A week ago I'd thought this was hyperbole, now....???

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

A week ago I would have discounted a lot of this article...things are happening so fast now, who know? ....

Analysis: Russia Mobilizes, America Sleeps

J.R. Nyquist and Christopher Ruddy April 8, 1999

LONDON AND WASHINGTON -- Bill Clinton's use of NATO forces to bomb Yugoslavia could trigger global war.

Over the weekend, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji hinted that the crisis in Kosovo could lead to a world war. At the same time, Russia -- a long-time ally of the Serbs -- has begun a large-scale mobilization of its military forces.

While NATO countries are engaging in military operations, not one Western country is mobilizing for a larger war, as is Russia.


NATO's soporific reaction to Russia's mobilization should also be viewed, not in the context of the Yugoslavia bombing, but in the broader context of the new China-Russia relationship -- one that has dramatically altered the balance of power in the world.

In November 1998, Russia and China officially formed a "strategic partnership." According to the official Chinese news agency, this partnership is meant to challenge the "perceived global dominance of the U.S." In plain English, the primary enemy Russia and China plan to fight is the United States and its allies.

Together, Russia and China have the world's most powerful military, including over 30,000 nuclear weapons, armies of 6 million men with hundreds of battle-ready combat divisions, and thousands of tanks. Their new alliance should have rung warning bells throughout the world. Instead the Western media, Clinton and other Western leaders have ignored it, continuing to insist that Russia and China are our "friends."


In recent months, Russia and China have jointly demilitarized their 2,500-mile border. Three hundred Russian combat units were withdrawn from the Chinese frontier. A similar number of Chinese units were withdrawn.

China has also been rapidly building up its ballistic missile forces opposite Taiwan -- forces that could be used against the U.S. military in the Far East. An attack against Taiwan could come at any time. Carl Ford of the Heritage Foundation, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 25, said that the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) has changed its military strategy from one of a slowly-developed assault and blockade against Taiwan, to "more intense, quick-hitting attacks using ballistic missiles."

For many years, Russian military theory has held that ballistic missile weapons can be used to accelerate attacks, allowing for rapid victories over powerful opponents. The Chinese missile buildup together with its shift in military strategy suggests that China's generals have fallen under the spell of Russian military theory.

At the same time, the Russian units moved off the Chinese border are now free to threaten Europe.

As the NATO bombing began, Russia talked of moving heavy bombers and tactical nuclear weapons into Belarus, the traditional invasion route from Russia to Europe.

Still, NATO is oblivious to the tremendous shift in the global balance of power caused by the new Russia-China military alliance.


There are strong indications that the Russia-China alliance also includes other sworn enemies of the West, including the North Korean military dictatorship. During the Korean War, tens of thousands of Chinese troops fought against the US in support of the North Korean dictatorship, and China continues to be North Korea's principal ally. It is virtually unthinkable that the North Koreans would launch a new war against South Korea or the West without Chinese approval and support.

In the past year, North Korea has become increasingly bellicose, repeatedly threatening to launch nuclear weapons against US cities if we interfere with their activities on the Korean peninsula. In just the last month, Korea has also deployed a new three-stage missile capable of hitting most US cities.

A major obstacle in any war launched by North Korea is America's ally, Japan. According to the nationally circulated Japanese newspaper Sankei, on March 23, North Korea used a naval diversion to cover the insertion "dozens" of special operations commandos into Japan. According to unidentified sources, these North Korean infiltrators are trained in the sabotage of trains, bridges, and communications.

Such a move by the North Koreans could mean that an attack by North Korea against the South is imminent.


The bulk of front-line American combat troops are now dispersed abroad. As the Balkans conflict escalates even further with the likely introduction of NATO ground forces, the West is ill prepared to defend South Korea, Taiwan, or even America.

The NATO blitz against Yugoslavia is already sapping U.S. military strength needed in the Middle East to check Saddam Hussein. If war were to intensify in the Balkans, or if war broke out in Korea, with our current commitment in Iraq, America doesn't have the resources to cope.

The logic of this is apparent to our enemies, and could well be exploited to inflict a major defeat on American forces in one or two hot spots simultaneously.

Still, the main threat to America is Russia, which now has more nuclear weapons than every other nation on earth combined.

For the past three months NewsMax.com has been sounding the alarm about growing war preparations against the West by a new Russia/China axis. The very timing of the Russian-Chinese alliance -- when U.S. forces are at a low -- is extremely ominous.

But the establishment media has ignored this story. Now NATO's attack against Yugoslavia has provoked bitter condemnation from Russia and China and the military threat is apparent for all to see.


As we reported in Newsmax.com four months ago, before it would be politically possible for the Russians to launch a war against the West, the Russian people would first have to be psychologically prepared for war. Clinton's war on Yugoslavia has provided precisely the stimulus needed to create massive war hysteria among the Russian people.

Just last Thursday, hundreds of furious Russian demonstrators marched through Moscow calling for Russia to go to war against NATO. One banner said: "It's time to bomb the military bases of the United States." That banner becomes much more ominous when you realize that the demonstration was either sponsored by the Russian government or at least had its tacit approval.

Equally ominous was the singling out of US military bases, the first strike target in any war against the West, essential for destroying America's retaliatory nuclear capability.


The sentiment expressed by Russian war protesters isn't just the opinion of a few extremists. A recent opinion survey found that in the wake NATO bombing of their traditional allies, the Serbs, an incredible 64% of all Russians now believe that NATO intends to attack Russia.

Russian officials have also issued increasingly ominous pronouncements against America and the West. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov spoke of "new tasks" for Russia's military. Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev likened the crisis to "a whirlpool which is drawing more countries into it." Former Russian Premier Gorbachev said, "Clinton has managed to single-handedly revive the Cold War."


Obsessed with the carnage in Kosovo, NATO appears to be oblivious to the fact Russia has been engaging in a massive military mobilization.

In the two weeks since NATO launched their offensive against Yugoslavia:

The Russian Defense Ministry began an enlarged draft, calling up 168,776 men from the ages of 18 to 27.

Recruited over 60,000 Russian "volunteers" to fight NATO troops in Serbia. On 6 April the first Russian volunteers arrived in the Serbian town of Novi Sad.

Threatened to move tactical nuclear weapons and heavy bombers forward into Belarus -- Russia's highway to NATO.

Dispatched key elements of their Northern fleet, including the aircraft cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov, and the newly commissioned Peter the Great, the largest ballistic missile cruiser ever built.

Vice Admiral Popov, commander of the Northern Fleet told Itar-Tass, the Northern Fleet is "ready to fulfill any order of the supreme command to defend the interests of Russia."

The Northern Fleet has more ballistic missile submarines than the entire U.S. Navy.

On 30 March, Russia sent a battle group of over twenty warships to sea from its Pacific Fleet. Included in the fleet were ground forces from Russia's Far Eastern Military District.

Russia dispatched ships from the Black Sea Fleet -- including a missile cruiser, two anti-submarine warfare frigates, and support ships. A Russian reconnaissance ship has already entered the Mediterranean.

Russian TV displayed pictures of ballistic missiles being loaded on cruisers in the Black Sea.

Russia announced the successful launch of a ballistic missile during exercises of its Northern fleet.

Despite these clear war preparations, Russian news agencies continue to repeat the Big Lie that Russia has no plans to get involved in military action in Yugoslavian war.

If that's true, why all of the war preparations? How have the supposedly "economically desperate" Russians been able to mobilize so many naval ships and combat troops men so quickly?


Russia's growing preparation for war during the Kosovo crisis suggests a massive pattern of deception, which is being ignored by the clueless Western media and Clinton. This pattern of deception is just the most recent and blatant example of how Russia has been talking peace while preparing for war against the West. How else do you explain this behavior from a friend and ally of America:

Russia continues to maintain the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons -- over 30,000 -- the overwhelming majority targeted against the West.

During the past two years, Russia has engaged in several mock nuclear war exercises against the United States. These exercises have included the use of rockets as well as naval and airborne forces to wipe America from the map.

For the past 18 months, Russia has been moving its nuclear weapons onto naval ships. Naval ships are considered to be less vulnerable to retaliation in a nuclear war.

This past December, Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces deployed a regiment of state-of-the-art Topol-M missiles targeted against the West. These missiles are now rolling off Russian production lines and are more sophisticated than anything in America's arsenal.

In January, Russia put is nuclear forces--strategic rockets, naval and air--under a unified command -- essential for a coordinated first strike against the West.

Russia appears to be hoarding food, fuel, gold, and other commodities -- an essential preparation for a major war. Despite claims of poverty and famine, Russia is stockpiling millions of tons of food and urging its people to buy gold. It is interesting to note that the Kosovo crisis began just as the last shipments of billions of dollars of Western food aid reached Russia.

Russia has built the world's largest network of fallout shelters -- complete underground cities, some as large as Washington, DC.


In order to mobilize their people against the West, and prepare them for the destruction it will bring, Russian leaders know that they must create massive hatred of the West.

The first step occurred during the summer of 1998 when Russia defaulted on their foreign loans resulting in massive bank and business failures, bread lines throughout the country, and incredible suffering.

On the face of it, it made no sense for the Russian government to default, since just weeks before the default, the IMF had given Moscow some $5 billion in new foreign aid. (According to the Wall Street Journal, these funds mysteriously "disappeared into the offshore accounts of Russia's oligarchy.")

Why would any regime in its right mind subject their own people to such massive suffering when they had the resources to prevent it?

The likely answer: Russia's leaders knew that "evil Western capitalists" -- not themselves -- would be blamed. Indeed, as a result of the 1998 Russian economic meltdown, millions of Russians demanded that communism be restored and corrupt Jewish tycoons be sent packing. The Russian economic meltdown, quite possibly engineered by Moscow, was in effect a bloodless coup that did more than any other single event to revive hatred of capitalism, anti-Semitism, and again set Russia on the path of tyranny and confrontation with the West.


With Russia's economy in shambles, Russian leaders should have been preoccupied with domestic problems. Instead, the primary focus of Russia's energies and resources has been creating a new Soviet Empire.

Last November, China and Russia announced a new global alliance. Their intelligence services now share information. Their high commands have organized cooperative working groups.

The new Russian-Chinese Alliance represents the greatest shift in the balance of power since World War II, yet the Western press has virtually ignored it.

Chinese leaders speak more and more openly about war with the West. In January Chinese President Jiang Zemin told the People's Liberation Army to get ready for two things: First, nuclear world war; and second, to suppress uprisings inside China.


In Russia, the government doesn't have to worry about uprisings. Thanks to Bill Clinton's bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, the Russians have rallied to the Kremlin.

Consider what Clinton has done: For the first time in its history, NATO has attacked a sovereign state, in direct violation of the NATO Charter which forbids an offensive war against other countries.

The result of that attack, encouraged by the American leadership, may well be the collapse of the NATO alliance and the end of American leadership in Western Europe, particularly in Italy and Greece. At the very least, Clinton's use of NATO as an offensive tool of war, has shifted public opinion against the U.S. in Russia, Eastern Europe, and much of the Third World.

Understandably, since both Russia and Serbia are Slavic nations with strong historical, religious and cultural ties, there is real anger among the Russian populace against the NATO bombing. After all, how would Americans feel if Russia bombed London because of the strife in Northern Ireland? Or if Russia bombed Canada or Mexico? NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia proves to the average Russian that NATO is an offensive military organization whose ultimate aim is the destruction of Russia -- which is what they have been told by their leaders for generations.


The present Russian anger over the NATO bombing is, as Izvestia called it, a "royal gift" to the communists and Kremlin insiders -- some of whom have publicly advocated war with the West. There is growing pressure on even moderate Russian leaders to take "some action" against NATO to restore Russia's glory and pride.

Russia's Duma passed a resolution 366-4 that declares that NATO "aggression" is "a threat to Russia's national security" and called on the Russian government to begin war mobilization. Russia's foreign secretary Igor Ivanov said while Russia had no immediate military plans, it was "holding extreme measures in reserve."

As the Christian Science Monitor reports, Russian nationalists now repeat a mantra, "What is happening in Serbia today, will happen in Russia tomorrow."

Itar-Tass reports that leading Russia intellectuals have formed a new movement called "Against World War III" to combat growing war hysteria in Russia.


Colonel Stanislav Lunev, the highest-ranking GRU officer ever to defect from Russia, has stated that the Russian General Staff considers nuclear war with America to be inevitable.

Lunev writes, "I spent thirty years preparing for war against America. Not a war against China. Not a war against Europe. A war against America."

In an interesting footnote, almost immediately after the NATO bombing campaign began, Russia canceled its cooperation with America on the Y2K computer virus. This cooperation is vital as the year 2000 rapidly approaches, and by rejecting U.S. help suggests the Russians have other plans and have no intention of ever opening up its defense systems to outside technicians -- unlike the US under Clinton, which has allowed Russian and Chinese military agents to roam our top-secret defense labs virtually at will.


As conservative commentator, Lwellen Rockwell, points out, Clinton's foreign policy can be summarized by a single word: Bombs!

Clinton's popularity dips and he bombs Iraq. Ken Starr issues a report recommending that Clinton be impeached, and he bombs Sudan and Afghanistan. The Senate prepares to vote on impeachment charges, and Clinton again bombs Iraq. Chinagate -- Clinton's cynical selling of US military secrets in exchange for campaign contributions -- threatens to break in the popular press, and Clinton bombs Yugoslavia.

