LA Will Be The First Nuclear Casualty (Revelation 16)

A Los Angeles suburb released this ominous video about how to survive a nuclear attack

Leanna Garfield and Dave Mosher
Aug. 9, 2017, 3:36 PM 4,246
Earlier this week, an analysis from US intelligence officials revealed that North Korea has figured out how to fit nuclear warheads on missiles, and that the country may have up to 60 nuclear weapons. (Some independent experts estimate the figure is much smaller).
On Monday, North Korea issued a stark warning to the US: If you attack us, we will retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Several American cities, including New York, San Francisco, and Honolulu, have response plans for terrorist attacks, including so-called “dirty bombs” containing radioactive material. But few have publicized plans to deal with a real nuclear explosion.
One exception is Ventura County, a suburb about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles. In 2003, the local government launched a PSA campaign called “Ready” that aims to educate Americans how to survive a nuclear attack. The goal, according to the campaign site, is to “increase the level of basic preparedness across the nation.”
One of the more recent PSA videos is the one below, published in 2014. It opens with a short message from Ventura County public health officer Dr. Robert Levin, then cuts to a little girl with an ominous expression around the one-minute mark.
“Mom, I know you care about me,” she says. “When I was five, you taught me how to stop, drop, and roll … But what if something bigger happens?” The video then flashes to the girl walking down empty streets alone.
The Ventura County Health Care Agency has published several guides on what to do in the event of a nuclear bomb hitting the area. As the girl says in the video above, the agency’s focus is to “go in, stay in, tune in.”
The scenario assumes a terrorist-caused nuclear blast of about 10 kilotons’ worth of TNT or less. Few people would survive within the immediate damage zone, which may extend up to one or two miles wide, but those outside would have a chance.
Brooke Buddemeier, a health physicist and radiation expert at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, previously told Business Insider that he likes Ventura County’s PSAs because they’re simple and easy to remember. “There is a ton of guidance and information out there,” he said, but “it’s kind of too hard to digest quickly.”
Buddemeier said you’d have about 15 minutes – maybe a little bit longer, depending on how far away you are from the blast site – to get to the center of a building to avoid devastating exposure to radioactive fallout. Going below-ground is even better.
“Stay in, 12 to 24 hours, and tune in – try to use whatever communication tools you have. We’re getting better about being able to broadcast messages to cell phones, certainly the hand-cranked radio is a good idea – your car radio, if you’re in a parking garage with your car,” he said.
The protection factor that various buildings, and locations within them, offer from the radioactive fallout of a nuclear blast. The higher the number, the greater the protection.Brooke Buddemeier/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Buddemeier adds, however, that you shouldn’t try to drive away or stay in your car for very long, because it can’t really protect you. Today’s vehicles are made of glass and very light metals, and offer almost no shielding from damaging radiation.
In large cities, hundreds of thousands of people would be at risk of potentially deadly exposure. But fallout casualties are preventable, Buddemeier said.
“All of those hundreds of thousands of people could prevent that exposure that would make them sick by sheltering. So, this has a huge impact: Knowing what to do after an event like this can literally save hundreds of thousands of people from radiation illness or fatalities,” he said.

The Next 911 Will Be a Nuclear Attack at the Port of Long Beach (Rev 14)

