OT? What A Russian Nuclear Attack on the US Could Look Like

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


"Only the offensive leads to the attainment of victory over the enemy. As a type of combat, the offensive has incontestable advantages over the defense. The attacker has broad capabilities for launching surprise strikes, for the rapid exploitation of the results of nuclear attacks"
 Russian military strategist Col. Sidorenko

Due to the long arm of the intercontinental ballistic missile, the United States is no longer protected from her enemies by the vast expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. There have been three occasions since World War II when the U.S. has been on the verge of war with the Soviets as the result of a conflict involving third world countries. The first was the Cuban missile crisis, the second was involving the Middle East during the Seven-Days War, and the third was in 1990 when India and Pakistan were on the verge of war.

Prelude to a Russian Nuclear Attack (information covered in book)


Suddenly, without warning, nuclear detonations occur simultaneously, high in the atmosphere over different sections of the North American continent and Western Europe. These detonations originate from pre-positioned orbiting satellites armed with atomic weapons.

These high altitude bursts do not affect the surface of the earth with any form of destructive heat, overpressure or radiation, but a phenomenon occurs which is called Electro Magnetic Pulse, or EMP. The Electro Magnetic Pulse radiates out across North America and Western Europe, collecting on power transmission lines and communication antennas. For a fraction of a second, the EMP spikes the power grid and receiving antennas with a huge surge of voltage. In the process of seeking ground, this surge is so quick and great that it jumps across conventional surge protectors, lightning protection, and even open circuits where the power switches are turned off, burning out and rendering useless all sensitive electronics, computers and communication equipment.

Simultaneously, Soviet space-based weapon systems start decapitating U.S. reconnaissance satellites.

Confusion and Uncertainty

The confusion created by the disruption of the national communication network is considerable. The destruction of the U.S. spy satellites blind U.S. intelligence analysts. Military intelligence agencies are not able to give the president a definitive answer as to what the Soviets are really doing.

While the Soviets are launching ICBMs at U.S. targets, the Soviet head of state calls the President of the United States on the hotline to apologetically inform him that there has been an accident in space. The Soviet leader explains that a reactor on their orbiting space station has exploded. Not wanting to be responsible for the start of World War III, the uncertain President ignores advice from his military advisers to launch our ICBMs at Soviet targets.

The President doesnt have long to wait because Soviet submarines off the Atlantic coast launch ballistic missiles at Washington D.C. The time from launch to target impact is only three minutes. With the institution of a war alert, the president, his family and their Secret Service entourage are whisked away by helicopter. The helicopter is just crossing the Fairfax County line into Virginia when it is struck by the shock wave from one of the numerous airbursts over the nations capital. The aircraft instantly disintegrates with the wreckage scattering over a wide area of countryside.

Strategic Targets in the U.S.

In the United States there are about 6,000 primary targets. This includes military related targets that would be involved in the launch of a retaliatory counterattack. The initial Soviet ICBM attack concentrates on these high priority first-strike targets which are critically important for a Soviet victory. These targets include: ICBM silos and launch centers, air force, navy and army facilities, key military support industries, command and control centers, and political infrastructures.

Once all the designated priority first-strike military targets are hit, satellite reconnaissance is used by the Soviet military staff to determine the effectiveness of target destruction. Then further strikes are initiated where the initial attack failed or destruction of a target was incomplete. When all the military targets are properly destroyed, the Soviet military staff concentrates their attack priority on industrial targets which support the military effort including key military support industries, port facilities, fuel refineries, fuel storage facilities, power generating plants, chemical plants and communication facilities.

Destruction of U.S. Targets

Without warning, a significant portion of our retaliatory force is destroyed before it is deployed. Our bombers, which comprise the air wing of our TRIAD, are all off alert due to presidential directive. Virtually all of them are destroyed in their hangers. Each U.S. ICBM missile silo is struck simultaneously with two ground-penetrating warheads. Massive amounts of soil are drawn up into the resulting mushroom clouds, producing radioactive fallout particles that are spread for hundreds of miles before settling to earth.

Ninety percent of U.S. ICBMs are destroyed in their silos by the first wave of missiles. The ten percent which escaped the first strike are successfully launched from their silos but most of these are intercepted by the Soviet antiballistic missile system. Those that penetrate Soviet defenses only inflict minimal damage, quantitatively speaking, to military targets. The Soviet population, due to their extensive civilian civil defense program, suffer negligible losses.

Soviet ICBMs with ground-burst weapons impact and destroy U.S. military runways and civilian airports capable of accommodating the emergency dispersal of military aircraft. Military bases and Naval facilities are struck by ICBMs with air-burst weapons. The explosion of these weapons produces no radioactive fallout but there is optimum destructive effect of surface structures due to the resulting massive wave of overpressure and the thermal effect of the fireball.

One-third to one-half of the 39 U.S. strategic submarine fleet is destroyed in port. Of the remaining 19 or 20 U.S. submarines, 10 will have to travel for two to five days in order to be within striking range of Soviet targets. The other 10 U.S. subs are within striking range of Russian targets and successfully launch their missiles. Again, those sub launched missiles that managed to penetrate the Soviet anti-ballistic missile defense system only inflict minimal damage, both to their targets and to the Soviet population due to civil-defense preparations. The other element which quickly comes into play are Russias 250 attack submarines, which in short order, decimate most surviving U.S. strategic submarines.

Meanwhile the Soviet strategic submarines are launching their missiles, which have greater range than those of their U.S. counterparts. The longer range missiles allow the Soviet subs to launch from protected waters. Thus it is very difficult for the surviving elements of the United States Navy to destroy much of the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet.

U.S. Casualties

Due to the lack of a U.S. anti-ballistic missile system and civil defense preparations, all missiles strike their appointed targets in the U.S., causing massive destruction and loss of life. The Soviet first strike has resulted in the destruction of most of the large cities in the United States. The Soviet nuclear attack on the U.S. produces about 67 million casualties due to the effects of the blast and high exposure to radiation. This represents about 25 percent of the population.

During the next two years another 121.5 million Americans starve to death, bringing the total U.S. casualties to about 188 million, or approximately 70 percent of the population. (Strategic and civil defense could have reduced U.S. fatalities to as little as 7,000). Russia lost no more than 5 percent of her population as a result of ICBMs which managed to get through the anti- ballistic missile system. Also, none of the Russian citizens starve following the war, thanks to the massive Soviet strategic grain reserves which had been purchased from the United States with credits from Western banks.

Little is left of U.S. nuclear forces to retaliate after the Soviet first strike. Damage to U.S. military command and control and communications links have further restricted an attempt to retaliate.

Soviet intelligence and Spetnaz teams, pre-positioned in the United States start implementing a pre-established plan to create confusion. Soviet agents have been monitoring the daily routines of key members of the military and civilian leadership for months. Simultaneously, Spetnaz teams begin assassinating these key leaders and anyone else who has the misfortune of being around or in the way.

Other teams have been assigned the task of disrupting communication, power transmission and transportation. Power transmission lines and generation facilities at key points are sabotaged. Key bridges on thoroughfares out of major cities and on the interstate highways are blown up.

Teams equipped with shoulder-fired missiles wait in ambush on a wooded hill adjacent to the governments super secret Iron Mountain shelter complex in West Virginia. A few helicopters that managed to successfully escape Washington, D.C., are loaded with their cargo of Pentagon officials, congressmen and cabinet members. As the helicopters approach the seeming safety of Iron mountain, they are met by a crossfire of surface-to-air missiles.

The ensuing war is composed of many nuclear and non-nuclear battles which continue for two to four years. The war involves conventional forces both in Europe and an invasion of American soil.

The Continuing War

During this protracted combination nuclear-conventional war, chemical warfare is used by the Soviets as extensively as nuclear weapons. Approximately one-third of the Soviet arsenal is composed of chemical weapons. The Soviets maintain chemical warfare units that have 80,000 to 100,000 well trained soldiers. Biological warfare is not used in conjunction with conventional Soviet troop operations because it is slow acting, difficult to control, and could thus endanger Soviet troops. Biological weapons are used very effectively to eliminate resistance in hostile areas not occupied or controlled by Soviet troops. The overall objective of the Soviet war effort is not to completely destroy the United States, but to take control of as many aspects of American society as possible.

Evidence supporting this mixture of nuclear and conventional warfare in a third world war is found in the Soviet book, Tactics and Combined Arms Combat, Moscow, Military Publishing House.

"It is believed that nuclear weapons as the main means of destruction will be deployed only for the destruction of the most important objectives; all other targets are neutralized and destroyed by artillery aviation and the fire of tanks and other weapons. Use of nuclear weapons against insignificant, secondary objectives contradicts the very nature of this weapon."

"Although the nuclear strike should be delivered at the beginning of the preparatory fire in order to achieve surprise, this should not be stereotyped. Nuclear weapons can also be employed in the middle, at the end, or at any other period of the preparatory fire."

"Nuclear strikes do not represent some kind of isolated act, but a component of combat. The operations of tank and motorized rifle are closely coordinated with them. Nuclear strikes and troop operations represent a uniform and inseparable process, joined by a common concept."

Invasion of the U.S. by Conventional Forces

This scenario of an extended war involving both conventional and nuclear forces follows an overall Soviet strategy with the following objectives: destroy the most threatening enemy forces, destroy the main links and nodes in the national command and control authority, do not destroy large areas or create nuclear deserts, use minimum weapons yield to prevent target overkill, prepare to strike the most important targets twice, and do not attack and destroy all targets (because it is not possible or desirable).

This nuclear exchange is followed by an invasion of conventional forces involving sea and air battles, tanks, paratroopers and infantry. Airborne units strike across the Bering Sea and invade Alaska. With Nome, Prudhoe Bay, Fairbanks and Anchorage, the Soviets have secured the strategic oil reserves to support the ongoing war effort.

A combined sea, air and paratroop assault on Seattle, Tacoma, Victoria and Vancouver secures the port facilities and gains control of I-90 and I-5 North and South. The Soviets secure their beach-head in the Northwest.

Armored units begin moving east on I-90 to Ellensburg, Washington. At this point, part of the advancing force turns south on Interstate 82. The objective of this unit is to secure the chemical weapons storage at Umitila, the bridge over the Columbia River and the intersection of I-82 and I-84. Securing the intersection of Interstates 82 and 84 opens the back door to Portland. Military units move east on I-84 to flank resistance to a Soviet military push south from Seattle toward Portland and Longview down I-5.

From Ellensburg, military forces continue moving east to Vantage, securing another bridge over the Columbia River and opening the door for a push to Spokane.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, an invasion force from Cuba establishes a beachhead on the southern Florida coast. Communist forces pre-positioned in Mexico move across the border into Texas. Elements of the Soviet Red Banner Fleet secure New Orleans. This establishes key access to the central U.S. up the Mississippi River. The Soviets also mount a land, air and sea attack to secure the St. Lawrence Seaway.

More Information On Nuclear War (information covered in book)

The Nuclear First Strike

Most Americans cannot fathom the possibility of an unprovoked strategic attack by the Soviets. Rejecting the possibility of nuclear war may be comforting and helpful for normal existence, but this societal self-delusion may prove a fatal liability.

In war, he who chooses the time and place of battle holds the best advantage for victory. Fighting on a proactive or offensive basis holds the greater advantage for victory. Fighting on a reactive or defensive basis is an encumbrance.

The purpose of launching a first strike on the United States would be to take advantage of the element of surprise and catch U.S. forces off guard. The Soviets have significant capability for a preemptive attack on the United States. The Soviets have concentrated their nuclear firepower into an enormous intercontinental ballistic missile force which is optimized for a first strike against the Unites States. The initial and primary objective would be to destroy the United States defensive and retaliatory capability. In theory, once adequate industrial targets were dispatched, population centers could be targeted at will until the U.S. government capitulated with an unconditional surrender.