As in the movie, "Wag the Dog," whenever Clinton gets in trouble, he bombs someone to distract attention from his own scandals and crimes. Clinton's foreign policy reads like a script for a Hollywood B film.

Personal and political scandals have enveloped Bill Clinton's presidency since his first days in office. Just months after becoming president, he launched a bloody attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco, which ended with the immolation of some 80 innocent men, women and children. He blatantly used the military to "wag the dog" on the eve of the Senate impeachment vote with a cynical bombing of Iraq.

Those who claim that with impeachment behind him, Clinton has no real reason to wag the dog by bombing Yugoslavia, are dead wrong. Supreme egotist that he is, Clinton is consumed with remaining popular and securing his place in history -- both of which are threatened by continuing public attention to previous and newly revealed scandals, like Chinagate. Some of those scandals could even have legally devastating consequences for Clinton and Hillary personally, after his presidency ends.

The Lewinsky scandal continues to percolate, and Monica has been on a high profile book tour. Now a new and very a serious rape allegation hangs over Clinton's head -- and there could be more such allegations forthcoming. New revelations come out almost daily about Clinton's treasonous aid to the Chinese war machine, in exchange for campaign contributions.

Despite Clinton's claims to the contrary, no vital U.S. interests are at stake in Kosovo, and no NATO member have been attacked by Serbia. In fact, by attacking Yugoslavia, Clinton has created precisely the outrages he claimed he was acting to prevent:

Mass murder of Albanian Serbs,

Shoring up the power of the tyrant Milosevic,

Destabilizing surrounding countries,

Expanding the war -- with the introduction of Russian "volunteers"-- beyond Yugoslavia,

Weakening NATO,

Killing of innocent men, women and children in Yugoslavia.

Not to mention the flirtation with global war. By wagging the dog with a very hot war in Europe, Clinton has managed -- for now -- to bury growing accusations of treason against him. Clinton may go down in history as the first US President willing to risk -- or cause -- global war to ensure his own popularity.


The Russian people view the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as almost a direct attack on their nation. American refusals to allow Russia to broker a peaceful settlement have lead to further Russian war hysteria.

As the American-lead assault began, the Russian Prime Minister, Yevgeny Primakov, an old line KGB general, came to Belgrade and hours later had a peace deal. Waving a scrap of paper in his hand he flew to Munich to meet with German Chancellor Schroeder. Germany is NATO's most important continental member. Germany and NATO rejected the offer. Russia, the peacemaker, was rebuffed by the Americans, the aggressors. So hostility grew in Russia.

Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia encourages the most violent, extreme and anti-American factions in Russia. Russia's ailing leader and erstwhile US-friend, Boris Yeltsin, faces his own impeachment vote on April 15th. He too desperately needs to wag the dog to distract attention from his own failures. His status weakened by NATO bombing, only after agreeing to oppose NATO and draft troops for Yugoslavia did Yeltsin partially recover his standing in the polls.


Russian war preparations continue to accelerate.

When the Yugoslav crisis erupted, we were told that Russia's major fleets were going out to sea. A coincidence, the West was told. It has long been theorized that if Russia ever wanted to attack America, it would steer its ballistic missile submarines underneath its surface ships on their way to sea, making it difficult for U.S. sonar to detect the submarine deployment.

Once deployed, the submarines can sink to the bottom of the Atlantic and Pacific, where the can stay for months, quietly waiting for orders from the high command.

Convenience is joined by luck. Russia supposedly has no oil for its ships, one spokesman says. But miraculously, there's suddenly enough oil for its major fleets to engage in extensive maneuvers.

The Russians must have noted that their deployment causes no alarm from the West. After all, Russia is so weak it couldn't harm a fly -- so the thinking goes. Russian spokesmen continually insist they have no plans to engage NATO militarily, but every action suggests a progressive mobilization for war.

So the Russians will continue mobilizing and gaining the advantage as America and the West sleeps. In Russia, hundreds of thousands of troops are called up. It will only take three months for the full conventional weight of the old Soviet Army to be resurrected. It will have five times as many soldiers as the American army.

Russia "has no intention of interfering in the current conflict around

-- Texan (spring@rancho.com), April 09, 1999


Sorry, last part cut off....

Russia "has no intention of interfering in the current conflict around Yugoslavia," a government spokesman told Interfax. Meanwhile, Russia's leaders continually talk of war. They hint, they threaten and they mobilize for it.

And good Republicans like Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Senator McCain, are actually calling for American ground troops to be sent into Serbia. Those calling for a ground force in Yugoslavia -- estimated to be at least 200,000 soldiers -- are not considering the implications of such a move if a global war does break out. The NATO ground force would be vulnerable to a tactical nuclear strike and easily cut-off from supply lines. Moreover, the continental U.S. would have no significant force to defend itself from invasion by China or Russia.

Such considerations and precautions are not being considered because it is party time in the West. The Dow Jones rises past 10,000 as NATO bombs. The price of gold drops. People still plan their trips to Disney World instead of worrying about the nation's vulnerability to Russia's nuclear weapons.

There is no way to be certain if Russia will actually attack the United States, and there is one alternative plausible explanation of their actions: They may be getting ready for one big blackmail attempt, hopeful that Clinton will buckle under.

Instead of war, Russia could be preparing for global domination.

-- Texan (ranch@late.com), April 09, 1999.

Probably not "blackmail". More like the protection racket extortion. BillyJeff would in all likelyhood laugh at a true blackmail attempt. what are they gonna use that the House hasn't already used?? Pictures? He'll autograph 'em and sell 'em to finance Gore's election.

Unfortunately, the general message here is one that has NOT been looked at critically here in the US.

OOOOPSIE!! When did we start growing mushrooms, Hillary??


-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), April 09, 1999.

While listening to a nationally broadcast talk show 2 days ago, the host read a quote from Tass news agency stating that 1.2 million Russian troops are being mobilized because of the NATO bombings. Very ominous indeed.

-- B.Clark (mrmomx6@aol.com), April 09, 1999.

I was watching Face the Nation Sunday, and Sam Donaldson kept trying to make the point that the Soviets are extremely pissed and heavily armed with nukes. The politicians brushed him off like a pesky fly, while the Generals were looking worried and nodding their heads...

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.


Just reported 8,000 ground troops being sent to Albania.

God help us.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000118613908976&rtmo=wsofQAob&atmo =wsofQAob&pg=/et/99/4/9/wkos09.html

-- Texan (sigh@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

I swear I think Clinton is purposely setting us up to be nuked. He has altered our nuke response policy, cut our strategic defenses close to SALT II levels (Which the Russians have completely ignored} Selling AEGIS Missile cruisers to Taiwan, Offering Taiwan a theater missile defense system over Chinese tantrum, Threatening to send Aircraft carriers in if China try's to take Taiwan, attacking a former Soviet Republic and close ally, Is holding half of our Trident Subs in port, Detargeted and dealerted our nukes, and has given the Chinese enough technology to make them a nuclear superpower. The man is either a complete imbecile, or he is purposely trying to destroy this country.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.


Nokoli and I have been saying this for ages. This is all part of an overall plan to destabilise populations worlwide.


"Russian Warships Set Sail 'On Maneuvers'

abcnews.go.com 4-7-99

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Several Russian warships left the Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol Wednesday and headed into open seas for what Russian navy sources said was a planned exercise.

A source in the Black Sea Fleet headquarters said the ships were ``fulfilling planned exercise-combat tasks,'' but declined to comment on their future plans.

He did say, however, the ships could start any mission without returning to their home base.

Russia fiercely opposes NATO military action in Yugoslavia and has warned it may send a total of eight warships to the Adriatic to demonstrate its solidarity with the Serbs, a fellow Slav and mainly Orthodox Christian nation.

The reconnaissance vessel Liman, dispatched a few days ago, is already in the Mediterranean.

``The ships are fully equipped with all armaments, have fuel and a full crew on board and are ready to carry out any mission anywhere if they receive such an order,'' the source said.

The group of ships now in the open sea includes the Admiral Golovko missile cruiser and the Azov troop carrier.

Moscow has repeatedly said it will not allow itself to be dragged into the military conflict but it has frozen its relations with NATO, and its ties with the West have suffered overall since the NATO campaign began two weeks ago."

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.


He is not an imbecile - a psychopath perhaps, but smart as a whip. We have been set up forthis for a long time- cards are now being played.


"Russia's Duma Urges Military Aid For Yugoslavia 4-8-99

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's State Duma lower house of parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday for a resolution advising President Boris Yeltsin and his government to send weapons and an unspecified military mission to Yugoslavia.

Deputies in the Communist-dominated house voted 279-34 for the non- binding resolution, which also called for a parliamentary delegation to visit a number of countries to explain Russia's opposition to NATO military strikes on Yugoslavia.

Russia has frozen ties with the Western military alliance. But Moscow prefers to use diplomacy to seek peace rather than resorting to any major military action in response."

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.


"Out Of Public Eye Clinton Said Violent, Profane, Ruthless"

By Doug Thompson www.capitolhillblue.com 4-8-99

Away from the public eye and the vaunted White House spin machine, President Bill Clinton is a vulgar, vengeful man who believes in "killing" people try to hurt him, those who know Clinton best say.

White House staffers, Clinton confidants and others describe Clinton as "incredibly profane" and "an angry man who wants to inflict as much pain as possible on his enemies."

Former White House senior staff member George Stephanopoulos in his book, All Too Human, writes about Clinton's mishandling of the Somalia crisis and shows the depth of the President's violent emotions:

"'We're not inflicting pain on these fuckers,' Clinton said, softly at first. 'When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers.' Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony [Lake], as if it was his fault. 'I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks.'"

Those who have known Clinton since his days in Arkansas say the quote is "vintage Bill."

"Only an idiot would buy the public persona of Bill Clinton," says Walter Erricson, a retired reporter who covered Clinton in his early political days in Arkansas. "He is an incredibly profane individual. He is now and always has been an angry man who wants to inflict as much pain as possible on his enemies."

White House staff members say Clinton curses like a sailor, has temper tantrums that cause people to back away from him and uses the word "kill" often to describe what he wants to do with his enemies.

"Once, when the House was finishing up its impeachment investigation, the President slammed his fist down on the table and said 'I'd like to kill all of these sons of bitches and just be done with it!' There was a long, painful period of silence until he regained his composure. Then everybody went on like it was never said," says one former White House staffer.

Samuel Wilson, a former political worker in Clinton's second campaign for governor, remembers the candidate encountering a critic at a campaign appearance in a small town. After the critic told Clinton he was nothing but a "two-bit politician" and then walked away, Clinton turned to a campaign aide and said "write down the name of that motherfucker. When I'm back in office, he's a dead man."

"I remember his look. It was cold," Wilson said. "I don't want to think he wanted to kill him literally, but I'm sure some sort of revenge was inflicted later on."

In fact, it was fear of what Attorney General Bill Clinton could do to her business that kept nursing home operator Juanita Broaddrick from reporting Clinton's rape of her 21 years ago in a Little Rock hotel room.

"Her fears were justified," says retired reporter Erricson. "Everybody knew Bill Clinton was a man who got even, any way he could."

Helen Shannon, who worked in the Arkansas Statehouse during Clinton's second term as governor, said the governor would personally order state contracts canceled when he got angry with people.

"The word would come down from the governor's office that somebody was off limits and we would cancel their contracts and put them on a 'don't use' list. It happened a lot," she says.

Shannon, who was dating a member of Clinton's staff, says Clinton would order audits of contracts and tell the the Arkansas State Police to "turn up the heat" on somebody he didn't like.

"When Bill Clinton ran Arkansas, it was a police state," she says.

White House staff members tell similar stories. At one meeting, Clinton told staff members he wanted everyone in the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's office audited by the IRS.

"Several people in the meeting told the President he shouldn't do that," the staff member remember. "He slammed his fist down on the table and said: 'I can do any Goddamned thing I want. I'm President of the United States. I take care of my friends and I fuck with my enemies. That's the way it is. Anybody who doesn't like it can take a hike."

The White House did not return calls for comment.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/April1999/040899/privateclinton040899.h tm"

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.


Totally agree with your assessment.


Why destablize world populations? What is his motivation, thinking (using the word very loosely here)?

What you & Nikoli are saying is going beyond getting some unpleasant news off the front page and certainly does not establish a "legacy".

Recently (in the last week), my concern for Y2k has greatly lessened in comparison to the possibility of WWIII.

What is he planning and why???

-- Texan (wondering@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

Andy, from what I've been reading the last few days everything the Russians are putting to sea has been loaded chock full of nuclear weapons. I read an article a while back that said Clinton had removed all tactical nuclear warheads from our naval vessels with the exception of the Trident subs, and he took the launch codes away from them. The Article Tex posted at the start of this thread say that the Russians have pulled 300 combat units off the Chinese frontier. Anyone know where those units went? That's more fire power than our entire ground based military right there. They also have upped the draft. I don't know who I'd like to kick in the ass more, Madeline Albright or Bill Klinton.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.


Klintstone...Maddy's not so brite. Heard her speak?

give me a break! She can't find herself out of wet paperbag.