Trump’s Budget Would Leave U.S. Ports Open to Nuclear Threat
The administration is putting money toward a border wall, but giving short shrift to America’s other borders.
BY BETHANY ALLEN-EBRAHIMIAN
President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would pour money into a wall on the southern border — while stripping funding from protecting ports against the threat of nuclear attack.The administration’s proposed 2018 budget would halve funding for key counterterrorism programs at another kind of border: The 361 ports dotted across America’s 95,000 miles of coastline. The proposed cuts, leaving just $48 million in grant funding, have alarmed port operators, senators from both sides of the aisle, and counterterrorism experts alike.“I’m seriously concerned that these budget cuts will weaken our ability to detect, prevent, and respond to future attacks,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), the ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, last month.After the September 11, 2001 attacks, one of security experts’ greatest fears was that terrorists would acquire nuclear or radiological weapons and use them against the United States. Analysts determined that if a weapon of mass destruction were to be deployed, it would likely be delivered in one of the 12 million shipping containers arriving in ports every year — a flood of cargo seemingly too big to search without disrupting global trade.Determining that ports were “susceptible to large scale acts of terrorism,” Congress established the Port Security Grant Program in October 2002 to fund radiation detection scanners, security systems and maintenance, and training at maritime ports. But even today, worries about port security persist. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry said last month at an event at the Hoover Institute that North Korea may not need the long-range missiles it is currently developing in order to deliver a nuclear payload to American shores. Pyongyang, he said, “might even be able to do terrible damage to the United States by delivering [nuclear weapons] in freighters.”The Trump budget doesn’t just take aim at port security funding — it also would slash the U.S. Coast Guard budget, which provides layers of protection by tracking incoming vessels, scanning for illicit weapons, and making sure foreign ports have adequate security, Additionally, a pair of crack Coast Guard units — the Maritime Safety and Security Teams and the Maritime Security Response Teams — could lose their funding entirely, according to documents obtained by the Associated Press in February. The Response Teams are the Coast Guard’s ace in the hole against terrorists, said Cmdr. Paul Frantz, of the Coast Guard’s Office of Deployable Specialized Forces, “designed to respond to the threat or event of a terrorist attack.” This spring, nearly two dozen senators sent Trump’s budget director a letter warning against dismantling the Coast Guard units, warning that it would be “negligent and detrimental to our national security.”When the September 11 attacks occurred, U.S. ports were wide open to possible risks. Years of funding have built up the capabilities of ports around the country to detect potentially nefarious activity, including any smuggled nuclear bombs. According to testimony submitted to a June 2014 Senate homeland security committee hearing, in 2001 Customs and Border Patrol had none of the big scanners — known as radiation portal monitors — that spot radiological hazards. By 2014, it had 1,387 at ports across the country, able to screen 99 percent of incoming cargo, essentially meeting the post-9/11 Congressional mandate that 100 percent of incoming shipping containers be scanned.But these scanners require expensive maintenance and have a lifespan of 10 to 13 years, meaning those deployed after 9/11 will soon need to be replaced. Many ports don’t have the cash. “There’s a lot about the border wall, but we’re borders as well,” said April Danos, director of information technology at the Greater Lafourche Port Commission in Louisiana. The grants enable ports like Lafourche to install pricey security systems they wouldn’t have been able to afford, and to perform costly maintenance to keep systems operational. “Those budget cuts would impact us greatly,” said Danos. “We would not be able to maintain these systems.”The possible gutting of the grant program has port operators around the country up in arms. On June 12, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) sent a letter calling on eight leading lawmakers to fully fund the grant program, highlighting that it is crucial in “helping seaports harden security and protect these vital transportation hubs and maritime borders.”Congress needs to be reminded that “ports are international borders,” said John Young, director of freight and surface transportation policy at the AAPA, in a phone interview with Foreign Policy. Used in collaboration with local law enforcement, said Young, port security grants “can do anything from fencing to cyber security assessments, to installing cyber equipment to purchasing equipment to help secure ports.”Without the grant money, it’s not clear how ports and operators will be able to fully address ongoing vulnerabilities or identify new ones.“It’s a big deal for us,” said Danos. “The gaps are going to be left wide open.”Chris Hondros/Getty Images

The First Nuclear Attack Will Be In LA (Revelation 14)

Effect of Nuclear Blast at Port Would Be National

August 16, 2006|Greg Krikorian | Times Staff Writer

A nuclear explosion at the Port of Long Beach would have catastrophic consequences for the United States, killing 60,000 people immediately, exposing 150,000 more to hazardous radiation and causing 10 times the economic loss resulting from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, according to a long-awaited study released Tuesday.

Two years in the making, the detailed analysis by the Rand Corp.’s Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy paints a terrifying picture not only of the possibility of such an attack but of its immediate and long-term effects on Southern California, the nation and the global economy.

“It would be bad enough if a terrorist organization were ever able to get a nuclear device inside the boundaries of the United States,” said Michael A. Wermuth, director of Rand’s homeland security research. “But this report shows that an attack of this scale can have far-reaching implications beyond the actual point of the attack itself.”

The study examined the effects of terrorists concealing a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb in a shipping container and having the weapon explode shortly after it was unloaded onto a pier at the Port of Long Beach.

Within the first 72 hours, according to the study, the blast would “devastate a vast portion of the Los Angeles metropolitan area.”

In addition to the human casualties, the report says, the blast and subsequent fires might destroy the infrastructure and all ships in the Port of Long Beach and adjoining Port of Los Angeles, which combined comprise the nation’s busiest port of entry and handle about one-third of the nation’s imports.

If the attack led to the closure of all U.S. ports as a security measure, the report says, the ripple effect would be global since the value of imports and exports from American ports represents about 7.5% of world trade activity.

