Going Nuclear? Please read responses under Clinton Knows by Leska

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

See if the pattern of events I posted in response to Leska's Clinton Knows post add up to you. Highly worried.

-- Nikoli Krushev (Krushev@doomsday.net), January 10, 1999


"Does Clinton Know? Oh YES, he knows all. Facts for your consideration; 1. President Clinton has systematically dismantled our nuclear response and deterrence forces through restructuring andbudget cuts. The Strategic Air Command no longer exist. The fleet of B-52's armed with nukes no longer sit at the ready on the flightlines or perform their nightly patrols. He has changed our counterstrike policy through executive order to launch on verification of actual hits on our cities AND Presidential authorization from launch on launch detection. Those unarmed B-52"s andB-1" take a minimum of 24 hours to rearm with nuclear warheads. If the russians or Chinese were to launch a major strike against us our ICBM's would be destroyed on the ground along with our weapon storage facility's and all of our command and control. We wouldn't even get off a shot under the policy Clinton has implemented. 2. The GPS satelites are going down Aug. of this year. These control the guidance systems on all of our ICBM's and cruise missiles, along with the terrain following low altitude automatic pilot systems on our heavy bombers and fighter bombers. This is the system which allows them to fly under radar across hostile territory on ingress to target. From Aug. to Dec. 31 thee communist will have a free shot at us if they decide to enter the next century unappossed as the worlds superpowers. They still maintain the largest Army on Earth and could roll across Europe in a week without U.S. opposition. 3. Even in their "dire" financial state they have continued construction of massive underground fallout shelters, and even a high speed underground railway linking the Kremlin to bunker complexes carved into the granite of the Ural mountains. Two weeks ago they announced the deployment of the worlds most accurate and advanced ICBM which is truck mobile and capable of hitting any part of the continental United States. These weapons development programs and shelters were paid for with your tax dollars via the International monetary fund.4. Clintons lack of timely and meaningful leadership on the Y2K issue, coupled with his defense department budget cuts has assured that the military will be nowhere near 100% compliant and operational 1-1- 2000. 5. China posesses the worlds largest surface nave and it is almost entirely composed of WW-11 vessels which are immune to the effects of Y2K or EMP from nuclear detonations. According to the GAO the American Navy has allocated enough money for Y2K remediation to repair One Ship. 6. The Russians have lost approximately 50 suitcase nukes which they cannot account for. High level Russian defectors have openly told the public that these weapons are alreadyon U.S. soil in the posession of Spetznatz troops awaiting orders to detonate them in our large cities and outside our military bases. 7. The Chinese have strategic control of the Panama canal and have the ability to shut it down or destroy it any time they get ready. This would effectively seal our pacific and atlantic fleets in their current zones of operation, from where they would be unable to re- enforce each other. In summary Bill Clinton has set this nation up to be destroyed in a Nuclear attack sometime between Aug. and Dec. 31 of this year. The only question is will the communist choose to strike before Y2K renders their own weapons useless? Personally I think Clinton has been working with the One World government Socialist all along, and this whole thing was preplanned and will be executed probably in November of this year.

-- Nikoli Krushev (Y2000@doomsday.com), January 10, 1999."


First Nikoli, isn't it Nikolai Kruschev???

That over with, most of your facts above are precisely correct.

I highly recommend listening to the following two radio show excerpts - both guests recently on national radio.

Listen to what they have to say and make up your own mind.

First - Joel Skousen on 8.10.98 Art Bell

Transcript at


Real Audio at


JS: They are. Look at this complete underground nuclear complex, the live-in factories and conditions.... the size of the entire Washington D.C. metroplex....underground in the Ural Mountains....reported by the "New York Times" about a year-and-a-half ago. Our "yes-man" intelligence community made excuses that this was totally defensive. It's just laughable! The degree to which the administration will go to protect something.... but you see, that tells you something. When you look at how much they're protecting it, look in contrast. For example, one little violation from Saddam Hussein for not letting a few inspectors in, and we raise the entire specter of war, don't we? Russia has NEVER let our inspectors in! It has been in total violation of numerous treaties for years. Do we complain? Do we threaten war? Do we even say there's a problem? You see, what I'm saying is that the cover-up always tells you something.

Really worth listening to... paranoid??? maybe :)

Next guest

Stanislav Lunev Book: Through the Eyes of the Enemy: Russia's Highest Ranking Military Defector Reveals Why Russia Is More Dangerous Than Ever Appearance: 9/04/98

Real Audio link at


-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 10, 1999.


Oh, come on! The GPS satellites are not "going down" in August. If _you_ have a receiver that can't handle the rollover from week 1023 to week 0000, _your_ receiver may be unable to establish its position for a short time. The military has known all along that the GPS time system was on a 1024-week cycle, not a continuously increasing number like the calendar year.

>In summary Bill Clinton has set this nation up to be destroyed in a Nuclear attack sometime between Aug. and Dec. 31 of this year.

Since your timeframe depends on your GPS assertion, and your GPS assertion is false, your whole argument is bogus.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 10, 1999.

Wonder if we're seeing a JBD reincarnation?

Clinton KNOWS hotlink:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000N9F

Can't stay away, huh, Jimmy? Disinformation sprinkled with partial truth is somewhat suspect. You'd have done a far better research job if you'd supported your suppositions with alternate, and illustrative government web-site links rather than just opinions. (Much as I love some of what Art Bell red flags, Andy).


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 10, 1999.

I'm not convinced entirely yet that the GPS problem is only from the ground. The controversy is still going on in this forum and both arguements are strong, with sources pointing to credible experts on both sides. Until I am convinced, I'll stay worried.

Diane, you let emotions toward JBD cloud your otherwise lazer sharp judgement. Nikoli has been posting for a while now and his patterns don't even resemble JBD's.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 10, 1999.

Admittedly I'm no expert and perhaps this helps explain my worry. So let me lay out what worries me:

1. The only official and expert sources I've been able to view are from the military/gov. I haven't seen an independent expert site explaining the GPS satellite and ground control current status. I distrust the government to give civilian the whole truth. (By independent expert I mean top civilian experts such as people working at companies who developed the satellites used by the gov.)

2. Gov. GPS site claiming GPS satellites compliance restrict info to cleared military personnel only. (http://www.laafb.af.mil/SMC/CZ/homepage/y2000/index.html)

3. Ground Control Systems of satellites are all claimed to be EOW compliant, but not Y2K compliant and are subject and scheduled to be fixed or replaced much like what we hear about the power generation plant problem and status. (http://www.laafb.af.mil/SMC/CZ/homepage/y2000/y2k/tsld008.htm)

4. My own layman's deductive reasoning tells me that Ground Control Systems are what actually make the satellites function and be useful, much as software is what makes the computer box function and be useful.

In summation, I'm less worried about EOW rollover in August than I am of Y2K rollover, but I'm still worried because of the human factor and disinformation factor.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 10, 1999.

Here's my three reasons why the Kruschev's "Clinton will nuke the US" scenario is bogus:

1. The government is not competent enough to pull off that big of a conspiracy (although their fractional banking scheme is a pretty good scam)
2. Y2K has confused even the experts. Its too unpredictable to have been planned.
3. SHIT happens.

Now I'm sure we can all rest better.

-- a (a@a.a), January 10, 1999.

(Request permission to revise and extend my remarks...)

But I'll make it short. Not everything said on Art Bell's radio show is to be believed.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 10, 1999.

au contraire a, shit happens, what did Tsung Tsu say, what is the chinese curse.......

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 11, 1999.

If you can't be bothered to check out the links the basic premise is that Russia, many moons ago, planned the state that Russia is in now.

These are wily old birds, plan long term...

The west bought it (as me old mate Len Deighton says) hook, line and sinker.

work the rest out fot yourselves.......

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 11, 1999.

Agreed Tom.

Like everything else, substantiate Art's alerts with alternate data.

Some of it though...


(P.S. Chris, just expecting we haven't seen the last of some PPL. Bit skittish)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

Diane/Tom - Art has shown himself to be an A1 dufus lately, in spades , however don't shoot the messenger !!!!!

Of all people you'se should know that !

Many of Art's guests are now discredited - that is not to rule out the whole, is it?

I still say, listen to these 2 guys, evaluate current world politics,

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 11, 1999.

No Andy, never rule out what is not obvious. Find out, if personally motivated.

BTW, I really do think there are UFO's. Disinformation to the contrary. Too much smoke indicates a fire. Sort'a like Y2K. Also, from a distance, seen VERY strange things four different times, which cannot be explained away easily.

But, back to Y2K. Will look at the written transcript. Audio takes too long and my 'puter won't handle it.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.

"No Andy, never rule out what is not obvious. Find out, if personally motivated."

Of course I'm motivated :) , I don't know what Mr. Bell's agenda is, give me rense or laura lee any day), but he provides a service, no doubt, later,


"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 11, 1999.