The United States would never launch a preemptive attack on Russia because the U.S. is unprepared to deal with the resulting dire consequences. The United States has neither civil nor strategic defense and thus our civilian populations would be completely exposed to Soviet nuclear retaliation. Even if the U.S. possessed a national strategic defense system, the act of preparing for a nuclear first strike would require the movement of U.S. forces into battle positions and the necessary evacuation of civilians from metropolitan areas. These actions would tip the Soviets off and the attack would no longer be a surprise, unless there was a devious strategy employed to cover or justify such preparations.

On the other hand, Russia has both strategic and civil defense. In the event of a surprise attack, the Russians could quickly shelter a significant portion of their civilian population and neutralize most ICBMs launched against Russian targets with their operational missile defense system.

The Old Doomsday Scenario (information covered in book)

Gradually Escalating War Scenario (information covered in book)

India-Pakistan Conflict and the F.E.M.A. Relocation Plan

F.E.M.A. has no contingency plans for sheltering the civilian population in the event of a surprise nuclear attack. Recent history has already shown that it is questionable that F.E.M.A. can or would start relocating civilians out of populated areas in the event of a gradually escalating scenario. Back in the 1990s, the United States experienced a gradually escalating war scenario with the Soviet Union over an imminent war between India and Pakistan.

Bush eventually managed to bring about a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but the public was never told that the U.S. and the Soviets were both on high alert. The F.E.M.A. policy of evacuating civilians out of metropolitan target areas was never implemented. Meanwhile, the United States and Soviet Union were both positioning strategic forces in preparation for a possible global conflict.

According to an Associated Press article which appeared in the March 22, 1993 edition of the Great Falls Tribune, "The world was on the edge of a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan in early 1990 because of the tug-of-war over Kashmir." Senior intelligence officials referred to this showdown in the spring of 1990 as "the most dangerous nuclear confrontation of the postwar era." The article went on to explain that, "the Bush administration kept the conflict secret, failing even to disclose it to key members of Congress The nuclear confrontation was defused by the intervention of President Bushs personal envoy, who was sent to India and Pakistan to negotiate a standdown between the two countries."

Government Warning in the Event of a Nuclear Attack?

The next logical question is would the government alert the public if the Soviets launched ICBMs at the U.S.? Probably not! The reason I say this is that a last minute alert probably would not save many lives. An alert would cause immediate civil disorder and gridlock on the highways out of the major cities. The other reason not to alert the public is that there is no public shelter system for them to run to.


-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 23, 1999


Uh, when was this written?? I doubt russia has the capacity to ocupy us anymore... But they can still nuke us if they want... :(

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), November 23, 1999.

Nabi, interesting speculation...sounds plausible,....the US may fade from the picture by any of several scenarios, having rejected the One who holds the reins of world government in his hands, we are doomed to pay the consequences...but the end time focus and action actually centers on to the Holy Land and the irreconcilable Jew/Arab dilemma over Jerusalem. The former Soviets are drawn into that mounting imbroglio by their age old association and alliances with their Moslem cousins (re: arabs..Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, ad infinitum) as directed by a script written long before they came to into being. Ezekiel, Micah, Jeremiah, Daniel, the disciple John, and Jesus Christ of Nazareth all talked about it in no uncertain terms. Now, THERE'S some interesting reading! I don't know whether or not we will be enslaved, living in caves, or just wandering around plinking cans as a third rate used-to-be world power, but things are gonna be different, for sure. Maybe we will escape persecution by our amazing athletic prowess, entertaining our new overseers by our valiant exploits under the auspices of the King of Spain's New World Order World Wide Federation of Mudwrestling!

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), November 23, 1999.

Wow. Great (meant sarcastically -sp!) Since you've given us a situation that any one individual could not prepare for without a large scale plan of preparation already in place, could you kindly present your ideas on how this situation could be countered via our own type(s) of preparations. It's hard to read this without the hope that we could be doing something (as a country at large obviously)to prevent this or deal effectively with this particular situational challenge.

-- thomas saul (thomas.saul@yale.edu), November 23, 1999.

I agree Crono. We are not a salvageable population and while ICBM's bypass or make obsolete the logistics problems of offensive warfare, they do not have any influence at all on the actual physical occupation of a target.

The opening part of the scenario is pretty accurate. coordinated EMP, SPETSNATZ, and sub launched attack to disable power grid, communications, and decapitate leadership. Initial targets, Washington DC, Pensecola Air Base, Edwards AFB, ELF antenna arrays, Ft. Hood, Bliss, Polk, Knox, Wright Field, etc. Any concentrated area of military assets such as fighters, bombers, tanks, ships, troops. Within five minutes of First EMP burst Russian land based ICBM's are airborne. Primary targets, American missile silos, and largest cities. Ground penetrators re-hit military bases to destroy hardened shelters. By this time most of our Tridents that were at sea have been destroyed by Russian Akula attack subs which opened fire on them simuletaneously with the first EMP burst, and other subs are in the process of destroying our carrier groups. A wave of Russian bombers and extended range fighters are crossing the Bearing strait loaded with Nuclear cruise missiles and gravity bombs. There is no airborne or ground based resistance capability left from the U.S. or Canada. Systematic destruction of medium sized American cities begins. Each bomber is assigned 20 cities, Each fighter is assigned 5 cities and 5 targets of opportunity.

Day 2. Low flying tankers begin spraying anthrax and plauge in a systematical grid pattern which will cover the entire country within 5 days. Russian bombers and fighters continue to search for population concentrations and undamaged infrastructure.

day 3. Strike assesments are finished and ICBM's restike hardened targets not confirmed killed with ground penetrators. Thousands of tanks are massing on the German border along with 60 divisions of light infantry. Airborne units prepare to invade England which has also been tenderized to the extreme.

Day 4. Germany, France, Poland, and Italy surrender unconditionally to the Russians to avoid nuclear decimation. Russian divisions begin crossing the border.

Day 5. Anthrax and plague begin to erupt in the surviving U.S. population as the incubation times are passed.

Day 6. Boris Yeltsin raises his glass of vodka in a toast to his generals. Here's to the Americans, what a bunch of maroons."

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 23, 1999.

Oooh...I hate it when they spray you with plauge!!!

-- Mr. Clean (DontSpraythat@me.please), November 23, 1999.

You nut cases are full of sh*t!!! Check up on current events... Russia can hardly launch surprize party let alone an all out nuclear war. There infrastructure, manufacturing, distribution, social services, military, mining, agriculture, has fallen apart. Their government and corporate environment is riddled with corruption. They're leadership is in dissaray. You inter-nut cases are fortunately in the extreme minority. We need to lock you nerds up as your a danger to society as well as yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


-- Who Flung Doo (Russians@eatme.com), November 23, 1999.


Thanks for giving me chills....

Butthead... (that was an affectionate Butthead..)

-- STFrancis (STFrancis@heaven.com), November 23, 1999.


When do you see this happening, and why? I respect your obvious knowledge on this topic, and want to pick your brain a little.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 23, 1999.

The description of the organization and planning and execution of this complex attack bogles the mind. Not even the D day invasion was so complex and required such precision timing. Russias nuclear stockpile is deteriorating and the reliability of their bombs lessens daily. The Russians are good chess players and they plan ahead. But they do not gamble heedlessly. The odds of success for this mission would not be acceptable to them as a rational risk. Too many of the U.S. retaliatory capabilities might, or would survive. They do not have the military hardware, planes tanks and above all soldiers who are motivated to undertake this mission.

Furthermore, should they be successful what will they have accomplished. They will be occupying a desolated country with a remaining guerrilla force operating against them.

Hitler might have gambled this way because of his meglomania and his inner demand for world domination but the Russians do not think this way. They have absorbed neighboring countries over centuries but they have never launched aggressive occupational attacks.

I am not worried about a Russian attack. To me it is 99.9% unlikely. I do worry about terrorist attacks with chemcial and biological weapons. However, one or two of these and the US will wake up and retool its deteriorated military

-- Shlomo slomuk (ed5226@idt.net), November 23, 1999.

Smuck, they look pretty damned capable and motivated to the Chechnyans I bet. And I agree totally they wouldn't want to nor have the capability to occupy this nation immediately afterr an atack, hence the follow on biological attack. This accomplishes two goals, drastic population reduction, and isolation of survivors. Everytime someone tries to organize any kind of workforce of military unit disease will instantly break out among those who have gathered. Nabi. If I were the Russians I would want about a week to complete operations before rollover, maybe a little more. Call it Dec. 23rd.



Well, at least there's a bright side!

When I was in boot the NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) Warfare instructor asked the question: "Where's the best place to be during a nuclear explosion?" The answer: "Anywhere you can say "what the hell was that!?!""


-- Captains Courageous (Strider@aol.com), November 23, 1999.

A Terrorist attack on or around the New Year, to me is possible. That being said, I don't believe that a war will start on it's own. Terroristic attacks will, IMO, lead to retailiatory(sp) strikes.

Not just here in the US, mind you. I'm talking about ANYWHERE. Imagine several incidents happening in various countries. These affected countries will feel obligated to retalliate, either in concert or unilaterally. If too many eye's get blackened, that in itself may lead to a form of "Cascading Aggression"(CA my new term).

This CA, if left to the fervor of the day COULD lead to an actuall war. The involved countries, however, won't be known untill this scenario play's out. Y2k may exasterbate the problems, if countries involved are already in dissaray, feeling destitude.

I hope it doesn't.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), November 23, 1999.

Not to poke any holes in this scenario, guys, but has anyone bothered to figure the amount of long-term (six months and more) radioactive fallout injected into the atmosphere by all these nukes going off in the air and on the ground, not to mention the stew of chemicals the explosions would release? Can anyone say "On the Beach?" (If you can't i.d. the reference, check amazon.com or your local library.) The radiation released from Chernobyl alone was enough to generate warnings all over Europe. The invasion scenario is off the plausibility scale on that basis alone, unless the New Sovs are wearing lead-lined panties.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), November 23, 1999.

Hi Maria, long time no see. Did they call you out of early retirement to come quell my panicy post? Sorry. I know you haven't finished your preps yet and can't really spare the time, lol.

Oh I think NABI has a pretty good handle on the hardware end of the situation, unlike Doo. Ships are what the Russians have been loading their nuclear weapons onto, as in if you wanted to transport them to an airfield closer to your target, say Cuba? Say half your strategic bombers dump their loads and continue on to land in cuba and rearm- refuel, reattack from there? Much shorter sortie times, less fuel consumption, lots higher time over target. It's really not hard to understand once you get past the mental bloc of the Russians trying to invade us. They just want us dead, plenty of dirt and slaves in the rest of the world.


Hi Maria, we've certainly been missing your keen insight and wit around here. Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.


David Rockefeller to Bill Clinton. "You know Bill, I just can't understand why these Russians are spending all these billions of dollars we have given them to dig shelters, design and produce new nuclear missiles, refit their fighters with long range fuel tanks, move their weapons stockpiles onto ships, and beg for more grain when they have only stockpiled everything we've sent them for the last ten years. Aren't they happy with being a welfare client state of the U.S. in the New World Order?"

Bill gives him a big slap on the back and his best "the pizza's here" grin, then replies, "Oh I wouldn't worry about it Dave, look how great things are going with China."


Cash, sorry I skipped over your post without realizing it. Ken Seger has posted a ton of info on the latest research into nuclear warfare. Specifically fallout. the old nuclear winter theory has been totally blown out of the water, and the reality of the situation is that modern nukes would mostly be airburst, leaving little fallout and no long term radiation on the blast site. I have read On The Beach, it's a good story, but has no basis in fact at all. yes there would be a huge amount of radiation released into the air, and cancer rates would soar worldwide, along with birth defects, but nothing the rest of the world in general couldn't survive.


