RUSSIA & MISSLES & Y2K MUST READ------------greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
linkOfficial: Tensions with NATO raise danger of false missile
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's disputes with the West over Iraq and Yugoslavia are increasing the chances that Moscow would retaliate after a false warning of a missile attack, a top Russian defense official said Tuesday.
False missile warnings may be caused by the Year 2000 computer bug - which Russia has been slow to tackle - or other radar glitches, said Vladimir Dvorkin, head of a Defense Ministry department in charge of missile-warning systems.
He insisted that Russia would be much less likely to retaliate for a false alarm caused by the so-called ``millennium bug'' if the United States and NATO heeded Moscow's demands and called off the bombings of Iraq and the threat of airstrikes against Yugoslavia.
``The risk of making the wrong decision is higher when international tensions escalate,'' Dvorkin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
``The risk of such mistakes, including those caused by the unresolved Y2K problem, would be eliminated if international tensions eased, especially in conflict regions such as Iraq and Yugoslavia,'' he said.
The Y2K glitch may occur if computers that only use two figures to designate a year misread the year 2000 for 1900, and produce erroneous information.
Dvorkin didn't specify what could cause a false missile-attack warning besides the Y2K bug, saying only that ``theoretically, mistakes are possible.''
In 1995, Russian officials apparently mistook a Norwegian rocket launch for a missile aimed at Russia, prompting President Boris Yeltsin to open his ``black case'' containing nuclear launch codes. No attack was launched.
While Moscow may not respond to a false warning with an all-out nuclear strike, he refused to specify just how it would react to a mistaken malarm from its strategic radar.
``It doesn't mean that a decision will be made to use all stockpiled nuclear forces in retaliation to a (perceived) mass attack,'' he said.
At the same time, the Defense Ministry sought to stress that it was dealing successfully with the Y2K bug, and the risk of it causing Russia's nuclear forces to fire off unintentionally was negligible.
Still, Dvorkin said that 74 control centers of Russia's Strategic Nuclear Forces were judged in ``critical'' condition because of their unpreparedness for the Y2K glitch.
But he insisted that Russia will resolve the problem by the end of the year.
Russia has said it needs up to $3 billion to tackle the millennium bug problem, and appealed to NATO for help.
-- Deborah (info@wars.com), March 02, 1999
Oh yah, I forgot I wanted to vent.He insisted that Russia would be much less likely to retaliate for a false alarm caused by the so-called ``millennium bug'' if the United States and NATO heeded Moscow's demands and called off the bombings of Iraq and the threat of airstrikes against Yugoslavia.
WHAT?????Give us the money to fix this & by the way let us control your foreign policy (which isn't that great anyway). Are these freaky people out of their MINDS?????!!!!!!!!!
-- Deborah (info@wars.com), March 02, 1999.
Oh yah, this was a jewel too....74 control centers of Russia's Strategic Nuclear Forces were judged in ``critical'' condition because of their unpreparedness for the Y2K glitch.
But he insisted that Russia will resolve the problem by the end of the year.
ROTFL Yah right, and they have a chicken in every pot, and a Democratic gov. the whole world envies. Excuse me while I go barf. The local news did a segment explaining Mascara (that's a girl thing) Tonight, funny THIS wasn't mentioned. BMHOTK (banging my head on the keyboard)
-- Deborah (info@wars.com), March 03, 1999.
Deborah,they're not out of their minds, just desperate and paranoid...a lot of that seems to be going around in international circles lately...
Arlin
-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 03, 1999.
Official: Tensions with NATO Raise Danger of False MissileWell isn't that a nice little thought to go to bed with tonight.
After such a Y2K-crammed schizofrenetic day.This certainly qualifies as terrorism. Crude, rude.
Bang that shoe!Now what makes us so suspicious? Coming on the heels of the Senate's Y2K secret security club meetings behind closed doors?
Constant linking Y2K to terrorism?
Would the Ruskies be willing to role-play into the hands of the Commander in Chief for Homeland?Get the ole USA whipped into a frenzy of fear and terror over terrorism threats?
In exchange for remediation $$? Far-fetched? Certainly would be a role the Russians would gleefully agree to.
Or is it a bone-eh-fried idiot threat? A collapsing country's desperate grasps for power, influence, $$? A hint to their terrorist-sponsoring good buddies in Iraq?
A covert solicitation for Guerrillas United to buy up those suitcase nukes?
What a skewed stewed soup today has turned into.
Hardliner, E Coli, RC, Nicoli, WW, Chuck, Greybear, all the regulars, what do you make of this?
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx x
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.
``It doesn't mean that a decision will be made to use all stockpiled nuclear forces in retaliation to a (perceived) mass attack,'' he said.No, just, say, 10 would do.
mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmm
-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.
Sounds like a little old fashioned strong arm extortion to me. He is as much as saying either give us some money or we'll accidentall on purpose nuke you.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 03, 1999.
This deserves more of an answer than what I just gave. I have taken the position all along that nuclear attack from the Soviets was the single greatest threat from Y2K. Statements like this from Russian officials do absolutely nothing to lesson my fears. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled threat, and clearly reflects the current mindset of the Soviet military and the Communist majority of the Duma. At the rate tensions are escalating between Russia, China, and the U.S. things could easily be completely out of control before years end. This situation bears careful watching. My own personal assesment is that they will launch on us probably in November of this year, and there won't be anything accidental about it.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 03, 1999.
The Bear doesn't think much of all the nuke stories.What the Bear does think is that he's gonna dust off some of those old building plans and put himself in a nice root cellar.
Say with about 2 ft of packed earth on top and 90 degree entrance (wouldn't want the sunlight to overheat the roots).
Course gotta have a goodly amount of space in there too.
Let's call it a ....4 person root celler.
Naaa, nothing to it.
-- Greybear
- Got Dosimeters?
-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 03, 1999.
Who said the Cold War was over? Holy shite!!!
-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), March 03, 1999.
I was thinking earlier about the "terrorist threat" with y2k, russian nukes, suitcase nukes etc... and came up with this scary thought...If a terrorist had a suitcase nuke and wanted to destroy the U.S. - how about setting it off in Moscow during the date change when they are experiencing a crisis and their early warning systems aren't working.
Think they'd take the time to try to figure out what was going on?
:-)
Gid-
-- gideon (gideon@notell.com), March 03, 1999.
Well Gideon, here's your answer to that scenario....Russia's nuclear command and control system is linked in what, until recently, was a top-secret program called Perimeter. Although exact details are still not known, Perimeter is reminiscent of the "Doomsday Device" in the sixties black-comedy film Dr. Strangelove, which triggered an automatic massive Soviet retaliation. The US government did not even know of the existence of Perimeter until it was first reported in the New York Times on October 8, 1993. At the time, former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates said such a system was "unlikely." However, Jane's Intelligence Review, the world's most authoritative weapons journal, has since confirmed the existence of Perimeter and revealed more details. According to Jane's, if Moscow were to be attacked, or even if there was "interruption of command links to key Soviet leadership," Perimeter would automatically trigger a low-frequency radio signal that would launch a communications missile that would, in turn, transmit to all launch complexes the codes that would launch thousands of Russia's nuclear weapons. The present status of Perimeter is unclear.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 03, 1999.
Nikoli,I share your greatest fear. In my view only God can prevent Russia from attacking us.
