To me this has some application to Y2K: Our own government is "mistakenly" helping the Russians prepare to Nuke us, yet pollies think that the government has "everything under control" in regard to Y2K. This is another story that should scare the pants off you, not only for the nuclear war part, but for the ineptness of our government.

****

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nuke technology sent to Russia accidentally NASA 'erroneously' authorized export of radiation-hardened electronic parts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Charles Smith ) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration "erroneously authorized the export of radiation-hardened electronic parts to Russia" - components vital for military satellites and nuclear weapons - according to the General Accounting Office's review of export controls over the multi-billion-dollar joint U.S./Russia International Space Station.

"NASA was unaware of the error for about 18 months until the U.S. company affiliated with the Russian company applied to State for an export license for the same parts," states the Government Accounting Office report.

The specialized electronics parts are designed to withstand the intense radiation of space and global thermonuclear warfare. Such technology is controlled by the U.S. State Department through the "U.S. Munitions list" -- and "therefore required an export license."

"In 1998, the State Department requested NASA's review and comment on a license application involving a U.S. company affiliated with a Russian company for radiation-hardened electronics parts," states the report. "The license application had also indicated that NASA had exported the parts to Russia in the past.

"State referred the license application for NASA's review in June 1998. According to a State official, the request for the license in this instance was to support activities associated with the Russian MIR space station."

According to the report, "NASA had exported these parts without a license after the parts were erroneously classified as the lowest level of controlled technology. NASA did not follow its own policy, which is to determine the classification of material proposed for export or to ensure that its contractors have appropriately determined the materials classification."

"Instead," charged the government review, "a NASA contractor's supplier determined that the export of parts to Russia did not require a license and the contractor relied on that determination. NASA, in turn, relied on its contractor's classification of these parts. Photo Credit - Brenda Smith

Russian SS-20 "SABER" mobile missile with three 250 kiloton nuclear warheads. Russian nuclear tipped missiles could benefit from American radiation hardened electronics, making them more reliable and accurate.

"NASA formally acknowledged the error," states the report. "(NASA) stated that it had reminded the Russian Space Agency and the Russian company that the parts were solely for use in Russian-provided components of the ISS and were not to be used for any other purpose or transferred without NASA's written approval. The Russian company responded that it had accounted for each of the exported parts and indicated how they were being used and where they were located. NASA accepted this response in good faith."

According to a written response from the space agency's Associate Deputy Administrator J.R. Dailey, "While it is true that NASA accepted the Russian response in good faith, it was also accepted within the context of the Intergovernmental Agreement and the NASA/RSA Memorandum of Understanding on the ISS program, which are legally binding international agreements to which the United States and Russian governments are party."

Congress, which has so far funded the joint U.S./Russian space station, has refused to comment on the report. WorldNetDaily contacted the House Committee on Science for this article, but a spokesman stated there would be "no official statement" on the report until after a detailed review.

This is not the first time the Clinton administration has allowed the export of advanced radiation-hardened microchip technology. On Jan. 13, 1999, the Commerce Department responded to a June 1998 Freedom of Information Act request for information on "radiation-hardened" chip technology transfers to China and Russia.

The Commerce response, a two-page letter, states "we issued two licenses for Russia and three for China for the export of microprocessor technology." The Commerce Department response noted that the licenses issued not only included the export of radiation-hardened chips to Russia and China, but also included "non-U.S. citizens employed by U.S. firms in the U.S. to work with controlled microprocessor technology."

According to the Commerce Department's reply, "BXA (Bureau of Export Administration) is unable to provide you with any more detailed information on these exports. Specific information on applications to export technology for microprocessor or microchips to China or Russia is being withheld ... from public disclosure unless the release of such information is determined by the secretary to be in the national interest."

Yet, the Russian and Chinese military interests in U.S. radiation-hardened electronics has also led to allegations of espionage, sabotage, and murder.

In February 1996, a Chinese Long March rocket carrying a U.S.-made Loral Intelsat satellite failed and crashed on lift-off, killing over 200 civilians. The Loral Intelsat payload was also heavily damaged.

The failure of the Long March allowed the U.S. to recover the damaged satellite. According to the accident report, a vital computer control board was missing from the recovered satellite. The missing Loral electronics consisted of radiation-hardened, encrypted telemetry chips.

Similar hardened encryption chips monitor and control military satellites and nuclear weapons. According to the testimony of the director of the National Security Agency, in response to the possible threat posed by the theft of the Loral encryption chips, the U.S. military changed all of its satellite codes, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Space encryption technology also remains a sensitive issue between the U.S. and Russia for the station project. The Clinton administration has elected not to share space encryption electronics with Russia due to concerns from both Washington and Moscow.

In its November 1999 report, the GAO wrote, "NASA officials stated that Russia would not be included as a destination in any potential licenses for encryption technology.

Both the United States and Russia have their own encryption systems." Highlighting the mutual mistrust in this sensitive area, while the International Space Station is meant to be a joint project between the two countries, "Russia and the United States prefer using their own (encryption) systems," according to NASA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Smith is a WorldNetDaily staff writer.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), November 24, 1999

Answers

Have you ever heard of M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. Still applies so no matter how many nukes they have. if they nuke us then they will be toast due to nuke winter. Its a no win situation.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.

God blast...er...bless'em!

