This is the second article in two straight days about this cr@p. When I read stuff like this it just makes me absolutley crazy! I feel so out of control of my reality. There is nothing I can do about this.

Oh well, out of the acceptance phase and back into the anger stage. I need a break . . . .

Nuclear worries over year 2000 bug By Rupert Cornwell

A leading arms control group is calling on all nuclear powers to deactivate - or "decouple" in the jargon of Doomsday planning - their weapons, to avoid possible massive and hugely perilous systems failures brought on by the so-called millennium bug.

In a report published today, the British American Security Information Council (Basic) bluntly describes the Pentagon's efforts to meet the fast-approaching deadline as "a mess", with what it calls "severe and recurring problems across the spectrum". Russia, it says, has barely woken up to the year 2000, or Y2K, risk - in which computers may take the 00 to mean 1900 - even though the general decay of its military since the demise of the Soviet Union has made the danger even more acute.

For all the visible work already done to iron out the date recognition problem, Basic argues there is no way of knowing if "embedded" systems - that is semi-independent systems-within-systems" - in the colossal American defence apparatus are being straightened out.

These could allow the Y2K bug to spread, unknown to America's defence controllers.

Repairing and testing affected systems could see costs "in the multi-billion dollar category", with no guarantee of success. As the US Deputy Defense Secretary, John Hamre, said recently: "Everything is so interconnected, it's very hard to know with any precision that we've got it fixed."

http://www.independent.co.uk/stories/B1211811.html

-- Anna McKay Ginn (annaginn@aol.com), November 12, 1998

Answers

Here is the other article:

http://online.guardian.co.uk/computing/910789467-bomb.html

11 November 1998

The year 2000 may bring chaos to nuclear bases, writes John Eason

A bug in the bomb

As the fireworks burst in the sky, heralding the Year 2000, could we see larger rockets taking to the air, bearing payloads of nuclear death and destruction?

It sounds far-fetched. Surely the worst the Millennium Bug could do is close down cash machines for a few days and cause a bit of confusion in supermarkets when fresh food is labelled 99 years past its sell-by date?

But the danger is all too real, according to The Bug In The Bomb, a report published today by Basic, the British American Security Information Council. It cites a test in 1993 by curious technicians at Norad, the US early warning radar network. They rolled the system's dates to January 1 2000. The result: a total systems blackout.

Thomas Neve of Basic says this scenario is more to be feared than the possibility that missiles confused by the date change will decide to launch themselves. "If everyone's completely blind or they get a false image, things start getting really dangerous," he says.

But if the danger has been known about for at least five years, surely remedial work is well in hand?

Michael R. Kraig and Herbert Scoville Jr, the report's authors, have no confidence in the measures taken by the US Department of Defense. They point out that last year the department published an impressive sounding five-point plan for knocking out the Year 2000 bug. Last June an audit found that out of 430 machines labelled Year 2000 compliant, only 109 had been correctly certified. The procedures were actually vague and ambiguous - for instance, validation through testing was not required before a lower manager certified a system; the only real requirement was that the manager signed the testing slip.

The report highlights the layers of complexity: no one check can be run for all the different weapons and warning systems; many systems incorporate chips and code which are now 'obsolete' and there is great difficulty finding experts to work with them; even if a system is 'de-bugged', it could still be 'infected' by another system.

Russia is sanguine about the Year 2000. Igor Sergeyev, the defence minister, said in August: "This problem mostly affects sectors where they use conventional computer technologies. There is no such danger [for nuclear weapons] since in the Strategic Missile Forces we use special technologies."

Brave words, but not echoed by Sergey Fradkov, a former Soviet satellite control technician now working in the US. "Russia is extremely vulnerable to the Year 2000 problem," he said. "If the date is used somewhere to track an incoming missile and the date shifts to 0000000 for a brief moment, there is a division by zero - an extremely high value - that fools the system into thinking there is a high probability of an attack in progress."