Let's have a look at Russian motivations, long term strategy, and history to get a clearer take on the big picture.

1. communist ineffiency. While many percieve this as a weakness of the communist system, it is an inherent strength in the abscence of competitive entities. This inefficiency translates into near total employment for the communist state as long as it is free to control the money supply and the value of the money.

2. Who won the cold war? While current thinking is we did, the fact remains that Russia has already gone through the devastation of economic collapse, retooled, and is currently producing weapons which are a full generation ahead of anything we can counter with. Moreover the huge defeciets run up by the United States resulted in severe military budget cuts during the 80's and 90's. The cuts coupled with ongoing police actions and the gulf war have resulted in the lowest state of readiness our military has seen since WWII. In addition stockpiles of cruise missiles, smart bombs, Iron bombs, and fighter parts have plummeted as spending has been cut though consumption has increased. We have yet to deal with the consequences of our own huge defeciet and a market collapse is virtually guarnateed in the near future.

3. NATO has undergone tremendous strain as a result of the Serbgian conflict, and is on the verge of disentigration. The socialization of member nations over the last three decades has resulted in the near complete dismantling of their militaries and complete dependence on the U.S. for protection. Huge strains were also placed on the fiscal rescources and employment base of these nations by the opening of the iron curtain.

4. If Russia handles the attack and transition of Europe intelligently the aftereffects will be tremendously beneficial. By taking the infrastructure intact they will have a ready source of consumer products, food, and military supplies. These need not be extorted through force. By declaring the Ruble the common currency the Russians can buy whatever they want from the East European nations, maintaining whatever value they wish in the abscence of competition. By controlling the money supply they can also achieve total employment in Post war Russia. These Russian peasants, so long deprived will be desperate for cars, tv,s etc. that the E.Europeans and Japanes can provide, and China will be able to restructure it's own economy in the same way. Germans and French will enjoy a period of prosperity unrivaled in their history. who knows, the Russians may even let them keep electing their own puppet governments. All that really matters is that you control the money supply. Like we do now.


The ship is the target.

The sub isn't until that first ICBM breaks water. But then our emperor has brought us back "peace in our time," again.

...and so it goes.

-- squid (Itsdark@down.here), November 23, 1999.


You voice a common misconception here about the effects of nuclear war. 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."

I think you will be surprised by the information found here.


Nabi, I'm familiar with the book and its foreword, which really says nothing new or even vaguely informative, IMHO. And I'm not talking about nuclear winter scenarios, which have been argued ad nauseum in other forums. I'm asking about radioactive fallout, pure and simple. Those silo busters are extremely dirty, and even the air bursts aren't all that clean and simple. And speaking from my ex-SAC military perspective, I think the scenario gives very short shrift to American response levels and the success of that response. Practically every n- wargame we played started with an EMP attack, even back in the 70s, and for all that the p.r plays up the Prez's role in releasing nukes, you and I both know that the procedures have been in place for decades to get the warheads in the air in cases where he can't/won't respond - - and everyone in the chain knows that seconds count. (Knowing your familiarity with military trivia, you're probably aware of Curtis LeMay's attitude toward presidential control of his -- and I mean HIS -- nukes. SAC rumor had it that LeMay once almost started WWIII all by himself back in the 50s, but he was talked out of it by his chief of staff. Kidding? Naw, this was, after all, the guy who ordered the firebombing of Tokyo.) I'm not saying that the scenario presented here is necessarily wrong, it's just one of many, with lots of different outcomes and with lots of variables that have been passed over in favor of brevity and clarity. If invasion and occupation of USA is part of the plan, pasting the country with the number of nukes the post implies makes occupation kind of a moot point.


There are facts and then there are, self-evidently, speculations.

The facts are plenty disturbing enough: it isn't a kook fantasy that the Soviets, oops, the Russians, have been investing big bucks over the past few years in offensive and defensive capabilities AS IF they do NOT, at a MINIMUM, believe the Cold War is over.

By contrast, we are disarming.

Those are facts.

Speculation, at a minimum, must include Russian defensive anxieties (the national characteristic) which has certainly been given an order of magnitude boost by NATO/U.S.'s arrogant venture into Serbia. The Russians have behaved not, shall we say, unlike some folks on this forum (and I'm not making fun) who have taken reasonable/extensive home security precautions (which doesn't mean they are intended for offensive use).

Speculation, at a maximum, along Nabi/Nikoli's line, would suggest that the generals are in control and are putting into place a first- strike plan that will be triggered or not based on a variety of "final" analyses. Whether the timing for such an analysis and decision is Dec. 1999, or Dec. 2004 is unknowable.

Between those two amply alarming poles rest a range of other alarming AND reasonable scenarios.

Harkening back to the 1990 nuclear escalation, a scenario that factors in heating-up of Y2K trigger points elsewhere, INTERACTING with the Russian card, is probably the most probable reason for our concern: North and South Korea; China and Taiwan; Iraq and Gulf/Israel; Serbia, etc. Any one of those triggers, let alone two in tandem, will push the world to the brink in late 1999, early 2000.

Buckle your seat belt and make your peace with God now, not later.

Nothing is certain, but very much is possible.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 23, 1999.

Cash, I don't think the Russians have any intention whatsoever of invading and occupying this country after a nuclear attack. At least not in the short term. I think they will consolidate their gains in the mideast oilfields and Eastern Europe, while China takes over the Asian bloc. More than likely the oilfields will be a joint operation.

All they have to do is lay back and wait for the ravages of disease, radiation sickness, starvation, and internal conflict to whittle our population down to a mere fraction of its current level. If there is any invasion at all I would expect it to come from south of the border as impoverished Latin Americans and Mexicans come enmasse to loot whatever remains.


Big Dog, I agree that the events could come later, but I can see no increase in the odds of Russian success by waiting. I can see a definite potential for those odds reversing under another administration. The danger is real, it is here now, and it will be with us into the foreseeable future. The entire planet is a powderkeg waiting to blow, and if Y2k isn't the trigger something else will be.

I am not trying to scare the daylights out of the readers of these post, I am hoping and praying that enough NSA, CIA, and Mil. intel folks are reading this that they will start to take proactive measures which will add up to at a minimum dispersal of some of our assets, and ideally a change in our nuclear response policy and deployment of our forces.

Time is short, need is great.


Good Day all:

I have this peculiar idea that surfaces from time to time: everybody has the right to an INFORMED opinion. Without some degree of education, the discussion is nothing more than trading personal opinions.

Having said that, please consider that you need not know the INTENT of your adversary to prepare, merely the CAPABILITY.

I work as a forest officer; part of what I do is investigate crimes. If you are going to build a case with any credibility at all, you must start your investigation with no opinion whatsoever regarding the case at hand: LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

Since first badged as an infantryman in the late '80s, I have followed the "footsteps in the snow" of our real or potential adversaries around the world, ignoring what they say, and watching what they do.

It is not mere speculation to understand that the Communists are our long-term adversaries, with their ideology passed on over generations.

It is not mere speculation to learn that weapons upgrade and military expansion is the current Russian trend.

It is not mere speculation to state that Y2K will degrade systems worldwide, leaving us all vulnerable, and that MOST COMMUNIST POWERS WILL GO THROUGH THE ROLLOVER PRIOR TO US.

Will they use their weapons on us before the rollover degrades us all? -I don't know, but I know it'd be tempting.

Have we left ourselves presently vulnerable to attack? -Yes.


Semper Paratus.

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), November 23, 1999.

If you can't refute any of the arguments posted the obvious attack is ridicule.


Nikoli -- No doubt, rollover poses a tremendously inviting window of opportunity for the Russians and quite a few other authentic U.S. adversaries as well. I personally take U.S. .gov anxieties pretty much at face value on this one.

While I (of course!) stand by my own "facts" above, there are some unknowns or relative unknowns ....

How battle-ready is the Soviet nuclear force, really, and how sure can the Soviets be about our own response capability? THEY know, of course, and I don't buy the idea that their forces (ESPECIALLY nuclear as contrasted to conventional) are a rusting hulk, but the question still seems like a tough one to me. A close call, shall we say, for the Russians.

Also, IF the Russians believe they are close (forget Y2K for a sec) to significant cyberwar capability but not there yet, a delay of a year or two could dramatically increase their odds of success as well as give them the opp'y to probe and iteratively create the conditions to determine ahead of time how likely a nuke-bio-chem-conventional strike will be.

Unlike you, I doubt the U.S. will be signficantly more ready to respond in 2002, say, whoever is President. As you know, it takes years to reverse military (un)readiness, both weapons, personnel and supply. 2004 would be the earliest date at which we might have developed an enhanced posture that would make a difference (that includes defenses for bio-, chem- as well).

As for U.S. civil defense, that would take a decade and the Russians could always step up their time-table if we initiated such a program.

This said, if I were a Russian general, I would see Y2K as offering me two specific opportunities. My only concern would be how to handle Yeltsin and any pro-Westerners in Russia.

1. Test of cyber-, bio- and/or chem- capabilities, probably through use of surrogates, within a 1/1/2000 to 1/15/2000 timeframe.

2. Readiness to exploit international tension triggers for maximum Russian gain, right up to the brink .... and, maybe beyond, if the Americans don't back down.

What do you think?


Big Dog. The basic logic is sound but I have a couple of points that you don't seem to calculate into you scenario, which may or may not even be relevant. The first is what effect Y2K will have on the Russian nuclear missile system. One of my major tenants has always been that the Russians may be facing a use it or lose it scenario. If the Russians percieve that their code and embedded chip problem is hopeless, and that they will be defenseless for months if not years, they may decide to roll the dice and go ahead and take us out. Clintons constant courting of the ex Soviet states is not helping this situation a damned bit either. Many of these breakaway republics are nuclear powers in their own right, and if they go over to NATO during the course of events over the next few years the easy pickings in Eastern Europe will have changed into a hornets nest.

I also do not believe the Russian missile forces are nearly as decrepit as some sources would have us to believe. However there is no doubt that these missiles are aging and some level of malfuntons will arise as a result. To what extent is anybody's guess, but an additional five years of age isn't going to improve the numbers for sure. While the Russians are producing the new topol M missile now at the rate of about four a month, sustainment of that production in the face of a worldwide Y2K depression is unlikely. It would seem to me that Russian nuclear power is at its peak for at least the next decade, and the sindow of maximum opportunity has arrived.


Nice to see Nik and Nabi doing a fine job.

It amazes me that those who claim to 'get it' on y2k can't seem to get into their heads that y2k presents Russia with a window of opportunity for an attack.

Whatever the truth is about the Russian military's y2k readiness which in my opinion is the same as ours in the U.S., Russia's infrastructure is not ready. That is the plain and simple truth.

Y2k is the reason, Nik, Nabi, myself and others will be holding our breath during late December. Past that, the opportunity decreases in my opinion.

The following article reveals that the U.S. military computer systems have made good progress but still are not ready with five weeks to go. Do you think Russia notices?


Defense Week November 1, 1999 Pg. 1

Essential Command System At Risk For Y2K Failure

By John Donnelly

The computer system used by the White House and top commanders to plan and execute major military missions has not proven ready for 2000, the Pentagons inspector general said in a report released Friday. With two months until the new year, the audit raises important questions about the militarys preparedness to deal with the prospect that crucial computers could malfunction when their internal calendars roll over to 2000.

At issue is the Joint Operational Planning and Execution System (JOPES), used in peacetime and war to manage personnel and equipment including theater-level nuclear-war plans, the new report said. JOPES is an "essential mission application" in the Global Command and Control Systemthe militarys single, worldwide battle-management network.

