I'll post the ENTIRE point from Andy's post. You only put half of number 7 in my "lessons" post.

7. Russia is moving its strategic nuclear weapons from land to sea.

This is perhaps one of the most ominous developments to take place in Russia during the past six months.

Any military strategist knows that sea-based nuclear weapons, particularly those on submarines, are considerably less vulnerable to attack than land-based weapons. Strategists in both Russia and the United States also know that land-based missiles can be knocked out by ground-bursting nuclear weapons, making the need for sea- based weaponry critical. Russia has long had numerical superiority over the United States in both nuclear weapons and submarines. Russia has 42 ballistic missile submarines compared to 18 for the United States.

I am a missile strategist and have studied missile basing for some time. Nothing new here. Valid points about subs and land-based missile.

In July of 1998, the commander-in-chief of Russias navy announced -- as widely reported in the Russian press -- that the Russian military was moving a huge number of their total land-based, strategic nuclear weapons onto naval ships, where they will be much less vulnerable to attack or counter-attack. Previously, the Russian navy only controlled 30 percent of Russias strategic nuclear weapons. That number will dramatically increase to 50 percent under the new plan.

Please note the move to SHIPS. Did you see it? Read it again. "weapons onto naval ships". Do you know the difference between tracking a sub and tracking a ship. A satellite can spot a ship on the great big ocean like a bull can spot a red flag. So the next statement about "less vulnerable" is the dumbest statement to a nuclear strategists. BTW are you going to refute the feasibility of technically retrofitting these weapons? We could discuss that next if you like.

Why is this being done? Why now? Why during a fiscal crisis when their whole country is supposedly in disarray and their soldiers are supposedly being fed dog food?

If you notice the question in my thread, I asked why would we believe the Russian press. Afterall, they never told the truth in the past, why would they start telling the truth, now. So I doubt very much the Russians are making this move.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 15, 1999

Answers

I went back to read your response: "The article said the percent of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons based on naval vessels (primarily submarines) was increasing from 30% to 50%." No sweetheart it didn't say primarily submarines. It said the navy controlled. Please read the words, I know it's hard. But the navy controls both sub and ships, anything to do with the waters. And again the article said they were putting these things on naval ships not subs. It's pretty clear, only dooomers can mix the words around.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 15, 1999.

Maria

Holy smokes, can't we just all hold hands here? Why don't you post something on the MCI failure rather than what the russians are doing to prove your point. Why bother.

Must be a REALLY boring Sunday.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 15, 1999.

Maybe too many of the land based warheads were being "sold" to third parties, and now Moscow wants to limit the number of "disapearing" nukes by increasing the Lock and Key.

-- Its (All@Conspiracy.com), August 15, 1999.

"I am a missile strategist and have studied missile basing for some time. Nothing new here. Valid points about subs and land-based missile."

So let me see if I have this straight, you're a frame relay expert from MCI who is a missle strategist in her spare time?

I'll say it again, as you ignored my previous post. If you're so fucking smart genius, go help MCI fix their problem so I can do some work tomorrow without losing money because the great and glorious network at MCI is down due to some unknown, BUT DEFINITELY NOT Y2K RELATED, here-to-fore unfixable, for eight godamn days PROBLEM!

MCI sucks. Article quoting, word mincing, semantically inspired, conceited, pollys suck too.

Happy New Years to you and yours.

-- Jim Smith (cyberax@ix.netcom.com), August 15, 1999.

Maria,

This whole business of what Russia might do is not worth the effort you are putting into your debunk attempt. You can't possibly know more about it than anyone else here, or even the CIA, for god's sake. They may launch, they may not, who knows? If they get their backs up against a wall they will launch, in my opinion, OK?

What you *could* be doing is telling us all about the horrible IT problems going on at MCI that can't be fixed in 2-3 days. You know, like Cory has said, measure it in weeks and months. Will it keep going on there for another month or more? How come all the kings horses etc haven't been able to fix it yet? Do you see any connection of the current problem to Y2k work being done. Do you see any connection with the delays in fixing this to the delays in fixing screwed up software due to Y2k errors? Can you even honestly tell us what is happening and why?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 15, 1999.

Marma darling, please leave missile strategy and sea based missile tactics aside for a while and please focus on the more earthly problem of your infamous role within the MCI fiasco.

Genius like you Marma honey can only tackle ONE BIG PROBLEM at a time. When the Russians have their missiles on the air, the whole Nation will call on you for advise and confort.

For the time being though, Marma please concentrate all your valuable neurons and words of wisdom on the ever-loving, sweet-assed, get-your-butt-up-here, can't-happen-in-a-lifetime, never-ever-Y2K-related, 8-day-MCI PROBLEMO. After all, you said that telephony was your field of expertise and you are a full-time MCI employee, right?

No hard feelings O.Kay ?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 15, 1999.

Gordo said, "You can't possibly know more about it than anyone else here" Well hate to burst your bubble, bubba, but I do, on this particular topic.

Thanks for the rest of your comments but I'm waiting for Nabi to see if he can read.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 15, 1999.

George,

My wife constantly tells me "It's not what you say, it's how you say it". And reading your above post made me realize you have approached the MCI/Maria problem in a different way than I did. Hope yours works. I'd love to have Maria expound on the exact issues that you just raised. (Maria.....Maria.....There once was an Ace named Maria....) Ahhhh, I'm probably not saying it right, again. :-)

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 15, 1999.

