Hi Folks,

I'm on travel this week, and haven't had much time to keep up with the forum. This was the first time since Friday I've had time to take more than a quick look at three or four threads. I'd noticed over the last couple of weeks that there were one or two folks who were continually pressing the 'war with Russia' nonsense, despite significant factual evidence to the contrary. Now it seems we have one or more pseudonymous posters wildly misinterpretting current events in a vain attempt to claim some relationship with the whole 'Russian and war' nonsense.

1. Does anyone besides me see all of this as just a bit too coincidental?

2. Besides generally helping to discredit the forum in the eyes of the general public, and thus lessen the effectiveness of the information we are trying to promulgate, can anyone think of any other reason someone would troll in this manner?

between those threads, and the poor kid whose vocabualry is so limited he has to use four letter words in his subject lines, it's given the whole forum a kind of an odd appearance...OTOH we were expecting professional level disinformation, now weren't we?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 09, 1999

Answers

"'Russian and war' nonsense"

What makes you think it's nonsense?

Look at the state of their country... use it or lose it?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), March 09, 1999.

Arlin, I was somewhat disinclined to buy into any realistic probability along these lines...until I read the article where the Russian general basically threw out a veiled threat of 'give us Y2K remediation money or we can't be responsible for missiles accidentally firing in the night'...and then was it today the flap about Russian money flying out of the country being tucked away? Some pretty nasty stuff going on...to the detriment of their own people, with a situation that could spell ecological disaster for the world if they don't bother to control their nukes.

I think there are some realistic concerns here.

-- Shelia (shelia@active-stream.com), March 09, 1999.

should have said the general's comment was paraphrased!in my post above...

-- Shelia (shelia@active-stream.com), March 09, 1999.

Like most posters here, I don't have access to intelligence reports, but my biggest Y2K fear is war. Russia is just one trouble-spot.

Desalinization plants in the middle-east, and the China/Taiwan issue concern me more.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), March 09, 1999.

I had my nuclear war fears in 1959 (at age 9), 1962 (at 12), 1969 (at 19), 1982 (at 32). Like many others (some of whom named their new babies "Mikhail"), I let Gorbachev be my relaxation of a lifetime's fears under the nuclear insanity. I've stayed relaxed, even though the weapons still exist, and are pointed or can be quickly re- targeted at us. I just had to. It's consumed enough of my life.

The nuclear menace over our entire adult lives (if not actually logistically present during our childhoods) has been the most criminal and insane monstrosity ever existant upon this planet. By several ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

(Do you know what an "order of magnitude is? Well, do ya? Do you know why I put "orders of magnitude" in caps? Well, do ya? Bartender! How does a guy make a POINT around here anyway?)

Only a comet striking earth could bring equivalent devastation. And we would have done this to ourselves.

y2k (or WW2, Hitler et al) is a children's sandbox pushing match by comparison. But it tugs at the nuclear imaginings with its similar insane disproportions ("a push of the button" / "how could 2 little digits bring down civilization?"), inadvertent catastrophe, and an incompetent technological priesthood endangering a naive public.

The major TEOTW scenario throughout our lives has been nuclear. Maybe most people have only a very small portion of their brains reserved for TEOTW thinking and it all gets jostled in there together. I was kind of surprised that Gary North had his main forum "Relocation" monitored by Joel Skousen, whose main idea seems to be the "war with Russia" scenario. HUH? It doesnt noticeably distort the forum and postings, and he may turn out right or wrong, but hey  arent we trying to figure out y2k here? I think this is what Arlin is warning us not to let this forum get cluttered with.

I mean, if nuclear war happens, anywhere but a few coastal villages in Washington, Oregon, and California are poisoned wastelands. I would love it if every y2k-er (millions eventually?) would turn to nuclear disarmament as their next active concern. Not bloody likely. But (excuse my Kryptonian, Ed), you human beings en masse are fucking idiots out of control and bound to destroy most of your numbers one way or the other in some near century.

