Mortgages Available For the End

Mortgages available for nuclear fallout shelters

Nikki Knewstub

Friday 28 April 2017 00.00 EDT

Building Societies are trying to ensure that some of their customers will be left come the nuclear day of reckoning.

The majority of major societies, it seems, are quite happy to lend money for the building of fallout shelters. Such buildings have had a spectacular revival this year.
A spokesman for the Woolwich said: “We would rather lend money on a shelter than on a swimming pool. It would be considered an improvement or extension to the property.”

But those with swimming pools already being built need not worry. The manufacturer of a DIY shelter, which retails, for £1,200 plus VAT reckons that a swimming pool (empty) would be the ideal place in which to erect a shelter.

Mr Bill Jones, the company’s sales director, said one of the problems after a nuclear attack could well be people without shelters trying to take over the shelters of the more provident.

It was for this reason he suggested that his shelter be kept parcelled up, so that the neighbourhood nasties did not know it existed. “Any nuclear war will be preceded by days or at least hours of traditional warfare.” he said.

“This would give someone with a shelter plenty of warning to get it up. A swimming pool is a very good place. All you need is a wooden base and sandbags.”

The Abbey National said it had no objection in principle to a loan for a shelter, provided it was more solid than the instant variety.

A spokesman for the Inland Revenue said that whether a borrower could claim tax relief on such an investment would be up to individual tax inspectors, who would have to decide if the shelter constituted a genuine improvement.

Korea Fires Another Missile

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un watches a military drill marking the 85th anniversary of the establishment of the Korean People's Army (KPA) in this handout photo by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) made available on April 26, 2017. KCNA/Handout via REUTERS

North Korea test-fires ballistic missile in defiance of world pressure

By Jack Kim and Michelle Nichols | SEOUL/UNITED NATIONS

SEOUL/UNITED NATIONS North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile on Saturday, South Korea’s and U.S. militaries said, defying intense pressure from the United States and the reclusive state’s main ally, China.

U.S. and South Korean officials said the test, from an area north of the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, appeared to have failed, in what would be a fourth successive unsuccessful missile test since March.

The test came as U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned the U.N. Security Council that failure to curb North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs could lead to “catastrophic consequences”.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the missile was probably a medium-range weapon known as a KN-17 and appears to have broken up within minutes of taking off.

South Korea’s military said the missile, fired from the Pukchang region in a northeasterly direction, reached an altitude of 71 km (44 miles) before disintegrating a few minutes into flight.

The North has been conducting missile and nuclear weapons related activities at an unprecedented rate since the beginning of the year and is believed to have made some progress in developing intermediate-range and submarine-launched missiles.

Tension had spiked on the Korean peninsula over concern the North may conduct a long-range missile test, or its sixth nuclear test, around the time of the April 15 anniversary of its state founder’s birth, or the day marking the founding of its military this week.

The timing of the launch suggested it was calculated to send a message as North Korea remained under the scrutiny of world powers, said Kim Dong-yub, an expert at Kyungnam University’s Institute of Far Eastern Studies in Seoul.

“It was planned at a complicated timing around the end of the South Korea-U.S. joint military drills, the United States talking about military options and the announcement of North Korea policies and the Security Council meeting,” Kim said.

South Korean and U.S. forces have been conducting annual military drills since the beginning of March that conclude at the end of April.

Kim said North Korea might have obtained the data it wanted with the missile’s short flight, then blown it up in the air.

U.S. President Donald Trump told Reuters in an interview on Thursday North Korea was his biggest global challenge and a “major, major conflict” with it was possible over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Trump said and he praised Chinese leader Xi Jinping for “trying very hard” to rein it in.

“North Korea disrespected the wishes of China & its highly respected President when it launched, though unsuccessfully, a missile today. Bad!,” Trump said in a post on Twitter after the launch.

In a show of force, the United States is sending the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier group to waters off the Korean peninsula, where it will join the USS Michigan, a nuclear submarine that docked in South Korea on Tuesday.


The Trump administration could respond to the latest missile test by speeding up its plans for new U.S. sanctions, including possible measures against specific North Korean and Chinese entities, a U.S. official told Reuters.

“Something that’s ready to go could be taken from the larger package and expedited,” said the official, who declined to be identified.

The launch could also give Trump leverage to press the Chinese to do more to rein in the North, the official added.

