re:Jim Lord's Y2K Pentagon Papers: Why are there no cities repeated in the three lists? Is it believable that of the 75 cities that contained an x in two or more of the boxes do not have different levels of risk? For example why isn't a city that was considered a risk of total failure in say water wasn't considered as a probable partial risk in say electricity? I find this methodology of xing only one category of risk per city highly suspect, don't you?greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread
I find it impossible and unbelievable that all of a city's utilities have the same level of risk, don't you? The methodology stinks! At least some of the cities that contained more than one x in the four boxes were not considered to be ranked at a different level of risk for other utilities. The utility rating was across the board. Realisticly some cities would have the water utility ranked as likely to fail while its electric utility would be ranked as likely to partially fail or probable to partial failure. This seems closer to reality than an an across the board rating for all the city's utilities, don't you agree?
-- Ty Hadman (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 1999
You know that as soon as that report came out the Navy was fielding angry calls from every municipal authority on the list. The original list was probably fudged enough as it was.
Like any beauracracy, the military brass spends a lot of time avoiding political trouble. You can't expect information from such a source to be free of political considerations.
-- Forrest Covington (email@example.com), August 30, 1999.
No fair making your whole question the title too!!!
There is a place called the Navy War College in Rhode Island which is obviously academic but has been doing some pretty serious scenario planning.
Check out the following link
-- Thom Gilligan (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 31, 1999.