This friend of mine -- defninitely a GI -- claims that once martial law is declared, & everyone is essentially under house arrest, "they," meaning the techies, should be able to "fix" the problem in a few weeks. He's a student of war history, & claims that once the military has control of things, most practical problems can be solved. It's mostly a matter of keeping you & me off the streets & giving total & absolute priority to the "techies," who of course will be pressed into service, much as occurs during wartime. He's actually hopeful about reports that the state reserves are drilling for Y2K.

Even though this scenario would require a more competent military & better computer programmers than we currently have, I'm still at a loss to refute it coherently. Suggestions?

-- Millie (wants@to.know), February 18, 1999

Answers

I also am a former G.I. and am currently a Y2k project manager, your friend grossly underestimates the magnitude of the problem and the length of time to fix it. It is estimated to find, assess, replace and test 1 embedded systems takes about 20 months. Their are 50 billion systems out their, all that need to be looked at and some at the bottom of the ocean or in space. Even replacing them, and not looking at them at all takes longer than a couple of weeks.

-- Steve Watson (swatson1@gte.net), February 18, 1999.

Steve, Where did you get that estimate of 20 months?

-- ???? (?@?.?), February 18, 1999.

It's hard to see how keeping me off the street facilitates Y2K remediation. The work has to be done where the problems are, right?

Keeping mobs from trashing a neighborhood is quite a different story.

Another point -- government agencies, including the military, and countless business enterprises have been working on this Y2K thing for (in some cases) several years. Yet nobody has finished yet, so far as we know. It seem rash to assume that everything can be fixed in "a few weeks" in an environment conceivably experiencing serious disruptions in supplies of power, water and food.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 18, 1999.

"Obviously you underestimate the military and the technological know how of the people who created the network. Sometimes I think that people have absolutely no faith in anything."

She OVERestimates the military and technological knowhow of those who created the systems.

AES, very simple exercise in logical thinking: If people in general were competent enough, there would be no Y2K problem, and our military would have this whole planet under control.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 18, 1999.

Hi Millie:

first off the military isn't capable of imposing martial law across the entire country - it isn't big enough. The entire active duty military today is about the same size as the Air Force was during the Vietnam War - about 480,000. The reserves and the National Guard make up about another 500,000 or so, counting "clerks,'n' jerks, 'n' bottle washers,and the sick, lame, and lazy", as we used to say.

Now what you have to understand about these numbers is something known as 'tooth to tail' ratio - i.e. for each person effectively capable of supporting martial law, you need to know how may other military folks will simply be there in support positions. [tooth to tail ratios are the dirty little secret of today's military] This varies from service to service - the Marines (smallest and most efficient service) are a little under 2 support people for each combat person, but the other services are MUCH higher. However to give them the benefit of the doubt, let's say that all the military have a tooth to tail raitio of 1:2 that means that only 1/3 of the actual military forces would be available for patroling / enforcing martial law...or roughly 300 to 350,000 troops *if* they pull everybody back from overseas deployments - which is most likely NOT going to happen. Thus a more accurate number would be in the neighborhood of 200,000 troops actually available for enforcement duty.

Now here's where it gets interesting: areas like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago each already have over 20,000 police officers within their metropolitan areas, and immediate suburbs. What that means is that even if they deploy all available troops to the top ten metropolitan areas in this country, they will *only* double the number of law enforcement personnel in the area; while being entirely unable to exert martial law influence elsewhere.

And yeah, that means exactly what it sounds like - there is no way to exert martial law across the entire country...the resources simply are not there.

secondly, the y2k problem is NOT just a problem in the US, it's world wide. Your friend has entirely failed to account for our the fact that we depend on foriegn sources for petroleum (57 percent of our total consumption), or the fact that, because of NAFTA and various other trade agreements, US industried are very heavily dependent upon production facillities in third world countries which we already know will not be completely functional following the rollover.

Then of course there are the civil rights aspects, and those of us who would feel compelled to assist anyone resisting attempts by the government to impress them into a slave labor environment...but we'll leave that for another day.

home that helps some, Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 18, 1999.

Well, it will take a LOT LESS time, people, and resources to fix the small number of KNOWN problems after they are exposed (post 2000). To think that the problem will be as complex and tedious after the 'day' is unrealistic. After all, only 1-2% of chips will need to be upgraded and many other glitches can be bypassed once the details of failure are known. If there is a degree of electricity available, things will come around within a comparably short time.

-- R.A. Mann (ramann@hotmail.com), February 18, 1999.

You're right on this AES, everything is not black and white. But you operate on faith, and that's ilogical for your safety with the reality of Y2K as it stands now.