"JOPES is the foundation of conventional command and control," the auditors wrote. "Therefore, it is a likely target for information-warfare attacks. It is imperative that the unified commands have complete operational contingency plans to allay the problems triggered by a JOPES failure caused by either Y2K-related problems or by information- warfare attacks." However, the report said, neither the Joint Staff nor commands in Europe, the Pacific, the Middle East and elsewhere have adequate contingency plans ready in the event the Y2K bug disables the JOPES system. The Joint Staff agreed and is formulating such a plan.

"Without complete operational contingency plans, the DOD ability to respond to military crises in a timely manner was reduced and there was increased risk that DoD will not have adequate alternative ways to quickly respond to combatant command requests for equipment and personnel," the report said.

The Pentagon has made great strides in tackling the Y2K bug. William Curtis, the Pentagons principal director for the Year 2000 program, said 99 percent of the militarys mission-critical systems are compliant. Moreover, given the new reports spotlight on the JOPES shortfalls, that system, too, will probably be made compliant, said Robert Lieberman, the assistant inspector general for auditing.

However, if the militarys worldwide battle-management network could pass muster while a core application is not compliant, it raises serious questions about how meaningful the positive compliance figures are, experts say. The inspector generals report begs the question: What else has fallen through the cracks?

Officials at the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Pentagons information-technology organization, think the report exaggerates the problem. Air Force Lt. Col. Intae Kim, the agencys chief engineer for the global command system, in a letter included in the report, said the problems "were well documented with work-arounds or fixes ...."

But Evelyn Klemstine, the inspector generals director of International Programs, says having a fallback option is not the same as certifying the system itself will work.

Klemstine also said JOPES was chosen for auditing because of its importance. In June, her team discovered that the militarys system for assessing the readiness of its personnel the Status of Resources and Training Systemwas also inappropriately certified as fixed. Consequently, the earlier report found, "the services ability to report unit resources and training in a Y2K environment was not assured."

John Pike, a military expert with the Federation of American Scientists, expressed concern when told JOPES was not compliant.

"JOPES is the application they use to run wars," Pike said. "Its the core application for figuring out whos supposed to be where, when. Its the application they use to plan everything worth speaking of," from joint exercises to peacekeeping operations to nuclear strikes in Korea or the Middle East.

According to the Oct. 27 inspector general report, the Defense Information Systems Agency certified the overall global command system as compliant without proper testing of JOPES, perhaps the systems most important single application.

"Just because your computer works doesnt mean every application does," said Klemstine.

"They havent fully tested the interfaces" between JOPES and several service systems that manage the deployment of forces, said Klemstine in an interview. "In addition, there is COTS [commercial-off-the-shelf] software in it that they know is not Y2K compliant ...."

Whats more, she said, "Our biggest problem with JOPES and the [global command system] is they keeping changing the configuration baseline." From one baseline to the next, 70 elements had been changed, she said. "How can you say its Y2K-compliant when you have so many revisions to your baseline?"

Curtis, the Y2K director, said in an interview that configuration management is a major focus of the Pentagons overall effort of late. The Joint Staffs fallback plan included use of the secret military Internet, secure faxes and phones.

But the plan "did not offer guidance on how to orchestrate operations" and didnt meet the criteria required for emergency plans, the report said.

As for the regional commands, the U.S. Central Commands plan "lacked the specific procedures to safeguard the joint operational planning function in the event of a Y2K-related disruption." Ditto for other commands. The U.S. Pacific Command plan "included using messengers with hand-carried information if all else fails."

Last July, Secretary of Defense William Cohen told reporters: "There is no question that on Jan. 1, 2000, and every day thereafter the Department of Defense is going to be ready." But in late September, the Senates special Y2K committee was far more skeptical. Of the Pentagons tardiness in fixing mission-critical systems, the panel said: "These late scheduled completion dates leave little to no time for schedule slippage or unforeseen events, which for [information- technology]-related projects are common."

The Senate panels conclusion? The Pentagon is at "considerable risk" of not meeting the Jan. 1, 2000, deadline. Y2K boss Curtis had not seen the JOPES report. But he gave Defense Week the latest overall figures: Fewer than 50 mission critical systems out of 2,414 still have to undergo "higher level testing"required exams that are more integrated and realistic than the system-by-system kind. The goal is to finish by Dec. 15, he said. Will that be enough time to solve problems? "The number of problems has been very small" in tests to date, he said, and mostly testers found a fix "pretty much on the spot."

Curtis said the Pentagon, which owns one-third of the governments computer systems and operates 600 installations worldwide, wants to make New Years Day "the largest non-event in history."

Referring to JOPES, Lieberman, the assistant inspector general, said: "Its a big system with lots of users and a lot of importance in a mobilization scenario. Due to its importance to the warfighters, Im quite sure management will turn to and put some extra emphasis on making sure they do everything that needs to be done."

More broadly, though, Lieberman does not expect all critical systems to be adequately tested by Jan. 1. And he expects failures. The key question, he says, is: Does the military have proper contingency plans in place to deal with the problems in U.S. systems or, more likely, breakdowns in nations that host allied forces? The question is open and will remain so for some weeks, he said. But if, and only if, the military tackles the problem as robustly as it has to date, all will be well, he said.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 24, 1999.

Not to add to the general atmosphere of paranoia, but there is that little issue of the alleged suitcase/backpack nukes rumored to be planted in this country already. Food for thought.

Appetizers anyone?

John Ludi (clutching his bottle of Potassium Iodide).

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), November 24, 1999.

John, those backpack nukes and the spetznatz teams deployed with them are what first got me interested in this. As best I can figure those nukes came into the country under the Gorbachev administration, not exactly the act of a friendly nation. I remember when the Berlin wall came down my wife and I were watching the scenes of all those people flooding into west Germany with no one checking their id's or searching their luggage. I said to her then that no doubt a large percentage of those people were kgb and God knows what they were carrying into the west. well just a couple of weeks ago the FBI acknowledged that the Russians do indeed and have weapons caches here in the U.S. and it is entirely possible they contain suitcase nukes.

Why has the KGB under Yeltsin not revealed the location of these caches ? Are we even now being blackmailed with nuclear terrorism? Why were Russian agents caught surveying targets in the U.S. just last year? Why have the Russians been running a nonstop attack on our DOD computer systems for over a year now? The fact that we can even ask these questions gives confirmation that either part of the Russian military and intelligence agencies are totally out of control, or that the official policy of the Russian government remains the same as it ever was. The fact that the Russians continue to spend huge amounts of money building underground cities in the Ural mountains and stockpile food even as the citizens do without is a clear indicator that official government policy has not changed. The Russians still expect to go to war with us on a nuclear level, and they intend to win.


Yesssss! Someone finally mentions the weapons caches. The media silence on this has been, IMO, nothing short of criminal. The KGB defector who pinpointed the caches already found in Europe (Swizerland comes to mind, anyone know of others?) said he knew of other sites in the US, but I've seen nothing since then except a sarcastic wire service article quoting {I think) Rep. Horn or Dornan expressing his concern. He was portrayed as a right-wing alarmist.

Speaking on a related note, does anyone recall an article G. gordon Liddy wrote for Discover (?) magazine in the early 1990s about the means, methods, and outcome of a limited but highly coordinated terrorist attack on the US? Except for a couple of backback EMP generators (essentially small neutron bombs), some plastique, and a few legally obtainable rifles, the entire upper East Coast was paralyzed and powerless for months. Scary stuff.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), November 24, 1999.

While we're on the subject of facts, the admission by the Administration that the Russians have been essentially fighting a cyberwar - with significant success! - against our information systems during 1999 is prima facie evidence that the Cold War, minimally, is back on full bore. That's the kind of "relations between friends" we say in the 1950s.

The further public administration admission about weapons onsite in the United States is another of those astonishing admissions that seem to be of negligible interest to American citizens so long as Nasdaq keeps climbing. Yet, the formal ADMISSION is scarcely routine, even though many of us have "known" about it for years.

Nik (and others) have commented earlier about a "use it or lose it" scenario for the Russians. I doubt that is the case. Or, to put it another way, and I admit I'm certainly oversimplifying, either their military is in pretty darn good shape based on all the spending over the past few years (INCLUDING nuke readiness, even given Y2K) or it isn't (in which case sustaining a nuke-conventional war would be prohibitively risky).

That said, IF they are in a use it or lose it situation (not even per se because of Y2K but because of deteriorating weapons systems long- term), I would agree that this is a further destablizing factor.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 24, 1999.

Cash, I have to agree with you on the media silence with reguard to the weapons caches. That pales in comparison to the lack of activity from the executive office though. Didn't we very nearly go to war with the Russians over missiles in Cuba? We considered them to be an intolerable threat because they could reach our shores in a matter of minutes, and could be taken over by Cuban revolutionaries.

Now we have upwards of 50 Russian nuclear weapons hidden away inside the continental U.S. and the only response from the white house has been dead silence!! Well what can we do you ask? If I was the President Yeltsin would have been holding a portfolio of photographs withing a month showing American nuclear warheads sitting in vans outside the Kremlin, in Lenningrad, Gdansk, etc. right on down the list of Russias largest cities. I would have had the FBI drop the Meggido crap, and assign every available agent to searching for those weapons. I would have the CIA pick up every known Russian agent and start peeling skin off of them until I got some answers. I would have put enough agents on the borders to search all incoming traffic, and restrict that traffic to only that which is absolutely vital. Same with the ports and those thousands of cargo containers which come in with impunity. If you've got the money to put a quarter million new police on the streets to harass American citizens you got the money to put them where they are actually doing some good. And last but not least I would have put every trident we had to sea and kept them there while rearming the Strategic Air command and raising the alert level of our land based ICBM,s. This threat could have and should have been countered. So if you see New York or Los Angeles go up in a thermonuclear cloud just remember Bi9ll Clinton is every bit as much to blame as the Russians, or whatever militia group they decide to pin the blame on.


Nik -- Agree 100%. Our situation today reminds me of the situation with Britain pre-WWII where the nation ridiculed warnings by Churchill and the like (speaking of "man of the century", it's Churchill hands-down).

On the one hand, Britain and its allies had won WWI and were the big- time victors (analogous to U.S. victory in Cold War).

Yet, Germany was re-arming and telegraphing its intentions in a wide variety of ways. But Britain was so weary of its historic role and so desperate for "peace at any cost" that it placated Germany at every turn, putting everything off to more-or-less "understandable" German desires for secure defense, German "insecurity", etc.

This Administration has engaged in the absolute worst foreign policy imaginable -- kowtowing to Russia and China where it really counts (nuclear and strategic arms) while "bullying" them in areas where neither can, AT THE MOMENT, respond (e.g., Korea, Kosovo and the like).

Perhaps the biggest factor in the uncertainty we face is the end of Clinton's term itself. Undoubtedly, the Chinese and Soviets have taken his measure and know that the totally free ride is about to come to an end. That may dwarf (in their mind) Y2K considerations, except so far as Y2K fits neatly into the long-term goal of destroying the United States.

Anyone who thinks that China and Russia have abandoned that long-term goal is living in a dream world. Not only do they hate us: there are another billion or two around the world that would not cry A SINGLE TEAR if the U.S. were destroyed.


Good to see your posts Big Dog.

I agree with you entirely on your comparison with Britain pre WWII. Excellent.

The Capitalists have depended on NATO to defend their wealth. They have tried to soften the communists with money and treaties. It has failed and they know it.

What we are considering is hard to grasp. It gives me chills. This thread makes y2k economic/social disruptions a welcome scenario.

My only hope is in the God in heaven. When He allows the four angels to let the winds blow. All this evil is going to explode in this world. Mens hearts will fail them for fear because of the things happening upon the earth. Luke 21:25-7. Isa. 8:11-17 tells us to make the Lord our fear and our dread. Let us not be afraid of what men can do. May out hope and trust be in Him, so we can abide in peace. The LORD is our Rock, a sure defense, a Refuge in a time of trouble.


