental Sciences.

The findings come at a time when — 30 years after the end of the Cold War — the threat of a nuclear holocaust may be greater now than it ever was.

Recently, U.K. National Security Advisor Stephen Lovegrove argued that the breakdown in dialogue between nations, as well as the loss of safeguards that had been created between nuclear superpowers decades ago, has plunged the world into “a dangerous new age.” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has also warned that “the prospect of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, is now back within the realm of possibility.”

Although Robock and others have previously projected that nuclear war would result in tremendous disruption to the climate and food supplies, the recent study marks the first time that researchers have calculated the potential extent of the famine that would result and how many people would die.

The detonation of even just a small fraction of the world’s nuclear weapons would spark massive firestorms that would rapidly inject sun-blocking soot into the atmosphere, touching off a sudden cooling of the climate, the researchers theorized.

Researchers used climate models to calculate how much smoke would reach the stratosphere — where no precipitation occurs to wash it away — and how this would change temperature, precipitation and sunlight. Then they calculated how these changes would affect the production of various crops, as well as how fish would respond to changes in the ocean.

As a result, they projected that tens of millions of immediate fatalities in the war zone would be followed by hundreds of millions of starvation deaths around the globe.

That’s without taking into account the effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on crops due to the destruction of the ozone layer caused by the heating of the stratosphere, Robock said. Such an effect, which researchers hope to quantify in future studies, would likely worsen the results, he said.

“In my opinion, our work is an existential threat to nuclear weapons — it shows you can’t use nuclear weapons,” Robock said. “If you use them, you’re like a suicide bomber. You’re trying to attack somebody else but you’ll die of starvation.”

The data is being released on the heels of a growing consensus among experts that the threat of nuclear war is greater than it’s ever been, said Ira Helfand, immediate past president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

“The general public needs to understand the enormity of the danger we face, the immediacy of the threat and the urgency of eliminating these weapons before they eliminate us,” he said.

Most of the scenarios the researchers considered involved a hypothetical nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, which they believe is the most likely region where such a conflict could erupt, Robock said. The two countries have fought in four wars and still have frequent border skirmishes.

If India and Pakistan were to each target urban centers in the opposing country with 250 100-kiloton nuclear weapons, which they are believed to possess, about 127 million people in South Asia would be killed by explosions, fires and radiation, the study found. An estimated 37 million metric tons of soot would be injected into the atmosphere, sending temperatures across the planet plunging by more than 5 degrees Celsius, a range last experienced during the Ice Age, according to earlier research by Robock and others. Food production would consequently collapse, with the number of calories available from major crops and fisheries falling by up to 42% and the resulting famine killing over 2 billion people worldwide, according to the most recent study.

In the event of a larger war between the U.S. and Russia, which together are believed to hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear stockpile, an estimated 5 billion out of 6.7 billion people worldwide would die, according to the research.

But any of the nine nuclear-armed nations, which also include China, North Korea, France, Israel and the United Kingdom, have enough firepower at their fingertips to cause immense worldwide suffering and death, with soot rising into the sky and touching off a domino effect of catastrophic cooling and famine, the study suggests.

Although it’s not possible to test the theory directly, there are real-world analogues, Robock said. Massive wildfires in British Columbia in 2017 and in Australia in 2019 and 2020 pumped smoke into the stratosphere, a finding confirmed by satellite observations. The sun then heated the smoke particles, lofting them five to 15 miles farther into the atmosphere, he said.

“By lofting them up higher, it increases their lifetime and they get blown around the world before they fall out,” Robock said. “It’s the same process we modeled in our nuclear winter simulation with a lot more smoke.”

The researchers’ modeling was able to predict the effects of these fires, giving them more confidence the models would also be accurate when it came to predicting the effects of nuclear detonation, he said.

Edward Geist, a policy researcher at Rand Corp., said that the relatively recent discovery that wildfires can loft smoke into the stratosphere bolsters the researchers’ theory. They are doing the world a service by drawing attention to nuclear war’s potential effects, he said.

Still, there is a debate about the extent to which solar lofting would occur with nuclear detonation, Geist said. Although it’s certainly possible it would occur in a city attacked by nuclear weapons, that doesn’t necessarily mean it would happen simultaneously in every city that is attacked, as the paper assumed, he said.

“The big question is, you have a nuclear war of a certain size, how much of this smoke ends up in the upper atmosphere?” Geist said. “You can make a plausible case for both — very little will end up there, all the way out to, we’ve got to assume it basically all ends up there, which is what [these] sorts of papers do.”

He pointed out that a 2018 paper by researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory also modeled a hypothetical conflict between India and Pakistan and concluded that previous research by Robock and others had overestimated how much soot would be produced, how high the smoke would reach and how dramatically the climate would change as a result.

