First draft of NWC's final report, which will be edited on a regular basis as NWC reaches final hard copy publication some time in August

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/dsd/y2ksited/y2krep.html

Most recent project summary, updated 8/5/99

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/dsd/y2ksited/y2kproj.htm

merica (ITAA) Newsletter (dated 4 June 1999), click here

Prof. Kamradt's interview with Keith Hill of the Defense Information And Electronics Report (dated 2 July 1999; appeared in Early Bird Supplement)

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/dsd/y2ksited/y2khill.htm

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), August 09, 1999

Answers

Defense Information and Electronics Report, July 2, 1999, Pg. 1 War College Academics Model Possible Scenarios For Year 2000 Phenomena

While no one can predict exactly what the beginning of the new millennium will bring to the world, a group of professors at the Naval War College in Newport, RI, are constructing models as to what various countries can expect throughout the year 2000 and the months leading up to it.

The thought behind the project is that the United States will likely have to respond to some crises that have Jan. 1, 2000, at its root -- whether they be computer related or a function of religious or secular hysteria -- so there needs to be some idea as to what could be expected.

A briefing on the project prepared by the research team asks: "Can Y2K engender enough local crisis situations of significance to the U.S. to represent a stressing of our DOD-led response capabilities?"

The effort, according to one of three members on the project team, is not dealing solely with the ubiquitous "Y2K" problem as it relates to the computer glitches that are expected to occur on and around Jan. 1, 2000. Rather it explores a host of phenomena that may come together to make the first year of the next millennium (or the last year of the present millennium, depending on who's asked) one for the archives of battiness.

"The full millennial Y2K issue is a little bit odd, a little bit different," said Henry Kamradt, a senior strategic researcher at the college and a project team member. "Dates with lots of zeros have always had significance to people, particularly people who have an orientation toward looking for things."

The project was conceived because, Kamradt said, there was a dearth of work being done on the study of the global ramifications of the Year 2000, especially how it will relate to the U.S. government and the Defense Department.

"There are a lot of agencies in the government that are compiling lists of what they think are going to break in various countries. We're not going to do that. There's nothing we could add to that," Kamradt said. "But we could add a big-picture flavor to throw over all that information. We're trying to create a dynamics grid of how Year 2000 could unfold," he said, emphasizing that the models the team came up with are more than likely worst-case scenarios that may not live up to the authors' visions.

Unlike many modeling scenarios that are created, the Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project used brain storming sessions with experts to construct its scenarios. Beginning in December, the team held a series of meetings in which it invited the foremost minds on international studies, cyber systems and various other disciplines to hash over the possible dynamics of Year 2000.

The group came up with four models it named after predominant weather phenomena to describe the possible outcomes.

"Tornadoes" were for areas expected to experience a higher-than-average number of computer network failures, but still a relatively benign set of circumstances.

"Hurricanes" mean an area that would also experience higher-than-average failures, but also a "cascade" of residual failures resulting from the initial outages. This model sees the failures in a relatively tight cluster of networks that "wreak significant havoc within the affected sectors of society."

A "Flood" area refers to widespread and sustained Y2K-induced network failures that begin on or about Jan. 1, but whose after affects unfold slowly over the next several months. This model envisions the onset of Y2K as "a deluge of minor failures that accumulate over time across a whole nation's economic system, ultimately disabling the most vulnerable segment."

This model sees Y2K as an interrelated sequence of failures that does not have a significant impact on the overall functioning of a society.

Finally, the "Ice Storm" scenario refers to widespread and sustained period of Y2K-induced failures that sees Year 2000 as "an all-at-once assault that causes serious disruptions throughout the nation's economic system, ultimately disabling most, if not all, essential network infrastructure." The failures, according to the model, would unfold with great rapidity.

A final report on the project is due at the end of July, at which time researchers will release specific information about which countries can expect to be in which scenario.

Kamradt did allow that there is what he called the "Golden" sector, which is made up of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia which should have the least problems with Year 2000 ramifications.

Certain countries in Asia and the Middle East can expect more than modest problems, he said, while other countries which are below the information technology radar also will be affected because of the outgrowth of problems from vulnerable nations.

-- Richard Hill

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), August 09, 1999.