Additionally, the study says, 2 million to 3 million people might need to relocate because the nuclear fallout would contaminate a wide swath of the region. And the destruction of port area refineries, responsible for a third of the gas west of the Rockies, could create critical shortages of gasoline.

“It would take years to recover economically” from such an attack, Wermuth said. “It would take any number of years before some of the area close to ground zero could be rebuilt, and some of it would not be habitable for 20 years.”

The report is the latest to address concerns about the vulnerability of the nation’s ports nearly five years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Wermuth emphasized, however, that the study was not meant to predict that such an attack was likely.

Rather, he said, it was to analyze the potential consequences of a terrorist event “so all the various entities, both government and private, can see how dependent the broader economy is on a geographically specific part of the economy.”

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) echoed Wermuth’s comments about the scenario.

“The report does not estimate the likelihood of such an attack,” said Harman, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

But it does underscore “the need to radically improve security at our ports,” Harman said, calling the ports “a gaping hole in American security for years.”

China Plans Nuclear Attack Against Los Angeles (Daniel 7)

That time China’s state media ran an article about nuclear strikes against Los Angeles

Jeremy Bender
Jun. 7, 2016, 1:37 PM

China Nuclear Attack LA Screenshot/origin.www.uscc.gov A map published by a state-sponsored Chinese newspaper showing a nuclear strike against Los Angeles.

China has entertained the threat of nuclear strikes against west coast cities such as Los Angeles and Seattle, a 2014 annual congressional report from the US China Economic and Security Review Commission states.

According to the report, a Chinese newspaper sponsored by the Communist Party ran an article in November 2013 about the possibilities of nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) strikes against much of the US’s Pacific coast. In the scenario imagined by the newspaper, China’s new JIN ballistic missile submarine could act as an ultimate deterrent to any hostile US foreign policy.
[T]he 12 JL-2 nuclear missiles carried by one JIN nuclear submarine could cause the destruction of five million to 12 million people, forming a very clear deterrent effect. There is not a dense population in the United States’ Midwest region, so to increase the destructive effect, the main soft targets for nuclear destruction in the United States will be the main cities on the west coast, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.

China has made similar veiled threats against US involvement in their backyard issues before. During the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995 to 1996, Chinese Lieutenant General Xiong Guangkai told the US assistant secretary of defense that “Americans care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan.”

However, threats from China today carry more weight than they did during the 1990s. According to an executive summary of the report, China’s nuclear ICBM stockpile capable of reaching the US will likely expand to over 100 missiles within the next 15 years.

Simultaneously, China is putting finishing touches on a fleet of road-mobile ICBMs, the DF-41. The DF-41 will be capable of carrying up to 10 missiles that would each have a maximum range of 7,456 miles. This range would allow China to target the entirety of the continental US and it is expected to be ready within the year.

According to the executive summary, these capabilities are being produced to deter any unwanted US military action as Washington pivots its forces towards the Pacific. In practice, these new nuclear capabilities are providing “Beijing with a more extensive range of military and foreign policy options and potentially weakening U.S. extended deterrence, particularly with respect to Japan.”

China’s Navy is already expected to outpace the US’s in sheer size by 2020. And Beijing’s recently unveiled missile, the DF-26, has enough range to hit US assets in Guam from the US mainland.

These developments do not mean that China and the US are destined for conflict. However, China’s ballistic capabilities point to the possibility of a Cold War-style nuclear standoff between Beijing and the US that would minimize the US’s ability to militarily pressure China.

A Second Warning “UFO” Sent To China (Daniel 7)

Second nuclear missile test launched by Navy as U.S. Defense Secretary confirms warning message to America’s enemies

Tuesday, November 10, 2015
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

 

(NaturalNews) To the astonishment of Californians, the U.S. Navy has now launched a second thermonuclear missile over Los Angeles. “The second test launch of the Trident II (D5) missile from a ballistic submarine in the Pacific Ocean took place Monday afternoon,” reports the LA Times. As Natural News readers know, two days ago I exhaustively documented the escalation of the covert war between the United States and a Russian-Chinese partnership. The Trident missile launch, I explained, was a “warning shot” against Russia and China:

Last night’s test launch of the Trident missile over Orange County was staged near a high population area for a tactical reason: To have as many witnesses (and videos) as possible, sending a very visible warning message to China that says, “We can destroy you if you don’t back off.”

Russia and China, I explained, are partnering for a “massive first strike” against the United States, involving cyber attacks, economic attacks, missile attacks against US Navy warships and even the possibility of EMP weapons that attack America’s power grid infrastructure.

