You know, every time someone says to me "Y2k isn't going to be that bad." I have to wonder if the person behind those words has any compassion what-so-ever. I wonder if that person has anything resembling a heart.

When the CIA says;

" research has identified those areas most likely to affect U.S. interests. They are: foreign nuclear reactors and power grids, military early warning systems, trade, oil and gas sectors, and worldwide shipping and air transport. The CIA found the lowest level of Y2K preparedness in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and several Asian countries, including China."

It is hard not to deduce pretty quickly what that means to those countries. Food supply cut, water treatment down, railway and shipping down. Nuclear and chemical accidents, NO grain imports from the U.S. No access to western medicines etc

It is taken as a given by even the most Y2k blasi that many people in those countries will suffer. Since when is such a conclusion "not that bad." I find it appalling. It is heinous in the extreme to talk as though we who prepare are overreacting here in the U.S. because our systems will be okey-dokey . Even if I believed that I would hardly consider myself human if I was comforted by that meme.

For a truly chilling thought consider this. You had better hope that ALL shipping and transportation is down for a good long time. Because once disease starts spreading unchecked in those far far away countries it will only be a matter of time before those little microbes find there way to America and Canada. EVEN if there is no problem with Y2k in America. People in far away countries will sicken. Germs will evolve, mutate and spread.

It is THAT bad and I consider anyone who says otherwise to be cold-hearted and arrogant beyond the limits of human decency.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 20, 1999

Answers

In Rochester, Indiana's local paper tonight it says our county is in bad shape for Y2K. The local court house needs 5 new computers at a cost of 59,000. Last january they crashed and had to have them patched till june when they would be replaced with new ones, now they need 5 more and if they get right on it they will be Y2K ready by november.

Sorry to say, but if this town of 7,000 people are having this much trouble, hows the rest of the usa or world doing? I may have got it late but I'm catching up :)

-- Rooster (Gotitlate@wow.com), July 20, 1999.

R, it's going to be VERY BAD.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), July 20, 1999.

R -

another great post!

you're on a roll.

PJ

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), July 20, 1999.

Well then, as per your definition 'R', Flint our arch-famous forum French Hamlet is definetly "cold-hearted and arrogant beyond the limits of human decency" as he stated exactly those words only a week ago (Ot isn't going to be that bad").

I wonder what Flint could comment about your opinion "R". He usually lurks around all the time so he should reply to you pretty soon... unless he reckons you are right of course.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 21, 1999.

First of all, R was referring to "It [being]] THAT bad," in the context of foreign ill-prepared countries' suffering and the possibility of bacterial / viral transmission to the United States.

I agree, R, there is a good chance that there will be considerable health risks in underdeveloped or financially unsound countries as a direct result of Y2K problems. However, the United States has never been known as a particularly humane country; should you disagree, please refer to your history book. As a famous Russian diplomat once said, "The United States is only good for Americans."

-- Klar (klarbrunn@lycos.com), July 21, 1999.

America has never been known as a humane country but we do seem to take the accidental death of our own people pretty hard. To witness I think 3 people died in the "Big Blue" accident. There is a great hew and cry because of the negligent manner in which it occured. Then there was the Columbine tragedy, the Oklahoma bombing, Waco, etc.... The mainstream press managed to pump those deaths for all they were worth. I wonder how many millions of dollars worth of beer commercials and new car ads they managed to squeeze in between the pictures of devastation and weeping parents?

One more damn Kennedy dies. The plane took seconds to fall in the water but we keep dredging the poor guy up until he can't sell any more advertising.

Y2k will make those tragedies look like fly swats. What did Bennett say? 1800 cities will not be ready? Now that seems a tad optimistic to me but lets go with it. Lets say that each of those cities only contains 10,000 people. We are really talking small town at that population but again, I'm trying to be optimistic here. So that makes what 18,000,000 Americans affected? Lets say only half of those people really have to deal with serious problems. That leaves 9,000,000 Americans in deep excrement. You know what? Some of them might be famous. Some of them might even be movie stars or Kennedys but all of them will have family elsewhere. All of them will have had dreams and plans. Many will be elderly. Many will be children.