Some Important Caveats (from the Introduction)

Understanding that there is a tremendous gap between the public face many corporations and governments put forward on this issue ("we will have it well in hand") and the private fears and concerns expressed by many information technology experts (ranging from "global recession" to "apocalypse 2000!"), we wanted to explore this topic in as systematic a fashion as possible. We've never pretended that we'll end up with all the answers, but merely a sensible read on what's possible, how governments and companies are likely to respond across a range of scenarios, and what the USG and DoD should be prepared to undertake in response to Y2K's global unfolding. In short, while we're not interested in unduly hyping the Y2K situation, we are interested in exploring the "dark side" potentials because, frankly, that's what we get paid to do as a research organization that serves the U.S. military. So read on, understanding that all our "what-if?-ing" serves neither as prediction nor perception management by the U.S. Naval War College. Like everyone else on this planet studying Y2K, we're groping for answers. Yes, we've done our effort in a rather comprehensive fashion, and yes, we are experts at thinking about future events. But please don't approach this analysis as "cookbook," but rather as "primer." The confidence we seek to instill in readers--key decision makers and average citizens alike--is one of comprehending the potential scope and complexity of the scenario, and not of reducing the Millennial Date Change Event into a crude or simplistic "one-to-ten scale" type of crisis management strategy. There's nothing wrong with being deeply concerned about Y2K on a global scale after you've read our report, but if you're fearful or panicked, then you haven't really understood what we said.

Five Cosmic Conclusions

Conclusion #1--How You Describe Y2K Depends on From When You View It

People who describe Y2K as "different in kind" from anything humanity has ever experienced, or something that is unique, tend to look at the event from the perspective of the past century. But those who look at Y2K from the perspective of the coming century, exhibit the exact opposite tendencies: they tend to describe Y2K as only "different in degree" from the sort of system perturbations humanity will increasingly face as we become more interconnected and interdependent on a global scale. In their minds, then, Y2K is a genuine harbinger of next definitions of international instabilities or uncertainty, in effect a new type of crisis that leaves us particularly uncomfortable with its lack of a clearly identifiable "enemy" or "threat" with associated motivations. Out bottom line (paraphrasing Rick in Casablanca): We'll always have Y2K . . ..

Conclusion #2--Y2K Moves Us From Haves-vs-Have Nots to Competents-vs-Incompetents

Success at dealing with Y2K has a lot to do with resources, and anyone who believes otherwise is painfully naive. And yet, defeating the challenge of Y2K says as much or more about one's competency than it does about one's wealth. The rich can survive Y2K just fine, but only the truly clever can thrive in Y2K, which IT competents tend to view as a sped-up market experience within the larger operational paradigm of the New Economy. The rise of "virtual tigers" such as India's software industry, Ireland's high-tech manufacturing, or Israel's Wadi Valley, tell us that it doesn't necessarily take a wealthy country to succeed in the New Economy, just a very competent one. Y2K may well serve as a microcosmic experience that drives this new reality home to many more around the planet: it's less about what you have than what you can do. For in the end, Y2K is less about vulnerability and dependency, then dealing with vulnerability and dependency. You can buy your way toward invulnerability and independency, but you can also work around vulnerabilities and dependency. Our bottom line: Competents will thrive, while incompetents nosedive.

Conclusion #3--Y2K As A Glimpse Into the 21st Century: Divisions Become Less Vertical and More Horizontal

The 20th Century featured an unprecedented amount of human suffering and death stemming from wars, and these conflicts came to embody humanity's definition of strife--namely, state-on-state warfare. The divisions that drove these conflicts can be described as "vertical," meaning peoples were separated--from top to bottom--by political and geographic boundaries, known as state borders. If the 20th Century was the century of inter-state war, then the 21st is going to be the century of intra-state or civil strife. Divisions of note will exist on a "horizontal" plane, or between layers of people that coexist within a single state's population. These layers will be largely defined by wealth, as they have been throughout recorded history. But increasingly, that wealth will depend on competency rather than possession of resources. Y2K will help crystallize this coming reality by demonstrating, in one simultaneous global experience, who is good at dealing with the New Economy, globalization, the Information Revolution, etc., and who is not. And these divisions will form more within countries than between them, as borders will become increasingly less relevant markers of where success begins and failure ends. The coming century of conflict will revolve around these horizontal divisions. Our bottom line: We have met the enemy, and they is us.

