Russia Admits It Needs $3 Billion To Fight Millennium Bug

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia conceded Wednesday it needs up to $3 billion to tackle the Year 2000 computer glitch -- six times the original estimate -- and appealed to the United States to help fix computers which control stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Overwhelmed with debts to pensioners and foreign creditors, Russia's government has long played down the cost and urgency of confronting the so-called "millennium bug," which could destabilize computer systems that control Russia's nuclear arsenal, the world's second largest.

The cost is staggering in a country so broke that its draft budget for this year foresees just $21 billion in revenues.

Last year, officials estimated they would need $500 million to make sure older computers do not recognize the new double-zero date as 1900 rather than 2000, which could make systems go haywire.

But the old sum was announced before a thorough review of the problem, said Alexander Krupnov, chairman of Russia's Central Telecommunications Commission, which is coordinating the country's work on the millennium bug.

After the first extensive study of government agencies facing potential computer failures -- those that control military bases, oil pipelines and airports -- Krupnov upped the estimate Wednesday to $2-3 billion.

And with just 330 days to go before the changeover, Krupnov said each agency was responsible for finding funds to solve the problem.

"These agencies have already done half their jobs, they've counted out how much" money they'll need, he told a news conference. "Now they're seeking their own sources of financing."

He made no suggestions about where the cash might come from, but he did appeal to NATO and the U.S. Defense Department to consult with Russia on the problem.

Russia wants to "speak the same language" as the U.S. Defense Department and NATO, he said.

Russia has already agreed to allow NATO experts to investigate the potential danger to Russian weapons systems from the glitch. While an errant missile launch brought on by a computer clock failure would be highly unlikely, computer snags could sabotage related systems, such as radar and telecommunications networks.

Krupnov would not say how much money the Defense Ministry needs for the Year 2000 problem, but said the energy sector needs a hefty chunk -- $160 million.

A key task will be keeping heating systems functioning across this vast, northern country next Jan. 1, he said.

He also warned that the widespread use of pirated software in Russia could threaten many computer systems.

Still, many analysts say Russia won't be as badly damaged by the millennium bug as countries like the United States because Russia has far fewer computers and a lower overall level of technology.

While Krupnov insisted that his commission was doing everything it could, he said, "Who knows if the country will be ready. ... I can't give any guarantees."
----------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 03, 1999

Answers

Their definitions are different than ours.
'"These agencies have already done half their jobs, they've counted out how much" money they'll need, he told a news conference. "Now they're seeking their own sources of financing."'

Already proven their $$ estimates are woefully wrong, short.
Have they actually done any assessments or inventories or just guesstimated their $$ ballparks?

What percentage of their "heating systems" are fueled by nuclear plants?

Do the Russian people know anything about this yet? Are they gathering beets, potatoes, and wood? Winter is long, cold and hard.

Are there any Forum readers who are well-versed with the Russian situation? Can you tell us how the Russian people are reacting?

Can anybody tell us how much of a danger the nuclear Y2K breakdown presents?

US citizens used to be more concerned about nuclear possibilities.
Would this information re-stir those concerns?
Are there nuclear/military readers who can comment on this?

mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm m

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), February 03, 1999.

From article:

"Russia wants to "speak the same language" as the U.S. Defense Department and NATO, he said. "

My understanding based on various reviews by the GAO and congressional oversight committees is that the DOD is way behind in their remediation efforts. Wonder what kind of language this might be??

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 03, 1999.

It feels like just days ago that USA offered to help Russia with its weapons, and Russia said "no thanks, rather do it myself!" Meanwhile, on Gary's site (I can't get in it at the moment), South Korea is begging Russia to help North Korea remediate N. Korea's Russian-manufactured missiles. (That sounds REAL likely to happen!)

The reason Russia "won't be as badly damaged as the US" is cuz its economy has already melted down. (At least we don't lose much of a trading partner.)

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), February 03, 1999.