-- Texan (yep@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

Texan, like Andy said we have been worried about this scenario for a long time now. The Russians and Chinese are facing a use it or lose it scenario with their nukes as Y2K aproaches, and the coming gps rollover will weaken our defenses even further than they are now. Exactly to what extent nobody but the Pentagon knows, and they have classified that information. The Russians are hacking like crazy trying to find out, and if the truth were told that is what all this tightening of security is about at our labs and military computer networks. Those old boys in the Pentagon know full well the commies are thinking very seriously about nuking us, and they aren't going to give them any more information to work with than they can help. I was already worried about this and now that the Moron has attacked Serbia I figure the odds just went up about ten percent.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.

In a nutshell ( :) ), and I've been studying him, this, for a while now, we are on the cusp of incredible global change. The ultimate goal is to reinforce control of us all with a world goverment, army, central bank and currency, underpinned by a microchipped population. Instabilty, war, and the ever so convenient y2k hand, will have the poulations clamouring for salvation. Slick and his cronies will step up to the plate.

Don't believe me? Stay tuned - pay attention - read between the lines.

Any of David Icke's last three books go into exhaustive and documented detail.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

Andy & Nikoli,

Let me preface by saying that I don't believe at all in sort of milleanism (sp?), but, you know what you're saying is sounding so suspiciously Biblical...

Don't flame me because this isn't my belief but...one of my colleagues who is mainstream Protestant has mentioned more than once the possibility of ole Bill being the antichrist.

Yeah, right, but, huh, it sure is lining up awfully like a certain book I've read......

-- Texan (geewillikers@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

Andy, I agree with you about the NWO agenda, but I had to back off from Ickes when he came on Sightings a couple of weeks ago talking about Bush and the british Royalty being reptilian shape shifting aliens.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.


Gee, and sure do hate those reptilian shape shifting aliens!!!


-- Texan (g@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

Nikoli - those theories of his do not discount the annotated research with authors, books, dates, published articles etc. etc. Facts are facts, you can verify EVERYTHING yourself. Icke is not the only one saying this - there are a host of reputable researchers who have come to the same broad conclusions.

By the way the shape shifting aspect - Icke knows that he is setting himself up for ridicule, however he has gone public with it - that takes guts.

We are in deep merde.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

Texan, I'm a Christian of sorts but I don't have a clue if this is Revalations coming to pass or just mankinds own greed and ignorance leading to its ineviteable outcome. INVAR holds forth that this is the Lords second coming, maybe so, maybe not. What I see is a bunch of greedy American and European Bankers trying to establish their New World Order and a bunch of Communist who don't want any part of it.

Stop and think about it for a minute. If the russians go into the next century in their present position they are doomed to be a welfare state to the West for the forseeable future. China is a growing powerhouse, but her neighbors India and Pakistan have already developed nuclear weapons, and the U.S. is arming Taiwan to the teeth. Any hope of expansion they are harboring will have to come to pass soon or the chance will be forever lost. NATO and the United States are at the weakest they have been since the end of the Korean war. Our forces are scattered piecemeal all over the globe, and are underequippped and undermanned. From Russia comes at least ten thousand funtional nukes and fifteen or twenty thousand tanks. From China millions of infantry troops. China is not nearly as weak in tactical nukes as they are in ICBM's, and they have a perfectly funtional navy. August 22 the Gps rolls over. January 1 Y2K hits and they lose nearly everything. Will they roll those dice? That's the ten million dollar question.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.


Hmmm...well, one of Icke's book covers has an illustration from William Blake so he might not be so bad.

It's just that this NWO stuff has been touted for so long but it's hard to dispute the way the world has drastically changed in a very few years. I think about the last 6 years.... :-)

What is your opinions of chances of surviving off grid if this stuff really comes down?

-- Texan (?@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.


anyone else with an open mind - check ut the march 29th radio interview at


-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

Andy, yes it took a lot of courage to come out sith that theory, but he would have been far better served to sit on it until he could shoot one of the buggers and have it mounted for evidence. ha ha. I think the rest of his work is outstanding, and I guess you have to be a little on the edge to pursue something like that with the dedication he has anyway. I don't know why people don't realize what the Trilateralist and CFR etc. are up to, they don't make any secret of it any more. I was watching the German Chancellor on c-span a couple of months ago at a meeting of the g-7 and his whole presentation was on one world government. The next speaker up was Al Gore. go figure. David Rockefeller said that surely the rule of an intellectual elite and worldwide bankers was surely preferable to national self determination. Ok, I'll buy that for a dollar. Bill Clinton says the U.S. Constitution is an outdated document. The same Constitution he is sworn to uphold and defend that is.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.


You said you didn't know if this was "Revalations coming to pass or just mankinds own greed and ignorance leading to its ineviteable outcome."

I would say that what Revelations describes occuringis the same as the outcome from mankind's own greed and ignorance...or as often referred to in the Bible as "sin".

You have painted quite a telling picture.

But, Nikoli and Andy....one more question. If everything is aligned as Nikoli as elucidated and come time that the GPS no longer functions, then what? Say whoever conquers whoever and there's no more GPS and Y2k has impacted technology to a measurable degree - then how does any superpower maintain their power?

-- Texan (more??@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

Texan, The current posture of our nuclear forces under Clinton dictates that our ICBM's are untargeted and off alert. It takes 25 to 30 minuted to spin up an Icbm, retarget and launch. Flight time of a Russian ICBM is 20 minutes, less for sub launched nukes (Which they have a lot of). Our ICBM's will be destroyed in their silos. Period. We no longer have nuclear bombs or cruise missiles loaded on our B series bombers. It takes 24 hours to rearm them with nukes. They will either be destroyed on the ground or have their bases and weapons stockpiles blown away. We have only eightteen Triden Subs. Nine of them stay in port at all times. The other nine have to get their launch codes and authorization from Clinton via the ULF antenna array. We have two of those, both of which will be destroyed in the initial strike. The Russians have over 50 attack subs to hunt those tridents down while they cruise around the world with their unlaunchable nukes. In short the Russians could pull this off as things are today without taking much damage at all in return. With us out of the way they could overrun Europe in three days. And suddenly the Ruble is the new Euro dollar. Getting the picture?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.

Tex and Andy, enjoyed the discussion, gonna call it a night. Later.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.

Nikoli is right-on with the specific, there were a few threads on this a while back and we took a lot of heat for speaking up, if you go back into the Art Bell archives, there was a chap on last year who outlined in detail exactly how our nukes could be taken out TODAY due to Clinton's policies -- it really is that serious. The guy's name was Skousen, and what he has to say is quite chilling. The game plan would be a sub-launched attack from just off the coast, ETA of missiles would be minutes, Spetznatz to mop up politicians. How do we account for Clinton's demilitarysation to this degree? A web has been woven here.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.


I'm getting it much clearer.

I can see a possibility of a massive shift in world powers but I still don't know how a NWO can be pulled off. It sounds like N.Amer. would be in shambles. However, without large, functioning computers the powers that would want to control economically or militarily on a global scale; wouldn't be able to do so if Y2K kicked in.

What do you or Andy think?

-- Texan (??@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

what will 2000 bring? the war of a billion things when darkness seizes the lords and darkness sends his judgement sword they march through the battle fields start the destruction wheels a scream of terror through the night the armies do their final fight we are coming upon the day when toxic gas fills the air and life on earth can't be found anywhere you run, but where can you hide? from the shelters i hear you cry the bombs bursting in air God help me i'm so scared!

Hope this posted right, it's a cut and paste from an old song from the 80's.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), April 09, 1999.

"but he would have been far better served to sit on it until he could shoot one of the buggers and have it mounted for evidence. ha ha. "

good one, problem is that he only one mounting the bugger would be George Bush! ha ha ha,

'Night gents, sleep tight, don't let the nukies byte...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

Good Night, Nikoli.


thanks for info. Listening to Icke now on broadcast.com.

Don't mean to get anyone in "trouble". :-)

IMHO, one would have to be blind not to think this thread or similiar ones are related to Y2K preparations. Things we're discussing that are happening now will obviously affect every area of our lives. Duh!

Concerning the unilateral disarmament....the "T" word comes to mind.

-- Texan (*@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

An interview with an ex KGB guy, Stanislav Lunev - recent - quite chilling...

Russia cannot threaten the United States. She is poor. She is weak. She is starving. She is in chaos. Think again, says Stanislav Lunev.


-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

"Russia May Launch a Surprise Attack Against US"

Since 1917, "capitalist warmongers" in the US and Europe have been the principal targets of hatred by Russians and the Chinese. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, those campaigns of hate subsided briefly, and authoritarian communists stepped out of the spotlight. Today, with Russia reported in desperate economic straits, the Russian people are again being told, "it's the fault of America and Europe." Brutal communist leaders are again publicly talking, dissent is again being banned, and hatred against the West is soaring.

During the past year, my concerns about Russia have been greatly increased as a result of an interview I conducted with Jeffrey Nyquist -- an independent researcher on Russia and author of The Origins of the Fourth World War.

Nyquist believes Russia has been planning a surprise nuclear attack against the United States, and that this attack will come sooner rather than later -- quite possibly within the next year if the US continues on its present reckless course. I would have scoffed at such suggestions had Nyquist not made such a convincing case and demonstrated such a powerful intellect.

During our conversations, Nyquist listed signs that would indicate a Russian attack was being planned.


In early 1998, Nyquist predicted that authorities in Russia would deliberately implode their own economy to advance their political and military agendas. There were several reasons. First, that would divert attention from the theft of billions of dollars by government officials from "privatized" companies, and provide a convenient explanation why none of them were making any money. Second, by engendering Russia's economic collapse and blaming the West, the necessary psychological atmosphere for war against the US would be created.

Another outcome of Russia's economic collapse, Nyquist said, would be the emergence of a series of progressively stronger and more militarist Russian leaders. Primakov -- Yeltsin's Prime Minister -- perfectly fits Nyquist's prediction. He's a former hard-line, anti- American KGB general.

Nyquist also predicted that Russia would ally with China. That, too, has now taken place, as you'll see below.

Finally, Nyquist predicted that Russia would stockpile huge quantities of food and other supplies for war, and begin moving their nuclear weapons on to their naval ships where they are much more difficult to monitor and deter. All of this has occurred.

SPY WARNS OF RUSSIAN WAR PLANS Nyquist is not the only astute observer of Russia who believes Russia may be preparing for war against the US. Stanislav Lunev -- the highest-ranking GRU (Russian military intelligence) officer ever to defect from Russia -- also warns that Russia is preparing for war against the United States.

Lunev's book Through the Eyes of the Enemy (published last summer by Regnery) states categorically that the Cold War is not over and that Russia continues to plan for a nuclear war. "Russia remains terrified of the power of America, and Russian military intelligence does everything it can prepare for a war that it considers inevitable," he wrote. This war, Lunev details, would employ nuclear, biological and chemical weapons against America.


Lunev explains war would begin with the infiltration of Russian special operations troops into the US, who would kill top political and military leaders. Lunev also warns that Russian GRU (military intelligence) agents have already deposited, near key water reservoirs, deadly poisons and toxins which would result in millions of civilians being ravaged by disease. Lunev says, for instance, that the Russians have determined that they could wipe out a significant part of the population of Florida by polluting water sources in the Carolinas.

Another part of Russia's plan, according to Lunev, is to deploy suitcase nuclear bombs at strategic points throughout the US. Lunev says he personally scouted a site in the Hudson Valley just above New York City for one such suitcase nuke.

Lunev has also told me that the democracy movement in Russia was a charade and part of "a plan" to get the West disarm -- achieving through deception what the Soviet Union was never able to achieve militarily. Lunev explained that China was pursuing parallel policies, absorbing as much Western aid and technology as possible before a final confrontation, which Lunev regarded as imminent.


The collapse of Russia's economy greatly increased the chances of war with the West. With 29 times Finland's population, Russia's budget barely matches theirs. According to news reports, millions of ordinary Russians are now struggling just to stay alive, selling family heirlooms and chopping up their furniture for kindling.

Russia's political leaders and economic czars, of course, will never admit that they and their failed totalitarian system are responsible for this widespread misery, and increasingly the West is being blamed.

This is particularly dangerous, because despite economic desperation, Russia continues is still a nuclear superpower. Victor Olove, director of Moscow's Center for Policy Studies, told the Los Angeles Times, "People who have nuclear warheads in their hands have not gotten their salaries for three or four months and are literally hungry."

Some press reports show how close to war we have already come. Britain's Panorama news program reported that in 1995 the Yeltsin government came within minutes of a full nuclear attack on the United States after Russian defense systems failed.


Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been systematically destroying its nuclear arsenal. In 1991, the US had approximately 30,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Under Clinton, that arsenal has fallen nearly 60%. In 1997, the United States had only 12,500 (tactical and strategic) nuclear weapons. Of these, only 8,750 were active, 2500 more were on reserve, and 1,250 were slated to be destroyed. Moreover, our nuclear arsenal has a limited "shelf life," and year by year, more and more weapons become unusable. The Clinton administration has only recently taken belated steps to produce tritium, a necessary component for the maintenance of nuclear weapons.

In contrast, the Russians may now have as many as 50,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons -- ranging from small suitcase bombs to large warheads suitable for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM's). The lion's share of these weapons remain targeted at the US. And Russia is quickly building even more weapons.

Never before has the strategic nuclear balance been so greatly in Russia's favor. From a military standpoint, this creates a unique window of opportunity for Russia to launch a successful first-strike against the United States at minimal cost to themselves.

"USE IT OT LOSE IT" Like America's nuclear arsenal, Russia's is degrading as it gets older and requires expensive, periodical servicing.

