About a week ago, my friend Leo directed my attention to the thread "Bruce Webster Challenges Infomagic," a good distance below this thread. Seems that I was recruited to take a look at (as you might've guessed by the title of this message) the military implications of the Y2K Problem. Now, I've not been following this subject very closely, I feel nearly as prepared as possible (short of stocking up on canned goods) right now, but I've never been one to back down from any question, especially when it deals with a subject I know more about than most people my age (i.e. the military).

I'm assuming, in my predictions, that the Y2K problem will have significant repercussions around the world. Though I've been told that most U.S.-based companies are preparing quite well for the problem, I also read somewhere that countries like those in the European Union and ASEAN are, and I quote, "toast." I'm assuming that the crisis will induce forced isolationism (read: shut down the transportation business) on most civilized countries, as the ability of nations to interact with each other through movement greatly affects the outcome of the situation.

Times Square, in New York City, will be packed to an amazing density on December 31, 1999. We're not talking just thousands here - more like dozens of thousands, most likely well over 100,000 people, quite possibly over a quarter of a million. It's also safe to say that most of these people will be Americans, as it seems that citizens of the U.S. are more into the whole turn of the millenium thing than those of other nations, and also simply because Times Square is in the U.S.

With that many Americans congregated in one spot, I would be willing to place a significant amount of money on the fact that there will be certain shadowy groups, foreign and domestic, planning some act of violence on the masses gathered there. Now, I hate to add to the connotation that most every terrorist is an Arab, but I feel that Middle Eastern terrorist groups, especially the ones we don't know much about, are more than capable of killing hundreds of people very quickly.

A single WWII-vintage pineapple grenade might, with people packed that tightly, kill over a dozen people with its blast and shrapnel if it was thrown into a crowd. The resultant stampede of live bodies away from the dead ones would most likely injure hundreds, kill dozens. And plastic explosives are easy enough to come by, as well, and much more deadly than grenades. Well-placed explosives could kill hundreds, and then of course there will be people crushed under the feet of a screaming horde - not a very pleasant way to go. Also, I wouldn't rule out sniping - there will be plenty of VIPs there.

In short, with that many people at Times Square, the security forces will not be able to check everyone. Just watch the background over Dick Clark's shoulder and look for explosions and panic on December 31.

The days and weeks following Y2K Crash will be, if it is indeed as serious as many suspect, the perfect time for regional conflicts, the settling of old rivalries. There have rumors, backed by significant, if circumstantial, evidence, that the Syrian military is stockpiling chemical weapons for use against the main Israeli seaport of Haifa that would preceed a major invasion of the Jewish country. If Syria truly wants to follow this course of action, and if they are semi-intelligent, they will place these missiles on ships, and the guidance systems for the missiles carrying the chemical weapons will be modified so that the Y2K problem has no effect on them. Should be simple enough to fix, since they would only have to make the repairs on a small amount of systems.

Israel, on the other hand, is more familiar of the more Western idea of war by technology. Though the technological superiority of Israeli F-16s and F-15s, and the Merkava tanks prevailed in the 1982 Bekaa Valley conflict, many systems on these high-tech war machines might be rendered sterile by the Y2K Problem. One can imagine F-16C Falcons guided to their targets visually and dropping unguided ordnance on Syrian formations. The effectiveness of Israeli equipment would be greatly reduced and, combined with the loss of a large portion of the military and civilian population to nerve gas attacks, Israeli would be quickly overwhelmed by Syrian forces. It is possible that, without very punctual Western military aid, Israel would turn to nuclear weapons in a last-ditch effort to stop the Syrians.

Hopefully, Israel has recognized this problem and has taken steps to combat it.

Europe could also become a battleground, with the appearance of the European Union in recent years. Even as Great Britain is separated from the rest of Europe by water, its views on many things also differ with those of the mainland nations. While Britain tends to see The European Union as an economic alliance and nothing more, there are countries across the English Channel that would like to make the EU much, much more. If the EU is hit hard by Y2K, with rioting and general confusion in the streets, it is very likely that countries wanting to further consolidate and solidify the EU, such as France and Germany, will very actively promote the idea of the Union acting together to fix the problem. Britain, on the other hand, may well prefer the stand-alone approach and will want to deal with the emerging crisis themselves.