Ashton, I can and have commented many times on this forum about nuclear capabilities both Russian and American. I was in the military on the nuclear strategic planning side and worked at NORAD. Russia is toast now and Y2K won't make that much of a difference. I believe that nuclear threats from Y2K are almost non-existent. There's more of a threat from meteors. My knowledge comes from nothing any of you will ever see on the web. But go ahead and throw those flames.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 03, 1999.

No flames, Ave Maria, but I will throw you appreciative compliments if you'll further address the meteor comment you made... whacha know about this? Thanks in advance......

-- Lisa (lisa@here.now), February 03, 1999.

I am not interested in throwing flames. I am seeking valid information. Safety concerns. Observation from those working with these issues.

mmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmm

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), February 03, 1999.

Ironically, the mayor of Romny, Ukraine visited my medium-sized city this week, and I asked specifically (through the interpreter) about power generation. More than 50 percent is nuclear, the remainder relying on natural gas. I suspect the rest of the former Soviet Union would have similar generation capacities. I asked specifically, too, about Y2K and was told that it will be a severe problem, though Ukrainians and most others in those sad countries are in desparate straits already. It's hard to worry about Y2K when you can't feed your family, the mayor said.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), February 03, 1999.

Just a little background. I worked on simulations of nuclear strikes. In that job, I needed to understand both US and Soviet military strategic capabilities including trajectories, warheads, nuclear weapons effects as well as the social and economical status of foreign threats. These factors all play in the war game. I cant say much more than that. But I will comment that the Soviet Union never had a firm grip on all these factors at the same time, so a strike could not materialize. It did peak at one point but that peak is long gone. The economic state of the defunked Soviet Union makes the hair trigger scenario less likely. True, we still need to maintain a lid on this thing but we use a lot less pressure.

Now a little on the missile warning capabilities. What you saw in the movies was pretty accurate. Im not up on the Y2K compliance of the hardware, so Ill grant the possibility of some hardware failures. I do know about the software. Most is not year dependent. Old messages are discarded within the minutes timeframe, not years. Again I wont go into the detail but to bring up one point. Theres always a man in the loop. It takes a couple of phone conversations to discuss the situation as well as electronic messages and missile officers to turn keys. The weapons do not launch on their own. Too many things need to fall into place for a weapons strike. Y2K failures are not that sophisticated. Also, I know a little about telecomm and I believe that it will stay up. Look at my thread on telecommunications satellites in the archives.

With regard to stored nuclear weapons, its hard to imagine that they will simultaneously detonate in their storage facilities. The detonators are not connected in the facility. The radioactive material can not self explode; it will continue to decay however since that is its nature.

I know nothing about nuclear power plants.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 03, 1999.

marie: who gives a damn if they can launch a nuke. They need $3 BILLION. Only 160 MILLION is for the whole military. The problem is that if Russia dies, the nukes get traded to the highest bidder! And as if giving them $3 BILLION in cash would MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE! LOL!!! How about a few years and a few thouands programmers to go with those fries Boris? ROTFLMAO

What's that? OH! Peter deJackoff sez the "technical problem" has been solved. So we don't have to worry our poor little selves anymore, is that it Troll?

You pollannas are really getting more disgusting by the day.

-- a (a@a.a), February 03, 1999.

Thanks a, for your answering some of the above questions. Nice to see you could keep the discussion going.

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 03, 1999.

And BTW, Russia did die and the nukes started going to the highest bidder long ago.

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 03, 1999.

Troll Maria....

Can you shed any insight into a question I have. A few years ago I read a book that had a chapter on nuclear weapons. The author claimed that the nuclear threat was basically a smokescreen because nuclear warheads could only be detonated at certain places on the globe at certain precise times, something about the orbit of the earth and the sun..........the author claims that this is the reason why they are really ineffective as weapons as the enemy always knows months in advance what places and exact times are possible for strikes.