For those who haven't read newsmax.com articles on Russia. Here is a cold link:
http://38.201.154.103/articles/?a=1999/2/15/34330
-- BBrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), March 03, 1999.
Oh, please, people, you're buying right into the propaganda/fear nexus. 'Perimeter:' c'mon, what a load of crap. And we didn't know about it until 1993? Please. Fact: $80 BILLION in IMF loans were stolen by Russia's central bankers, as reported extensively in the British press last month. Fact: Yeltsin is our creature, an IMF puppet. The IMF crowd don't want the Chernomyrdin/Duma faction to gain power and spoil their little game. As for the NY Times, they ran articles a few years back stating that 'simultaneous launch on command' was impossible for Russia, and probably not possible for us, either. Nikoli, what's your take on the power struggle behind the IMF puppet/ex-KGB crowd and the Russian nationalists? Are we going to see a replay of the bogus coup attempt, with tanks firing on the Russian parliament building, and Spetznaz troops storming the building?
-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 03, 1999.
The link above did not work. Does anyone have one to the AP story above?FSI, BR
-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), March 03, 1999.
Fact, old Boris baby won't live to the end of the year. Fact, we are paying for Russia to prepare for war. Fact, the monet we are giving them IS going to their military. Fact, they are building huge storage complex's underground. Fact, they are storing huge amounts of oil. Fact, the missles themselves, have a rollover problem. Ever hear of,"Use it BEFORE ya loose it."?Beam Me Up.
-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 03, 1999.
The reason we've not had a nuclear war with Russia is the fact that they are not suicidal, and neither are we. The key word is Assured Mutual Destruction A preemptive strike by either Russia or the U.S. would initiate an exchange that would waste every large and medium city in both countries. This is still the case.When the dust settled afterwards there would be nothing worth while left for anyone to control. The only change in the situation is that our Trident subs are still in service while most of their sub fleet is rusting in port because they can't afford to operate it.
-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 03, 1999.
The address should work, I cut and pasted it to Notepad, so I know there wasn't a typo.Greybear,
LOL, Gary North posted a link to an on line book, Surviving Nuclear War/Fallout? A week or two ago, very LONG, I read a good chunk of it, it includes multiple plans for shelters which can be dug quickly, and uses things most people have in their homes.
My Bookmark file got wiped out, and I couldn't find it again at GN's. Not that I'm panicking. But, with little nukes in the hands of who knows how many, it might come in handy. Especially fifteen miles from the worlds busiest airport.
Oh yah, the Scientist author (sorry I forgot his name) claims if only gov. would distribute survival information to the public, and warn them of incoming nukes, MANY lives could be saved. Hmmmm That kind of reminds me of somthing else....yah, I'll hold my breath waiting for fallout shelter plans to arrive in my mailbox. Not.
Well, off to have coffee! (hope this made sense)
-- Deborah, the anti-morning person. (info@wars.com), March 03, 1999.
Nik I guess I could agree with you here (surprise). Well actually that perimeter stuff is pretty bogus, but the statement "He insisted that Russia would be much less likely to retaliate for a false alarm caused by the so-called ``millennium bug'' if the United States and NATO heeded Moscow's demands and called off the bombings of Iraq and the threat of airstrikes against Yugoslavia" sounds like Russia intends to use their nukes.But I also believe Tom Carey's comments points out why we haven't seen any nuke launches in the past. The trigger has never been pulled for a variety of reasons MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is only one of them. But why would Russia be sending these threats (as empty as they sound)? Could they actually believe that they still have what it takes to be a superpower? I guess on second thought I really don't agree with you Nik; Russia can't bluff their way into saving Iraq or Yugoslavia. Deborah, "if only gov. would distribute survival information to the public, and warn them of incoming nukes" The gov (FEMA) does and warning comes in minutes not hours or days, even though intelligence is gathered earlier than that. FWIW, IMHO, North is a moron and couldn't possibly understand anything about surviving nuclear fallout.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 03, 1999.
okay folks, we all know that the Mutual Assured Destruction principle still functions with regard to US-Russian relations...now think of somebody else Russia might be worried about who wouldn't have much capacity to strike back following a successful Russian first strike...yep, China again...got fallout patterns for central and southern Asia?
Arlin
-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 03, 1999.
Maria,If I can find the Link I will post it here, please check it out I would value your opinion on the information contained therin. Also, they weren't Gary's instructions. The book was last updated in the eighties, and I doubt this person ever heard of Gary.
FEMA also has shelter building instructions available to the public, which this scientist claimed were inadequate. I believe he claimed ventilation was poor & temperatures inside would be unbearable if not deadly.
-- Deborah (info@wars.co), March 03, 1999.
Deborah, thanks for posting the Russia Nuke Us article at the top.
It's so blatant, still wigging us out. We even posted it on csy2k last night, but nobody's responded. Must not be considered interesting. It just blows our minds that instead of getting busy fixing code, so many baddies use Y2K as an "opportunity" to posture on other issues, mainly terrorism. Our fear is that some mentally unstable android types will act. Like maybe the resentful Communists? The list is too long.xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.
This link to an online book on surviving nuclear war is grim but fascinating and may save your life:http://oism.org/nwss/
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 03, 1999.
Tom - Mutual Assured Destruction is no more - Clinton has signed an Executive order stating emphatically that the US response to a nuclear device exploding in a US city would be "determined" by the circumstances" - in other words,"If you nuke us, we'll think about what we will do."
Under prior Presidents (those actually loyal to the US, not the UN) the previous Executive Orders expressively emphasized the willingness to respond immediately with nuclear weapons to attacks of "mass destruction" to the US and its Allies. This is thought (by some, not all) to be one reason Hussein did not attack Isreal with his biological weapons during the Gulf War. (These, or nerve gasses, can be loaded on Scud missiles.)
There are severeal absolute, positive ways of ensuring that missiles cannot be launched, or if launched, that the nuclear weapons on those missile will not explode. Russia is (in my opinion) extorting more money from Clinton to pretend to apply these methods. The methods themselves would be needed of course, if Russia felt they had control over their missiles in the first place.
The fact that they are extorting money implies that: they know that we know that enough to know that they do not have accountable control of their missiles and warheads. If we knew there was no credible threat, they could not successfully extort money from us - unless we wanted to give them money anyway. See earlier comment about Clinton.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 03, 1999.
Big Dog!!ROTFL!
I just found it (finally)!!!
Cresson Kearny's Nuclear War Survival Skills
http://oism.org/nwssAshton & Leska,
I know, I came back & read it first thing this morning, thinking maybe after such a wierd day yesterday (spin and all) that maybe my attitude skewed my view. But no, it's still there. Ugh. With the Monica sex show airing today, doubt it will get a bare mention. As Diane would say...(BIG SIGH).
-- Deborah (info@wars.com), March 03, 1999.
And regarding 'Perimeter,' in the words of Dr. Strangelove himself (one GREAT flic) "why build such a system if you don't TELL anyone?" I'm sorry, but it's all disinformation to make us suck the National Security State teat that much harder. Look at the spin! "Don't worry about Y2K, but you'd better worry about Russian saber-rattling again." Whenever our elites worry about losing control they raise the specter of some external enemy that we need to be protected from. Lately it's been anthrax, 'weapons of mass destruction,' good old Saddam, Osama Bin Laden. Last week it was Serbs, Noriega, militias, and good old Saddam. Now we're back to sixties-vintage bogeymen. They play the American people like a fiddle. Read 'Keeping the Rabble in Line' by Noam Chomsky, or at least go review '1984.' I'm a lot more concerned about another Chernobyl than about Russian or Ukranian or Kazhakstanian rockets raining death from above.