I agree with every single person, so far, on this particular thread.

The Russians are NOT coming, and yes, this is a distraction from real issues.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 15, 1999.

Bokonon, I agree with you but not many on this forum do.

Nabi, I waiting for a response. Oh yeah I know you couldn't bother with this thread but you and anita give your thoughts on the China thread. BTW NCA means the prez.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 15, 1999.

Maria,

What does MCIW stand for, if you know?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 15, 1999.

Maria and Bok,

On the other infamous thread you started I gave you REAMS of EVIDENCE as to the CHANGE in the way the Russians are BEHAVING as we come up to the

GPS ROLLOVER

and

Y2K

What the hell is wrong with your grey cells that you can't accept THE EVIDENCE???

DO YOU READ STRATFOR???

What is wrong with you two?

PS

Maria - you project manager you - MCI is a worldwide laughing stock.

Get used to what is going to hits us all WORLDWIDE in 4 months time...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 15, 1999.

And as regards Russia...

"You are speculating, based on major news media that Russia is a sick or dying bear. Others base their speculations on different sources."

As Anita says,

seems you two get all your "news" from the Clinton News Network (CNN), reuters, api etc, the LA times, washington Post.

all media shills of the elite there simply to push their agenda to the plebs...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 15, 1999.

Andy,

Granted, weird things happen, but history usually repeats itself, especially in warfare, because commanders always study previous campaigns for tips and techniques. There's just no good precedent for what you suggest - That a crippled nation like Russia would go against the big boys - and as to your assertions that Russians are sandbagging, I can't buy it. They never would have let the Soviet Union dissolve if they were hiding those kinds of aces up their sleeves. I don't have to read your great and learned sources. It's as obvious as the great blue sky.

You reject my sources, I reject yours - stalemate.

-- Bokonon (bokonon@my-Deja.com), August 15, 1999.

Hey Bok,

I really liked your choice of the word "stalemate"... :)

Think about it Bok, who are the BEST chess players in the world??? (and no, not one one-off American :) )

"and as to your assertions that Russians are sandbagging, I can't buy it. They never would have let the Soviet Union dissolve if they were hiding those kinds of aces up their sleeves."

The strategy has been planned since the 30's.

The Cold War never ended.

Perestroika was a sham - to lull the west to sleep. And it worked, BRILLIANTLY...

You haven't read what I provided or you would know this.

The Russians are a VERY proud people, there is a method to their madness, they are suffering now... but the people who are planning all this are living in luxury in their Dachas, believe me you should take this VERY seriously - Bok, please don't misunderstand me, I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just saying it as I see it...

Maria fobs off the evidence because she is brain-dead and has no grasp of reality - she's never travelled, she has no clue.

So now we are in your chess parlance in the END GAME... geddit?

While we are wrapped up worrying about y2k Russia has a different agenda, a fix on failure agenda - I wonder why?

We are about to be MATED if we are not very careful - I just hope the CIA and alphabet agencies are on top of all this - alas their track record id not too good is it? - just look at Bubba who is in charge.

CHECK MATE

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 15, 1999.

"Gordo said, "You can't possibly know more about it than anyone else here" Well hate to burst your bubble, bubba, but I do, on this particular topic. "

What's your background and experience on this Maria? "I do" just doesn't cut it. So now you're working for the CIA too?

"Thanks for the rest of your comments but I'm waiting for Nabi to see if he can read. "

What numbers of the Rules of Disinformation are these Anita? Sidestep the question, redirect attention on a different topic, stall for time?

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 15, 1999.

Wow, a whole thread devoted to me, Maria? I certainly don't deserve so much of your obviously valuable time. Since you are an expert in so many fields, how do you find the time to hang out here with all of us imbeciles on TB2000? Shouldn't you be briefing the President, curing cancer, or solving MCI's "little" glitch instead of bullying a poor intellectual midget such as myself? To quote a famous American icon, "I'm not worthy!" Please forget about me and go back to saving the planet, Maria.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 15, 1999.

and=GOD will put the hook, in the bears[russia] jaw & drag it' into=armageddon.

-- seeker. (dogs@zianet.com), August 16, 1999.

Andy,

Tell you what. Provide me with a reading list. Serious request here.

If you're right, and we somehow can get back on the internet in a couple of months, I promise to be here, and you can tar and feather me for my naivete. If, on the other hand, you're wrong, after giving me sufficient time to read the material, you make the same promise to be here, and I get to have a field day pointing out where your analysies took a decided turn towards the twilight zone.

Sound like a plan?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 16, 1999.

Seeker, sure that could be the way it turns out in the end, but the bear may do a lot of damage before it is pulled back in. Just like Germany did a lot of damage before they were stopped.

Maria,

You don't seem to want to talk about MCI. Is that because:

A)..You think that nothing bad is going on and have nothing to say.

B)..You think a lot of bad is going on but are afraid to talk about it.

C)..You really don't have a clue as to what is going on.

I'm choosing C). How did I do?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 16, 1999.

Hi Bok,

well if you are serious start with Nyquist, Ruddy, Lunev - go to artbell.com, click on previous guests, check out their web sites, listen to the bell archives where you can hear them plus listeners questions. there was also another guest on artbell talking about the best places to live in the USA regarding "strategic relocation" - can't remember his name but he is in the archives too. i have plenty more but this will get you started.

read stratfor intelligence reports when they come out - check their archives.

later,

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 16, 1999.