I have not read anything else whatsoever about this except in the one book. Is this as far fetched as it sounds or is there any truth to it?

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), February 03, 1999.

Yeah Craig, I think it's pretty farfetched. "warheads could only be detonated at certain places on the globe at certain precise times, something about the orbit of the earth and the sun." Nukes are programmed with a certain trajectory, they can actually attain orbit but the orbit is one that interests with a point on the earth. This may be what the chapter was referring to. Orbital mechanics follow mathematical laws and the motion of the earth is considered when the trajectory is programmed. The sun or time of day has nothing to do in this particular instance, though it does play a part in satellite launches. So, any nuke can hit any place on the globe. What was the name of the book?

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 03, 1999.

The book was one written by a man called Barry Smith of New Zealand, and I believe it was called 'Final Warning'. The man is basically an 'End Times' preacher. He claims he got this information form someone high up in the nuclear industry. He says it is why they announce the time, date and location of nuclear tests months in advance because they know that they can only detonate under these conditions.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), February 03, 1999.

Craig: I think Barry Smith is seriously misinformed. That information is not worth the paper it's written on.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 03, 1999.

Maria,

I agree that an accidental launch is an unlikely occurance. I chuckled at your post;

Theres always a man in the loop. It takes a couple of phone conversations to discuss the situation as well as electronic messages and missile officers to turn keys. The weapons do not launch on their own.

I was picturing a frightened man in the loop -- with a clobbered picture on his display, afraid that we had launched, and without phone communications. Although the old soviets had a massive command and control structure -- junior officers had to get permission to go to the toilet -- some people who are frightened enough just may turn the keys. Of such are disasters made.

I think the major problem arising from all of this is that Germany is supposed to get a large amount of power (40% ?) from Russian nukes. Russia *is* toast. Russia goes deeper into trouble (and the point made above about them selling nuclear warheads is a good one), but Germany loses substantial electric power. This is not good.

Welcome back, PNG!

-- De (dealton@concentric.net), February 03, 1999.

Craig,

You might be thinking of Bruce Cathie, "Harmonic Conquest of Space" and other squirrely but nonetheless revelatory works. Another case that proves the dictum "the stupider it looks, the more important it probably is." I think he's wrong about the conditionality of nuke detonation. But he's on to something. He doesn't know precisely what, but he's on to it. I can't find a title for that preacher with what would seem to be the same idea...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 03, 1999.

Re: The man in the loop concept... I have a faint memory of a movie (long, long ago) about a standoff between between 2 subs. I seem to remember the end of the movie was a scene with the U.S. skipper saying something to the effect:

"Well, If they fire one, I'll fire one."

Crewmember: "FIRE ONE!"

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 03, 1999.

There are a lot less people in that Russian loop now. Two weeks ago Yeltsins entire top echelon of military advisors and commanding generals resigned, leaving him in sole posession of the "suitcase". I see Troll Maria is up to her disinformation tricks again, saying the Russians can't get it together to launch a strike on us. Funny they were the only nation in the world with the technichal know how to single handedly put a space station into orbit, and the only one with the heavy lift capability to orbit the main crew quarters of the new station. They have also just put the worlds most advanced mobile ICBM into production-deployment. In light of their past achievements and ongoing weapons development it is ludicrous to think a strike against the United States is beyond their capabilities.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 03, 1999.

PNG

Seems to me that movie was called "The Bedford Incident"

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 03, 1999.

Ray - I think their common language might end up being manual morse...

Nik - afraid I have to agree with TM on this one (is that a first?) - she didn't say that they couldn't TRY to get it together to launch a strike...it's more that their politcal and military command system is so fragmented, and their maintenance is so very bad, that the chances of successfully *ahem* intentionally *ahem* launching much of anything are very low. If they do manage to get a bird airborne, intentionally or otherwise, it's much more likely to go thud than BOOM! Oh, and BTW those mobile ICBMs have always been a wild card, not because they were mobile, but because they inevitably shook the living you-know-what out of the missile...not exactly what you'd call conducive to reliability and accuracy. I would NOT want to be a crew member on one of those launchers...no joke.