As I said above, January 2000 could well become the perfect time for power plays, and Germany and France might well take the above situation as an opportunity to establish a precedence of superiority over England. A naval blockade of British ports, the institution of a no-fly-zone over much of the British Isles, and other similar sanctions might be imposed, with the promise to lift them if and only if England agrees to work in conjunction with the EU on fixing the problem, could be instated.

Now, England might well agree to the EU's demands after seeing the considerable forces arrayed against it. On the other hand, the British people have never been ones to back away from their chosen policies, whatever the odds. This is where the United States comes into play. Less hindered by the Y2K crisis than most of Europe (except for the deadly terrorist attack on Dec. 31 and a major drop in the stock market), and possessing a greater bond with Britain than France or Germany, the U.S. could be very capable of intervening at this point of the British side with, say, two carrier battlegroups and several cruiser-destroyer task forces.

With the threat of serious American intervention hanging over their heads, Germany and France ould at this point do one thing: hesitate. Britain might possibly choose this moment to sortie the Home Fleet, launch the fighters, and start the battle, thusly forcing the Americans to join in. After that, the battle would twist on and on down into near total chaos, and a very bloodly chaos at that. The victor would most likely end up being the one with numerical superiority, and even he would have lost tens of thousands in just a few days.

I elaborate to such length on the above possibility not just because I would like to write a novel on it, but because very few people would see it coming. It's unexpected, brutal wars like that one that damage humanity more than any other. Personally, I hope that I am being too farfetched when I speak of it.

Also, be on the lookout for rapidly falling stock markets to trigger "brushfire conflicts" around th globe. Singapore is in a very precarious position - their stock market is already ailing, and they've never been on particularly good relations with neighboring Indonesia, whose stocks have not been doing well, either. If Indonesia would indeed choose to takes its populace's mind off the collapse of the stock market and lower the risk of civil war within its borders by uniting its people in a war against Singapore, then we would see a true test of quantity of troops versus quality. And with Singaporean computer systems devastated by the Y2K Bug, I doubt they could hold up for long without reinforcements, possibly from America.

To make a long post short, if the Y2K bug is as serious as most of the people on this forum believe it will be, then expect a bloody winter to kick off 2000. Although I don't believe that, outside of terrorism, America will find itself directly attacked, I feel that the United States will be called upon to stand up for its allies, sometimes in a violent manner. In fact, the resolve of the American government and military, and the measure of calmness its populace keeps (thereby not diverting the government's attention from international matters to domestic ones), will decide just how high the death toll will rise between December 31, 1999 and April, 2000.

Regards, and looking forward to all replies, --Greg

-- Greg Schutz (arvel@rocketmail.com), December 09, 1998

Answers

2 other possibilities:

(1) look for China to take Taiwan, for sure. Taiwan has a very tough military, it'll be a hell of a fight and very likely trigger WWIII.

(2) Don't you think that somebody will try to take President Clinton down in his upcoming visit to Israel? People over there don't take kindly to being cruise-missiled back to the stone age over Monica Lewinsky. Given the way Robert Groden has clearly documented the complete US government pre-planning, assistance, complicity, and subsequent coverup in the JFK murder, I would think there are plenty of people in the Israeli and Paslestinian governments who might have the means and motive to do this.

-RC

-- runway cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), December 09, 1998.

Greg,

I personally don't think there will even be a Time Square Ball Dropping on 12/31/99. I personally think that "martial law" will already be in place by that time, to avoid the type of scenario you are describing, power co's offline during the rollover, and military mobilized globally in "hot spots" to prevent/exploit those "power plays."

Just my US$0.02...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 09, 1998.

I don't think there will be much revelry going on in Times Square as we will probably already be under a martial law curfew.