Personally I'm skeptical that missile guidance systems rely on GPS, since satellites are vulnerable to attack. It would be very easy if that were the case to disable our entire ballistic missile force. Who needs SDI?

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), January 11, 1999.

You're right. ICBMs do not use GPS and further they don't evade radar. Their flight path does not allow this. I think he got confused; cruise missiles are designed to fly below radar but have a shorter range. GPS was designed for naval ships and moble troops; it's a navigation system. I sincerely doubt ICBMs were retrofitted with the GPS terminals. Besides they don't need to navigate, they just fly their defined trajectory.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 11, 1999.

I have read dozens of articles stating that the Icbm's and cruise missiles use the gps system for targeting. Most of our ICBM's are multiple warhead and and attack multiple targets. I was not saying ICBM's avoid radar, I was referring to our conventional bombers such as B-52's which have no stealth capability and must come in at low altitude under radar against russian defenses. High altitude approaches against Russia would be sheer suicide against their air superiority and multi layered anti aircraft defenses. The rollover of the Gps system is irrelevant from the standpoint of whether this happens. It is only a re-enforcing factor giving a convenient start date for the window of opportunity. If you read the #1 section again you will see that if the Russians and Chinese strike first we will not be able to respond irrespective of whether the gps system has taken our missiles offline or not. The change of stance in our military is what will allow this. Another point I forgot to bring up is that the Russians no longer use a defcon system or a graduated level of flight readiness for their ICBM's. With the breakup of the Soviet union they were left with gaping holes in their radar coverage against incoming bombers and missiles, so now their birds are on full alert 24-365. Ready for instant launch. The aspects that bring this to a critical mass near years end are that the communist weapons systems are even more vulnerable to Y2K than our own. They know they have a free first strike if they fire before 12-31-99, and the next day they will no longer have a funtional Nuclear program. The United States infrastructure and defense capability would be totally destroyed through the combined nuclear blast, Y2k, and EMP effects. There would be no meaningful response. Even our Nuclear submarines, if still funtional due to Y2K, are prohibited from returning fire without PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION, AND ACCESS CODES. The only way to communicate with these submarines while submerged is via the ULF radio array located in the north central U.S. and this would be a primary target in the initial attack. Once again, if the gps question is what you base your doubt on then entirely remove it and read the scenario again. It does not change the relevant facts.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@2000.com), January 11, 1999.

I've also read that after the Gulf War, much of the targeting systems of our missles was changed to follow GPS rather than previous technology. GPS, I believe, allowed for more accurate targeting.

Nikoli, is the point you are making that there will come a "use it or lose it" time?

Unfortunately, and no matter how hard I would like to discount that possibility, I think that is very, very true.

Will cooler heads prevail? I pray they will.

Oh, with regard to the nuclear subs, are they not given control to target where they can if command and control from the government is lost?

Mike ==============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 11, 1999.

Micheal, it is my understanding that the submarines no longer have the autonomy to fire their missiles under Clintons new guidelines. Firing codes must be transmitted to them along with presidential authorization. In addition I was watching C-Span senate armed services committee earlier this week and senator Ted Kennedy forced the secretary of the navy to agree to scuttle 4 of his 18 "Boomers" in exchange for budget increases. I am not saying Clinton alone is responsible for the situation. At least half, if not more of our government is following this One World Government agenda.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 11, 1999.

Am I saying that there will come a use it or lose it time? Yes, but that is only half of it. The struggle between capitalism and communism has been ongoing since the turn of the century, and especially since the end of WW-II. Russia and China are now faced with either destroying the United States, or re-engaging in the cold war from a seriously eroded position post Y2K. Economic reform in Russia has been a total failure and their reversion to hardline communism is a given in the coming year. From the perspective of the communist countries a sacrafice of a s little as 10% of their populations would totally destroy the United States and NATO. Once again whoever comes out of Y2K most intact will rule the world politically and econamically for the next hundred years, minimum. The communist have aply demonstrated their willingness to kill huge masses of people to acjhieve their goals time and time again. I think there is far greater than a 50% chance we will see a nuclear attack this fall or early winter. We are already preparing for hard times, just add a little iodine, a geiger counter, etc. to your preps, And stock up on rolled plastic to fallout proof your home.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@Y2000.com), January 11, 1999.


Unfortunately, I can't argue with your position. I've come to similar conclusions. I had heard about the "launch on warning" scenario. Is that where we incur a first strike before we launch? With regard to the low frequency communications, is there really a centralized area where communications could be hampered? I believe that these signals are transmitted through the earth and ocean itself and not subject to the kinds of infrastructure problems associated with hard wired or sat communications. Is that true? Could, however, these systems be subject to high tech terrorism or attack?

Mike =============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 11, 1999.


You are an idiot full of half-truths and crap you probably read in soldier of fortune. ICBM's do not use GPS, period. SLCM, GLCM, and ALCM were originally designed without GPS and can function quite well without it. We haven't relied on the bomber leg of triad for many years and the truth is we don't need it. Submarines NEVER had the authority to launch without presidential approval and continue to operate as they always have. And just what in the hell is "ULF". Submarines use ELF, SLF, SHF, VHF and UHF. There is no such thing as ULF. Your lack of any true tehnical knowledge shows everyone the fool you are. Stop trying to bullshit people.

Big Toe

-- Big Toe (nospam@nospam.com), January 11, 1999.

Thanks Big Toe, I was going to ask when Nikoli got his clearance from the government to work on missiles. Oh yeah I forgot the web gives so much accurate info that you don't need a clearance to find out about our defense systems. Anyway you said better than I could have.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 11, 1999.

I knew it was only a matter of time before this post flushed a true new world order troll. kind of like the feds kicking in the door on those folks selling constitutional education kits. These roaches cannot stand the exposure to light of day. They have sold out our childrens very lives for pieces of silver, and foam at the mouth when exposed. Nikoli

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday @y2000.com), January 11, 1999.


Interesting response. I'd like to hear answers to the facts in dispute rather than the "straw man" approach as a way to shift focus rather than discredit an argument.

Although I do agree that some of your facts may be questionable, I don't discount your argument regarding what this year may well bring.

You don't need to be an expert in technology to understand that there are serious issues on many levels regarding politics, borders, supplies, etc. which may well put our existance in question more often than we'd like to think. Oh, but then, that is the gist of it isn't it? We don't get to think because that information is kept from us.

The reason why y2k is so dangerous to the power elite is because it causes people to question and open their eyes and become uncomfortable.

Mike ============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 11, 1999.

Mike, I might have over reacted in my answer to Big Toe Jam, but he did call me an idiot. I am not trying to start some scary rumor, and I aint making this stuff up. I have read articles that back up every statement I have made. I sincerly believe this is a real threat and just wanted people to be aware, even if they don't believe it they may recognize the situation as it develops in time to save their lives having read this. If you see a simultaneous war bread out in Serbia and the middle East or China trying to take back Taiwan you best hump butt out of town. This will be the attempted concentration of our fleets for nuclear destruction.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 12, 1999.

"..and I aint making this stuff up. I have read articles that back up every statement I have made."

Something that you must do if you want the folks here to take you seriously is to post the link where you've read your information, or if not online, give the reference.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 12, 1999.

One itty bity question, Nicki.

International dateline rollover circa 2000, globally, leaves the U.S. with the last working window of opportunity. (Hawaii actually) Advantage U.S. If I was China, North Korea or Russia, et. al., I wouldnt want to be shut down while the U.S. is still, partially, powered up.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 12, 1999.

Dianne, If China-Russia Launch a combined first strike their will be nothing left in Hawaii to respond with. D.o.d. says China can now hit U.S. West coast cities with their ICBM's thanks to those technology transfers, and do it with greatly enhanced accuracy. Hitting Hawaii would be like shooting ducks in a barrel as it would be much closer. To Chris and all: I have compiled all of this over months of web surfing and watching National news, C-span, and reading newspapers. This was not a theory I had that I set out to prove, it was one that clicked on like a light in my head as I tracked the progress of Y2K. A pattern of events and their logical conclusion just suddenly leapt out at me from all the white noise out there. To verify Clintons change of policy on our nuclear response listen to Joel Skoussens interview with Art Bell, the first one. It is available in his archives and provides links to supporting government documentation. To verify the new soviet missiles, underground bases, suitcase nukes, gps system effects and capabilities go to sightings website and peruse through the archived news articles on weapons, and intelligence, and Y2K. Pay special interest to the article on Russias Highest Ranking Defector Talks. Art did an interview with this man as well. I don't remember his name offhand but the article will give it and that will be available in the archived programs as well. The GPS guidance information as it relates to our missiles was gleaned from watching CNN coverage of the recent wag the dog attack on Iraq. I don't have a clue how to post hot links to these sites as I am computer handicapped but the basic websites are www.artbell.com and www.sightings.com.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday @y2000.com), January 12, 1999.