Robock, however, disputes those findings. The Los Alamos researchers chose an area of suburban Atlanta to represent a dense city in India or Pakistan and failed to include in their modeling atmospheric processes such as cloud formation that would carry air upward, he argued. Robock said they also assumed winds that blew too strong and ran their simulation for too short a time.

“They had a number of assumptions, all of which made the effects much less,” he said.

A 2020 paper by researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory also considered the India-Pakistan scenario and concluded there were uncertainties. Although the team projected that an exchange of 100 15-kiloton nuclear weapons would cool the climate if densely populated urban areas were to ignite, they projected there would be little to no effect on the climate if fires were limited to suburban areas.

In contrast, the Rutgers-led study assumes that the countries would target each others’ cities, where fuel concentrations are densest and the climatological effects would be most dramatic, Geist said. But Pakistan has said that if it were to use nuclear weapons against India, it would use tactical nuclear weapons to stop a conventional invasion, not to attack cities wholesale, he said.

“It really comes down to how much stuff do you burn, how much of it ends up being smoke and how much of that smoke ends up in the upper atmosphere, and how much real plausibles for nuclear wars translate into that,” Geist said. “We really don’t know, and hopefully we don’t find out.”

Although there’s a popular notion that nuclear weapons will never be used because they are so powerful that their destructiveness is a deterrent, that’s wishful thinking, Helfand said. That they have not yet been deployed is simply a matter of chance.

“We do know what’s going to happen if these weapons stay around,” he said. “Sooner or later our luck is going to run out.”

Obama’s Iranian Nuclear Disaster

Iranians Understand Trump Sanctions, Obama Nuclear Deal Was ‘Disastrous,’ Shah’s Son Says

David BrennanOn 12/12/19 at 7:34 AM EST

Courtesy of Reza Pahlavi

Iran is being convulsed by its worst unrest for 40 years, with cities across the country paralyzed by thousands of anti-government protesters.

Though sparked by a spike in fuel prices, the explosion of anger has been a long time coming. Iranians are living under an authoritarian regime while battling falling living standards and a faltering economy, exacerbated by crippling American sanctions levied to stifle Tehran’s nuclear program and regional influence.

Hundreds—perhaps more than 1,000 according to U.S. authorities—of dissenters have been cut down in the streets by regime gunmen. Human rights groups accuse the authorities of hiding away the bodies of the dead to conceal the true death toll while throttling internet to prevent survivors communicating with each other and the world.

According to Reza Pahlavi—the last surviving son and heir of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, deposed in the Iranian Revolution—the reported “massacre” shows the desperation and ruthlessness of the regime.

Pahlavi spoke to Newsweek from Washington, D.C., where he still lives in exile after his family fled the country in 1979. He has consistently called for a secular democracy to replace the current system.

Pahlavi said the current turmoil is indicative of widespread anger at the government in Tehran, and that the only solution is a rehabilitated secular democracy—whether or not he is directly involved.

How should we characterize the current unrest in Iran?
The protests in our country are driven by a broad-based, grassroots desire to replace this regime. The 200 percent rise in fuel prices may have been the trigger of this latest round of widespread national street protests, but this does not come close to capturing the essence or aspirations of what they have become.

These protests represent a rejection of the regime as a whole and communicate a desire to end forty years of clerical oppression. All one has to do to understand this is to listen to my compatriots in the streets.

They do not chant for reforms, or about fuel prices, they chant, “We don’t want the Islamic Republic!” and, “Khamenei, get out of the country!” and by the hundreds they are giving their lives for the cause of freedom.

Reza Pahlevi, son of the deposed Shah of Iran and his third wife Farah Diba, as a young boy with his parents in 1967.Universal History Archive/Getty

What does the response of the security forces tell us about the priorities and mindset of those in power?
We have known for forty years that the regime’s only priorities are safeguarding and expanding its own power and control, including enriching itself. This massacre is not surprising. It is rather what one expects when such a regime feels threatened.

Simultaneously, we are witnessing the beginning of a peeling away of the security forces from the regime. As a result, the Islamic Republic is forced to import foreign nationals to attempt to control the protests.

This simply shows that the regime will stop at nothing to protect itself, even at the cost of an effective genocide. Yet despite all this, the people are still fighting. The message they give me to tell the world is, “We deserve better than this. Why are you abandoning us?”

What should replace the current regime in Iran?
For four decades I have consistently advocated for a secular, democratic system in Iran. Not only have I advocated this for Iran because it is the best way to ensure the human rights, well-being, and happiness of Iranians but also because it is my sense that the Iranian people overwhelmingly want and demand such a system.

Today’s generation of young Iranians, more than ever, are aware of other countries where sovereignty is routine in their liberal and free societies. They would like to have the very same opportunities and self-determination.