I think world events are much too complex to try and predict under normal circumstances, much less in Y2K. However, I think a major war in Europe and/or Asia is inevitable and that it will happen sooner rather than later (1999). Also note that, to most people, the NWO sounds like a groundless conspiracy theory, but it contains a kernel of truth.

-- a (a@a.a), December 09, 1998.

I agree that terrorist actions are likely. But the location would more likely be Washington

The Israeli/Arab conflict will go on and on and on. Ifully expect some nuclear/chemical/biological event there within 10 years. I doubt the Syrians are strong enough to unilateraly invade Israel. However, could some rogue (bin Laden) purchase a Soviet nuke from the black market - probably.

I have to laugh at the idea of the French inviting the Germans to join in a military action (and that is what a blockade/no fly is) against the British. Oh yeah, German Luftwaffe stationed on French soil!! But, the Russians are this close to turning into a Fascist state again. This winter will be very hard for them.

Hope T Clancy writes a book on the Y2K background. Now, that might open a few eyes. Suggested title, Storm 2K Rising

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), December 09, 1998.

RD,

Unfortunately, the last I heard, Tom Clancy was a DWGI. He ridiculed the whole thing...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 09, 1998.

You can't stop people from gathering on New Year's Eve. Whether its always evident or not, the government is based upon the will of the people, and anything banning people from congregating in Times Square would be vehemently opposed by the populace. Congressmen only try to get more votes, and enough letters would sway every single one of them to go against any declarations of martial law.

Besides, ban the people from congregating in New York and they, being social animals will congregate somewhere else. LA, or Chicago, or maybe Atlanta of Miami. But they will congregate, and they will be a target.

I also find it amusing that everyone here is talking about massive insurrection, rioting and chaos, yet they refuse to believe a drastically changed world order. Believe me, everyone is power hungry in their own way, governments more than most. If you don't believe that France and Germany would put aside their differences, at least temporarily, to bend the stalwart British to their will when the opportunity arises, I'm not sure I understand how you can believe that there will be martial law all over the place and massive insurrection. The political climate has changed since 1938, remember. Memories aside, France and Germany are not enemies.

Besides, The Luftwaffe would not have to base out of France. German Tornados, EF 2000s, and Alpha Jets have plenty of range to be launched from mainland Germany and still patrol around Britain. If we're dealing with a New World Order right now, expect to see a drastically different, newer world order comes 2000 (with the qualifier being, of course, if the Y2K Bug is as serious as most of you believe).

--Greg

-- Greg Schutz (arvel@rocketmail.com), December 09, 1998.

Greg,

Is there any reason why Britian couldn't drop out of the EU if it wanted to? Military action by Germany and France seems a bit extreme to me. If British voters said they wanted to drop out, and the EU went from 11 to 10 nations, who would really care?

The other parts of the world you mentioned, though, are a concern. By the way, Barbra Streisand was supposed to be in concert in New York on December 31, 1999. She cancelled, though, because of Y2K.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 09, 1998.

Let the crusty old Phantom driver in on this one.

Somebody further up the string hit one of the big trouble spots when they said look for China to go after Taiwan. China-Taiwan, North Korea-South Korea, these are almost "gimmes" for military conflict during any serious Y2K upheaval.

A bigger question is: If China goes on the march where will thee stop? Should the US military be seriously degraded by Y2K problems there isn't much to stop China from taking Taiwan, the entire Korean panninsual (Boy wouldn't that p.o. Kim Jong Il!), Japan and a large chunk of Vietnam and Loas.

Plus with their existing nuclear missile capability they'd have the ability to bully the Australian and New Zealand governments into following Chinese edicts. Almost first in my mind will be "food for peace" blackmail. In a fuel and food-short post-Y2K world, it's a very serious possibility.

Asian wildcards? India and Pakistan. Will they decide tro go at each other or will India especially, go to the barricades to be prepared for a Chinese move into the Indian sub-continent?