-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 03, 1999.
Spidey and maria, we've had this discussion several times before, and as Robert Cook has pointed out above the threat of Mutualy Assured destruction no longer exist. As long as Clintons policy of absorbing a first strike remains in place we are in terrible danger of the Russians thinking they can hit us with an all out strike without suffering massive return hits.Now that China has gained tactical control of the Panama canal they have the ability to coordinate an atttack with Russia which would leave our naval forces unable to concentrate their forces in a timely manner. The first wave of ICBM's would destroy the pentagon, cheyenne mountain, all our land based nukes, and our strategic bomber assets. Our eighteen nuke capable subs are operating under the same policy as our land ICBM's in that the authorization and launch codes must be transmitted to them before they can launch. With the ELF antenna arrays destroyed in the strike, our leadership decapitated, and the atmoshere flooded with static due to EMP those orders will never come. In addition to that a Trident submarine is the most complicated and heavily computerized piece of warfare equipment in existence. We have only the assurances of the DOD that they will even be operational after the rollover, and their track record for honest disclosure is pretty dismal at this point in time.
As I have said before it is not nesescary for them to invade the continental United States, all they have to accomplish is the destruction of our capability to wage nuclear war. The side effects of the attack via EMP and civil chaos will take care of the rest. Utilizing their Badger bombers they could then hunt down and finish off our naval assets at sea using stand-off nuclear cruise missiles and torpedoes. They even have one dual function missile which attacks airborne, then dives into the water becoming a torpedo before it comes into range of countermeasures. Once in the water it skims the bottom until underneath its target, then turns straight up delivering a nuclear warhead into the keel of the vessel. Scratch one aircraft carrier. The fact is that after space has been wiped clean of surveillence sats by EMP burst and hunter killer sats the blue water navy is extremely vulnerable to these types of attacks. They may repel a few waves of missiles but eventually they will be overwhelmed.
While all this is going on China will be busily invading the mid east oilfields and South Korea. The remains of NATO will be licking their wounds and facing a Y2K-nuclear famine. All organization and cooperation will disolve as each fractured nation struggles for survival on an internal level. 20,000 soviet tanks will pour across the German border, over running that country in a matter of days. Resistance will be futile. (Sorry, a little humor seemed appropriate)
As far as the perimeter system, if Janes' says it exist, you can take it to the bank. Once again, we have reached the use it or lose it point, Russias last hope of being the world power they want to be lies in this option, and desperate times call for desperate measures. They either roll the dice now and take their chances, or spend the next century in struggling, humiliating homage to the hated west. You can scoff and look the other way all you want, but this is a real threat, and our government is losing more than a little sleep over it.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 03, 1999.
Nikoli, your little essay makes me wonder what ultimate utility all our preps are. Here's another little story of Preps No Use !
-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 03, 1999.
Maria .. and others here . It was a reported FACT that the Russians spent the $ 300 mil we gave them to dismantle missles in 1997 and built TWO , nuclear safe, underground subways from Moscow to an airfield 30 miles outside the city, from which Duma and other Commie officials could fly directly to the Urals shelters for atomic safety. A congressman said " We will investigate this " , but of course NOTHING was ever mentioned about this again. For infomations sake, it has been known since 1968 that the EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse )from a 1 megaton capacity (sub launched ?) missle that is exploded at 30,000 feet over the US will knock out all broadcast radio stations, TVs and home radios in a millisecond. Therefore, all the gov hype that there will be at least a half hour warning before they land is so much BS. Desperate rulers, wishing to remain in power in bad times have often resorted to war with the "preceived enemy" to stay in power. People "buy it" because it takes their minds off the empty bellies and giv es them something even more scary to think about... " The Enemy!!". The joke we have for a president, will ask the Mrs. for advice, I'm sure. Right Greybear ???.... Got that cellar dug ?? Eagle
-- Harold Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), March 03, 1999.
Nik, I know we've had the conversation many times before. You point out the Janes' is an excellent source and it certainly is. I've consulted it many times on military capabilities. But I have trouble with "Perimeter would automatically trigger a low-frequency radio signal that would launch a communications missile ". Seems like a lot of funds spent on this and for what purpose. A communications missile needs to position itself before sending out the message to the nukes to launch. This positioning would not be instantaneous after this radio transmission (highly susceptible to countermeasures). We would detect the comm missile launch. And I can't see this happening (well coordinated attack during what you predict as chaos) on 1.1.00.Harold, I agree with the EMP stuff; I've studied these effects. But the weapon has to get here first and that takes time that could be used for warning. I've also studied the effects of 1 meg, 10 meg, and 100 meg weapons. You and Greybear don't have enough equipment to build a shelter to survive.
And your point about underground... Underground shelters are nothing new, the US and Russia has had them for some time. Whether the US gave them the funds for this new subway system is questionable.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 03, 1999.
Hi Maria, I don't think the attack will come on 1-1-00. As I said above I would expect the attack much earlier, probably in mid- November, or early December. They will need to use their nukes BEFORE they crash from Y2K, and leave themselves time to make strike assesments and follow up strikes to finish off anything that survived. I'm not talking surviving population, but weapons storage facilities, assembly plants, bomber bases, etc.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 03, 1999.
It is true that MAD has worked but it unfortunately is no longer in effect. Joel Skousen was on Art Bell 8-10-98. Bell put about four links under that date to prove conclusively that the MAD doctrine has been changed to fire on being hit. That is suicide. Here is the link to those four documents. One of them is a NPR audio account of the change. http://www.artbell.com/oldlinks.html and look under 8-10-98.B
-- BBrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), March 03, 1999.
I would think we didn't give the funds to build the expanded "subway" system - they just used them that way, instead of siphoning them of into corruption or in foreign bank accounts.Regardless.
Unless a person were exposed directly to the initial "flash" and thus were burned or hit by the shock wave itself, the "utter destruction zone"of a nuclear weapon is relatively small - 2 miles if less than 20 Kton (field grade weapon) -8-10 miles if a strategic (20+ megaton weapon).
Hills and weather affect this, height of burst is important.
But, unless immediately harmed, any reasonable preparations for Y2K (food, alternative heat and light, and water) serve the same function for a household as they would in a fallout shelter. If the windows and doors are shut (and vents such as chimneys are "one-way" outlets), even the majority of fallout is kept outdoors if the cloud were to go directly overhead. And if the wind is the "other way" - even fallout is minimial concern - to the ones already in the shelter.
Basement or storm shelter (if midwest) improve resistance, but reduce the space available.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 03, 1999.
from csy2k by "completely" :<< Gee, could that be why they are using OUR money to build a massive underground bunker, new fighter aircract, new ICBM's that now have better technology than ours, have a new strategic defense agreement with China, are stockpiling cash, gold and oil, stockpiling foodstuffs and raw materials, and still crying poor mouth on the world stage ?
Nah, they're just such upright people.
Looks like a war footing to me ! >>
---------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.
I must differ on one point - I don't think we have EVER had a 'launch on warning' policy. MAD has nothing to do with launch on warning - it just means that even if the other side hits us first, we still have enough left to destroy them. Launch on warning is very dangerous - there have been a number of false warnings over the years. That's what hardened targets and submarines are all about - forces that can survive an attack and retaliate later.
