Note: Rather than updating this, I will leave this in its original form. It was written back on Oct 11th, 2016 just a month before the Presidential election. It is meant to be both informative and useful. Keep in mind that Obama was still President when this was written and much has changed since then.
Blessings to all of my readers here.
Today, we are going to do just what the title says. We are going to think about the unthinkable. We are going to talk a bit about the possibility, or rather probability of some kind of nuclear war. Perhaps not a full scale one, but one where tactical or strategic nuclear weapons are released, on the commands of a nuclear power (non-accidental release) in times of international hostility.
Today, relations between Russia and the United states are at their lowest point since the cold war. In the view of many Russia watchers, they are worse. I don't quite share that view, but given the current trajectory of US policy and the mindset of those making it, I expect relations to deteriorate very significantly during the next four years of a Clinton Administration, should she win the White House. Right now, it appears that the establishment (left and right) is pulling out all the stops to make that happen. We will talk more about some contested election scenarios soon, but not today.
Consequently, I see that a war with Russia as pretty much inevitable. Where and when exactly no one can say with any degree of certainty. There are many hotpots and key underlying issues all throughout the world - the situation with the unstable leadership of North Korea, the situation in the China Sea, the situation in Syria and Iraq, and while today, it may not be on our front pages, the thrust for natural resources now taking place throughout Africa and of course, one of the key drivers in the current conflict is the future direction and military alliance 'tilt' that Europe takes over the next decade and its effect on both the security posture and energy markets (Russia supplies the EU with much of its energy). These underlying issues are just some key drivers in the ongoing conflict between the two nuclear powers.
Nuclear weapons are nothing to speak or deal with lightly. They are enormously deadly and as almost all of you know, just one can kill millions if released with the right mega-tonnage, the place and at the right time (like during Rush hour over a major city).
Russia's Topol-M (Wikipedia)Nuclear weapons strategy is one aspect that we all need to consider. The first is MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. This was a key facet of Nuclear policy for many years, where each side knew that if one side released their weapons, the other side would release theirs and both sides would be assured total and complete destruction. Nations would try and ensure that their weapons systems (rather than population centers) were survivable during a nuclear strike so that retaliation was possible. Some weapons systems were placed in bunkers others were placed on mobile platforms. The Russians for example have resurrected their rail based nuclear systems. Russia has gone ahead with this plan, according to media reports, but others see problems with such a plan.
The reality? Putin is probably looking for the hugest degree of redundancy he can get for the money and a rail based system, as crazy as it may sound, would indeed bolster that redundancy. A potpourri of media articles on this subject can be found here (recommended!). It is not clear if these new Trains will be carrying the new MIRV version of the Missile, the RS-24. For those of you who don't know what MIRV is, it is a single missile that can carry many different missiles that can be targeted independently. Once the missile gets to a certain point in it's flight path, the 'baby missiles' come out and target multiple cities/facilities, thus if say the Russians launch 10 MIRV'D missiles on the US and her anti-Ballistic missile systems can take out 8 of them, two missiles will still hit the US or rather, the two missiles that may carry 20 'baby missiles' that will still hit their targets. This is the idea of survivability and redundancy in action. If there is a first strike against your forces, you want to make sure you have the ability to strike back, making the other guy think twice about striking you in the first place.
MIRV (US Minuteman) Flight Path (public domain)
But this is just one aspect of one part of its nuclear policy. We should talk for a moment about the nuclear triad. For those of you who may not know, the nuclear triad refers to the three basic methods of delivering Nuclear weapons to a target. These are land systems (missiles), Air based systems (Nuclear bombers) and Sea Based systems (nuclear armed submarines, not to be confused with those that use nuclear power for propulsion).
This diagram gives you the basics of the nuclear triad. This document goes into unclassified detail regarding the ongoing review of America's nuclear deterrent, the why's wherefores and talks about the pluses and minuses of each leg, again all at the unclassified level. We are not going to get into the intricacies if each leg and its strengths and weaknesses and each does posses both. For those of you who ever saw the movie, Crimson Tide, will remember some of the issues dramatized in that movie and the rolling text at the end of that movie that dealt with the real world and dramatized in the court martial scene with Jason Robards playing the admiral.
