PBS Frontline: Russian Roulette -- Mentions Y2K & Sobering Nuclear News

A whole web-site in itself, mirroring and going beyond the television presentation, can be found at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/

As pertains to Y2K, its the concern over the deteriorating command and control system and the older, no longer well-maintained computer early warning system that is giving false information and triggering false alerts. Does not look good. Transcript not yet available. -- Diane, feeling sleepless and rattled

PBS Web-site Frontline Synopsis ...

The Cold War has ended, but the threat of a nuclear nightmare may not be over. In "Russian Roulette," FRONTLINE investigates the safety and security of the Russian nuclear arsenal and the potential for accidental launch or diversion of its nuclear weapons.

In interviews with U.S. and Russian military commanders and nuclear experts, this report lays out the eroding physical, organizational and human elements of Russia's command and control system. For example, thousands of Cold War-era nuclear weapons remain on hair-trigger alert even though Russia's nuclear apparatus is deteriorating. In a January 1995 incident off the coast of Norway, Russian President Boris Yeltsin came within two minutes of launching a nuclear attack because of a faulty signal in Russia's early-warning system.

And Russia's economic crisis is worsening nuclear safety problems. Soldiers in the elite Strategic Rocket Forces were once well-paid and well-respected. Now, plummeting morale within the corps and among nuclear workers in general has become a great danger. In 1998 there were over a dozen alarming incidents of crime, hijacking attempts and unrest among military and nuclear personnel because of lack of staffing, housing and failure to pay military and workers' salaries.

In addition to chronicling problems confronting Russia's command and control of its nuclear arsenal, this FRONTLINE report also tracks the increasing potential of international terrorists obtaining Russia's nuclear weapons. High-level Russian military officials discuss why they believe nuclear suitcase bombs may have gone missing. And FRONTLINE reports on an undercover operation in Miami which turned into the first credible case of a scenario to smuggle tactical nuclear weapons into the U.S.

U.S. intelligence experts warn that lax security over Russia's 15,000 non-strategic tactical nuclear weapons present a much greater danger than an accidental inter-continental ballistic missile launch. As Matthew Bunn, former science advisor at the National Security Council, sums it up: "I think the US is much safer from the threat of an all-out devastating nuclear war than it was in 1991 at the end of the Cold War ... But I think if you ask the question: 'What is the probability that one nuclear bomb might go off somewhere in America--maybe a crude bomb from a terrorist or a rogue state--is that probability higher today?' I think the answer is definitely yes."

[A transcript, mentioning the Y2K statements will be available within one week at:]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/etc/tapes.html

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 24, 1999

Answers

Diane, I can always count on you to keep my "10" in perspective. If nuclear "events" are a 10 on the Y2K scale, I stay in the 8's for my assesment of how bad it will get. The thought of nuclear bombs really puts a damper on my "we'll get through this" attitude.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 24, 1999.

Was the bomb at the Trade Center nuclear? Was the OK bomb nuclear? NO to both. Terrorists don't need to go nuclear to cause damage. It's easier and cheaper to big conventional kinds of bombs.

These statements seem to contradict Nikoli's opinion of Russia and China take-over.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 24, 1999.

" Terrorists don't need to go nuclear to cause damage. It's easier and cheaper to big [build?) conventional kinds of bombs. "

Let's hope they all know that.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 24, 1999.

Or have limited budgets.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 24, 1999.

It's just another PBS "well done" example of digging into a timely issue. It was fascinating.

Drat I wish the Y2K comments were available now!

At any rate, when you play this alongside the military preps in the U.S., you can see "why" some of what is going on, is.

Check out the link in the suitcase nukes. That got me! They showed the effects on Washington D.C. if one when off and the radioactive fallout.

If there was ever a time for cooperation, Y2K is it.

Diane

(P.S. Also watched two PBS specials on the Battle group in the Persian gulf and on aircraft carriers. The info is off the PBS site. If not for Y2K, it's a show I'd have never watched. Fascinating. And I have a healthier respect for some of the military.)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 24, 1999.

Diane, I watched the Frontline show last night, it blew me!

Especially the mention of the nuclear suitcases, which we had discussed here on another thread, and which I had somewhat dismissed as paranoia.

They showed a sample suitcase, about the size of a regular of a Pullman, hard cover, with the bomb inside and the triggering apparatus. Apparently Russia had about 130 of these suitcase nuke bombs, and now can account for only 48 of them, they don't know where the rest are.

The US also has/had such atomic devices;

"In the 1960s the U.S. built its own version of a mini nuclear device-- the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). It weighed 80-100 pounds, was small enough to fit in a duffel bag or large case and was designed for sabotage missions-- airfields, bridges, dams. Like the Russian device, it had an explosive charge of roughly one thousand tons of TNT ( one kiloton)."

An interviewe said that such a device could blow Capitol Hill, and everything within a half mile radius, and radiation fall-out over the entire city.