Is it still "not that bad"? Think it will make the papers? Arrrgh. I know I'm ranting here but I'm just sick at heart from the casual and cavalier attitude some people take to mass starvation, global devastation and worldwide outbreaks of Staph, Typhoid and Hep. Guess I'm just funny that way. I give a damn.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

We live in the 'burbs & are preparing. Problem is, to me, the "really-bad" y2k scenarios simply don't sound survivable.

Our neighbors are totally unprepared. If they become cold/hungery/desperate, they'll simply kill us & take our stuff. I have no doubts about this. We cannot move to the boonies (elderly parents), nor can we defend our pretty suburban home, even with adequate weapons. We're just desk-jockeys, not trained militia/commandoes. And suburban homes are never designed to be fortresses anyway, big glass doors, ec.

Anything over a 7-8 will find us dead in the spring.

So, yeah, I tell my self "It won't be so bad." Otherwise I must live with the fact that, prepared or not, my family & I have less than a year to live.

Sorry about the Russians. From what I've read it's ALWAYS been a crappy place to live.

-- We who are about to (die@salute.you), July 21, 1999.

I have to admit that much of what 'we who are about to' wrote closely parallel some of my own thoughts since 'getting it.'

Also a desk jockey,

-- winter wondering (winterwondering@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

r

i know i've seen it before, but could you reference the cia quote? i've been looking for something to send my dgi brother, and i had forgotten about the cia assessment.

thanx!

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

February 25, 1999

BY JIM ABRAMS, ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON--Russian missiles, Chinese power systems and Mideast shipping could all face breakdowns because many foreign countries are failing to face up to the seriousness of the year 2000 computer problem, the CIA told Congress on Wednesday.

Air Force Gen. John Gordon, CIA deputy director, told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that Russia appears vulnerable, raising concerns about the safety of its missiles, nuclear plants and gas pipelines.

"We do not see a problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically being launched" because of Y2K-related problems. But computer glitches could cause local accidents if temperature or humidity monitors malfunction, or Russian missile early-warning systems might put out incorrect information about foreign missile launches, Gordon said.

Separately, a special Senate committee on the Y2K problem was finishing a draft of a report finding that the United States is likely to experience some disruptions in health care, electric power and food distribution.

Both Gordon and the Senate report emphasized that it is difficult to assess what will happen on Jan. 1. Many U.S. companies have been reluctant to reveal their status out of fear of litigation, while many foreign nations are just beginning to deal with the millennium bug.

Gordon said a major concern was a midwinter power outage that could have "major humanitarian consequences" for such countries as Russia and Ukraine. He noted that Russia's Gazprom Natural Gas Pipeline network supplies more than one-third of Europe's natural gas and is run by Soviet-era computers highly likely to contain Y2K imperfections.

China, he said, is addressing the problem, but with limited time remaining "will probably experience failures in key sectors such as telecommunications, electric power and banking."

Gordon said oil supplies are also worrisome, because world ports and ocean shipping are among the sectors that have done the least to prepare for the problem.

Among the draft report's findings were that 90 percent of doctors and 50 percent of smaller businesses have not addressed the problem. Half of electric power companies had fixed their computers by the end of 1998, but "failure of some parts of the electric industry's system is likely."

However, a prolonged, nationwide blackout was not expected.

There is no indication this country will experience social or economic collapse, but "those who suggest that it will be nothing more than a `bump in the road' are simply misinformed," the draft report said.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 21, 1999.

Lion,

Alas, I don't have a link or URL but I do have the article in its entirety. Hopefully someone else can provide the particulars.

05 March 1999

TEXT: CIA ASSESSES GLOBAL Y2K READINESS (Senate hearing focuses on international Y2K issues) (3670)

Washington -- All the world's nations will be affected by Y2K related failures to some extent, according to a review conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A CIA officer presented the findings to the U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem March 5.

Lawrence Gershwin with the CIA's National Intelligence Council reported that global connections in telecommunications, financial systems, air transportation, manufacturing and trade assure an international impact when many computer systems are expected to encounter problems reading dates at the opening of the year 2000. While Gershwin acknowledged some difficulty in making predictions about what's likely to happen, he said CIA research has identified those areas most likely to affect U.S. interests. They are: foreign nuclear reactors and power grids, military early warning systems, trade, oil and gas sectors, and worldwide shipping and air transport.