Craig - I'd wager that someone was pulling said preacher's leg - many older ICBMs were very difficult to reprogram. Basicly they had a very limited number of preprogrammed options and that was it. So to the extent that a given missile could only be pointed at one of a very few places, you *could* say that any particular weapon could only detonate in a few locations...didn't have anything to do with the physics of the situation though.

TM - any thoughts on the nuclear mines (a.k.a. "suitcase nukes")? My bet is that we discover at least one of them in the middle east along about next New Years Day...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 04, 1999.

Arnie,Those mobile ICBM's are solid fuel rockets. NO valves, pumps, pipes etc. As for the solid state electronics, I have a 1976 4x4 blazer that has bounced through creeks, mudholes, potholes, ravines,you name it. The body looks like a refugee from a wrecking yard. Every electrical system in that truck is still operational, including the factory radio. I also don't agree with your conclusions on the maintainence of the older missiles. The Russians have been pouring billions into building new underground shelters and rapid transit systems. Those ICBM,s are their sole remaining card as a superpower. Why would they not maintain them? The very fragmentation of the government and Military is what makes the situation so dangerous. The military is riddled with hard line communist who achieved their positions solely because of their beliefs. I can quite easily envision a scenario where a group of these hardliners siezes power and performs the deed.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 04, 1999.

Arlin, sorry about calling you Arnie. Been reading too many threads, need some sleep.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 04, 1999.

Funny how Russia is just now deciding to panic. They'd been warned about possible failures in their nuclear systems, oil, phones, electricity, etc. No go, weren't interested-No problem, comrades, we will just fix when she breaks. I wonder if they just now assessed the vodka factories and realized that they wouldn't be able to put out vodka? Now that's a scary thought!:)

-- Damian Solorzano (oggy1@webtv.net), February 04, 1999.

Arlin, It's been awhile since I was in that business. I remember studying the "mini" nukes for destroying runways. At the time the technology was there to make it worthwhile and the conventional weapons would do the trick just as easily. Knowing how some of tensions in middle east, I wouldn't throw out that possibility. I'm just unsure that all the pieces can fall into place by that time.

Nik, I extremely doubt that they are "pouring billions into building new underground shelters" and it would take a revolution (not totally inprobable) for the military to launch any attack.

Not sure who to direct this comment: Even though the man in the loop needs to turn the key, a launch does not occur without authentication and an order.

Damian, It is puzzling why Russia has turned around on their "fix on failure" mode. I wonder who or what is applying the pressure.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 04, 1999.

Oops, typo "The technology wasn't there"

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 04, 1999.

Moscow Builds Bunkers Against Nuclear Attack By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES April 1, 1997 Anita Sands 6-18-98

