The Prophecy is much more than seeing into the future. For the Prophecy sees without the element of time. For the Prophecy sees what is, what was, and what always shall be. 11:11 LLC
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.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
This article summarises the key insights from the briefing paper, shedding light on the nation’s nuclear posture, disarmament stance, and ongoing modernisation efforts.
The UK’s nuclear policy focuses on minimal credible nuclear deterrence, with resources dedicated to NATO defence. The briefing paper points out that “The UK does not have a policy of ‘no-first use’.”
This means the UK reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear threats.
Disarmament Debate
Post-Cold War, the UK has taken disarmament steps in line with the NPT. The 2010 SDSR anticipated a 65% reduction in the nuclear stockpile by the mid-2020s.
However, the 2021 Integrated Review stated that “2010 commitments could no longer be met due to the current security environment.”
Consequently, the cap on the nuclear stockpile has been raised, raising concerns about the UK Government’s disarmament commitment.
Capabilities and Infrastructure
The UK’s nuclear stockpile cap, as per the briefing paper, is “no more than 260 warheads.” The nation operates a continuous at-sea deterrence (CASD) and is the only recognised nuclear state with a single deterrent system.
The deterrent is based at HM Naval Base Clyde in western Scotland. Submarines are stationed at Faslane, and warheads are stored at Coulport. Maintenance for the Vanguard class is conducted at Faslane, while deep maintenance and refit take place at HM Naval Base Devonport in Plymouth.
Both HMNB Clyde and Devonport dockyard are managed by Babcock International. A 15-year contract with the ABL Alliance supports the Trident strategic weapon system at Coulport and Faslane.
The UK’s nuclear warheads are manufactured and maintained at two AWE sites in Aldermaston and Burghfield, Berkshire. In November 2020, the MOD announced that AWE would return to direct Government ownership.
Modernisation: Dreadnought Programme
The Dreadnought programme aims to replace the UK’s Vanguard class submarines with a new Dreadnought class by the early 2030s. A Common Missile Compartment (CMC) for the SSBN is being developed in partnership with the US.
The briefing paper estimates the cost for designing and manufacturing four SSBNs at £31 billion, with a £10 billion contingency. The UK is also participating in the US service-life extension programme for the Trident II D5 missile.
In February 2020, the UK Government confirmed a programme to replace the Mk4 nuclear warhead.
The infrastructure supporting the UK’s nuclear weapons underscores the extensive network enabling the UK’s nuclear capabilities. The House of Commons Library briefing paper offers valuable insights into the complexities and challenges surrounding the UK’s nuclear landscape.
Ukraine is expected to start soon a much-anticipated counteroffensive to retake Moscow-held territory, including in the Zaporizhzhia region.
In its morning update, Ukraine’s General staff said Russian forces were evacuating local Russian passport-holders to the port city of Berdyansk and the town Prymorsk, both on the coast of the Sea of Azov.
“The first to be evacuated are those who accepted Russian citizenship in the first months of the occupation,” it said in a statement.
The head of the U.N.’s nuclear power watchdog said on Saturday the situation around the station, Europe’s largest, has become “potentially dangerous”.
Both sides have accused one another of shelling the plant and efforts to secure a safety zone around it have failed.
(Reporting by Dan Peleschuk; Editing by Angus MacSwan)
Russia has confirmed supplying highly enriched uranium to two Chinese nuclear reactors, prompting concerns about the deepening collaboration between the two nations in the nuclear energy sector.
TVEL, a key player in the nuclear fuel industry and a subsidiary of the state-owned Rosatom, has secured permission to supply China with nuclear fuel for the next three years, reported SCMP, citing Russian media.
The fuel will be delivered to China’s CFR-600 power plant, located in the southeastern province of Fujian. This advanced facility boasts two fast-neutron reactors, each capable of generating 600 megawatts of power.
The first reactor is set to connect to the grid later this year, marking a significant milestone in China’s nuclear power ambitions.