I know about construction, we're in the business. I know that a scientific lab has to be near %100 perfectly done according to specs for it to funtion according to the scientist's needs. Only very few GC can do them. And I know that cheap shoddy houses are bieng built for profit and time savings, and that those houses function ok for a while but soon start falling appart and even become dangerous. I also know that for every near perfect lab being built, there are countless cheap shoddy houses built. Such is human nature and the way business works. It's no different with technology. I'm not betting that all the code/systems will be fixed near perfection - even if it was possible to find them all - to a degree sufficient to support this extremely fragile house of cards that is our technology dependent civilization.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 18, 1999.

Well then, R.A., all these firms who have been working on the problem for the last few years - spending millions - they're just a bunch of poltroons. They could have simply waited until 1/3/2000. Yeah. That's it. So a few life-support functions go belly-up... at least we'll know for a certainty which ones are bad.

>> If there is a degree of electricity available
...then beggars would ride...

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), February 18, 1999.

Chris:

You make the very best point *for* no collapse.

Somehow, you've been convinced that the system is fragile. It is not. Just as your experience indicates, the system does *not* work anywhere near perfection today. Nor does it have to. The systems built over time mirror your experiences; many are cheap and shoddy. *But the system works*. Individual pieces constantly break, and are replaced or fixed. In many ways, Y2k has forced many companies to replace old, unstable systems with newer, more up-to-date technologies, and will actually benefit them in the long run.

Y2k will strain the system. No question. But it will not collapse.

AG

-- (AG@BFI.com), February 18, 1999.

Ha. The point has been made elsewhere--just because our systems are robust enough to withstand a 1% failure rate, doesn't mean they can withstand a 10% failure rate. Not predicting specific numbers mind you.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), February 18, 1999.

AG, Shimrod has answered before I had time to see your reply. Right now, the system can handle not only a small percentage of brakes, but they are random, spread over time. I don't believe that it will be able to handle an increased number, all at once, plus the other inevitable brakes that will occur after the fact, on top of normal everyday occurances. The fixer-uppers will be overwhelmed. They are now.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 18, 1999.

Not addressed yet: Just what the hell can the military do to fix things? They can't make power (aside from a few remote generator sets.) Can't distribute it. Can't make enough water, can't fight fires, can't do anything but take freedom away.

To "fix" the problems, the "fixers" and their families have to be fed, warm, clothed, transported, supported (at jobsite and home), and provided the technology (clean reliable power and working conditions (like trains, pipelines, oil refineries, and chemical plants, and telephone networks and LANS, and backups and test procedures and suppliers and accountants ...... and everybody down those so pateient as to clean up the rubbish left over so we can work again the next day.

Guess that means about everybody employed now, doesn't it?

The only thing martial law can accomplish is control of the felons and rapists who would otherwise take advantage of the troubles to further harm innocents. In that - it is a good thing they are preparing.

Oh - you did say that the DOD is complete with all their remediation and testing, didn't you? Finished early, had no problems, a real example for the rest of the world.......or are they the ones getting a D- for readiness themselves?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 18, 1999.

I realize this is typical here; try to throw as many different scenarios at once, instead of addressing one at a time.

At least we got past the "fragile" part.

Again, you make arguments that actually *support* no collapse. First, the "fixer-uppers" are *not* overwhelmed currently. Where is the basis for that statement? I certainly don't see it.

Second, the fact that errors currently occur in a *random* fashion makes them that much harder to deal with. Systems fail in the middle of the night, with no warning, dragging people from bed to deal with them. Event horizons for Y2k are clearly defined. For example, the retailers that just rolled into new fiscal years *new* there could be problems, and were staffed and ready to deal with them. Companies are well aware of the potential for errors. Y2k will not happen with only one or two people on the nightshift.

Third, Y2k errors *have not* and *will not* occur all at once. Look at the recent Gartner Group study. The potential for Y2k errors is spread out; 25% occurring from approximately June - Dec of 1999, 55% occurring throughout 2000, with only 8% occurring in the immediate 2 weeks following rollover. Which also means we have dealt with 12% of the potential errors already. I hate playing loose with statistics, but consider this: assume 50% of the programs have potential for Y2k problems. This number is high, I believe, due to the number of out of the box compliant systems in place, and the number of programs that really care nothing about Y2k problems. Assume a 50% fix rate on the systems that do have potential problems; again, this is a low figure, but it is only an assumption. That leaves an outstanding 25% that still has the potential for Y2k errors. Based on the Gartner Group study, only 8% of those will occur somewhat simultaneously, leaving a 2% failure rate. Will this collapse the system?