The report's authors call for all the nuclear powers to work together on the problem. Nuclear systems should be taken off alert, they say, or nuclear warheads should be uncoupled from missiles.

The Ministry of Defence said that a comprehensive Year 2000 review was underway with all systems and it was confident there was no risk.

Basic can be found at http://www.basicint.org

-- Anna McKay Ginn (annaginn@aol.com), November 12, 1998.

You can be absolutly assured that the super powers WILL NOT "step down" the nukes. I am not sure how safe our country would be considering the fact that Russia is so far behind Y2K compliance. There is also the fact that Russia's government is very unstable and should not be trusted.

CNN's headline news covered this story tonight. Anyone who has not cared about the impact of Y2K would surely have taken notice once they heard the broadcast. CNN did not downplay the potential danger. More and More will take notice.

-- WAYNE WITCHER (WWITCHER@MVTEL.NET), November 12, 1998.

Oh dear, I'm afraid I haven't planned for that contingency. I wonder if there are still luxury suites available at Cheyenne Mountain? Do non-hybrid seeds come in fallout-resistant packaging? (Bet you never thought about THAT one did ya, Walton Feeds?) Any 55 gallon lead drums for sale?

Oh well, CNN is covering this tonight as well. I guess it was a slow news day or something.

FWIW, the US military is the largest user of software and embedded systems on the planet - of course they've got problems -- of course repairs are not going well -- of course they're not admitting it. But I'm not particularly worried about the US nukes going bonkers, launching themselves and drawing a bead on Mother Teresa's orphanage -- or even downtown Milkwaukee for that matter.

My advice is to not worry about this until you see the whites of their detonators. If you are at risk from this, there's very little you can do. You could try "Duck & Cover" - it seemed to work well in the 50s and 60s.

"I've got some good news and some bad news."

"What's the bad news?"

"The entire US nuclear arsenal was launched moments ago and is targeted on the very spot we are standing."

"and the good news?"

"Our Y2K heating and lighting problem is solved."

-Alice Babbilon (ok, ok, it's Arnie actually)

PS Has anybody seen my ebola? I'm sure I left it here someplace. Hey Deedah! wait! Don't eat that!

-- Alice Babbilon (Alice_Babbilon@usa.net), November 12, 1998.

Sorry for the bogus name, but I used to work for a 'private company' that serviced software for the blue uniformed folk. I saw thirty year-old software applications being hurridly documented, so that they could be quickly analyzed then hopefully replaced with other software-which was not, but would be-Y2K by the time the change-over was made. Oh boy. Worst of all, the base's IS muckety-muck announced to all that EVERY system was Y2K-compliant. It was a very expensive joke on the taxpayer.

-- DR. THOMPSON (DRTHOMPSON35@HOTMAIL.COM), November 12, 1998.

This is certainly one of the first things that concerned me when I first became aware of the Y2K issue some time ago. The good news is that I have at least one piece of good news to share and a perspective to offer.

About a month ago I read a news posting (I believe it was from AP Newswire or Reuters)that said the U.S. DoD actually had programmers helping the former Soviet Union with their Y2K defense related issues. I do not have the link available here, but I believe that I can find it and I will attempt to post it on this thread. If this is actually true, it is a very encouraging thought.

Such cooperation between nuclear superpowers would have been unthinkable during the Regan "Evil Empire" era. But if we are actully volunteering expertise and manpower to fix the nuclear problem, and the former Soviet States are willing to accept the offer, then it means that both sides take the problem VERY SERIOUSLY. At least it is being addressed instaed of being swept under the carpet.

Now my perspective: In our lives, there are things which we can control and things which we cannot. I cannot personally control whether any or all of the nuclear weapons in the world will accidentally launch as a result of Y2K complications. If any should happen to launch, I cannot control where they might land. What I can do is focus on keeping my family, home, and future secure.

Don't lose sleep over a possible nuclear threat, you will drive yourself insane and distract your energies from what you really need to be doing. Take a deep breath, hope for the best, and prepare, prepare prepare.