As nutty as this sounds (even to myself) my biggest fear is that elements of the ex-Soviet government are conspiring to pull off a whopper such as this just before new years. It is safe to say I am scared s***less at times.

Hope to God I am wrong.

-- coprolith (coprolith@fakemail.com), November 24, 1999.

From the Book of Revelation, Chapter 18. I hope you're wrong too coprolith, I share your fear. How do you interpret this BB?



Yeah! Yeah! Dats da ticket, boys! Don't forgit whose drivin' da bus!! Yeah! Yeah! Right on, Nabi!

-- Jay Urban (jayho99@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

Nik, Just saw your post on Rev. 18.

Off the top of my head, which is subject to change :-), I'll say this much.

A lot of Bible students see Babylon here as solely America. I gently disagree with that. I believe that Babylon is a reference to the world as a whole and includes America of course. Rev. 18 clearly is in the section of Revelation depicting judgment which began in Rev. 14.

Beginning in Rev.15 the plagues are poured out upon the world. Rev. 16 reveals that a great war ensues. Rev. 17 shows the judgment upon the antichristian church/state union and Rev. 18 reveals how this current world system will end. Thus Rev.14-18 focuses entirely on God's judgment and wrath upon the antichrist and his imposed economic system set up in Rev. 13.

What hits me in Rev. 18 is the call for God's people to come out of Babylon, (man's attempt to set up a kingdom). Then go on to Rev. 19 and see how it ends. Jesus Christ returns for His people. His return will bring an end to history as we know it. It is what I look for. It is what keeps me smiling, excited and hopeful in the midst of my tears for this country and the world.

Jesus compared the troublous times at the end of history to the birth pangs a woman faces before giving birth. When we see society collapsing around us, the Christian is to see it as a sign of His soon return. See Luke 21:25-28 where my above interpretation is put in very simple terms by Jesus Himself.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 25, 1999.

Thanks BB, I'm not a bible scholar and this stuff is hard to follow if you haven't done the seminary courses to give you some background. Wish my Grandad was still alive....

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 25, 1999.


Revelation is summed up in one verse, Revelation 11:18. "The nations were angry, and God's wrath came...."

The nations are angry and will get angrier.

People like your grandfather are sorely needed in the country.

God bless you and may you know His peace in the coming days.

If you get near South Jersey in your travels let me know.


It might be safe to post on this thread what the Russian honchos themselves said:

[ yes this is an older post, but a promise is a promise with these folks ]

Great. Russia blatantly threatened us with Y2K, and we've given them exactly the excuse they were looking for.

"Use It Or Lose It" They're foaming to keep their word on this one!

E X P E C T 000 T O 000 B E 000 N U K E D

Russia Threatens US With Y2K Nuke Attack

URL dead now, but it's in archives lotsa times

[ Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only ]

3/2/99 -- 7:45 PM

Official: Tensions With NATO Raise Danger of False Missile

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's disputes with the West over Iraq and Yugoslavia are increasing the chances that Moscow would retaliate after a false warning of a missile attack, a top Russian defense official said Tuesday.

False missile warnings may be caused by the Year 2000 computer bug - which Russia has been slow to tackle - or other radar glitches, said Vladimir Dvorkin, head of a Defense Ministry department in charge of missile-warning systems.

He insisted that Russia would be much less likely to retaliate for a false alarm caused by the so-called ``millennium bug'' if the United States and NATO heeded Moscow's demands and called off the bombings of Iraq and the threat of airstrikes against Yugoslavia.

``The risk of making the wrong decision is higher when international tensions escalate,'' Dvorkin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

``The risk of such mistakes, including those caused by the unresolved Y2K problem, would be eliminated if international tensions eased, especially in conflict regions such as Iraq and Yugoslavia,'' he said.

Dvorkin didn't specify what could cause a false missile-attack warning besides the Y2K bug, saying only that ``theoretically, mistakes are possible.''

In 1995, Russian officials apparently mistook a Norwegian rocket launch for a missile aimed at Russia, prompting President Boris Yeltsin to open his ``black case'' containing nuclear launch codes. No attack was launched.

While Moscow may not respond to a false warning with an all-out nuclear strike, he refused to specify just how it would react to a mistaken alarm from its strategic radar.

`` It doesn't mean that a decision will be made to use all stockpiled nuclear forces in retaliation to a (perceived) mass attack ,'' he said.

[ Just *some* of them will do ]

At the same time, the Defense Ministry sought to stress that it was dealing successfully with the Y2K bug, and the risk of it causing Russia's nuclear forces to fire off unintentionally was negligible. Still, Dvorkin said that 74 control centers of Russia's Strategic Nuclear Forces were judged in ``critical'' condition because of their unpreparedness for the Y2K glitch.

But he insisted that Russia will resolve the problem by the end of the year.

[ Sure has NOT happened yet! ]

Russia has said it needs up to $3 billion to tackle the millennium bug problem, and appealed to NATO for help.

This was BEFORE we so brilliantly bombed Yugoslavia to smithereens.
And now officials are puzzled why Russia is dragging its feet?
Duh! They want to have this promised excuse to nuke us!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 25, 1999.


Gee, that was so nice of you to post once AGAIN your complete MISINTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS as explained in this article.

This article simply says that since NATO was taking aggressive military action in an area near Russia, that Russia might have to assume they were being attacked IF they saw a detection of a launch.

Their reasoning is that because of the possibility of Y2K glitches it may be difficult for them to confirm whether or not it was an actual attack, so it is possible they would respond as though it were real.

Now, unless you have had your head in the sand for the last 6 months, you should KNOW that some of the top Russian military officials in charge of their nuclear weapons systems control are going to be right here in the United States during the rollover TO ENSURE THAT NO GLITCHES WOULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD!

How you can take THAT and turn it into THIS is beyond understanding:




Russia Threatens US With Y2K Nuke Attack

Don't try to pretend that what you say here actually has any credibility on this forum, because the majority of us can see right through it. This is totally unfounded sensationalism, on a subject that should NOT be handled so irresponsibly.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 26, 1999.

Hawk, take your flaky talons somewhere else. You've picked on these facts for your abuse before and this time they stand on a thread where your ignorance is even more pitiable than before.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 26, 1999.

Hawk's previous ballistic abuse of this topic can be reviewed here:

What ?


That's where you're wrong.

You can't see that YOU are the ignorant and pitiful ones!

LOL!! (so sadly pathetic it's funny!)


Since the Russians' not-so-subtle blackmail and nuke retaliation using Y2K as cover hints on above article, the USA has almost DAILY bombed Iraq, and also reports are coming out that Serbs are dying in alarming numbers. We have read that Russians are fuming and just waiting, waiting until they have the most opportune moment. Also, we've asked about this to ex-Russians in the US, and their response was "Perceived insults will be nursed and avenged throughout generations; our people have long memories and little patience left. The country is in dire straits and they are desperate enough to do anything." And then there's Cohen & Hamre giving truly alarming terrorist warnings and backing up their fears with large appropriations and new hammering on the theme.

Enough clues to take notice, and many threads and articles in the archives detailing hair-raising possibilities! Enough to spur us to Shelter-In-Place, have KI & K103 immediately handy, and try to show others that there is a reason to expend the moderate amount of energy & money to be a little prepared for fallout.

Nuclear facilities also pose a Y2K danger. Archives here on that too.

Prepare to the best of ability, then relax [until reading a thread like this ;-) then remember you've already prepped, relax again, breathe ;-]

Oh, one more historical tidbit. Was it the Japanese who bombed us while their delegate was talking nice in DeeCee?


Well, now that is much better! It's much more rational and less alarmist than you earlier approach (see how easy!). Thank You. :-)


Around the time of that article, especially afterwards, when the whole country was gaping at CNN war coverage, and threads were compiling fast 'n furious, the mood was urgent, and the horror and disbelief at the USA's bombing (many innocent civilians hurt and millions of displaced refugees in terrible conditions) was pitched. Since then Americans have tended to shove the incidents off the attention plate, but the Russians have not. And the Iraqis certainly haven't. Recently Iran blamed the "Great Satan" for Y2K. The "Great Computer Satan" frenzy of revenge is what the US Top Brass are so genuinely worried about.


People, the thing you don't get is we are the "Great Satan" when it comes to warfare... the only attacks we need fear are the sneaky, "who do you blame?" type, rogues that may be financed, trained & backed by Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Lybia, etc... but not one of those countries would dare alone or together to be implicated in a direct assault against America...

Ever wondered why the only terrorist acts we've seen on American soil against just Americans have been from our own mentally ill fellow citizens? Sure they attacked the UN, but thats not really a direct attack against the American people is it? An insult maybe, but we're used to those...

No military in the world, none, period, nuclear or not.. can launch a preemptive first strike against us and not be anihilated in the response.. EMP over the US unannounced.. fucking morons... do you really think anyone could launch a missle at the US and have it go undetected until geoeffective position for an EMP blast? And if they did, don't you know the EMP threat has been hashed over for years, and that critical retaliatory systems were hardened years ago? Now, if they've managed to figure out how to get around our defenses with 2nd and 3rd and 4th hand computer equipment handed down from us... well, hope they stocked enough preps for the few thousand years it's going to take the planet to stop glowing...

-- C (c@c.com), November 26, 1999.


Since when has our government advertised they were developing a critical new weapon or defense before it was already a fact? Did you hear us advertising we were developing a stealth fighter and asking our competitors permission to take it off the drawing board? The new weapons that work are never advertised.. the F-22 is a decoy... where do you think the money is really going?

Think about it.. why do you think their so upset? We demonstrated our new abilities to give them a warning... so the arms race is officially back on... who really thought it was ever off?


When I see people believing the crap about Russians coming here because they are so concerned about a glitch or accidental launching, I know we're in trouble. How gullible can you be?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 26, 1999.

Are the Russians denying it?

Old nuclear foes join to avert Y2K catastrophe

October 19, 1999 Web posted at: 2:39 PM EDT (1839 GMT)

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colorado (Reuters) -- Deadly nuclear foes from another era plan to ring in the new year together to make sure the world survives the 2000 technology bogy known as Y2K.

Russian and U.S. military personnel will sit side by side inside U.S. Space Command's Building 1840 to mount a pioneering missile watch aimed at heading off the worst Y2K danger of all, an accidental atomic Armageddon.

The project -- the Center for Year 2000 Strategic Stability -- was devised by the Pentagon, which fears Y2K glitches may blind Moscow's missile-launch detection system or cause false alarms -- and possibly spark a nuclear nightmare.

Add in a diplomatic crisis and "the potential for Russia to misinterpret early warning data" would be extra worrisome, Lawrence Gershwin, the top CIA officer for science and technology, told the U.S. Congress last week.

With 2,000 nuclear-tipped Russian missiles still on launch-within-minutes alert -- along with 2,440 U.S. missiles -- U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen has described the Y2K center as a kind of hand-holding exercise to prevent any surprises.

It will cut the chance "that a turn-of-the-millennium computer error will create an end-of-the-year security incident," Cohen said on Sept. 14, the day he and his Russian counterpart, Igor Sergeyev, signed an agreement in Moscow setting up the center.

The arrangement will let the Cold War enemies do something unimaginable just a decade ago -- sit together and double check U.S.-provided sensitive early-warning data about possible ballistic missile launches.

The operation is a prototype for a permanent U.S.-Russian early-warning centre that Presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin agreed last year to set up in Moscow.

Along with the perceived Y2K vulnerabilities of Russia's strategic warning system, the command control of its military is at risk during the calendar rollover, Gershwin told the special Senate Y2K committee on Oct. 13.

Unlike cash-strapped Russia, the Pentagon is spending $3.8 billion to ready its most important systems for Jan. 1, 2000.

In the windowless Y2K center -- a converted cubicle space -- Americans and Russians will share modular workstations starting on Dec. 27 after a week-long warmup.