-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), March 03, 1999.
I see your roads smeared with blood
-- Oppenheimer (Justdoit@so.colorful), March 03, 1999.
Yeah, MAD sort of went away. Ned I don't believe that we ever had a "launch on warning" policy. The reference (I think) was to launch on being hit, different timelines here. IMO, Clinton would not hesitate to retaliate even if MAD is no longer in effect (which just means he won't launch everything just a little at a time). This man has attacked 4 countries in the past year; he has something to prove (though I don't know what).Robert, your assessment on NWE shows that we may survive nukes. I agree that small ones produce little (relatively) damage in comparison to big ones but the amount is still greater. The initial flash which approximates a "line of sight" trail does happen within the first few seconds. Your blast numbers assume a certain psi. Most houses can not survive 2 psi which carries further than your posted distances. Then there's the long lived radiation effects. Most fallout occurs within the first half hour and is in the heaviest debri dropping in the immediate area. The mid-size stuff can be carried by the prevailing winds (mostly from west to east) and hit a larger footprint. Then the light weight stuff gets picked up by the earth's magnetic field lines and can travel to the southern hemispher before it's deposited. So no one can really escape NWE. Our bodies will feel as little as 4 rads which seem to affect the reproductive organs. So if you think you've survived, you still may not have long to live. This is some nasty stuff. Sorry, Deborah, I haven't had time to read the survival document yet but I may look at it later. The above stuff is what I remember from my work in this area.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 03, 1999.
Ned and Maria,The deterrent in MAD has always depended on 'fire on warning'. Please read the links I pointed to on my post above. If we wait until we are hit, we're all dead, and can be rendered incapable of striking back by their missiles targeting our silos. Again, the links on Bells site are conclusive that MAD depends on fire on warning.
-- BBrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), March 03, 1999.
New URL, same text:False missile-attack warning could spark Russian retaliationxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.
Maria ... and Robert (in GA .. sorry spelling of last name slipped away) Fist, warning time... A sub launched missle travels at approximately 7000 MPH (slower up - faster down) would not take long from a sub only 100 miles from either coast. Second, radar would have to track, confirm and after officers study evidence, then military would be informed. Takes 10 minutes before any action (IF Klinton isn't being serviced) , and now phone calls would have to be made,confirmed by radio stations, TV, etc BEFORE news would be given. I have estimated 5-7 minutes tops for civilians to act. I built my shelter when the "Evil Empire" was identified by Regan. Here is info for all . GIVEN, ONE: Fallout from a single (massive or otherwise) attack, and GIVEN:Within two days, given NO FURTHER fallout 800 Rads from same, WITHIN 7 hours the rad count will have fallen to 400; within 7 more hours, to 200; in 7 more, to 100 , which would not be much more the a double chest X-ray if you went outside for about 10 minutes to assess damage . Within two days, GIVEN NO FUTHER FALLOUT from extended attacks, one could go out and stay out, providing your not pregnant or worried about your ability to reproduce as a man. I must agree with other posts; the Russians will have everything to gain, and little to lose , knowing we have a "Wimp in the Whitehouse". .......... Eagle ... staying close to the nest...Got dosimeters ???
-- Harold Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), March 03, 1999.
Well now, I never said a nuclear blast was "good" for you - just wanted people to (in general) be aware that the damn things are surviveable if only a few are thrown over the wall in your general direction.Maria - thank you for numbers - I was trying to stay out of classified areas, also was trying to emphasize transient (short term) nature of fallout - particularly if carried in the opposite direction by winds. Closed doors and windows, most people who have prepared are better staying indoors than leaving - even if downwind.
4 rad's - not too bad, I would not personally worry about any short term dose (under 50 rad's in less than 24 hours) under emergency conditions. Would accept 50-100 to rescue family or provide other extreme emergency services - wouldn't like it, would try to prevent it, but I would accept the risk of the radiation to fight a fire, or something like that. Anybody really worried about radiation or fallout must get a radiac and learn how to interpret it - DON'T rely only on government reports if an accident happens. They may not sample your area, the news might be old (and useless) or for the general area (not valid for your actual city, farm, neighborhood, house or shelter) or too predictive (clear the whole area in case...) to actually help you. Assuming there is government news available. Assuming you can hear it. Assuming they actually sample the air and ground.
Listen for emergency reports - but if you are worried about radiation post year 2000 - rely on yourself.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 03, 1999.
P.S. BBC made a great TV.documentary on the effects of a 1 megaton bomb blast over St Pauls Cathedral, London , including affects on various Brit gov designed shelters in gardens, basements , and ones built of steel with hand cranked fans, etc. As with " Last Minute - Do It YOURSELF shelters" proposed by British OR US govs, you had to be outside an 8-10 MILE area to survive catastropic failure. Sorry , have misplaced same, so I can't give exact title ... but it was produced in 1981. The only REAL shelters correctly designed to be between TWO 1 megaton nuclear explosions, and still give you the SAME life expectancy as would an ordinary day, are built by Radius Defence, Inc. at 222 Blakes Hill Road, Northwood NH 03261 603-942-5040. As of Janruary, orders were SOLID out to July. They are of fiberglass construction, have toilet, shower, 12 marine batteries for light and power to THREE seperate air filtration systems, for ALL NBC, including nerve gas. Gov put company out of business in 94 by sting operation, where they ordered massive 30 person shelter and possibility of another two dozen if they liked it, under the guise of an American Co. Actually, they were Customs agents, taping every meeting and word , who were embarassed when two shelters showed up a Canadian border for shipment to Montana, and they had no law, rule or reg to stop same. Shipment was via trans Canadian hwy v.s. long route and short drive hours around Great Lakes, plus MANY permits for wide load. I know so much , because I HAD 7.5 mil in stock that is worthless today. Only two inches shows above ground and that has NO radar signature. Cost is about $30,000 ; depends what you want. Eagle ... hear the Mrs. .Supper
-- Harold Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), March 03, 1999.
We do indeed have launch on warning. I've seen recent quotes by DOD officials saying they don't feel the need to change it in spite of Y2K worries. Also saw an article in Scientific American a year or so ago, advocating that we change it.
-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), March 03, 1999.
HEY, whaddya mean "wimp in the White House" ? He'll fight to the last American soldier, coordinated from his undergound bunker in Virginia (screwball survivalist) !! His military policy is: "Let's you and him fight"
-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 03, 1999.
HOW TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR LAUNCHES, the "real-world" method. If you know someone who was in the Air Force as a Security Policeman, particularly at a missile base, ask that person if they ever had to spend time SITTING ON TOP OF A MISSILE SILO.Little-known fact; some times USAF Minuteman missiles would (will?) show some sort of "un-commanded" pre-launch indication on the launch control center indicator boards. Standard practice by the Air Force to insure that the unthinkable didn't happen was to send a security team to the missile silo in question. The security team would travel out in a 4x4 pick-up with a slide-in camper in the back. The team would camp-out on-site until missile maintenance personnel could be dispatched to "safe" the missile and repair the original problem.
The launch prevention aspect is brutally simple. The security folks orders direct how the vehicle is parked: On top of the slide-away, missile silo door. The front wheels would be parked on the moveable section and the rear wheels set and chocked on the non-moving section.