Earlier, both China and Russia rebuked a U.S. threat of military force at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on North Korea.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the 15-member council it was not only up to China to solve the North Korean problem.

“The key to solving the nuclear issue on the peninsula does not lie in the hands of the Chinese side,” Wang told the council in blunt remarks that Tillerson later rebuffed.

The U.N. Security Council is likely to start discussing a statement to condemn the missile launch, said diplomats, adding that it was unlikely to be issued on Friday. The Security Council traditionally condemns all missile launches by Pyongyang.

Such routine condemnation and a series of sanctions resolutions since 2006, when North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, have done little to impede its push for ballistic missiles and nuclear arms.

“It could have happened today exactly because we had the meeting,” Italian U.N. Ambassador Sebastiano Cardi, chair of the Security Council’s North Korean sanctions committee, told reporters when hearing of the test. “It’s illegal, it should not be done, it’s another provocative action by North Korea.”

Japan condemned the launch as absolutely unacceptable and a violation of U.N. resolutions. There was no immediate reaction from China.

(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul, Idrees Ali in Washington, Malcolm Foster in Tokyo and Lesley Wroughton at the United Nations; Editing Lincoln Feast, Robert Birsel)

USA’s Fukushima At The Sixth Seal (Rev 6)


Recent series of Indian Point shutdowns worst in years

Ernie Garcia,

BUCHANAN — Four unplanned reactor shutdowns over a two-month period at Indian Point are the most setbacks the nuclear power plant has experienced in years.

A review of unplanned shutdowns from January 2012 to the present showed this year’s events happened within a short time frame, between May 7 and July 8, in contrast with events from other years that were more spread out, according to data released by Indian Point.

So many mishaps at the Entergy-owned plant haven’t occurred since 2009, when one of two units at the Buchanan site experienced a similar series, said plant spokesman Jerry Nappi.

Besides a May 9 transformer failure that spilled some 3,000 gallons of oil into the Hudson River, this year’s shutdowns were prompted by a May 7 steam leak, a July 8 pump motor failure and a June 15 switch yard breaker failure offsite in a Consolidated Edison substation.

If a nuclear plant has more than three unplanned shutdowns in a nine-month period, its performance indicator could be changed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which results in additional oversight. That’s what happened with Entergy’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., after four unplanned shutdowns in 2013.

So far, Entergy said there doesn’t appear to be a pattern to the Indian Point shutdowns.
“You do want to look at these events holistically to see if there is something in common, but you also look individually to see what the causes were,” Nappi said. “A plant shutdown in and of itself is not a safety issue.”

One of the four recent Buchanan shutdowns triggered a special inspection by the NRC and calls to close the nuclear plant by environmental groups and elected officials. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said in the past Indian Point should close, but his office did not respond to a request for comment about whether the recent shutdowns have prompted any state scrutiny.

The NRC is expected to release a quarterly report on Indian Point this month that will address the transformer failure and, by year’s end, is planning an inspection of the transformer and an analysis of transformer issues since 2007.

Besides its transformer-related inquiries, the other three shutdowns have not raised “any immediate safety concerns or crossed any thresholds that would result in additional NRC oversight,” agency spokesman Neil Sheehan wrote in an email.

The unplanned shutdowns at Indian Point and Pilgrim in Massachusetts were mostly preventable, said Paul Blanch, a former Indian Point employee with 45 years of nuclear power experience.
“For this to happen this frequently indicates a deeper problem,” he said. “I believe it’s management oversight in the maintenance of these plants.”

Nappi said the transformer that failed May 9 and caused a fire and oil spill into the Hudson was regularly monitored. Investigators determined the failure was due to faulty insulation.

“The transformer inspection and reviews were in accordance with our standards and industry expectations, yet there was no indication the transformer was going to fail,” Nappi said.
The NRC conducted a separate, but related special inspection into the May 9 incident that focused on a half-inch of water that collected in an electrical switchgear room floor. Inspectors determined a fire suppression system’s valve failed to close properly.

Inspectors noted in their report that Entergy knew about that problem since April 2011 and replaced the valve but didn’t discover the actual cause — a dysfunctional switch — until after the fire.

Indian Point’s Unit 3 was down 19 days May through July, with the transformer failure accounting for 16 days. The shutdowns didn’t cause the public any supply problems because New York’s grid can import electricity from other states and New York has an energy plan to maintain reliability, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The nuclear energy industry judges a power plant on how continuously it produces energy, which is called a capacity factor.