Kook

-- Y2Kook (Y2Kook@usa.net), November 24, 1999.

well, y2k dave,

for the 2131st time, we no longer have MAD. MAD requires the US to have capability. we have no capability that can not be taken out on the first strike. we no longer will launch with TBMs inbound, but will wait for them to hit -- and blow up our own missiles.

you are dated.......dated back to well before the current prez. find out what's been going on the past few years, eh, rip van y2k dave

-- nope (no@MAD.now), November 24, 1999.

The expression "M.A.D" was satire not fact or truth. There was a win situation. Edward Teller had even made the infamous "We lost the cold war speech." One could map out the Soviets whole recovery even economically. (A nuclear winter was speculation and not scientific fact. It's in the urban legend arena now.)

Counsels of War, Gregg Herken, ISBN 0-19-504986-1

We were the toasted ones because the project and plan to shelter the majority of the masses had been scratched, and to this day is still scratched, though I think it was the Mayor of N.Y. (?) who started the effort in recent times to build a nuclear shelter for the people.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), November 24, 1999.

This mistake by NASA doesn't surprise me. NASA has very relaxed security and much of their information can be obtained through the freedom of information act.

What I'm curious about is the Loral satellite that was scheduled to go up on a Chinese launch. Anyone know about that?

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

y2k dave,

Many on this site seem to share your misconception about the effects of nuclear war. For those of you who think that a nuclear war will mean the end of all life on earth, check out The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts by Cresson H. Kearny, from his book Nuclear War Survival Skills. This book was originally published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a nuclear weapons facility of the U.S. Department of Energy.

I would also recommend that you read the Foreward to the book, written by Dr. Edward Teller, the so-called "Father of the H-Bomb."

If you have an open mind, I think you will be surprised by the information found there.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 24, 1999.

Nabi, you keep shovelin that crap. I've seen the same post in about three different threads now and I only read about four or five on this forum since Monday.

The post deals with a breach in security, another piece of the war puzzle but one (by itself) that won't lose the war for us. It also deals with radiation hardened technology that NASA has. Hmmmmm. Let's think about that. Radiation is one of the space environment hazards. Space isn't that the S in NASA. Hmmmmm. what does that have it do with nuclear weapons? Oh that's right nukes give off radiation. Is that your only connection to go off the track of the post??????

You guys are hopeless and clueless.

Now you people go off into Russia-is-going-to-attack-us genre. NASA has this technology because it needs to protect its people and systems in that harsh space environment not because of war. This will not protect against an all out nuclear scenario.

Yeah interconnectedness, that's what it's all about. And I thought it was the hokey pokey.

*sigh*

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

Maria,

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread. It's always good to see your comments, because you bring so much knowledge and experience to whatever topic is being discussed. Please continue to enlighten us with your expertise; I will anxiously await your next posting.

Again, thank you!

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 24, 1999.

Nabi, I don't expect you to read much... know the difference between a ship and sub? You put your right foot in, you take your right foot out, you put your right foot in and shake it all about...

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

Dear Maria,

Perhaps YOU are the one that needs to look up a PLUS office. Nabi was responding to the track the thread was headed in.... Pop back up and note the thread refers to the chips stolen from the LORAL satelite and to the technology eventually included in the SS-20.

Night train

-- jes a footballer proud of his readin' (nighttr@in.lane), November 24, 1999.

Once again, Maria, I stand corrected. I defer to your superior knowledge. Even though I thought I was addressing the MAD scenario tangent y2k dave took this thread on, I must be mistaken. I'm sure that you must be right, because you are always right. Please try to find it in your heart to forgive me for my faux pas. I will certainly try to do better.

In order to answer your question and earn your approval (which I crave with all my heart), I looked up the definitions of ship and submarine in The American Heritage Dictionary. Here they are for your edification and pleasure.

ship n. 1. A vessel of considerable size adapted for deep-water navigation. 2. A three-masted sailing vessel with square mainsails on all masts. 3. Law. A vessel intended for marine transportation, without regard to form, rig, or means of propulsion.

submarine n. 1. A ship capable of operating submerged.

It certainly appears, most brilliant Maria, that a submarine can be called a ship. Would you disagree with that, oh wise and wonderful one? Thank you for all your insightful, helpful comments. I've learned so much from you. You are my hero, Maria.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 24, 1999.

Ever notice how Nabi never posts anything on this forum unless it has to do with his much anticipated nuclear war scenario?

I think he is mentally disturbed, and probably a dangerous person.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 24, 1999.

Check the news about the two british scientists who literally drank plutonium years ago and are still alive and well!!

-- ross l. peterson (rossl@kirtland.cc.mi.us), November 24, 1999.

Hawk,

You know absolutely nothing about me, so it's pretty presumptious of you to declare me mentally unstable. If you don't like these threads, then don't read them. If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

If you were to check the archives, you would see that I have posted on many topics other than Russia. I've been posting Y2K-related information on this forum for over a year and half now.

Where were you a year and a half ago, Hawk?

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 24, 1999.

I was right here a year and a half ago Nabi, but recently I haven't seen anything from you except your favorite Russian nuclear attack propaganda. IMO, the fact that you are so obsessed with this nightmarish delusion strikes me as more than just a little twisted. If you are so certain that this will happen, then can you suggest a solution, or are you just going to continue reminding us that we are doomed? What are your odds of survival, and if they are better than ours could you share with us the best way to survive such a thing, or should we just kiss our asses goodbye? When it is all over are you sure that you would even want to be alive?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 24, 1999.