The CIA found the lowest level of Y2K preparedness in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and several Asian countries, including China. In Western Europe, the intelligence agency found that modification of computer systems to accommodate conversion to a new currency has taken precedence over Y2K problems. In Russia and Ukraine, Gershwin testified that humanitarian consequences could result if Y2K failures lead to power outages in the midst of harsh winter weather.

Gershwin also said the CIA is watching carefully the vulnerability of Soviet designed nuclear power plants throughout the nations of the former USSR, Central and Eastern Europe. This review also finds the potential for Y2K problems in Russia's Gazprom Natural Gas Pipeline network.

Military systems are also a matter of concern, but Gershwin was clear to allay some fears. "We do not see a problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically being launched, or nuclear weapons going off, because of computer problems arising from Y2K failures. And our assessment remains that we currently do not see a danger of unauthorized or inadvertent launch of ballistic missiles from any country due to Y2K problems."

Following is the text of Gershwin's testimony: (begin text)

LAWRENCE K. GERSHWIN, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM

5 March 1999

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to discuss with you today the understanding that the Intelligence Community has about foreign efforts to deal with the Y2K problem. We continue to watch the problem closely, and I have our current assessment of where we see problems as most likely to occur. The Y2K situation continues to change, and our assessments will similarly evolve as more information becomes available, as countries become more aware of and deal with Y2K issues, and as incidents of Y2K failure increase.

As we have said before, Mr. Chairman, all countries will be affected -- to one degree or another -- by Y2K-related failures. Global linkages in telecommunications, financial systems, air transportation, the manufacturing supply chain, oil supplies, and trade will virtually guarantee that Y2K problems will not be isolated to individual countries. No country will be completely immune from failures. Fixing the Y2K problem has proven to be labor and time intensive, as well as expensive.

There remain significant information gaps that make it difficult for us to assess how serious the Y2K problem will be around the world. In many cases, foreign countries only recently have become aware of the problem and begun to examine their critical infrastructure systems for potential Y2K failures. In comparison, the United States has made a significant effort to identify and redress Y2K problems, and it was only after the process was well underway that it was possible to get a good appreciation of the extent of the problem and its implications. Many foreign countries, particularly those that are the furthest behind, have not made such an effort, so -- for our part -- we can identify their likely problem areas but cannot make confident judgments at this point about what is likely to happen. Those problem areas that we have detected that have the potential to affect US interests include, among others, foreign nuclear reactors and power grids, military early warning systems, trade, the oil and gas sectors, and worldwide shipping and air transport, all of which I will elaborate on.

The consequences of Y2K failures abroad will range from the relatively benign, to problems within systems across sectors that will have humanitarian implications, such as power loss in mid- winter. The coincidence of widespread Y2K-related failures in the winter of 1999-2000 in Russia and Ukraine, with continuing economic problems, food shortages, and already difficult conditions for the population could have major humanitarian consequences for these countries.

Foreign countries trail the United States in addressing Y2K problems by at least several months, and in many cases much longer. Y2K remediation is underfunded in most countries. We do see indications that countries are undertaking contingency planning for recovery from Y2K failures:

-- Time and resource constraints will limit the ability of most countries to respond adequately by 2000.

-- Governments in many countries have begun to plan seriously for Y2K remediation only within the last year, some only in the last few months, and some continue to significantly underestimate the cost and time requirements for remediation and, importantly, testing. Because many countries are way behind, testing of fixes will come late, and unanticipated problems typically arise in this phase.

-- The largest institutions, particularly those in the financial sectors, are the most advanced in Y2K remediation. Small and medium- size entities trail in every sector worldwide.

-- Most countries have failed to address aggressively the issue of embedded processors. While recent understanding is that failures here will be less than previously estimated, it is nevertheless the case that failure to address this issue will still cause some highly dependent sectors with complex sensor and processing systems to have problems, centered right on the January 1 date.

-- The lowest level of Y2K preparedness is evident in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and several Asian countries, including China.

The World Bank recently noted that the Y2K problem within developing countries has been overlooked because many observers assume developing countries are less dependent on computers in everyday national life. They point out that the majority of developing countries, even the poorest, have computerized essential services such as power generation, telecommunications, food and fuel distribution, and the provision of medical care. The Bank says that a general failure of such systems could endanger the health, security, and economic well being of people in the developing world. We agree with this assessment.

Middle Eastern countries and firms have basic awareness of the Y2K problem and have made modest progress in remediation. The business sector, especially banking, seems best prepared in that region. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates believe that their banks will be ready. Most government, business, and military remediation efforts are however, in general, poorly coordinated.