The Russian government is well aware of this problem. In a recent report to the Duma (Russia's Congress), First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Masluyokov (a former Soviet military-industrial planner) states that because of obsolescence, Russia's nuclear arsenal will decline quickly, and Russia may "be able to field only 800 to 900 nuclear warheads seven years from now."

Because of Russia's economic problems, Russia may never again enjoy the huge strategic advantage it now has over its old enemies in the West. For die-hard communists, the huge, but temporary, military advantage may represent an irresistible opportunity to "use them before we lose them." Indeed, Bruce Blair, a well-known liberal from the Brookings Institution, stated last summer in The National Interest, "Russia's conventional forces have declined ... and into this vacuum has rushed a growing reliance on nuclear weapons -- including their first use in any serious conventional conflict."

Recognizing the limited shelf-life of Russia's nuclear arsenal, Blair adds, "The nuclear forces themselves have become vulnerable.... Consequently Russia today faces far stronger pressures to Tuse or lose' its nuclear arsenal than at any time since the early 1960s."


Coinciding with the continuing degradation of Russia's nuclear weapons are military problems they will soon experience as a result of the Y2K (Year 2000 or Millennium) computer bug.

Like all modern strategic weapons, Russia's nuclear arsenal is critically dependent upon computer technology. At the latest, by January 2000 -- less than one year from now -- the millennium bug may render that technology largely useless.

Briefly, the problem is that two digit year codes used by most computer software will cause computers to misread the year 2000 as "00" or "1900." It sounds minor, but this computer glitch could lead to widespread failure of many high-tech weapons systems, including nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, radar and even tanks.

Even worse, the millennium bug is in billions of "embedded" microprocessors buried deep inside missiles, tanks, satellites, and nuclear reactors. (Imagine the cost of taking a satellite "into the shop" for repairs or sending someone inside a nuclear reactor to locate a defective chip!)

The US military is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to correct its own huge Y2K problem. Russia, however, has neither the money nor the manpower to correct millions of lines of faulty code and replace millions of chips. Their official policy is "fix on failure;" that is, they plan to do NOTHING to repair their systems until they fail. My soon-to-be-published special report -- Y2K and Russia: Impetus For Nuclear War? -- details the enormous Y2K risks Russia is facing -- and Y2K's implications for you.

Another frightening possibility is that on January 1, 2000, Russia's radar screens and early warning system could go blank or falsely report incoming missiles. That could lead Russian military leaders to believe the US has initiated an attack, and launch a counterattack.

The Y2K-related failure of Russia's early warning system could even result in an automatic attack against the US. Most people in the West don't realize it, but Russia has long had a "doomsday defense system." This system is designed to enable Russia to survive a US nuclear first strike and to launch a devastating retaliation even if no commanders are left alive in Russia to issue the orders. This system is designed to automatically launch nuclear missiles at the US if an event occurs that the computer interprets as a Western attack -- such as a loss of satellite and radar systems. The default target of thousands of Russian strategic missiles are cities in the United States and Europe.

Well aware of this problem, US military officials have recommended that the US and Russia place observers in each others' nuclear control rooms next December, to prevent an accidental launch.


An even more disturbing possibility has not been reported by the press: That is the possibility that the Russian general staff -- which is well aware of their Y2K and economic problems -- may have already decided to strike the United States before their defense systems fail on January 1, 2000.

Thus, in an extremely ominous sign, on December 17, 1997, President Yeltsin, issued a 37-page policy statement, reneging on previous pledges not to use nuclear weapons first.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Read the whole series: Russia and China Prepare for War, Parts I-VIII. Revisit Christopher Ruddy's interview with Russian defector Stanislav Lunev Defector Reveals Russian War Plans.

Link at

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

Can anyone tell how any of this relates to the clearly stated purpose of this forum ?

And please don't resort to that 'nothing happens in a vaccum' nonsense which is just a blatant excuse to justify sucking-up bandwidth and wasting the time of those who come here to learn about saving their own families next year ... especially the newbies !

-- Yan (no@no.no), April 09, 1999.

Fatherless Children Doth Make war's Remembrance.

-- Tom McDowell (tmac@netographer.com), April 09, 1999.

Yes Yan,

I can explain - though if you had taken the trouble to read any of the above the penny might have dropped... (see last paragraphs of my last post...)


Coinciding with the continuing degradation of Russia's nuclear weapons are military problems they will soon experience as a result of the Y2K (Year 2000 or Millennium) computer bug.

Like all modern strategic weapons, Russia's nuclear arsenal is critically dependent upon computer technology. At the latest, by January 2000 -- less than one year from now -- the millennium bug may render that technology largely useless.

Briefly, the problem is that two digit year codes used by most computer software will cause computers to misread the year 2000 as "00" or "1900." It sounds minor, but this computer glitch could lead to widespread failure of many high-tech weapons systems, including nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, radar and even tanks.

Even worse, the millennium bug is in billions of "embedded" microprocessors buried deep inside missiles, tanks, satellites, and nuclear reactors. (Imagine the cost of taking a satellite "into the shop" for repairs or sending someone inside a nuclear reactor to locate a defective chip!)

The US military is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to correct its own huge Y2K problem. Russia, however, has neither the money nor the manpower to correct millions of lines of faulty code and replace millions of chips. Their official policy is "fix on failure;" that is, they plan to do NOTHING to repair their systems until they fail. My soon-to-be-published special report -- Y2K and Russia: Impetus For Nuclear War? -- details the enormous Y2K risks Russia is facing -- and Y2K's implications for you.

Another frightening possibility is that on January 1, 2000, Russia's radar screens and early warning system could go blank or falsely report incoming missiles. That could lead Russian military leaders to believe the US has initiated an attack, and launch a counterattack.

The Y2K-related failure of Russia's early warning system could even result in an automatic attack against the US. Most people in the West don't realize it, but Russia has long had a "doomsday defense system." This system is designed to enable Russia to survive a US nuclear first strike and to launch a devastating retaliation even if no commanders are left alive in Russia to issue the orders. This system is designed to automatically launch nuclear missiles at the US if an event occurs that the computer interprets as a Western attack -- such as a loss of satellite and radar systems. The default target of thousands of Russian strategic missiles are cities in the United States and Europe.

Well aware of this problem, US military officials have recommended that the US and Russia place observers in each others' nuclear control rooms next December, to prevent an accidental launch.


An even more disturbing possibility has not been reported by the press: That is the possibility that the Russian general staff -- which is well aware of their Y2K and economic problems -- may have already decided to strike the United States before their defense systems fail on January 1, 2000.

Thus, in an extremely ominous sign, on December 17, 1997, President Yeltsin, issued a 37-page policy statement, reneging on previous pledges not to use nuclear weapons first."

...the latest news - Russia is refusing to cooperate with the west at Rollover...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

I'd suggest that anyone worried by this should go to the top page at www.newsmax.com which is the organisation behind this report. It's fairly clear from the top page what its credentials and biases are (ie the usual USA ultra-right wing ones).

As for reality: no sane person would start a nuclear war. It matters very little where one detonates thousands of megatons of warheads: the dust it would blast into the atmosphere would result in the death of almost all members of the human race from cold and starvation.

Until the world finds a way to get rid of these things, we'll have to rely on mutual deterrence and hope that the governments of the worlds nuclear powers remain sane, at least in the sense of retaining a desire for self-preservation.

A more plausibly cynical analysis of current news would be that Russia is hoping that western involvement in Kosovo will turn into another Vietnam, and/or will create splits in NATO. It's like chess - small unreasonable countries are pawns, that can cause your main opponent serious troubles, but which are also quite expendable, and which don't inject too much unpredictable risk into the game. This is of course utterly amoral, but with much historical precedent.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), April 09, 1999.


I believe "sane" would be the operative word here on your question of who would start a nuclear war.

In addition, casting aspersions upon a news source for its political leanings is really reaching, isn't it? While one may not agree with facts or analysis outlined by the writer, whether or not those facts or analysis prove accurate is entirely another matter.

-- Texan (hohum@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

Nigel - you may be right, personally I think we have moved beyond any question of sanity. The stakes are enormously high here - the Russians don't produce Grand Masters ad nauseam for nothing.

"Duma Speaker-Yeltsin Orders Missiles Aimed At NATO

Reuters 4/9/99

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Interfax news agency quoted Russia's parliamentary speaker as saying Friday that President Boris Yeltsin had ordered the country's strategic missiles to be aimed at those states bombing Yugoslavia.

Gennady Seleznyov, a Communist who is speaker of the State Duma lower house, made his comments in an interview with Interfax. A spokesman for the Strategic Rocket Forces told Reuters he knew of no change to standing orders on the targeting of missiles. There was no immediate word from the Kremlin.

A Reuters correspondent listened to a tape recording of the Interfax interview. In it, Seleznyov was asked whether it was true Yeltsin had said at a meeting with the speaker he had ordered missiles targeted on those countries fighting Belgrade. Many of the 19 NATO member states have forces in action.

"Yes," Seleznyov replied. "In the direction of those countries which today are fighting Yugoslavia."

Asked whether that meant missiles were to be pointed against all NATO countries, he said: ``Those countries which are fighting. Not all (NATO states) are fighting."

The spokesman for the Strategic Rocket Forces noted that under a long- standing arrangement with the United States, Russia's missiles are not specifically targeted. Defense experts say it takes just seconds to target a missile, making any move of this kind largely symbolic."

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

Thanks, guys, for a very interesting ( though extremely distubing) discussion.

For me it comes down to : is this possible? The answer has to be YES, and the possibility is not all that small. With a weak ( militarily and moraly) imbecile like Bill (not to mention his "national security team" - a world wide joke) ANYTHING can happen. His stumbling around in the Balkans --- who knows? It makes me furious that such a man was elected president. We live in a dagerous world and we have trusted (the country has) our future to a man who can't keep his zipper closed.

As someone said earlier, may God help us.

Incidentally, Biblical prophecy indicates Russia and China as the "evil" forces at 'Armegeddon', the US isn't mentioned or even vaguely referenced. So from an "end times" standpoint (according to Hal Linsey - Late Great Planet Earth) the US power/position "has" to decrease.

If only Y2K did exist in a vacumm. 60 some % of the people still support Bill.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), April 09, 1999.

I had addressed this dark side of our government a few weeks ago and I got chased from this forum. I am glad to see that some of you are finally starting to Get It. For the rest of you - go back to sleeeeeeeep, sleeeeeeep.

-- Butt Nugget (nugbuttet@BetterMousetrap.com), April 09, 1999.

The NWO, IMHO, will be much like the book 1984. They( the NWO builders) do not want a happy poopulace(spelling intended) they want slaves who are mindless robots. They want to destroy the old order, and create choas, so they can bring their own brand of "order" from it. They will do this by killing BILLIONS of people, and offering the survivor's their way or death. Y2K will create the catalyst. Slick is also creating himself so "failsafes" to insure the coming of the NWO. Of course this is just IMHO, and I really hope I'm wrong about how evil Klinton is... :(

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), April 09, 1999.

What surprises me about all of this "business as usual" is that all of you are surprised. This is what governments do. The only think that has changed about "the brink" is nuclear capability. It has been there since just before I was born. Yet hypnotically people keep on voting for all those people who want to get close to the button....

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 09, 1999.


Who is David Ickey? I have heard of J. Nyquest. Heard him on a talk show once. Head Stan L too, but had trouble understanding him due to accent. I have to say they got my attention though. Have you checked out any of their credentials? They seemed legit when I was listening to the radio. If they are, this is really scarey, considering what is happening with NATO.

Trilateral commission's purpose was to decrease US power and redistribute power to European countries.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), April 09, 1999.


I wasn't casting aspersions. The article was mostly speculation about Russian and Chinese motives, not news at all. The originally posted url used an IP address not a name, which I felt required investigation: nothing exactly wrong, but mostly people WANT their name attached to their reports and opinions! So I simply pointed out who was behind the address. Is "usual ultra right-wing" seriously inaccurate? Perhaps I should withdraw the "usual".

I qualified "sane" as "to the extent of "retaining a desire for self- preservation". This also applies to a lot of madmen.

As for what's going on in the world, it's all speculation. The few that know more than we do aren't telling. However, if you want to bring down an alliance more powerful than yourself, would you (a) try to start a nuclear war that no-one would win and few would even survive, or (b) attempt to get your powerful adversary enmeshed in a lot of insignificant local conflicts that in the long run will sap his strength and resolve, and sow the seeds of divisions within his alliance? My take is (b).

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), April 09, 1999.

Folks, I am blessed/cursed with a pager that has a primary duty to keep me informed of SVRWX and TOR watches and warnings. Its SECONDARY function is to keep me aprised of news, sports, and market headlines. The stories this AM, in order are

"NATO jets bomb Yugo on Orthodox good Friday. Frmr Pres Cyprus negotiates with Yugo for the release of 3 American POW's. Russia's Parliament speaker claims that Boris Yeltsin has ordered Russian missiles targeted at NATO Nations because of airstrikes against Yugo.."


-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), April 09, 1999.

Andy, Texan, Nikoli, et. al.

This is an excellent thread. I appreciate all of your research and insights into this potentially "earth-shattering" scenario.

I do have to comment on Nigel's use of the term "mutual deterrance". Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it true that America is not really a deterrant at all since we have lessened our arsenal to such a large degree? Isn't it possible that we could be attacked and rendered helpless without much opportunity to retaliate? Just thinking out loud...