The news of Russia supplying highly enriched uranium to China’s nuclear reactors comes when Washington has expressed growing concerns about the cooperation between Beijing and Moscow in the nuclear energy sector.China’s CFR-600 Facility
The concerns have also not gone unnoticed by US policymakers. In March, leading Republicans in Congress sent a letter to US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, describing the cooperation as “a direct threat to US security” and calling on the Biden administration to take action to halt it.
The latest report reveals that the nuclear fuel supplied by TVEL to the CFR-600 power plant in China is highly enriched uranium, with a concentration of just over 30% of uranium-235.
This is a significantly higher concentration than what is typically found in naturally occurring uranium, which is usually less than 1%.
Fast reactors, such as the ones used in the CFR-600 power plant, typically require a concentration of over 20% of uranium-235. This level of enrichment is significantly lower than what is used in nuclear weapons (which usually contain around 90% uranium-235 and plutonium).
China’s Growing Nuclear Buildup
China’s plan to develop a closed nuclear fuel cycle involves fast reactors reprocessing the remaining uranium and plutonium isotopes in spent fuel. This aims to reduce the risk of shortages and is part of a larger strategy to transition to more sustainable and reliable energy sources.
Fast reactors use uranium-238, the most commonly found isotope, to generate plutonium-239, which can be used as nuclear fuel or in nuclear weapons.
According to Tian Li, the vice president of the nuclear power branch of the China Electric Power Promotion Council, there are potential risks associated with the use of liquid sodium as a reactor coolant in the fast reactors at the Fujian power plant.
Liquid sodium can easily catch fire in the air and water and is prone to leakage. However, Tian Li also emphasized that the reactor at Fujian is intended solely for generating electricity and is not designed for military purposes. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin/Twitter
Despite these assurances, concerns over the safety and security implications of nuclear energy cooperation between China and Russia continue to concern US policymakers and experts.
Chinese military leaders are reportedly building their nuclear arsenal to deter American forces from intervening in potential crises, such as those in the South China Sea or Taiwan.
John Plumb, the Pentagon’s assistant secretary for space policy, expressed his worries about the collaboration between Russia and China in the nuclear energy sector during a hearing in March.
The Chinese government has previously stated that its nuclear cooperation with Russia is limited to civilian purposes and adheres to international obligations.
Nevertheless, as tensions continue to escalate between the US and China, experts warn that the risk of a nuclear confrontation could become increasingly likely.
A substantial nuclear strike against the United States would destroy cities and would result in untold deaths and misery. Yet, the United States’ foreign policy interferes with nuclear powers such as Russia in Ukraine and China in Taiwan. We don’t talk much about nuclear war, as if rational beings would never do such a thing. But who expects pure rationality into the unknown future? Humans will experience irrationality, mistakes and even pure evil, as we saw in 9/11.
My thesis is that even though there is a low probability of nuclear war at any given moment, a series of interactions in enmity with nuclear states leads to a cumulative risk over time, just as a dangerous driver will probably eventually experience a crash. We are on China’s and Russia’s borders, based on the old Cold War dynamics of containment. This is dangerous. We will need a strong president to adjust to the current world reality, which will require us to back away from the forward containment strategy. Neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump seem to be that type of president.
China is greatly expanding its nuclear war capability. North Korea will soon have a capacity to strike the United States’ homeland. Russia has 5,977 nuclear warheads that could kill us all, the most in the world, and is recklessly intimating using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Iran, with its terrorist baggage, is on a path to develop nuclear weapons.
Arms control, which was a hope in the past to control nuclear weapons, seems to be weakened. Russia said it will not permit the inspections of the START Treaty. Any meaningful arms-control regime would require an agreement among China, Russia and the United States. Such agreement does not seem likely today.