To all. If you don't do anything else take the time to listen to the Joel Skoussen Interview. Using the fast forward on realplay you can cut the running time down to a little over an hour and it is cram packed with relevant information. Joel predicts the same scenario I do, but with a timeline of it happening around 2003-4. To me it makes a lot more sense for the strike to take place pre-Y2K, especially since the DOD has recently announced the development of microprocessors that are immune to the effects of EMP. There is an article on this in the sightings page too. Post Y2K our weaponry will be retrofitted with these new chips and destroying our forces will be tenfold harder.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 12, 1999.


You may not be making this stuff up but whatever you are reading is sorely inaccurate. ICBM: Intercontinental BALLISTIC Missile. It goes up, it comes down. Everything is done off of inertial navigiation. Not to mention GPS solutions are not nearly fast enough to allow for correction of trajectories.

As to cruise missiles... There continues to be gaps in GPS coverage that rotate around the planet (due to the constellation arrangement). You need a specific number of GPS birds to calculate a position and if you can't count on them being there, you would be a very poor designer to rely on an intermittent signals for targetting. Not to mention GPS is very easily spoofed. Cruise missiles use a combination of inertial navigation and very accurate micro altimeter measurements.

If there is anything to be concerned about it would be a lack of reliable sensor data to both sides during Y2K event horizons (but GPS rollover is not one that plays into the C4 infrastructure). That is why you always look for confirmation from multiple sensor paths before launch. If Y2K was going to cause a launch, we already would be fighting the cockroaches for the planet, after the fiasco's inside Cheyenne Mountain during the early 1980's (when test data was accidentally loaded on the production system and everyone thought it was the "big one".

That is not to say an adversary may not think that degraded US capabilities mean it's a good time to do something bad, but I hardly think going nuclear is the problem. Keep an eye on the China/Taiwan situation as well as North Korea. If they belive our C4 could not control a response to agression, you may see a more tactical conflict environment.

Sorry for the invective, but to just repeat obviously erroneous info as if it was fact is a pet peeve of mine. Apply the engineering "giggle test" to what you read and if there is no logical way for the articles supposition to work, look for another source.

Big Toe

-- Big Toe (nospam@nospam.com), January 12, 1999.

Nikoli, I'm sorry but reading the web and watching CNN just won't cut it. I've worked in the government, know a lot about nukes and their effects. I got my info from classified documents and briefings, unfiltered, unadulterated. I researched nuclear weapons effects and ICBM and SLBM trajectories. Do you know about depressed trajectories. You cannot glean info that I have from CNN. It just doesn't happen that way. What you end up doing is spreading disinformation which is already so prevalent on the web that it's becoming impossible to find accurate info.

You have no idea what China and Russia capabilites are. I do. Unfortunately, that info is classified. I also know about their economies. If China and Russia want to nuke us, then why haven't they done it. Why should they wait until 2000? Russia opportunity peaked some time ago. If they were ever going to attack us they were most capable at that point. I have no fear of Russia attacking any more. China also had the opportunity but declined. There are so many variables that go into whether or not to attack: economics, politics (on a global and national scale), and military capabilites. All these have to reach some level before an attack comes into the conscienceness. Diane makes a good point that we'll still be up when China goes down because of Y2K. Russia crosses many time zones.

So Nikoli, if you don't have access to classified info, you haven't a clue what's going on. I do

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 12, 1999.

Big Toe and Maria: You seem to keep overlooking the basic premise of my theory. Whether the Gps system controls our missiles is totally irrelevant. That question is open to debate so I will completely concede that point to you. This is not open to debate. We will not launch a counterstrike until we have actual verification of nuclear impacts in the United States. That is current government policy. You ask why an attack has not already occured. Because they have been waiting until closer to the Y2K crash to minimize any retaliation from our surviving forces. Time zones have no relevance to this attack as it will occur at least a two weeks prior to Y2k. Why would they strike this early? Simple, it would take far longer than the remaining two weeks to reorganize our remaining forces and would allow time for a follow up strike to finish the job. My technical knowledge is not strong, but my common sense is. All I need to know is that the Russians still have thousands of warheads ready to launch, they can hit us anywhere they want to, and there is nothing short of a pre-emptive strike we can do about it. The current economic condition of Russia is totally irrelevant. Even if it were all they have to do is seal their borders and default on all foreign loans. They can go back isolationist and declare the value of the ruble to be whatever they want it to be. In short what I am saying that MAD has been what prevented an attack in the past. In the closing months of this century MAD will become less and less of a factor. They already know Y2K is going to blow away their infrastructure, as well as NATO's. If they attack and take us out when the rebuilding is done they will be the sole superpower remaining on Earth. They will have won the "Cold War" hands down, and communism will be the new standard for one world government. I don't know how to put this any more simply. This is the only point in time, past , present or future where they will have the window to destroy us completely without suffering the same fate.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 12, 1999.

If they would choose to start a war, why with the US? We're giving them what they want now, without complaint or compensation - other than to the DNC.

Seriously, it would do more "good - if a war were going to occur while the US and Japan were disabled or recovering from troubles caused by any Y2K-related problems - for Red China to invade Tawain, or North Korean to invade South Korea, than for either of them to bomb or invade here.

There is no payback to invade here - yet. Missiles from Russia - not real likely, but sales from there to a second party (financed by NK or China)

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 12, 1999.

Who said anything about invasion? The country is left a smoking radioactive wreck, the population is decimated, Military nearly completely destroyed and the survivors dying of disease, starvation , and radiation sickness. No occupation force needed. Why would they attack? That has been their stated goal for 50 years, to establish worldwide communism under Soviet leadership. It is either attack or spend the next century as lackeys to the capitalist west, not a very attractive proposition from their standpoint. Why be a welfare state to the IMF when you can own the world?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 12, 1999.

Nik, you know nothing about nuclear radiation effects or our military capabilites. Your scenario is so far off base, LOL. You continue to state things from your demented state of mind and have no clue about any military matters for the US, China, or Russia. When did you get your security clearance? Stop speaking in tongues.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 12, 1999.

That is the most ridiculous response I have heard yet. If you can't do any better than that why not just concede defeat and quit responding.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 12, 1999.

Nikoli Krushev;

You are full of shit! It will never happen.

Troll Maria & Big Toe; Keep going folks.

Your information is correct, and I too had the clearances to the data.


-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 12, 1999.

SOB, Maria, Big Toe et al - Nikoli is right in many respects with his theories - he is simplay stating what several other experts have also stated.

Could you guys do me a favour - go back to my link at the top and check out the Joel Skousen interview, and especially the interview with the ex-KGB chap - these will give you sources for further reading.

I would be very interested in your opinions on these two folks and what they have to say.

In the meantime, heres just a little of the Skousen interview:-

"AB: You spent your adult life as a high security designer/consultant?

JS: All of my professional career, after I got out of the military service. I spent time as an F-4 pilot in the Vietnam era.

AB: Oh, you DID? Were you actually IN Vietnam?

JS: No, I was in one of the Staging Squadrons in Hawaii, just as the war was winding down in the early 70's.

AB: I see.

JS: The war was very politicized, at that point, and it wasn't considered "desirable duty" to be getting shot out. You couldn't actually arm your weapon until the missile was actually on its way toward you.

AB: Yeah. I'll just start getting angry. That's a real sore point with me. A VERY sore point. Anyway, listen....the reason you're here tonight is because you wrote this book, "Strategic Relocation: North American Guide to Safe Places." I think before we decide where the safe places are, we should ask you why do we need safe places? In other words, safe from what?

JS: At least half of my book covers a detailed analysis of all what I call, "Local and National/International Strategic Threats." Strategic threats differ from local or tactical threats in the sense that they have the potential of effecting an entire nation or even the world at one time. So, unlike the Northridge earthquake, where they could pull in supplies from the rest of the United States, they don't have that option in a strategic threat.

AB: All right. In other words, a strategic threat would be beyond the scope of even FEMA or large aid organizations like the Red Cross, or anybody else for that matter, for at least a period of time to even help.

JS: Precisely.

AB: Meaning "Guess what, folks. You're on your own." Is that about right?

JS: And, one of the things that interacts with that is when you don't have organized help, organized people moving machinery, you run into a major problem with population density. That becomes the major factor effecting strategic safe places....population density....because when anarchy reigns, when even a small core of malicious people begin to run rampant, then thing break down very, very rapidly. Even good people start to panic and there's no place to go.

AB: I'm afraid it's true and of course we have examples of that, that we could roll through. I told my audience, all the time, they don't realize how thin a thread what we call civilization, or civilized behavior, hangs by. A very small, thin thread indeed. Easily broken. As you know, I've interviewed Gary North, and Gary North has some damned frightening things to say about what he believes is going to occur with regard to y2k. Now, Gary says it's unavoidable. I guess if we lay out ahead of time how serious it is potentially going to be, then somebody might wake up and it might be not QUITE as serious. But frankly, Gary North says it's too late. It's going to happen. Y2k is going to happen. Power grids are going to go down for a period of time and a lot more. Do you agree with that assessment?