IMO, the Bell curve of numbers of humans surviving likely y2k scenarios is bunched toward the 5 billion end. Nuclear scenarios bunch around 1 billion or less. The worst y2k non-nuclear outcomes of 1B leave good recovery prospects for survivors, like after Bubonic times. The average nuclear scenario has survivors dying off for decades afterward; radiation, cancer, random toxicities. Almost no comparison.

We've had numerous "Broken Arrows" and other nuclear close calls throughout our lifetimes. y2k is another bump (of size ?) on the nuclear danger curve, granted. But it's not the MAIN thing to interest ourselves in about y2k, unless y2k were really to become another springboard of active awakening to the still-present nuclear danger. Again, NBL.

The "war with Russia" issue, though deservedly a bigger concern than y2k, is a sidetrack here if not actual trolling, because: WHAT ARE YA GONNA DO ABOUT IT, HUH? The fear level, without equivalent action, can be paralyzing. (Personal experience.)

And most such "war with Russia" posters are not exactly "bleeding liberal" disarmament fanatics like me, are they? OUR nukes our still the "good" nukes to them, right? It's them pesky Ruskies, who just can't remediate straight to save their babushkas. Saddam won't do. Need that ol' Evil Empire back before Duh-merican people catch on to the $300B DOD Empire that sucks their lives (and Constitution) out of them. (Oops, ... feeling that Kryptonian blue streak coming on again.... Deep breaths..... OK. I'm OK, .... back again. Whew!)

I'm just perpetually amazed at the individual right-winger's ability to see the _exact same_ situation and problem as I do, hating the same corrupt and cynical government/economic establishment, spend the same thousands of hours studying and -- yes -- intelligently analyzing it, and run off in exactly the wrong direction, chasing "black helicopters" instead of corporate jets. Amazing! Just a notch down on the analytic totem-pole I guess. Darwin, are you laughing yet? Did Noam Chomsky ultimately fail by fathering fewer offspring than Jimmy Swaggert?

Oops, back again -- again. Sorry, there's just no Kryptonians left for me to rant to anymore.

Preparing for any disaster is wise, and as Leska reminds Cascadians, earthquakes and volcanoes are in the cards for that region. Preparing for y2k gets you off your duff and ready for more than y2k. But nothing about y2k prep is _remotely_ close to saving us from nuclear hell on earth. The only preparation is still PREVENTION. And that takes a massive citizen action like the one beginning 1982 that drove Reagan to appreciate Gorby. We should have been talking Nuclear Abolition 2000 this year more than Food Storage 2000, but we aren't, are we?

Do I sound a little upset? Don't get me started.

Jor-el, who's seen it all go down before.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.com), March 09, 1999.

More oatmeal.

I seriously doubt that either Russia or China will nuke us because it is in their own self interest to benefit from our trade, now if that trade stops, that's another matter.

Back to the oatmeal. Most people's knowledge about the effects of nuclear waepons comes from movies, novels, TV mini-series, and liberal politicians. Even though sound information is free http://www.oism.org look for Nuclear War Survival Skills by Cresson Kearney or http://home.earthlink.net/~kenseger many people give more attention to sensationalistic myth than hard facts. Some of these hard facts are: that while the Swiss, Russian, Chinese, Swedish, and Norwegians all have in place Civil Defense, the US has none, warheads have been getting smaller and smaller since the 1970's due to better guidance (smaller C.E.P.s circular area of probability), fallout radiation decays according to the t1.2 rule, ie. if you hide in the basement for two days you've avoided over 90% of the radiation threat, radioactive cesium and strontium are not water soluable under normal plant growing conditions (bad news for cranberry growers, okay for everybody else), etc. etc.

Okay McD, tell me I'm an infiltrator, my math is prejudiced, people with specialized knowledge can't be trusted etc.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 09, 1999.

I think that this subject is being discussed too often on this forum. I agree with you. What people fail to realize is that war (whether on a nuclear or conventional scale) costs money. Russia doesn't have enough money to carry out much of a nuclear threat. The cuban crisis costs our gov lots of dollars and it wasn't even a war. We cancelled the alert status of our military because it was depleting resources.