There were 100 nuclear plants in the United States in 2014, a record year in terms of efficiency. In January, the Nuclear Energy Institute announced the U.S. average capacity factor was 91.9 percent.
Indian Point has an above-average efficiency rate. The plant’s Unit 2 and 3 reactors were each online more than 99 percent of the time during their most recent two-year operating cycles. They are currently in the middle of other cycles.

Iran Deal Empowered the Iranian Horn (Daniel 8:4)

After excoriating the Obama administration’s deal with Iran as “the worst deal ever made in history,” Trump told a small group of conservative journalists meeting with him Monday night that the government of Ayatollah Khamenei was “on the verge of collapse” until the lifting of U.S. sanctions saved it.

But press secretary Sean Spicer told Newsmax that the reason there was currently an “interagency process” to look at the deal was to ascertain if in fact it kept the mullahs from being overthrown.

Trump did not provide any details for his charge. “Is this based on intelligence reports he’s received, or other information?” I asked Spicer on Tuesday.

“I’m not going to get into what the president knows,” Spicer replied, “but there is a reason that we are undergoing an interagency process right now to look at the deal.”

A spokesman for a leading Iranian exile group in the U.S. told me it agreed with the asertion that the ending of sanctions and stepped-up trade in Iran are keeping the Tehran regime in power.

“There’s no dispute that Western political and economic concessions have kept the Iranian regime afloat to this day,” said Ali Safavi, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is dedicated to the establishment of a democratic, secular and non-nuclear republic in Iran.

“Were it not for the mullahs taking advantage of regional conflicts and the West’s lenient approach to Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, the regime could not have survived,” added Safavi. “This explains why after the imposition of United Nations, and especially the U.S., economic sanctions, supreme leader Ali Khamenei, fearful of the prospects of another uprising by an increasingly restive and enraged population, had no choice but to crawl to the negotiating table to secure some sanctions relief in return for temporary restrictions on its nuclear program.”

Safavi added, “the previous administration’s easing of the sanctions enabled the regime to preserve its balance. Firmness, ending uranium enrichment and evicting the regime from Syria, Iraq and Yemen will lay bare the mullahs’ vulnerability.”

John Gizzi is chief political columnist and White House correspondent for Newsmax.

Too Late To Stop Babylon the Great (Daniel 8)

Two to Tango With Nuclear Weapons

Peter D. Zimmerman Contributor

Two to Tango With Nuclear Weapons

(Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone/Getty Images)

Somewhere in the American southwest, not so very far from civilization, there is a fenced and guarded compound within another fenced and guarded compound in the distant reaches of a large military base. I won’t hint at its location, but it does show up on web searches if you know what to look for. Beneath the fence is a vault where nuclear weapons wait on transport dollies tended by highly trained technicians, each with Department of Energy “Q” security clearances, the ones that give the holder access to the deepest secrets of nuclear weapons. The techs have demonstrated that they are loyal, trustworthy and reliable Air Force members.

On any given day two of them may select a bomb and wheel it out of its cage to a large work room. Another pair of technicians attaches a harness to the city buster and uses a crane to lift the weapon by its tail until it hangs free. After carefully making certain that the weapon cannot possibly explode, they approach it as casually as a Maytag repairman working on a broken washer. They deftly replace components beyond their use-by dates, batteries and the like, and verify the bomb meets factory specs. The weapon is then buttoned up, lowered and two airmen return it to its storage location.

Two, always two, people. No unaccompanied person ever approaches a nuclear weapon. It’s a basic precaution against theft, misuse or sabotage and is not unique to the nuclear weapons world, nor to the United States.

Under the prairies of Montana or the Dakotas underground bunkers are buried adjacent to a bomb-proof silo containing a Minuteman intercontinental missile. Two Air Force officers occupy two somewhat shabby chairs mounted so that an atomic blast won’t eject their occupants. In front of each officer is a lock. Each launch officer carries a key. The locks are spaced so that one person cannot possibly turn both keys within the few seconds the computer will allow. But if both keys turn simultaneously, a blast door swings out of the ground, and the Minuteman missile leaves its silo on a one way trip. It takes two people at every step, from decoding the message that rattles in on the teletype machine, to checking its contents for the authentication message, to making final adjustments.

Somewhere under the ocean a missile submarine receives a message. The captain and his executive officer separately decode and authenticate it.