-- Mr. Nowhere (jodette@erols.com), November 12, 1998.

I understand the fear regarding the accidental launch of nuclear weapons as a result of y2k but I think there is a scenario which is even more bizarre. "Use 'em or lose 'em." There very well could be a desire to utilize an arsenal, especially in dire economic times, before the arsenal is no longer viable.

I have questions about satellite targeting and embedded systems within ICMB's and whether or not or systems and the other systems around the world will even function but I have no real understanding of such things.

Then there is the selling of nukes under those dire economic conditions...

I hate thinking about this stuff! Thank you for the post though Anna : )

Mike ==============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), November 13, 1998.

The whole problem I have with the supposed nuke problem as related to Y2K is the human factor. It still requires *2* people to turn the keys to launch them. No key turn, no launch.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 13, 1998.

UH-Rick, that's only if they speak English.......

c

-- Chuck a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 13, 1998.

Well I'll have to see if I can find the article again because it has been quite awhile since I read it (if I bookmarked everything I read I would quickly crash my 8 gig hard drive), but from what I have read, the Russians also require key turners. Now I admit, I have never been in a Russian missle silo, never seen the insides of one on TV even, but what I have read is they do require keys.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 13, 1998.

Arnie (Alice) - ROFL! I read your post to my husband and he SMILED (which is the equivalent to side-splitting, pee-leaking laughter to your average Joe). Thanks! If you can't do anything else, you might as well laugh 8-)

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), November 13, 1998.

Chuck, upon re-reading my response to you I see it might come off as somewhat insulting. Just wanted to tell you right away that was far from my intention.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 13, 1998.

I know a Catholic priest who's quite concerned about Y2K. His worry about it though isn't deep recession or shortages in the U.S. His concern is Russia, but won't say why.

Myself, I can see three areas of concern, though--unplanned launches, Russia trying to sell off some of its arsenal in 2000 to smaller countries, or maybe an ultra-nationalist in Russia willing to invade neighbors to help a collapsed and starving Russia.

Then there's China. I believe they've been able to push the button since 1964.

Another angle--with a guaranteed weakened military come January of 2000, or maybe even after the GPS rollover in August of 1999, would some country want to cause mischief before its military was weakened?

Perhaps this is why we aren't trying to negotiate this time with that mother-of-all wars guy, S.H.....

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 13, 1998.

Kevin, I thought the same thing. Better to weaken his capabilities now?

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), November 13, 1998.

Just wanted to clarify that my poking fun at this should not be taken as a rejection of the real seriousness of the issues - it's more akin to 'whistling in a graveyard'.

The US military has elaborate systems (such as the 2-key system mentioned by Rick) to prevent both accidents and deliberate misuse of weapons systems. While failures in any such system will occur, most systems are designed to 'fail safe'.

For example, in our space shuttle, if a system failure occurs during a countdown, the default failure mode does not include launching the shuttle. Instead, main engines are shutdown and the solid rocket boosters are never ignited. Once those boosters are ignited however, the story is a bit different -- as Challenger clearly demonstrated.

Is it theoretically possible that 'comedy' of human errors, arrogance and system failures could result in the unintended launch and delivery of a nuclear weapon? Yes, but while catastrophic accidents are possible, I've always felt that deliberate use constituted a much larger risk. With the unpreventable spread of this technology, the real risk of deliberate use far exceeds accidental use (IMHO).

My 'viral' comment was simply intended to point out that the threat of both accidental and deliberate use of biological weapons is arguably bigger than any nuclear-based risk. It's the economics thing: for the same price as a single nuke you can produce tons of weaponized smallpox. Delivery is also cheaper -- just $3 if you use US Priority Mail - and they deliver on Saturdays, unlike UPS.

"Sorry, commander. I was cleaning my missle and it went off without warning. I didn't think it was loaded."

