http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/12/27/42714

Jammed Phones, Risky Rockets, Rosy Glow

NewsMax.com December 27, 1999

It's no wonder many Americans are ambivalent over Y2K, with all the mixed signals they're receiving about millennium computer-itis, ranging from hiccups to horrors. Only 5 percent of those polled earlier in December by the Associated Press said they expect major Y2K problems. That's fewer than half of what it was back in July.

But of late, some new major headaches related to possible Year 2000 computer failures have cropped up  and along with them, optimistic assurances from the Clinton administration that all will be OK:

 Massive telephone tie-ups

USA TODAY is reporting that phone companies are worried about a big-time traffic jam on their lines New Year's Eve and early the next morning.

It's not an actual technical problem with their computers misreading 2000 for 1900, they say.

The problem that troubles them is in the minds of their customers who can't wait to grab the phone as the millennium rolls over and call relatives or friends to see if they may have lost service due to Y2K glitches.

Said Russ Robinson of Sprint, "We're telling people, 'Don't feel that you have to pick up the phone at midnight and see if you have a dial tone, because if everyone does that at the same time, you probably won't. And if you don't have it, don't assume that something is wrong."

No dial tone, he said, will likely mean the local phone system is not broken, just overloaded.

The big worry of BellSouth is that such a phone jam might get in the way of emergency calls. So it is asking its customers to refrain from making calls at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 1, 2000, and to pace them later in the day.

Phone officials insist all their systems are ready to handle the computer problems of Y2K, but all those "human computers" out there? Who knows?

 Accidental Russian missile launches

Nothing psychological about this major Y2K concern; it is deadly real.

Here's the problem, as outlined in a Washington Times report:

Russia has about 2,000 weapons  including 756 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles  that it can fire at the United States on a moment's notice.

They are cocked and loaded to go on a hair-trigger "launch on warning" protocol.

The big problem is that Russia's far-flung early-warning system and linked satellites are in such bad shape technologically they could possibly give a false signal of a U.S. attack on the Russian Motherland  and that would touch off a devastating counter-strike against American cities.

Bruce Blair, a Brookings Institution analyst and leading authority on Russia's extensive nuclear arsenal, told the newspaper this is occurring "at a time when their early warning network is deteriorating badly and at a time when they're suspicious of the West.

"It's clear that the likelihood of such an event is higher as a result of Y2K than it would be otherwise."

Steven Zaloga, an expert on Russian strategic weapons, told the Times that Russia's command-and-control network is in very, very bad shape.

"They don't have reliable missile early warning, which is really a critical element of command and control," he said.

Washington has been so concerned about this that the Department of Defense has spent $3.6 billion on Y2K compliance, $10 million of that sunk into upgrading Russia's computers.

It has taken the extraordinary step of arranging for Russian and U.S. missile officers to sit side by side in front of computers at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado to monitor around-the-clock American long-range radar and satellites that detect the heat of a rocket launch.

But what if Moscow's falling-apart defense system says it is under attack? Whom will the Russians believe  their own data or assurances from U.S. officers at an American air base?

 Rosy official outlook

Despite those nagging serious concerns, the Clinton administration's spokespersons were on the Sunday television talk shows exuding an upbeat attitude.

Worry about Russian missiles? Not to, said Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre.

"We really do not worry about Russia, missiles going off, or early-warning systems getting false reports or anything like that," he said "We're confident that will not be the case.

"We're very confident that the missiles are just not going to be launched."

That was typical of Washington officialdom, which forecast few, if any, computer disruptions of the nation's daily life and commerce.

"We would like people to be prepared for a long mid-winter weekend, but we think that that's all that's necessary," said John A. Koskinen, who is President Clinton's Y2K troubleshooter. "And for most Americans, they probably won't experience any Y2K glitches at all."

Administration officials said electric-power generating and distribution facilities, air-traffic control and federal prisons are Y2K ready, as are 95 percent of 911 emergency response systems.

Jane F. Garvey, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, said, "Air traffic will be safe. Certainly if it wasn't safe, we wouldn't allow the planes to fly, so we'd keep them on the ground."

However, Koskinen said he expects some Y2K problems as late as March, when corporations and government prepare the first end-of-quarter financial statements.

That's because some programmers failed to give an extra day to 2000, which is a leap year.

Even regarding that, he was looking on the bright side. "We will monitor whatever happens on Feb. 29 just the way we are monitoring what happens over the weekend of Jan. 1," he said.

For the latest news on Y2K, links and commentary visit the "Y2K Daily."

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@AOL.COM), December 27, 1999

Answers

---

"And for most Americans, they probably won't experience any Y2K glitches at all." --- John Koskinen

Here is proof that Koskinen is sniffing glue.

---

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 27, 1999.

LOL!

No, No! He's HUFFING glue from a paper bag!

-- (ladybuckeye_59@yahoo.com), December 27, 1999.

"And for most Americans, they probably won't experience any Y2K glitches at all." --- John Koskinen

Let's see...if 130,000,000 Americans are killed/sent to the hospital due to toxic gas leaks, explosions, radiation sickness, etc, resulting from Y2K "glitches" and all other Americans get lucky and don't experience any glitches, Mr. Koskinen will indeed be correct. "...most Americans (still) won't experience any Y2K glitches at all."

I would like to know number of fatilities directly related to Y2K "glitches" in the U.S. that Mr. Koskinen/the U.S. Government considers..."acceptable" ???

Mr. Koskinen/the U.S. Government obviously considers some level of fatilities acceptable for they surely haven't taken the "better to err on the side of caution" approach. I wonder why? Could it be BIG CORPORATE $$$ and the economy/stock market boom are more important to Mr. Koskinen and our elected government officials than saving a few American lives???

So, what's the number of "acceptable casualities in the U.S., Mr. Koskinen? 10? 50? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 130,000,000? (I think this is about what he expects in a "worst case scenario", from his statement above.)

Still, I forgive you all.

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), December 27, 1999.