Even the most optimistic say there will be "localized failures of infrastructure"

If your anatomical infrastructure fails you are pretty much dead. We aren't talking infrastructure break-down here we are talking failure.

So think of it like this. A total grid failure is like a massacre. - Everybody fall down.

A localized failure is more like a sniper attack. - Some people fall down.

If you were going to an area where you KNEW there was going to be a sniper wouldn't you prepare? Maybe get a helmet and a bullet proof vest?

Obviously your best bet would be to avoid the whole scene. Unfortunately not an option on this planet at this time. So since we are going into sniper range it only makes sense to prepare. We don't know how many bullets there are or even how long it will last. Just put on a dang helmet would ya?

-- River Soma (riversoma@aol.com), November 08, 1999

Answers

Hey River : )

Great analogy. Although, I'm not sure if a vest would stop a high velocity rifle round. I say avoid the whole scene and be safe.

How's the weather? : )

Mike

=====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), November 08, 1999.

River Soma,

Well said!

Now I'm going to challenge you. Don't necessarily look at the short term effects, try to look into the fog of "extended consequences vs crisis management".

I'm open to criticism of my argument...Sorry for the length:)

Systemic failures seem inevitable. Systemic degradation is a certainty. The problem is that you dont require outright failure of critical infrastructures (the iron triangle: electricity, communications, and banking) to precipitate Alan Greenspans cascading cross defaults. Degradation of the iron triangle infrastructures would certainly cause serious degradation to other infrastructures (systems) reliant upon them. Serious degradation of secondary systems would cause critical degradation or outright failure of tertiary systems.

If enough businesses fail because of this, there remains a real risk of upward-spreading failures. This is because primary and secondary systems require support from tertiary systems. If SMEs really are the driving force of the American economy, which directly affects many international economies, then taking out the cornerstone could cause secondary and primary system critical degradation or failure.

The key to any optimistic Y2K impact forecast, other than wishful thinking, must be the existence of a damage control mechanism to limit or stop cascading cross defaults between systems. I have yet to find public mention of our collective ability to contain systemic failures among reputable Y2K optimists. This concerns me greatly.

Maybe the damage control mechanism is designed into the system in a manner like what International Monitoring (UK) explained in their July 21, 1999 public release report. According to this report, redundancy and diversity of key system components play the chief role in system reliability in the face of system-internal failures or environmental changes. Will redundancy and diversity be sufficient to offset the damaging effects of Y2K impacts upon the system? Are there other options available to consequence managers to control systemic failures from outside the system?

Systems Theory: 1. Our global civilization may be seen as a massive super-system consisting of myriad interconnected subsystems in a three-dimensional latticework configuration. (interconnectedness) 2. Each subsystem was created independently, but has grown to depend upon neighbour systems for its own sustainability and growth. (interdependency) 3. Each subsystem may have been more or less critical to the civilization super-system in the past, but now this interconnectedness has produced mutual vulnerability. Individual systems have lost their individual importance in favour of mutual support of the super-system. 4. Each subsystem relies directly not only upon its own internal strengths (redundancy and diversity), but also upon neighbour (directly-connected) systems internal strengths and the strength of the connection (communications between systems) 5. Each subsystem relies indirectly upon the reliability of its secondary subsystems: the neighbour systems to its own neighbour systems. (again internal strengths and connection reliability) 6. Each system may or may not be Y2K compliant. 7. Each system may: remain stable, have degraded integrity, or fail altogether. 8. System failures will be passed between systems via the connection.

Analysis:

Connections between systems is the key. The strengthand vulnerabilityof the super-system is found in the connections between systems. Therefore any Y2K impact management program must be a containment exercise. Cut the connections between bad and good systems. Once isolated, individual systems may be fixed or dismantled without threat of cascading cross-default failures spreading the damage. I have heard multiple stories about how industry and government leaders have refused to test their systems end-to-end Y2K-reliability in real time.

Thats why nobody had claimed Y2K compliance!