As published in the LA Times, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter all but said the missile launches are a warning against global aggressors: (bolding added)

The submarine missile test came late Saturday after Defense Secretary Ashton Carter addressed a defense forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley about the U.S. “adapting our operational posture and contingency plans” to deter Russia’s “aggression.”

“We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia,” he said to the forum. “We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake; the United States will defend our interests, our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords us all.”

In other words, these missile launches are a warning to America’s enemies, sending the irrefutable message that we can nuke your cities if you provoke us.

America’s enemies are posturing toward war

The very fact that the United States feels it necessary to send such a message is proof that America’s enemies are posturing for war. It’s the geopolitical equivalent of a dog growling when another dog gets too close to his bowl of food. But this growl costs U.S. taxpayers at least $31 million per missile, and that doesn’t even include all the support services and personnel needed to prepare, launch and recover them.

Trident missiles, by the way, have a range of over 4,000 nautical miles. As reference, Honolulu and Beijing are approximately 4400 nautical miles apart. This means a U.S. submarine armed with Trident missiles could launch a nuclear strike on Beijing, China, from anywhere in the mid-Pacific Ocean. (It’s the ultimate tactical deterrent.)

It is my opinion that U.S. nuclear submarines are right now the single most important factor preventing China and Russia from escalating their war actions against America. Not only does America have the technical expertise to nuke enemy cities, it has already proven it is willing to drop atomic bombs on civilian populations in order to protect its national interests. If you refute that this has ever happened, you are ignorant of history and probably need to review World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What does the U.S. Navy know about Russia and China that we’re not being told?

There it is, positioned in the sky over San Francisco! This missile, interestingly enough, was spotted by people all over California and even Arizona. Some people claimed to have seen it from Colorado, and believe it or not, a few online comments claimed to have spotted it from Hawaii. If these comments are true, it means the Trident missile must have achieved a very high altitude to be visible from so far away.

LA left vulnerable to a nuclear attack (Rev 15:2)

  

Dangerous Decisio Could Leave Californians Vulnerable After Nuclear Disaster
By Joel Grover and Matthew Glasser

Housed in a nondescript office park in Las Vegas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has an elite team of radiation experts trained to respond to a nuclear disaster. One of their most important tools is a Mobile Environmental Radiation Lab known as the “MERL.”

A set of three large vehicles, the MERL can be in Southern California in a matter of hours after a terrorist attack or nuclear accident. And it allows the radiation response team to quickly identify and track dangerous radiation spreading across the region.

Residents Angry At Flier Singling Out Minorities

“The laboratory would be used to make emergency response decisions as to where people are okay to go, and where they can’t go,” explains Richard Flotard, a retired EPA radiation chemist

But the NBC4 I-Team has obtained an EPA internal memo explaining that the agency is moving the mobile lab from Las Vegas to Alabama, leaving the state far removed from what California’s Office of Emergency Services calls a “first response” tool in the case of nuclear attack or accident.

Priest Convicted of Sexually Assaulting Woman

Homeland Security officials have long worried that the port of LA, or downtown LA, could be a prime target for terrorists to detonate a nuclear device.

The EPA says it plans to move the lab to Montgomery, Alabama, home of another EPA radiation facility, this summer because of “tight resources.” That means the lab would have to drive across 7 states, taking 4-6 days for it to get to California in case of a nuclear event

“Leaving the western U.S. without this critical resource will increase response time to our state, jeopardizing our combined ability to adequately protect the public” during a nuclear disaster, said Jennifer Chappelle of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services in a letter to the EPA.
Dr. Vern Hodge, a radiation scientist at the University of Nevada Las Vegas who has been studying radiation for decades, told NBC4 that “it’s a criminal act if you remove this rapid response unit from the west coast.”

The EPA’s official in charge of the mobile radiation lab, Mike Flynn, defended his decision to save money and move the lab to Alabama to be housed at another EPA office.

“Our view is that it (the lab) is not part of a first response. That it comes in later, and that there are other assets, particularly with the Department of Energy that are brought in, in the first days of a response,” Flynn told NBC4.

California’s Office of Emergency Services disagrees. “State and local governments consider these lab systems as first response assets,” says Chappelle in her letter. And she writes that California “strongly objects” to the decision to move the lab.

But the EPA’s Flynn told NBC4 he’s moving ahead with his decision to move the lab to Alabama, where there’s already a second mobile radiation lab. He plans to take that lab out of service, leaving the entire U.S. with only one mobile radiation lab in case of nuclear disasters.

“If you move this asset, they are on purpose jeopardizing the lives of people,” UNLV’s radiation scientist Dr. Hodge told NBC4.