Oh BTW Yan...

The really neat thing about this forum is that if you find a thread you don't like you can SKIP IT!

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), April 09, 1999.

Nigel - you said "As for reality: no sane person would start a nuclear war." I see. As if sane ones start conventional wars?!?

Also - "It matters very little where one detonates thousands of megatons of warheads: the dust it would blast into the atmosphere would result in the death of almost all members of the human race from cold and starvation." Nigel you really SHOULD move into the 1990's or at least the late 1980's. This statement is so absurd nowadays it's downright humorous. You owe it to yourself to educate yourself on this matter least you be dismissed by others as a technological illiterate.

I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, you are refearing to (refering to, Fruedian slip) so-called "Nuclear Winter". This was promoted by the T.A.P.P.S. report, the only "scientific study" that spent more money on P.R. than research, and was first published in the highly regarded peer-reviewed publication PARADE. That should give everybody a BIG hint. I won't go into the technical reasons that the TAPPS report is pure junk science since there are over 3 dozen MAJOR technical flaws in it. But for starters let's just point out that every single math error in the study favored the hypothesis, they should be distibuted 50/50. Considering just ONE math error (the one on burning tires) overstated smoke particles by a factor of 100, the alignment of math errors becomes more interesting. Also, all the authors of the study, Turco , Atkinson, etc. disavowed the study with the lone exception of that grand liar Carl Sagen. The final nail in the TAPPS coffin came when Sagen during the Gulf War warned that if Sadam ignited the oil wells in Kuwait, nuclear winter would follow just a certainly as night follows day. Right......

To the general crowd reading this topic (all ten of you) - An interesting point is that many survivalists in the 1980s prepared to survive a nuclear war, not because they thought it likely, but because they used it as a checklist/exercise, based on the theory that if you prepare to survive a nuclear war, you are ready to survive anything.

Actually, if you take a full scale nuclear war, subtract the radiation and blast effects, the results are't a whole lot differt between that and a version of Infomagic/Gary North TEOTWAWKI!

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), April 09, 1999.


Thanks for your down to earth thoughts, as usual. Who knows how many threads we quietly and politely, ala Mr. Decker?, ignore and go on our merry way.


You verbalized so succinctly thoughts I've had...preparedness for Y2K for such an unknown possibility is closely related to preparedness for other unexpected mishaps.

-- Texan (moi@ranch.com), April 09, 1999.

What a fascinating and scary thread. One question: there were various mentions regarding this new alliance between Russia and China on one side, with the West on the other. Previously, I had thought that the international bankers who are pulling the strings for the West also included Russia as part of their domain - with the two remaining "blocks" being China and Islam. This line of thinking has led to the speculation that the West would be fighting one first and then the other - for eventual worldwide control. So this China/Russia alliance seems to contradict this idea. Perhaps it is just timing - a temporary alliance between these two former adversaries as the first move in the winner take all scenario. Is this thinking incorrect? What do you think?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), April 09, 1999.


"Mutual deterrence" applied to nuclear weapons refers to the fact that if they ever get used, there won't be a winner. 95+% of the human race will be dead and the rest will be back to living in caves.

So, nobody starts a nuclear war other than a suicidal maniac backed up by a command structure full of likeminded individuals. This is fortunately unlikely. A greater(?) danger (and one more germane to this forum) is that a combination of increased international stress, human misunderstanding, and technical failure, might cause the end of our world by accident rather than intent.

You may well wonder why we have the damn things at all. Unfortunately if you don't have them and someone else does ... well, they've been used in anger once and once only, and then against a power with nothing nuclear to retalliate with.

And since these truly are doomsday weapons, past a certain fairly small point it matters very little how many you have (or, for that matter, where you detonate them -- if you're within a few miles, you die in seconds. If within a larger radius, more slowly of radiation. If on the other side of the world, then sometime in the next year or two of cold or starvation in a "nuclear winter").

The more people know these facts, the less chance of it actualy happening, so its worth spelling out.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), April 09, 1999.

Nigel --- as pointed out, you're simply wrong on the facts. Nuclear war, regrettably, is survivable and military planners on both sides are well aware of that.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 09, 1999.

An old and still foolish notion, and acronym. MAD - mutually assured destruction. Musta been stolen from a Mel Brooks script...musta I keep telling myself.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 09, 1999.

My gosh there are more than ten now!

Anyway, forgot to mention that the only countries in the world that have an affective Civil Defense are Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and China (with an honorable mention going to Israel).

Everybody knows about the Swiss having more fallout shelter places than people with every school, cafe, warehouse, office bldg, house, etc. built since the 1960 having not only fallout protection but blast and bio-chem protection as well, pre-stocked with food, water, fuel, medicines, etc. Add to this their system of duplicate hospitals, doctor clinics, city halls, air strips, etc. all built underground and you have a really good system to protect the population.

The Swede, Finn, and Norwegian systems are along the same line, though not quite as thorough, and definately NOT as well advertised.

The Russian system consists of two tiers. The Nomenkultura have protective shelters that make Adolf's Furher Bunker look like a pre-fab root cellar. There are apporimately 150,000 intended spaces in these shelters, though they could probably hold at least twice that much. These are all over the country and can withstand a direct hit ground burst of one megaton. The second tier is for the workering class. They are usually mass rooms with poor construction. They would make fine fallout shelters if the ventilation would be upgraded, but would probably probably fail any moderate blast effects. Oh there is also a third tier for the rural peasants. These are do it yourself using picks, shovels, saws and trees. Quite adequate for fallout if they improve their ventilation system. The peasants would survive the two days but it would be hot, muggy, and ripe for skin diseases.

China's CD is actually better than Russia'sin some regards. Most Chinese cities of any size can have the entire population sheltered in less than 10 minutes. I think the requested specifications are 7 or 8 minutes. The Chinese system of tunnels ordered by Mao, is a much larger civil engineering project than the Great Wall was. Basically you have multiple tunnels under each city with mmultiple entrances to each tunnel. Unlike the Swiss system, the Chinese do not go to the huge effort to protect the entrance doors with massive blast proof overhang and blast redirecting baffles. Therefore the Chinese tunnels interconnect and lead to a rural exit. In large cities these exit tunnels exit at up 50 miles from the city center. And yes, they at least used to be stocked. "Dig tunnels deep and store grain everywhere." - Mao Tse Tung

So deterence isn't just whether one can shoot back, which thanks to the profound disarmement during the Bush and Clinton years, we can't. Deterence also depends on if your coat is made of Kevlar or cotton!

My website still has nuke info at http://home.earthlink.net/~kenseger if any body cares.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), April 09, 1999.


You posted while I was composing the reply to Sharon. You start by disagreeing, then say that a fullscale nuclear war would cause an Infomagic style collapse, so are we really disagreeing? Certainly you agree that no-one can win a nuclear war and few would survive one.

No-one can be certain about the parameters for a nuclear winter. We do have the evidence of history (a volcanic erruption in Iceland in mediaeval times caused widespread crop failures and famine in Northern Europe by this mechanism), and of geology (a meteor impact and/or a massive outbreak of volcanism in what is now india wiped out the dinosaurs and the majority of all then-extant species).

"Sane people start wars"? This argument leads to the honorable position that a Quaker will expound, that it's better to accept death at the hands of an agressor than to fight back. It's not a position that I agree with, though. Two "sane" parties will always negotiate instead of fighting. If one "insane" party won't negotiate or breaks their agreements, a choice must be made between bad and worse. (I'm deliberately being abstract; I'm not well-informed or confident enough to decide whether "we" recently chose bad or worse let alone argue for the point).

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), April 09, 1999.

Ah, where is that dead equestrian notification device? Ah, here we are!

Nigel - If you look at all of the evidence, the old USSR never once adapted the Mutual Assured Destruction concept. The evidence for this is manifest. Look at the style of waepons they made. Look at their delivery systems. Look at their Civil Defense programs. By the way I think you can still purchase the 14 hour set of subtitled Soviet CD films from OISM. These films were for all workers and school children. Look at their targeting priorities. Listen to the old USSR generals that are now giving interviews. The Soviets had the concept of winning a nuclear war. Until Regan they probably could have. After Bush it became easier. With Billy it becomes a cinch. Their dilema is whether they'll do better with us or without us. There is no evidence that the Russians have any different policy than the Soviets. Please note that even though Russia is supposed to be an economic basket case they are still manufaturing new series of missiles, boats, tanks, etc.

Nigel you are exactly where I was about 20 years ago. I grew up in Omaha, NE which is just north of SAC HQ. I "knew" Omaha was going to be toast about 5 seconds after WW3 started. I'ld seen the movie On The Beach several times. I "knew" the radiation would mutate anything left from watching all those 1950's "B" horror movies. The politicians told me that USSR missiles were targeted on cities, at least that was the implication. Hollywood, Foggy Bottem, and Madison Avenue had taught me well, nuclear war was unsurvivable. When I found out the truth by doing a lot of the math myself, I was really angry that all those people had been lying to me for decades.

If you would like a very thorough but brief education on the effects of nuclear weapons it awaits you at http://home.earthlink.net/~kenseger

Please join the nuclear educated portion of the population. We'ld love to have you aboard, there is plenty of room. ;)

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), April 09, 1999.

Ken, thanks for the links.

I've been researching this particular scenario for several weeks now, since the time we began to get involved in Kosovo. There seems to be ample evidence that Russia and/or China have the capability and motivation to nuke us, if they so choose.

While there may have been MAD (mutually assured destruction) at one time, I don't believe we have that situation any longer. Based on what I've read, we (USA) would be hard pressed to mount any effective response to a nuclear attack.

The Y2K situation is clearly going to play a large part in this scenario coming about. If the information coming out of Russia and China is valid, it appears that the infrastructures of both these nations will be severely affected by Y2K problems. If the Russian and/or Chinese leaders realize how vulnerable their nations will be after the century date change, they may very well decide they have no choice but to strike a preemptive blow.

Russsia and China are effectively in a "use it before you lose it" situation. Faced with the possibility of a post-Y2K threat from an aggressor military organization (NATO) that has shown itself ready to use force to settle disputes, a preemptive attack may appear to be an attractive option.

God help us if Kremlin/Beijing military analysts have come to the same conclusion.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), April 09, 1999.

Paul Davis: "What does this have to do with Y2K?"

Maria: "I don't see the connection to Y2K."

Flint: "There will be absolutely NO problem with the embeds in their missl....er, ah, uh-oh..."

Y2K Pro: "What does this have to do with Gary North being a Big Fat Idiot?"

Norm: "I think I have a pen up my nose."

Hoff: "ZZzzzzzzz. ZZzzzzzzzz..."

-- a (a@a.a), April 09, 1999.

"Mutual deterrence" applied to nuclear weapons refers to the fact that if they ever get used, there won't be a winner. 95+% of the human race will be dead and the rest will be back to living in caves.

The scenario outlined in the series of articles by Chris Ruddy and by the Skousen radio interviews clearly shows that we no longer have mutual deterence, or any deterence. Since the Rapist has unilaterally declared that we will no longer respond upon launch of a missile attack by our enemies that means our land-based missiles will be taken out on a first strike, guaranteed. Our B-52s are no longer aloft with nuclear weapons, which was always the case before the Cold War 'ended.' That means the only leg left of the defensive triad is submarines, and they will not be able to launch if communications are destroyed. Therefore a first strike, rightly done, is a risk-free proposition for Russia, once it is certain that all three means of launching a nuclear response are disabled. Only military targets in the US need be destroyed to assure a Russian victory. The risk of any radiation hazard to them, at least in the short term would be very small, probably a lot less than the effect of Chernyobl. Smearing those who propose this scenario as right-wing does nothing to refute it. Many Russian nationalists and militarists are also 'right-wing.' To let this nation be defenseless against nuclear attack, as the rapist has done, is criminal and treasonous. It only makes sense if you assume that he and Comrade Rodham have another agenda.

-- Tom Knepper (thomas_knepper@intuit.com), April 09, 1999.

2 quick points to add to this thread.

1) In answer to the question about who David Icke is, I can shed a little light. He used to be a TV presenter here in the UK, (actually more of a stringer than an anchorman) on a sports show. He wasnt bad in that capacity, and the sports show had a decent audience. Then some years later, after flitting from show to show never really getting very far, he vanished from our screens, only to resurface in a turquoise shell suit, espousing theories about aliens invasions, other dimensions, new age religion and the need for chanting etc. He gained some publicity in the early days based on the fact that he used to be a "face on the telly" and there was general amusement about his foray into the wacko fringe. However, he was pretty quickly consigned to the dark corner marked "ridicule and obscurity". He has since found the true home for all those of his ilk and is plying his trade on the web.

2) As far as the discussion on nuclear deterrence and capabilities is concerned, its worth mentioning that to date, the only country on earth to have used a nuclear weapon in anger is. . .

The USA.

Precedence counts for something right ? ---------

"How come Governments are always so keen on investigating and dismantling monopolies ? Could it be because the only true monopoly on earth is a Government"

-- IGD (nomail@whybother.com), April 09, 1999.

The most likely time for a surprise attack would be between August 22, 1999 and December 31, 1999. September 9, 1999 would be the most likely date, in my opinion, for several reasons.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), April 09, 1999.

I'm composing, while she's responding to what you composed before the other fellow answered the original, etc....... ;) This is fun. Like puting messages in bottles and waiting for the tide.