In the middle-east there's very serious possibility for an Arab- Israeli fight to the death. And it may well go nuclear early-on, should the Israeli government fell that they have no chance of help from the western governments. In fact this conflict may start before 1/1/00 if the powers involved decide that Y2K means "Use it or lose it." for their high-tech weapons. I don't really know if Syria would be an instigator or if Iraq and/or Iran might be the faction that decides to fire the first shot in a "Holy War to End All Holy Wars".

The European continent should be pretty peaceful. The Balkan states will still be in the throes of their ethnic battles, but the major powers will be fully involved in trying to master their Y2K problems.

The Russians are always the wildcard in Europe and with Y2K that card could be played for huge stakes. It's a big guess as to whether Boris Yeltsin will still be alive and in command twelve months from now. If he is then Y2K will just be another "crisis of the day" for the Russian population to endure.

If there is new leadership then there could be an agressive Russia wanting to assert itself during the opportunity Y2K will provide. Here again the possibility for nuclear blackmail for food and other supplies comes into play. And also there's the thought of some Russian version of Dr. Strangelove encouraging a first strike to gain global superiority in the moments before Y2K renders the old Soviet nuclear arsenal impotent.

To paraphase the old saying "It's strange out there and getting stanger!". It's also scary out there and getting scarier, too!

Check six! WW

-- wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), December 09, 1998.

"Hopefully, Israel has recognized this problem and has taken steps to combat it"

Greg: Consider the following from Gary North's site, Military category,regarding Israel:

He wrote:

"December 31, 1998 is the deadline for tested y2k compliance for the state of Israel's defense forces. So warns the senior military officer in charge of y2k repairs.Why? Because 1999 may trigger "infinity" loops and shut down systems. Also at risk are public utilities, especially electricity. The officer said that the military plans to be autonomous from the national infrastructure. Of all modern, high-tecnology nations, the state of Israel is most vulnerable if its computers go down. It has low-tech terrorists inside its borders and military enemies on its borders. It depends heavily on its sophisticated weapons systems to keep these enemies at bay. They cannot afford y2k denial."

The article he was referring to was published in GLOBES (July 19). Here is an excerpt:

"We aim to reach logistical autonomy, so that we will not be dependent on national infrastructures," IDF computerization division head Brigadier Nissim Alafia, who is responsible for preparing the IDF to cope with the year 2000 bug, told "Globes". The IDF began preparing for the year 2000 in 1996, after the computerization division was established. According to the army's work plan, it will be ready for the year 2000 by the end of December 1998, as January 1999 is considered the first date when the year 2000 bug will start to have an effect."

The intent is there but who knows about the actual execution. Regarding the U.S.Military and British Navy , consider that as of this summer:

Britain's Naval Systems, including Nuclear Missiles were 10% compliant. The U.S. Military's mission-critical systems were 29% compliant. According to another link on gary's site:

"Even if 99 percent of the Navy's systems are ready for 2000, the service likely will experience severe service hiccups, said Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski, the Navy's director of space, information warfare, command and control. A failure rate of just 1 percent may be enough to significantly hamper Navy operations, Cebrowski said this month at the GCN Forum luncheon in Washington."

Keep in mind that the U.S and Britain (which is several 'months behind' the U.S.) are the Y2K world leaders too. So, I think that everybody is going to have their own regional problems and that they are more likely to stay regional than would be the case presently. Then there are the other obvious spots: North/South Korea, South Africa, Russia and the former Soviet States. Also there are unpredictable leaders in unstable areas - Saddam, etc. Unstable areas will most likely become more so, and even 'stable' areas are at risk of increased potential for destabilizing events and escalations.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), December 09, 1998.

Not in the least disagreeing, Greg, but might you include a short (and I mean REALLY short) synopsis on where you got the data you used for this?? I truly do agree with most of your analysis, I'm just curious where your sources lie.

Chuck who sometimes can be called Thomas, but NOT this time!

-- Chuck a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 09, 1998.