This undated photo shows Reza Pahlavi—the exiled heir to Iran’s defunct monarchy—giving a speech. Pahlavi told Newsweek that the current unrest in Iran is a direct reaction to the authoritarian regime in Tehran.The Secretariat of Reza Pahlavi Media Relations

Is there any legitimate opposition in Iran that can be trusted in this regard? U.S. officials have previously pushed for the involvement of controversial groups such as the People’s Mujahedin of Iran—how do you feel about this?
It is less a matter of how I feel and more about fundamental truths. Our national aspiration is to have a secular democracy and therefore the people of Iran will decide what groups, parties, or individuals are relevant and constructive to our nation’s future. The future of Iran is to be decided by Iranians, not by any foreign leader’s advisors.

Would you like to return to Iran and be involved in a political process to establish a new system of governance?
I view my role as the advocate of the Iranian people. My aspirations are to support the movement for liberty and dignity and are not driven by any ambition for political power in Iran’s future.

That said, I am eager to return to Iran and I will always be there for our people to defend their fundamental and inalienable rights against any and all forces foreign or domestic. I intend to be of assistance in any way that I can to provide proper guidance in our nation’s critical transition to a secular democracy.

Do you think the Iranian people would welcome the return of royal influence?
The future system of government will be subject to intense debate in the constitutional process. It is this process, these democratic mores, on which I am focused and not on the future system of government.

Our country has of course, apart from this forty year interlude, a history of monarchic service and tradition. So naturally many Iranians, in line with this history and culture, have an affinity for the monarchy.

But the present moment is not about monarchy or republic, it is about the fight to reclaim our nation from an anti-Iranian occupying force and to develop this democratic order along with all of its principles, tenets, and values.

What do you think of the current U.S. “maximum pressure” strategy on Iran
It is unfortunate for the Iranian people that the regime, through its nefarious, destabilizing and antagonizing behavior in the region and across the world has brought the ire of so many of its neighbors and of the free world on our country.

To the extent that the sanctions limit or reduce the regime’s resources from being used for such actions, this is something the people of Iran understand and appreciate. Iranians realize that they are first and foremost under maximum pressure socially, politically and economically from the Islamic regime itself.

Therefore, my concern and that of the Iranian people is getting rid of this regime. The people don’t chant in the streets against sanctions, they chant against this regime in hundreds of cities across the country.

Was President Donald Trump right to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal?
I do not tell Americans how to run their country, my focus is Iran. I know that any deal or negotiation with this regime and which ignores the Iranian people and their desires and demands are illegitimate.

All those who still aspire to finding a solution by negotiating with this regime only prove how out of touch they are with the real aspirations and sentiments of the Iranian people. My focus, rather, is on removing the maximum pressure of this regime on our people.

Trump’s hardline approach is directly pushing down living standards of normal Iranians—is this a price worth paying to try and contain the Iranian regime?
Containment and appeasement have proven to be the policy of sustaining the status quo. It is the policy of continuously taking the same steps and expecting different results.

To the extent that the regime is cut off from the resources used to oppress at home and abroad, the Iranian people understand and appreciate that.

But the determining factor in Iran’s future will be the Iranian people not foreign policies, as I have always told our people. To that end, if any nation wants to deal with Iran it must deal with those who hold the answers to its future: the people, not the regime.

I have said for decades that the West has a role to play in supporting the Iranian people in their movement because this support and solidarity will lower the cost of our ultimate victory. The burden of conscience lays heavily on all those who claim liberty and freedom as values and are astonishingly silent now, when their voices are most needed.

Should the White House change its strategy on Iran?
After forty years of failed attempts to appease this irreformable regime, isn’t it time for a different strategy?

Do not try to engage this regime. The previous administration made this mistake to disastrous effect for the Iranian people and for the region. Instead, engage the Iranian people and the secular democratic opposition.

For example, use the frozen assets of this regime and return them to their rightful owners, the people. Use it to support a strike fund to give my compatriots the ability to go on mass strikes and bring this regime to its knees through widespread, peaceful civil disobedience.

As an additional example, the administration should take measures to promote and safeguard uninterrupted access to the internet, and limit the regime’s ability to promote its own propaganda while it asphyxiates our people’s access to information.

Are you in touch with Trump administration officials and do you give advice on their approach?
For all of these years, I have communicated the same, consistent message to international leaders, including those in the United States.

That message has been simple: you cannot properly develop a policy for the future when you are focused on dealing with this illegitimate regime, you must recognize the people’s demand for fundamental change, and you must engage the people. I will continue to advocate this message.

The problem is not that the regime has not changed it’s behavior, because it never will, but rather that the world has not changed its behavior looking to appease this regime.