USGS Evidence Shows Power of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New Evidence Shows Power of East Coast Earthquakes Virginia Earthquake Triggered Landslides at Great Distances

Did You Feel the Virginia 2011 Earthquake?

Did You Feel the Virginia 2011 Earthquake?

Released: 11/6/2012 8:30:00 AM

USGS.gov

Earthquake shaking in the eastern United States can travel much farther and cause damage over larger areas than previously thought.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists found that last year’s magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia triggered landslides at distances four times farther—and over an area 20 times larger—than previous research has shown.

“We used landslides as an example and direct physical evidence to see how far-reaching shaking from east coast earthquakes could be,” said Randall Jibson, USGS scientist and lead author of this study. “Not every earthquake will trigger landslides, but we can use landslide distributions to estimate characteristics of earthquake energy and how far regional ground shaking could occur.”

“Scientists are confirming with empirical data what more than 50 million people in the eastern U.S. experienced firsthand: this was one powerful earthquake,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “Calibrating the distance over which landslides occur may also help us reach back into the geologic record to look for evidence of past history of major earthquakes from the Virginia seismic zone.”

This study will help inform earthquake hazard and risk assessments as well as emergency preparedness, whether for landslides or other earthquake effects.

This study also supports existing research showing that although earthquakes are less frequent in the East, their damaging effects can extend over a much larger area as compared to the western United States.

The research is being presented today at the Geological Society of America conference, and will be published in the December 2012 issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

The USGS found that the farthest landslide from the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 245 km (150 miles) from the epicenter. This is by far the greatest landslide distance recorded from any other earthquake of similar magnitude. Previous studies of worldwide earthquakes indicated that landslides occurred no farther than 60 km (36 miles) from the epicenter of a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.

“What makes this new study so unique is that it provides direct observational evidence from the largest earthquake to occur in more than 100 years in the eastern U.S,” said Jibson. “Now that we know more about the power of East Coast earthquakes, equations that predict ground shaking might need to be revised.”

It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. population could have felt last year’s earthquake in Virginia, more than any earthquake in U.S. history. About 148,000 people reported their ground-shaking experiences caused by the earthquake on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website. Shaking reports came from southeastern Canada to Florida and as far west as Texas.

In addition to the great landslide distances recorded, the landslides from the 2011 Virginia earthquake occurred in an area 20 times larger than expected from studies of worldwide earthquakes. Scientists plotted the landslide locations that were farthest out and then calculated the area enclosed by those landslides. The observed landslides from last year’s Virginia earthquake enclose an area of about 33,400 km2, while previous studies indicated an expected area of about 1,500 km2 from an earthquake of similar magnitude.

“The landslide distances from last year’s Virginia earthquake are remarkable compared to historical landslides across the world and represent the largest distance limit ever recorded,” said Edwin Harp, USGS scientist and co-author of this study. “There are limitations to our research, but the bottom line is that we now have a better understanding of the power of East Coast earthquakes and potential damage scenarios.”

The difference between seismic shaking in the East versus the West is due in part to the geologic structure and rock properties that allow seismic waves to travel farther without weakening.

Learn more about the 2011 central Virginia earthquake.

US Finally Honest About Its Defenses

Russian servicemen watch the launch of the S-300 air defense system missile during the International Army Games 2016 at the Ashuluk military polygon outside Astrakhan, Russia, August 7, 2016.
© Maxim Shemetov/Reuters Russian servicemen watch the launch of the S-300 air defense system missile during the International Army Games 2016 at the Ashuluk military polygon outside Astrakhan, Russia, August 7, 2016.
The U.S. could be vulnerable in the face of the threat posed by nuclear-capable Russian cruise missiles deployed by Moscow last month, according to the head of the U.S. Strategic Command.Air Force Gen. John Hyten, who was the chief commander of the U.S. missile and nuclear warhead arsenal, told members of Congress Tuesday that Moscow’s deployment last month of at least two battalions of the SSC-8 cruise missile, also called the RK-55 Relief, violated a 1987 arms treaty and put most of Europe at risk. Hyten told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Moscow’s latest move left the U.S. and its NATO allies off guard.”We have no defense for it, especially in defense of our European allies,” Hyten told the Senate Armed Services Committee, according to the Agence France-Presse. “That system can range and threaten most of the continent of Europe depending on where it is deployed. … It is a concern and we’re going to have to figure out how to deal with it as a nation.”The ground-launched missiles could be fitted with nuclear warheads and had a range of at least 1,200 miles, according to Popular Mechanics. They were reportedly similar to the Kalibr cruise missiles that have been fitted on a number of Russian warships and submarines. At least two battalions of SSC-8 cruise missiles were deployed in the southern Russian city of Volgograd and another unknown location, according to a report by The New York Times. The missile was reportedly tested as far back as 2008 and Russia pursued its production despite protests from the administration of former President Barack Obama.