The middle-east and North Korea are the only locales that swing into the "possible threat" sector on my radar. In both areas, the irrational is stronger than the rational. Martyrdom is unfashionable in the rest of the world. Economic recovery/development has replaced political ideology as a mantra. Passionate zeal for the first strike of a conflict requires time to muster the collective mindset of the aggressor by a charismatic leader.

Dedication to governments and/or national and cultural patriotism is at an all-time low for the rest of the meaningful world. Even Americans, who outwardly love to chant "USA...USA" at sporting events and consider themselves to be patriotic, have no real passion to give up their lives and their fortunes to advance the ideals that the founders of the republic were willing, and did, give up. How many of you, your family, your friends, your co-workers or your neighbors would willingly give all their money to the U.S. Government to fight a conflict...with no desire to be repaid?

All of the other scenarios mentioned don't fit my particular view of the world. You cannot use reason with unreasonable people. How do you reason with a maniac who holds a gun to your head and demands 10,000 purple jelly beans in a blue basket with a Blackwatch plaid bow... within 3 minutes? The middle-east (religous zeal) and North Korean (idealogical zeal) are the only places I see with unreasonable people in control. Both lack the military capability to do more than localized damage and certainly do not threaten the world, as a whole. The possible threat of biological or nuclear devices (even a "poor nation bomb" - radiation dispersal) is limited in geographic range and effect. Of course, the effect to the individual victims would be tragic, but civilization extends far beyond the boundries of the effective zones these nations are capable of affecting.

A suicidal mind, mixed with a convincing belief in the "glory" of martyrdom are both required for the aggressor to act.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), December 09, 1998.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your analysis. I have to point out a couple of things that I see.

First, regarding the use of US carrier groups  it's very likely that these high-tech floating cities will be incapacitated by Y2K problems. So I wouldn't expect to see them set sail for far away lands to rescue our allies or instill our values post 1/1/00.

Regarding the Arab/Israeli situation, expect to see a war start in the Middle East in early May 1999. The declaration of an independent Palestinian state by Yasser Arafat with East Jerusalem as its capital will not be tolerated by the Israelis. The PLO has never intended to achieve peace through the recent negotiations. They are engaging in a tactic used by Mohammed against the pagans of Mecca. He made peace with them in order to build his forces. When he had enough power to conquer them, he broke the treaty and slaughtered the inhabitants of Mecca. This is the same strategy being employed by Arafat.

Under the Oslo agreement, the Palestinians are permitted 10,000 men in its internal police force. They currently have 40,000, all armed with automatic weapons. Intelligence sources believe many shipments of prohibited surface-to-air missiles have been brought into Gaza and stored for the coming battle. The Palestinians are preparing to strike at the Israelis from within their own borders with significant force. Any type of conflict such as this will no doubt bring some or all of the other surrounding Arab nations into the fray.

After the experience of the Holocaust during WWII, the Jews vowed never more to be put in that position again. Many experts on Israel believe they will use nuclear weapons if placed in a position where they could possibly be defeated. What global implications would a nuclear war in the Middle East have in mid-1999? Y2K may well be just the icing on the cake for our society.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), December 10, 1998.

Something else to think about: the battle for military budget money for the past several years has essentially focused on "boys" (i.e. bodies in uniform- sorry for the apparent sexism for all you PCers here) versus "toys" (dazzling new hi-tech weapons systems). The idea was that a relatively small number of 'smart,' accurate, capable weapons could more than make up for hordes of people using less accurate, less effective, less deadly weapons systems (remember all that Sand War PR video they showed you on teevee?)

Well, "toys" won out. This stuff is truly expensive, after all, and we couldn't afford to keep tens of thousands of excess people in the ranks and pay for new hardware as well. So we dispensed with thousands and thousands of people in the armed services, and sold, scrapped, mothballed or dumped in the ocean huge quantities of "obsolete" weapons systems. We bought billions of dollars worth of spectacularly smart new stuff for our deeply trimmed ranks to operate, to make up for their loss of numbers.