Yet even today, while there is considerable tension between both Russia and the US, arms control is not totally dead. Here is an important snippet from the major review of nuclear weapons done by the US back in 2010.
The next step in this process is to replace the now-expired 1991 START I Treaty with another verifiable agreement, New START. An early task for the NPR was to develop U.S. positions for the New START negotiations and to consider how U.S. forces could be structured in light of the reductions required by the new agreement. The NPR reached the following conclusions:
- Stable deterrence can be maintained while reducing U.S. strategic delivery vehicles – inter- continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-capable heavy bombers – by approximately 50 percent from the START I level, and reducing accountable strategic warheads by approximately 30 percent from the Moscow Treaty level.
- Building on NPR analysis, the United States agreed with Russia to New START limits of 1,550 accountable strategic warheads, 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles, and a combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers.
- The U.S. nuclear Triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear-capable heavy bombers will be maintained under New START.
- All U.S. ICBMs will be “de-MIRVed” to a single warhead each to increase stability.
- Contributions by non-nuclear systems to U.S. regional deterrence and reassurance goals will be preserved by avoiding limitations on missile defenses and preserving options for using heavy bombers and long-range missile systems in conventional roles.Maximizing Presidential decision time. The NPR concluded that the current alert posture of U.S. strategic forces – with heavy bombers off full-time alert, nearly all ICBMs on alert, and a significant number of SSBNs at sea at any given time – should be maintained for the present. It also concluded that efforts should continue to diminish further the possibility of nuclear launches resulting from accidents, unauthorized actions, or misperceptions and to maximize the time available to the President to consider whether to authorize the use of nuclear weapons. Key steps include:The above document can be found here.
- Continuing the practice of “open-ocean targeting” of all ICBMs and SLBMs so that, in the highly unlikely event of an unauthorized or accidental launch, the missile would land in the open ocean, and asking Russia to re-confirm its commitment to this practice.
- Further strengthening the U.S. command and control system to maximize Presidential decision time in a nuclear crisis.
- Exploring new modes of ICBM basing that enhance survivability and further reduce any incentives for prompt launch.
Clearly the DOD and others are looking at ways of protecting the US and its allies, reducing the number of weapons on high alert, reducing the need for such weapons and eventually (hopefully) eliminating such weapons all together.
But let us keep in mind that this document was written back in 2010 and political tensions between Russia and the US has increased significantly since then. Additionally it is now stated US policy to modernize and upgrade US nuclear weapons with a proposed $1 Trillion upgrade.
The exact nature of this upgrade of course will be and will almost certainly remain classified for decades to come and this is understandable. But two of the key takaways from that document and of course the shifting geopolitical landscape is the fear of nuclear terrorism. That some non-state actor or state actor using a non-state actor as a proxy is able to detonate a nuclear weapon against the US or its vital interests. Let me take just one more snippet from the 2010 NPR.
The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism The most immediate and extreme threat today is nuclear terrorism. Al Qaeda and their extremist allies are seeking nuclear weapons. We must assume they would use such weapons if they managed to obtain them. Although terrorist groups are currently believed to lack the resources to produce weapons-usable nuclear material themselves, the vulnerability to theft or seizure of vast stocks of such nuclear materials around the world, and the availability of sensitive equipment and technologies in the nuclear black market, create a serious risk that terrorists may acquire what they need to build a nuclear weapon.