JS: Well, Gary and I are good friends. I moderate a couple of his forums on the Internet. But, we DO disagree, in part, with that analysis and here's my reasoning. Gary is absolutely right about the fact that y2k IS going to happen. Most of the computers are not going to be ready in a complete sense. What he fails to analyze, however, is how much of that in fact will cause a major breakdown? Just because they aren't going to be compliant doesn't necessarily mean that HAS to resolve to the major breakdown or the social meltdown of society.

AB: Well, here's the reason I bought what he had to say about the power grids. We've seen, for example, western regional failures covering about a third of the western U.S., up into Canada, down into Mexico, that came, they tell us, from one little power plant in Idaho that failed. One....one little power plant. Now, when y2k day comes, even if Gary North is HALF right, even if he's 25% correct, it seems to me that the grid doesn't stand a chance.

JS: There's another side to that story, though, Art.

AB: Ok, let's hear it.

JS: The reason that shutdown occurred in the western U.S. was because it was all interconnected under automatic maintenance software and all they have to do, frankly, and there are plans in the works, is to disconnect the automatic features of the grid. Canada is no longer automatically connected to the U.S. grids, so the U.S. is NOT connected....it can separate at least into four or five major areas. The ones at the highest risk, for example the northeast, those that are highly dependent on nuclear power plants, if they go down they'll only have REGIONAL outages rather than taking down, in an automatic sense, all the other power plants.

AB: Maybe you can answer this for me. The psychology of the grid has always befuddled me. I thought that the whole idea of the grid was that if one area goes down it's not a problem because the other is, in effect, backfeed power and will take care of that area which is down. That was the IDEA of the grid. But, it was the idea of the grid that killed it. Is that about right?

JS: That's right. It's very much akin to the mentality of generating companies. There is no automatic provision that any generating manufacturer makes for an automatic transfer switch that can pull itself out of the automatic mode and go into manual. Now, think about that, Art. In other words, every single automatic generator transfer switch is designed so that it never comes back off the automatic power, off that mode, until the power comes back on. So, I asked a generator manufacturer, "What happens if the power stays off for two months and there's not enough fuel to run the generator?" He had never considered that. I mean, here's a generator manufacturer....a MAJOR one in the U.S....who never even considered that the power might be off for two months.

AB: Well, that is ALSO what Gary North said, that if it stays off for a certain period of time, the deliveries of fuel to the plants will stop and then the whole situation will compound itself and we could be off for a VERY long time. That's what he believes.

JS: Well, theoretically that's possible. One of the things that I did when Gary and I discussed this, is that I went and started calling some of the people and started finding out, "Well, what are some of the work-arounds that you can do?" Here's what I found. This was rather disturbing. First of all, most of the utility companies and the railroads had not really working or putting any time and money into "work-arounds." They're spending all money in trying to get y2k compliant. That's the "politically correct" thing to do. But, when you press them....for example, let's take the situation of utilities with automated substation control systems. They're all, most of them, are computerized now. I said, "Well, why don't you put back in manual switches." Their response was that they don't make them anymore.

AB: They don't make them anymore?

JS: No. Everybody is going to computerized switches, so for back-up they go to MULTIPLE computerized switches, rather than having any manual capability.

AB: Aye-yi-yi!

JS: Right on its face you say, "Oh, there's no chance then. Gary North is right. It's going to go down." But I say, "Wait a minute. Let's suppose that you don't have anything but those automatic switches and they go down and people are freezing to death and you've got to get them back on. What can you do?" He thought for a minute and he says, "Well, we can open up the switchbox and actuate them manually." I said, "Explain to me how you do that." He said, "Every computerized switch has a manual solenoid relay in there. Every technician in the world knows how to put a screwdriver to that and they can actuate it manually. That may void the warranty, but if someone wants to do it and someone absolves us of liability, we can get that power back on."

AB: Well, if a community is out of power, to hell with the warranty. Ha-ha.

JS: See, that's the key to what I'm saying, Art, is that there ARE "work-arounds." Most of these y2k problems have to do with safety software, with maintenance software, with regulatory software, and it's all tied in with liability and government regulations. And, all the bureaucrats and the power industry and the railroads are paralyzed by the regulatory fever that compounds everything. When push comes to shove, I think....because I think the establishment in government has decided that they don't want y2k to destabilize THEIR power base....that they're pulling out all the stops....showing SIGNS of pulling out all the stops to get this thing fixed.

AB: Well, you know, when I had Gary North on, a lot of people went "Boy, what a bunch of scary B.S." Now, suddenly there have been programs on it. C-Span has done a big program on it. Suddenly everybody's on y2k and, frankly, a lot of people are agreeing with Gary North. You're partially disagreeing with him. In what areas do you agree with him? What do you think is going to happen on that horrid little day?

JS: In the first place, I think that the power companies ARE going to separate the grid, so I don't think the grid will go down in one fell swoop. I think there will be power outages and power in short supply. A lot of that depends on what government does with the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If they tell them to loosen up the rules a little bit and allow those plants to operate....because they CAN operate without the regulatory software....then there aren't going to be any major power failures.

AB: Is the regulatory software going to be fixed in time?

JS: No, it is not. Gary is right about all of that. This stuff is NOT going to be fixed and the railroads are a mess, but there are "work- arounds" in almost every one of those situations when you really go in and see what's available. The problem with implementing the "work- arounds" is that you have a bureaucratic mentality and a litigious atmosphere. And, government is already putting legislation in the view that it's going to kind of absolve people of some of that potential litigation so that they can get thing done. For that reason, I think that the old "hammer and chisel" technology of the American workman is going to get in there and get these things fixed. What I DO agree with is that for two weeks....I think that two weeks is the real vulnerability time, because if power goes out for even a week you're going to see social unrest in major metro areas.

AB: There's no question. TWO WEEKS! Oh my. There was a movie, which I talked to Gary about, "The Trigger Effect." It didn't take two weeks for "The Trigger Effect" to begin to happen. I, in fact, believe that in a large metropolitan area....I would think that after about two or three days, what you saw in "The Trigger Effect" would begin to become reality. What do you think?

JS: Very possible and I'm very concerned about the major metro areas, especially the "bad boy" areas where you have a lot of crummy people just waiting for a time to take advantage of something like this. But, what I'm say is, if it gets itself solved within two weeks, it's not going to end up in a "meltdown of society" scenario. That's what I disagree with.

AB: You disagree with a complete meltdown, but you do believe that there will be a PERIOD of disruption.

JS: Yes. Social unrest. Yes.

AB: And so that leads you then to write a book about where it's safe and where it's NOT.

JS: Yes, especially how to develop contingency plans so that you can get out of town temporarily without, in fact, disconnecting yourself from the entire financial lifeline.

AB: So, you and Gary North disagree about the severity of what will occur, because you think that there will be some "work-arounds." But, you also think there will be a period of time when thing are going to get rough. WHERE are they going to get rough?

JS: I don't perceive that it's going to get rough in any of the rural areas except for places that are totally without power. There are some rural areas, I'm afraid, that buy power completely off the grid....that don't have any manufacturing capabilities locally. They're going to be cut off, I'm afraid, in order to feed the big cities. So, they could have a hardship, not in terms of social unrest, but just in terms of the hardship without electricity and they're going to need some alternative for generating power, which is going to get in short supply, I think, as the news of y2k gets further out. But in terms of social unrest, the major big, bad cities....the L.A. Basin, I think, is definitely going to have a very high probability of erupting, as well as the major East Coast cities like Florida, the Miami area. I would say San Francisco is a possibility, as well.

AB: Let's back off from that for a second. Let me ask you a question I've never asked, and I think this is really important. It is the psychological aspect of this. Whether or not anything actually happens, and I have become convinced that something IS going to happen, but let us assume that nothing occurs, for a moment, and the power is on. Isn't it kind of getting people worked up into an anticipation of this event that could, in itself, promote problems?

JS: We see a little bit of that on the Internet, on this Relocation Forum that I moderate. For example, we have a lot of Internet "interupters" or "lurkers" that continue to post taunting messages and threatening messages. There is a small minority of people out there just waiting for something to happen so that they can launch into whatever imaginary things they want to do.

AB: Bad, bad behavior.

JS: Yes, rather disturbing, but I think that it's a fairly small percentage and they ARE centered in the large metro areas, I'm afraid. There's another interesting side effect of this. There is a fairly, not a SMALL sector of the Conservative Movement that is almost hoping that this is the thing that brings down big, bad government. You know, I'm not a fan of big government and I have a long history of fighting against this tyranny and New World Order that they're proposing will come about. But, I think it's very naove to think that this y2k is going to be allowed to bring down conspiratorial and bad government. And, I think that they're showing signs, very strongly, that....I think, theoretically....they have wanted to use the year 2000 as a success story for big government, as something to point the finger at the "doom & gloomers," at the Christian prophecy people, at the New Age prophecy people. You see, THESE people are the enemies. THESE are destabilizing society, and I think they want to pull out all the stops in media propaganda.... a ploy to point the finger at people who have been negative about society. So, in order to do this, I think they have to make sure that y2k doesn't become a MAJOR problem. And, if it is a MINOR problem for a short period of time, I think government wants to come out the "hero." I think they're setting themselves up to do this as much as they can.