Working in shifts, the 20 or so Russians and their U.S. teammates will keep a round-the-clock vigil until a date to be determined in mid-January, according to Air Force Lt. Col. Jon Wicklund of the Space Command, the center's operator.

Launch data will be displayed as it is picked up by nearby Cheyenne Mountain, the fabled, steel-sheathed operations center of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on the outskirts of Colorado Springs.

NORAD, a joint U.S-Canadian command, uses a global mesh of satellites, radars and sensors to detect missile and space shots. U.S. Defense Support Program satellites can pick up the heat of a SCUD missile launch from 22,300 miles (35,887 km) in space.

NORAD has left no stone unturned to ensure its own Y2K readiness and has contingency plans "to cover a failure if it occurred," said Major Gen. David Bartram of Canada, chief of operations.

From NORAD, the Russians will get a stripped-down data stream on any launch to veil U.S. intelligence sources and methods.

"We're not interested in showing them all the capabilities that we've got," said Col. Robert Ryals, the vice commander of the Air Force's Space Warfare Centre, who may be the top-ranking member of the U.S. team staffing the center.

Details of the center's operations were worked out last month during a Russian team's stay at Peterson Air Force Base, Space Command headquarters. An American delegation will visit Moscow this week to fine-tune arrangements.

By agreement, seven chunks of data will be shared on any launch over 310 miles (500 km): point of origin, time, number of missiles detected, trajectories, types launched, projected target area and projected impact time.

Anything at odds with what Moscow detects could be discussed on a Y2K-tested "hot line." Another such line goes to Cheyenne Mountain's command center, where NORAD can quickly bump a problem up its abbreviated chain of command to Washington.

The Y2K Center also will provide a link for any other defense-related problems that emerge during the Y2K cross-over, such as aircraft that may go off course, U.S. nuclear planners said.

Sitting with the Russians will "provide additional safeguards appropriate to this period of heightened uncertainty," Edward Warner, assistant secretary of defence for strategy and threat reduction, told Congress last month.

U.S. officials say they are highly confident that Y2K failures will not lead to the inadvertent or unauthorized launch of a ballistic missile by any country. But widespread system failures could spur "opportunistic engagements" by hostile forces, the Pentagon's joint staff warned U.S. commanders in a Sept. 14 memo.

So far, no missile or space launches are known to be scheduled during the Y2K rollover, according to Air Force Lt. Col. Randy Blaisdell, program manager for the center.

Worldwide, a ballistic missile test launch or space shot is detected an average of about once every 36 hours, with "very very few" of them surprises, said NORAD operations chief Bartram.

-- (who.is@stupid.now), November 26, 1999.

Who is stupid now? People like you that believe the Russians are really concerned about an accidental launch. They had to agree to the invitation to cooperate. What choice did they have? Duhh They'll back out at the last moment. Just keep believing the Russians as they keep laughing at the american suckers.


C, Whoa up there bud, who said anything about the Russians "Launching" an EMP attack at us , undetected or otherwise? The "Launching" on this phase of the battle was done long ago by both sides. Both the US and Russia maintain hundreds of classified military sattelites in low earth orbit, many of them in "Sleeper mode". If you think a large percentage of these aren't EMP weapons awaiting detonation commands I got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'm sure you'd like.

If you will note the next to last paragraph in the post from Cheyenne mountain you will see the phrase "opportunistic launches from hostile forces." Catch that? Accidental launch my ass, these guys are going to be watching those Russians like a hawk, which is one more reason for the Russkies to launch a week or two before rollover. All this could be avoided if Bill would just give the launch codes back to the Tridents and put them all to sea with authorization to fire autonomously, which by the way is standard operating proceedure for the Russian subs. down in Texas and damned glad I'm not manning one of those silos over the Christmas season.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 26, 1999.

Stratfor's (http://stratfor.com) recent analyses of Russia give all the factual evidence needed for judging that the situation there has turned noticeably more hostile to U.S. over past year, with serious implications for coming year(s). Those implications obviously include Russia's stance towards strategic weapons and the use of those weapons, whether for bluff or war.

BB and Nik: however Rev 18 is interpreted, look at the simplest aspect first. The close to this age will see numerous divine warnings and anticipatory judgments (Y2K may be itself merely anticipatory) that will be discarded and mocked by most. By contrast, the judgment on "Babylon" takes place in an hour, is completely unexpected (not by those with "eyes to see" but by people in general) and is total (there are survivors but, so far as Babylon is concerned, it's over).

The sudden character of divine judgment is a persistent historical fact (flood, Sodom-Gomorrah, Jericho and others on Israel herself). This, to me, is the most important and unchallengeable kernel of that prophecy.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

Night of December 9th stay indoors.

-- saw speculation (better@safe.sorry), November 28, 1999.


Stay in your house??? LOL!

If we get nuked I doubt that it will make much difference!

-- your (house@is.glowing), November 28, 1999.

saw speculation,

Why don't you share why Dec.9th is so important. We await your insight.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 28, 1999.

BB , sceculation is referring to the Torah bible codes which predict a Russian-Chinese nuclear attack on the United States Dec. 9- 10. Sunset is the beginning of the day in the old Hebrew calendar.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 28, 1999.

Let's just say that certain cells of the US government and its counter-attack WILL continue even after an all-out russian nuke attack. There are bases, supplies, weapons, and exotic forms of communication that would inevitably survive. The continuity of govt programs are perhaps a bit better funded, ingeniously designed, better concealed and more widespread than is generally known or appreciated.

-- dk (dontknow@cannotsay.com), November 28, 1999.

I could give a rats ass whether the government survives or not. I'm thinking of the population. Which is what the government was supposed to be protecting.


NK-- I agree w. you 100%. However, it's important for the world to know that something of a US deterrant is still in place that is capable of evading even the worst of an enemy attack.

-- dk (dontknow@cannotsay.com), November 29, 1999.

Moscow's plans for new year's eve (from CNN)

"Among the most grandest of those (plans), albeit unlikely sounding, is a project called "Star of Bethlehem" -- a proposal to use missles and satellites to create a cosmic cloud, a display that would appear to be a fireworks show in space. There's even talk of having missles drop 220-pound capsules full of presents on five international cities. Estimate price tag: $12.5 million."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

-- donno (donno@cannotsay.com), November 29, 1999.

Thanks, Roland :-)

Reporter Badgers Col. Crowley over Y2K Nuclear Weapons Center

This is the type of questioning that is lacking in the general press...

DoD News Briefing P.J. Crowley, PDASD PA Tuesday, November 09, 1999 - 1:45 p.m.
Q: The people at Peterson Air Force Base are putting on sort of a demonstration today of the U.S.-Russian Y2K confidence-building center, whatever the name of the center us.

CROWLEY: Center for Y2K Strategic Stability, might that be what you are asking about?

Q: That's the place.

As originally envisioned, there was also supposed to be an equivalent center in Russia that would be staffed by Russian officers and U.S. officers, where we would share early-warning information and, I believe, signals, as originally envisioned.

As it turns out, there is only one center. It's in the United States.

There is no center in Russia.

How is this going to work under the new configuration if we don't have a center in Russia with U.S. officers observing? And will Peterson be taking in a signal or a live feed of Russian early-warning pictures?

CROWLEY: Obviously, we want to be sure that the millennium passes without incident. And we have set up, very cooperatively with the Russians, a mechanism so that we will have total transparency in our early-warning systems, as we transition to the millennium. You know, this will involve continuous information and links back and forth between Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, and Moscow. The Russians will have personnel in the Springs; we will have personnel in Moscow.

And we will be sharing information derived from our ballistic early-warning systems, on launches of ballistic missiles. We'll also have the opportunity, in case there are any other incidents involving aircraft that might lose navigational aids -- for example, we don't expect that there will be a problem -- but we will have connectivity between Moscow and Colorado Springs so that we could have total transparency in the information that we both have available so that we both can have confidence that we can celebrate the New Year appropriately.

Q: But it's my understanding that there is no center in Russia. Is that still correct?

CROWLEY: Well, we will have personnel in Russia. I think most of the information that will be used, and shared, will have actually come from our systems in Colorado Springs.

But we will have connectivity back to Russia, so if they have concerns they can relay those concerns to us in Colorado Springs. As we have information that might be of importance to them, we'll relay them back. But this will be a transparent operation with Russian and U.S. personnel sitting side-by-side to make sure that in the event that any incidents take place, they can be fully explained based on the information that we both have available.

Now, this is separate from the agreement that President Clinton and President Yeltsin signed a year ago in September where we would work towards a shared early warning center that we both would have. This is something that's set up for the Y2K. Our countries have worked very closely together, they have worked extensively to work through our mutual concerns and make sure that our systems, we think, are properly safeguarded for the new year.

But there will be personnel in Moscow -- you know, you want to call it a center -- I think there will be personnel there connected to our folks in Colorado Springs and that kind of connectivity, I think, will help us with whatever dialogue we need to be sure that anything that takes place can be shared with both sides.

Q: I don't necessarily want to call it a center. In fact, the last time I was told about this, I was told that there would be no center in Russia. Has that changed?

CROWLEY: There will be personnel. Let me try --

Q: Well, there are personnel in Russia now.

CROWLEY: There will be personnel in Russia.

Q: Yeah, but just saying that there will be personnel in Russia doesn't mean anything.

CROWLEY: They will have open lines to personnel in Colorado Springs.

Q: Where will the U.S. personnel in Russia be?

CROWLEY: I don't know.

Q: Not in the Russian strategic command center, I'm assuming?

CROWLEY: Obviously, they will be near Russian authorities so that those who are monitoring what's going on around the world will be able to share information very quickly, but the information that will be shared will primarily be based on information that comes from our systems.

Q: Now, the people, the Russian officers at Peterson are going to be looking at the U.S. early warning picture?

CROWLEY: We will be sharing information based on our early warning picture with them.

Q: So they're not going to be sitting in front of the screens, is that what you're saying is the difference here?

CROWLEY: Obviously, the particular mechanism -- that's why you're having a briefing out there for your personnel, to make sure they understand exactly how this is going to work. But we will take information from our various systems, share pertinent information with our Russian counterparts; they will, in fact, have connectivity with folks back in Moscow, so this will be a very transparent process as we make the transition to the next millennium.

Q: There's still only the one center?

CROWLEY: The Center for Y2K Strategic Stability will be in Colorado Springs.

Q: And are we going to look at pictures of Russian early warning systems --

CROWLEY: The data that will be shared will be coming from our systems, not theirs.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), December 01, 1999



http://pdq2.usia.gov/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@pdqtest1.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=WM QBIVCKMKBM&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124189&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=88&CQ_PDQ_DOCUMENT_V IEW=1&CQSUBMIT=View&CQRETURN=&CQPAGE=9

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), December 01, 1999.

Thanks for this nugget, Roland

Ask Y2K questions, clear out the Spin, and you get NOTHING !!

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies

This one is QUITE a revelation! But not surprising. Anybody remember that little promise the Russkies made to nuke us under cover of Y2K "mistakes" if we didn't stay away from Yugoslavia and Iraq?

We know this fact drives certain posters insane but every once in a while the PATTERN is confirmed by real-life factual developments. Or non-developments as this Q & A demonstrates ...

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), December 01, 1999.


Have you ever conducted a long-term research project, only to find a few key pieces of information missing--making your clear understanding of the issue a little foggy?

11 years of study for me just got perfectly clear.

Get out of harms way before the end of the year.

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), December 01, 1999.


I read an article this morning that said the Hearst Mansion and estate near Sacremento was being outfitted with some outrageous turbine powered generators in case of Y2K power failures. About 50 miles from my home a ranch house belonging to one of the four richest men in Dallas is completely encased in copper mesh and outfitted with high tech communications gear and a bomb shelter. A friend of mine is an electrical contractor and he did some of the work on the house so this is first hand info. The Hearst mansion got me thinking about the other place, and I began to wonder why a now state owned tourist site would rate tens of thousands of dollars worth of turbine generators, when the vast majority of local water supply's have no backup power.

