Way back last summer I noticed this piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for Sunday, August 2.

This was the headline on the front page: Target America: Preparing front lines for 'digital Pearl Harbor.' (I paraphrase the report here, except for words or phrases in quotes. to avoid any conceivable problem with copyright.)

The article, by Andrew J. Glass, reports on a disastrous scenario of a series of possible catastrophes, allegedly set forth in a recent Rand Corporation report to the United States Department of Defense.

The scene opens with a mysterious power blackout in a major Southeastern city, followed by the failure of many telephone systems countrywide. Train wrecks and confusion result from switching errors as railroads lose control of routing and traffic control. Air traffic control systems malfunction causing mid-air disasters. Oil refinery explosions and shutdowns occur as process control systems fail or malfunction.

It gets worse. Saboteurs interfere with global and local financial activity; movement of funds is interrupted, and stock markets fall worldwide. "Berserk" ATM's wreak havoc in individual accounts; depositors "panic" and banks begin closing, unable to cope with massive withdrawals. Broadcast media "lose control of their programming;" while their channels "mysteriously" carry "an orchestrated disinformation campaign." The Pentagon "mobilizes to restore order," but is frustrated by failures in military comm channels. Weapons systems "show signs of electronic tampering."

This chain of events was characterized as our "digital Pearl Harbor."

The general subject of terrorism was reviewed at length in a follow-up article on an inside page.

It seemed to me to be way too much like a cover story for Y2K-related events. I didn't keep a copy of the paper, and the next day I couldn't find the article on the AJC website.

Hope this helps...

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999

Answers

There is considerable overlap between the potential consequences of Y2k and the potential consequences of cyberterrorism.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 22, 1999.

I think the key here is not that this was reported by the AJC, but that this scenario was studied by the Rand Corporation. Remember...that's what they do. (they're "affiliated" with the CIA) They build models of scenarios like this to study possibilities. Not at all surprising. A few months ago, I searched their website for anything regarding Y2K and came up empty. Again, not surprising. When I have more time, I'll try again...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 22, 1999.

pshannon: "I think the key here is not that this was reported by the AJC..."

IMO it is precisely the fact that this Rand Corporation study was released to the press that matters. Rand is not working pro bono but (as you note) for agencies of the government.

Last August many responsible persons in and out of government were very much aware of Y2K and its potentials for disaster. To cast this report solely in terms of terrorist activity, with no least mention of virtually identical consequences to be expected from Y2K, and then to publicize it, inevitably suggests a major exercise in "control of the conversation."

Next year it will be very convenient to have external villains to blame for catastrophic events such as the report describes. For example, insurance policies routinely exclude acts of war or terrorism from coverage. Defining these events -- whatever they may be -- as terrorist attacks relieves Aetna, Prudential, Lloyd's, etc., of enormous liabilities.

Without question, the terrorist threat exists. But no terrorist action could have consequences so systemic, so widely dispersed, so broadly disruptive, as those we know are possible in the wake of Y2K.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.

Tom Carey, EXACTLY the point! Thanks for seeing and saying it. See also:

"Commander in Chief for homeland defense"???

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 22, 1999.

---

Tom, last October while I was in Canada, I saw exactly what this article's scenario described on the Discovery Channel. The show started as a "live news report", showing plane crashes, bank failures etc...the "reporter" commenting just as it was live and happening in the US, befuddled and saying that at this time nobody in the gov. could or would explain what was happening etc... Being in my Y2K retreat for the first time and away from here, for a minute my heart dropped. I thought it had started for some reason, maybe too many fouled out attempts at fixing. It looked so real. Then a commentator came on and explained that this was a scenario that could happen if cyber-terrorists invaded our systems.

"Last August many responsible persons in and out of government were very much aware of Y2K and its potentials for disaster. To cast this report solely in terms of terrorist activity, with no least mention of virtually identical consequences to be expected from Y2K, and then to publicize it, inevitably suggests a major exercise in "control of the conversation."

And this is exactly what I thought then and there. The word Y2K or millennium bug was not mentioned once.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 22, 1999.

---

---

Good point, Tom.

I agree, it's significant that this study was reported on in the press...

-- pshannon (pashannon@inch.com), January 22, 1999.

---

Hello,

Very interesting points. So, if this is the spin that's placed on Y2K do we speak up, or zip a lip?

Also, if power is out i.e. no T.V.s etc., wouldn't people panic more, if they thought this was an attack? Hmmmm Big Brother please protect us from those evil terrorists! Yuk.

God Bless,

Deborah

Deborah

-- Deborah the Prophetess (grossed@out.com), January 22, 1999.

---

Maybe the idea was that troops in the streets would make sense, be more acceptable, in the terrorism context. This is not necessarily a sinister plot by a Hitler wannabe. Could be a genuine effort to maintain some semblance of normality in potentially very abnormal and difficult circumstances.

Who knows how those inside the Beltway think? Recent events there suggest their thought processes are somewhat removed from those of a large part of the population. Only way to modify that is by letting them know what you do think. Screaming insults at them won't get the job done.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.

---

Tom,

Point taken.

Deborah

-- Deborah the Prophetess (contrite@home.com), January 22, 1999.

---

Tom,

I have a slightly different take on the link between Y2K and terrorism.

Having spent a lot of time surfing the .gov and .mil sites and some of the related info, I strongly suspect that is all has to do with predisposed mindset. Perhaps Hardliner and others would care to comment, but the military, IMHO, is set up for the express purpose of engaging an enemy. With Y2K, there is no identifiable enemy. Its way too amorphous and disorienting for them.

When you add terrorism, in either cyber form or biological warfare or as weapons of mass destruction on the home soil, THAT is something the Total Force can get into and mobilize to DO something about. They understand how to respond to it. Well, sort of.

They may well be some hidden agendas, or not. The threat IS real. And we do need a mobilized response to it for Y2K both pre and post.

I suspect well see more media coverage on the link. (Assuming, the country and Congress can get beyond snickering at Y2K). The mindless-set of many Washington representatives, amazes, but does not surprise me.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 22, 1999.

---

---

Very good point Diane. That's an angle I didn't look at. All these troups need to be motivated if the gov. plan on mobilizing them, and Media PR would help that, as well as helping Clinton's image of being a dud on Y2K.

You're amazable ;)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 22, 1999.

---

Diane -- "...the military, IMHO, is set up for the express purpose of engaging an 'enemy.' With Y2K, there is no identifiable enemy."

There's something in what you say.

But (nothing personal, I always say "but..."!) if power outages or accidental hazmat releases or malfunctioning telecommunications (or whatever) occur, and are blamed on "terrorists " who, real or imaginary, will not be on the scene, the military presumption of a combat scenario may increase the likelihood that the general population is seen as "the other side."

I wonder whether attributing instead any systemic failures resulting from Y2K to blunders and omissions in infrastructure design might not reduce that dichotomy, since it would then be clear that all concerned (and their families) are swimming in the same stream, subject to the same fundamental hazards.

Just rambling here, I suspect. Nothing concrete to go on. Something tells me we're all in for some surprises. Even Milne and Cory. Even pollyanna. Even me.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.

---

Moderation questions? read the FAQ