Conclusion #4--Y2K Will Demonstrate the Price of Secrecy and the Promise of Transparency

Those who are more open and transparent and share information more freely will do better with Y2K than those who hoard information, throw up firewalls, and refuse outside help. Secrecy will backfire in almost all instances, leading to misperceptions and harmful, stupidly self-fulfilling actions. Governments must be as open with their populations as possible, or suffer serious political backlashes if and when Y2K proves more significant for their countries than they had previously let on. People's fears about "invisible technology" will either be conquered or fed by how Y2K unfolds. This is a pivotal moment in human history: the first time Information Technology has threatened to bite back in a systematic way. In a very Nietzschean manner, Y2K will either "kill" us or make us stronger, and the balance of secrecy versus transparency will decide much, if not all, of that outcome. Out bottom line: The future is transparency--get used to it!

Conclusion #5--Our Final Take on Y2K: As It Becomes Less Frightening, It Becomes More Profound

The more you accept the notion that Y2K represents the future and not some accident of the past . . . the more you see it as different in degree than in kind from the challenges we will increasingly face . . . and the more you realize that it's part and parcel of the globalized, IT-driven New Economy than some exogenous one-time disaster, then the more profoundly will Y2K loom in your psyche even as it becomes less frightening with regard to the 010100-threshold. Why? Because the more it becomes associated with the broader reality of our increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, the more inescapable it becomes. In short, you can sit out the Millennium Date Change Event and all the hoopla surrounding it, but there's no avoiding Y2K in the big-picture sense, because the skills it demands from humanity are those same skills needed for our not-so-collective advance into the brave new world of the 21st Century. Out bottom line: There's no escaping Y2K.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), August 09, 1999.

Conclusion #1 and #4 seem to contradict themselves. I can't help feeling even the War College is in a schitzophrenic sort of denial state over Y2K.

#1: "People who describe Y2K as "different in kind" from anything humanity has ever experienced, or something that is unique, tend to look at the event from the perspective of the past century. But those who look at Y2K from the perspective of the coming century, exhibit the exact opposite tendencies: they tend to describe Y2K as only "different in degree" from the sort of system perturbations humanity will increasingly face .... Out[our?] bottom line (paraphrasing Rick in Casablanca): We'll always have Y2K . . .. "

#4:"This is a pivotal moment in human history: the first time Information Technology has threatened to bite back in a systematic way. In a very Nietzschean manner, Y2K will either "kill" us or make us stronger..."

What do they mean by "kill" us in a Nietzchean manner? I never heard the term before. Would we be as a society just a little bit dead, seriously dead, strongly dead or completely dead? And is this American society or human society in general? At first glance I understand this sentence to mean "either it's the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, or the beggining of a new and prosperous era spured by our coming through Y2K fixes on top while other countries haven't, and so we're again on top but better then ever, all the while watching the suffering all around the planet, miraculously shielded from any of it." (The sarcasm is not intentional on my part, it's really what it sounds like to me.)

I have been "deeply concerned" about Y2K, enough to want to take insurance against any outcomes by doing preps. But when I read things like this coming from our government and those who are "consultants" to our government, I have a momentary panicky feeling in my guts...our future is in the hands of schitzos.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 09, 1999.

I've never taken the time to do this before, but I want to thank you, Old Git, for your vast contributions to us all on this forum. Without ever having met you, I have a special fondness for you because I know that you care immensely. I greatly appreciate the time you have taken to help the rest of us to be informed...today you've been prolific! God bless you and yours.

-- Elaine Seavey (GOds1sheep@aol.com), August 09, 1999.

Chris, here's some more on the NWC: you may have missed it whilst on vacation... missed you.. : ) !!!

-- bury the french! (joking! calm down!:>) (lisa@work.now), August 09, 1999.

Chris -

The writer is of course referring to Nietzsche's famous saying: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." I suspect that they put "kill" in quotes in order not to alarm folks too much, but the sense that Y2K is big and bad seems clear. Long as you ain't dead, there's still a chance to recover once the fight's over and the dust settles.

Must say that I'm none too pleased to read folks in high gov't places quoting philosophers who inspired the Nazis, but what can ya do?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 09, 1999.

Elaine, that's kind of you to say so. I just happened on a site with all sorts of foreign government links over the weekend, read them and passed the most interesting on to y'all. (Many were in languages I don't speak; countries are not missing because they posted good news! If Y2K news was in English, it was posted--no matter what the tone.)

I have great respect for the War College material--please remember, though, this is only the first draft of the final. I think the WC may have put this up now in part to get feedback from the likes of us. . . It's not that much a stretch; Dr. Barnett posts here occasionally.