Last month, Vice Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Paul Selva said Russia’s deployment of the SSC-8 was a threat to U.S. and allied facilities in Europe. His remarks came after U.S. officials said in January that the missiles violated the “spirit and intent” of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Moscow has argued that the SSC-8 does not break the agreement, according to Defense News, and has charged the U.S. and NATO with threatening Russia’s national security through its own military build-up along Russia’s borders.

Assad Not Behind Chemical Attack

Ron Paul: Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria Likely a False Flag

Ron Paul: Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria Likely a False Flag

“Zero chance” Assad behind attack, says former Congressman

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com – April 6, 2017 1089 Comments

According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack.

Pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack, with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.

“It looks like maybe somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode,” said Paul, asking, “who benefits?”

“It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there’s zero chance he would have done this deliberately,” said Paul.

The former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons and the deep state to enlist support for war.

“It’s the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it’s derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria,” said Paul.

Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.

Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.

Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?

In addition, the last time the deep state attempted to exploit a chemical weapons attack to launch military strikes on Assad’s government, the incident was later proven not to have been the work of the Syrian government.

The narrative for the August 2013 attack in Ghouta, which Barack Obama cited as the pretext for a long awaited U.S. attack on government targets in aid of jihadist rebels, completely collapsed after it emerged that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

The United Nations’ Carla Del Ponte also said that evidence suggested rebels had used sarin nerve gas.

As journalist Seymour Hersh reported in December 2013, intelligence officials told him that the entire narrative was a “ruse” and that “the attack was not the result of the current regime.”

Hersh also revealed how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was instrumental in approving the transportation of Libyan chemical weapons stockpiles to be handed to jihadist rebels in Syria.

It’s particularly rich to see the same establishment media who were responsible for peddling fake news about “moderate rebels” for years now pushing the same agenda for another giant, endless, bloody war in the Middle East while acting like they have the moral high ground by exploiting images of dead and dying children.

The Obama administration’s intervention in Syria led directly to the refugee crisis and the rise of ISIS.

If the Trump administration falls into the trap of following that same disastrous policy, many more innocent people will die than those who sadly lost their lives in Khan Sheikhoun.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Odds of the First Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

What are the odds of India’s nuclear first strike against Pakistan?

RAJIT OJHA @y2krajit

Forget a nuclear winter setting in as a result of an India-Pakistan atomic exchange anytime soon, instead we find ourselves in the middle of a nuclear summer, as “The Gray Lady” is the latest entity to hot up the Great NFU debate.

Although, why we are debating whether India is abandoning its policy of no first use of nuclear weapons at this juncture is extremely puzzling.

The NYT piece quotes “circumstantial evidence” in the form of a “triad” of statements — by former NSA Shiv Shankar Menon, a retired head of India’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC), Lt Gen BS Nagal, and then defence minister Parrikar — as the trigger.

But how is any of this new? The key provocateur in the latest rerun of this debate, Vipin Narang of MIT, had already highlighted this triad in November 2016, so what has changed since then except a high-profile think tank event that needed some radioactive grist so as not to appear run of the mill?

Another contention is that India has now moved away from using nuclear weapons for counter value targeting (essentially cities) to counter force targeting (essentially military targets).

But why would Indian planners regard these as mutually exclusive in the first place, especially when the doctrine is centered around massive retaliation?

india-pak_040417114121.jpg
If we think a first strike will neutralise all Pakistani nuclear strike capability, that’s just a chimera. Photo: Reuters
Moreover, the Indian doctrine goes further than even ambiguous US threats in Desert Storm by promising nuclear retaliation for biological and chemical weapon attacks.

The enemy’s chemical and biological weapon facilities — which in this context fall under a counterforce definition — have always been in the cross hairs.

Also, is Rawalpindi — home to Pakistan Army’s general headquarters as also millions of civilians — a counterforce target or a countervalue target? What about Karachi?

Pakistan’s most populous city is also a base for its submarines, now supposedly armed with cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, giving them a nascent second-strike capability.

Counterforce versus countervalue distinctions only go so far, and the lines blur frequently.

Coming back to the triad of statements, let’s consider Parrikar’s. His maverick pronouncements on NFU led to his own ministry immediately distancing itself from them. This is a man who once said India must “neutralise terrorist through terrorist”, but we didn’t see counter-terrorism experts confirming the return of CIT-X and CIT-J as an instrument of the Indian policy.

Why then should his nuclear pronouncements be taken seriously?