Bok,

This is the CIA report on y2k - pay particular attention to the references to Russia... tell me, in view of the apparent devestation this will cause to the Russians, do you not think if there WERE a plan for an all-out first strike on the USA, that this report would tend to support my contention - not use it or lose, but use it and WIN the spoils... remember, the folks with the fingers on the button are the Russian elite, in their bunkers - do you have any idea of their mindset?? listen to Lunev and Nyquist and find out...

TEXT: CIA ASSESSES GLOBAL Y2K READINESS (Senate hearing focuses on international Y2K issues) (3670)

Washington -- All the world's nations will be affected by Y2K related failures to some extent, according to a review conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A CIA officer presented the findings to the U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem March 5.

Lawrence Gershwin with the CIA's National Intelligence Council reported that global connections in telecommunications, financial systems, air transportation, manufacturing and trade assure an international impact when many computer systems are expected to encounter problems reading dates at the opening of the year 2000. While Gershwin acknowledged some difficulty in making predictions about what's likely to happen, he said CIA research has identified those areas most likely to affect U.S. interests. They are: foreign nuclear reactors and power grids, military early warning systems, trade, oil and gas sectors, and worldwide shipping and air transport. The CIA found the lowest level of Y2K preparedness in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and several Asian countries, including China. In Western Europe, the intelligence agency found that modification of computer systems to accommodate conversion to a new currency has taken precedence over Y2K problems.

In Russia and Ukraine, Gershwin testified that humanitarian consequences could result if Y2K failures lead to power outages in the midst of harsh winter weather.

Gershwin also said the CIA is watching carefully the vulnerability of Soviet designed nuclear power plants throughout the nations of the former USSR, Central and Eastern Europe. This review also finds the potential for Y2K problems in Russia's Gazprom Natural Gas Pipeline network.

Military systems are also a matter of concern, but Gershwin was clear to allay some fears. "We do not see a problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically being launched, or nuclear weapons going off, because of computer problems arising from Y2K failures. And our assessment remains that we currently do not see a danger of unauthorized or inadvertent launch of ballistic missiles from any country due to Y2K problems."

Following is the text of Gershwin's testimony:

(begin text) LAWRENCE K. GERSHWIN, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM

5 March 1999

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to discuss with you today the understanding that the Intelligence Community has about foreign efforts to deal with the Y2K problem. We continue to watch the problem closely, and I have our current assessment of where we see problems as most likely to occur. The Y2K situation continues to change, and our assessments will similarly evolve as more information becomes available, as countries become more aware of and deal with Y2K issues, and as incidents of Y2K failure increase.

As we have said before, Mr. Chairman, all countries will be affected -- to one degree or another -- by Y2K-related failures. Global linkages in telecommunications, financial systems, air transportation, the manufacturing supply chain, oil supplies, and trade will virtually guarantee that Y2K problems will not be isolated to individual countries. No country will be completely immune from failures. Fixing the Y2K problem has proven to be labor and time intensive, as well as expensive.

There remain significant information gaps that make it difficult for us to assess how serious the Y2K problem will be around the world. In many cases, foreign countries only recently have become aware of the problem and begun to examine their critical infrastructure systems for potential Y2K failures. In comparison, the United States has made a significant effort to identify and redress Y2K problems, and it was only after the process was well underway that it was possible to get a good appreciation of the extent of the problem and its implications. Many foreign countries, particularly those that are the furthest behind, have not made such an effort, so -- for our part -- we can identify their likely problem areas but cannot make confident judgments at this point about what is likely to happen. Those problem areas that we have detected that have the potential to affect US interests include, among others, foreign nuclear reactors and power grids, military early warning systems, trade, the oil and gas sectors, and worldwide shipping and air transport, all of which I will elaborate on.

The consequences of Y2K failures abroad will range from the relatively benign, to problems within systems across sectors that will have humanitarian implications, such as power loss in mid- winter. The coincidence of widespread Y2K-related failures in the winter of 1999-2000 in Russia and Ukraine, with continuing economic problems, food shortages, and already difficult conditions for the population could have major humanitarian consequences for these countries.

Foreign countries trail the United States in addressing Y2K problems by at least several months, and in many cases much longer. Y2K remediation is underfunded in most countries. We do see indications that countries are undertaking contingency planning for recovery from Y2K failures:

- Time and resource constraints will limit the ability of most countries to respond adequately by 2000.

-- Governments in many countries have begun to plan seriously for Y2K remediation only within the last year, some only in the last few months, and some continue to significantly underestimate the cost and time requirements for remediation and, importantly, testing. Because many countries are way behind, testing of fixes will come late, and unanticipated problems typically arise in this phase.

-- The largest institutions, particularly those in the financial sectors, are the most advanced in Y2K remediation. Small and medium- size entities trail in every sector worldwide.

-- Most countries have failed to address aggressively the issue of embedded processors. While recent understanding is that failures here will be less than previously estimated, it is nevertheless the case that failure to address this issue will still cause some highly dependent sectors with complex sensor and processing systems to have problems, centered right on the January 1 date.

-- The lowest level of Y2K preparedness is evident in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and several Asian countries, including China.

The World Bank recently noted that the Y2K problem within developing countries has been overlooked because many observers assume developing countries are less dependent on computers in everyday national life. They point out that the majority of developing countries, even the poorest, have computerized essential services such as power generation, telecommunications, food and fuel distribution, and the provision of medical care. The Bank says that a general failure of such systems could endanger the health, security, and economic well being of people in the developing world. We agree with this assessment.