Russia is continuing a Cold War-era program to build deep underground bunkers, subways and command posts to help Moscow's leaders flee the capital and survive a nuclear attack, The Washington Times has learned. Among the ambitious projects: a secret subway being built directly to the residence of Russian President Boris Yeltsin outside Moscow. "The underground construction appears larger than previously assessed," a CIA report labeled "top secret" reported two weeks ago. "Three decrees last year on an emergency planning authority under Yeltsin with oversight of underground facility construction suggest that the purpose of the Moscow-area projects is to maintain continuity of leadership during nuclear war." A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Times from defense sources. A CIA spokesman declined to comment. Disclosure of the secret multibillion-dollar construction program comes less than two weeks after President Clinton and Mr. Yeltsin agreed in Helsinki to extend the deadline for nuclear arms cuts under the START II treaty because of Russian concerns over "dismantlement costs." U.S. officials said the Russian spending on strategic defenses, coupled with ongoing procurement of new strategic missiles and submarines, raises questions about Moscow's claims not to have funds needed to carry out START II reductions. The outlays also raise new worries among some U.S. officials about whether U.S. aid to Russia is allowing Moscow to spend its money on building new strategic forces and facilities. "How can the United States be so gullible to accept Russian claims that it doesn't have the money to comply with START II when it's made the decision to modernize its forces and build these underground facilities?" asked one U.S. government defense official. According to the CIA report, construction work is continuing on a "nuclear-survivable, strategic command post at Kosvinsky Mountain," located deep in the Ural Mountains about 850 miles west of Moscow. Satellite photographs of Yamantau Mountain, also located about 850 miles west of Moscow in the Urals near the town of Beloretsk, show continued digging at the "deep underground complex" and new construction at each of the site's above-ground support areas, the CIA stated. Yamantau Mountain means "Evil Mountain" in the local Bashkir langauge. "The command post at Kosvinsky appears to provide the Russians with the means to retaliate against a nuclear attack," the CIA report said. "The rationale for the Yamantau complex is unclear." According to the CIA report, the Russians are building or renovating four complexes within Moscow that would be used to house senior Russian government leaders during a nuclear strike. A map published in the report showed new subway construction under way from Victory Park Station in Moscow to Mr. Yeltsin's dacha, some 13 miles west of the Kremlin and about four miles from the Moscow Ring Road. Additionally, the CIA report stated that a bunker for Russian leaders at Voronovo, about 46 miles south of Moscow, is nearly complete. A second bunker located at Sharapovo, some 34 miles from Moscow, has a special underground subway running directly to it. The subway system for Russian leaders allows for "rapid evacuation of leaders during wartime from Moscow," the CIA said. Presumably, the leadership would then be flown to the Yamantau or Kosvinsky complexes. According to the report, Mr. Yeltsin and Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin endorsed the construction of the bunkers, subways and command posts, and funding for the Yamantau facility was listed for the first time this year in the Russian federal budget. Peter Pry, a former CIA analyst and author of a new book on Russian nuclear operations, said the continued construction of the Russian strategic defense sites is ominous and cannot be dismissed by U.S. officials as "inertia" from Cold War-era strategic policies. "It shows they take the threat of nuclear war so seriously that they're willing to spend scarce resources on it," Mr. Pry said, adding that he was not familiar with the CIA report. "These things are tying down billions of dollars in rubles that could go into other enterprises the Russians need -- for example, providing housing for Russian military officers." Mr. Pry said Russian press reports say the underground facility at Yamantau Mountain covers an area as large as the Capital Beltway. The Clinton administration has been providing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to Russia to help Moscow dismantle its nuclear arsenal. Despite the aid, the CIA report shows that the Russians are building both defensive and offensive strategic facilities and weapons, including a new type of long-range strategic missile and a new strategic missile submarine. Russian Defense Minister Igor Rodionov said in February that both the reliability and control of Russian nuclear weapons were in question because of the deterioration of the armed forces, but Pentagon officials have dismissed the statements as posturing by Mr. Rodionov in a bid to boost his budget. Mr. Pry said the Russian construction program also shows that Russian leaders do not see a diminished threat of nuclear conflict. "This is a manifestation of the Russians' continued war-fighting attitudes," Mr. Pry said. "They believe in the idea that you can survive and prevail in a nuclear conflict. These kinds of facilities are designed to survive for weeks and months." By contrast, U.S. nuclear protective facilities have been largely shut down. The complex underneath the Greenbriar resort in Virginia was abandoned, along with another facility in Virginia known as Mount Weather, U.S. officials have said. The main nuclear command facility now in existence is located inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colo., but it was only designed to withstand small nuclear blasts and would easily be knocked out in a large Russian missile attack. By contrast, there are no nuclear weapons currently in the U.S. arsenal capable of damaging the new Russian strategic defense facilities. _______________ "War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in thirty or forty years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The Western world will need to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There shall be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate to their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist." (Dmitrii Z. Manuilskii) (Lenin School of Political Warfare, Moscow, 1931)

Troll Maria, Any more questions?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 04, 1999.