As for the food, warmth, etc., yes, I've always felt the only *real* possibility of any form of TEOTWAWKI scenatio involved massive, long-term power outages. But the evidence is strongly showing this will not be the case. I'm not a utility expert, but reading Dick Mills has convinced me that those scenarios just are not probable. Note also, Dick doesn't assume *any* remediation effort in his analysis. The reports coming from the utilities, such as the latest from Avista, are *extremely* encouraging. Not only for the individual company, but as a whole. Their statement, "We have yet to find a single embedded controller or subsystem anywhere within our generation or transmission infrastructure that would have hampered our ability to generate or deliver energy to our customers" is probably the most encouraging single statement I've found.

More to the point, Robert, one of the largest potential problems I see currently is just this "Fear Factor" currently being spread to the IT people. It is taking many forms, be it "Geek Migrations", "Bug-Out Plans", or more subtle forms. There is a lot whispering going on, especially here on the 'net, things like "remediation has failed", better get ready to bug-out, etc. I don't know just how much affect it will have, but it could serve to undermine some efforts.

AG

-- (AG@BFI.com), February 19, 1999.

one of the things the military COULD do is to make each household take in one or more soldiers and feed and house them. Germany did this in France and probably else where. Gotta go hide my beans!

-- Taz (Tassie@AOL.com), February 19, 1999.

AG said:

* Chris: You make the very best point *for* no collapse. Somehow, you've been convinced that the system is fragile. It is not. *

AG, then please explain this:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000VxE

Furthermore:

A few years ago I had to maintain a LAN of workstations and PC's. Hardware and software. Even though some of our software cost $10,000+/station and were advanced versions, they were still riddled with bugs. One particular bug caused crashes for many months before it was fixed. We met quartely with the software developer to discuss them and how to work around them.

Chris made an excellent analogy. I have traveled to many countries over the years. Always oberving and comparing. America's housing and land use is a travesty. I was assembled with little foresight of the future. So much so to be downright criminal.

As an example: In many areas of Europe it almost impossible to tell the old from the new, the rich from the poor housing. All inhabitants could be removed to Mars for fifty years. After their return their homes would be almost intact. No leaking roofs, etc.

If you were to do this in America, a large percentage of homes would have been blown away and rotted way. Most of them would be uninhabitable. Why? Because they constantly have to gooked, slopped on, hammered, papered, recycled, etc.

Which brings us to software:

If the infrastucture, on and in which the little electrons dance around is unstable they could get severely shaken up.

If true, several years ago a whole herd of them escaped from a trasmission line via one tree into Mother Earth, causing a blackout in several western states for several hours.

Combine this with Father Sun having a sneezing fit, showering Mother Earth with electrons, etc. then you can imagine what might happen ...

Combine this with ...

Combine this with ...

Combine this with ...

Combine this with ...

Combine this with ...

Adios amore!

-- fly .:. (.@...), February 19, 1999.

Fly:

Your first point appears to be around the need for computers and GPS for synchronization of the grid. In response:

Another Myth, We Need Computers to Synchronize

Second, I agree that Chris made a very good analogy. It is the assumption that the system is fragile which is wrong.

AG

-- (AG@BFI.com), February 19, 1999.

Your points, AG@BFI, are only slightly true - and agian, you've fallen victim to the fed government spin : "the thing to fear is the panic induced by people who are preparing."

Now - you referenced reading the other sites (good) and then conclude "...based on this (evidence) there won't be long term power outages.." siting also the one Northwest US electrical distribution company that has siad it has completed Y2K repairs.

Let us look at power - nothing else can recover until it is stable, because at the beginning of a power outage, all you know is that the powe went out. You can get no work done, can't teach, can't rely on water or heat, can't cook (in many homes and commercial places like schools and hospitals), can't produce goods, count money, run computers, etc. You don't know when it will be restored, nor how long it will be "up" again. Can't heat your house, or cool th eoffice building. Can run elevators, recharge fork lifts, light warehouses, etc.

Do you have any evidence to dispute the following conclusions?

To be damaging - a regional power outage need only last 3 days. To be destructive or interruptive of other repairs trying to go on at the same time - a power failure (or series of failures - such that no operator trusts his manufactoring process to be resumed - need only be intermittant for 2 weeks.

My examination - to date - shows me no evidence that any areas of the country will have reliable power. It shows me that two plants in IL have tested their systems, and that one company in the extreme Northwest is ready. At this time, there is no evidence of any other remediated power supplies.

there are hundreds of companies (including Ogalthorpe and GA Power - my own generators, and Cobb EMC my distributor) that are in th emiddle of remediation. They claim to be on schedule to finish mid-summer. If, by the end of summer, the power grids (country-wide) have completed testing - and nothing less than that level - then I will be willing to assume that failures will most likely be intermittent and local. There is no evidence (claims yep, evidence nope) of any kind to indicate any level of optimism - otjer than we still have several months to go.