It always requires two people, two separate actions, to launch, steal, sabotage or tinker with an atomic warhead. This is the inviolable two person rule intended to prevent misuse of a nuclear weapon. It has been that way since the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was loaded into the Enola Gay to force an end to World War II.

But the system deliberately breaks down at the single point where failure would be catastrophic. Only one person need act in order to launch all American nuclear weapons. The president. There is no two-person rule for ordering a strike. Nobody except the president needs to agree; nobody in the chain from president to launch officer has authority to question the order. If the president orders a launch, the system executes it. The service members involved may have their doubts, but years of military training have conditioned them that even this order must be obeyed.

Since 1941 American strategic thinking has been held hostage to the memory of Pearl Harbor. The Roosevelt Administration and the Japanese government were in negotiations to settle their disputes peacefully, but even while his emissaries were talking in Washington the Japanese emperor’s aircraft carriers were turning into the wind to launch the bombers that would sink many warships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The U.S. Navy was left practically disarmed in just half an hour or so.

The United States vowed that never again would a potential enemy be able to launch a surprise attack to which this country could not respond instantly and in kind.

This made sense during the height of the Cold War when the United States, terrified by the prospect of a nuclear Pearl Harbor, sought to ensure that a counter strike could not be thwarted by a clumsy decision-making process that would require more time than the country expected to have. A missile from a submarine hiding off our East Coast could destroy Washington less than 12 minutes after its launch.

A satellite or a radar would spot the missile. The president would be told that one or more nuclear missiles was heading our way. A field-grade officer toting the portable nuclear launch control system, the “football,” would show the president his options, and the president would pull out his credit card-like authenticator, the “biscuit,” select his response from a menu, give the order, and use the biscuit to prove his identity. Everything else is automatic, and there is no legal way to countermand or stop its execution.

At least twice the Soviet Union and the United States have come very close to launching nuclear weapons based on the warnings provided by radar and satellite systems. A Soviet officer did not pass a notification of a rocket launch to the Kremlin at a time he knew that tensions between the powers were minimal. A good thing; it was not a nuclear missile but a small scientific rocket launched from a Norwegian island and carrying an innocent payload. The Soviets had been notified in advance of the launch, but somehow the message was lost.

Bad weather has sometimes fooled American defenses into thinking that a flight of geese was actually a nuclear missile, and only good judgment stopped the alert in its tracks. But human intervention is only legal going up the chain to the president. It’s ruled out if the president sends down a message ordering a launch, even if he or she is mistaken.

Nor is there any way at all to stop a drunk president, an angered and offended president, an insane one, or merely a bored and curious one from simply ordering the opening of the football and the launch of one or more nuclear weapons. This is true for all presidents. My argument is not intended to single out the current president as less reliable than his predecessors; it is equally applicable to every person with a finger on the button, past or future as well as present.

If it were still plausible that nuclear catastrophe could come as a bolt from the blue, a massive launch by another country when the world is generally at peace and no flash points active, maybe the hair trigger still in place would make sense.

However, it is clear that the Pentagon no longer believes in a nuclear Pearl Harbor.

During the Cold War the U.S. had several ways to ensure that an order to launch would get through, and that if there were no one left alive in Washington to give the order, a flag or general officer could still launch missiles and fight a war. “The Looking Glass” aircraft, a heavily modified Boeing 707, slowly orbited high above the central United States. In the event of nuclear war, and if the president was out of contact for a (top secret) period, the airborne commander would open his sealed orders and take charge of a nuclear response previously selected by the president. The Glass was airborne 24/7, 365 days a year, without a break from February 3, 1961 until July 24, 1990 when the last continuous airborne command mission landed at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The planes remain, the mission to assume command in case of nuclear catastrophe still formally exists, but the aircraft normally sit on the ground.

The Navy had a similar plan. The TACAMO (Take Charge and Move Out) aircraft could order the launch of submarine-based missiles. TACAMO and Looking Glass missions have been combined; neither mission is on constant airborne alert.

Today, the United States does not even contemplate a nuclear Pearl Harbor; if it did, Looking Glass and TACAMO would still be flying. The truth lies in operations, not declarations.

The leaders of North Korea might launch their missiles, but for the foreseeable future they can’t reach our command centers. And in any event, for many years to come they will have too few weapons to decapitate our government. Still other potential nuclear proliferators, Iran perhaps, might conceivably threaten a nuclear attack. But again they will not be capable of immobilizing our deterrent forces. Both Russia and China could strike at our forces, but both would almost certainly give political warning that our relations had deteriorated to where a war was plausible.