AB: I did notice that even President Clinton finally made reference to y2k and he kind of hedged, in effect conceding there may be a problem ahead, so your scenarios are interesting and I don't disagree with you. There are certain groups of people out there that literally HOPE this kind of thing will occur. I think shining the light of day on it will lessen it. In other words, the more we tell people about what COULD occur, the more pressure builds to DO something about it to insure it doesn't.

JS: And, if government were taking a stand of denial....they're not at this point, they're taking a very proactive role in this. If they're taking a denial stand, then one might suspect that they wanted something to occur. Now, you take a look at one of the MAJOR side effects of y2k will most certainly be a destabilization of the Stock Market. In fact, the government is intervening in massive amounts to get this 300 point downturn turned around, including backhanded payments to certain big corporations which turned in a billion dollars to the stock market the two days ago in order to...

AB: Oh, I KNOW they do that! You can almost SEE the intervention occur if you watch the ticker during the day. If you're smart, you can almost sense the moment of intervention.

JS: Because of that intervention, though, that DOES tell you....you see, so much a part of what {BEEP} is important is Strategic Analysis. It's not so much watching the flows of human behavior and the free market anymore. It's watching intervention....watching for those who conspire to intervene and to change what would naturally happen. I think it's very, very important for one to look see what....I learned as much from reading the "New York Times" and the "Washington Post" as I do from the "Washington Times," because you learn from what the "Control Press" is saying. You learn what their motives are. You learn what they're trying to promote, what they're trying to push. Right now, the "Establishment" is really trying to push stability and an even keel. It's very interesting historically that before a war, and there WILL be war in the future....that's one of the MAJOR strategic threats coming on the heels of y2k.... the "Establishment" always pulls a Depression first. And so when we see them....they're pouring into the stock market in massive amounts, now....we'll see them at some future time, I predict a year or so AFTER y2k, they'll pull the plug on the market. But, I think the y2k will, in effect, destabilize the market. It will take every bit of power they've got to keep these markets up. This, combined with the Asian crisis, has some very negative fundamentals pulling down on the market and it doesn't take very much for a "ballooned-up" market to lost public confidence. That's why it's very important to watch what kind of power they've got to continue to...

AB: Well, a balloon which is particularly blown up past its usual capacity has a very thin skin and it doesn't take much to break.

JS: Exactly.

AB: That's another way of saying what you said. So, you began to study, I guess....by the way, you said war....do you actually anticipate a war? And, if so, where do you think the next war might be?

JS: It's very interesting. The next war is coming from the sector that the entire "Establishment" and media are in total denial about. They'll talk about China and the threat. They'll talk about North Korea. They'll talk about Iraq. They'll talk about Bosnia. They'll NEVER talk about Russia. "Russia is benign, it's our ally. There's nothing that Russia can do that's dangerous." The media is full of negative propaganda about how weak the military is, how decimated the morale is...

AB: But, that is TRUE. To some degree, that IS accurate.

JS: Absolutely. There IS some truth to that.

AB: Look, they haven't paid some of their soldiers in three months!

JS: But you want to remember that there's a reason for that. It's not that they don't have the money. They are carefully manipulating and feigning weakness. In order to feign weakness, you have put out a fair amount of propaganda and it has to be true and verifiable. There's weakness, but it's not the weakness that counts that they're showing. The strength that they REALLY have is in their new weaponry that the ? have been pouring money into....the new underground manufacturing and nuclear capabilities, which they're building. The new chemical, biological, and other weapons.

AB: Why is this not being reported? In other words, as you point out, the mainstream press never mentions Russia anymore. As you point out, they depict them as benign. You're saying, "B.S., they're not paying their people, they're developing weapons of mass destruction."

JS: They are. Look at this complete underground nuclear complex, the live-in factories and conditions.... the size of the entire Washington D.C. metroplex....underground in the Ural Mountains....reported by the "New York Times" about a year-and-a-half ago. Our "yes-man" intelligence community made excuses that this was totally defensive. It's just laughable! The degree to which the administration will go to protect something.... but you see, that tells you something. When you look at how much they're protecting it, look in contrast. For example, one little violation from Saddam Hussein for not letting a few inspectors in, and we raise the entire specter of war, don't we? Russia has NEVER let our inspectors in! It has been in total violation of numerous treaties for years. Do we complain? Do we threaten war? Do we even say there's a problem? You see, what I'm saying is that the cover-up always tells you something.

AB: What you're saying is that we are actually in league with the Russians and hiding the fact that a nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S. is, according to you, not only possible but perhaps probable?

JS: Not only that, Art, it's being invited! The Clinton Administration is INVITING an attack! Last December {1997} they changed the "Nuclear Doctrine." It was announced by James Bell(?), NSC Advisor, that President Clinton signed an order, on December 7 interestingly enough, changing American Nuclear Response Doctrine. No longer would we "launch on warning." We would, in fact, absorb a "first strike" in the interest of peace.

AB: WHAT????

JS: That's right.

AB: WHAT??? No, I didn't hear that! Where did YOU?

JS: It was on NPR {National Public Radio} for almost three days.

AB: Hell NO, I haven't heard that! What do you MEAN "we would absorb a strike in the interest of peace???"

JS: This is what they said, "To further our disarmament effort, we have unilaterally decided to change our Nuclear Response Doctrine that we would no 'longer launch on warning.'"

AB: Can a person get a copy of that?

JS: Yes. In fact, it was also published in the "Washington Times" at that time. But, it's WORSE than that, Art.

AB: That's bad enough!

JS: For example, anyone who knows anything about Nuclear Doctrine knows there is NO deterrent. James Bell talked about "this is to increase deterrents in the world." Well, there're no deterrents without "launch on warning." Your listeners might not understand. It takes at least 20 minutes for missiles, once they're launched in the Soviet Union, to arrive here in the U.S.

AB: Well, that doesn't even count the Russian nuclear submarines.

JS: No, no. That's right. But, land-based missiles are their mega- punches. So, it's very important that those get launched and 20 minutes in advance our satellites can tell when those are launching. A "launch on warning" doctrine does a tremendous amount of deterring because if we launch....because we can detect which of their missile silos launch....so we can retarget our missiles to hit their silos that did NOT launch. And, their missiles are already heading for silos, which will now be emptied because we've "launched on warning." So you see, most of their strike has then missed and ours hit the missiles that are in their silos. So, it's a tremendous deterrent. But, President Clinton also did two other things in this Executive Order. He took our missiles off "Alert."

AB: I'm familiar with that. What is the "Executive Order" number?

JS: I don't have that. He took our missiles off "Alert." This is very important because if our satellites determine that they have made a launch and if you run up to the President and say, "Hey, we've got to reverse that "launch on warning" doctrine. We have to launch right now," we can't do it because it take more than 20 minutes to warm up the missiles so that they can launch.

AB: So, you're saying that this Executive Order would require at least one detonation. My GOD, Joel! If they came to the President and said....first of all, I don't believe the Russians would launch one nuclear missile. I don't believe that for a second. If you're going to do it....really DO it....you try to take out the other side's offensive retaliatory capability. You try to "cut off the head" and all that sort of thing. You don't launch ONE weapon!

JS: That's right.

AB: So, it's going to be a massive, massive launch!

JS: Even MORE so with this doctrine, because once Clinton has said that we're going to absorb a "first strike," he saying, "We invite you to throw everything at the first launch." Now, let me tell why I think Clinton is doing this.

AB: Why?

JS: This is very important and very few people see through it. Russia has a lot of nuclear warheads, but they only have a finite number of them. He {Clinton} is trying to induce the maximum number of launch of their warheads to take out U.S. military targets.

AB: Why?

JS: The reason is that Clinton is part of a conspiracy that wants a New World Order. In order to get that done, you have to remove the U.S. military from the foreign policy scene in the world. No one will ever give credit to the majesty of the U.N. army as long as the U.S. army exists. In other words, you have to induce the Russians to get rid of this. That's to the benefit of those who want a New World Order and Russia also sees it as THEIR benefit.

AB: But Joel, I have to argue a little bit with you here. Now, I don't like a lot of things Clinton has done and he is in no doubt what you would consider to be "cover trouble" with Lewinsky. But, you're talking about a U.S. President setting up a situation where he wants war. He wants the U.S. to be hit with nuclear weapons. I find that really hard to believe, even in the case of Clinton.

