More good news:

A top Russian defector has warned that Russia's military is preparing a surprise attack against the United States. The defector says the Y2K problem may be a tripwire for war.

http://38.201.154.103/articles/?a=1999/2/7/214008
If above link doesn't work, go to
http://www.newsmax.com
and click on Russia, then sublinks

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 06, 1999

Answers

Yes this is all true. I am working for russia right now trying to figure out the logistics of destroying the USA. But our copy of MS Project is not Y2K compliant and so we cannot plan any post 2000 attacks.

-- foo bar (foo@bar.com), March 06, 1999.

I think the Russians will use any type of propaganda they think is necessary to pry more bucks out of Uncle Sam. That country is facing complete anarchy after the bug takes out the rest of their shaky infra-structure. The trigger-pullers will be too busy running from their own angry constituents to worry about anything except saving their own skins.

Unfortunately, the whole world is at risk. There are 60 Chernobyls over there, and no hope of saving their power grid. Without electricity to power the cooling pumps, the meltdowns are inevitable.

Are they stupid enough to take us out just for spite? Hope not.

SysBuilder

-- Sysbuilder (Y2KOldgeek@aol.com), March 06, 1999.

There is something evil going on in russia. They do seem to be preparing for a war. I understand their missles will NOT work after the rollover. Use em or loose em seems to be the word on the street. Who knows? Buy Lead.

-- Scotty (BLehman202@aol.com), March 06, 1999.

There are a couple of thread on this by Andy - check 'em out.

-- commie (twerp@notone.com), March 06, 1999.

Shoot, if a defector said all that, then it's good enough for me. Good thing the bomb shelter is stocked up and ready to go. Russkies, never did trust 'em.

-- Geta Grip (red@stormrising.com), March 06, 1999.

Scotty is right guys. The Russians have used billions of IMF loans to build and deploy 10 very high tech Topol-M ICBM's that are better than anything we have. They have developed a stealth bomber. Their submarine building program is in full swing. For an interesting search, check out Yamantau Mountain. It's an underground city in the Urals as big as D.C. is inside the beltway. The bear is not dead, only sleeping and will awaken soon. When she does, the world will tremble.

-- trafficjam (roadwork@ahead.com), March 06, 1999.

The failure to prepare for Russian nukes is another form of denial, i.e., a romantic, overly optimistic perspective divorced from the facts because the facts are too painful to contemplate. Got potassium iodate?

-- James (b@b.com), March 06, 1999.

DECISION BRIEF 3 March 1999 Here is a frightening reality. If this is true then Russia has a window of opportunity. In my opinion our only hope is God.

Chairman Helms Endorses Center's Feith-Miron Analysis Showing A.B.M. Treaty to Be Defunct, Seeks Clinton Response

(Washington, D.C.): On 20 January, a top Clinton Administration official for the first time acknowledged what has become increasingly obvious to all but the most unreconstructed arms control ideologues. At a Pentagon briefing, Secretary of Defense William Cohen confirmed that there is an imminent ballistic missile danger to this country. He then told the American people that they would have to have a limited national missile defenses (NMD) to protect them against such a threat.(1)

Secretary Cohen even went so far as to indicate that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty would have to be changed in order to permit this defensive deployment. In response to a question, he averred that, if the Russians refused to agree to make such changes, the United States could always withdraw from that Treaty.

'What the Secretary Meant To Say'

Within hours, however, Mr. Cohen had been effectively repudiated on all three scores. On the record and not-for-attribution comments by, among others, the President's National Security Advisor, Samuel Berger, by one of his senior subordinates, Robert Bell, and by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made clear that the Secretary of Defense had deviated from the Administration's abiding party line on missile defense.

According to these officials, there really is no threat that would justify making a decision to deploy missile defenses at this time. Actually, that decision will not occur until at least June 2000. And they insist that the ABM Treaty -- which prohibited the United States from having a territorial defense against ballistic missile attack -- remains "a cornerstone of strategic stability." In other words, if left to its own devices, hell will experience a cold day before the Clinton Administration fields anything to protect the American people against ballistic missile attack.

Although largely obscured by the press interest expressed in Secretary Cohen's apostasy about deploying anti-missile systems, the practical upshot of the programmatic actions the Administration is taking in this area will be to postpone by years the availability of ballistic missile defenses and to diminish the capability of any that might ultimately be deployed.

For example, while much was made of the Clinton team's decision to add $6.6 billion to the "out-years" budget for missile defense, its latest plan will actually: delay by at least two years (to 2005) the initial operational capability of its preferred national missile defense system; delay until two years after that (at the earliest 2007) the availability of promising theater missile defense systems -- that were supposed to be available faster and enjoy higher priority than NMD capabilities; and eviscerate the test program needed to bring the low-altitude Space-based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) missile-tracking system online.

'Cornerstone of Strategic Stability'

Arguably, even more insidious has been the Administration's bait-and-switch on the ABM Treaty. It appears that, contrary to Mr. Cohen's suggestion, Mrs. Albright has gone out of her way to lower expectations in Russia -- and even in China -- that the United States will actually press ahead with deployments of needed anti-missile systems. To the contrary, in the worst tradition of Foggy Bottom "clientitis" (the State Department phenomenon of seeing U.S. interests primarily through the prism of foreign governments, or "clients"), the Secretary of State has assiduously promoted the idea that the ABM Treaty must take precedence over defending America.

The question must be asked: What ABM Treaty?