What people also fail to realize is that Russia needs to gain something from a nuclear strike. If the Russian gov is partly communist and partly something else (haven't figured out what yet), there's no uniformity. The gov has to be "strong", supported by the people, to carry out the objective. If they want to dominate the world, they need to first dominate their own boarders. But Nik will have you believe otherwise.

FWIW, in the Air Force, I studies nuclear survivability and strategic planning of missile forces. Just to let you know I know what I'm talking about. I've had access to classified info and I'm not relying on stupid articles I've read on the web.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 09, 1999.

Arlin you said "2. Besides generally helping to discredit the forum in the eyes of the general public, and thus lessen the effectiveness of the information we are trying to promulgate,"

Just what effective information are "we" trying to promulgate? Who's we? You and those with "your" views? This forum speaks for itself, trolls and all. And who's the "general public"? Aren't we all? Do you differenciate from those who just get on here and those who've been here longer? Give the reader, newbie and oldie, credit for thinking for him/herself.

jor-el, your point is well said and that's my opinion exactly. It boggles my mind that we have to live with nuclear fear, which I have known all of my life since I was born in 61. This is proof to me that we human animals are the stupidest on earth and a menace to this planet. I want Scotty to beam me up.

My brain freezes when I think of "any" nuke threats going on now; Y2K, terrorism and suitcase bombs, China, Korea, India and on and on.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 09, 1999.

Nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. has been our communal nightmare for 50 years. I'm not surprised that it's hard for us to let go of it. During that time frame we were all taught that Russia was just itching to zap us and take over the world. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union ordinary people there have been telling us that they were being told exactly the same things about the United States, and they were living in the same sort of fear.

But Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" did mirror the mindset of some actual individuals, both here and in Russia. I expect there are still some of these crazies around. But the fact is that even during the most critical confrontations between the U.S. and Russia neither of us initiated a nuclear strike. Russia may be desperate now, but even the nuttiest of their extreme nationalists have always understood that nothing would be left there for them to rule after a nuclear exchange.

Don't worry about Russia. Any nuclear danger now is from rogue nations and terrorist groups. It really isn't that difficult any more to run a freighter into any of our major harbors with a nuke aboard. Or smuggle a 4 or 5 KT suitcase weapon into any city. But -- it hasn't happened, even though it's relatively easy. That ought to tell us something.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 09, 1999.

Arlin, one thing that definitely WILL discredit this forum is the type of wide-eyed paranoia that sees government agents lurking behind every post whose content is disagreed with.

Get a grip, dude.

-- belief (b@,.,), March 09, 1999.

It is well worth your time to visit:

http://www.russiatoday.com

With a daily dose of this site, you will finally realize that Russia currently is, and likely will be, in a perpetual state of chaos. Waging nuclear war is an extraodinarily difficult thing to do, and I do think that the Russian military is even remotely capable of doing so.

If war is to be one of Y2K's byproducts, then it likely will be in the form of biologicals coming from rogue states, cartels, wackos, etc. And, if Willie decides to become President For Life then we might see general civil war within the US. But, a nuclear strike from Russia - nay, ain't gonna happen.

-- No No (nono@nogo.com), March 09, 1999.

Oops! Make that "I do NOT think that Russian military is capable of launching a nuclear attack." Sorry for the typo!

-- No No (nono@nogo.com), March 09, 1999.

Never knew Krypton was a Liberal wasteland. Ooops, oh that's right - - Krypton went kaplooey didn't it? If memory serves, the "establishment" wouldn't listen to facts and findings, they just went with the emotional: "Life will go on this way forever---and DON'T you DARE frighten our peoples from their comfort zones."

Hmmmmm, that has a familiar ring to it.

Ya think maybe chunks of Earth might render earthlings helpless on a spacestation lifeboat somewhere?

Got tights?