Nobody in authority believes that the president will have to order a nuclear strike in a matter of minutes. Time for consultation will certainly exist. There is no reason to take the risk that an unstable president could order up nuclear holocaust acting alone or that the commander in chief could misread warnings and stumble into war. It is time to change the law and procedures to provide a legal path to stop a rogue launch.

The goal is to ensure that no single person, acting on his or her sole authority, should be able to launch nuclear weapons. An essential part of the solution is that there is at least one person with the power to veto a launch who is not within the president’s inner circle and not subject to his pressure and even charisma.

There are many new laws and procedures that could achieve that goal; some are simple in concept – the secretary of defense could be authorized to become a “circuit breaker” to thwart a misguided launch order. Others may be too complex to implement in real life, for example requiring consultation with the Congressional leaders. And still others may be too complicated to enact in law or regulations. Some have suggested that the Cabinet be polled; and still other scholars advocate a three-man rule. It is a political question for our elected officials to decide with public input.

But the president and the Congress must work together now, ignoring partisanship, to prevent an accidental, or even an intentional nuclear holocaust. It is time to extend the two person rule to the top of the pyramid, so that not even the president can start a nuclear war alone.

Peter D. Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist, was chief scientific adviser of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the Bureau of Arms Control at the State Department. He also served as chief scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is professor emeritus of science and security in the Department of War Studies at Kings College London and lives in Northern Virginia.

Escalation In Asia Towards Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Narendar Modi. PHOTO: AFP

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Narendar Modi. PHOTO: AFP

Narendra Modi’s current belligerent policy towards Pakistan is directed at isolating it internationally, pressuring it to give up support on Kashmir and simultaneously destabilising it through a network of spies. In the light of this ominous development, India’s emerging nuclear doctrine being promoted by its leading strategists is both a provocative signal and political challenge for Pakistan’s establishment.

What are the salient features of this doctrine? India is apparently abandoning its No First Use nuclear policy. This obviously is no revelation, as Pakistan’s establishment never based its nuclear strategy on this assumption. It always maintained that this “benign” nuclear posture was more for international consumption and less a reality. Moreover, it was also indicative of the confidence that India had in its conventional military superiority over Pakistan.

There was another Indian presumption that in the event of a terrorist attack emanating from Pakistan it could apply its Cold Start doctrine. Although its parameters were never clearly defined, it envisaged a mini-blitzkrieg tactical operation with special forces penetrating deep into Pakistani territory and destroying militant camps or their hideouts and retreating back to their base. When Pakistan developed its tactical nuclear weapons as an antidote to Cold Start, the doctrine went into cold storage and the new doctrine is taking shape. The broad features of it recently appeared in The New York Times in which the statements made by former National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, retired India’s Strategic Forces Commander, Gen BS Nagal and the former defence minister Manohar Parrikar during a seminar were quoted. The crux of this new thinking is that India is confident it can destroy in its first massive retaliatory strike Pakistan’s entire nuclear assets. According to Indian sources, Vipin Narang of MIT echoed previously similar views more than a year ago. What it implies that the Indian threat of a nuclear response has to be credible to be taken seriously by its adversary Pakistan. Additional point made during this seminar is that India is shifting to counter force targeting as opposed to the previous doctrine of counter value targeting.

These developments will further trigger an arms race as Pakistan will make certain that it holds sufficient stocks and spread them across a wide geographical area and several storage facilities. Of course that has its consequences requiring increased vigilance and ensuring compatibility with international standards of safety and security. Nonetheless, it will give Western countries and think tanks an additional reason to keep lop-sided pressure on Pakistan to reduce production of fissile material and abandon tactical nuclear weapons. But one can safely assume there will not be a word of restraint for India.

In a world where double standards thrive it is not strange that while US advises restraint to Pakistan and gets closer as a strategic ally of India, it also continues to modernise and increase the technological sophistication of its own nuclear arsenal to outbid Russia.