Now lots of the "smart" stuff seems likely to be struck dumb at a certain tick of the clock. Whole bunches of people are gone and lots of the old equipment they knew how to use is gone as well. You have all seen the grades DoD has gotten from Horne in the 'report cards.' Just how much of a deterrent effect will this marvelous new arsenal be in the face of y2k? You can bet inquiring minds abroad are thinking about it. Question is, will they do anything about it? Hmmm... . And you maybe wondered why they're offering automatic weapons and grenade launchers to your local PD???

-- nemo... (nemo@deepsix.com), December 10, 1998.

Nemo: Reminds me that during the U.S. invasion of Panama to dethrone Noriega, the Army knew going in that many of the streets of Panama City were too narrow for tanks or APCs. So they planned to use Jeeps (this was pre-Hummer) mounting recoilless rifles, those simple, low- tech, highly portable artillery tubes popular in WWII and Korea. They had to take the recoilless rifles out of mothballs, since they hadn't been used since Vietnam -- and then they discovered that the soldiers who knew how to fire them had also left after Vietnam. Their troops could operate all sorts of high-tech armament, but not one of the simplest weapons in the armory. As I recall, the Army had to call back some retirees to train new gun crews.-----------------

Hot spots, using previously agreed y2k severity scenario: Russia, Middle East, Korean peninsula, Taiwan. Peking and N. Korea coordinate attacks to split whatever forces we put in theater. China has tried unsuccessfully to invade Vietnam twice in recent times, so I don't foresee them attempting a two-front war. Taiwan is far higher on Peking's list. India and Pakistan scared each other and themselves enough to keep things quiet there, especially since the latest Indian elections saw the defeat of the hardline Hindu nationalists.---------- -------

PNG, to your irrationality standard may I add desperation? Russia is already desperate, and by January 2000, it will either be anarchy or a fascist state. Winter came early this year, the soup lines in Moscow stretch for blocks, and regional governors and military commanders are already setting themselves up as independent rulers. Literally anything could happen there in the next 18 months, almost none of it pleasant. If it starts to break up, most of the violence will be internal. If a dictator arises to hold it together, look for a local land war with a smaller neighbor, maybe Ukraine. As for the Middle East, I'll put my money on the Israeli military, even if it comes down to Uzi vs. AK on Temple Mount.----------------

My real worry for both y2k and international conflict is the wild card, the crazy event out of left field that no one sees coming, the year 2000 version of a Pearl Harbor. Who had heard of bin Laden before Nairobi? How about a fundamentalist Islamic coup in Saudi Arabia? China feints to Taiwan and then invades Russia? Anyone else?

-- jdclark (yankeejdc@aol.com), December 10, 1998.

China is #1 threat. Not 'cause they are nasty people or anything, it's just big-power reality. They've got a huge population of excess young males. They've got shrinking farmland. They've got a nervous, semi-legitimate government constantly seeking ways to shore up its internal controls and popular standing. There are parallels with the Iran/Iraq war of "excess young male population drainage".

-BH

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.why), December 10, 1998.

"Not in the least disagreeing, Greg, but might you include a short (and I mean REALLY short) synopsis on where you got the data you used for this?"

Sure thing. Here's some sites on the 'net that helped me a bit.

Observation 1: Syria has ballistic/long-range cruise missile and NBC weaponry capability.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/advocate/ifpa/report696_ch4_syr.htm

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/capability.html

Ob. 2: Syria presents a great threat to Israel.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Syria.html

Ob. 3: There is tension between Britain and mainland Europe over the extent of the alliance forged by the European Union.

http://www.bullen.demon.co.uk/index.htm

Ob. 4: Middle Eastern terrorist groups present a danger to civilians in the continental United States.

http://web.nps.navy.mil/~library/tgp/abu.htm

http://web.nps.navy.mil/~library/tgp/plf.htm

http://web.nps.navy.mil/~library/tgp/pflp.htm

Hope this helps some. If you'd like any more links or anything, just let me know.