Yes we are in violent agreement that both a Y2K 10 and a nuke war would be bad news for the majority of the world. I guess we need to decide what the term "win" means in term of a nuclear conflict. I would point out first that the southern hemisphere would be pretty much unscathed by a nuclear WW3. Great Britian won WW2 but it was in much worse physical shape in 1945 than it was in 1935. Also, it never did quite recover its world position. WW3 would be much worse for the USA. If a nuke war started right now the USA would lose about 55-90% of its population, probably only 10% promptly, another 30% over the next month, and the other 40% in the next year. The USA would cease to exist. Russia would lose about 5-20% max. Ditto China. France and England would probably submit to unconditional surrender and suffer no population loses. The results would be a profound change in global politics for the next hundred or more years. I would guess much much larger than the power shift of Great Britain in 1870 to 1970. At least that's my best guess.

As for "nuclear winter", one more time..... You are over estimating the power of nuclear weapons by a great deal. If if you go on the figures of horsepower from the old arsenals of the late 60's and early 70's when bigger is better was all the rage. Back then both sides had 5, 7, 10, and 20 megatons bombs in stock ready for use. I don't think anybody has so much as a single one megaton anymore. Modern targeting devices make a .1MT actually more effective than an old 1MT was because it can be placed within yards of a target rather than a mile from the target.

So, sorry. We can be certain about nuclear winter. Nuclear winter is dead. It never ever had any honest support. It is pure junk science in its worst form.

I would suggest figuring out precisely how many 1MT bombs it would take to duplicate the effects of 1. Hurricane Camile, 2. Mount Saint Helens, 3. Krackatoa, 4. the Tunguska Event. I've done this, it's fascinating. We humans certainly have a high regard for our abilities. It ain't deserved......

A good warm up exercise is to calculate the amount of energy of a 1/4" of rain falling over Washington D.C. Pick any unit of energy you wish, pounds of TNT exploded, watt-hours, joules, ergs, or electron-volts if you like really big numbers. Kind of like measuring radiation in bequerals. ;)

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), April 09, 1999.

Well said Nabi, and Ken thanks for updating everyone on the true effects of nuclear war. I would just add one thing to Nabi's conclusions. Russia and China are communist countries. They want and need the entire planet to be under communist rule so that their systems will be viable. Communism does not compete economically with capitalism in reguards to generating excess wealth, especially if you are involved in an ongoing arms race. If NATO is blown away who would stop them from ruling the planet?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.

IMHO we are not facing a full nuclear strike.

The most likely scenario, given the mineral, agricultural and industrial wealth of the United States, is that, now that Klinton has effectively eliminated our deterrent effect, we will be treated to one or two nuclear blasts (possibly a high-altitude EMP) and a demand for total surrender. Klinton will bite his lower lip, apologize to the citizenry for not preparing for this, and then surrender the country to a joint soviet-sino administration. He'll then retire to some european resort with all expenses paid.

Any resistance in this country (from the military and/or the militia) will be dealt with ruthlessly.

This is what worries me. For the last several years the soviet maskirovka has been doing an excellent job, but the last few weeks seems to be putting the lie to all of it.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), April 09, 1999.

Sometimes my post are so long winded I forget what I'm talking about.

In the previous one. When I was talkng about the old arsenals and the really big bombs back then - nuclear winter wasn't possible when those existed, therefore it is even less possible now. P.S. The original "nuclear winter" said the effect could begin with as little as 100 large bombs going off, they back pedeled to 1,000 average size bombs, then to 10,000 and after that nobody took them seriously. Please note that the TAPPS report was taken seriously by a lot of people for over half a decade.

Dear a@a.a - Thank you very much. Not only do we certianly need a humor break from all this strum und drung, but you've given a very accurate thumbnail sketch of various "participants". Your sharp pen is welcome, just don't point it my direction. :)

Dear Shoe Pounder - Just a slight nit to pick with you. "Russia and China are communist countries. They want and need the entire planet to be under communist rule so that their systems will be viable." IF Russian or China did ever institute global control, a complete collapse would occur within a year or two. If that sounds unlikely, please read the book East Minus West Equals Zero. It laboriously documents the fact that without infusions of inovation, free money, free resources, and free goods both Red China and Red Russia would have collapsed a long time ago. Ie. they have been proped up a long time. If you read the International section of the WSJ every day for the last 15 years or so you'll note that the amount of money going into Red China about a decade ago was astounding. That is why we have a trade deficit with them today.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), April 09, 1999.

Cowardly Lion, I think there are two flaws in that scenario. 1. The U.S. military would never surrender the continental United States without a fight to the death, even if it meant taking over the government. 2. There are about two hundred million privately owned firearms in the U.S. and a kazillion rounds of ammo. Any occupying army would find itself in the ultimate Guerilla War. It would take a hundred years to pacify a problem like that, if it could be done at all.

I think if they strike they will hit all our military bases, all our ICBM sites, Washington D.C., Cheyenne Mountain, Guam, Nuclear capable NATO bases, and our Aircraft carriers. Secondary Targets would be major defense contractors, Armored divisions based in Germany, and troublesome NATO capitals. I also think there will be a co-ordinated Tactical nuclear strike against our DMZ firebases in Korea, and a simuletaneous Russian-Chinese-Iraq offensive to gain control of the mid-east oilfields. There is no need at all to occupy the United States after nuking it. Radiation, civil chaos, EMP efffects, and the total anihilation of our military and manufacturing base will render us a moot point. After a few years of starvation and disease, with upwards of 70% of our population dead, then they can start thinking about occupation.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.

Ken, I have to disagree with your assesment of collapse by the communist. If in fact they did succeed in destroying the United States, overrunning Europe, and taking over the Worlds oilfields they would have the monopoly on world currency, and all the World Gold supply. Minus a competeing stronger currency they can set the value of the ruble at whatever level they want. The standard of living worldwide would no doubt decline to the level of your average bananna republic, but that is the communist norm anyway. I don't think for a minute that the elite would lose any sleep over how their subjects in roosterpoot Arkansas are fairing. just as they don't mind the plight of the peasants in China or Russia now. A generation or two of stamping out brushfires and a Stalinist-Kmer Rouge purge of intellectuals and capitalist die hards would render the concept of freedom to the category of The Latin Language. Little understood and long dead.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.

Hey Nik- Just a correction:


I'm a Christian of sorts but I don't have a clue if this is Revalations coming to pass or just mankinds own greed and ignorance leading to its ineviteable outcome. INVAR holds forth that this is the Lords second coming......

"end snip"

Ummm, I DO NOT HOLD THIS IS THE LORD'S COMING. No man knows the day nor the hour. Christ Himself said he didn't even know, but the Father only.

But- I do believe that this nation, as a birthright blessing promised by God over 1460 years ago, is about to get a HUGE spanking.

I believe that this nation, having so rebelled against He who blessed it, will be destroyed utterly, and the remnant taken into captivity. This is biblical by-the-way. Time after time, ancient Israel rebelled against God, and he sent armies against them and drove them into bondage COUNTLESS times.

This coming judgement on us as a people, is NOT Armageddon. It will be what scripture calls: the great tribulation- or Satan's wrath on God's sinful people. By the by, this doesn't mean God is CAUSING all this stuff to take place- (aside from sending strong delusion for the people to believe a lie), we are doing it to ourselves - and we will ALL suffer for it.

Now contrary to what some idiot will post, I DO NOT look forward to this thing coming to pass. As in ancient Nineveh, if the nation repented or CHANGED it's heart- we could be spared the catastrophe that is looming.

You polly's and sound-asleepers go ahead and ridicule. Sleep tight in the feeble belief that things will go on as they have in this nation as they have for the last 35 years. Believe that the world is safe and we are untouchable.

Because without finding any other way to say this: we are FUCKED as a nation.

This thread bears witness to that fact.

Ignoring and ridiculing it won't make it go away.


-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 09, 1999.

My apologies INVAR, I misinterpreted your position from previous discussions we have had on this subject. I agree wholeheartedly with you that this nation has lost its moral direction and will suffer for it.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 09, 1999.

"well, they've been used in anger once [nukes] and once only, and then against a power with nothing nuclear to retalliate with."

Er, remember Gommorrah? It was a pillar of vapour, mistranslated as salt. The area still shows high traces of radioactivity and - no, not just sand, glass too.

Got NBC suits?

By the way - the cold war never ended, the KGB was never dismantled, perostroika was and is a sham, the Russians are about to put us into check...

Do some research folks - all the links are there that Nikoli and I gave you over the last day or so. Skousen, Ruddy, Nyquist and all the rest...


-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

Hah! - That's funny Texan! I can't believe you people are buying into this. Don't you know a fraud website when you see one?

-- @ (@@@.@), April 09, 1999.


"September 9, 1999" - why this particular date???

Is it in the 9 as in digit as in computer context?

-- Andrei-hung-lo (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

Okay, guys, I still think it's all just hyperbole...and no, I'm not going to get into it with Andy, Nabi, et al again on why they are choosing to believe someone I consider to be a highly suspect and untrustworthy source, but I do have a question for you:

given that there is no nuclear exchange prior to the rollover, what will you do?

In other words, if I'm right, and y2k ends up being a 7.5+, but there is no giant conspiracy waiting in the wings to take over, are you prepared for what may follow, or are you locking yourselves in to just one scenario?

just wonderin' Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 09, 1999.

I guess the question I posted got lost between all the others - does someone have an answer to it? Basically, it was regarding Russia being in alliance with China versus Russia being part of the Western international banking domain.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), April 09, 1999.


while Russia technically maintains ties with China, their 'strategic alliance' is basicly a good way for each side to spy on the other while attempting to make money off of each other at the same time. The Russians perceive the Chinese as being racially inferior and a threat because of their numbers, while the Chinese perceive the Russians to be an imperialist threat of the first order.

In other words, despite the alternate universe in which some of the folks on this board live, don't look for any really meaninful close cooperation between the two of them any time soon.


-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 10, 1999.

Because without finding any other way to say this: we are FUCKED as a nation.


Once again you inexorably proved what a moronic liberal piece-of- shit imbecile you are.


This coming judgement on us as a people, is NOT Armageddon. It will be what scripture calls: the great tribulation- or Satan's wrath on God's sinful people.


Yeah INVAR I see your point, with assholes like you running around spouting your venomous filth, seeing a little punishing going on wouldnt surprise me a bit.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), April 10, 1999.

Thanks Arlin: In reading one of Jim Lord's newsletters, he mentioned Richard Maybury and his site www.chaostan.com - anyway, if I remember correctly, Mr. Maybury holds the opinion that Eastern Europe and Russia will fractionalize into many strife-ridden areas but eventually be aligned with the West against the two non-NWO powers: China and Islam. The West would then strive for complete worldwide dominance via war with first one and then the other powers.

Let me be clear that I don't know much of anything about this stuff and upon reading this thread, and the references to this Russia/China alliance, I was just wondering what the posters thought of it in relation to Mr. Maybury's opinion as I understand it and expressed it above.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), April 10, 1999.

Dear Table Pounder - I agree that living standards would plummet and various purges and pogams would make Hitler's actions against the Gypsies, Jews, and disidents look like a tea party. And perhaps my time frame is overly optimistic.

Control of a population takes effort, which requires manpower, material, and other resources. A fascinating article I read in the 1980's pointed out that life in Kiev was much nicer than in Moscow. There was more (limited) freedom, better housing, better food, etc. The hypothisis was that the farther you are from a central authority the better. If one compares Washington D.C. with just about any other American city, the same holds true. The ability to produce goods and services of the world would decline drastically under Communism, would there be enough surplus to "run" it? Also, every little city, county, and state official would be trying to feather his own nest and build his own little kingdom. I'm tempted to say that a collapse of communism is a historical inevitability. :)

That all said, I do not think that a nuke war is a done deal for several reasons; disagreement within the ranks of the ruling factions of China and Russia. As Arlin points out, Russia and China fear and mistrust each other, likewise, various factions in Russia and China mistrust each other internally. My biggest arguement would be both have prospered so well under the present "detante", ie. don't rock the gravy train (to mix metaphors).

But I do not dismiss the posibility.

On Maybury's Chaostan. I've not read much from him. I did see a map he made which drew lines of separation based strictly on cultures, language, and ethnic groupings. He then placed markers indicating oil reserves. The fact that in Asia and Europe the oil is on the division points of those lines (conflict) is truely amazing if his analysis is accurate. One is tempted to bring up the subject of Babel in that the lines seperating various warring factions on earth have been there for centuries but the oil has only been found recently.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), April 10, 1999.

Ken, I do not see this war as an ineviteability, just a strong possibility. On the alignment of Russia with China, I don't think their idealogical differences are nearly as broad as those they have with the west. Especially since NATO has redefined its future role as an agressor organization. If NATO does succeed in the current conflict several more former Russian Republics will probably be allowed into the alliance, further weakening the Russian led CIS. China also realizes that we are most likely going to go to war with them at some point in the near future over Taiwan, with Korea also thrown into the mix. I think they would both jump at the chance to build a worldwide communist league, possibly with a little back stabbing in mind after the big one is finished.