What about a mistake, or cyber used by terrorists? There could be “faulty judgment, false warnings of attack, or other miscalculation … cyber attacks to disrupt the command and control of nuclear weapons and early warning systems … leaving governments only minutes to decide….” (Ernest Moniz and Sam Nunn, “Confronting the New Nuclear Peril,” Foreign Affairs, April 5, 2023). The risk is increasing with the decline of arms-control regimes: “…an increasing reliance on nuclear deterrence by nine nuclear-weapons states threatens the future of humanity.” (Ibid.).
There is no defense to a major nuclear attack. Recently, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yoel met with President Biden to assure that the United States will, in fact, use nuclear weapons against North Korea, even though the latter will have nuclear weapons that can reach the United States. Biden, in effect, said yes, we will risk an attack on Los Angeles, for instance. South Korea and Japan, which have begun to talk, should have their own nuclear deterrents.
The precedent for nuclear confrontation is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both sides settled for less than a win. Instead of invading Cuba, as some advisers urged, President John F. Kennedy chose the more restrained blockade (“quarantine”). Chairman Nikita Khrushchev, realizing his gamble had failed, withdrew his missiles. Kennedy promised not to invade Cuba and to remove our offensive and provocative weapons from Turkey. Both leaders withdrew from the brink.
“Their prudence holds lessons for today, when so many commentators in Russia and in the West are calling for resolute victory of one side or the other in Ukraine.” (Sergey Radchenko and Vladislav Zubok, “Blundering on the Brink,” Foreign Affairs, April 3, 2023). Many around Putin say, “…Moscow should prefer nuclear Armageddon to defeat.” (Ibid.). Kennedy concluded: “…while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or nuclear war.”
With the United States assertively involved in enmity with Russia and China, with NATO expansion, doing “saber-rattling” shows of force in Asia in military exercises, the chance of nuclear war increases with cumulative risk. Gordon Chang has said: “When you have China engaging in dangerous intercepts of the U.S. and other militaries in the region, anything can happen.” (Kristen Altus, Fox Business, April 28, 2023).
We need spheres of Influence among the three great nuclear powers, and prudence. The United States cannot aggressively be on their doorsteps without risking nuclear war. The United States must climb down from its unipolar role.
James W. Pfister, J.D. University of Toledo, Ph.D. University of Michigan (political science), retired after 46 years in the Political Science Department at Eastern Michigan University. He lives at Devils Lake and can be reached at jpfister@emich.edu.
Rafael Grossi, director general of the IAEA, said plant is becoming potentially dangerous
ZAPORIZHZHIA (Reuters) – The head of the UN’s nuclear power watchdog warned on Saturday that the situation around the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear station has become “potentially dangerous” as Moscow-installed officials began evacuating people from nearby areas.
Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), called for measures to ensure the safe operation of Europe’s largest nuclear plant as evacuations were under way in the nearby town of Enerhodar.
“I’m extremely concerned about the very real nuclear safety and security risks facing the plant. We must act now to prevent the threat of a severe nuclear accident and its associated consequences for the population and the environment.”
Grossi said that while the operating staff of the plant remain at the site, the conditions for the personnel and their families are “increasingly tense.”
The Russian-installed governor of the Moscow-controlled part of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region said on Friday that he had ordered the evacuation of villages close to the front line as shelling had intensified in the area in recent days.
A widely expected Ukrainian spring counter-offensive against Russian forces is viewed as likely to take in the Zaporizhzhia region, around 80% of which is held by Moscow.
Reuters was not able to independently verify the reports.
Russian forces seized the Zaporizhzhia plant days after President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of his neighbour in February 2022. Exchanges of fire have frequently occurred near the facility, with each side blaming the other.
Grossi last visited the Zaporizhzhia station, Europe’s largest nuclear power installation, in March, as part of efforts to speak to both sides to secure an agreement on safeguards to ensure the plant’s safe operation.
He has repeatedly warned of the dangers of military operations around the plant.
The plant is located in the part of that region under Russian control, with many of the staff operating it living in Enerhodar on the south bank of the Dnipro River.
Even as the United States and its European allies grapple with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and rising tensions with China, the smoldering crisis over Iran’s nuclear program threatens to reignite.
