Russia: It's Worse Than They Thought : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

-- Gayla Dunbar (, February 10, 1999


So now you have all of these Governments, including ours, that knows come 2000 they will be vurtually impotent. Time is now much less than 180 working days to do SOMETHING to reaffirm their control and remain, or become top dog. Pre-emptive strike now seems like not such a bad idea. People are going to starve and die anyway, why not make sure we are on top of the heap when the dust clears.

-- sam (we', February 10, 1999.

A plausible scenario, sam (unfortunately). Let's hope the Russian leaders don't have this twisted outlook, but if they have very little to lose, who knows what they might do...

-- Nabi Davidson (, February 10, 1999.

Sam, you mean to say that the US would initiate the strike. That's not even close to being plausible. The US has always played the "peacekeeper" (name of a missile), look at Bosnia. Besides, we're already the sole superpower left. What would we have to gain? I might believe that Russia may throw the first blow but the nukes are the only thing of value they have. They wouldn't waste them when they know they can't follow through and take over the world. They would be better off selling them. Think this one through.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (, February 10, 1999.

troll maria, That ^$#@% you just spewed smacks of propoganda. A commander has the moral right to put his troops in harms way to win. A commander in chief may feel he has the same right with civilians. Desparate times call for Desparate measures.

-- sam (we', February 10, 1999.

To clarify, NO I don't believe that the US Gov't would make a pre-emptive strike on any OTHER nation.

-- sam (we', February 10, 1999.

Sam, you stated "People are going to starve and die anyway, why not make sure we are on top of the heap when the dust clears" We meaning the US? You left that one open.

-- Maria (, February 10, 1999.

Sam, you stated "A commander has the moral right to put his troops in harms way to win. A commander in chief may feel he has the same right with civilians. Desparate times call for Desparate measures" Again are you stating US or Russia? And you're right kings do sacrifice their pawns.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (, February 10, 1999.

Hi Maria, how are you today?

-- Nikoli Krushev (, February 10, 1999.

OK, I've calmed down. It's the fact that your statement is extrememly naive. That the "system" is going to play fair. I can quote many more times the our Govt has been extremely underhanded and didn't care about the casualties incured. Pearl Harbor screams out at this point.

-- sam (we', February 10, 1999.


Investigative reporter Chris Ruddy has released a new (paid) report that details plans of both China and Russia to engage in war, with Y2K as the trigger. Chris Ruddy first came to light as a truth-detector investigative reporter when he exposed a fraudulent public television "documentary" of an African-American military squadron. He later received the thanks of the members of that squadron for, "exposing the lies and bringing the truth to the people." More recently, Ruddy is known for his investigation into the "strange death of Vince Foster," also the name of his book on the subject.

His new report details major developments in China and Russia that appear as war preparations -- developments that have gone unnoticed by the major media:

* China and Russia have openly entered into an alliance -- an alliance intended, by their own admission, to challenge the dominance of the United States.

* Russia's war machine continues to expand.

* Russia has been moving its strategic nuclear warheads onto their naval ships -- where they will be less vulnerable to an American counter strike.

* Russia has been hoarding food, gold and oil.

* Russia has regularly put its nuclear forces on high alert -- which has the effect of fooling America's early warning systems.

* Russia's military has been engaging numerous mock attacks against the United States -- these exercises have included Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces, bombers and naval forces.

More importantly, a 45-minute video interview with Colonel Lunev, a high-ranking military intelligence officer who defected from Russia, provides credible testimony that Russia is still preparing for nuclear war.

...While we normally don't plug other organization's "for sale" informational reports, this one is a useful report that discusses the possibility of a Y2K-triggered nuclear exchange. It's recommended reading, even if you're skeptical about the claims.

Link HERE.

From 2/10/99 Y2KNewswire

-- Nabi Davidson (, February 10, 1999.

Have you all seen the new flag? hope this works


-- sam (we', February 10, 1999.

-- sam (, February 10, 1999.

Sam, who said anything about playing fair? All is fair in love and war. I look at the possible gains and the best approach to attain those gains. Who cares about fair?

Nabi, can't believe anything that comes from y2knewswire. The statement "Russia has been moving its strategic nuclear warheads onto their naval ships -- where they will be less vulnerable to an American counter strike" doesn't make sense from any point of view. Less vulnerable to a counter strike? Putting on ships, doesn't mean they can launch, but only hide. That's not at all economic, even stupid Russians should know that. The shell game is much more reasonable given the number of places Russia can hide on land.

The remaining "points" have been happening for a long time on both sides. That's what strategic planning is all about, nothing new.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (, February 10, 1999.

Y2KNewswire is so high, they would need a stepladder to scratch their ass... they twist every piece of news into an argument to buy their y2K rations. They're so full of sh$t it's coming out of their ears...

-- Canard Pshaw (, February 10, 1999.

If we're playing wild-assed conspiracies here, let's throw this one out (up?). I won't go into too much detail on who brought this up to me, except that it's diconcerting to think that people working in government think this way.

If there is a serious threat of post-Y2K famine is too many people survive the first three to six months, what would the government do? Suppose the government knows that Y2K is going to be tremendously bad. They need to protect the "critical infrastructure" and resources. But at the same time they realize that a goodly number of the populace cannot make it and as that number of people desperately try to survive, they will damage and destroy what the government wishes to save.

It would take too many troops to go in and protect those precious financial and banking records... What to do?

Well, what if there was a nuclear strike on the major US population centers using "enhanced radiation weapons" (nuetron bombs) that would eliminate the "troublesome population" while sparing the physical structures the govermnment desired? So what if the only government which could "attack" US cities with neutron bombs was the US government?

If the government controlled the media, who would question the news of such attacks and assurances that "We returned the attack against (insert country or terrorist here). All is now well." What if other nuclear countries with large populations which can't make it through Y2K intact (Russia, China, India) pulled tricks like this also?


-- Wildweasel (, February 10, 1999.

20/20 tonight at 10 o'clock (Eastern) covers an interesting topic..."weapons technology that uses laser beams and radio waves."

-- Kevin (, February 10, 1999.


Surely (I hope) you know that a "neutron bomb" has a somewhat different ratio of radiation-to-blast effect than a non-enhanced-radiation weapon, but that this difference is not so extreme as to actually spare physical structures to the extent that it could do what you propose? I don't recall the exact figures I read a long time ago, but I think they were in the range of 2-to-1 to 4-to-1 shift. 1/4 of even a small H-weapon blows down a lot of buildings.

-- No Spam Please (, February 11, 1999.


Suppose it's 10-to-1 or 20-to-1. Still burns paper and melts tapes and disks.

-- No Spam Please (, February 11, 1999.

WW, you're scenario has a lot of what ifs. But I think your bottom line question was would the gov take out a few citizens to protect their assets. First let me say that I don't believe famine will come to the large masses of the US (it is already here with the homeless). Further, that fact that the gov wouldn't be able to find food (to me) in this situation seems far fetched. Lastly, the gov wouldn't know how to control the media. The communist block countries did this very well but our gov wouldn't know how to begin. The communist countries controlled everything about their culture so extending that to the media was easy. There is only one person holding all their gov's offices. Here in the US there are too many players involved; each office is held by a different person. But ok, I'll accept these premises. The gov would "take care of" these people but not with these weapons, too costly. A military SWAT would come into the night and do the job. Then the "gov-controlled" media would say it was terrorists or some other group. This doesn't sound very pleasant but you have drawn a pretty unpleasant scenario, one that I think will never happen.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (, February 11, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