I just don't see the collapse of communism on a worldwide scale happening at all. You either produce or starve under their system. The technology for a cashless society already exist, and its implementation would make the typical graft and corruption much more difficult. Without even going to those extremes you have to consider that after destroying the U.S. and disarming all other countries of heavy weapons military expenditures compared to social expenditures would decline dramatically. Also with a single currency under a single economic governing agency could freely print currency in any amounts it wanted to and deliver it selectively to whichever sectors needed a boost. Standing alone in this manner there would not ber the usual inflationary-deflationary fluctuations caused by competitive currencies and money changers. The system would never be as efficient as capitalism at producing new technology but the problem of money would have been totally eliminated. Over a period of time the people would become used to living under such a system without the plush lifestyle of the West being waved in their faces constantly.

The Soviets and the Chinese have always believed the nuclear war with the west was a sure thing at some point in the future. Their ongoing massive civil defense projects even through their supposed reform period are a clear indication that they still believe this to be a fundamental truth. It is clear that they have a chieved a level of nuclear superiority and civil defense that allows them a clear magin of victory. What is at stake here is the entire political futire of the planet, of mankind that is. If they roll over into Y2K without any more preparation than they have done already the U.S. will have deployed an entire generation of new weaponry before they even get their old stuff repaired. We will reach a level of invulnerability from conventional nukes that leaves us virtually untouchable with any but manportable terrorist type attacks. Communism will have turned the last fatal corner leading to its ineviteable destruction. I have already outlined the alternative. So when we ask if the war will happen, or if the leaders are truly insane enough to push those buttons, remember your history and what men have done in the name of ideaology in the past. I know several people of the communist-socialist mindset, and I can assure you they believe just as firmly in their correctness as any right wing republican or libertarian.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 10, 1999.


I think there are several reasons for 9/9/99, not the greatest of which is the expected trouble on that day from computers (which I think is unlikely). It would give the Russians time to implement plans (massive troop movements, etc.) before the rollover affected their infrastructure. The longer they wait, the more of a crunch they're going to be in to get things done before Y2K bugs claim some of their needed equipment.


I'm quite prepared to be wrong. I'm preparing for a global Y2K economic disaster, and a nuclear war would certainly push that expectation off the scale of quantifiable events. I don't WANT to see a world war 3, but I think the prospects for it are good (and seem to be rising every day).

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), April 11, 1999.

I'm almost positive I can survive Y2K and I'm also positive I can not survive a nuclear war. "Ithink can" get to the top of this Y2K mountain with my little train, a nuclear war, there will be no tracks.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), April 11, 1999.


the chaostan scenario is one that I would consider most likely in the next four or five years - somewhat exacerbated by the possibility of China having a whole bunch of their autmation go flooey due to the fact that they're running a *bunch* of pirated (and therefore unremediated)western software. Possibly greatly exacerbated by a Russian civil war, which looks like a real possibility here shortly. There's also a real wild card here with the Islamic factions in both China and Russia which could form their own axis of power through the various Islam-dominated countries in northern asia.

Nik - you really need to let go of that 'soviet' thing as it's blocking your vision of the realities of both northern and southern asia. Go back and take a look, man - the Chinese are losing troops every month in their 'nonexistant' civil war - an ongoing insurrection by Islamic types in some of their more remote provinces. Most of the Islamic republics which have formed out of what was the asian part of the old soviet union are intensely hostile to the Russians, and the west alike.

If you keep expecting an attack from a threat that died years ago, you'll never see the real threat until it's having you for lunch.


-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 11, 1999.

Arlin, there's nothing wrong with my vision, I can see the threat clear as day. You are the one who is in denial. I noticed on another thread you brought up the autonomy of our trident subs to fire as a deterrent to attack. I don't understand how you keep raising this incorrect information, as we have numerous times provided links which show this is NOT the truth. Our Tridents no longer carry launch codes, and in addition require presidential authorization to launch. Moreover half of them are held in port at All times as some kind of "Peace Gesture" to the goddamned Russians. That leaves Nine, count em, NINE submarines as our total deterence to nuclear attack. And they don't have launch codes. Our ICBM"s are off alert and will be destroyed on the ground. They cannot possibly be launched from their current status in less time than the Russians can hit them. Period, that is a stone Fact. Those Nine Subs sitting in the port will also be vaporized. Our B-52's, B-2's, and B1-b bombers are not nuclear armed and on alert. They will be vaporized in their hangers. Where is the Deterrence? It is NON EXISTANT. ZERO!! Russia is not about to Engage in any civil war, Thanks to NATO. Bill Klinton has done more to unify the Russian citizens and the former Soviet Republics than The second coming of Stalin could have done.

China NEEDS a distractive war to enable it to quell internal unrest, as well as get rid of excess population. A little sub-ethnic cleansing with reguard to Islamic troublemakers if you will. Pull you head out of your butt and realize what is going on. As I stated previously China is being boxed by the growing nuclear threat from India and Pakistan, and the American-sponsored High Tech weaponizing of Taiwan. They are RAPIDLY approaching the go-no go point. A couple of articles from today that clarify this a little more to follow.

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

SURVIVALnewsdailyRESOURCES Copyright ) 1999 to 7am News

Indian Missile Test Ups The Nuke Ante 7:30 am PDT, 11 April 1999

Pakistan has reacted angrily while other nuclear powers including the USA have also expressed concern after India successfully test- fired its new ballistic missile Sunday.

The Agni II missile is a longer-range version of an existing design and, now that India has a proven nuclear warhead capability, effectively announces the next step of that country's nuclear weapons ability.

The Indian Foreign Ministry has downplayed the offensive capability of the missile, preferring instead to label it as a "deterrence in the interest of its security and peace in and stability of the region."

Japan's opinion was somewhat different -- suggesting that the new missile, capable of reaching well into China and Pakistan, posed a threat to stability.

The Agni II is a solid-fuel rocket with a 1,250 mile range

Some analysts expect Pakistan to now work on developing a match for the missile so as to retain military parity with its neighbor.

End paste....

As you can see these missiles are a direct threat to any expansionist moves from China. And they are clearly thinking in expansionist terms.

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

Now to lay to rest that repeated mis-statement that China's economic future lies in her relations with America. That dog just won't hunt. The Chinese know it, and so does everybody else.

STRATFOR's Global Intelligence Update April 12, 1999

Weekly Analysis: Asia in the Global System


There were more important things going on than Kosovo last week. The U.S.-Chinese summit turns our attention to core global issues, such as the relationship between the United States on one hand and the two great Eurasian powers, Russia and China, on the other hand. The prognosis is not good.


As the war in Kosovo lurches on, there remain broader and more lasting issues to consider than the mysteries of NATO policy making. More important matters were being dealt with in Washington as President Clinton met with Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji. Beyond the question of U.S.-Chinese relations, the entire issue of Asia's status in the world system was on the table. To be sure, there was a fundamental connection between the events in Kosovo and the summit in Washington. The fate of Kosovo province is, from a broad perspective, quite unimportant. What is most significant about Kosovo is that it is the occasion of the first, sharp disagreement between the United States and Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. As U.S.-Russian relations deteriorate, U.S.-Chinese relations necessarily improve. Russia and China are in the process of entering into what they call a "strategic alliance" whose primary purpose, in our opinion, is to limit the power of the United States globally, and particularly in Eurasia. Indeed, depending on how far this relationship goes, we could be seeing the reemergence of the Eurasian pact that seemed to be in place from 1948 until about 1962. We have spent a great deal of time recently discussing the evolution of events in Russia, but relatively little discussing Asia. Zhu's visit is an opportunity to consider the other part of the Eurasian geopolitical equation and, more importantly, the role of Asia.

1998 was very much the year of Asia and economics. It was as if the entire globe was obsessed with one issue: how bad will the Asian meltdown be and how badly will it affect the rest of the world? In a sense, the obsession has died down because we have the answer. The Asian meltdown is extremely serious, but it is more serious for some countries than others. From a global perspective, it has been a depressant, but not a terrible depressant. Neither Europe nor the United States has been dragged into recession by the decline in Asia and it appears that if recession is in the cards for either, the causes will be cyclical and internal, rather than of Asian origin. In other words, Asia turned out to be much more important to Asia than to the global economy. No doubt many sectors in the United States and Europe were badly hurt by the Asian depression, but there is no escaping the fact that, taken as a whole, the broad claims of global interdependence did not bear up to empirical or historical scrutiny.

This logically reduces the importance of Asia to the world, at least on the economic level. We have seen Asia collapse in extreme and unexpected ways, and the consequences to the rest of the world were simply not that important, when taken as a whole. With that information integrated into the global knowledge base, it was inevitable that Asia, understood in primarily economic terms, would be relegated to a secondary role. Whether Asia recovers and to what extent, is an important issue, but not an earth shaking one. The earth will do quite well under any circumstances.

Now, there is no question but that Asia has bottomed out for the short-term. What is less clear is whether the bottoming is merely the beginning of a cyclical upturn in a general downtrend or whether it represents a historical bottom from which new heights will be reached. In our view it is likely the former rather than the latter. Japan, far more than China, remains the engine driving the Asian economy. Japan has not made serious strides to solve its problems. Indeed, it has been moving in the opposite direction by reducing Bank of Japan rates to absurdly low levels in a desperate attempt to stabilize the banking system. As a consequence of this strategy, Japan deals with a short-term problem at the expense of exacerbating the long-term problem.

Japan's fundamental problem remains extraordinary economic inefficiency as reflected in unsupportable rates of return on capital. The inefficiency of Japan's economy means both that its ability to generate investment capital internally is severely limited and that its ability to utilize what investment capital it has available is similarly limited. As a result, Japan is like a bird that just can't get off the ground. Japan is now in a historical bind, which means that it will continue to fall behind. It is in a downward spiral in which there is always an uptick that can be confused with a recovery, but it is more an optical illusion than a reality. There are some economies that are having stronger upticks than others and, in general, most of Asia appears to be bottoming for now. But, rather than gaining momentum, the recoveries appear to be straining against gravity. The term malaise still applies to most of East and Southeast Asia.

China is the most difficult to read for several reasons. One is the extraordinarily unreliable nature of its statistics. First, there is the legacy of communism, in which statistics were understood to be political weapons. Second, there is the more recent heritage of a non-transparent banking system. Finally, there are genuinely different definitions of things, such as the meaning of growth. Whatever is happening in China, it is clear from Chinese actions that the internal pressure of economic problems and of dislocations has already led to substantial shifts in political and social policy. In other words, we have seen the consequences of an economic downturn even if the public statistics remain ambiguous.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter and a point we have been making for several months. The degradation in the region's economic life has pushed economic factors to the back burner, and elevated political factors to the front burner. There are two reasons for this. First, during a roaring expansion, the fascination with economics makes political questions appear trivial and even irrelevant. Second, during an economic downturn, dividing the economic pie becomes a much more difficult and politicized task than dividing an expanding one. When there isn't enough to go around, or where there is simply less than there was before, the question becomes "who is the loser," where previously the question was the much easier, "who wins the most?"

We can see this in the internal politics of every country. But what is now emerging are not the ongoing internal tensions from Indonesia to Japan, but the less expected and in many ways more important tensions between nations. Nonsense about borders no longer mattering can be sustained during periods of tremendous prosperity, when the flow of investment capital makes it appear that borders are irrelevant. However, in periods of capital shortage, when nations compete for every dollar or yen, who gets what and when they get it, can become matters of terrible urgency.

We are now in a period where interdependence is real, but it leads to political friction. Low-friction and interdependence exist when a win-win situations is possible. That situation exists when economies are growing quickly. When economies are stable or contracting, interdependence creates win-lose relationships. And when that happens, nations compete. More important, nations tend to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. For example, in a growth economy, economic decisions made by one country may have consequences for another, but those consequences are subsumed in a general expansionary environment. In declining economies, economic decisions that affect other nations are not covered up, and therefore nations tend to interfere directly in each other's decision-making process, through means ranging from interference in internal politics to generating countervailing policies. As a result, national interdependence increases frictions and expands the scope of political competition from the purely economic as nations seek levers with which to control each other.

The most dangerous situation is one in which there exists what might be called asymmetric vulnerability. That has emerged in U.S.-Chinese relations and U.S.-Japanese relations. The economic downturns in both countries have made them extremely vulnerable to shifts in U.S. economic policy. There is no reciprocal relationship, however. Shifts in Chinese and Japanese policy do not affect the United States in an equivalent fashion because of the booming American economy. This creates a situation in which U.S. actions irritate China and Japan without giving them countervailing levers. American behavior is not circumscribed by a fear of retribution and the United States proceeds oblivious to the consequences. The result is that the weaker country, unable to compete in purely economic terms, seeks extra-economic levers with which to control the behavior of the other.

Consider U.S.-Chinese relations and the manner in which political considerations have supplanted economic relations. China's economic downturn has forced the Chinese government to deal with social unrest by political means. One manifestation of this, and not necessarily the most important, has been the repression of democratic activists. Washington, for its own political reasons, is highly sensitive to those questions, particularly when there are few economic consequences to bear for their concern. In China's reduced circumstances, Washington is not particularly afraid of economic repercussions and therefore is free to attack China's human rights policies. Now China, unable to retaliate economically, is forced to look for countervailing power.

That countervailing power is geopolitical in nature. What we have seen, over the last few months, is China shifting its focus from using economic tools to manage its relationship with the United States and other countries, to using geopolitical tools. Thus, China's relationship with Russia, a subject that has been regarded as both archaic and trivial over the past generation, has now moved to the forefront, although most observers don't recognize the sea change yet. When the Chinese speak to the Americans now, it is no longer in terms of economic opportunities and joint ventures as an offset to American pressure on a variety of issues. Rather, it is the geopolitical pressure that comes to the fore.