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), March 09, 1999.

hmm, I guess I should have donned the proverbial flame proof suit...

let's see - trying respond to some of these:

1. as someone has already noted, Russia is in no condition to wage war on much of anybody... Their missiles are poorly maintained and there is no guarantee that they would hit anything resembling their intended targets. They *can* however, count on enough folks (China comes to mind immediately) launching *at* them without waiting to see where any missiles might land, that it's a non starter as a strategy.

2. I think nuclear disarmament (or any other form of disarmament) is idealistic, suicidal and unrealistic in the extreme - sorry jor- el..no sale on that one.

3. Chris (Catsy) - my error, didn't mean to be presumptuous on that one - just overly tired (driving in snow does that to me). I guess it just bugged me to see us wandering in that direction yet again...

4. Ken - good point on the oatmeal.

5. belief - I didn't say anything about the government being behind such a thing - the fedgov aren't the only people who are probably unhappy about this forum.

6. Invar - LOL! the notion of most of the regulars of this forum (myself included) in tights has got to be some sort of a first, though one hesitates to guess *what* sort of first it might be!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 09, 1999.

I think that war with Russia or China is unlikely. But what is likely, IMHO, is that we will be drawn into very bloody wars between Mid and Far Eastern countries that will involve the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

And that's bad enough.

-- a (a@a.a), March 09, 1999.

Jor-el, great to see your writing again!
This topic seems to be re-entering the national consciousness.

The news lately has been alarming. It's even worse today.

Here's a little essay on WND:

Rethinking doomsday: Is America ready? Most believe 'It can't happen here'

They probably lurk here too!

Almost to the 100th monkey ...

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 09, 1999.

Arlin,

Until very recently I had the same view that you hold at this point. However a recent trip to europe and some reading material changed my mind....

Russia and china prepare for war

Read this series of articles and present to me why this is illogical...?

Thanks, Saint Francis

-- Saint Francis (STFrancis@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

Why would the Russians or Chinese want to nuke us? We have a large submarine fleet, a powerful second strike deterrant. Each single boat has enough warheads to send Russia or China to the stone age.

Second, why would they want to get rid of us? We loan them both billions through the IMF, and they benefit from our rapidly advancing technology. Whom would they pirate software from if the US were suddenly atomic dust? Who would print them those solid, stable greenbacks which are now more in daily use than the ruble? Who would give them money or sell them grain? What it boils down to is money. That's what they need and crave. Wiping out the world's largest economy is not very financially prudent.

Large scale nuclear attacks are widely believed to be detrimental to the world climate. Ever heard of nuclear winter? The Russians know about it, too, and would suffer from it perhaps worse than North America.

Finally, based on knowledge of the Russians I've known, they don't want to bother with it. They regard both American and Russian leaders as imbeciles and simply wouldn't go along with the idiotic order to carry out the destruction of civilization; if they got the order (hypothetically, of course), they would perpetually tell their superiors that they would "do it tomorrow."

Many Russians, believe it or not, have family here in the US or know of others who do. Most have met American tourists. I doubt they all adore us materialistic, soft-bellied, and flakey Americans, but mass murder of millions does not cross their mind. And Russian women...yes, they know when to put their foot down and say "nyet" to anything that isn't practical; they too are in positions of high leadership. They too love their families and children just like we do.

Smaller, single launches from rogue terrorists or a crazy general might not be out of the question, though.

-- coprolith (Coprolith@rocketship.com), March 09, 1999.

Sheila wrote:

I was somewhat disinclined to buy into any realistic probability along these lines...until I read the article where the Russian general basically threw out a veiled threat of 'give us Y2K remediation money or we can't be responsible for missiles accidentally firing in the night"

I posted that article. I think it was relevant, because y2k has officially entered world politics. If you read the article you will remember that it was an attempt to manipulate our foreign policy, by using backwards bullying & threats related to problems stemming from y2k.

I am not saying nuclear war is imminent, but if you choose to ignore the potential political shifts which can occur as a result either directly or indirectly of y2k implications you are ignoring the big picture.