JS: Remember, it's not just Clinton. Clinton is a "yes-man" to a much more powerful group that's calling the shots. Remember World War II. Roosevelt purposely WANTED that strike on Pearl Harbor, and did many things to induce that strike. The purpose of war is to slowly destroy national sovereignty. There are many, many tactics....using the environmental movement to destroy property rights, to undermine national sovereignty with the Bosnia and Iraq wars, etc. But, nothing is really going to undo national sovereignty except a horrendous nuclear war that'll make people cry out to destroy ALL nuclear weapons and all possibilities of war. That will be through the offerings that the New World Order has set up.

AB: You know, earlier in the program you complained about "Right- Wing" elements that almost WANT the y2k date to be the disaster that many describe it to be. They WANT it, you say. But, when you say the kinds of things you've said in the last half hour, you realize that it makes YOU sound like you're in the "Right-Wing," that you talked about. Is that an unfair characterization?

JS: Not at all. I'm a "Conservative of Liberty." I'm against tyranny and that's why I'm sounding a warning about what this conspiracy is trying to pull on us.

AB: I want to alert everybody, who might be joining at this hour, in the first hour of the program we had Peter Davenport on. He played audio tape from an Airman who removed the film from a gun camera on an F-15, which had film of the object over Phoenix....two miles in size. This one is "hot," folks. There's a transcript of it on my website right now. We're going to have Peter play the whole 40 minutes of that conversation in the next couple of days. My guest is Joel Skousen and he is a high-security designer/consultant. He's here talking about a book he wrote called, "Strategic Relocation: North American Guide to Safe Places." We really got into it here in the last part of last hour and we're going to pick up on that again in a moment, regarding Russia because he has had a couple of absolutely mind blowing things, so we're going to cover that. I just got a bit more about Y2K, so we're going to jump on that and then we're going to go back to Russia.


AB: My guest is Joel Skousen. Welcome back, Joel. I want to read you something very quickly. The following comes from the Associated Press, a business writer for the AP:

"Insurance companies are asking Industry Regulators for permission to EXCLUDE claims from businesses on losses resulting from the year 2000 problem. So far, a company that represents the Insurance Industry to Regulators has received permission from 46 states for insurance companies to deny all such claims. Insurance companies are arguing that businesses will have had plenty of warning, plenty of time to fix the Y2K technology glitch which could cause computers to misread 2000 and blah, blah, blah....power companies going off, transportation going down, and all the rest of it."

Why would insurance companies, if they think "work-arounds" are going to be done, why would they really be going at getting any claims excluded, if they didn't think a lot was going to happen?

JS: This has to do, Art, with the differentiation between what I call, "Y2K problems and regular business problems which results in a slowdown of the economy"....a COSTLY slowdown. Insurance companies are worried about all the small, little business problems that AREN'T going to be fixed....that AREN'T life threatening, that AREN'T going to stop society from operating, but are really going to tax the economy, though. A slowdown problem is going to put jobs on the line. That's what's going to be the long-term problem, and I'm not saying that there's ever going to be a "fast fix" from that. I think that those business problems are going to drag on for a couple of years after the turn of the century. But, they're not life threatening. They're not going to cause the "meltdown" of society that the critical areas are....such as power, railroads, airlines and communications. If those go down for any significant amount of time, society really can't operate. It's on too fragile of a lifeline, as you said at the beginning of the show.

AB: I did. Associated Press says one more thing. "A test simulating trading on Wall Street around the start of the millennium is now showing some firms with the best resources to overcome the year 2000 computer problems, couldn't handle the transactions smoothly. About 1% of the recent trades, in the test, (and they're still not up to the day in question)....about 28 of the richest security firms were stymied by year 2000 changes." Now, you don't hear about THIS one. I heard nationwide they announced, "Oh, Wall Street has done a test and it's all ok." The correspondent turned to the anchor and said, "What date did they test?" They were testing, then, two weeks prior to the critical moment and saying, "No problem." Now, all of a sudden, there's a problem.

JS: And, they also did not test random interaction with other security firms. They tested a "predictable" reaction. So, it's far from clear that the stock market is compliant. In fact, I'm sure Gary is right that it is NOT going to be compliant. There will, I'm sure, be some "shutdowns" and "lock-its."

AB: Ok. This I buy. The social problems that will follow I buy. I probably even buy what you've said about Russia. But, what you have said, in essence, is that President Clinton is a puppet whose strings are being yanked the "One World Order" crowd, which wants a war between Russia and the U.S. You're saying that President Clinton has signed a document saying that the U.S. would absorb a "first strike" in the interest of peace. I find that not believable. I mean, a President would sign something that said we would absorb....the whole idea of a nuclear deterrent is that if we detect you launching, we're going to launch and everybody's going to die. "Mutual Assured Destruction," I believe it was called. And, you're saying, "That's all out the window. The President has signed a document saying, "We would absorb a first strike."

JS: That's right. It occurred on December 10, 1997. That's when it was publicly announced, and the document was signed a few days before that. It was announced on National Public Radio. It's in their transcripts.

AB: Has Russia made a similar agreement?

JS: Not at all. One of the most interesting things that occurs is that there are a lot of Conservatives who believe that Russia is, in fact, in league with the U.S. to build this "New World Order," but I'm of the belief that we have competing "world control conspiracies" going on here. In fact, the West, although it attempts to manipulate and induce the Soviet Union to do many things, does not absolutely control it. One of the evidences of this is that many of the intelligence intercepts that have been made public, from the prior years and the Cold War years, show Russian leadership expressing consternation. "How can these western leaders be so stupid as to be giving in to these disarmament demands that we've given them? We, in fact, cannot really believe that they're this suicidal." What's interesting is that if they were in league, if this were a done deal under the table, there wouldn't be this kind of an intelligence intercept coming out. What in fact is happening....this is very interesting....is, in fact, that the Russians don't believe that we are disarming as badly as we ARE disarming. In fact, they probably have a great deal of our dismantled missile fields still targeted because they don't believe that we're REALLY that suicidal.

AB: "I" don't believe that! I can't believe it, either!

JS: But, it ISN'T suicide. In fact, the "western conspiracy for a New World Order" intends to win a nuclear war....not by nuclear exchange because they intend to induce Russia to throw everything, and actually destroy our nuclear capability. The third triad, Art, of that announcement was that there are new protocols established, such that submarines no longer have any backup capacity to launch short of a direct presidential order.

AB: I am aware of that. I knew that changed....certainly. At one time, U.S. Commanders could act autonomously under certain conditions. That has been removed.

JS: Now, that's very important, because that has built a complete line of defense against ANY U.S. retaliation against Russia. None whatsoever can happen, because Russians will of course hit our "Extremely Low Frequency" transmitters, which is our only communication once satellites are down. Our only communication with submarines will be hit. That means our submarines will be totally cut off, they'll be "sitting ducks" waiting for the Russian "hunter subs" to get at them and destroy them. They will not be able to launch. Absolutely.

Now, how do they believe the "N.W.O." crowd is going to win these wars? I believe they intend to do it conventionally. I think they know, in fact, that in Russia feigning weakness conventionally....in fact, HAVE to prepare for a nuclear attack and not prepare conventionally. So, they don't give any warning signals. And, if they ARE vulnerable...especially if they play the "China card"...just as the "N.W.O." crowd played the "Russia card" against Hitler. Remember, Hitler had a "non-aggression pact?"

AB: Right.

JS: So, Russia backed out of it. The U.S. built Russia up to defeat Hitler. Look what is happening exactly to China right now. The U.S. is building China militarily through these "weapons transfers" and "technological transfers." Once a war occurs, those transfers will be....and by the way, Russia has a "non-aggression pact" with China right now....Russia is DEPENDING on China NOT attacking their rear door. And, wouldn't attack, in fact, if they thought China would betray them. China is, with the typical snide Chinese grin, assuring the Russians that they're not going to attack. All the while, I think they already have a pre-planned agreement with the western powers....that they WILL, in fact, attack Russia's rear, after a nuclear strike. And, that will put Russia on an extreme defensive and use up all the remaining nuclear missiles that they have in attacking China. Then, Russia is totally vulnerable, because Russia is conventional then, and they're too weak to stand a conventional war for longer than a couple of years. And, that's how I think the "N.W.O." intends to establish a complete U.N. World Army with GREAT power, because the U.S. will be totally annihilated in terms of a "military machine"....not the population centers, but the "military machine." The world will then focus its attention on the ONLY hope in the world and that is to build a U.N. army.

AB: Well, tell me how this can happen, Joel, because if you hit the U.S., even at strategic military target locations and not civilian centers, you would detonate so much mega-tonnage that large portions of this country would be completely poisoned and unlivable for millennia.

JS: Now, that really isn't true. That's one of the myths that has been promulgated by the entire nuclear crowd.

AB: How is that a myth?

JS: It's a myth because, in reality, when you look at the survival rate around Hiroshima, lots of people survived just outside the blast area.

AB: Correct. Yes?

JS: And, the ground WASN'T poisoned for millennia. It simply didn't happen. I expect that there are only about 10 to 12 cities that would be annihilated because they're so integrally attached to the targets. There's no way to avoid them. Only, probably, about 20% of the American population would die in an all-out military nuclear attack on them.

