http://www.nwc.navy.mil/dsd/y2ksited/Dec5.htm

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), November 25, 1999

Answers

Maybe repost this tomorrow when more folks are around. Just amazing. How did you know about this site?

-- Patricia (asap@aloha.net), November 25, 1999.

What the hell was that all about??

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 25, 1999.

That is old stuff. Long ago reported. It was used by the participants of a naval war y2k seminar... to bounce around ideas about y2k and what could possibly happen. They used the concept that wild ideas sometimes lead to good guesses and contingency planning... thus the reason u see some really wierd remarks. -- If you research the various docs they generated, some really are scary because the support the panic theory pretty well. May even be the reason what the PR got cranked up that y2k was ready. If i remember right there were some definitely "big shots" of government and universities who attended the seminar y2k discussion. Call it a big FOCUS group i suppose.

-- A Guy (waiting@y2kgi.com), November 25, 1999.

I think its called signs of the times yup yup thats it!

-- Susan Barrett (sue59@bellsouth.net), November 25, 1999.

One interesting item in a rather lengthy list: "Vegas over/under on specific Y2K disasters"

Anyone know what the over/under is? Leave it to Vegas.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), November 25, 1999.

Odds on the bets about y2k.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 25, 1999.

Somebody on the Gold Forum at www.gold-eagle.com posted the link. It clearly is old, as it makes forward references to "Fall 1999". How long it has actually been on the Navy War College site is something that I don't know; your guess is as good as mine.

Interesting things do turn up on military web sites, as we have seen enough times before. (They can also disappear pretty rapidly, too.)

36 days.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), November 25, 1999.

I know snooze. What's the specific over/under on "specific Y2k disasters"? How do they define "disaster"? Put me down for the "over", regardless of number, but depending on the definition...

I'm guessing the number is 100, but I'd love to know what the bookies are guessing...

True gamblers [sometimes referred to as "Pollies"] would love this "bet". Given the certainty many of them have as to the "non-event" about to unfold, this is an awesome opportunity for them to "cash in" on the "meme".

Or not.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), November 25, 1999.

People start to embed broken glass in their walls/fences surrounding their homes ??? BIZARRE

State of the candle market ? LOL!

Dow drops dramatically (they forgot about Greenspin!)

Sailboats are hard to come by ?? HUH?

Announcements describing graceful work-arounds (in the absence of compliance) GOT THAT RIGHT!

They did get a lot of them right though!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 25, 1999.

Not really old stuff. This link is for the projected meeting on 3-4 December 1999 and was the result of the 'headbanging' meeting on 16 November 1999. Yes, the idea and site is old but the info is not. Still, some off the wall stuff but it's kinda scary as to how much they are getting right with their prognostications.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), November 25, 1999.

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/y2ksite.htm

Link

Understanding What This Web Site Is All About

What we present here is not the Decision Support Department's official prediction (we have none) of how Y2K will actually go down around the planet, but rather a reasonable worst-case analysis of what Y2K could look and feel like if it turned out to be a significant influence on the global security environment over the coming months. Visitors to this site will note that we present a complete range of possible scenarios--from quite benign to quite damaging. That we, as a military research organization, focus on the darker-side potential of Y2K should not be viewed by anyone as indicating an increased likelihood that Y2K will be severe or even significant. We're simply looking at darker scenarios because that's what the military essentially gets paid to worry about (i.e., low probability, high impact variables). Let us note, though, that our focus is on the world outside the United States, a country that we--like most experts--expect will come through the Y2K event reasonably well (the big question being, "How much more difficult is the Y2K experience for the rest of the world, and how much should the U.S. care?").

Why make this material available to the general public? We thought it only fair to share our findings since the material is unclassified. Now we know there will be some who will sift through our material (especially the individual inputs we received from our workshop participants) and highlight each and every expression of worst-case concerns in order to exclaim, Aha! I just knew the military really believes it will be horrible, and here's the proof! And frankly, there will always be those fear-mongers among us. But systematically examining a worst-case possibility should not be an exercise in fear, but one of discovery and learning.

If you learn something at this website about what Y2K may yet teach us about the nature of such potential system crises as we become increasingly interconnected and interdependent in a global, information-driven New Economy, then great, for in that case we've provided you the same service we set out to provide to U.S. Government decision makers--namely, opening up their thinking to the full range of possible dynamics, outcomes, and legacies connected to Y2K and the Millennium Date Change Event.

If, however, you insist on leaving here full of fear and anguish (e.g., The military obvious knows more than it's telling us!), then you miss the entire point of this exercise, which we basically liken to checking your blindspot before switching lanes while driving. The vast majority of the time you can switch lanes without turning your neck and checking the blindspot--and nothing will happen. But every so often, something will happen, and it could be bad. Our investigation into the potential negative global impact of Y2K is no different. The odds are low. We'll probably "get away with it" without bumping into any worst-case scenarios. Still, it's better to check out the worst possibilities and think them through beforehand, because knowledge is power.

So, if you want to fill up on fear, there are plenty of other websites out there to feast on. But if you want to think through Y2K's potential global downside in a systematic fashion, we think we've done a decent job of imagining what it would look and feel like. And if there's any feedback you'd like to offer us on this material, please do so by clicking here.

-- Putting (it@in.perspective), November 26, 1999.

Held at Sims Hall, U.S. Naval War College, 3-4 December 1998

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/Decy2kgs.htm

Link

-- (3-4@December.1998), November 26, 1999.

Hot topic months ago. Barnett showed up on forum one day and said he'd been lurking. Congratulated forum on the speed and efficiency of data acquisition. Clarified a few points. Said he wasn't a doomer. Seemed sincere.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), November 26, 1999.

Did anyone else catch the little part about the "US electronic herd, the AM radio crowd"? The definition especially got me "AM Radio Crowd" refers to more politically conservative citizens who tend to favor AM radio over FM and/or National Public Radio, and who are perceived to be more susceptible to "scare talk." God forbid we not listen exclusively to National Peoples Radio for information.

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), November 26, 1999.