To date, the international community has made progress toward achieving a global “lock down” f nuclear weapons, materials, and associated technology, but much more work needs to be done. n addition, the United States and the international community have improving but currently insufficient capabilities to detect, interdict, and defeat efforts to covertly deliver nuclear materials r weapons—and if an attack occurs, to respond to minimize casualties and economic impact as well as to attribute the source of the attack and take strong action. - 2010 NPR
This indeed is a potent threat and one that can no longer be ignored. Terrorists, particularly Islamic terrorists many of whom are hellbent on attacking America would not hesitate to use such weapons, even in a suicide attack. This has to be one of the more perplexing problems our military and intelligence leaders face today, to forestall such an attack. Such an attack need not be the actual detonation of a nuclear weapon, but could take the form of the the use of a dirty bomb - a regular bomb or dispersal weapon meant to spread nuclear radiation/waste over a large area. Death would not be instantaneous, it would be a slow death for those who were exposed to a lethal dose of radiation and probably long term debilitating illness for those who survive but were exposed to high levels of it.
Indeed the review noted above was undertaken in order to address what was described as a new security environment. Reviewing our posture has been ongoing for some time, as far back as the early 2000's under President Bush. For those of you who want a really good look at this review, the FAS has one here you may all find of interest.
Our posture is important, but looking at the posture of others is also important. First of all, we Americans especially her populace, but increasingly those in key analytical circles are incapable of looking at what others view as a strategic threat. We Americans tend to look at the threat to us, but don't look at how the world views the threat to them - not with American eyes, but with Russian, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Israeli or even North Korean eyes. This is a critical failing in that other nations react to what they perceive to be a threat to them. At times, it is clear that our policy makers do know just what others view as a threat and then go out of their way to provoke others to hostile action as a result. This was the case with the deployment of the anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe by the US, ostensibly to counter an Iranian missile strike, but viewed (correctly) by Moscow as threat to their nuclear arsenal and their ability to react/respond to an American nuclear first strike.
Despite the fine sounding words in the 2010 NPR and their desire to reduce nuclear hostilities as implied clearly throughout the document, the US decided it wanted to provoke Russia and her nuclear security with this lucrative hair brained scheme directed at a threat which was mostly illusory. Iran had no such desire to hit Europe, rather she eventually would love to export more of her energy to EU markets. Good business sense says you don't kill your customers... they tend to stop buying your goods while they are busy being dead.
What does this mean?
Well dear readers, this is written so that we as Christians may begin to start thinking the unthinkable. Russia has run a number of military drills and those drills included the training of her nuclear forces as well as responding in a civil defense fashion to such an attack. Russia knows that the next war with the west will employ such weapons. How do I see such a scenario happening.
I hate to envision such a dark future, but will do so only in the broadest terms.
If NATO (under US leadership and concomitant threats to EU member nations to go along) were to begin a massive deployment of troops into Eastern Europe along with what is seen (not by the US but by the Russians) as military hardware that is potentially offensive in nature, the Russians, as the US did during the Cuban Missile Crisis,m
would probably adopted a very hard line stance. Keep in mind that Russia is a large nation. Geographically speaking it is massive, there is no larger nation on earth and as such it must be defended. Russian defense posture will entail military moves to preempt/counter any potentially aggressive moves along her frontiers. In short, Russia would react. She would make it plain diplomatically that such a deployment was unacceptable try and diffuse the situation diplomatically, but if she saw this would not work, she would strike and do so hard and fast. The risks here for Russia are real enough as she does not want to be viewed in Europe as an aggressor, but at the same time, she is not going to be threatened with large amounts of hostile troops along her border. She would do whatever it took to remove the offending troops and weapons systems.
It should be noted that Russia's entire economy during the times of the Soviet Union was built around its military and the ability of its economy to rapidly transform itself for war production in the event of hostilities. Russian history taught the Russians the need for constant vigilance in this realm. It should also be noted that that kind of economic structuring contributed significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It should be noted that Russian observers (Schlykov ) believe that much of the basic features of the old Soviet System remained in place after the fall of the Soviet Empire (see If War Comes Tomorrow How Russia prepares for Possible Armed Aggression - RUSI).