Hence, if y'all have comments on the War College stuff, post 'em!

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), August 09, 1999.

Mac, thanks for the clarification, and it support what I said, i.e., being a little bit, seriously or completely "dead". I heard the saying before, but didn't know the author it came from. "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" means we learn from mistakes and build on them toward success. Question remains how "seriously dead" is "dead", before we can say it didn't "kill us" and will make us stronger? We always come back to this question in one form or another it seems.

The potential for "big and bad" concequences are acknowledged in round-about way indeed. Perhaps they're afraid of pollyannas poking fun at them for even acknowledging a potential? ;-)

Lisa, merci beaucoup for the welcome back and the link ;-)

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 09, 1999.

the War College stuff is fascinating reading for those who are willing to take the time. However, you have to keep reminding yourself that they are attempting to look at consequences of worst (bad?)-case- scenarios. They are NOT attempting to predict the most likely outcome.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), August 09, 1999.

Hey Old Git!

I'm on vacation and checking in on a laptop with an abysmal ability to cut and paste (never mind that the keyboard is the size of a postage stamp. . .).

Accordingly, could someone please provide hotlinks to the above sites, and if so, please send me an email indicating you have done so?

I'd really appreciate it!

:)

By the way, I smell like a campfire right now. For some reason I love that smell. (Except when I remember that burning houses smell the same way. Not good.)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 09, 1999.

FM,

You really are a diehard! If no one else has gotten to this by the time I hit the submit, here ya go...

First draft of NWC's final report, which will be edited on a regular basis as NWC reaches final hard copy publication some time in August

First Draft

Most recent project summary, updated 8/5/99

Recent Summary

merica (ITAA) Newsletter (dated 4 June 1999), click here - there's no link for this one?

Prof. Kamradt's interview with Keith Hill of the Defense Information And Electronics Report (dated 2 July 1999; appeared in Early Bird Supplement)

Kamradt's Interview

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 09, 1999.

Thank you kindly sir, or maam!

F.Y.I., I'm practicing cooking over an open outdoor fire tomorrow, just to see if I still know how to do it.

Thinking about eggs and fajitas. If it stops raining.

Anybody wanna come for supper?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 10, 1999.

OG

It nice to keep up with the good doctor and his imaginitive crew, thanks

"Conclusion #5--Our Final Take on Y2K: As It Becomes Less Frightening, It Becomes More Profound"

I personally love this,,, would look good as a signature.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 10, 1999.

FM -

I've often found that a campfire's smell is less acrid than housefires or even fireplace smoke. Had some clothes that went with me through a housefire, and whatever it was that burned (probably drapes and carpeting) smelled really quite foul.

Campfires always smell so good to me, specially when they've had some pine or other evergreens put in 'em. Bliss...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 10, 1999.

Bliss is right. Campfires are right up there with the smell of wet sagebrush after a good rain, for me! I feel so sorry for those with gas fireplaces who spray their artificial Christmas trees with pine scent while listening to 'The Sounds of Nature' on their stereos and watch an aquarium scene video on their televisions. Sad, and frightening. Trout, eggs and coffee over a campfire.....in a sick sorta way, I'm glad FM took her laptop! Enjoy, FM and thank you Old Git for the NWC update.....you're tops!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 10, 1999.

WC--thanks! Wish you'd drop me a line through Diane, so I can e-mail you some stuff!

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), August 10, 1999.

Dittos on the thanks, Old Git! I bet you're not that old, and not that much of a git, either.

FM: Glad to hear you're sharpening up your skills for the Big Camp-Out. Don't forget the Dutch Oven.

Kudos to you too, Will. I love it when you unleash that firey tongue on the torreys (oops, I mean pollys). A true patriot, in the old sense of the word.

I was talking to Dr. Barnett the other day, and he is one sharp dude. The only bone of contention we had was that after their Cantor-Fitzgerald workshop with the financial wiz-kids, I thought he had bought (a little bit too much) into their contention: "We are IMMUNE to the y2k situation because we have been inoculated by our bout with the Aisian Flu last year." Whereas, I think they are going to get a very rude awakening in the subject of 'interconnectivity.'

Tom, Are you there? We are invoking your name, here.

Will somebody PLEASE tell me where have all my paragraphs gone?

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), August 10, 1999.

Nevermind, my paragraphs are back.

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), August 10, 1999.