They went into how the Russian military, and those men in charge of nukes, is in extremely poor conditions, especially since last July, with no pay for months, working with no heat, morals very low, men commiting suicide etc., and how this state could very well entice the men into smuggling nuclear arsenal/bomb-making materials to terrorists and enemy countries for money to support their families.

The last comment from one of the expert interviewee was although he wasn't worried about an all out nuclear war as he was more so in 1991, he was worried about the increase threat of terrorists getting hold of and using such small nuclear devices. "I'm worried about the future we're leaving to our children, one or two years from now, one small nuclear bomb here, one there, won't blow up the earth, but it will be a different world for them."[paraphrased.]

It was a well done and truly shilling documentary. It's worth getting a video transcript if you haven't seen it.

Diane, I can't find the mention about Y2K and the Russians on that website either, but that too was shilling.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 24, 1999.

Remember Chernobyl? Radioactive clouds from that meltdown circled the globe. I am not as concerned about suitcase nukes as I am of the likelihood that one or two or twenty commercial reactors in Russia and other parts of the world will experience meltdowns. It takes electricity to run the pumps to cool the core. A lot of developing countries, notwithstanding Russia, have nuclear reactors now, courtesy of the major nuclear powers.

Will everybody get the message and shut these damn things down in July of this year? It takes six months to cool an unloaded core down to safe levels.

Mike Cumbie

-- Michael H. Cumbie (mikecumbie@aol.com), February 24, 1999.

How about both? One of the most likely targets for a terrorist nuclear device would be a nuclear plant. Most of these have large amounts of highly radioactive nuclear waste in 'temporary' storage. This is far more radioactivity than could be released by a core meltdown, and would be scattered to the four winds by the blast.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), February 24, 1999.

BING!!! (A light goes on.)

Russian suitcase nukes alledgedly moved into the US. Terrorist threats from well-funded groups and nations. Contrails forming grid patterns (yes they are a sign of recce flights, been there, done that). Helicopters flying all over the place. Armed military commando teams practicing assaults to recover "devices".

Weasel's old retired military brain remembers something from the past: NEST (Nuclear Emergency Search Team) operations. High altitude recconaisance flights to detect and localize any unregistered nuclear radiation sources. Helicopter flights to pinpoint the location of supect nuclear materials. All we haven't seen is the "recovery of a device".

Besides the Y2K threat, we obviously have a nuclear terrorism threat that somebody in the government takes VERY SERIOUSLY. Seriously enough that they seem to be putting some long-standing, largely publicly unheard-of, plans into action.

Just an old GI's take on how things look to me, you know. But I take pride in being right more than I'm wrong. I do hope I'm wrong on this one.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 24, 1999.

The picture is becomming a lot bigger than Y2K, just "triggered" by it.

Sounds plausible WW.

Oy vey!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 24, 1999.

Hot news flash! Nukes have been around since 1945. At what point do you think the gov stopped thinking about a Nuke threat? They have been putting some long-standing, largely publicly unheard-of, plans into action ever since the first death due to nukes, that happened in New Mexico. Nothing new here guys.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 25, 1999.

Maria ... opening hailing frequency ... "What planet are you on?"

The Nuclear situation is "new" in terms of potential Y2K repercussions! Multiple, simultaneous and deteriorating. Who in 1945 EVER thought the U.S. would be bailing Russia out monetarily to FIX their computer problems?

It's a brave new world.

Sheesh!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 25, 1999.

By your question, you must assume we are from different planets. I guess youre right. Im from Earth and youre from Nebulas.

Just because you think it, it must be so! You know absolutely nothing (NOTHING) about nukes and military strategies using these weapons, yet you think there must be a connection (I guess just like the infrastructure connections) between suitcase nukes and Y2K. What kind of scenario do you envision? Chaos all around on 1/1/00 but somehow this chaos wont be affecting the terrorists. They will manage to overcome all the Y2K failures and simultaneously place their nukes at their targets. Whats your assessment of terrorist mentality? Do these terrorists not believe in Y2K failures (actually destructive, hateful DGIs) or are they GIs who have solved all their infrastructure Y2K problems and will manage to pull off a coordinated attack on 1/1/00?

And of course, since they went to the bother (extremely difficult in obtaining and smuggling and very expensive) of securing these nukes, they would just place them at power plants. Why? Because they want to see it make a big boom. As diligent as they are in getting these suitcase nukes, my guess is they probably have more appropriate targets in mind.

Youre right Diane, I have missed a connection once again!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 26, 1999.

"U.S. would be bailing Russia out monetarily to FIX their computer problems" And from whose budget would this money come? The DoD? Oh no, then that means the DoD wouldn't be able to finish their Y2K projects!

Did you actually read that the prez is giving $ to Russia? I can believe that we will advise them, work out agreements or share info but to actually give them dollars? I don't think so. How would we verify they use the $ to fix computers? Do you think they'll let us witness tests?

Now let me ask you a question: what do you do when the flowers in your hair die?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 26, 1999.