Common sense tells us that when a state becomes extinct -- as the Soviet Union did eight years ago -- its political treaties and relationships end. Now, thanks to a superb legal analysis prepared by former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith and former Justice Department attorney George Miron, it has been clearly established that this same principle applies under international law and practice specifically to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.(2) Since the ABM Treaty has lapsed, the United States no longer has any obligation to continue to constrain, dumb-down or otherwise deny itself technologies that could prevent ballistic missiles from destroying American communities.

Enter Chairman Helms

Importantly, the Feith-Miron Memorandum of Law was delivered to President Clinton last week by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina. In his cover letter, Senator Helms described this memorandum as "the most convincing and exhaustive legal analysis done on the subject to date, and obviously I agree with it." The Chairman requested that "If your Administration has evidence contradicting the Feith-Miron memorandum, I respectfully request that you share it with [the] Committee as soon as possible.

This has been made necessary since, as Sen. Helms put it:

"...The Administration's arguments on this subject have been inconsistent and contradictory to date. For months, the Administration was unable to tell the Senate who was our treaty partner [following the USSR's demise]. Then, it was abruptly declared that our treaty partner is, in fact, the Russian Federation. But the Administration has provided the Senate with scant evidence to back up this claim, or to support the conclusion that the ABM Treaty remains in force (despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union)."

The Bottom Line

As it happens, Chairman Helm's missive and the Feith-Miron analysis it endorses come at a most propitious time. The Senate and House are expected to take up bipartisan legislation within a week or two that would make it U.S. policy to deploy a national missile defense, in the words of the Senate version -- sponsored by Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii -- "as soon as technologically possible." The Clinton Administration has formally announced its opposition to the Cochran-Inouye "National Missile Defense Act of 1999," largely because of that bill's implication that defending America can no longer be subordinated to the Administration's determination to adhere to an expired treaty.

With the case now establish that the ABM Treaty has lapsed, the argument for legislators to support the deployment of missile defense as soon as technology allows is overwhelming. So should be the votes for doing so.

Chairman Helms is also to be commended for his decision to press ahead with hearings "in coming weeks" to consider additional ABM agreements that would, if ratified, create a new ABM Treaty with a geographic scope and coverage different from the original 1972 accord and, thereby, create a new ban on U.S. national missile defenses. As Sen. Helms points out to the President, these additional agreements were signed in September 1997,(3) but have yet to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent -- despite a formal commitment made by President Clinton on 14 May 1997 to do just that. Obviously, until now, the Administration has been in no hurry to bring the 1997 accords before the Senate, confident that the ABM Treaty would remain in force in the interval.

The definitive Feith-Miron conclusion that the only basis upon which an Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty could legally constrain U.S. missile defense programs and technology would be for the Senate to approve new Anti-Ballistic Missile accords should change that calculation.(4) Henceforth, if the Clinton team remains committed to perpetuating such constraints -- notwithstanding Secretary Cohen's stated position to the contrary -- it will have to halt its "slow roll" of the "world's greatest deliberative body." Should the Administration finally submit the 1997 treaties and permit the Senate work its will, it may be possible, at long last, to remove the most serious remaining impediment to implementing a U.S. policy of deploying effective anti-missile defenses: defective, outdated and ill-conceived arms control agreements.

- 30 -

1. See the Center's Decision Brief entitled The Clinton-Cohen Missile Defense Initiative: Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back? (No. 99-D 10, 20 January 1999).

2. See Message to Albright, Primakov: New Legal Analysis Establishes that the A.B.M. Treaty Died with the Soviet Union (No. 99-P 11, 22 January 1999). Copies of the full study may be obtained by contacting the Center for Security Policy.

3. See A Day that Will Live in Infamy: 25th Anniversary of the A.B.M. Treaty's Ratification Should be Its Last (No. 97-D 44, 29 September 1997).

4. This conclusion is also supported by a legal analysis prepared for The Heritage Foundation by the law firm of Hunton & Williams and by a number of independent legal scholars and practitioners.

-- BB (peace@u@bellatlantic.net), March 06, 1999.

reach in your pocket and get a good flippin quarter. Now bet your life on the outcome.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 06, 1999.

some humorous relief from csy2k:

<< Senate encourages Americans to increase stockpiles
By Tim May

WASHINGTON, D.C., Associated Pollyannas. Saturday, March 6. Secret hearings yesterday confirmed that most nations are two to four years behind the U.S. in preparing for the Year 2000 problem and will be "toast," as Sen. Lickspittle explained to his smirking colleagues. Oil shipments are likely to be disrupted, water desalinization plants in Saudi Arabia will fail, Sri Lanka is throwing up its saris, and Russia is admitting that its remediation expert, Dr. Vladimir Strangelovsky, expects missiles to launch automatically when Perimeter goes haywire.

The senators revised their recommendations for what preparations Americans should make. Instead of food and water for "two to three days," the senators are now recommending food and water for "three to four days." "We believe every family should also have food and water for Tuesday, January 4th. That extra carton of donuts will really help."

When asked by smirking reporters how oil production would be restored by Wednesday with the power grid down, the senators had no answer. Ditto for explanations of how riots in inner cities would be undone, how looted food warehouses would be rebuilt and restocked, how terrorists releasing sarin would recall the gas, and how Russian ICBMs would be ordered to return home.

"Just buy that extra can of tuna and stop worrying," one of them explained. >>
-------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 06, 1999.

Tim May is good. He's a licensed ontologist just like me. And csy2k will drive ya nuts.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 06, 1999.