-Arnie

"There is no secret and there is no defense" - Albert Einstein

"We're checking...obviously a major malfunction" - NASA technician's first words after the Challenger exploded and he lost his downlink data.

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), November 13, 1998.

Sooner or later the Russian Bear will growl again, when Yeltsin dies, not long now or is he already dead, they won't need to pickle him like Lenin.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 13, 1998.

* It still requires *2* people to turn the keys to launch them. No key turn, no launch. *

Only 2 (1+1)? That's encouraging! I can think of more than 2 whose trigger fingers are quivering.

-- Traveller (traveller@jet.net), November 13, 1998.

* "There is no secret and there is no defense" - Albert Einstein *

"Man will destroy himself by destroying the earth" - Albert Schweitzer

-- Traveller (traveller@jet.net), November 13, 1998.

Alice: If you find any luxury Cheyenne Mountain suites, I'll be glad to share the costs for my family, in fact, I'll take a low rent suite if it is available. Rick: Are the keys compliant?

-- Robert Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), November 13, 1998.

For the worried/paranoid/prudent (pick your moniker) you can get potassium iodide solution from a company called E.S.V. at 800-846- 9449. PI can be used to limit the effects of exposure to radioactivity from nuclear weapons, accidents, etc. Basically it saturates your thyroid with regular iodine so that you can't absorb any radioactive iodine. Especially important for kids. Somewhere on the Web I downloaded an article on the proper dosage; I'll post it if I can find it again. Disclaimer: This post is not advice; you are on your own. Did I buy some? Yes.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), November 13, 1998.

I hate comming across advice such as yours Franklin. It's plainly playing with people's fears and vulnerable states. Sorry if I sound harsh (had some wine and I'm more emotional than usual). But no-one should take anyone's advice on any medical related issues unless they consult the doctor they trust or at least a nurse they've known and trust for a long time on less critical matters (especially for kids!). The net is NOT an area to give or take medical advice. Too much is at stakes. Sure I give my own opinions at times, but I make it clear that it is just so and don't pretend anything else.

I know most of you are bright enough not to follow just anyone's medical advice without research and second/third opinions...but there's always this small percentage of gullible people I worry about.

Off my nurse Rachette's soap box now. I'm breathing deep...I'm ok now.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), November 13, 1998.

Your disclaimer not withstanding. grrrrr!

-- Chris (Catsy@pond.com), November 13, 1998.

For those interested, you can get info on potassium iodide for fallout protection from the FEMA website. It's not a bogus Net rumor, it's official preparedness info from the U.S. government.

-- anon (anon@anon.net), November 13, 1998.

My biggest worry concerning the chance that we'll nuke ourselves into the Stone Age. I would hate to get it right away, first salvo.

Third salvo, thats for me. I mean, look at it this way, you're gonna die anyhow, right? So why not get the chance to see some mushroom clouds in the meantime, I've never seen one before.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), November 13, 1998.

I generally dislike "parallel posting" but similar worries were discussed under the "CNN an dnukes.." thread - and this needed to get to get repeated here:

"Let me think about this a bit:

"We've got a single "scientist" group - with no established creditionals in nuclear weapon development, testing, controls, or missile launch controls - or anything else I've been able to find in the "no-background source/no reference" news release that this same article came from - that claims nuclear weapons will be launched - will track, and will explode in Y2K.

Leave behind my knowledge of the subject and the people who control them - it don't work that folks - Pure logic about electronic and computer failures would tell you what I'd said before. If a problem were to happen, computer failure is not to launch the things - but to keep them from being launched, controlled, steered, or exploding.

More likely: The missile might launch, and fly exactly 4 feet up and hit the concrete missile silo door that failed to open.

This is conjecture, hype, and doom-saying at its worst - with no justification at all. It does however, play well with the media - and with the people (internationally) who want US to secure OUR missiles.

Look at it: the only nations (US, UK, and French) actually in control of their nuclear weapons - actually making progress towards resolving y2K issues other than nuclear missiles, is being told by this "group" to disarm. And who will find, disarm, control, inspect, and maintain control of the tens of thousands of Russian and formerly Russian nuclear boms and rockets during this period?