India, it seems, is developing nuclear posture trying to convince Pakistan that it cannot use the nuclear threat to prevent it from retaliating in the event of a terrorist attack on its soil by Pakistani militant groups. Pakistan conversely, while rejecting No First Use, is preparing to ensure that it retains second strike capability under all circumstances.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in 2008 under US pressure exempted India from requirement for application of comprehensive safeguards to access civil nuclear technologies. What’s striking is that it imposed no constraints on its nuclear programme. This removed all barriers and restrictions that strictly apply to nuclear trade while dealing with non-NPT members. This obviously was a huge setback to the non-proliferation regime. The same exemption continues to be denied to Pakistan on the basis of its previous non-proliferation record. Although the AQ Khan affair is now history and Pakistan is fully complying with international standards of nuclear safety and security. General Musharraf’s adventurism in Kargil is another frequently quoted episode to maintain the status quo.

In a recent seminar organised by the Strategic Vision Institute Pakistan’s former ambassador to the UN in Geneva Zamir Akram stated: “We are not talking of parity with India we are looking for proportionality, we are looking for a survivable second strike capability”. Pakistan has been fully aware of India’s designs and taking every possible measure to ensure the survivability of its nuclear assets and effectiveness of its second strike capability. Indian policy-makers should realise that the very concept of expecting to wipe out Pakistan’s entire nuclear assets would not only be unrealistic but highly dangerous with catastrophic consequences for the region. India’s new thinking reflects its growing reliance on nuclear weapons in strategic planning. It augurs a dangerous trend that reflects its desperation in dealing with Pakistan that requires political and diplomatic solutions and cannot be resolved through nuclear bulldozing.

Moreover, India has also taken the cover of strategic rivalry with China for expanding its nuclear arsenal. This posture has served it well for gaining support of Washington and its Western allies.

Irrespective of the doctrine adopted by India it is clear that deteriorating relations between the nuclear-armed neighbors on issues of Kashmir and terrorism increase the risk of conflict and raises the possibility of deterrence failure. The irony is that whereas India and Pakistan modernise and beef up their nuclear inventories it further freezes the issue of Kashmir and prevents them from addressing terrorism.

In this scenario, it would be unrealistic to expect that India or Pakistan would be amenable to slowing down fissile production or reduction in their arsenals or even contemplating placing any form of restriction on the development of delivery systems. The security establishments in India and Pakistan consider the nuclearisation of their countries the greatest achievement for guaranteeing the integrity and security of their respective countries. It has become the symbol of power and prestige. To reverse it in scale and its scope would require a complete shift in security and policy paradigm, which appears nowhere in sight.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 26th, 2017.

Saudi Arabia About To Become A Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Image result for saudi nuclear weaponsSaudi Arabia to Obtain Arms, Nuclear Technology in McMaster-Orchestrated Deal

Saudi Arabia will obtain a massive weapons arsenal and missile defense system in a deal pushed by H.R. McMaster, Gary Cohn, and Dina Powell. Under this deal, which is set to be announced in May, Saudia Arabia will obtain technology to build civilian nuclear reactors.

President Trump has expressed skepticism of this deal despite continued pressure from McMaster, Cohn, and Powell.

Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, who has ties to terrorists, once called President Trump a “disgrace to all America.”

Sources suggest that McMaster, Cohn, and Powell seek the Saudi’s good graces as part of their larger plan to involve the U.S. in another ground war in Syria. “These guys want a ground war,” one person with knowledge about the matter said, “whether that’s in Syria or Iraq doesn’t matter. This is Petraeus’ second war.

Among the big winners in this Saudi arms deal would be former CIA director David Petraeus. Petraeus, who had his security clearance pulled after leaking classified information to his mistress, has nightly calls with McMaster. The nightly calls between Petraus and McMaster are facilitated by the White House situation room.

Sources close to situation room personnel reported that they are tired of “playing secretary” for McMaster, and that “Petraus had his clearance pulled. These calls are probably illegal.”

Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner, despite fake news reports about a feud, are against the McMaster-Cohn-Powell plan. Stephen Miller and Wilbur Ross also oppose arming the Saudis. Derek Harvey, Joel Rayburn, and other Petraeus proteges support the arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

Former employees from Harvey’s office, who were dismissed in early April, have complained about harassment.

One former employee has obtained legal counsel and is in the process of filing a harassment lawsuit against Harvey.

— — —

Mike Cernovich is the journalist who broke the Susan Rice unmasking scandal and first reported that H.R. McMaster wants a massive U.S.-led ground force in Syria.

Russia Threatens to Wipe UK Off the Face of the Earth

The United Kingdom would be “wiped off the face of the earth” if the country elects to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons against Russia, a senior Russian politician said Monday, highlighting the unmistakeable tension between Russia and western governments.