Middle Eastern countries and firms have basic awareness of the Y2K problem and have made modest progress in remediation. The business sector, especially banking, seems best prepared in that region. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates believe that their banks will be ready. Most government, business, and military remediation efforts are however, in general, poorly coordinated.

In Africa, efforts in South Africa are the best organized. South Africa leads the continent in recognition of the Y2K challenge and in activities to address it. As in the Middle East, most other government and military remediation efforts throughout the continent are, in general, poorly coordinated.

We see problems in Latin America. An October 1998 Gartner Group study indicated that in many nations of Latin America, at least 50 percent of companies will experience at least one mission critical failure. Even if governments and firms in Latin America devote sufficient resources to the problem, they will be hard pressed to complete remediation within the next 10 months to avoid systems failures.

Although Western Europe is in relatively better shape than most other regions, European awareness of and concern about the Y2K problem is uneven, and the Europeans lag the United States in fixing their problems. European attention was focused on modifying computer systems for the European Monetary Union conversion, which was implemented successfully on 1 January, but this was done, in many cases, by postponing coming to grips with Y2K problems.

The Asian economic crisis has hampered the Y2K remediation efforts of most of the Asia-Pacific countries. The appeal to the World Bank and others this week from eighteen Asia-Pacific nations during the Manila Y2K summit, asking for funding for Y2K remediation, was not surprising. There is much to be done. After a slow start in addressing the Y2K problem, China has stepped up efforts over the past two months in an attempt to meet a March 31 deadline imposed by the Ministry of Information for detection of Y2K problems. In mid- February 99, Chinese officials conducted the first test of several key systems in the financial, telecommunications, and electric power sectors. The civil aviation sector reportedly is also preparing for a nationwide test. While the lines of authority for China's Y2K effort have been established, remediation efforts in critical sectors such as electric power, transportation, and telecommunications appear to be lagging. China's late start in addressing Y2K issues suggests Beijing will solve some, but not many of its Y2K problems in the limited time remaining, and will probably experience failures in key sectors. China's problems are exacerbated by the fact that, by some estimates, over 90% of the software used in China is pirated, including most of the software used in government offices and state owned enterprises. This could make it very difficult to approach software vendors for technical fixes and coincidentally, limits China's legal recourse should their software suffer Y2K-related problems.

Russia has exhibited a low level of Y2K awareness and remediation activity. While the Russians possess a talented pool of programmers, they seem to lack the time, organization, and funding to adequately confront the Y2K problem. The $3 billion estimate last month from Alexander Krupnov, Chairman of the Russian Central Telecommunications Commission, is six times the original estimate. Frankly, we do not know how they arrived at this number.

One issue we are watching in Russia relates to vulnerability of Soviet- designed nuclear plants in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia to Y2K- related problems. DOE analysts have done a systematic analysis of the safety of foreign reactors, and some of the former Soviet models are the worst. US nuclear reactor specialists know a great deal about the design and safety of these reactors, but they do not yet know what specific Y2K problems they may have. Documentation for plant equipment and software in use in Soviet-designed reactors is either poor or nonexistent. Many of the vendors who supplied this equipment or software have not been in business since the fall of the Soviet Union and are not available to help.

We envision two ways in which potential problems with Soviet-designed reactors could evolve. The first involves the operation of internal components or sensors crucial to the operation of the plant, being affected or degraded by Y2K problems. For example, a valve with a digital controller designed to automatically adjust the flow of cooling water could potentially malfunction because the digital controller does not recognize the year 00. The second involves problems arising from the loss of off-site power to the reactor due to Y2K problems in the power grid. This could lead to a series of Y2K problems possibly occurring simultaneously, presenting an even greater challenge to the reactor operators.

While loss of electric power would in itself normally result in reactor shutdown, that process could potentially be complicated if internal Y2K problems arise within the reactor complex itself. We have not yet identified any safety-related equipment with Y2K-related problems within Soviet-designed reactors; however, other, non-safety- related equipment used to operate the plant may have problems. For example, in some Soviet-style reactors (RBMK's-14 graphite moderated, water cooled reactors) a computer is used to control power production. Failure of this computer would cause activation of the safety systems, the control rods would automatically be inserted, and the reactor would begin to shut down. When external power is lost, diesel generators are used to supply power to cooling pumps to remove heat from the core. These diesels must have adequate fuel supplies on hand for at least a week in order to prevent fuel melt.

While some Soviet-designed reactors are less, vulnerable to problems from Y2K failures due to safety improvements incorporated into their designs, other reactors currently in use in Russia and other former Soviet states and allies, such as the remaining reactor at Chernobyl, are of more concern. While DOE has initiatives underway designed to assist the Russians in reducing the risk of Y2K-related reactor safety issues, the Russians have been slow to accept our help. DOE is sponsoring a study at Pacific Northwest Laboratories to identify the most likely Y2K failures in Soviet designed reactors from internal Y2K problems or from electric power grid problems -- and to assess the implications of potential failures.