Should the worst happen, well, the missile would suddenly have the aerodynamics of a truck and really wouldn't be capable of intercontinental flight. Realistically, the missile would break-up as it left the silo, with the upper section including the warhead(s) falling off and being relatively undamaged. Don't know if the same woulf be able to be said about the security guys. Fortunately, all I ever heard about were some uneventful camping trips, no doors have ever opened as far as I've heard.
Wonder if there are Russian or Chinese versions of camp-out teams?
WW
-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), March 03, 1999.
(posted also to 'panic' thread by mistake!)You all are assuming a unified and coherent command structure in Russia to trigger this Fall attack. None such exists. There would be disagreement over such a weighty decision - not for humanitarian reasons, but practical issues and political self-interest/self- promotion issues. It would have to be either substantial political/military command unity (unlikely) or a lone-wolf rogue commander.
-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 03, 1999.
There are equally simple ways of ensuring that the Russian mobile launched missiles (already on a truck!) are "safed" completely and without any possibility of weapon explosion or release.BUT - this requires two things:
one) The Soviets (funny, I'm not calling them Russians any more) would want to "safe" their weapons - as stated in the other thread, there are very likely reasons for them using this as blackmail only to get more money, regardless of how it would be used/abused.
two) The Soviets would know where all their mobile and silo missiles actually are, and that all are under actual and relaible Soviet (KGB) control. If they do not have control, or do not actaully have all their missile, "one or two" could obviously be launched - despite their blackmail - or these "two or three' could be the source of their blackmail. That is, if they know we know that missiles are missing, then we would respond to the threat. If they know that we know they have complete and credible control of their nukes, then there can be no threat of random launches.
The Chinese only have about 60 nukes aimed at US cities - and they have ensured Clinton they will try not to blow up any American cities - as long as we obey their demands on Tiawan and North Korea of course. And if Gore wants their money next year, he .....
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 03, 1999.
A lot of the posters on this thread are making the fundamental mistake of using American logic and thought processes to asses the Russian and Chinese intentions and capabilities. This Perimeter system as detailed earlier is an excellent example of the difference in our ways of thinking. A doomsday nuclear trigger is of value militarily only as a deterrent, and only then if the enemy both knows you posess it and know that it works. The Russians have made every effort to keep this system shrouded in secrecy against all logic to the American point of view. Conclusion? The system was never intended to be a deterrent, just a revenge weapon. The American public just does not comprehend the utter hatred and contempt the Soviet communist feel for the West. They think we are soft, spoiled , and naive. They are for the most part correct. A military society under communist rule has a completely different mindset than a democratic supposedly civilian ruled nation.Another case in point can be borrowed from "Small Arms of the World". The author points out the simple difference in the design of the Soviet and American battle rifles, the AK-47 and the M-16, which reflect the different battle strategies of the two armies. The AK goes to full auto immediately upon leaving the safe position prior to being cocked. Semi-automatic fire is the second selected option. The M-16 goes to semi-auto fire first, then full auto may be selected as the next step. The entire Soviet concept of battle is embodied in this difference, engage the target with overwhelming firepower at point blank range and anihilate him reguardless of cost. The American strategy is to stand back and bait the enemy into traps, then wipe him out with long range high tech weapons which minimize losses to your own forces. Only after air and ground superiority have been achieved in total do you commit to direct ground attacks. The lesson here is simple. If you want to analyze Soviet actions think like a Soviet. The same holds true for the Chinese. I would suggest everyone obtain a copy of "The Art of War" and read it soon. It is required reading for every communist Chinese army officer and party official and goes a long ways towards helping to interpret recent events.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 03, 1999.
Excellent article along this thread. 3/15/1999"The 'Nightmare Scenario'" What if the world's Y2K nuclear computer problems aren't fixed in time?
www.thenation.com/issue/990315/0315sanders.shtml
-- TiredTX (TiredTX@Dallas.now), March 03, 1999.
Nikki,To add an observation to you astute remarks.
You said they "... ha(ve) a completely different mindset..."
I'm certainly no Rusophile, but we might have a different mind set to if we had ever had a Panzer division setting down the street or French legion marching across Kansas.
-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 03, 1999.
Once again I will refer all to Dr. Dean Ing and his book "Pulling Through" WHich is 1/2 fiction and then the facts follow.I will also refer people to Kresson Kierney (-2sp) "Nuclear War Survival Skills" referenced in at least 3 threads hereabouts in the last 3 months.
Chuck Got an EGG?? (buried shelter for 4, from LONG ago. It came equipped with everything)
-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 04, 1999.
I just want to make two comments. 1) MAD is launch on warning but not the one or two type launches. It means very simply they launch everything, we launch everything. "M" stands for both US and Russia. We would need indicators that they are going for a full blown attack. We have seen many launches in the past and have not launched missiles. We did employ the third leg of the triad (bombers) but not the missiles (which are not recallable). Also, warning means both tactical and strategic. Which brings me to the second point.Strategic warning comes very early in the scenario. Russia could not, would not be able to "mobilize" without giving off signals. These signals are picked up by intelligence on a daily basis and translated into strategic warning. If subs are 100 miles off the coast we know about it. (OK one may slip by but not the numbers which indicate a MAD scenario). We (not the public but the gov) have a lot of knowledge about what other countries are doing.
(I guess I want to make another point). Let's assume Nik is right. They use this perimeter thing, and even send out a HEMP which cuts our comm, then start launching. What do they gain? They are not politically, socially, economically capable (and can't get there by Nov 99) of taking over the world. It just aint gonna happen no matter how militarily incompetent our current prez (maybe that's what he is trying to prove by attacking 4 countries in a year). There was a time in the past when all these components were ripe and they could have but didn't. It takes a whole lot more than just fire power, hate for Americans, and military tatics to gain world dominance. Even they know this.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 04, 1999.
What a great and scary thread.I can only prepare for the end of the world as I know it... this thread deals with the virtual end of the world. I wanna be at ground zero.
How might Russia benefit by being the first to strike? What would their objective be? Would Russia be more inclined to make an alliance with Iraq rather than China? Would China sit by and watch Russia push a power grab? What about India, Pakistan, North and South Korea and the European Theatre?
Just curious...
Mike ============================================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), March 04, 1999.
Nice post Maria. You raised many excellent points.It is my understanding that Russia is not interested in dominating the world. They want Europe. China wants taiwan. N. Korea wants S. Korea. And Islam wants Israel. Some see communism and islam joining to achieve their goals. To do this they must neutralize NATO and the U.S. A surprise attack on the ten U.S. major military installations would accomplish these goals.
For an indepth discussion of how Russia has taken all punch out of MAD go to artbell.com and go to the audio archives dated August 10, 1998. Skousen and Bell spend a lot of time on MAD, Russian motives and plans etc.
-- BBrown (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), March 04, 1999.
Mike and Maria: First Maria, reguarding mobilization, Kosovo gives the Russians perfect cover for mobilization of armor. As the situation there escalates armorede divisions will no doubt be deployed in the region with the russians blustering about coming to their aid in the event of NATO air strikes. The Russian people are already prepared for an all out war, having gone into self- sufficiency mode long ago. Wartime shortages and problems with food distribution are the standard way of life there now. You say "it takes a whole lot more than just fire power, hate for Americans, and military tactics to gain world dominance, even they know this." This is once again using American logic to address Soviet and Chinese tactics. Twice in this century Europe has been over-run, and all would have been lost except for the fact that England is an island nation, and they had the Americans to fall back on. With the advent of nuclear and bio-chem weapons utilizing missile delivery systems neither of these factors has the bearing it did in the past. You also overlook the fact that NATO is facing a three pronged threat, Russia, China, and Y2K.Mike, we're getting into your questions now so we'll begin to address them along with Maria's. You sure don't ask much, it would take a book to properly answer yours, and a military strategist, which I am not. You ask first how Russia would benefit from being the first to strike? And what would their objective be?