How are Lt Gen Nagal’s strong words suggesting that an NFU posture was somehow “morally wrong” proof that India is shifting to a first-use posture?

If anything, his angst seems to suggest status quo, why else would he be channelling his inner Sundarji and advocating a change of what he perceives is a flawed policy.

Primarily, extracts from Shiv Shankar Menon’s book have been cited as the most credible evidence of a change in status quo.

Narang offers Menon’s statement that “Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons use [or imminent use] would effectively free India to undertake a comprehensive first strike against Pakistan” as the clincher.

Unfortunately, he is mixing up Rules of Engagement (ROE) that exist at the tactical level with a shift in doctrine.

Menon’s statement on “imminent use” is consistent with a positive indication of hostile intent.

“Do Not Fire Until Fired Upon” is a Hollywood catchphrase and does not apply to real world ROE, which almost always prioritises intent over action. Look no further than the US Navy’s shootdown of Libyan Mig-23s in 1989 that it is a standard practice to be the first to fire if “hostile intent” is assessed and self-defence becomes the priority.

Yes, nuke stuff is exotic and esoteric but it’s still warfare at the end of the day and certain universal rules still apply.

Regardless, if we think a first strike will neutralise all Pakistani nuclear strike capability, that’s just a chimera.

For India to adopt a Pakistani version of a nuclear first strike — a nuclear response to an overwhelming conventional attack — makes little sense given the respective military capabilities of the two nations.

None of this is to say that a greater debate about India’s nuclear weapons posture isn’t required. In fact, there is an overwhelming need for it; but I daresay on more vexing issues.

Watch this space to know what that might look like.

The Reality That Is Nuclear Prophecy (Revelation 15)

Nuclear Proliferation – An Expanding and Frightening Reality

Nuclear Proliferation – An Expanding and Frightening Reality
By Jeffrey T. Fowler, Ph.D.
Faculty Member, School of Security and Global Studies, American Military University

Several major factors are contributing to today’s social, political and military instability. The world population has increased and is expected to reach approximately 9.9 billion by mid-century. That represents a 33% increase from 2016.

Similarly, climate change is projected to cause worldwide temperatures to rise from 2 to 9.7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Also, natural resources continue to dwindle.

When we add to this mix the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, it is not difficult to envision terrorist groups obtaining nuclear materials or technology at some point in the future.

The Foundations of Nuclear Instability

During the Cold War, nuclear capability was strictly controlled by and limited to only a few nations. The leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union understood the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). They comprehended that the use of their nuclear arsenals might well cause total destruction of both nations.

However, the weapons developed during the Cold War included small nuclear devices designed for tactical use on the battlefield or for repelling an invasion. They were typically in the hands of specially trained engineers or U.S. and Soviet special forces.

As a senior technician on a nuclear fire team in Europe in the 1970s, I had access to two now-declassified systems. One of them, the Special Atomic Demolitions Munition (SADM), was small enough to be carried in a backpack. The second system was the Medium Atomic Demolition Munition (MADM), which was transported on a special truck.

The SADM and MADM systems were used by special combat engineer units to create barriers to a Soviet advance into Western Europe. The Soviets created equally small tactical nuclear weapons, including one type that supposedly could fit in a suitcase or briefcase.

While there is debate over the existence of small, easily portable nuclear devices outside the hands of nation-state actors, three non-state groups have been identified as seeking to gain nuclear expertise. They are Chechen separatists in Russia, Al-Qaeda and the Japanese group Aum Shinrikyo. In regard to terrorist or criminal organizations, one can only imagine the infinite ways to use these small nuclear devices.

The Soviet Collapse and Nuclear Proliferation

Two major factors that led to nuclear proliferation were the collapse of the Soviet Union and the theft – and subsequent sale – of nuclear knowledge by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan (A.Q. Khan) of Pakistan.

The Cold War ended in 1991 when the Soviet Union imploded. At the end of the Cold War, Soviet nuclear warheads were stationed in three former Soviet republics that became independent states – Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Approximately 35,000 nuclear warheads were scattered across seven time zones. Those nuclear weapons did not include 22,000 smaller nuclear devices for battlefield and tactical use stored in all 15 former Soviet republics.

The Soviet regime had created an elite class composed of bureaucrats, scientists and military personnel who now found their vaunted status in jeopardy, both figuratively and economically.

The Soviet system flourished on bribes and corruption, even when the Soviets were at the height of their power. Living in a corrupt system and having access to all sorts of conventional and unconventional weapons, coupled with the survival instinct of self and family, prompted former Soviet officials to justify selling their knowledge, raw materials or even weapons to the highest bidder.