Russia's Gazprom Natural Gas Pipeline network also is susceptible to potential Y2K outages. It supplies nearly 50 percent of the total energy consumed by Russia, almost 15 percent of the total energy consumed by Eastern Europe, and 5 percent of that consumed by Western Europe. Based on the natural gas storage capacity and the drawdown capability at the storage sites, we believe that Western Europe can survive a Gazprom shutdown for over 30 days. This assumes that there are no Y2K problems associated with distribution of the gas from the storage areas. Of greater concern are Eastern Europe, Russia itself, and the other states of the former Soviet Union should Russia's ability to transport and export natural gas be interrupted in mid- winter. Russia will lose virtually all of its natural gas and the information that we have on the storage capacity and drawdown capability of Eastern Europe and other states of the former Soviet Union suggests that those countries could experience severe shortages should Gazprom shut down. Like all major pipeline operators, Gazprom has emergency contingency plans to assure continued gas delivery after a pipeline shutdown or explosion. While available options include manual equipment operation, use of stored gas, and switching to backup pipe segments, it is unclear whether these measures are sufficient to deal with the scale of problems that could occur due to Y2K failures.

Potential problems include:

-- Soviet-era mainframes -- roughly equivalent to the IBM 360 and 370 series -- have been used in Gazprom's pipeline operations centers and are highly likely to contain Y2K vulnerabilities.

-- Gazprom uses supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems to monitor and control some pipeline operations. Nearly all SCADA systems purchased prior to the late 1990s contain some degree of Y2K vulnerability.

-- Satellite ground stations used to transfer data between gas producing regions to Gazprom's headquarters may have Y2K problems.

-- Several hundred unattended equipment stations along remote Siberian sections of Gazprom's pipelines may rely on vulnerable embedded processors. While most of these should work, they all need to be tested to ensure their reliability. These stations are used to relay communications and may be used to control pipeline valves. Many of them are accessible only by special convoys or helicopter, and under normal circumstances are only visited twice per year. Compressor stations -- over six hundred of which pump gas through the pipeline network -- also contain embedded processors that could be vulnerable. Military systems and their command and control are particularly information- technology dependent, and thus potentially vulnerable to disruption if Y2K problems are not adequately addressed. Foreign strategic missile systems, particularly in Russia and China, may experience Y2K-related problems. Missile-related concerns involve the vulnerability of environmental control systems within silos to Y2K disruption. Sensors and controllers need to be Y2K safe. Liquid- fueled missiles within silos must be monitored for fuel leaks. Optimum temperature and humidity levels must also be maintained within the silos. I want to be clear that while local problems are foreseeable, we do not see a problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically being launched, or nuclear weapons going off, because of computer problems arising from Y2K failures. And, our assessment remains that we currently do not see a danger of unauthorized or inadvertent launch of ballistic missiles from any country due to Y2K problems. Based on our analysis, we think the Russians may have some Y2K problems in the early warning systems that they use to monitor foreign missile launches, and at their command centers. You may have seen Maj. General Dvorkin's statement at a Moscow press conference this week that the Y2K problem does threaten early warning and space control systems. Problems within these systems could lead to incorrect information being either transmitted, received, or displayed or to complete system outages. General Dvorkin stated that tests have revealed which hardware and software needs to be remediated or replaced and that final tests of the adjusted software will take place in October of this year. DOD has been working with the Russians for months on these problems. DOD has announced plans to establish a joint US-Russian Defense Y2K Coordination Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in order to share early attack warning information, thus preventing confusion should any Y2K-related false or ambiguous warnings occur. A DOD delegation visited Moscow last month to help the Russians get up to speed on potential Y2K-related nuclear early warning problems.

Regarding world trade and oil, some of our most important trading partners -- including China and Japan -- have been documented by, among others, the Gartner Group, as behind the US in fixing their Y2K problems. Significant oil exporters to the United States and the global market include a number of countries that are lagging in their Y2K remediation efforts. Oil production is largely in the hands of multinational corporations in the oil-producing countries, but this sector is highly intensive in the use of information technology and complex systems using embedded processors. Microprocessors and computer systems are utilized for oil and gas production, processing, and transportation. Computers and microprocessors are used to monitor, report, and store data on the status of equipment and facilities and to assist in performing or controlling operations. In more sophisticated infrastructures, operations of equipment and facilities may be highly automated to enable networks of facilities to be controlled remotely. This places that industry at risk of Y2K- related problems which could result in a slowdown of extraction, refining and delivery.

The oil sector is also highly dependent on ports, ocean shipping, and domestic infrastructures. Y2K specialists have noted that world ports and ocean shipping are among the sectors that have done the least to prepare for the Y2K problem.

Waterborne commerce carries not only oil but a significant amount of the world's goods of all types. It is difficult to predict at present the effect of Y2K on the shipping industry, however, many ships and transshipment points use higher level computer systems and equipment that contain embedded systems. Widespread failures in waterborne commerce carriers could also have significant impacts in the supply of food and commercial goods, resulting in possibly severe economic disruptions. Malfunction of navigational equipment either aboard or external to the ship may also occur, resulting in either collisions or groundings, potentially resulting in environmental problems. Aviation has been one of the pioneers in automation and computer systems which are used on board aircraft and in control towers at airports. If global air traffic (personnel, air freight, package, and mail delivery) is seriously curtailed in 2000, this could have a significant impact on global business activity, not just the travel industry. Problems within this sector include the existence of radar systems deemed "legacy systems" that run older software and thus may be vulnerable.

Y2K problems in the telecommunications networks could negatively impact a broad range of other sectors that rely on the networks not only for communications but also for monitoring and load management. Many countries have telecommunications equipment with components purchased elsewhere, a fact that complicates the identification and remediation of Y2K-related problems. Sectors that are heavily dependent on telecommunications include banking, defense, electric power, natural gas, water, transportation, and food distribution. In addition, a functioning telecom network is crucial in emergency situations.

