Naval War College talks about Gary Northgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Re: Punishing "panic mongers": Who does the defining of what is panic? I hear Gary North denounced quite a bit in many Y2K sessions as a panic monger or words to that effect, but it could arguably be said that he has done more that most to intellectually prepare thousands of people to think about the implications of Y2K. And he did it before most. So, we have an early total lack of leadership from the White House, (some) leadership in the Senate and House (but still inadequate), and strong pressures from Wall Street not to "rock the boat"--even against the Senate. Therefore, by definition, anyone who brings the (potential) bad news is viewed as a "panic monger" by the Establishment. This does not bode well.
-- James Chancellor, PE (email@example.com), August 31, 1999
So will the polly's attack the Navy now ?????????????????????
-- Goldbug (Goldbug@mint.com), August 31, 1999.
Information is communication which preserves the status quo and encourages establishment-sanctioned groupthink. Providing information is the goal of transparency.
Communication which encourages resilience and independent thought and action is disinformation. Disinformation causes fear, mistrust and self-reliance.
-- Puddintame (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 31, 1999.
From the NWC document:
...What is really needed is a highly respected leader of impeccable character, an orator along the lines of FDR or Churchill who can connect with the populace.
The name Alan Keyes comes to mind. A excellent orator and writer, experienced public servant, and down-to-earth conservative. Would love to see him get a "bully pulpit" during these unsettled times.
-- Mac (email@example.com), August 31, 1999.
I see you've been studying for your civil service exam.
-- Liberty (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 31, 1999.
I saw this document a couple of months ago and was thinking a Navy official had called it a hoax. But I see it's on their site. Was I wrong about the hoax thing?
-- Bill Byars (email@example.com), August 31, 1999.
Not a hoax. The project manager, Dr. Thomas Barnett, posts here in TB2K ever so often. It's the real deal: ...(the NWC team's) generic advice to a notional country's elite regarding their potential "management" of the Y2K experience within their borders...
-- Mac (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 31, 1999.
You are right on target with Alan Keyes. Most people don't know who he is, since the political establishment and the media have totally ignored him. He drew more support than several others in the Republican primaries 4 years ago, but unless you were following him you would never have noticed his candidacy.
He is the only one of the bunch who really expounds on the foundation of the Republic. I just got my Keyes sticker in the mail.
Anyone who reads one of his speeches will understand why the beltway crowd is trying to ignore him.
-- gene (email@example.com), August 31, 1999.
Keyes got my vote last time and he'll get in the next primary. He's the closest thing to a modern day Patrick Henry you'll ever see. The fact that he is an on fire Christian conservative is not lost on the liberal and media elite. As a black President he could do much to undo much of the damage between the races that the liberals have created.
-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 01, 1999.
The Naval War College's list of Presentations Given and Scheduled (see http://www.nwc .navy.mil/dsd/y2ksited/y2ksite.htm) includes only three non- governmental entities: Cantor Fitzgerald, the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), and the University of Virginia.http://www.cantor.com/co_info .htm: "Welcome to Cantor Fitzgerald. From our origins in the financial markets over 50 years ago, we have grown to become a leading intermediary in the growing world of electronic commerce, and the largest electronic marketplace for financial securities trading. Our success and strength are based on our ability to deliver the most efficient trade execution at the best price. We provide superior trading opportunities for all of our customers, and help them trade easily and profitably, by focusing on efficient execution."The apparent lack of interest among the Fortune 500 in what the Naval War College has made available is somewhat surprising, and perhaps a little dismaying too.
http://www.cna.org/: "The CNA Corporation (CNAC) is a not-for-profit organization providing research, analysis, and technical services to the government and other organizations. CNAC's two operating divisions are the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) and the Institute for Public Research (IPR). CNA is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) sponsored by the Department of the Navy. For more than 50 years, CNA has conducted research and analysis that have helped the Navy and Marine Corps become more effective and efficient. CNA conducts analyses for other Department of Defense and non-Defense clients whose needs fall within CNA's mission as an FFRDC."
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 01, 1999.
I am reminded of the briefings that were done in the weeks leading up to the Battle of the Bulge in December, 1944.
At that time, intelligence analysts included ALL possibilities in their daily briefings, ranging from the Wermacht launching a major offensive to the complete collapse of German resistance.
This "leveling" and presentation of all possible scenarios really confused the top level commanders. Thus, because of the lack of focus on the possible and probable rather than on ALL potentialities, the Allies were caught by surprise.
Now, what concerns me is the LACK of positive scenarios in this document. Have they learned from their mistakes? Is this meant to be, truly, *only* a "worst case" scenario?
Or, is this truly a best approximation of what the "elite of a notional country" will be dealing with?
-- Jon Williamson (email@example.com), September 01, 1999.
Happens I was mixed up in the Battle of the Bulge. My division (99th Inf.) took quite a beating. Luckily I lived through it. That doesn't make me an expert on that battle, but I've kept an interest in it ever since. Public TV ran a documentary on it a while back, interviewing a number of officers and men who were involved.
One of the really discouraging things that came out was that in the days preceding the German attack several civilians escaping from German-held territory in the Ardennes region had told American officers that they had seen large movements of German troops and armor behind the lines. This eyewitness information actually reached SHAEF HQ but was discounted by the intelligence staff who were convinced that the Germans did not have such resources left. As a result the Ardennes front, assumed to be safe, was left very thinly defended against the Dec. 16th assault.
It was an expensive mistake.
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 02, 1999.
Here's an interesting link from the Cantor Fitzgerald site:
-- Linkmeister (email@example.com), September 02, 1999.