In a sign of European concern, Britain, France and Germany have warned Iran they would trigger a return of U.N. sanctions against Tehran if it enriched uranium to the optimal level for a nuclear weapon, three European officials said.
The threat, made last year in a previously unreported letter sent by the countries’ foreign ministers, underscores Western fears that Iran could produce bomb-grade uranium of 90% purity.
“Worrisome possibilities include that Iran tested a way to produce near-weapon-grade uranium without … detection,” said a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank that closely tracks Tehran’s nuclear program.
Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.
A renewed crisis over Iran would come at a bad time for U.S. President Joe Biden, who is focused on maintaining allies’ support for the war in Ukraine and on rallying Western countries to push back on China’s military and diplomatic ambitions.
But while some White House aides may prefer to keep Iran off the president’s desk, officials and analysts suggested they may not have that luxury.
Western officials fear a nuclear-armed Iran could threaten Israel and Gulf Arab oil producers, as well as spark a regional arms race.
‘Snapback’ of UN sanctions
U.S. and European officials have been searching for ways to curb Tehran’s program since the breakdown of indirect U.S.-Iranian talks on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.
The accord, aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, required Tehran to accept restrictions on its nuclear program and more extensive U.N. inspections, in exchange for an end to U.N., U.S. and European Union sanctions.
The deal, which had capped Iran’s uranium enrichment at 3.67%, was abandoned in 2018 by then-U.S. President Donald Trump, who argued it was too generous to Tehran.
Trump reimposed broad U.S. sanctions, many of which have the secondary effect of forcing non-U.S. firms to stop dealing with Iran or risk losing access to the U.S. market. U.N. sanctions, however, were not reactivated.
The 2015 nuclear deal had set out a procedure for the veto-proof “snapback” of the U.N. sanctions on Iran – including an oil embargo and banking restrictions – in response to Iranian violations. Any of the states who signed on to the original deal can trigger the snapback.
U.S. sanctions – even with their secondary effects – have failed to keep Iran from producing ever-purer levels of uranium, and China has flouted those sanctions by buying Iranian oil, making it unclear if the U.N. measures would be any more effective.
But Iran might refrain from enriching to 90% to avoid the public rebuke implicit in the return of U.N. sanctions.
A senior Iranian nuclear official said Tehran would not take the revival of U.N. sanctions lying down.
“If the other parties under any pretext trigger it, they will be responsible for all the consequences,” he told Reuters. “Iran’s reaction could range from leaving the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) to accelerating our nuclear work.”
Leaving the NPT would free Iran to develop nuclear arms.
The Iranian official’s threat was more explicit than comments by an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, who on Monday said only that Iran had told Western powers how it would react.
It remains unclear if the uranium particles of 83.7% purity were created deliberately. But Western officials and analysts say that Iran’s production of 90% uranium would demand a significant response.
A U.S. State Department spokesman said Biden “is absolutely committed” to making sure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.
“We believe diplomacy is the best way to achieve that goal, but President Biden has also been clear that we have not removed any option from the table,” the spokesperson added, hinting at the possibility of military action.
‘Face a crisis at some point’
While Western officials want to leave the door open for diplomacy, tensions with Russia and China make that harder.
Divisions over the Ukraine war – which has seen Iran provide military aid to Russia – and rising Sino-U.S. tensions further reduce the odds of resurrecting the deal because it is unclear how hard Moscow or Beijing might push for its revival.
If the deal is dead, the West has three broad options: deterrence, military action or a new negotiated arrangement.
Deterrence has a downside: It could give Tehran time to creep toward a nuclear weapons capability.
Dennis Ross, a veteran U.S. diplomat now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank, suggested Biden may have to do more to make Iran fear the consequences of enriching to higher levels.
“If you don’t do enough to persuade the Iranians of the risks they are running, you will face a crisis at some point because they will go to 90%” or move toward weaponization, he said. “What you are seeing is an effort to walk that tightrope.”
The Prophecy Blog 