Everybody is assuming a less-than-100% fix scenario, and building consequence management plans for continuity of operations. Thats Y2K ready! Whether these plans will work well enough to mitigate Y2K impacts is another question

Further analysis and extrapolation:

One step further: The Y2K problem is real and governments know that failures will occur. There remains another problem though, panic. Government and industry must cut the connectionscontain negative news about the problem or minimize the messageto prevent the problem of widespread panic, bringing about the very impacts they wish to minimize. This explains the governments policies of silence and ridicule of people who prepare or make Y2K details public.

Conclusion of high confidence: Jim Lord was right. The Pentagon Papers were real and 26 million people are in danger. One step further: If failures do occur, as they are predicted by reputable sources, then governments must contain the problems to avoid the domino effect and all its horrific consequences. To contain the problems, one must cut the connections againisolate the problem areas for future actionto prevent a systemic failure and social collapse. The wildcard is not the predictable systems, it is the unpredictable people.

Conclusion of high confidence: Gary North is right. FEMA will go into damage control mode to mitigate the problem, control the spread of failures, and control the spread of panic. Martial law will (must) be imposed.

One step further: This problem is global in scope. If no nation is completely ready and many nations have not seriously prepared for infrastructure degradation or failures, then scattered areas or entire regions around the globe may face severe disruptions or social collapse. If disasters are even of moderate impact, there is a great likelihood that by autumn of 2000 the world will be in a state of chaos. Many of these countries and regions are either controlled or influenced by enemies of the Western Democracies. The United Nations was unsuccessful in creating stability in Rwanda when it collapsed: committee action will not be successful in managing the global disaster recovery effort. Some higher authority, not a committee, must be placed in charge of the global recovery effort.

Conclusion of moderate confidence: This means a one world government is coming in the near future.

Note: any further extrapolation beyond this point brings moderate-to- low confidence conclusions. Nevertheless, the following questions beg consideration:

1. What happens if US global influence is severely restricted in the coming year? 2. What happens if local conflicts spread to local or regional wars? 3. What happens if, even in a few locations, martial law fails to adequately control the spread of panic? 4. What happens to citizen rights and freedoms if made subservient to a global government? 5. What happens if, even in one or two global regions, Y2K impacts are severe and consequence management fails to stop or slow the domino effect? 6. What plans can one make to address these issues before the end of the year?

-- Kurt. Borzel (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), November 08, 1999.

---good question and great tresponse from Kurt

1. What happens if US global influence is severely restricted in the coming year?---then china, russia, and probably iran are the big winners. western europe will again fall to the east, in this case from combined blackmail of no oil, and military might 2. What happens if local conflicts spread to local or regional wars?--the nuclear, biological and chemical genies are all out of the bottle now. all those sorts of weapons will be used. Untold millions will die. 3. What happens if, even in a few locations, martial law fails to adequately control the spread of panic?--not sure if you mean the US, or international. In the US, I expect that we will have a period of chaos-local warlords, etc, and then the US splitting up into regional governments, and ditto canada. Large centralization has never worked in any society. 4. What happens to citizen rights and freedoms if made subservient to a global government? ---you guessed it, global slavery. guerrila warfare for generations. 5. What happens if, even in one or two global regions, Y2K impacts are severe and consequence management fails to stop or slow the domino effect?- --a return to the 1800's mixed with the 21st century, technology wise. 6. What plans can one make to address these issues before the end of the year?---become as self sufficient in all facets of "Survivalism" as possible. Be part of a diversified preparedness group. An example of an outstanding small government may be found in the novel Patriots- surviving the coming collapse. this is it's third name. originally it was shareware on the net, and the acronym TEOTWAWKI comes from this novel. It's very good, and the survival info is first rate. I tend to organize survival preparedness into a large grouping of Water-Food-Shelter-Security. Start with a few weeks of providing for those needs completely independently, then work outwards to an indefinite timeframe. --howzat? zog

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), November 08, 1999.

Kurt,

Good post. A lot to think about in it.