As I pointed out above the only thing stopping Russia from being able to over-run Europe is the United States, and to a lesser degree, England. Therefore the benefits of destroying us are obvious. As far as motive, world domination is the obvious one. There are competing interest in this one world government movement. We have the European- American banking interest pushing for a worldwide socialist regime, with the elite banker families setting themselves up as the ruling class, and the Worldwide communist nation agenda being pursued by Russia and China. Y2K and the proliferation of Nuclear weapons into third world countries have brought the timing to a head. Both competing factions know they must soon consoloidate power before the situation dissolves into nuclear anarchy from which there will be little chance of a coherent strategy towards their goals.
Your third question as to likely alliances with Iraq or China is already answered in that the said alliances already exist. Russia and Iraq have a long history of weapons dealing, and Russia has consistently undermined coalition efforts to force Iraq into U.N. compliance, as has China. Russia and China have spent the last year strengthening their alliance to counterbalance the growing ?American led U.N. military and eco-political power base. Both of you seem to be assuming that the communist forces will simuletaneously invade every nation on Earth, which brings us to your final questions. Would China sit back and watch Russia push a power grab? No, they will be actively helping them as full partners. What about India, Pakistan, North and South Korea, and the European theater?
There is no need for the Communist to militarily invade every member of the NATO bloc. France and Germany are largely socialist states already. Germany derives 40% of its elctrical power from Russia, and Europe as a whole about one third of its natural gas. Let me just finish this in the form of a possible scenario which will be utilized.
November 15th, 1999, the United States. There is massive panic as the rollover of the gps system has disrupted many services, including communications and electrical power. Widespread panic has set in amongst the public, and the stock market has dropped 50% in less than a week. National guard units are ordered to report to regional bases for deployment in anticipation of a declaration of martial law. Army and air force reserves are also called up to active duty. Military bases around the country are jammed standing room only with troops.
November 16th, 1999 Europe 11:00 am London time. Four deep cover spetznatz troops leave their homes carrying suitcase nukes, heading. to different sectors of the city. Across England this scene is repaeted numerous times as other agents head to NATO air bases and missile sites. The same thing is occuring in other European NATO countries and in the United States.
November 16th, 1999, 12:30 pm London time, France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Norway, Swizerland etc.. The Russian Ambassador shows up at the capitol building, demanding an immediate conference with the prime minister or president. 1:00 pm London time. A message is handed to the various leaders simultaneously across Europe and in Australia, India, and Pakistan. It reads; In exactly fifteen minutes Russia will undertake the nuclear destruction of the United States Miliatry, and all NATO nuclear installations. If you attempt to intervene 100 ICBM's have been pre-targeted on your country and will be launched immediately. If you remain neutral no aggressive action will be undertaken against your country other than the destruction of NATO bases through low yield tactical weapons.
Nov. 16th, 1999 12:30 pm, London time. Washington D.C.
Spetznatz commandoes Harold Price and John Walker have left their tactical warheads behind in parking garages adjacent to the Pentagon and the Capital building complex. Other agents have done the same near the NSA and other strategic targets in the area. They are currently leaving the city in a Mayflower moving van, headed west. In the back of the van 19 other commandoes who have joined them ride shotgun over their cargo of Anthrax containers, and the few remaining suitcase nukes.
Nov. 16th, 1999. 1:15 pm London time, low earth orbit over the United States. Three Russian Military satelites thought to be dead suddenly flare in brilliant Nuclear fireballs, simultaneously Suitcase nukes detonate all over the world, but the heaviest concentration around and in Washington D.C. Exactly one minute later 1000 ICBM's blast out of their Silos In Russia, and 100 medium range nuclear missiles erupt out of the Atlantic and Pacific. Five minutes later the first of the Sub-launched Missiles air burst over Pensecola Naval base, followed by a machine gun rapidity string of detonations as the hyper sonic warheads egress their targets along the coastline and inland for several hundred miles. As the Mushroom clouds reach to the stratsphere the first of the ICBM's begins its downward trajectory from space, dispensing its payload of ten warheads as it rolls over. The United States has ceased to exist without firing a single shot in retaliation......
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 04, 1999.
Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S. Nuclear Weapons DoctrineCraig Cerniello
THE CLINTON a dministration quietly made a significant change in U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine in November by formally abandoning guidelines issued by the Reagan administration in 1981 that the United States must be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war. The new presidential decision directive (PDD), details of which were first reported in The Washington Post on December 7, operates from the premise that the primary role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era is deterrence. In a December 23 interview, Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, provided additional information about the PDD and clarified some misperceptions in the press with respect to the Clinton administration's policy on "launch on warning" and the use of nuclear weapons against a chemical or biological weapons attack.
New Guidelines
Due to its highly classified nature, many specific details about the PDD have not been made public. Nevertheless, Bell confirmed that "We have made an important change in terms of strategic nuclear doctrine in reorienting our presidential guidance away from any sense that you could fight and win a protracted nuclear war to a strategic posture that focuses on deterrence."
The administration made the decision to rewrite the old nuclear guidelines early in 1997. At that time, General John Shalikashvili, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to President Clinton that the United States could not reduce its nuclear arsenal to the level that was being discussed for START III (2,000 to 2,500 deployed strategic warheads) and carry out the objectives of the 1981 nuclear guidelines. Bell pointed out that this assumed that the goals of the old guidelines could ever have been realized--a skepticism that has been voiced by former Reagan administration officials. Hence, one key factor influencing the administration's decision to rewrite the old guidelines was that they were not compatible with the U.S. objective of achieving further strategic force reductions with the Russians.
Moreover, the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In this connection, Bell said the 1981 directive "reads like a document you would expect to have been written at the height of the Cold War, not something that you would want operative today...."
Launch on Warning
Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning--to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."
Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.
Negative Security Assurances
Bell also dispelled the published report that the PDD expands U.S. nuclear options against a chemical or biological weapons attack. "This PDD reaffirms explicitly, virtually verbatim, the policy of this administration as we stated it the last four or five years, including during the extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], the negotiation of the CTB [Comprehensive Test Ban] and the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention," he said.
Specifically, the PDD reaffirms the 1995 statement on negative security assurances issued by Secretary of State Warren Christopher on behalf of President Clinton at the time of the indefinite extension of the NPT. This statement reiterated in a slightly more restrictive form the 1978 statement on the non-use of nuclear weapons issued by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance on behalf of President Carter.
In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in three cases. First, "if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first--we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or for that matter conventional [weapons]," he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first "if a state is not a state in good standing under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international convention." Finally, he said if a state attacks the United States, its allies or its forces "in alliance" with a nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for some time, Bell said "there is no policy change whatsoever in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no first use of nuclear weapons."
-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), March 04, 1999.