AB: You're talking about in TOTALITY? In other words, the blast plus the radiation deaths?

JS: Plus the heavy fall-out, the immediate fall-out within two weeks to a month in the aftermath, would only kill about 20% of Americans.

AB: 20%.

JS: I think that there would be ANOTHER 20% due to long-range causes in the next 10 or 15 years.

AB: So, now we're up to 40% causality-rate.

JS: Right. The point is that Russia intends to use that as blackmail for the rest of the world. But, the rest of the world is NOT nuked. It is not a worldwide nuclear war. I think that ONLY the U.S. and perhaps China is going to have significant nuclear attacks. The rest of the world will be free to engage in a conventional war, because Russia does NOT have enough nuclear weapons to attack the entire world. That's why it's especially important to see this as a tactic of the "N.W.O." crowd to induce Russia to throw as many of their nuclear weapons at the U.S., to spare the rest of the world so that a conventional war CAN be engaged in with relative success.

AB: All right. Again, your scenario depends on the President of the U.S. understanding what his actions mean, understanding that he is actually part of a conspiracy to have a world war....to bring in the "N.W.O." It depends on that, right?

JS: That's actually fairly well known among the "higher-ups" of those who conspire. Let me give you one example. Helmut Cole was having a press conference in Europe, about a year ago, and the European Union was in real trouble....a LOT of unrest. This was right before the Socialists got back into power, and France and Germany were under threat, you know, with his coalition losing the election. He got rather upset at one of the reporter's questions. He said, "You know, you don't understand. The only alternative to European Union is war." The reporters were immediately taken aback.

AB: The only alternative to the European Union is war?

JS: That's right. He was saying, "If you don't accept this Union, if this doesn't go down peacefully, you're going to get war." Now, the reporters couldn't understand that. They immediately began to badger him with questions. "Well, why war? There's no sentiment of war between German, England or France. And, Russia isn't part of the European Union, so what's the sentiment?" He immediately clammed up. He wouldn't answer any more questions. What it told me, and several who understood, was that overall arching dialectic strategy that the N.W.O has... Cole knows! It's part of the system. He KNOWS that war is coming down the pike if stuff doesn't go down with voluntary loss of sovereignty. And, it ISN'T going down with voluntary loss of sovereignty.

AB: No, it's not going to.

JS: It's not going down QUICKLY enough for them. Now, you see, the conspiracy isn't absolute. They have effective control, but not absolute control. They have to bring in a lot of people, who have their own ideas of how to get this "One-World Government." A lot of them have the idea of using the Environmental Movement.

AB: Right. Joel, you said that you're a friend of Gary North. You don't share, in totality, Gary North's views on Y2K. I'm curious. Does Gary North share your view with respect to the "One-World Government" and what's going on in Russia?

JS: He used to, more than he does now. Gary has a particular theology, "Christian Reconstruction," which basically is looking for a way for any conspiracy N.W.O. to be taken down, and he believe that the Y2K is going to do this so that the "Kingdom of God" can be reestablished on Earth. And, peace and prosperity can be reestablished before the "Second Coming." That's kind of an oversimplification.

AB: Ok. Why wouldn't he embrace YOUR scenario, if that is the way he feels, as a good way to do it?

JS: Because my scenario doesn't assume that even a nuclear war is going to bring down big government. It's going to be that which ushers in the most tyrannical form of worldwide big government that we've ever seen. You see, I don't believe, in fact, that neither Y2K nor this war that they're planning is going to bring them down, because it is going to ENHANCE their power. And, I don't see us ever turning this situation around. I think this is the fighting of a withdrawal action that's trying to really survive what's coming, rather than "we're going to win this" ultimately. I think we've won the last of the wars we're ever going to win.

AB: I might not disagree with THAT one.

JS: In fact, World War 2 was not a win. A N.W.O. was completely in charge of the ending of that war. They manipulated Patton, they manipulated the end....the Russians coming in, the turning back of soldiers and prisoners to the Soviet Union. That was scripted by the N.W.O. crowd, including the loss of China after World War 2.

AB: All right. I'm SURE you're going to get a lot of reaction to what you've said. But, we're not done, because for the sake of our conversation coming up, we'll assume a serious disruption with Y2K. We'll even assume the N.W.O. attempting to implement its succession into power through a nuclear war, and then we'll talk about where places are safe should that occur. In other words, everybody wants to know where they ought to go. I assume you have that information.

JS: Yes, Art.

AB: Ok, that's what we're going to talk about when we get back. VERY interesting. I'm Art Bell. This is "Coast-to-Coast A.M."

AB: What my guest, this morning, is saying....Joel Skousen....is very much like a guest I had on not very long ago, {couldn't understand name because of background music}. They're virtually saying the same thing. I have a story here called, "Clinton Shift on Nuclear Warfare." It comes from the International News Electronic Telegraph, Monday, December 8, 1997. In a moment, I'm going to read it and we're going to see what Joel makes out of this. And then, we're going to go to open lines.


AB: Joel, I want to read this to you and see what you make of it, all right?

JS: Ok.

AB: "President Clinton has jettisoned America's Cold War strategy of preparing to win a protracted nuclear war. In orders to military chiefs, at the Pentagon last month, .... Remember, now, this is 1997 .... Mr. Clinton said that the U.S. instead should have a nuclear policy based on deterrents promising devastating retaliation, in the event or threat of attack. The Presidential Decision Directive still allows the first use of nuclear weapons to defend American Forces or those of its Allies. It also allows nuclear strikes against military AND civilian leadership it targets in Russia, which is still regarded as a threat despite the end of the Cold War. Mr. Clinton's alteration of a policy established by President Regan, 16 years ago however, adds to the list of possible targets and allows missiles to be aimed at China. Officials confirmed a report in the Washington Post, which quoted Robert Bell, the Director of Defense Policy, at the National Security Counsel, as saying, 'It would be a mistake to think that nuclear weapons no longer matter to this Administration.'" That would seem to be somewhat... In other words, if Mr. Clinton, in '97, was saying this, why did he just now change all of that?

JS: What that piece is, is a little bit of disinformation, Art. Those are responses to the criticism , which it does NOT mention. Part of the verbiage that the Administration was giving after the MAJOR outcry from military commanders, when he first announced that he was dropping the policy of "Launch on Warning." And, the mere fact that they don't mention the dropping of "Launch on Warning," indicates that this is a very selective view intended to pacify whoever ... {Art interrupts}

AB: Ok, are you saying we no longer or rather... I guess I'll put it this way... that we have ruled out the "First Use of Nuclear Weapons" or are you simply saying we have ruled out a response once we have been hit? I want to be VERY clear on what you're saying.

JS: Clinton, in his rebuttal to the ?, said, 'No, we can still agree to "First Launch of Nuclear Weapons," but we are NOT going to launch if we detect a launch.' That was not put out in the report that you just read. That was fairly discussed in the December 10 reports and December 9 reports on National Public Radio.

AB: That seems insane.

JS: It's NOT insane! These people are too intelligent to do something insane. They have a REASON for doing what they're doing. The reason is, I tell you, that they're inviting a nuclear attack and the bigger the better. There's no other reason, Art, for not "Launching on Warning." That is the ONLY deterrent. That's what's so laughable about this Robert Bell's pronouncement. He did it in the name of deterrents. You can sit down face to face with him and he can't tell you how you can deter if you don't "Launch on Warning." There are NO deterrents without "Launch on Warning."

AB: Well, I....I....I absolutely agree! Of course!!! If you can't launch on notification that there's been a massive launch against you, that's INSANITY! Insanity!

JS: Or, it's criminal.

AB: Or, it's even WORSE....yeah, CRIMINAL!

JS: That's what we're dealing with, Art. We're dealing with criminals who have decided to take down our Sovereignty.

AB: No. Let me go further. It's TRAITOROUS!

JS: Yes, it IS! It's treasonous.

AB: TREASON! That's another good word!

JS: But, it's FACT, Art. That's what's in place. You know what else? It's interesting how the U.S. negotiated a speed limit on anti- ballistic missiles. It's very interesting the way in which this was done, because it was supported by such notables as Newt Gingrich. What it does is it allows people, who are what I call "phony Conservatives" running the Republican Party, to actually give us an anti-ballistic missile some day. A system that, in fact, will not catch missiles because you can't catch high altitude ballistic missiles unless you exceed 4,000-5,000 feet per second. With a speed limit of 3,000, they can give the American people an A.B.M. someday....a system that in fact WON'T catch missiles.

AB: {Great pause...} Boy, I tell you. It's a crazier world than I can believe it is, if all of that is true. Um, ...

JS: That's why I say it's so important to think strategically and not about what the appearances are. You have to look at what the actual actions are and ask yourself the question, "Why do we accede to these types of demands so willingly?"