Aren't those the ones actually at risk? How will this group control them? Inspect them? Disarm them?

Why is this group calling for the only nations that can control - and have controlled its weapons - to disarm them.

I will add:

Who funds these people? What is their agenda? What do they want? Would you believe the Chinese Communists if they said "Our missiles are disarmed?"

With respect to Reagan: at least at that time, the guards around Soviet missile silos were paid, had jobs, and a future. Their families were not starving, the guards and missile operators had food, clothing and shelter. (I've worked with these guys and ladies, been on watch with them, know them, lived with them - US side only, worked with the release codes and security - these things won't blow accidently, won't go accidently).

The nukes (our nukes) aren't a worry. Regrettably, the way to to keep the other guys nukes from exploding is to be ready to respond.

And we are doing that.

By the way, did you notice that the ONE test reported about Y2K and missiles and missile warning was from 1992-1993? Hmmmm. Doesn't that tell somebody was testing things back then - before even Yourdon started talking about Y2K? Don't you think "they" fixed a few things between now and then?

It's hype and propaganda - played up by an ignorant media.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 13, 1998.

I wonder how this iodine stuff would effect me...In 1990 I had a thyroid goider and had it destroyed with radio/iodine. I now take thyroid pills everyday, to provide an adequate amount. What effect would this stuff have on me??? Blondie

-- Blondie Marie (Blondie@future.net), November 13, 1998.

Miss Blondie:

Get your doctor to QA me on this - but don't waste your time with it in your case.

There is radioactive Iodine (most I believe as I135, but don't quote me on that - I don't have my nuclear/radiological medicine textbook with me) released from a nuclear explosion. Obviously, if there is an explosion, the stuff gets spread around, and you may contact it, may swallow it, and it gets in your body.

Any chemical I in your body (regardless of radioactivity) goes first to your thyroid - as you already found when received your dose to your thyroid by your earlier treatment. It lodges there until biologically removed over time. Once the thyroid is saturated with I, excess is not retrained, but goes through the body like any other excess chemical.

The idea of I treatment for radiation poisoning is propyhlatic: give the body so much "clean" I is loaded into the thyroid that contminated I is not retained in the thyroid. So a couple of things are essential to make this idea work: you've got to have a source of contminated I in the air, you have to be near enough to the flume downstream to ingest it, you have to ingest it at the right time, (or the I decays to something else) and you must get the clean I loaded into your system enough hours before the radioactive I arrives to allow saturation.

Taking the clean I too early does not help, your body flushes it out.

So, if you take this seriously, be able to immediately track the flume of radioactive debris from the nearest impact point by your police scanner .. who don't have radiacs (geiger counters) ... store your Iodine in the right quantity,...

Or be releastic, and don't get hyper. Keep you windows closed. Keep the door shut, it will decay in 20-36 hours anyway to meaningless levels compred to everything else after a nuclear blast.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 14, 1998.

If any of you would like something else to seriously worry about besides Y2K, then I suggest you look into the Russian threat which has apparently disappeared from our minds. The one man I know of who has been sounding the alarm on this is Jeffrey Nyquist

His website is at

http://www.northcoast.com/~jnyquist

-- Joe O (jowczar@comp.uark.edu), November 16, 1998.

Chris,

I couldn't disagree more. What gets my goat in these forums and elsewhere is the notion that information should be withheld because "it'll only scare people." I was grateful that somebody clued me in to the use of potassium iodide for nuclear remediation; that's good information and may save my or my childrens' lives. If you consult your doctor he'll look at you funny and tell you you're nuts. That doesn't help you when there's an accident at a reactor.

We are all adults here. Many of us don't care to sit around waiting fot the "experts" to tell us what to do. Quit treating people like they are a bunch of scared kids too dumb and "vulnerable" to make grown-up decisions.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), November 16, 1998.