People debating the possibility of nuclear war IMHO are simply working through yet another issue to mentally prepare for y2k.

Granted, I have only been visiting this forum since Jan. but it seems to be that people tend to have ups & downs related to this issue, and sometimes seem to go through 'mini panic' stages.

IMHO when people work out the nuke issue in their own minds (as some of you seem to have done already) the 'Russia & Nuclear War' posts will fade away.

Don't forget:

"This is going to have implications for American society and the world that we can't comprehend."

--John Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense

-- Deborah (info@wars.com), March 09, 1999.

I think some of you people are in major denial here. If there was ever going to be a nuclear war, it's going to be within the next 12- 24 months. First, the command, control, and communications worries. There's no telling whats going to happen when the machines military strategists have relied on forever go haywire. There's no telling what the machines will do in Russia OR how people will react to it, especially if at the same time all hell is breaking loose with energy, oil, food, rioting, whatever. Just imagine the myriad ways an individual hungry for power, weaponary, etc. could take advantage of this blackout, particularly if it's as bad as you all think it is. It's amazing how conservative many of you are when it comes to how bad y2k is. You seem to be unable to grasp the GLOBAL implications, and instead focus on the local, survivialist angle, while being unable to continue your line of reasoning to the dreadful end. This doesn't surprise me. American's think they are immortal. THINK they are immortal.

-- Gilles Deleuze (deleuze@thunderhead.com), March 09, 1999.

Gilles D. It IS understandable that people here are in DENIAL !!! Many have admitted openly, that they have a hard time dealing with what Y2K will bring . It is another GIANT leap for them to even read about nuclear war on TOP OF Y2K !! May I add to your thread, by saying , that all leaders in trouble with the masses, OFTEN chose war as a way to distract from empty bellies, low pay, NO job, and little prospects that the future will be any better, AND it KEEPS THEM IN POWER (if they win ! ) . If they feel that they will be thrown out in the near future, WHAT do they have to lose ??? As far as wanting to come over here .... what's to find after a successful first strik but rubble , starving , dying masses of people and Klinton wailing "I FEEL YOUR PAIN !!" No. Europe would be enough for Russia to dominate, and China would be happy to control the Pacific Basin , for the oil and minerals and slave labor to produce same. They are not that far removed from the Jap neighbors , who dreamed the same dream , almost got it all but for a few carriers that weren't at Pearl . Eagle ... circling the nest .

-- Harold Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), March 09, 1999.

Hi St. F.

basicly the thing that bothers me about those articles is that he's taking Lunev's word on way too many things...and without any indepedent verification. Quite frankly my take on Lunev is that he's a paid op of somebody who would profit from a confrontation between the US and Russia. My best guesses: either Islamic fundamentalists (who hate both countries) or possibly China...

for information to be reliable it has to be verified by at least three independent sources - something Christopher Ruddy seems not to understand. Ruddy also doesn't seem to grasp that the level of nuclear exchange he believes is coming will effectively guarantee loss of life throughout a great portion of the northern hemisphere. By the Grace of God, the Russians very much do understand this simple fact and are not that suicidal.

Are the Chinese arming? certainly...my best take on that is that they feel simultaneous immediate threats from Russia, India, and Taiwan, as well as less direct threats from the US and it's allies.

Are the Russians arming? best take on this is that they're trying to replace a lot of their older (and much less reliable) systems, with smaller (i.e. single vs MIRV warhead) systems using more reliable technology. If the Russians launch at anyone it'll be the Chinese.

Although, realisticly, given the poor state of Russian maintenance of their strategic missile systems, if they launch at anyone, that's exactly where the missile will end up...headed toward just about anyone...personally I don't think that Russian general was trying to threaten anyone - just stating the truth of the situation.

Now a question back at you St. F. - what if the situation was/is just as the Russian general described it - unless massive remediation is done on their systems between now and December, there is every chance in the world of one or more random missile launches? If you were sitting in the Oval Office, what would your solution be to the problem?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 09, 1999.