AB: All right. Rather than becoming bogged down in a discussion over this, because it's such a mind-blower for me, let's just say the scenarios are accurate. Your book addresses "safe places" in North America. I tend to believe that there couldn't be such a thing, but if there are, where would they be?

JS: There are two major factors that we're relating to....1) Y2K, and 2) major nuclear threats of war. I consider these the two major threats. Terrorism is another issue we can discuss, but there's a reason why we're not getting terrorism right now.

AB: It is not as strategic.

JS: That's right.

AB: Ok, so the two major ones are Y2K and this war you believe is coming.

JS: Both of these threats have, as a major component, excessively high population densities. Notice that if there is a meltdown of the social order....which there COULD be a Y2K and there most certainly will be a nuclear war. That means if you are caught in a maelstrom of humanity, you can't survive very well. You MUST be outside that, when that occurs. It's predictable in Y2K. You can leave town beforehand. You can go visit Aunt Nellie, you see, and get out of L.A. County. But, in a nuclear war, you don't have the same kind of notice, because this is going to be a surprise attack. I have some idea about when that might occur....when the window begins to open.

AB: By all means, TELL US!

JS: It's my opinion, from the testimony of certain defectors who testified that Russia is developing some very high-tech weaponry to try to compete with the U.S. high-tech weaponry. And, they don't want to launch this nuclear strike until that weaponry is developed. They also want to delay the strike until we have completed our disarmament of our 50 "Peacekeeper" missiles, our big blockbuster missiles, which occurs in the latter part of 2003 and 2004. So, I think the window for that strike opens after 2004. And, I don't think Russia can last economically and milk the rest for any more money much later than 2006-7-or 8. So, that's where I think the highest vulnerability window is....before the nuclear strike. One of the things that people can look for as a watch sign, if I'm correct historically, is that the Establishment always pulls a Depression before a war, to induce pacifism, isolationism, and lack of military spending. We'll probably see that Depression come in 2002 or 3. Maybe even a littler earlier if Y2K destabilizes the stock market.

AB: What I would like you to do, if you wouldn't mind now, is talk to some of the public. I want to see what they think about what you said. Obviously, you're telling people, temporarily at the very least, be prepared to get OUT of the population centers to the country somewhere, right?

JS: Right, but not necessarily pull out all your stakes and drop your job. I'm talking about contingency plans.

AB: Yeah, I understand....something for a relatively short period of time. What it comes down to is safe places would be, obviously, not near strategic locations....not near silos....that sort of thing. Right?

JS: That's right. And, especially there're a great deal of targets now, in the NEW list of the Russians, that have to do with space monitoring, space warning systems. Those can hit relatively unknown places like Maui Space Warning Station or Holliman AFB down in southern New Mexico. We still don't have any other strategic targets other than the German Air Force, now.

The rest of the interview is on realaudio dealing with more of the same.


"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 12, 1999.

Andy, great jalls of fire, that's the longest post ever, 54 Kb, you get the longevity award ;-) BTW, I've been corresponding with the man who obtained that Sufi quote, and it's legit! Like those spiritual prophets, and love good Sufi music -- we collect that type of heavenly sound for music therapy. Nuclear stuff is beyond us tho :-O

Ashton & Leska in Cascadia, listening to Mystic Dance O:-)
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 12, 1999.


I don't sell books, he does. Or tries to. I have absolutly nothing to gain from this B.S. and I, like everyone else, would lose everything should it ever come about.

Let's worry about the real world and leave this thing here in cyber world. It belongs under the heading of "Fairy Tales". We have a plate full as it is.


-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 12, 1999.

OK Bob - enough already - my Brother never watches the news or listens to the news, I get his point every now and then :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 12, 1999.

Thanks Andy. I think everyone has enough information now to make an intelligent judgement. Those who want to know what is going on will.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 12, 1999.

Nikoli Krushev;

I just want to apoligize to you for my completely uncalled for personal remark in my original post to this thread.

I was wrong to attack you personally. For that I do apoligize to you and to all other viewers.


-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 12, 1999.

Thanks Bob, but no apology required. This thread deals with a very serious issue and I knew I was gonna get flamed before I started it. Nobody wants to think about something like this, and emotions are bound to run high. I just felt that no matter the consequences this information should be available for people to review. If it saves one life it is worth the additional worry I have placed on others.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 12, 1999.


Your last point was very welcome. No one wants to deal with issues like this just as people find themselves in denial about y2k and other issues.

Big Toe wrote "That is not to say an adversary may not think that degraded US capabilities mean it's a good time to do something bad, but I hardly think going nuclear is the problem. Keep an eye on the China/Taiwan situation as well as North Korea. If they belive our C4 could not control a response to agression, you may see a more tactical conflict environment."

That really is the issue but it isn't limited to China/Taiwan and North Korea although it does seem they are in the midst of positioning themselves.

Can anyone say with certainty that this world is not more dangerous than it was when the U.S.S.R. was a superpower? At least at that time there were "rules" or the illusion of "rules" for the cold war.

Now we are faced with forces that operate without national borders and even forces which operate within our own.

In L.A. County over the last month or so we have had at least 20 or more Antrax scares. That is, someone calls up a threat after leaving a bag or container somewhere. The most recent scare was at the Queen Mary in Long Beach, about 7 miles from me. This is during a time of calm and peace. What might the future hold?

It's not a question of "if" but a question of "when will" attacks occur. The context of "Y2k" allows for a more concise statement if the U.S. is in chaos. Immediately, during the chaos and confusion, the fear factor of an act of terrorism is increased a million times. Is there really any question as to why our alphabet agencies are so paranoid at this time? To me, the answers seem plainly obvious.

I don't have high level security clearance and I am not in a position to give specifics for weapons, systems, etc. but that really isn't the issue. It isn't a question of what weapons or how those weapons will be utilized or what weapons will be degraded. As seen in Oaklahoma, catastrophic damage can be done with a home made device utilizing simple chemistry. Isn't the largest bomb sans a nuke in the U.S. arsenal the "fuel-air" bomb? Doesn't that bomb, which is very low tech, have the capability to do incredible damage in line with a small nuke?

I'm not in the military. I'm not a computer programmer. I'm not a technician. I'm not a high level government contractor with security clearance.

I am a man who does, on occassion, fear for the safety of his family and wonder what group or individual will be next to act in their desire to step on the toe of "the Great Satan".

In the context of y2k and the chaos, or even perceived chaos that will reign, someone will take advantage of the situation. Does it really matter if it is a government or a terrorist group or a lone psycho or a "doomsday cult"?

China/Taiwan and North Korea are very serious problems which are being handled delicately by diplomats on a daily basis. China does have the largest, low-tech, WWII vintage, standing army on the face of the planet and an AK can kill people too it just takes longer. We have thousands of American troops stationed on the Korean peninsula who are in danger of being over run every day by the North. North Korea has test fired at least two multi-stage rockets over Japan. Attacking the U.S. mainland is not a requirement to wage war against U.S. interests.

Even so, the Chinese also hold another card. They are a growing economic and industrial force in the world which will rival the U.S. very soon. China may never need to utilize a weapon or system to gain control over countries we call our friends.

Many here work with or understand the smallest details with regard to weapon systems. I even sense pride in the systems under question. If y2k brings the U.S. to our knees because of failures in the kinds of weapons and technologies many seem to put so much of their faith into then that is a very sobering lesson indeed.

Let's hope and pray that is all we learn from y2k.

Mike =====================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 13, 1999.

Well said Mike, and I agree with you .

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 13, 1999.

"Even so, the Chinese also hold another card. They are a growing economic and industrial force in the world which will rival the U.S. very soon. China may never need to utilize a weapon or system to gain control over countries we call our friends."

That's what I thought too Mike then I read this:-

"But read the wire reports on the Internet if you don't believe me. China can't expect to continue it's 45 billion dollar surplus with the United States, especially after the house report on their systematic spy effort is released. The political fallout from the collapse of US manufacturing will also factor in. So Japan and China will both tank in 1999. As for Russia, they are technically in default on their 145 billion dollars in loans. Maybe sometime somebody can explain to me why capitalist bankers loan money to people who don't believe in capitalism. Oh Yes, the taxpayers are the lenders of the last resort."

Link at:-


-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 13, 1999.

Andy, I read that too. Great point.

Kinda strange huh? Some of the things China has are years of isolationism behind it, a very rural population not heavily dependent on technology, a population which exists without much of the freedoms we take for granted, and an economy which seems to be producing and exporting everything from toys to weapons at an amazing pace.

Honestly, I don't really see how any country involved in todays world economy can get through the next few years without very serious problems. If there are disruptions in oil production and other vital goods then what better reason is there for a country to take to arms to secure those vital goods? It's happened before after all. It's happening now.

I really hate looking at the world this way. I'm an optimist for gosh sakes. I hope I am so far off base and wrong my head will spin when someone flames me for my absolute ignorance. That would really make me smile!

Mike ==========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 13, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