That reaction would probably include the use of tactical nuclear weapons, if a conventional strike is unlikely to convince the offenders of the threat they posed. Such a move would not be taken irresponsibly nor foolishly, but in full keeping with what Russia views (key phrase) as a threat to her existence. Nuclear weapons are there just for that occasion. It is why the US has them. When there is an existential threat to the US, America, despite high sounding words and flowery sounding optimism, will use nuclear weapons to counter such a threat.
America having only two nations who border her does not have to worry much about hundreds of thousands of troops massed along our bombers with hostile fighters, bombers and stealth aircraft, tanks and special operations troops prodding and poking at us 24/7 as the Russians do. The problem is that when she reacts to these military deployments and 'exercises' along her border, the world then demonizes Russia and calls her 'aggressive'.
This is not to say that at times Russia cannot be aggressive, she can. But Russia knows this - she has not the resources for any kind of 'invasion' of Europe (or the UK). Russian troops are not going to come barreling over the border in waves of tanks and aircraft. It would serve no real long term purpose. She could not hold such territory if she did. This is one of the reasons the Russians did not remain in Georgia after the brief but geopolitical shocking invasion of that nation years ago. She knows it's one thing to attack a nation to remove a threat, quite another to remain and try and 'hold' a nation where you are not welcome. The Russians being fast learners know better than to try that. Americans still have not fully learned that lesson and the fiasco in Iraq (and our return) shows a rather severe learning disability in this realm.
In short, the hysteria over Russia is mostly one that is being manufactured out of defense contractors who are being paid not to see the real threat so that a false one can be concocted so that billions can be spent modernizing our arsenal based partially on faulty assumptions of Russia's intentions.
But continued prodding and provoking of Russia will one day lead to a situation where they feel forced to demonstrate to a world who will continue to poke and prod Russia, just how seriously she takes these provocations and the release of just one single tactical nuclear weapon on an offending NATO facility, after months of diplomatic wrangling would send the message home in a way that even the most slow witted American military leader could understand.
Such a scenario I think is more likely to occur. That or some kind of attack on a US friendly nation in response to an attack on a Russian friendly nation (Syria) that rapidly escalates.
All that said, we must not ignore that China has also moved to place its small nuclear arsenal on hair trigger alert, something it had not done before. The global environment clearly demonstrated by the postures of the major nuclear powers, is getting much more dangerous.
This is the second part of the nuclear war article I did back on 11 October 2016.
What to do?
Brothers, if you are in a major population center in the US, there really is not much you can do to protect yourself from a full scale nuclear attack. If you live near a subway, getting underground as quickly as possible BEFORE the attack could keep you alive. There major killers during and after a such an attack will be...
The Blast - anyone within the blast radius who is not underground or in a hardened facility is going to burned to a cinder and at ground zero, if you are close enough, not even your bones will survive.
Winds - Those one outer edges of the blast zone will be hit by massive winds at very high speeds which will also be very hot. This wind is caused by the initial shock wave from the blast and can be several hundred kph.. Again, there is little you can do if you are at or close to ground zero, for many they will die within seconds. others will take longer to die as a result of severe thermal burns and extensive exposure to various kinds of radiation.
The Radiation - While a significant amount of radiation is release during the blast (thermal and Ionizing) residual radiation will also be a problem, but some of the effects will not show up immediately. While many will only get very sick from it, many others will eventually die from its effects. For those of you curious, the EPA has a section on its site dedicated to Radiation protection and it can be found here.
The Social Aftermath. - This is one aspect that is often neglected but after such an attack, there is likely to be no electricity or running water, no one in authority, no police, etc. There is likely to be limited or no medical help, there is likely to be only very limited communication and probably mass comms will be conducted via Radio. Cell phones and internet access will probably very limited or non-existent for weeks, perhaps months. This leads us to the YOYO principle. That being You're On Your Own, until help or the authorities get control of the situation. This is not going to happen right away.