The place near my home is the property of a person with what to me is unimagineable wealth. It isn't new, having been constructed several years ago, but it does reflect a common trend among those with lots of disposeable income, a hedge against a worst case scenario. I would imagine the Hearst mansion is similarly equipped with a fallout shelter, probably well hidden from the general public and potential maurauders. I can concieve of no other reason that could justify the expense of the generators than if the Mansion was to be a fallback shelter for government officials.

On the same vein a couple of days ago Canadian broadcasting announced it was going to be posting correspondents at remote transmitter locations for rollover, so that they could broadcast "survival information" in the event Y2K goes badly. At least one of these remote transmitters is equipped with a bomb shelter.

A few days ago Colorado revealed they have set up Y2K shop in another bomb shelter. A few weeks ago the Air Force revealed they are going underground as well for the rollover. Along with the city government of Dayton Ohio, which is coincidentally the location of one of if not the biggest AFB in the country.

I have read three different articles which allude to the Presidents' Plans to be inside the Iron Mountain underground government complex during rollover. None of these is confirmable so I just have to put this one down to rumor for now.

It is not a rumor that FEMA will be working fom inside Mt. Weather at rollover though. Or that Los angeles is going to be way underground watching the show through remote cameras. Or that NYC has built a rollover fortress from which to coordinate Y2K responses. I also find it interesting that the Federal governments y2K crisis monitoring center was built in the old secret service building in Washington D.C. . A building connected via nuke proof tunnels to the White House and emergency shelters underneath the city.

What do these locations have in common which requires that they have nuke proof shelters to meet the y2k non-event the government is so insistent on? They are all on the top ten nuclear targets list.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 01, 1999.

I wonder if someone at the FBI is trying to tell us something. When they first revealed project Megiddo I thought the reference was to the great battle in the old testament wherein the northern tribes revolted against the King. Seemed to match the overall nature of the operation as described, but tonight I have to say I overlooked an obvious clue. Running a bible search I called up the definition of Armageddon. This is from Easton's Bible Dictionary.

Armageddon - occurs only in Rev. 16:16 (R.V., "Har-Magedon"), as symbolically designating the place where the "battle of that great day of God Almighty" (ver. 14) shall be fought. The word properly means the "mount of Megiddo." It is the scene of the final conflict between Christ and Antichrist. The idea of such a scene was suggested by the Old Testament great battle-field, the plain of Esdraelon (q.v.).

As is clear from this the proper translation of the FBI code name operation Megiddo is actually Operation Armageddon. Tanks on Interstates, Military units searching busses, Underground bunkers, and spies being flushed left and right from both sides. Can I buy a vowel? I'd like a U please Pat. Ding.


Nik, looks to us like you're doing a fine job connecting the clues.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), December 02, 1999.

thanks Ashton and Leska, here's a little something that shows both Yeltsins current attitude towards the U.S. and his emotional instability.

Clinton Angers Russian President Sukin Syn November 21, 1999

US President Bill Clinton's harsh criticism of Moscow's handling of Chechnya infuriated Russian President Yeltsin at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul. After Clinton finished speaking, Yeltsin, who had become greatly irritated at Clinton's words, slammed the table with his headphones. The words "son of a ..." in Russian were heard coming from the mouth of Yeltsin, who wanted to quit the meeting. [Turkish] Foreign Minister Ismail Cem, noticing that Yeltsin was about to leave in anger, stood up to calm the Russian President. However, before Cem could intervene, Yeltsin's own advisors persuaded him to not leave the meeting.

And an update on those suitcase nukes...

Russia: US Fears of Hidden 'Suitcase' Bombs New York Post November 8, 1999

A congressman who's a Russia expert says the FBI is afraid to ask Russia a direct and potentially shocking question: Are suitcase-sized nuclear bombs buried in the United States - including New York? The FBI won't comment, but congressional sources said agents have already conducted at least one search - in Brainerd, Minn. - for secret stockpiles of everything from nuclear weapons to pistols, radios, maps and currency.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), citing the congressional testimony of KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin and Russian General Alexander Lebed, said the former Soviet Union produced 132 suitcase-sized, 10-kiloton nuclear weapons, but has accounted for only 48.

By my count that leaves 84 10 kiloton nuclear weapons deployed somewhere in the U.S., with friends like this who needs enemies? But just in case they have,nt had enough money to smuggle all the nukes in, here's a little Christmas gift to help them out.

Russia to Receive IMF Cash Reuters November 3, 1999

Russia should get much-delayed International Monetary Fund support next month, government officials said on Wednesday as they wrapped up three days of top-level IMF talks. Finance Minister Mikhail Kasyanov told an investment conference the government expected the second $640 million tranche of a $4.5 billion loan at the start of December, after another IMF checkup.

But at least we're not playing favorites, there's something in the stocking for all our commie buddies.

NewsMax.com December 3, 1999

President Clinton and Communist China insist it's merely for weather forecasts. Critics say the incredibly faster supercomputer may also be used to target nuclear warheads. What they are talking about is the latest, top-of-the-line high-speed computer, IBM's fastest, one of the world's finest.

ABCNEWS.com is reporting the Clinton administration has just approved "an unprecedented proposal" that would permit China to import that IBM RS/6000 SP supercomputer.

It is capable of flashing through 30 billion operations in a single second, 1.8 trillion in a minute.

That's a quantum leap beyond the capacity of most high-speed computers previously exported to China - a relative snail's pace of 7 billion.

According to ABCNEWS.com:

The Chinese managed to get around even those lenient limitations imposed by the Commerce Department by adding on enough imported American microchips, not requiring Commerce approval, to upgrade the much-slower earlier computers to a capacity in excess of 30 billion transactions a second.

The significance of all this?

 This latest computer, the RS/6000 SP system, is a crackerjack at precise, instantaneous forecasting of weather.

 So advanced, in fact, that it is just what a state-of-the-art missile needs to hit its target with pinpoint, rather than ballpark, precision - whatever the weather.

 China's current missile-launch technology can get the projectile only so far on a controlled trajectory. After that, the missile tip is more or less on its own.

 Targeting is something less than always on the nose, as weather conditions affect its descent.

 With meteorological data ginned up by the big new IBM supercomputer, the Chinese would be able to factor in even the most finite weather variations, so as to guide the warhead to its exact destination.

"It's a legitimate end-use," one Clinton administration official told ABCNEWS.com. "Weather forecasting in the United States uses very intensive computing."

Critics see that as the very reason to worry.

 Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which monitors such developments:

"The programs you need for forecasting weather are quite similar to the programs you need for simulating bombs - the same hydrodynamics, clouds, movements of wind.

"So it's very hard to distinguish between weather-forecast applications and bomb-design applications.

"Since there is no effective arrangement for verifying what such a computer would be used for, we would be taking a terrific national security risk."

 Steven Bryen, former director of the Pentagon's technology control office in the Defense Technology Security Administration:

"When a nuclear missile releases its payload, it is no longer steered. Therefore, the exact release point has to be calculated, and weather data is a vital input.

"Because weather-data prediction is a very complex process and requires big computers, this system can pose real risks."

 Another U.S. missile-technology specialist:

"It's the difference between terror weapons, in terms of intercontinental ballistic missiles that can hit cities, to actual first-strike weapons that can hit missile fields with pinpoint accuracy."

The Clinton administration has maintained all along that computer deals such as this latest one contain enough safeguards to prevent weather computers from the U.S. being used for Chinese military purposes.

Those opposed argue that these are not worth the paper they're written on.

They say the Chinese have allowed the U.S. to check on but a handful of more than 600 high-speed computers they have bought since the Clinton administration loosened controls on their export.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 03, 1999.

Here's another one I forgot to stick on, pay particular attention to the last sentence in the paragraph. It is a direct quotation from the commander of Russias nuclear forces, and a direct threat to use nuclear weapons against the U.S.

On October 25 Nikolai Mikhailov, first deputy defense minister of the RF (Russian Federation), shocked the international community by his strong statements to the press. At a time when the RF is still in dire economic straits, dependent on Western money for its very survival, Mikhailov warned that his countrys military has enough weaponry to overwhelm any antiballistic-missile system in the US. He warned further that the RF will deploy more nuclear warheads if the U.S. continues its efforts to develop an anti-missile defense system. Mikhailov stated categorically, "This technology can realistically be used and will be used if the United States pushes us to it."


Big Bad Nikoli, to actually post what is coming out of the Bear's mouth ;^) There be clues, there be signs and indications. We got laminated maps, KI, K103, masks, and peace with the Lord, ready to Go Home, if necessary. Praying that He will stay Russia's claws and grant us more time ... if it's liveable after the Transition that will take the world by storm.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), December 03, 1999.

Well things are heating up in Russia. Yeltsin and Putin have delivered an ultimatum to the Chechyen Rebels as follows.GORAGORSKY ROAD, WESTERN CHECHNYA, Russia (Reuters) - Russia's military issued an ultimatum on Monday that warned all Chechens to leave their capital Grozny within five days or die, provoking a new exodus of terrified refugees.

Scores of people made their way down this narrow road from Grozny after reading the Russian warning in leaflets distributed as troops closed in on both the capital and two other key towns leading to it.

"You are surrounded, all roads to Grozny are blocked. You have no chance of winning," leaflets dropped over the capital read. "Until December 11, there will be a safety corridor through the village of Pervomaiskoye."

"Those who remain will be viewed as terrorists and bandits. They will be destroyed by artillery and aviation. There will be no more talks. All those who do not leave the city will be destroyed," the leaflets said.

On the highway leading west from the capital, families came out on foot or by car, telling of a city in terror and panic. Many people, especially the elderly and poor, remained trapped, they said.

Taisa, 37, said she had offered to help her neighbor, an elderly Russian woman, to flee.

"She said she would stay behind because she was too tired to flee. 'If God wills it, we will live,' she told me. I left her all the food and water we had."

Oleg, 31, said he had brought with him an elderly Russian woman he had found sitting by a road.

"I said, Grandma, don't you want to leave? She said, 'How can I? The buses take up to 30 roubles per person, the taxi costs hundreds. I haven't got any money.'

"I told her get in the car. All I can promise is that if I live, you will live. She came with me."


The Russian Deputy Minister for Emergency Situations, Sergei Khetagurov, told reporters in Moscow that the corridor could be opened later on Monday.

Russia said at the weekend its forces had encircled Grozny. Chechen rebel spokesman Movladi Udugov acknowledged all roads out of the city were blocked, but said fighters could still skirt Russian positions and were gathering to make a stand. END SNIP

President Klinton was quick to respond witht he following

``Russia has set a deadline for all inhabitants now to leave Grozny or face the consequences,'' Clinton said. ``That means that there is a threat to lives of the old, the infirm, the injured people and other innocent civilians who simply cannot leave or are too scared to leave their homes.

``Russia will pay a heavy price for those actions, with each passing day, sinking more deeply into a morass that will intensify extremism and diminish its own standing in the world,'' he said. End Snip

Meanwhile back in Moscow the military is preparing to anihilate Grozny and everyone in it.

NewsMax.com December 6, 1999

The world watches as Russia wages war to reclaim control of its breakaway province of Chechnya. Is that all its military is up to there? A writer for a respected independent newspaper published daily in Moscow recently raised that question and came up with a horrifying prospect:

Chechnya could be a real-life proving ground for a nightmarish new Russian super-bomb designed to exterminate  like rats in a cellar  enemy troops dug in to defend cities.

Should that fail to dislodge Muslim rebel forces now holed up in subterranean bunkers beneath Grozny, the capital city, even-more awesome weapons of mass destruction await them, according to the article in the Moscow Times.