How can Russia depend on others including the US to help bail them out when we (the US) are still dealing with scenarios such as the one that cropped up only 10 weeks ago?

http://cnn.co m/US/9811/27/pentagon.y2k/index.html 0-----snip of article-------0 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An apparent misunderstanding led the Pentagon agency responsible for the safety and security of the nation's nuclear stockpiles to misreport data on whether its computer systems have been programmed to handle the Year 2000 bug.

Three "mission-critical" computer systems were classified as Y2K-compliant by the Defense Special Weapons Agency (DSWA) without completing the required independent testing, according to a Department of Defense Inspector General's report.

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 04, 1999.

Mr. Kennedy, all the money in the world will not fix Russia's problems at this point. They are simply out of time. It is my belief that the senior military officials intentionally misled the politburo as to the seriousness of the y2k problem until the problem was past fixing. They are now simply facing a use it or lose it scenario.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 04, 1999.

Nik, Running the risk of prolonging a discussion with you, I'll make only one comment: I'm glad you know how to read a newspaper. The Washington Post may have come across the news and congratulations to them for some "investigative" reporting. No comments from intelligence community on it. Underground facilities have been a instrumental in protection of key military figures. However your article is old and the events it cites is even older news. You said "pouring billions into building new underground shelters". There's nothing new about these shelters.

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 04, 1999.

***Mr. Kennedy, all the money in the world will not fix Russia's problems at this point.***

How true Nikoli. You can put a money figure on anything, but you can't buy time.

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 04, 1999.

Troll Maria. Exactly how long do you think it takes to build an underground complex the size of Washington D.C.? And to install high speed underground railways out of Moscow? That article is less than two years old, and the facts were taken from CIA documents. Of course the CIA didn't comment on it. What were they going to say? "Well yes the Russians are using all that IMF money we are giving them to buid bomb shelters and new Nuclear weapons." It has only been a month since Russia announced it had complete testing of that new ICBM referred to in the article, and construction of the shelters continues today. Now why does Moscow and their military deem these projects more important than paying their troops, to the extent of neglecting all other aspects of their economy and infrastructure? This is not a new plan, it was well concieved, thought out, and they have remained commited to this course of action in spite of intense pressure from foreign countries and their own population. Wake up and smell the roses, something is very, very rotten here.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 04, 1999.

Nik, I know how long it takes to build an underground facility. One is built in my home town. Now a question for you, how old do you think the CIA document is?

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 04, 1999.

Maria, It isn't very old at all. If you will note in the article it Specifies that Yeltsin OK'd these projects, not Gorbachev. Here's a little backup.Top Russian Military Advisers Quit Leaving Yeltsin With Nuke Trigger By Anna Blundy 1-13-99

MOSCOW - The resignations of four senior members of Russia's armed forces have jeopardized the country's nuclear security and left President Yeltsin in sole charge of the "nuclear suitcase," the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper reported Tuesday. Lieutenant-General Anatoli Sokolov, commander of the Missile Attack Prevention Division, said he felt his work for the army to be "senseless." Three of his deputies also resigned in protest at being brought under the control of the Strategic Missile Troops. Until now General Sokolov and his colleagues have been regarded as the President's key advisers on the workings of the "nuclear suitcase." Their resignations came after military reforms designed to cut costs and improve efficiency. The newspaper expressed outrage at the loss of the four senior officers and described with derision the results of General Sokolov's request for a further investigation into the merging of the two units. Apparently, the investigation took the form of reprimands for Russia's foremost electronics experts for wearing shoe laces that were too long. However, Aleksandr Goltz, military expert for Itogi magazine, said the resignations were more the result of internal infighting than a matter of military principle and said nuclear security had not been put at risk. "These men are no longer as important as they used to be and it came as quite a shock to them to be stripped of their status," he said. Russia's nuclear capability remains a threat both to itself and to the rest of the world. A report last year by Germany's Peace and Conflict Research Foundation said that serious problems with early-warning systems in Russia meant that nuclear weapons were often kept in a permanent state of alert and that they could be launched within minutes of a real or imagined attack.

SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 04, 1999.

Here's some more.

Russia Restocks Nuclear Missile Inventory With The Topol-M By Dennis Bueckert Canadian Press 12-28-98 MOSCOW (CNN) -- Russia has added 10 new intercontinental ballistic missiles to its nuclear arsenal, the first deployment of a long-term project to modernize its nuclear weaponry. Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev inaugurated the first batch of the Topol-M missile in the Russia's Saratov region over the weekend, declaring it ready for combat. "It's a weapon for the 21st century," he said. "It has a lot of capabilities that make it a weapon for the future." The single-warhead missile is designed to replace heavier, silo-based multiple-warhead missiles. The Topol-M is lightweight and mobile, with a reported range of 6,200 miles (10,000 kilometers). More than 40 are set to be built by the end of 2000. Analysts say the timing of the deployment, while Russia suffers from the worst economic crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union, highlights Moscow's interest in maintaining its nuclear strength even though it lacks the money to beef up its conventional forces. According to Russian officials, the Topol-M is 'a weapon for the 21st century.' "There is a belief that only strategic nuclear forces keep Russia in the club of great nations," said military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. Russia's parliament is drafting a bill that would guarantee funding to strategic missile forces until 2010, regardless of the country's economic situation. However, funding for the missile has not assured salaries for those who build it. The workers who manufactured the first Topol-Ms are still owed more than $1 million in back wages.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 04, 1999.

No Nik, I didn't ask about the article, Helsenki gave that one away. I asked about the CIA document. Let me give you a clue. Secret documents can be downgraded after twenty years. The rules are more stringent on Top Secret and intelligence documents. If this reporter saw a CIA document you can bet it was pretty old info. If he saw a classified document then he broke the law.

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 05, 1999.

Maria, please get help with your reading comprehension skills. If you will slowly read the first paragraph of the article you will see that the cia document referenced was only two weeks old at the time the article was written, and was obtained from DOD sources. It clearly references Yeltsin as the policy maker further proving the time frame. Now a little further down it says "Greater than origionally assesed" Now I suppose you could construe that to mean this is a new attachment to an older document, but clearly the information in the report was fresh intelligence. It may be illegal for top secret information to be released to the press but it is done on a daily basis in Washington through controlled leaks. I can't remember the last time a reporter was held in contempt for not revealing his sources, it has been a while. I think it was back during the deep throat days of the Nixon impeachment. Didn't work then and it won't work now.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 05, 1999.

Hi Nik,

sorry I took so long to reply. two points here:

1. the reason that the (oops typed "sovs" the first time...er, uh...) the reason the Russians haven't maintained their strategic missile assets is that they haven't been able to afford to do so. They haven't even been paying their troops on a regular basis for over a year. Money, rubles, spare parts and technicians, that's why there hasn't been proper maintenance.

2. Go back and re-read the article you posted on the deployment of the Topol-M. The reporter bought a line of propagada from his sources - modernization is NOT replacing a MIRV'ed (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle =multiple warhead) system with a single warhead system that's smaller and less capable - which is what they're doing here. Rather it's a stop gap measure...also per your comment ask someone who has had to maintain radio equipment in the field for extend periods just how thoroughly solid state equipment can get scrambled when you maneuver cross country.

oh well, let's just hope they keep them aimed primarily at China...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 05, 1999.

Some recent DoD testimony about the Russian military and Y2K here

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), February 05, 1999.

Lewis, that was one of the more happy face articles I have read. I'm certainly glad the electrical grid and the banking system are in no danger. I just wonder if "Don't Worry, Be Happy" was playing in the background with a huge american flag waving in the fan driven breeze while this farce was taking place?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 05, 1999.