You say, "FEMA will go into damage control mode to mitigate the problem, control the spread of failures, and control the spread of panic. Martial law will (must) be imposed." Becoming US-centric, the resources don't exist to impose a true national martial law. Therefore, we must suppose that FEMA/NG/et.al are used primarialy to control the spread of failure -- that is they quarantine effected areas. If things are bad enough, even this doesn't work, as you've questioned below. If it does work the casualties inside an area may become pretty bad.

Your final list of questions:

1. What happens if US global influence is severely restricted in the coming year?

[It will be, especially if the oil supply is disrupted and the military is weakened further.]

2. What happens if local conflicts spread to local or regional wars?

[no answer]

3. What happens if, even in a few locations, martial law fails to adequately control the spread of panic?

[We move rapidly from panic to a form of civil war as people expand from an effected area into the surrounding countryside or even suburbs. They may/may not overrun the locals, but eventually they will meet a local force that resists. It will not be pretty, which is why I agree that martial law is inevitable as one attempt to defuse the situation.]

4. What happens to citizen rights and freedoms if made subservient to a global government?

[I think we've seen answers to this with news of UN designs for globabl gun control and of announcements that national sovereignty will no longer be respected. A global government would not be instituted under any Bill of Rights, but would be a dictatorship of sorts. Perhaps a benign dictatorship at first, but still, individual rights would be non-existent.] 5. What happens if, even in one or two global regions, Y2K impacts are severe and consequence management fails to stop or slow the domino effect?

[Can you say East Timor, without an Australian input? Seriously, the world's population could take a drastic step in the downward direction.]

6. What plans can one make to address these issues before the end of the year?

[Is this a rhetorical 'one,' or are you asking about personal impact?

Seriously, I pray a lot. That is the only solution left open to me.

A strong national leader could have perhaps forseen questions such as these a year or two ago and options explored. One has only to look at the Koskinen reply thread and understand the Paula Gordon thread that dealt with the awareness of our president to understand that national solutions are unlikely.

Having said that, all any of us can do is to prepare to the best of our ability and then hope and pray that the consequences don't opverwhelm the meager preparations. That's been the only option we've ever had. It beats doing nothing.]

-- de (delewis@XOUTinetone.net), November 08, 1999.

Kurt

Welcome to the forum, nice to see some local input. (I am in Victoria, or you just might already know that :o)

 A rather riveting post on systems and Y2K. I am suprized by the commentary on the states.

It has always been my opinion that TPTB should have developed a "vacation" period going well into the new year so that we aren't a train hitting a brick wall. By slowing the systems down the risks would be minimized IMHO.

Here is one of my threads on Chaos Theory and Y2K. If we look at information as a "flow", the restriction of the "flow" may cause turbulence resulting in conditions that can't be anticipated. We are past that point of course but even speculation on the subject would be interesting. Yardeni spoke about this in a speach to the head bankers in April 98. Unfortunately nothing came of it. Like most of the well meaning ideas.

 Chaos in the 21st Century (A lesson)

Thanks for the post Kurt. Systems theory and the chaotic potentials are only lightly touched on and only recently have they been mentioned. You and the Borg (c4i) should get in contact and trade notes if it hasn't happened before *VBG*.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 08, 1999.

Wow River, Your post spurned one of the best threads I've read yet! Very excellent replies and theories by all. If this thread doesn't spurn people to prep harder and faster, I don't know what will. I read the book Patriots and I agree that if one were to read this book they would get a sense of what may be coming and better ways to prep.

-- Debi (LongTimeLurker@shy.com), November 09, 1999.

Kurt,

You are so right. I agree that interdependency is the big issue. To stretch this analogy even further you would have to say that each person within sniper range was vital to your well being.

So that even if you survive - it will be tough to go on without The Farmer or The Doctor or The Telephone Operator.

Then to really wrap this little analogy around the giant complex issue of y2k you have to say that the sniper keeps shooting randomly all year long and then some.

However, all the original analogy was meant to do was to show why one should prepare for a "random localized" event (if there is such a thing) as if it was a globalwide failure.

Because even IF it doesn't happen everywhere it can happen here.

-- River Soma (riversoma@aol.com), November 09, 1999.