Attributing sources within the armed services, Pavel Felgenhauer, a defense analyst based in Moscow, said that the Russians are prepared to deploy devastating aerosol explosives known as "vacuum bombs."

According to Felgenhauer:

 Referred to in the Russian air force as ODAB bombs, they descend slowly by parachute, generating a large cloud of highly flammable gases.

 When the aerosol cloud is ignited, the resulting blast is somewhat akin to what happens when propane gas from a leaking cylinder combines with oxygen in the air.

 This vacuum-bomb explosion is of a magnitude far more immense, demolishing block after city block and permeating bunkers and urban cellars, annihilating all within.

This sounds almost made to order for Grozny, a large city built to Soviet specifications for extensive underground bunkers to withstand a feared nuclear attack from the United States.

If Russian troops cannot bombard the urban rebels out of those concrete honeycombs with conventional ordnance, Felgenhauer contended, they are prepared to do the job with aerosol bombs.

"To declare victory in Chechnya, the Russian authorities need to take control of Grozny," he wrote, "but the Russian army does not have the well-trained infantry to do the job. Conventional bombardments cannot possibly dislodge the rebels from Grozny anytime soon.

"So non-conventional warfare in the Caucasus may be in the offing."

There was a recent flurry of rumors from Moscow that Chechen rebels had gotten their hands on stocks of Russian nerve gas and, as a precaution, Russian troops were issued gas masks.

Felgenhauer speculated the Russian military, itself, may have spread the rumors as a subterfuge for launching its own nerve-gas attack against the rebels.

What of the Russian propaganda and rocket campaigns to terrorize civilians into fleeing Grozny, now under increasing attack by Russian troops?

According to Felgenhauer:

"It is obvious that the Russian authorities want to declare Grozny a civilian-free area so they can begin to use much more powerful bombs against the rebels."

Russia has already battle-tested its aerosol bomb, but on a lesser scale, Felgenhauer said, against a rebel-held village in neighboring Dagestan earlier in this current war. End Article

You might want to read that last pargraph again, They have already used the fuel air explosives in remote areas on enemy troops. The threshold has already been crossed. For those of you who saw the movie "outbreak" with Dustin Hoffman, this is the same type of weapon used at the end of the film. It's as close to nuke as you can get without radiation.

In light of the escalating tensions I have to wonder if the mysterious flash of light seen over the Souteastern United States last night was in fact a Russian Sattelite dropped into our atmosphere to test our reaction. If anyone is wondering why russia is in such a huge hurry to get finished with Chechnya dig out your maps of the mideast and look to see where the only route from Russia to the Ajerbaijani oilfields on the Caspian sea lays. Then look at the location of Serbia in relation to the West having access to those same fields.

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

Yeah, December 8 and 9th, that's this Wednesday, the big day!! You guys ready?? I can hear them warming up the missiles already... I'm gonna wear my helmet the next couple days just in case it lands right on my head! :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 06, 1999.

Hawk, as usual you can't even get the date correct. The Bible codes predict Dec. 9-10th. Dec. 9th in the Hebrew calendar begins at sundown Thursday. I wonder if that's sundown Jeruselum time? Hope you get everything you wish for, Merry Christmas.


The Bible codes predict those days or the person who interpreted them? Speaking of Jewish Bible codes where is our old friend Nabi? Hiding I presume, about 2000 feet underground, or perhaps in a different country? Maybe he's the one who is actually going to detonate the nukes, just so that his interpretation of Bible prophecies will come true! Wouldn't suprise me.

What I wish for Christmas is World Peace, think I'll get everything I wish for? No, didn't think so.

Well, I hope at least that things will turn in that direction over the next few years, so that you won't have to worry about these things anymore. Merry Christmas to you as well Nik!


MSNBC just broke the story that a Russian Diplomat was arrested in DC today on espionage charges. A listening device was discovered in a secure state department conference room and the diplomat was caught monitoring the device. It is unclear at this time just how much of high level state dept and administration strategy was disclosed, along with the true nature of our military and dconomic Y2K status. This one is way bad folks, we're talking access to all of our most sensitive information over an unknown period of time.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 08, 1999.

Boris Yeltsin is losing it, or I should say has lost it. Over the last six months he has displayed characteristics of dementia which overwhelmingly point to a disconnect from reality and a psychotic hatred for the United States. Threats of nuclear war have become commonplace from the Russian regime and Yeltsinin particular. This man is in sole posession of the nuclear trigger. On his whim the entire Russian arsenal can be launched on an instants notice. Some recent quotes from Yeltsin go a long ways toward revealing his current state of mental health.YELTSIN BLASTS CLINTON: REMEMBER, WE HAVE NUKES!

A cold war of words: Russian President Boris Yeltsin in China on Thursday blasted U.S. President Bill Clinton over attempts "to put pressure on Russia" over Chechnya, noting that Moscow has a nuclear potential.

"Bill Clinton permitted himself yesterday to forget by a second, by a minute, by half-a-minute what Russia means and that Russia has a complete arsenal of nuclear weapons," said Yeltsin in Beijing.

"We shall dictate the world how to live rather than Mr. Clinton alone."

The Chechen problem is Russia's internal matter, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue added.

Speaking at a press briefing on Thursday, Zhang said that Chechnya is part of Russia, and China understands and supports Russia's efforts aimed at preserving unity and territorial integrity of the country.

Boris Yeltsin and China President Jiang Zemin and their wives met for a family dinner in Beijing on Thursday.

The informal summit between Yeltsin and Jiang was held at one of the most picturesque places of Beijing -- the Diaotai residence.

Under this cozy atmosphere, the first phrase, addressed by Yeltsin on Thursday to the Chinese head of state: "How do you do, my dear old friend."


Col. Stanislav Lunev November 12, 1999

During the last several years Russian President Boris Yeltsins behavior and public utterances have often astonished not only foreign leaders but also his own people. For example, during an official visit to Ireland a few years ago he declined, for reasons known only to him, to exit the presidential jet, while the Irish prime minister and his following waited vainly outside at the foot of the red carpet. At election time in 1996 Mr. Yeltsin visited the city of Archangelsk near the polar circle. When he met the local inhabitants he greeted them as the people of Astrachan--a southern city on the Caspian Sea, noted for its black caviar. Yeltsin then set about instructing the residents of Archangelsk on the profitability of their black-caviar production--an industry of Astrachan, not of Archangelsk--until his daughter set him straight, in front of all, as to his actual location.

At tax time in Russia, a couple of years ago, Mr. Yeltsin made a statement on TV that raised more than a few eyebrows, both in Russia and abroad. He said he had been living on potatoes, on a diet of potatoes which he grew at his presidential dacha. It wasnt made clear whether the potatoes had first been fermented or not. But, whichever.

And then last year during the Northern Fleet exercises, aboard the nuclear cruiser, Peter the Great, he demanded that his press secretary be brought to him immediately. "Go at once and get my press secretary," he ordered, looking straight at the man next to him, who was none other than the press secretary.

Last spring he welcomed Nelson Mandela, who had just arrived in Moscow on an official visit, with the words, "How are things in Yugoslavia?" And he assured the South African leader that he had been closely following events in Kosovo. Mandela, expecting questions about South Africa, was speechless. Embarrassed for the president, he merely answered with a smile. How could he know that Yeltsin mistook him for Kofi Annan, who had visited Moscow recently and discussed the situation in Kosovo?

Unfortunately, the Yeltsin "syndrome" has spread to other members of his inner circle as well. For example, his press secretary recently made the official announcement that due to the military action in Chechnya, President Yeltsin would soon be leaving on vacation because of his extremely busy schedule.

Actually, people do feel sorry for Yeltsins ailments. But how can anyone suffering from such disorders be expected to function as president, with the nuclear briefcase constantly in hand? Yeltsins specialists have diagnosed his problem as Alzheimers disease or Parkinsons, or both. These ailments can cause dementia and unpredictable behavior.


Just as... an envoy of Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov Thursday accused Russia of using chemical weapons!

"There are people with blisters covering their bodies, who complain of abnormal drowsiness, but we do not know what kind of gas was used," Saidhassan Abumuslumov told a news conference in Istanbul. He said chemical weapons were used on the night of Dec. 5 in two areas of Grozny.

Witnesses reported seeing "a strange yellow smog" when some bombs exploded.


-- here we go (@ .), December 09, 1999

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

Back to the top. thanks for resurrecting this thread, Nik. It's getting weird out there.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), December 09, 1999.

<< You nut cases are full of sh*t!!! . . . There infrastructure, manufacturing, distribution, social services, military, mining, agriculture, has fallen apart. Their government and corporate environment is riddled with corruption. They're leadership is in dissaray. >>

The most incredible example of national illiteracy I've seen in a long time. Three forms: "There", "Their", and "They're". This high school drop-out (we hope!) doesn't know which one is correct, so what the heck, he'll just use all three in successive sentences. One of them is bound to be correct (and one of them is, but do you know which one?).

I don't know how likely Russian attack is, but just knowing that Professor Doo-Doo here is the one calling this scenario crazy doesn't instill any confidence in me.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.


ahahaha David! "Your" so right! J

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 09, 1999.

Hey you guys, what's the word? Has Yeltsin got those missiles lit up yet? Maybe he got so drunk that he forgot to bring a pack of matches! Heard anything from Nyquist and his reliable inside sources? Come on man, I thought you said the show was gonna start at sundown today, and it is already 7:00 in the morning of the 10th over in Israel.

Let me know when you see them coming, I don't want to miss the fireworks! Oh, that's right, I guess you're all hiding down in your bunkers drinking KI. What's the point? Ain't gonna be nothin left when you crawl outta there!! :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 09, 1999.

This aint no joking mater but the russians dont have the money to invade usa they were better off in the 80's then they are now

-- Lt mR rAt www.geocities.com/ratsrebelbase (Zohibman@hotmail.com), March 22, 2004.

It is my opinion that we should have dealt with the Russians by fire a long time ago. Not only do we have Russia to deal with but we have China to deal with as well. This is what happens when the powers that be in the United States (and we know what group of people i am talking about) are so concerned with money, oppressing others and supremacy. In the end, they are made to reap off of their wickedness that they were destined to answer for since Plymouth Rock. You reap what you sow.

-- sheldon p. small (young_innocent_2000@yahoo.com), April 07, 2004.

this is a nitemare scenario if this were ever to happen[not probable though] this would be the end of the world i wouldn't exist u wouldn't exist and all that. and ps ur girlfriend wouldnt exist either. we very luky to get through the cold war without a nuclear exchange

-- rat (Zohibman@hotmail.com), April 10, 2004.

Here is something, apparently written a few weeks after 9/11, which puts a whole new spin on this:


The executive summary is, The Trans-Asian Axis, as described by Bodansky, included Russia / the CIS / USSR2, as of 7/16/2001. Now, the Trans-Asian Axis (AKA the Axis of Evil plus its sponsoring states) has the largest arsenal, the most troops, and, an huge fraction of the world's current manufacturing capability. Be scared, be very scared.


-- Steve Sadlov (stevesadlov@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

why should i be scared the russian navy is "falling apart" they do not have 250 attack subs and most subs that they do have are un seaworthy due to lack of money *remember the kursk incident*. There is no such thing as a nuclear space station so telling the americans that one of their reactors on an orbitting space station blew up would not be belived unless there was a such thing. The americans have supperior techonology and they're subs are usually at sea unless they are in for an overhaul or something. The russians are closer to europe why dont they attack the europeans first and then the americans. Ive heard of russian killersats but only in red storm rising. If the soviets did knock down american sattelites the americans would just put more into orbit like in red storm rising. See this is an interesting scenario and all but you have to be realistic. some of the things here would be the other way around. Wat would happen if the president said yes to launch the icbms. Good scenario though interesting to read.

-- rAt (Zohibman@hotmail.com), July 31, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