Ostensibly, all of the weapons, both strategic and tactical, have been accounted for and either destroyed or placed back in the hands of Russian Federation authorities. But not everyone agrees with this benign assessment.

Even assuming that the small tactical nuclear devices are all accounted for, there remains the possibility of the theft or sale of weapons-grade fissile materials. There is also the possibility of some nuclear physicists using their in-depth knowledge to instruct others on how to build such a device.

Russia’s immense and highly active nexus of government and organized crime is a major concern in this regard. As of 2004, it was estimated that approximately 600 metric tons of highly enriched uranium remained under inadequate security in Russia. In the post-Cold War period of lawlessness, Russia was not the only candidate for possible illicit nuclear proliferation.

Khan and the Proliferation of Nuclear Technology in the Middle East

Pakistan figures prominently in the proliferation of nuclear knowledge around the world, including North Korea. Pakistan achieved its independence from India in 1947. It then fought two wars with India in 1948 and again in 1965.

Living in the shadow of its gigantic neighbor, it is not surprising that Pakistan viewed India as its biggest threat to national security. The question was how to achieve an edge. A nuclear armed Pakistan was the answer. Enter Dr. Khan.

In 1972, Khan went to work at the Physical Dynamic Research Laboratory (FDO) in the Netherlands. FDO is a subcontractor to Ultra Centrifuge Netherlands (UCN), a Dutch firm within Urenco, a uranium enrichment conglomerate.

Despite surveillance by Dutch and American intelligence, Khan was allowed to travel to Pakistan in 1975. He carried stolen blueprints for atomic centrifuges and critical contact data on firms supplying centrifuge components.

The Pakistani regime allowed him to create nuclear enrichment centrifuges allegedly using a Chinese model. As a result, Pakistan produced enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon in the 1980s. Pakistan also admits to shipping some centrifuges to Iran.

Khan then began to construct an international network of suppliers. The network was discovered in 2003 when Italian authorities seized a German vessel carrying 1,000 nuclear centrifuges to Libya’s then-dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Khan’s activities included supplying Pakistani centrifuges to the North Koreans in return for ballistic missile technology. There were also suspicions that the Khan network had dealings with Al-Qaeda.

Khan believed the nuclear “club” wanted to keep less-developed countries from gaining nuclear weapons. He may also have had a purely selfish economic motive. He was ultimately placed under house arrest in Pakistan and released in 2009. Since then, Pakistani authorities have not allowed Western authorities to question Khan about his activities.

The Global Future Remains Uncertain Due to Nuclear Instability

It is difficult to know what the future holds, but certainly the world is a more dangerous place today than it was during the Cold War. The reason for this situation is increased nuclear instability, stemming from the proliferation of nuclear knowledge used by rogue regimes such as North Korea to produce nuclear weapons.

According to a Rand study, “most recent open-source estimates suggest North Korea may already have enough fissile material to build between 13 and 21 nuclear weapons; by 2020, it could possess enough for 50 to 100.” In essence, the North Koreans have presented the world, and especially its neighbors South Korea and Japan, with a fait accompli.

How Will Iran Use the Enormous Influx of Cash from the US Nuclear Pact?

Opinions in the West vary as to the value of the Iran nuclear deal. The U.S. has released large amounts of cash and gold and $400 million from previously frozen Iranian assets to Tehran, ostensibly to ensure the freedom of American hostages. How will Iran use that enormous influx of cash?

Iran also has a supply of uranium. Just before he left office, President Barack Obama and other U.S. allies agreed to allow the Russian Federation to ship 130 tons of raw uranium to Iran.

The Iranian regime’s hardliners have been vocal enemies of the West for many years and it does not appear that lifting sanctions has changed their minds.

Rogue states in possession of nuclear weapons, such as Iran, is a great concern. But extremist groups obtaining nuclear technology and weapons is an even greater cause for alarm.

After the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, video of a Belgian nuclear official found in the apartment of one of the terrorists involved raised alarms. A NATO review of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Islamic State of Iran and the Levant (ISIL) indicated that they are potential nuclear threats.

Rising world populations, climate change and dwindling natural resources are likely to create social, political and military instability this century. Adding the global war on terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear technology in rogue states, we will be living in “interesting times” indeed, as the ancient Chinese curse says.

About the Author
Jeffrey T. Fowler, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the School of Security and Global Studies at American Military University. He holds a B.A. in law enforcement from Marshall University, an M.A. in military history from Vermont College of Norwich University and a Ph.D. in business administration with a concentration in criminal justice from Northcentral University. Jeffrey is also a published author, a former New York deputy sheriff and a retired Army Captain with more than 20 years of service.

Comments