--Greg

-- Greg Schutz (arvel@rocketmail.com), December 10, 1998.

China invaded Vietnam twice, true. But neither invasion was a serious attempt to take the country. They were punitive raids intended to distract Vietnam from China's ally, Cambodia, or simply to punish them for destroying the Chinese-supported Pol Pot regime. (The one good thing Communists ever did...end Pol Pot.)

The Chinese military may have limited offshore capability. But they can build it. And once that Yellow River Dam is built (2000?) they will have the raw power to build anything.

--Leo

-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 10, 1998.

"And once that Yellow River Dam is built (2000?) they will have the raw power to build anything."

Or maybe not. I don't know much about the Yellow River Dam, so this comparison might be unfounded, but remember what happened to Egypt after the Aswan Dam was built. We thought it was going to revitalize the Egyptian economy and do wonderful things for the country, but instead it turns out to be a near-total waste of money, destroying the fertile Nile Delta.

The biggest problem with everyone's fear of an all-powerful China rising up to take over the world is that China is simply not as capable as many people believe.

The Chinese Navy is nearly completely composed of short-range, brown-water gunboats and cutters, nothing extremely threatening. They do have quite a few '70s-era Soviet missile boats, such as the Osa-class, but these ships, even operating in "wolfpacks" of a dozen or more, would present little threat to a well-prepared, modernized naval group.

And remember that the few Chinese ships that are capable of doing serious damage, such as the newest version of the Luda-class destroyers, are run by Japanese and Western-built computer systems, which are vulnerable to the Y2K bug.

I didn't include China in my brief threat assessment because they simply will not be affected either way by the Y2K bug. Seeing as their current goals are patrolling their large coast and maybe someday re-taking Taiwan, not ruling the world, I doubt they will care much if the US will not intervene in a war with Taiwan except for the fact that it will make them speed up their plans. But seeing as the attack on Taiwan was going to happen anyway, I didn't feel it needed to be covered.

And don't worry about China taking over mos of the ASEAN nations or anything. Their troop transport and logistics capabilities is poor enough that they'll have problems landing soldiers at a beachhead on Taiwan, let alone waging war effectively thousands of miles from their borders.

I would, though, be concerned with China making a power grab by seizing ample Siberian oil resources from Russia if the Y2K problem is severe enough. Considering that they wouldn't have to move their troops over water, at least half of them should be able to get into the fight, which would probably be enough to overwhelm Russian defenses, tenacious though the Russians have proven to be when defending their homeland.

--Greg

-- Greg Schutz (arvel@rocketmail.com), December 11, 1998.

Interesting, (though unnerving), comments all round.

Last night I took a look at my son's globe. Hmmm, sez I. Here's the date line, there's Japan, and Taiwan, and PRC, and Siberian Russia and Here's the US way over here...

Oh S**t, sez I. Could the Midnite rollover itself be used or percieved as a weapon?

If Moscow's command and control system goes down, Colorado Springs will still be what, 14 hours ahead? That should make for a peaceful night in the Kremlin...

In a way, the Midnite Line is the High Ground. Will nations choose to strike first to exploit or defend against a transient weakness?

Oh man, NOW how am I going to sleep? Someone tell me I worry too much...

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), December 12, 1998.

"Oh man, NOW how am I going to sleep? Someone tell me I worry too much..."

It's a possibility. Those sand dunes over there look mighty inviting.

-- Ostrich (.@...), December 12, 1998.

I am far from a military insider, and it certainly seems that the military has been shortsighted in many respects re. y2k, but i've read several times from several different news sources, including the Sac. Bee today that the military is aware that y2k might just cause these problems, and is attempting to negotiate with the other primary nuclear powers ( i heard russia, and china, don't know if others are included), to have an exchange of people from all of the cooperating powers observing in each others command centers on that date to help relieve the fears that anyone is launching if the SHTF. I hope these reports prove true.

-- Damian Solorzano (oggy1@webtv.net), December 13, 1998.