In Africa, efforts in South Africa are the best organized. South Africa leads the continent in recognition of the Y2K challenge and in activities to address it. As in the Middle East, most other government and military remediation efforts throughout the continent are, in general, poorly coordinated.

We see problems in Latin America. An October 1998 Gartner Group study indicated that in many nations of Latin America, at least 50 percent of companies will experience at least one mission critical failure. Even if governments and firms in Latin America devote sufficient resources to the problem, they will be hard pressed to complete remediation within the next 10 months to avoid systems failures. Although Western Europe is in relatively better shape than most other regions, European awareness of and concern about the Y2K problem is uneven, and the Europeans lag the United States in fixing their problems. European attention was focused on modifying computer systems for the European Monetary Union conversion, which was implemented successfully on 1 January, but this was done, in many cases, by postponing coming to grips with Y2K problems.

The Asian economic crisis has hampered the Y2K remediation efforts of most of the Asia-Pacific countries. The appeal to the World Bank and others this week from eighteen Asia-Pacific nations during the Manila Y2K summit, asking for funding for Y2K remediation, was not surprising. There is much to be done. After a slow start in addressing the Y2K problem, China has stepped up efforts over the past two months in an attempt to meet a March 31 deadline imposed by the Ministry of Information for detection of Y2K problems. In mid- February 99, Chinese officials conducted the first test of several key systems in the financial, telecommunications, and electric power sectors. The civil aviation sector reportedly is also preparing for a nationwide test. While the lines of authority for China's Y2K effort have been established, remediation efforts in critical sectors such as electric power, transportation, and telecommunications appear to be lagging. China's late start in addressing Y2K issues suggests Beijing will solve some, but not many of its Y2K problems in the limited time remaining, and will probably experience failures in key sectors. China's problems are exacerbated by the fact that, by some estimates, over 90% of the software used in China is pirated, including most of the software used in government offices and state owned enterprises. This could make it very difficult to approach software vendors for technical fixes and coincidentally, limits China's legal recourse should their software suffer Y2K-related problems.

Russia has exhibited a low level of Y2K awareness and remediation activity. While the Russians possess a talented pool of programmers, they seem to lack the time, organization, and funding to adequately confront the Y2K problem. The $3 billion estimate last month from Alexander Krupnov, Chairman of the Russian Central Telecommunications Commission, is six times the original estimate. Frankly, we do not know how they arrived at this number.

One issue we are watching in Russia relates to vulnerability of Soviet- designed nuclear plants in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia to Y2K- related problems. DOE analysts have done a systematic analysis of the safety of foreign reactors, and some of the former Soviet models are the worst. US nuclear reactor specialists know a great deal about the design and safety of these reactors, but they do not yet know what specific Y2K problems they may have. Documentation for plant equipment and software in use in Soviet-designed reactors is either poor or nonexistent. Many of the vendors who supplied this equipment or software have not been in business since the fall of the Soviet Union and are not available to help.

We envision two ways in which potential problems with Soviet-designed reactors could evolve. The first involves the operation of internal components or sensors crucial to the operation of the plant, being affected or degraded by Y2K problems. For example, a valve with a digital controller designed to automatically adjust the flow of cooling water could potentially malfunction because the digital controller does not recognize the year 00. The second involves problems arising from the loss of off-site power to the reactor due to Y2K problems in the power grid. This could lead to a series of Y2K problems possibly occurring simultaneously, presenting an even greater challenge to the reactor operators.

While loss of electric power would in itself normally result in reactor shutdown, that process could potentially be complicated if internal Y2K problems arise within the reactor complex itself. We have not yet identified any safety-related equipment with Y2K-related problems within Soviet-designed reactors; however, other, non-safety- related equipment used to operate the plant may have problems. For example, in some Soviet-style reactors (RBMK's-14 graphite moderated, water cooled reactors) a computer is used to control power production. Failure of this computer would cause activation of the safety systems, the control rods would automatically be inserted, and the reactor would begin to shut down. When external power is lost, diesel generators are used to supply power to cooling pumps to remove heat from the core. These diesels must have adequate fuel supplies on hand for at least a week in order to prevent fuel melt.