Responding to a British defense minister’s suggestion that proactively using nuclear weapons against Russia could be an option, Russia’s Frants Klintsevich said the U.K. would be “literally wiped off the face of the Earth by a counter-strike.”

Klintsevich heads the defense and security committee in Moscow’s upper house of parliament.

Klintsevich was responding to comments made by British Defense Minister Michael Fallon, who told a radio show that the U.K. could consider the strike amid recent heightened tensions between Russia and western governments.

Fallon said: “In the most extreme circumstances, we’ve made it very clear that you can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike.”

“The whole point about the deterrent,” he added, “is that you have got to leave uncertainty in the mind of anybody who might be thinking of using weapons against this country.”

Fallon said that the U.K.’s military would use its Trident nuclear program only in extenuating circumstances, although those scenarios were not specified.

“In the best case this statement can be seen as a form of psychological warfare, which in this context is particularly disgusting,” Klintsevich said in response, according to Newsweek.

Western military alliance NATO and Russia have recently accused one another of military provocations as they continue to participate in parallel arms escalations.

1884 A Forewarning Of The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

The Coney Island earthquake of 1884

Seismograph of New York Earthquake 1884

Seismograph of New York Earthquake 1884

January 20, 2010

New York City isn’t immune to earthquakes; a couple of small tremors measuring about 2.5 on the Richter scale even struck back in 2001 and 2002.

But on August 10, 1884, a more powerful earthquake hit. Estimated from 4.9 to 5.5 in magnitude, the tremor made houses shake, chimneys fall, and residents wonder what the heck was going on, according to a New York Times article two days later.

The quake was subsequently thought to have been centered off Far Rockaway or Coney Island.

It wasn’t the first moderate quake, and it won’t be the last. In a 2008 Columbia University study, seismologists reported that the city is crisscrossed with several fault lines, one along 125th Street. 

[Headline of The New York Times, August 12, 1884]

With that in mind, New Yorkers should expect a 5.0 or higher earthquake centered here every 100 years, the seismologists say.

Translation: We’re about 30 years overdue. Lucky for us the city adopted earthquake-resistant building codes in 1995.

America Prepares For Nuclear War

An unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) has been launched from a US Air Force base in California to ensure its “effectiveness, readiness and accuracy,” and demonstrate “national nuclear capabilities,” according to the US military.

The Minuteman III missile test comes amid rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula, with a carrier strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson approaching North Korean waters. However, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Global Strike Command says the test was planned in advance and is not connected with the situation in North Korea, and the launches happen on regular basis, according to the Washington Examiner.

The launch is scheduled on Wednesday between 12:01am to 6:01am (0701GMT to 1301GMT) from North Vandenberg Air Force Base, according to the 30th Space Wing, which is conducting the test.

“These Minuteman launches are essential to verify the status of our national nuclear force and to demonstrate our national nuclear capabilities,” the commander of the unit, Colonel John Moss, said in a statement.

The test launch is aimed at validating and verifying “the effectiveness, readiness, and accuracy of the weapon system,” according to the Air Force Global Strike Command.

Despite the fact that the US military denied all connections of the launch with the tensions between Washington and Pyongyang, the drills have raised concerns and received criticism from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The organization accused the US of a “clear double standard,” and advocated for “diplomacy rather than military provocations,” said the foundation president, David Krieger, as cited by the Los Angeles Times.

“It views its own tests as justified and useful, while it views the tests of North Korea as threatening and destabilizing,” Krieger said, also warning of increasing danger of such moves.

He also tweeted that nuclear-capable missile tests are simply a waste of money.



However, the “lethal and ready” capability of the ICBM was praised as a signal for the US enemies following its successful simulated electronic firing on April 11.

“The Simulated Electronic Launch of a Minuteman III ICBM is a signal to the American people, our allies, and our adversaries that our ICBM capability is safe, secure, lethal and ready,” the 625th Strategic Operations Squadron commander, Lt. Col. Deane Konowicz, said in a statement.

Minuteman III ballistic missiles were initially deployed in 1970 and are approaching the end of their useful lifespan of 60 years. Washington has recently launched a massive trillion-dollar program to modernize, support, and maintain its nuclear air-land-sea triad, which also includes Ohio-class submarines and B-52 strategic bombers, over the next 30 years.