Our global and domestic markets for financial securities, commodities, products, and services depend completely on the smooth functioning of the vast information technology (IT) infrastructure. The banking industry is particularly affected by the year 2000 problem because nearly every aspect of the business is dependent on computer systems for processing transactions and providing information. It is as yet unclear what effect non-remediated foreign banks will have on the international banking system when they attempt to interact with the rest of the world. The Y2K-related litigation issue continues to grow. Concerns about litigation have, in some cases, stifled the open exchange of information on Y2K-related issues. Many foreign officials and companies who are aware of Y2K problems are looking to the West, particularly the United States, for help and technical solutions. Foreign companies or governments may blame the United States and other foreign vendors for problems in equipment and thus seek legal redress for their failures.

In closing, let me note that today we are closely monitoring a broad range of countries and sectors worldwide in terms of their susceptibility to disruption by Y2K failures. We continue to gather information from all branches of the US Government, industry sources, a vast array of open sources (including hundreds of Web sites), and our own intelligence collection efforts so that we can accurately predict failures abroad and assess the implications. We are working very closely with the rest of the government, through the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, and will continue to share relevant information on the Y2K situation abroad. As our collection continues, and awareness of and reporting on Y2K problems abroad increases, our estimates of the type and extent of failures we are likely to see around the world will become more precise. (end text)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 16, 1999.

Nabi, thanks for not answering the questions. Next time you accuse someone of not reading, do yourself a favor and think. I know that it's hard but try it, you can do it.

Chris, you should know my background by now. If you don't remember ask a, Ray or Diane.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 16, 1999.

Maria,

The CIA couldn't even predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, remember. You really need to listen to the "locals" in these things, and not the government sources. What a Russian General says is far more important and accurate than what the "official" statement is, whether that comes from inside our own government or theirs. Somehow you have been reading all these official reports and not connecting with the fact that they are totally wrong as often as they are right. They never get better than a coin toss opinion at the official level, and we can do that good, probably better, right here.

Now, could you pump out even half as many words about the MCI fiasco for us?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 16, 1999.

Yea Maria, come on, we all want to know what's up, err, going on, with MCI. Looks like at least a dozen requests for your opinion, just in this thread. Why so quiet?

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2board@yahoo.com), August 16, 1999.

Unlike you guys, I don't talk about things that I don't know anything about. All Iknow is that it has nothing to do with Y2K.

Gordon, my background includes an SBI clearance, access to classified info about Russian culture and missile capabilities, nuclear missile strategic planning (I wrote code optimizing nuclear attack using Lagrangian multipliers, you know what they are don't you), a Master's degree in Space Operations, twenty years experience in the warning and command and control systems for US Space Command, seven years experience in computer security assessment and testing for DoD systems, and four years experience in remediating code. I would say that I am not (repeat not) relying on any articles. And to say that you trust a Russian commander's words is absolutely ludicrous.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 16, 1999.

Interesting how the "title" of a thread sets the tone of not only the first posting, but also the responses from each individual....

I'm surprised by this one: placing ground launched missiles on a 'ship" - even something as easy to modify as a "converted" merchant vessel, much less a "submarine" - is very difficult. US did this for the USS Norton Sound (and a few other test platforms) early in the surface missile programs in the late fifties and early 60's).

loading isn't too bad - relatively simple actually since the Russian missiles are often self-transportable by mobile launchers - and moving them from land bases to ships makes it much more difficiult to get access to the missiles and warheads. So that is a viable safety "increase" since it means the missiles have to get moved (requires BIG crane!) from back off the ship to the shore, then the warhead dismantled, then the warhead moved.

This is harder to conceal, harder to do, if the missile itself is on a ship.

----

Launching accurately from a moving is very difficult - targeting, getting base points, aligning, protecting missile during the initial boost, getting and keeping ships position (easier now than then with our own GPS!) and transferrign "launch" position from the ship to missile is difficult. It can be done, but not without extensive modifications to the "former" land-based launcher controls to ship-based integrated controls.

Of course, if they don't care about even 2-5 miles accuracy, it's simpler.

Sub-based lauching is impossible for anybut a dedicated and designed-in from the beginning sub msssile, sub-launcher tube (which is welded into the hull, and sub-support systems. Simply can't be done with a normal land-launched missile. Theorectically, you could take off a land-launched warhead and rebuild it for the sub-launched missile, but that's more like trying to put a Toyota cylinder into a Ford engine block, then mounting it with Chevy engine head and use Chrysler connecting rods and a Mazda camshaft.

Yes, they are all the same "parts", but they aren't designed to work together, much less fit together.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 16, 1999.

I'm wondering if Maria's employer is aware of her posts here?

-- just wondering (justwondering@justwondering.com), August 16, 1999.

Thanks Robert.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 16, 1999.

Maria,

Geeez, (sound of trumpets) your credentials look like quite a number of high level bureaucrats I have seen. How in the world does someone like you end up fixing Y2k problems at MCI, but is not really aware of the current problem there, except to say it is not Y2k related? I have a feeling you are one of those programmers that Jocelyn Amon was talking about in her recent essay. Anyway, just for fun, did *you* see the fall of the Shah coming? I know it wasn't in the official government memos or briefings, so if you did see it, where did you get the information and what did you tell others would happen to us? Did you see the coming takeover of the embassy there too?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 16, 1999.