While some Soviet-designed reactors are less, vulnerable to problems from Y2K failures due to safety improvements incorporated into their designs, other reactors currently in use in Russia and other former Soviet states and allies, such as the remaining reactor at Chernobyl, are of more concern. While DOE has initiatives underway designed to assist the Russians in reducing the risk of Y2K-related reactor safety issues, the Russians have been slow to accept our help. DOE is sponsoring a study at Pacific Northwest Laboratories to identify the most likely Y2K failures in Soviet designed reactors from internal Y2K problems or from electric power grid problems -- and to assess the implications of potential failures.

Russia's Gazprom Natural Gas Pipeline network also is susceptible to potential Y2K outages. It supplies nearly 50 percent of the total energy consumed by Russia, almost 15 percent of the total energy consumed by Eastern Europe, and 5 percent of that consumed by Western Europe. Based on the natural gas storage capacity and the drawdown capability at the storage sites, we believe that Western Europe can survive a Gazprom shutdown for over 30 days. This assumes that there are no Y2K problems associated with distribution of the gas from the storage areas. Of greater concern are Eastern Europe, Russia itself, and the other states of the former Soviet Union should Russia's ability to transport and export natural gas be interrupted in mid-winter. Russia will lose virtually all of its natural gas and the information that we have on the storage capacity and drawdown capability of Eastern Europe and other states of the former Soviet Union suggests that those countries could experience severe shortages should Gazprom shut down. Like all major pipeline operators, Gazprom has emergency contingency plans to assure continued gas delivery after a pipeline shutdown or explosion. While available options include manual equipment operation, use of stored gas, and switching to backup pipe segments, it is unclear whether these measures are sufficient to deal with the scale of problems that could occur due to Y2K failures. Potential problems include:

-- Soviet-era mainframes -- roughly equivalent to the IBM 360 and 370 series -- have been used in Gazprom's pipeline operations centers and are highly likely to contain Y2K vulnerabilities.

-- Gazprom uses supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems to monitor and control some pipeline operations. Nearly all SCADA systems purchased prior to the late 1990s contain some degree of Y2K vulnerability.

-- Satellite ground stations used to transfer data between gas producing regions to Gazprom's headquarters may have Y2K problems.

-- Several hundred unattended equipment stations along remote Siberian sections of Gazprom's pipelines may rely on vulnerable embedded processors. While most of these should work, they all need to be tested to ensure their reliability. These stations are used to relay communications and may be used to control pipeline valves. Many of them are accessible only by special convoys or helicopter, and under normal circumstances are only visited twice per year. Compressor stations -- over six hundred of which pump gas through the pipeline network -- also contain embedded processors that could be vulnerable.

Military systems and their command and control are particularly information- technology dependent, and thus potentially vulnerable to disruption if Y2K problems are not adequately addressed. Foreign strategic missile systems, particularly in Russia and China, may experience Y2K-related problems. Missile-related concerns involve the vulnerability of environmental control systems within silos to Y2K disruption. Sensors and controllers need to be Y2K safe. Liquid- fueled missiles within silos must be monitored for fuel leaks. Optimum temperature and humidity levels must also be maintained within the silos. I want to be clear that while local problems are foreseeable, we do not see a problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically being launched, or nuclear weapons going off, because of computer problems arising from Y2K failures. And, our assessment remains that we currently do not see a danger of unauthorized or inadvertent launch of ballistic missiles from any country due to Y2K problems.

Based on our analysis, we think the Russians may have some Y2K problems in the early warning systems that they use to monitor foreign missile launches, and at their command centers. You may have seen Maj. General Dvorkin's statement at a Moscow press conference this week that the Y2K problem does threaten early warning and space control systems. Problems within these systems could lead to incorrect information being either transmitted, received, or displayed or to complete system outages. General Dvorkin stated that tests have revealed which hardware and software needs to be remediated or replaced and that final tests of the adjusted software will take place in October of this year. DOD has been working with the Russians for months on these problems. DOD has announced plans to establish a joint US-Russian Defense Y2K Coordination Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in order to share early attack warning information, thus preventing confusion should any Y2K-related false or ambiguous warnings occur. A DOD delegation visited Moscow last month to help the Russians get up to speed on potential Y2K-related nuclear early warning problems.