Scenario part 2, The Asian theater....Nov. 16th, 1999 1:15pm London time. Seoul S. Korea Military radar and control headquarters. Phone line and microwave communications to the Continental United States suddenly go dead. Attemps are immediately made to contact Cheyenne mountain via hardened communications. No Response. Radar operators report incoming low flying missiles ten miles off the coast travelling at Mach 3. The commanding general grabs his alert phone and begins to issue a red alert. 30 seconds later he disintegrates under the fireball of a nuclear detonation.Guam, same time. A single 20 megaton warhead detonates ten miles up exactly centered over the U.S. air base.
Japan, same time. A single 20 megaton warhead detonates ten miles up exactly centered over the U.S. air base.
The Gulf of Tonkin. same time. Radar operators report multiple low flying missiles inbound. Admiral whoever orders battle stations and immediate scramble of fighters from Aircraft carrier Kennedy, flagship of taskforce resolution. Desperate weapons system operators begin firing anti missile missiles as the bogey's close in. The guided missile cruiser Paul Revere is obliterated by a blinding nuclear flash, radar screens and thermal imaging white out as the situation devolves into total chaos...The same scene is replayed simultaneously with the Atlantic Fleet on station in the Mediteranean.
Tel Aviv, Israel, same time. Four suitcase nukes detonate around the city. Ten minutes later Five 20 megaton ICBM's rip Israel to shreds.
Taiwan, same time. A Communist Chinese diplomat delivers the message to the Taiwanese government to stand down all military operations and swear allegiance to Red China or be Nuked in 30 minutes.
Polar ice cap, same time. Trident submarine USS Last Chance. Sonar operator reports sounds of torpedoes in the water. Countermeasure are deployed but the shock wave from the nuclear tipped anti submarine weapon totally destroys the Trident.
Trident Submarine Aloha, on station 400 miles North of Hawaii. Rising to communications depth they deploy their ELF communications Antenna to recieve pre-scheduled broadcast. Their is only silence and static. Sonar operator reports high speed screws in the area, and multiple airborne contacts....
November 17th. 1999 China. One million Red chinese soldiers begin loading onto Chinese flagged commercial Freighters bound for the Suez Canal.
November 17th, 1999 Panama. Chinese units armed with tactical nuclear weapons take up positions at each end of the panama Canal, thir orders to hold or destroy the facilities.
November 18th, Korean DMZ. 40 divisions of North Korean and Chinese infantry and Armor pour past the Smoldering ruins of the Nato and South Korean Firebases.
I could go on for hours, but I think you get the picture....
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 04, 1999.
Thanks to BB for posting this article which I lifted from another thread.Old enemies
As the national attention has been focused on the "egregious, reprehensible, indefensible" personal behavior of our national disgrace, dark forces work in the shadows to synthesize a threat far greater than a sexual predator in the oval office.
Russia and China have been conspiring (covertly and openly) to undermine the strength and viability of the United States of America. This claim is not the product of right-wing wacky paranoia. ... It is real, growing, and significant.
My friend and publisher, Joseph Farah, often suggests we "Connect the Dots." I have taken his advice and connected a variety of separate issues and interviews, and the conclusion is scary.
About a year ago, I interviewed Col. Stanislav Lunev regarding his book "Through the Eyes of the Enemy." When Lunev's book came out, most everyone focused on his claims of suitcase-size nuclear weapons he reported were already here in the United States. However, although it makes for a jazzy movie, the briefcase nukes are only one element in a long list of items which suggests to some experts, that Russia is preparing for a first-strike war.
When I first started hearing reports of a Russian precipitated first strike, my immediate reaction was "Bullfeathers!" Hell, Russia is in financial ruin, can't feed their people, can't pay the military, and couldn't find or field a full division anymore than they could find their collected derriere with both hands. That is the "conventional wisdom" I had come to believe. ... I was wrong, way wrong.
I recently interviewed a young intelligence researcher (Jeffrey Nyquist) who listed several ominous "dots" in the wake of more extensive interviews with Lunev:
Russia is stockpiling grain.
Russia continues to beg for more food from the West.
Russia is slaughtering its herds.
Russia is increasing fuel production.
Russia is stockpiling fuel.
Slaughtering fur-bearing animals.
Russia continues to build weapons despite treaty agreements to the contrary.
Russia continues to expand its deep water navy.
Russian weapons systems are vulnerable to potential Y2K catastrophic failures. Several experts suggest Russia feels compelled to "use it or lose it" regarding its arsenal.
Russia recently entered into an alliance with Communist Red China specifically designed to undermine the West's dominance as a world power.
Russia continues to lie, obfuscate, deny and dissemble regarding all the above.
Russia refuses to allow any kind of inspections as a condition for receipt of any western aid.
Development of vast underground "cities" capable of housing over 30,000.
Any one of the above elements alone might be rationalized, explained away, or spun as "no big deal." However, as you connect the dots, a sickening feeling grows.
David Hoffman of the Washington Post Foreign Service recently reported "a scandal over an offshore fund handling Russia's foreign currency reserves." He reported "a member of parliament charged that the Central Bank allowed the reserves to be used for buying and selling securities and then concealed the profits from the government." No, this isn't the Clinton cabal, this is the poor destitute Russians.
The Washington Post reports: "Nikolai Gonchar, an independent member of the lower house of parliament and of its budget committee, raised new questions at a news conference about the conduct of the Central Bank, although many details are still unclear.
"Gonchar charged that the Central Bank had set up an intricate scheme to exploit billions of dollars in Russia's national reserves by investing them secretly in high-yield Russian government bonds known as GKOs and concealing the profits from the parliament and government."
This reminded me of a novel (fiction) I had read 10 years ago. However, that was fiction. ... This is fact. It had previously been revealed the Central Bank had set up an offshore firm, Financial Management Co., known as Fimaco, based in Jersey, the Channel Islands, to handle Russia's foreign currency reserves. Wait a minute ... "reserves?" ... We have been led to believe Russia was down on its frozen bottom begging for charity sustenance. Well, according to one estimate, between 1993 to 1998, the offshore fund managed $37 billion. Yes, $37-Billion (with a B). The firm was a subsidiary of Eurobank of Paris, which (by the way) is currently 78 percent owned by the Central Bank.
This epiphany has sparked considerable controversy since it is highly unusual/strange/weird for a Central Bank to turn over management of a country's reserves to someone else (if it had). Additionally, questions are now being asked about whether the offshore accounts were used to primarily as a tool to mislead the International Monetary Fund and other international financial organizations about the size of Russia's reserves. Gee, they have lied about food, fuel, weapons, fur for winter clothing, and the entire table or organization of the military ... would Russia lie about establishing an offshore banking presence to hypothecate reserve funds? Damn straight they would ... and apparently are. "The case is the subject of a criminal investigation," the Post writes, " but Russia's chief prosecutor resigned after disclosing the existence of the offshore fund" And guess what? His replacement has not yet been named, and therefore, no criminal investigation has even started.
I remember Lunev telling me that the KGB is not dead. ... It is very much alive and well. According to Lunev, the alleged Russian Mafia, is in fact controlled by the former KGB. The nomenclature has changed, but the goals, objectives, tactics and mission remains the same today as it was during the Cold War.
I asked Nyquist if we (the United States) had imposed any requirements/restrictions on Russian aid. In other words, do we require anything from the Russians (any quid pro quo) other than receipt of our largess? The answer was a startling "No." At one point Russia had tried to sell our charity for a profit. We did scream about that, and it was supposed to stop. The financial scandal also could (and should) affect decisions anticipated this spring regarding whether to continue aid to Russia. Moreover, the State Duma, parliament's lower house, is engaged in a debate about whether to impose stronger controls on the Central Bank. Is the debate form over substance ... perception over reality?