That is why relations between China and the United States will remind people of pre-1972 relations more than post-1972. We are not talking about Maoism or the Cultural Revolution. Rather, we are talking about a reversal of the anti-Soviet alignment between the United States and China that took place in 1972. China is reminding the United States constantly of the geopolitical consequences of American economic and political pressure. Indeed, as this progresses, the military dimension joins the political as purely economic considerations take second place.

This is true throughout Asia. Where previously something such as Mitsubishi's new joint venture in Indonesia dominated sophisticated conversation in Asia, today the geopolitical question of whether Indonesia can survive as an integrated nation takes the fore. Likewise, the military balance between China and Taiwan has become critical. In addition, Japan's military stance toward North Korea has emerged. And, the Spratly Island controversy is on the front burner. And so on.

Throughout Asia, the agenda is no longer economic. Both in internal and external policies, the primary issues are now political and they will, over time, become military. The next quarter will see intensifying tension within the region and between some countries in the region and the United States. Increasingly this will be expressed in politico-military terms rather than economic terms. We are continually struck by how much more important Japan's politico-military relationship has become to Japan today, than it was only ten years ago.

Simply put, there are consequences to economic downturns that go beyond economics. If we accept the idea that Asia has entered a long-term period of economic malaise, then it follows that that malaise will have critical consequences beyond politics. The dramatic deterioration in relations between the United States and China is one critical manifestation of that, but it is not the last. The entire relationship between the United States and Eurasia is being dramatically redefined. We believe increasingly that a Sino-Russian entente designed to limit American power is already growing beyond its embryonic state.

This poses an interesting question for an Asia unused to posing its questions in geopolitical rather than economic terms. As tensions between Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other side grow, how will the rest of Asia respond? During the Cold War, the answer was easy. The United States offered allies membership in its trading bloc, which was an enormously beneficial relationship. It was the foundation of Asian prosperity and its benefits far outweighed the politico- military risks. The world has changed and economic relations with the United States, on terms the United States is prepared to tolerate, are far less openhanded. What is the relationship of the rest of Asia, and in particular Japan, to the competition between North America and Eurasia? Each Asian nation will have to walk through a political mine field in order to preserve their economic relations. The age of economics is being replaced once more by the more permanent geopolitical relationships.


End Paste. I'm going to put this as simply as I know how. Worldwide economic relations are no more than a big game of monopoly iin essence. Just as in the monopoly game the player who accumulates the most property and money wins. America has won this Monopoly game, and the other players are only staying in the game through charity. I'm sure most of you have played monopoly and been in that same position. Now imagine at the same time the winning player is politically and religiously diametrically opposed to you, drunk on expensive whisky, and loudly voicing his opinions about your obvious stupidity while he is loaning you money which there is no possible way you can repay and making your situation worse by doing so. At some point in time before the fat drunk loudmouth son-of-a- bitch passes out while waving a fistfull of money under your nose while simultaneously shaking his finger in your face and poking you in the chest it occurs to you that you can just smash him in the face and quit his game. And he won't be invited to the next one. Feel free to substitute poker if you're more comfortable with it, the point is the same.

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

Check this out!

China Urged To Point Missiles At India


NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The Beijing Military Academy has recommended China redeploy medium- and long-range missiles against India following New Delhi's nuclear tests last year, Indian newspapers said on Thursday.

"One important recommendation, which China has put into action, is to redeploy medium- and long-range missiles against India to 'ensure nuclear balance in Chinese favor'," The Pioneer said in a front-page article.

The Times of India, quoting defense sources in New Delhi, said the military academy paper recommended China seek Western sanctions against India, led by the United States, and seek to isolate India on the international stage.

"The document says that China should penalize India for its alleged 'anti-China' stance and highlight 'India's hegemonistic designs'," it said.

India's ministries of defense and foreign affairs said they had no immediate comment on the reports.

China said it had not changed its policies in the wake of the tests.

"There have been no changes on the position of the Chinese government," Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi told reporters.

"We hope and are willing to making efforts to develop friendly relations with India on the basis of the five principles of peaceful coexistence."

The Indian reports came as Chinese state media said Beijing had urged India to adopt a more long-term approach to their relations and stamp out "undesirable disturbances" affecting ties.

During a meeting with visiting members of India's opposition Congress party, Vice President Hu Jintao said relations between the two neighbors had progressed "along a normal track," but "progress has suffered undesirable disturbances."

India's Pioneer said that despite strong pressure from both China and the United States, India would go ahead with the development of longer-range versions of its Agni ballistic missile.

Agni, part of India's indigenous missile development program, was last tested in February 1994. It is seen as a potential deterrent to nuclear-armed China.

The Hindu nationalist-led government, which stunned the world with India's first nuclear tests for nearly a quarter of a century shortly after taking power, cleared plans for development of Agni's second phase last year.

The nuclear tests jolted relations between India and China, setting back years of painstaking diplomacy and reviving memories of a brief border war between the two nations in 1962.

India has said its tests were not aimed at any particular country. But in a letter to U.S. President Bill Clinton to explain why they were carried out, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had cited an "atmosphere of distrust" in relations with China.

New Delhi has also accused China of providing its arch-rival, Pakistan, with missile technology, a charge Beijing denies.

The Pioneer said the Beijing Military Academy paper recommended an intensification of efforts "to sow discord between India and its neighbors."

Uday Bhaskar, deputy director of the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, said he was treating the report of the military academy recommendations with caution.

"It's a very logical development. When you have a neighboring country doing nuclear tests you obviously have a review," he said. "But I would be a little more prudent and try and see the report."

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

India Tests Ballistic Missile - Can Hit Pakistan And China



JAPAN - India successfully launched a test-firing of a ballistic missile today, raising concern among neighbours that it might heighten tension between India and Pakistan.

Japan calls launch of Agni missile 'regrettable' A statement issued by Japan's Foreign Ministry called the test-firing "regrettable."

The weapon, an upgraded Agni missile, has a range of 2,000 km, which means it could reach both Pakistan and China.

India's Information and Broadcasting Minister Pramod Mahajan said the missile was launched "in textbook fashion" from Wheeler Island off the eastern Indian coast this morning The Agni missile, named after the Hindu god of fire, was last tested in 1994.

"It is truly regrettable that India conducted a missile testing on April 11 despite the repeated requests made by Japan against it," the Japanese Foreign Ministry statement said. "The missile testing could be detrimental to the peace and stability of the region."

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

Things are hotting up as you can see...

Pay attention...

Cards are being played here folks...

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

Yes Andy, events are accelerating expotentially. The Endgame approaches....

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

Last Dance?

-- had to (operation@military.nooooo), April 12, 1999.

The question is - "Are we going to resign?" - as in, Clinton's treason, essentially the same thing.

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


appreciate your answer to my post, but i stand by my assessment. i can think of too many ways ruthless authoritarians can enforce a political surrender, especially when the 'losing' military has been emasculated by its 'leadership.'

as far as individual resistance goes, i too have my stash of ammunition, but i'm not sure how i'll react if for every occupying soldier that dies, a thousand civilans are rounded up and torched.

i hope and pray this doesn't happen.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), April 12, 1999.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin comes up for an impeachment vote on April 15. There are many hard-line communists who would love to take his place. I will be watching this outcome very carefully. Many do not like Yeltsin's approach to the Kosovo affair. Do you think that Yeltsin will be able to retain the presidency? If not, who is his likely successor? Thanks to everyone who posted to this thread. There were very coherent ideas and opinions posted here.

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), April 12, 1999.

Cowardly Lion, you may be right. I hope not.

Sharon, I think Primakov or General Lebed would be the most likely succesors to Yeltsin. Of course since NATO's attack someone even more hard line communist may have gained an edge.

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

Hi Nikoli!

Can you please give us a URL for Survival News Daily?


-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), April 12, 1999.

uh...what does Y2K Pro think of all this?

-- a (a@a.a), April 13, 1999.

Hi G. A., try this http//www.avana.net/~zog/index.html/lynxpage1.html

The top half of the page is Survival news, the bottom half links to Zog's Y2K forums and chat. Zog was one of Gary North's moderators but set up his own site after the trolls trashed North's. He's a cool guy, drop in and visit. Jethro and Joel Skousen also moderate on Zog's boards so if you have relocation questions or need some practical advice there's plenty of knowledge available. Joel is the Author of "Strategic Relocation in North America" and was the one who first brought it to my attention that Clinton had destroyed our Nuclear Deterrence. That was on an Art Bell interview late last year. It is available on Art's archives, pretty good listening if you don't mind getting pissed off and scared at the same time.

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

Jeffrey Nyquist was a guest on Art Bell last night. He brought up two points of info I think are extremely important, and I was unaware of. First the new Topol mobile ICBM the Russians have started deploying is an offensive first strike weapon. It has the capability of hitting the U.S. coming from a southern trajectory, that is to be fired over the South Pole, instead of the North. Almost all of our defensive radars face North watching the Artic pole. Some smaller radars do watch the coast for incoming submarine launched missiles missiles, but they lack the power and range to detect high speed orbital re- entry warheads. By laser blinding our spy sats or loading these mobile missiles onto ships they can achieve complete tactical surprise in a first strike. Second the Russians have ringed their country with between ten and twelve thousand anti missile missile sites. The missiles use two different warheads and are proximity burst, not hit to kill. The warheads are nuclear with the first salvo engaging while incoming missiles are still in low orbit using x-ray burst to disable. Secondary missiles use nuclear burst in the atmosphere to take out incoming warheads. these weapons coupled with their civil defense shelters and ultra secure command and control bunkers as deep as 1000 ft. virtually assure the Russian government, military, and population would survive a nuclear exchange almost unscathed if they launch first.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 14, 1999.

and the point of nuking the US would be...??

Not a flame Nikoli-serious question. Needs an answer.

-- a (a@a.a), April 15, 1999.

Nyquist is also seriously in error concerning a southern transpolar attack vector - where in the world did he come up with that idea? Not only is he NOT doing the math correctly, but even if some country did have the capacity to lauch a significant strike using a southern transpolar vector and even if they were stupid enough to do so, all they would be doing is quite literally telegraphing their punch and giving the U.S. *more* than twice as long to respond. Remember they can't blind sattelites which are below their horizon, and contrary to Nyquist's unwarranted assumptions there are both US and allied radars covering the areas in question.

Then of course we have the problem that the geomagnetic anomalies in the antarctic aren't nearly as well mapped as those in the arcitic, which means that there would, in all likelihood, be a serious degradation of accuracy for any missiles using that trajectory...



-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 15, 1999.

Arlin and a,

Suggest you listen to the show - it's on realaudio - I would be intersted in you're take. The southern polar route was talked about for several minutes, as was the enormous number (10-12,000) of ABM's ringing the soviet union.

Reading bewteen the lines it looks like the US has been well and truly hoodwinked by Ivan.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 15, 1999.

Arlin and a, First Arlin. I am not familiar enough with rocket science or our radar defense network to refute either your claims or those of Nyquist. I doubt that you are either. I do know there are hundreds of satelites in polar orbits which don't seem overly concerned with geomagnetic anomalies. I also know those topal missiles are solid fuel rockets, which burn until out of fuel once lit, so the way to steer them would be to elevate or depress the trajectory. If they have the power to boost out far enough to circle three quarters of the globe they would be at near max trajectory crossing the Antarctic and whatever geomagnetic forces they encountered would be weakened by their altitude. Conversely they would be on a near vertical flight path on re-entry. Depressed radars looking out across the gulf for submarine launches, or conventional aircraft signatures would not see them. Just my thoughts. The part about launching them from ships was my idea, since they are mobile missiles. The idea here would be to mve them into an area of the South Pacific or Atlantic which is not covered by Geosynchronous orbiting Spy sats watching for launch flashes. If you used a foreign flagged vessel to launch, so much the better. Even if the launch were detected by the time we figured out who to retaliate against Cheyenne mountain and D.C.-Pentagon would be gone, leaving the door wide open for a full strike of land based ICBM's. There are countless ways to achieve a first strike including use of suitcase nukes to destroy command and control, or an EMP weapon disguised as a satelite to blind us.

a, the reason for a strike is simple. Communism and capitalism cannot co-exist over the long term. Capitalism produces more excess wealth and develops technology much faster than communism. Unless a communist nation is completely self contained reguarding natural rescources and financial systems the capitalist countries will siphon off what wealth it produces supplying these rescources and technology.

Y2K is about to level the infrastructure of China and Russia. They will be years repairing their systems, and in the case of China and Russia, both will lose all status as superpowers in the interim. By the time they recover most of the CIC countries will have defaulted to NATO, Taiwan will be armed to the teeth and nuclear capable, India and Pakistan will have become nuclear superpowers, and more than likely Iran will have developed a nuclear program. In the case of Russia, while we have so far contained the threat of their nukes falling into terrorist hands, this is going to prove impossible in the post Y2K chaos. However badly Y2K effects the United States we will clearly be in better shape than the communist bloc, and on recovery will have fielded a whole new generation of weapons which will be invulnerable to the old communist technology. So the choice is simple, either the Russians and Chinese choose to nuke us, and use their conventional superiority to take over the world, or communism dies and they come under the umbrella of NATO and the NWO. That is really all the choice there is in the long run.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 15, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