Regarding world trade and oil, some of our most important trading partners -- including China and Japan -- have been documented by, among others, the Gartner Group, as behind the US in fixing their Y2K problems. Significant oil exporters to the United States and the global market include a number of countries that are lagging in their Y2K remediation efforts. Oil production is largely in the hands of multinational corporations in the oil-producing countries, but this sector is highly intensive in the use of information technology and complex systems using embedded processors. Microprocessors and computer systems are utilized for oil and gas production, processing, and transportation. Computers and microprocessors are used to monitor, report, and store data on the status of equipment and facilities and to assist in performing or controlling operations. In more sophisticated infrastructures, operations of equipment and facilities may be highly automated to enable networks of facilities to be controlled remotely. This places that industry at risk of Y2K- related problems which could result in a slowdown of extraction, refining and delivery.

The oil sector is also highly dependent on ports, ocean shipping, and domestic infrastructures. Y2K specialists have noted that world ports and ocean shipping are among the sectors that have done the least to prepare for the Y2K problem.

Waterborne commerce carries not only oil but a significant amount of the world's goods of all types. It is difficult to predict at present the effect of Y2K on the shipping industry, however, many ships and transshipment points use higher level computer systems and equipment that contain embedded systems. Widespread failures in waterborne commerce carriers could also have significant impacts in the supply of food and commercial goods, resulting in possibly severe economic disruptions. Malfunction of navigational equipment either aboard or external to the ship may also occur, resulting in either collisions or groundings, potentially resulting in environmental problems. Aviation has been one of the pioneers in automation and computer systems which are used on board aircraft and in control towers at airports. If global air traffic (personnel, air freight, package, and mail delivery) is seriously curtailed in 2000, this could have a significant impact on global business activity, not just the travel industry. Problems within this sector include the existence of radar systems deemed "legacy systems" that run older software and thus may be vulnerable.

Y2K problems in the telecommunications networks could negatively impact a broad range of other sectors that rely on the networks not only for communications but also for monitoring and load management. Many countries have telecommunications equipment with components purchased elsewhere, a fact that complicates the identification and remediation of Y2K-related problems. Sectors that are heavily dependent on telecommunications include banking, defense, electric power, natural gas, water, transportation, and food distribution. In addition, a functioning telecom network is crucial in emergency situations.

Our global and domestic markets for financial securities, commodities, products, and services depend completely on the smooth functioning of the vast information technology (IT) infrastructure. The banking industry is particularly affected by the year 2000 problem because nearly every aspect of the business is dependent on computer systems for processing transactions and providing information. It is as yet unclear what effect non-remediated foreign banks will have on the international banking system when they attempt to interact with the rest of the world.

The Y2K-related litigation issue continues to grow. Concerns about litigation have, in some cases, stifled the open exchange of information on Y2K-related issues. Many foreign officials and companies who are aware of Y2K problems are looking to the West, particularly the United States, for help and technical solutions. Foreign companies or governments may blame the United States and other foreign vendors for problems in equipment and thus seek legal redress for their failures.

In closing, let me note that today we are closely monitoring a broad range of countries and sectors worldwide in terms of their susceptibility to disruption by Y2K failures. We continue to gather information from all branches of the US Government, industry sources, a vast array of open sources (including hundreds of Web sites), and our own intelligence collection efforts so that we can accurately predict failures abroad and assess the implications. We are working very closely with the rest of the government, through the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, and will continue to share relevant information on the Y2K situation abroad. As our collection continues, and awareness of and reporting on Y2K problems abroad increases, our estimates of the type and extent of failures we are likely to see around the world will become more precise. (end text)

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

Whatta bunch of whining crybabies! Look, no matter what, IT WILL NOT BE THAT BAD. Remember, always remember: IT WILL NOT BE THAT BAD.

You know, like the vast majority of Jews in pre-WWII Nazi Germany, who chose to stay put in the face of what was coming. Because they knew that IT WILL NOT BE THAT BAD.

Because ... because it can't be that bad, thats why not.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

From the title: You are right, it won't be that bad. At least not here. Elsewhere, I have no idea. So it seems.

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

"From the title: You are right, it won't be that bad. At least not here. Elsewhere, I have no idea. So it seems. "

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

You know ya gotta wonder what the HELL people are thinking sometimes because they sure the hell AREN'T reading!!!!!! Just that one post alone makes me wanna dig a bunker. Anyone gotta a backhoe? Aaargh

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 21, 1999.