Gordo, quit while your ahead. You continue to ramble and say nothing. Your ignorance is showing.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 16, 1999.

No wonder MCI is in the mess it's in, Maria is on Time Bomb 2000 - Top Level 24 hours a day! Maria, fix it please!

-- exMCIer (ex-MCIer@ex-MCIer.com), August 16, 1999.

exMCIer, I'm so glad you think so much of me. Yes, I can fix just about anything. Now your little bruised ego needs a few drinks. Ask Andy, he'll tell you which beer will remedy that.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 16, 1999.

Ahhhhhhh, geez, Andy! Are you gonna make me look up the full names, book titles and URL's all on my own? A deal's a deal, and I was being serious, but I do have SOME limitations on my time....

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 16, 1999.

Maria, I don't think you can fix anything because it's still broke. I don't drink either, so I'll pass on the beer. However, I wonder sometimes if you aren't on the suds.

-- exMCIer (exMCIer@exMCIerr.com), August 16, 1999.

Maria,

You should take your own advice. You have got to be the biggest flaming ego act on this whole forum. How the hell can anybody work with you? Bet you get bounced from job to job when they've had enough of your "know it all" attitude. Is there anything you don't know more about than anybody else? Not really, huh? Oh, except maybe what's going on at MCI to make a laughing stock of them.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 16, 1999.

Bok - easy peasy japanezy - just point and click.

The other guy I was talking about is Joel Skousen, in the AB archives too...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 16, 1999.

It doesn't matter if this is "Y2K related" or not. The problem was caused by a software update. One, single, tested, software update, and the network was virtually down for 10 days.

Think of how many Y2K related software updates are going on all over the world. How many of these are being rushed into production, with too little testing? Remember these statements by FAA technicians, the same FAA that has been accused of lying about Y2K progress:

"Technicians who maintain the nation's air traffic control system planned to leaflet 21 airports across the country Friday, complaining that equipment is being rushed into service without sufficient testing or training..."

"They rushed this system into service, against our wishes, because they want to say we've got another 40 percent of our equipment Y2K compliant,"

Think about today's post:

"Army Chemical Weapons Plant falsified y2k compliance: Your Government at work, ready for y2k!"

Bump in the road? I just don't understand this thinking.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 16, 1999.

Gordo, you are the one who kept saying I didn't know any more than the simpletons on this forum. I gave you just a little insight into my background and you accuse me of sounding trumpets. Then you accuse me of bragging. No, sweetheart, actually your responses sound as if you feel so inept when compared to my experiences. Once again, unlike you, I only discuss things in which I have direct knowledge. I never ever said I knew everything. Just because I'm confident in my knowledge, you accuse me of having an ego. Once again, I think that's a reflection of your own feelings of ineptitude. So your response speaks volumes of you. If you'd like to discuss the topic of this thread I'd be happy to give you some insight but if you'd like to continue to bash me, knock yourself out.

Yes, Sysman a lot of lessons learned here, huh but that's not the topic of this thread. You'll notice that lots of threads have been started on the MCI topic, but as I said I can speculate about what went wrong. I don't have direct knowledge of this incident.

Anita, where have you been?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 17, 1999.

Women's Tee Shirts (for Maria):

* I'm busy. You're ugly. Have a nice day. * Warning: I have an attitude and I know how to use it. * Why do people with closed minds always open their mouths? * Im multi-talented: I can talk and tick you off at the same time. * Do NOT start with me. You will NOT win. * Don't tick me off! I'm running out of places to hide the bodies. * Guys have feelings too. But like...who cares? * I don't believe in miracles. I rely on them. * Next mood swing...6 minutes. * I hate everybody and you're next * And your point is...? * I used to be schizophrenic, but we're OK now. * All stressed out and no one to choke. * I'm one of those bad things that happen to good people. * How can I miss you if you won't go away? * Sorry if I looked interested. I'm not.

-- for Maria (for@Troll.Maria), August 17, 1999.

Here is how I got it on Russia. (Maria, pay attention now, A real expert reads widely, even those of differing viewpoints.)

1. You must have an inner distrust of communisn from the start.

2. Read "Keys of this Blood" by Malachi Martin. (God rest his soul) Here you will learn that the communists intend to dominate the world and will stop at nothing. They are in the middle of a millennial endgame for domination by 2000. Here you will learn of their strategy to be aggressive if they can get away with it or feign weakness and infiltrate by perostroika and glasnost.

3. It would help if you believed in the EvilOne. It would help you understand how stalin and lenin could be so ruthless, cruel and monstrous.

4. Next: Go to Art Bell, Aug. 10th, 1998 archives. Listen to interview with Joel Skousen. Go to his website. Order his book "Strategic Relocation". I did. He explains the threat in detail. The only disagreements I have with Joel is that he underestimates y2k and pushes soviet plans to 2004-6. He also sees the NWO crowd as controlling the communists. I don't agree with that either. I just think the commies have a lot of friends in the capitalist system. You can find Joel on radioliberty.com as well. But you must order the tapes. I did. They are excellent. You should check radioliberty every week for a list of guests. Skousen: www.xsw.com/securehome (or worldbrief instead of securehome)

3. You can go right now to Don Mcalvaney on realaudio and hear his 3 part interview with Christopher Story, editor of Soviet Analyst. The url: www.audiocentral.com/rshows/mir/default.html You can also order McAlvaney's newsletter or ask for free issues on trial. McAlvaney follows Skousen in the timing. Is their timing business related, Gee I hope not.

