And What About the Bomb?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Hey, have I missed a forum? What about all those nuclear warheads in North Dakota? Will they be "compliant?" Do they have internal calendars? Do the missiles fire when something goes wrong with the calendars? Or do they just go to sleep?

What about the Soviets/Russians? How good is their awareness? Technology? Budgets? Commitment? Organization?

Isn't this question even more important than the electricity issue?

-- steve francis (sfrancis@sympatico.ca), March 25, 1998

Answers

Steve,

I don't have a military security clearance, and I have never worked on weapons systems -- so I can't be considered an authority on the question you've raised.

However, it's interesting that the newspapers reported a few days ago (including the Times in London) that John Koskinen (the new Y2K czar appointed by Clinton) has raised the possibility of Y2K problems with nuclear defense systems. My guess is that there are enough safety systems that the missiles wouldn't fire if there was a computer problem; more likely, it would be just the opposite: they would REFUSE to fire because the computer systems would decide to shut down in the event of a Y2K error.

As for the Russians: Gorbachev is definitely aware (and had been, long before we sent him a copy of our TimeBomb book), and one assumes that Yeltsin is aware of Y2K during those periods when he's sober. But I have no idea what the rest of the Russian socio-economic system is doing about the problem, if anything. About the only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that their computer technology is older than ours.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (yourdon@worldnet.att.net), March 25, 1998.


Ed

Thanks for your reply.

But... I feel like an orphan when I see the lack of interest in or knowledge about this question. Does anybody care? Is the subject so arcane and totally beyond our control as individuals that we can't do anything about it? Are we all in denial, doing the same thing we accuse the non-believers of, pretending that "they" will fix the problem?

Personally, I think this could turn out to be the "mother of all problems," especially since we don't know what "the other side" is doing.

Steve Francis

-- steve francis (sfrancis@sympatico.ca), March 30, 1998.


I'm interested in this problem as well, particularly the compliance (lack of) other military powers. I find it interesting that little thought goes into this.

In any event, I've spent a fair amount of time in Russia and know the culture well. I can assure you that absolutely nothing is being done there about this problem, military or otherwise. The country is a mess, and y2k simply isn't on the radar. Now, Russian warheads certainly use embedded processors, as do Russian early-warning systems. If there is a failure, it will manifest as a shutdown (no, the missles won't launch - too many interlocking controls). However, a shutdown of early-warning and launch detection systems could be catastrophic. Suddenly they are blinded - anyone could attack. This, combined with the hair-trigger alert status of the Strategic Rocket Forces, plus general command and control disarray, could lead to anything.

I suspect the Chinese have the same problem, not to mention the British and French (although presumably to a lesser extent). The bottom line is that y2k failure won't lead directly to a disaster in this domain, but could be a tripwire to one. In fact, I believe it to be a *major* tripwire.

-- Giant Squid (giant_squid@devonian.com), April 25, 1998.


I _AM_ in the US military (Reservist). I figure that the most powerful nation on earth will be the Chinese because they haven't shackled themselves to automated systems to the extent that we have. When I was a CS grad student, the Indians were the largest national group (of grad students) followed by the PRC; there were only 3 americans full-time. Egypt was 3rd. I can promise you that they were all brilliant people, too.

......................... gary

-- Gary Carlson (gscarlsn@erols.com), April 30, 1998.


To all of this, I'd like to add my own bit of speculation.

*IF* the American economy does take a dive, the 2000 presidential election will be won by whomever can do the best James Madision impression: voters are going to demand complete concentration on domestic problems. (Note that both Democrats and Republicans can claim this platform plank; I'm going to put a tenative bet on Gore at this point.) However, it's an aphorism that "when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold." If our economy slides, theirs is going to crash; we buy all their goods, and we supply an unreplaceable source of cash flow to most of the rest of the world. Look at what economic unrest has wrought in Indoesia the past few months. Look at how Africa manages its internal affairs during a boom economy.

More importantly, look at the endless, often violent friction between Israel and the Arab nations; India and Palestine; China and Tiawan; eastern Europe and eastern Europe; Turkey and the rest of the world; Iraq and its neighbors; Iran and the Wicked West; N. Korea and S. Korea. America spends a *lot* of time and money keeping a lid on dozens of simmering pots around the globe. If America rams headlong into a sudden period of high unemployment, failing government support agencies, and corporate cutbacks, are we going to be able to continue our post-WWII role of global policeman and peacemaker? Probably not.

My point is, if the Y2K problem is going to hit America's economy as bad as the above companies are projecting, large portions of the world might quite possibly go to war between 2000 and 2008.

If this sounds insanely alarmist, it probably is. But recall that the fundamental reasons for WWI and WWII included regional economic problems and widespread disatisfaction with the global distribution of wealth and resources, as well as long histories of national and racial conflict. We've certainly got the latter evident in strong measure; Y2K might just provide the former.

An unrelated point is that, historically, large wars tend to happen at 40-year intervals and smaller conflicts at 20-year intervals. The reason is simple: it takes 20 years to raise a new generation of soldiers who are young and stupid enough to fight a war, but it takes 40 years to raise a new generation of generals and politicians who are stupid enough to start a war. WWII was the last big war, and Vietnam the last little one. We're statistically overdue for a big one by that measure. (Desert Storm doesn't count, except for being a bad example because it promised millions of Americans the illusory potential for clean, painless, profitable war.)

Many people have said that the old measure doesn't hold anymore, because nuclear weapons have made war too terrible, and international commerce / communication / media have reduced the reasons for war in the first place. However, all of those thoughts are based on the premise that people--billions of people, in the broadest plural possible--can change. That's a fundamentally unproven thesis over 3,000 years of recorded human history.

-- Mark Zieg (mzieg@orlandosentinel.com), May 26, 1998.



I share Steve's concern, and concern for the lack of interest. But I suspect more people are reading this than are expressing opinions right now. Thanks for the comments so far.

Carl Chaplin

-- Carl Chaplin (chaplin@lillonet.org), May 26, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