The good news is that apparently within the government someone is asking the right questions. The GAO just did a report on Land Mobile Radio's that are to be used in an emergency situation. The GAO did the report because of the reliance on Land Mobile Radio's by Federal agencies in the event of an emergency.
There have been some reforms of these communications and this was done mostly as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The DHS was required by law to improve first responder communications in the event of an emergency. Many of you may not be interested in that document, but it is a rather interesting look at the various federal agencies communications needs in time of emergency.
But we must assume that many of the repeater and transponder towers will not be operational after a nuclear attack and thus, only certain kinds of hand held, long range independent radio communications will be available until replacement/mobile repeaters (if such exist) can be deployed to handle the referred to emergency communications.
In any event, the first few days after a detonation will be rather scary as there will in key effected areas extremely limited to non-existent federal/authority interaction with the surviving population. FEMA, which manages these things makes this clear in its key assumptions after a Nuclear Attack
For those of you interested, the GAO also did a report on nuclear response a couple of years ago, it can be found here. In it you will find that as of 2013 many cities had no plans to deal with a 'dirty bomb' scenario.
Another much older document can be found here.
Some of you may find this document of interest dealing with actions to be taken by authorities. Food, water and the administering of Potassium Iodide (KI) are briefly covered. KI is important to take just before radiological exposure because the substance will flood ones thyroid and prevent one of the most common reasons people die from radiation.
I wanted to touch on these issues because I think they are important. You can survive a nuclear attack if you are not in the immediate blast area can find shelter and know what to do and what not to do.
Keep in mind that right now, Russia and the US are locked in a very dangerous strategic battle and each side is arming to the teeth... and nuclear weapons treaties that once helped keep tensions low are going to be jettisoned (i.e., INF Treaty). In this conflict, Nukes are no longer unthinkable and military leaders on both sides are dusting off their nuclear strike plans and developing new weapons to deliver them.
Many of you never understood why I was so adamant about our actions in Ukraine. One key reason is because of what we have unleashed when we took that geopolitical 'dump' on Russia's doorstep. At this point in time, neither side can afford to back down. So this arms race and other happenings in the world this site covers (for insiders) goes unreported to the masses who are not allowed to 'get it', having been fed a steady diet of foolishness and disinformation. No, we are not going to see a war tomorrow, but trends in place today will only mean one thing - a major war is coming but until the nukes are launched, the ongoing war will never be contextualized for ordinary people.
When it comes? Well, one thing I do is always try and have a few days of staple food and most importantly water on hand at all times. A couple of gallons of water stored away can be a true life saver if ever attacked and the water is cut off or contaminated. I just use the plastic bottles from fruit juices for storage, keep them in a cupboard and change the water every couple of months. It may seem silly, but what are millions of people going to be looking for after the first 48 hours of an attack? The first thing is water, the second is food. Such preparations don't cost a dime.
But we Christians, must learn to listen carefully to our God. I am of the opinion that nothing like this will touch those of us who really trust God. He will move us out of the danger area (or tell us to move!) before such a disaster happens. This is what he did with Lot and this is what he commands his people in the last days with regards to coming out of Babylon.
God can and will protect us and brothers, this is not written to instill fear and get you to buy survival gear. I refuse to give into scaremongering. Rather it is written to keep all of you aware of what time it is and some of the deeper issues that revolve around these most destructive weapons. We Christians must be more concerned about making God our refuge and protection that relying on man. We who love and trust our God, he will watch over us and guide our paths.
He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abideThat last passage almost seems to portend some new kind of destruction that comes from warfare as the arrows and pestilence usually accompany war. God will be with us even in the most dangerous of circumstances.
under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD,
He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler,
and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers,
and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness;
nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand;
but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold
and see the reward of the wicked. Because thou hast made the LORD,
which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee,
neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels
charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands,
lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder:
the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him:
I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me,
and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.
God will deliver us brothers, if... IF we humbly trust in him and obey his voice.