According to Gonchar the Central Bank had, in effect, found a hidden method to take advantage of soaring yields on Russian government bonds. He reported the Central Bank realized huge profits on these security trades. Russian law requires the Central Bank to donate 50 percent of any profits it receives to the Russian federal budget.
The Washington Post reported: "Gonchar claimed that Eurobank and its subsidiary, Fimaco, had created a third company to carry out the scheme -- a Russian bank called Eurofinance. He said the major shareholders in Eurofinance were Eurobank and Fimaco. He further claimed that Eurofinance then served as the back door by which investments were made in the GKOs."
In one series of transactions, that makes Hillary Clinton's commodity trades look like chump change, he said, Fimaco earned $38 million in net profits. "I want to stress that under the existing laws, they were supposed to transfer half of this sum to the budget," he said. Then again, I guess that is contingent on the specific definition of "existing law," or what is meant by "transfer," and/or what specific "budget" is referenced. "This information was thoroughly concealed. Where has the profit gone to? The issue is a concrete one: We can and must find this money."
So, connect the dots: Stockpiling grain; continued foreign aid; slaughtering herds; increasing fuel production, stockpiling fuel; increasing fuel production; increased weapons development; growing their navy; fear of Y2K impact; China/Russia alliance; refusal of any and all inspections; denials and lies; money laundering and building vast underground cities.
Is this much ado about nothing, or the preamble to something real bad?
-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), March 04, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 04, 1999.
I'm signing off for the night, have other business to attend to. Will be back online tomorrow to continue. Thanks, Nikoli
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomday@y2000.com), March 04, 1999.
I'm back early, buddy had the flu, not the best time for a visit..Here's another dot for all the connectors. Know your enemy...
Here's the ABC article: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/pentagonrussia990304.ht ml
Cyber-Attack Mounted Through Russia
Who's hacking into the Pentagon's computers? Some think it might be Russia or a country routing through Russian computers. (ABCNEWS.com)
By Barbara Starr
ABCNEWS.com
W A S H I N G T O N, March 4 The Pentagons military computer systems are being subjected to ongoing, sophisticated and organized cyber-attacks, officials there tell ABCNEWS.
And unlike in past attacks by teenage hackers, officials believe the latest series of strikes at defense networks may be a concerted and coordinated effort coming from abroad.
Until today, the Defense Department had not publicly acknowledged this latest cyber-war.
But in an interview with ABCNEWS, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre, who oversees all Pentagon computer security matters, confirmed the attacks have occurred over the last several months and called them a major concern.
This is an ongoing law enforcement and intelligence matter, said Hamre, who last month briefed the House Armed Services Committee on the attacks in a classified session.
Firewalls Breached?
The investigation is looking at a pattern of attacks that has not been seen before. Officials tell ABCNEWS there are several matters under investigation, and it is not clear to what extent the cyber- attacks are all linked.
Sources insist no classified networks have been breached, but they do say attacks have been aimed at sensitive information that may be locked behind firewalls and computer passwords.
Officials believe some of the most sophisticated attacks are coming from Russia. Federal investigators are detecting probes and attacks on U.S. military research and technology systems including the nuclear weapons laboratories run by the Department of Energy.
What is not clear, however, is whether the attacks are coming directly from Russia or whether the probes are coming from other countries that are simply routing through Russian computer addresses to disguise their origin.
Initial indications are that, wherever the probes and attacks are originating abroad, they are not from individuals. But U.S. officials say they would treat any Russian threat similarly whether it comes from the government, industry or high-technology interests.
A Russian Gateway for Espionage
The U.S. National Counterintelligence Center, or NACIC, which monitors espionage activities worldwide, has been tracking the threats posed by lack of official security systems on Russian computer networks for some time. A September 1998 NACIC report noted Kremlin statements that foreign secret services were regularly penetrating Russian computer networks.
U.S. officials believe, however, that there may be an even more disturbing problem: Foreign government hackers may be getting help from within the U.S. government.
We are increasingly concerned about those who have legitimate access to our networks the trusted insider, Hamre told the House committee in a written statement on Feb. 23. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the seriousness of the insider threat to our information systems and, through those systems, to the Departments operations.
Senior Defense Department officials are being briefed regularly on the investigations into the insider threat.
Congressional Concerns
Indeed, the Pentagon has quietly established a new organization the Joint Counterintelligence Evaluation Office which is tracking foreign intelligence services attempts to gain access to critical Defense Department technologies as well as their attempts to penetrate information infrastructure and U.S. military operations. All of the military services are beefing up their own counterintelligence efforts as well.
Hamres closed-door appearance has sparked a new round of concerns in Congress. Pentagon computer systems are probed about 60 times a day with as many as 60 actual computer attacks each week. Many of these are from more typical hackers, and the Defense Department has the capability to freeze out access to government networks.
But the current situation is far more serious, according to Congress. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., chairman of the House Armed Services Research and Development Subcommittee, told ABCNEWS: What weve been seeing in recent months is more of what could be a coordinated attack, that could be some attack we have not yet fully uncovered that could be involved in a very planned effort to acquire technology and information about our systems in a way that we have not seen before.
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 04, 1999.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern developing here?http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/wires2/index.sml
LONDON Hackers have seized control of one of Britain's military communication satellites and issued blackmail threats, The Sunday Business newspaper reported.
The newspaper, quoting security sources, said the intruders altered the course of one of Britain's four satellites that are used by defense planners and military forces around the world.
The sources said the satellite's course was changed just over two weeks ago. The hackers then issued a blackmail threat, demanding money to stop interfering with the satellite.
"This is a nightmare scenario,'' said one intelligence source. Military strategists said that if Britain were to come under nuclear attack, an aggressor would first interfere with military communications systems.
"This is not just a case of computer nerds mucking about. This is very, very serious and the blackmail threat has made it even more serious,'' one security source said.
Police said they would not comment as the investigation was at too sensitive a stage. The Ministry of Defense made no comment.
-- sean (venturer@interlog.com), February 28, 1999
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 04, 1999.
For your info:RADIATION METER: (about $400) Dosimeter Corporation model 3510) 1-800-322-8258
FALLOUT SHELTERS:
PREFAB CONCRETE TANKS (use for burial underground)
Oldcastle Precast (Custom precast water proof concrete tanks--can 2820 A Street, SE Auburn, WA 98071-0608 (253)-833-2777 Fax (253)-939-9126 www.oldcastle-precast.com (888) 232-6274. They have local manufacturers all over the USA.
UNDERGROUND STEEL TANK-TYPE FALLOUT SHELTER (using Steel Culvert Pipe) (about $10,000 to build)
Utah Shelter Systems, PO Box 638-Heber, Ut 84032 (Sharon Packer, (801) 942-5638
Storm Chaser Shelters, 1200 Lawson Road, Fort Worth, Tex 76131 (817)-847-9000
Do-It-Yourself Plans for tank type shelters from Art Robinson, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 Tel: (541) 592-4142
BASEMENT FALLOUT, SECURITY SHELTERS--see "The Secure Home" by Joel Skousen www.xsw.com/securehome
CONCRET BLOCK SHELTERS built in existing homes--see "How To Implement A High Security Shelter in the Home" by Skousen, www.xsw.com/securehome
-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), March 04, 1999.