There is enough time for many things to get fixed. Not enough time to fix everything known to be broke. Not enough time to look for other things hidden. Not enough time to test - until Jan comes.

Now, look at social failure - panic (as you so greatly fear) ahead of Jan 01 could at worst cause people who fear the unknown to pull money out of banks. What are you (the fed government) doing to avoid panic? to date - disinformation and criticism of those of trying to protect their families. Nothing else.

Social failure (panic) after year 2000 will be induced ONLY in two places:

First, by people who have no resources to manage on their own = these are people who listen to you and don't prepare. You must be ready (somehow) to take care of every person who you convince not to prepare for intermittent failures.

Second, by criminals taking advantage of the the current lack of societal morals and judgement to rob, kill, loot, and rape in search of thrills, heat, warmth, food, and sex, and money (take your pick - motive doesn't matter, only the act itself.).

You must agree with me that those who are preparing are looking ahead, seeing potential problem, and taking actions to prevent it. Those who are preparing are the socially responsible ones, the very one who most explicitily are NOT going to be doing illegal actions in Jan-Feb 2000.

So therefore, what is threat from those who are preparing? NONE. What is the threat from those, like you, who are explicitily telling others that nothing will happen, that alarmists are the threat, that "we" are out to make a profit, etc. Potentially - everything.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 19, 1999.

Robert:

To your points, there is *much* evidence that many more plants have been tested than the few you site. For example:

TVA 8 units

Avista 11 units

Southern Co 12 Units (note: PPT File)

Ontari o Hydro 4 Units (note: PDF File)

Tran sAlta 12 Units (note: PDF File)

Duke Power Plant Test

Texas Utilities No specific number, states have tested about half of their Power Plants.

New York State Again, no specific number, but Dick Mills states a number of New York State power plants have been remediated and tested

Hope this helps your research.

As for the other, no one is saying not to prepare, or criticizing anyone for what they do decide. But there is a tremendous amount of misinformation being spread. And there are people spreading this, with motives other than "for the common good". No one denies their right to do this either, but people need to understand where the message comes from.

AG

-- (AG@BFI.com), February 19, 1999.

Good - thanks for the update.

No one can maintain the problem (in whole, or in parts) ca't be solved. These guys who are solving it need to be congratulated. If, when ?, more 95% are reporting these apparent successes, rather than less than 5% reporting successes, then there will be less cause for concern.

There is a scheduled test (9 April, I believe) that will be interesting - how many participate, what is tested, to what levels, who responds, is it completed on schedule, etc. A more critical one will be late August.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 19, 1999.

AG, to underscore what Robert said, "Your points, AG@BFI, are only slightly true - and agian, you've fallen victim to the fed government spin : "the thing to fear is the panic induced by people who are preparing." "

Here's an article from WiredNews:

"Your points, AG@BFI, are only slightly true - and agian, you've fallen victim to the fed government spin : "the thing to fear is the panic induced by people who are preparing." "

White House Fears Y2K Panic

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 20, 1999.

Sorry, pasted the same thing twice, here's the quote from the article I meant to paste:

"The problem of what to tell workers has quickly become a thorny one for government officials who are trying to balance candor with discretion. The Central Intelligence Agency last May told employees to prepare for Y2K by paying bills early and stockpiling cash, and some private firms have offered similar advice.

At a closed-door meeting of the White House's Y2K council in January, council members debated what agencies should tell their workers. John Koskinen, the council's chairman, warned the audience of about 30 officials that they should expect any advice offered internally will fall into the hands of the media. "

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 20, 1999.

Look, spare me the condescending attitude. I base my conclusions on my own research, and my own observations.

Yes, there is alot of PR floating around. But in many cases, you can find the hard numbers, if you look.

I don't post here often, and I really don't think you want me to. I have some real problems with your sponsor here. But when I see things propagated here, that are out and out false, I try to point them out.

The problem isn't with people preparing, except when they propagate misinformation in the attempt to convince others. The problem is with those behind the scene, pushing their agendas, through positions of previous respect. Whether those agendas are making money, or other, really doesn't matter. People have the right to know, to be able to evaluate the situation.

AG

-- (AG@BFI.com), February 21, 1999.

Read the advice of the North American Electric Reliability Council to its members on how to conduct the April 9 test...

PDF format:

ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/drill-preparation- strategies.pdf

Excerpts (non-PDF):

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/3898

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 21, 1999.