I don't worry about a nuclear attack. I think one will happen and I think it will be devastating, but I think that the saints who are loved by God and obey his voice will be mightily protected sometimes miraculously by a God who has all things by the power of his might and who watches over those who humbly trust in and obey him.
So dear readers, don't let this message cause you to fear or dread. God is watching over all of his sheep. I did not say the unrepentant, violent and rebellious world. I said his sheep.
My sheep hear my voice,
and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
(John 10:27-28 [KJV])
But woe to the wicked man and those who refuse to repent, do right or listen to the pleadings of God's servants, whom he will send to warn us of our national waywardness.
What about such men whom God will send? They will not be what you are looking for, they will almost certainly be humble, unusual people who are down to earth yet who are truly Godly people who will deliver a message that no one will want to hear. They will be hated, scorned, mocked persecuted lambasted, humiliated and embarrassed for the Lord's sake
I am reminded of a prophet whose words were so spot on they were scary... very scary. He has since gone off the rails... way off, but when he was 'on' - he had some powerful words for God's people. He predicted a new currency and a coming economic turmoil and that the dollar would fall... very, very significantly. He also spoke clearly about a day of accountability for the nation, a nation that once honored God and sought him in prayer and did no longer. God will weigh the nation in the balances and we will be found wanting. And the Lord would deal with America accordingly.
He also saw a time of turmoil with immigration, and a time when we would need a travel permit to cross state lines. He wrote that in the waning days of the Clinton Administration.
Our nation is slowly slipping into a spiritual no man's land. American's have taken the bounty that God - the God of the Bible that our forebears prayed to - for granted at best and shown him open contempt at worse.
Yet God has been most patient with us and shown us considerable forbearance. But when he lowers the boom on us, the lives of every American will change and change significantly and for most Americans they will change for the worse. The 'golden age' of America will be over as the Lord puts us through a trial so that we as a nation can consider our ways and our doings.
Now I don't expect many people to believe that. They will mock the Lord and those whom he has sent to warn the nation of its sins and crimes. The devil will even send false prophets and fake Christian personalities to threaten his real servants about 'dropping a word' against America, as happened to Amos.
Amos was accused of treachery because he spoke in the name of the Lord. He was told to issue no more 'unpatriotic' prophesies. But the Lord had a word for those who so speak against those whom he has sent and who operate in the office of a prophet and/or genuine representative of the Lord.
Then Amaziah the priest of Beth–el sent to Jeroboam
king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against
thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the land is
not able to bear all his words. For thus Amos saith,
Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall
surely be led away captive out of their own land.
Also Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thee
away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread,
and prophesy there: But prophesy not again any more
at Beth–el: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s
court.Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was
no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an
herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: And the LORD
took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me,
Go, prophesy unto my people Israel. Now therefore hear
thou the word of the LORD: Thou sayest, Prophesy not
against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house
of Isaac. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Thy wife shall
be an harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters
shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line;
and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall
surely go into captivity forth of his land.
(Amos 7:10-17 [KJV])
This was one of the reasons some had personal grudges against me and this site an why they did all they could to set me up and put me in Jail - and here is the thing - I make NO CLAIM TO BEING A PROPHET. They didn't like what I was saying about America and that we as a nation needed to change our ways. I kid you not, one time, one CIA person told me that the CIA was 'god'. Folks, these are the kinds of wackos you have working inside the most sensitive places in our government. The things I say are because I care about the country and those who live in it.
The devils who run those people got hold of them and they spent considerable time and money to screw me over, as they have other men of God who have spoken forcefully about our national sins. I had a whole slew of 'deep state' folks who 'wanted a piece' of me and they spared little expense ($$$) in making their attempt. Make no mistake, other men of God have had similar issues, some however bow before the gods of the deep state and tailor their sermons and prophecies accordingly. Others come to more violent ends.
I will never bow before these modern day Baal's.
I say this to warn all of you of this - when the Lord sends a prophet or man of God to warn the nation, be discerning but hold your peace unless you hear clear error. God will move against those who move against his prophets.
By Mark S. Watson