4. Go to sightings.com and you will find Skousen, Ruddy, Lunev, and Nyquist on archives. Bookmark this and the above sites.

5. For a time, until February, Joel S. was a lone voice. But I knew he understood. The whole media has been duped that communism has fallen, desires capitalism, and should be given money.

6. Next: Go to newsmax.com. Click on archives. Read articles by Nyquist, Lunev, and Ruddy. Order Ruddy's package. Two videos and a report on why Russia is planning an attack possibly this year. You can also order Vortex. With Nyquist switching to worldnetdaily.com newsmax is not uptodate. Nyquist's webpage: www.jnyquist.com/~jnyquist/index.html

7. Go to worldnetdaily.com and read Nyquist's articles all on archive. Buy his book "Origins of the Fourth World War". Also order "Dispatches" from worldnetdaily.com. Nyquist goes indepth and writes most of the stuff in Dispatches.

8. Go to garynorth.com and click on military. That will keep you busy.

9. Notice all the news and reports on Russia's y2k problem. This is why we believe they Must attack. It is 'use it or lose it'.

10. Go to prophecyclub.com Listen to realaudio of Demetri Dudiman. Nyquist also has a series on soviet plans. It is free and an excellent study of his position. You can also order this series on one videotape. I did.

11. Read David Wilkerson's writings. Christians believe that America is ripe for judgement because of abortion, immorality, homosexuality, and coveteousness. You can skip this if you are not a believer. Just type in Wilkerson in your search engine. You can also go to a cool Christian site and scroll down to the prophets section. Here you will find Wilkerson on realaudio and others... www.cis.upenn.edu%7Ehomeier/y2k CLick on Nita Johnson as well.

11. Go to www.csis.org and read. Go to statfor.com and read. Go to the Center for Security Policy directed by Frank Gaffney.... www.security-policy.org and read. Go to www.janes.com for more

12. Then come back and listen to Nabi, Nikoli, INVAR and Andy.

We are not saying it's a done deal. What I am saying anyway, is that, if Russia has plans to go to war with America, and every sign and strategy says they do........then the best window of opportunity is now to the end of December. After that, y2k presents too much uncertainty. If you believe Russia somehow miraculously has remediated its pirated software and embedded systems, then go with Skousen's timing.

By the way Maria, what did you say your sources were?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), August 17, 1999.

Thanks for the chuckle :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 17, 1999.

Without a doubt Maria you have just confirmed everything that we all knew about you, but suspected, no, she can't be that bad can she, that ...... dumb....

Well yes she can.

After all the effort we have put in to point you in the right direction, YOU, an ex-missile strategist (allegedly) - and that's all you can come up with...

thanks for the chuckle???

you are a freakin' moron Maria, you have muddied the gene pool with you presence on this orb...

That's it, I'm not wasting any more time on your pathetic sorry fat ass.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 17, 1999.

Andy, you are a piece of work. My response was being typed at the same time as BB. BB's got in first. Sorry I wasn't quicker. My bad. Now Andy give me a moment to look at the post and yes I will respond to it. Please put your thinking cap (tin foil) on.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 17, 1999.

Sorry BB but I won't follow step 12. Nabi has proven he can't read, so I can't believe what he types. Andy is the biggest moron on this forum, so he's off the list of people to listen to. INVAR is the most insulting thing to humans everywhere, so he's off the list also. Nikoli is a raving lunatic but lovable, still I don't listen to him very much.

I will take a look at those sites but I won't spend any money on their tapes or books. Sorry, it's not a priority for me.

My sources are classified documents, none of which are on the web. Russia and Soviet Union are two different entities. This must be considered in your analysis. You can not poo-poo this. Do you want to discuss Nyquist's eleven points from Andy's thread?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 17, 1999.

I am breathing a big sigh of relief Maria that I don't have to interact with you, my health couldn't take the stress...

BB

You are a better man than me...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 17, 1999.

Maria,

Your source is classified documents, huh? Still currently classified? Are you an agent, a mole, or a contract consultant to the intelligence community? Are those classified documents the same type and quality as the ones issued to the white house about the shah of iran? Maria, god bless you, you are a piece of work!

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 17, 1999.

Good point Gordon. Probably the same as the documents they depended on when they bombed the Chinese embassy, the fake targets in Kosovo, and the pill factories in Afghanistan, and the great CIA work at Los Alamos. The CIA led by people like Talbot, Berger, and Albright. Give us a break....these people are going to get us killed.

Maria, I promise not to tell, if you want to share your sources and info on a secure line.

And no, I am tired of the eleven points.

There is just one point Maria, Y2K. Is Russia's military, nuclear reactors, and infrastructure compliant or not? Can your secret sources allow you to give a simple yes or no?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), August 17, 1999.

Ah I can see it now... BB, Andy, the Gordo twins, Nabi, Nik standing around the water cooler in cyberspace and talking about the good ole boyz club, only stuff that men know about: their units, world politics, war. Women allowed only if the bow to their intelligence and knowledge, agree and hang on their every word. "I'm not worthy", I say bowing, arms stretched in front of me. "I'm not worthy", I chant again.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 17, 1999.

Maria!

Ther'es hope for you yet, ROTFLMAO!

Hey, you can always get the "op" you know, y2k pro has.......

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 17, 1999.

Maria,

I take it your answer is no.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), August 17, 1999.