fn: follow-up on Y2K


Jan Slakov

Dear RN list,            Aug. 8

Paul Swann has sent us a posting, below, which I think we all should read.
We know that our governments are capable of lying and misleading, and the
evidence seems clear that this is exactly what they are doing about the Y2K

Here is an excerpt from an article by Michael Hyatt (last item in the
posting below):

"5. They [governments] are even preparing for martial law. Even though I get
asked about this subject wherever I go, I have studiously tried to avoid
discussing it. It's always sounded to me like something that only
conspiracy theorists take seriously.

Initially, it was hard for me to admit that the government might be
saying one thing and doing another. But, as I've watched Y2K unfold,
I've gradually become more and more convinced that they are doing
exactly that...."

Meanwhile, a member of Science for Peace, Alan Phillips, has sent me
Yeltsin's mailing address, so here is the revised information for those who
would like to write letters to lobby for the de-alerting of nuclear weapons
and other preventive measures:

United States of America, President William Clinton <•••@••.•••>
President Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC, USA 

Russia, President Boris Yeltsin <•••@••.•••> 

+7-095-205-4219, +7-095-206-5173 +7-095-205-4330,

all the best, Jan

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 11:10:44 +0000
From: Paul Swann <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Hiroshima Day & Y2K (BASIC press release)

Dear Jan,

Thanks for circulating the BASIC press release.

Copied below is a letter of mine published in The Times yesterday.

You wrote:

>While some of the "noises" about the Y2K danger are reassuring, I suspect
>that most of us are only too happy to be reassured (just as most computer
>programers and those who hired them were only too happy not to worry about
>the problem in the first place).

The article copied further below is relevant here...And I could send you
masses of info that makes it clear that there is no reason at all to be
reassured about y2k.

best wishes,




Nuclear dangers of Year 2000

>From Mr Paul Swann and others

Sir, This year's commemoration of Hiroshima Day, August 6, falls just
147 days before the Year 2000 com- puter rollover. We share the concerns
of many people and groups worldwide who are calling for the de- alerting
of nuclear weapon systems during the critical rollover period.

No one can guarantee that the mil- lennium bug will not cause failures
in the computer systems that control the nuclear arsenals. The British
American Security Information Council (BASIC) warns that there is
sufficient risk of an accidental or mistaken launch of nuclear weapons
to warrant standing down the current "launch-on-warning" status. A
letter to this effect has been signed by representatives of many
millions of people and is being sent to Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin

There are also concerns that the world's 433 civil nuclear reactors may
be vulnerable to computer system failures. A "World Atomic Safety
Holiday" campaign being launched today calls for nuclear reactors to be
taken off-line from December 1 until the computer crisis is over.

We urge all nuclear countries to adopt a safety-first policy to ensure
that the new millennium begins with neither an accidental nuclear war
nor another Chernobyl.


National Co-ordinator, Y2K Community Action Network,

Senior Energy, Nuclear and Climate Campaigner, Friends of the Earth,

Vice-President, CND,

Analyst, BASIC,

14 Beacon Hill, N7 9LY.
August 6.

Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd.



Media Propaganda & Y2K

Some well-meaning folks seem to think that y2k (the doom & gloom part)
is all "propaganda" to sell books or whatever. This is ridiculus. Take a
look at the url for this site---truthfinder. Do I hold a claim on the
truth? Not at all. But at least I'm trying to find the truth about a
subject where 50% of corporations lie about y2k status and government is
trying to calm a jittery public into complacency via bump-in-a-road

The real propaganda and lies are coming from officials and the
mainstream media, such as The FAA , the NERC and the likes of John
Koskinen. We are witnessing The Greatest Cover-up In History .

This story from Yahoo! entitled " Public Relations Experts Preparing Y2K
Spin-Doctoring " says it all.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Worried about what Y2K will do to your computer,
fuel bills, credit-card accounts and bank deposits? Don't worry.

Some of the nation's top image-making firms are preparing to ease your
fears -- to explain them away or make you forget them. It's a byproduct
of what many American corporations are calling ``crisis preparedness.''

Two of America's largest public-relations agencies, Burson-Marsteller
and Hill and Knowlton, have set up teams and processes to help companies
counter consumer fears and intensified media stress on the perils of
computers unable to cope with the shift to the year 2000.....

It's hard not to get sidetracked from the real issues, particularly
since these spin-meisters are telling people what they WANT to believe.

Don't let this happen to you.


Here is an article from Michael hyatt :


If you think that Y2K has been all but solved, think again. Even the
officials spouting the good news don't really believe it. Forget what
they are saying. If you want to know what they believe, take a look at
what they are doing.

by Michael S. Hyatt

July 28, 1999

I am constantly reminded by the Y2K nay sayers that government
officials, corporate spokespersons, and the traditional media are all
saying that Y2K no longer poses a significant threat. According to them,
organizations-at least in the United States-have the problem well under
control and expect to have their mission critical systems remediated
before January 1. They are on track, making good progress, and confident
that the problem is all but solved. There may be some minor disruptions,
but nothing catastrophic-certainly nothing like what I have suggested
could happen if we don't get a substantial percentage of our automated
systems repaired in time.

The effect of this propaganda- and that's precisely what it is-is apathy
on the part of the general public and confusion on the part of the Y2K
aware. A recent survey for the CBS news program "Sunday Morning" found
that less than one-fifth of U.S. households plan to stock up on food or
water in preparation for possible Y2K disruptions. Although most are
doing nothing at the current time, 18 percent of respondents said they
were thinking about storing some supplies later this year. The majority
of those surveyed, 56 percent, said that no one in their home was even
thinking about doing anything to prepare for Y2K problems.

Even those who a few short months ago were convinced that Y2K would
adversely affect their lives have begun to second-guess their concerns.
I've heard from hundreds of them. Many are wondering if their
preparations were misguided. A few have even said they feel that they
were misled. Some have asked if they should stop preparing, now that the
threat is past. The amazing thing about this perception is that it is
wholly misguided and based on nothing other than the vague assurances of
government and corporate spokespersons.

Yes, there has been progress-in a few cases, dramatic progress. But,
over all, the available facts do not support the conclusion that the Y2K
problem is well in tow, let alone substantially solved. In fact, I would
go so far as to say that those who are telling us it is, do not really
believe their own public rhetoric. Why? Because their actions betray
their true perceptions. Let me give you a few examples.

1. They continue to raise budgets. While companies are publicly saying
that the problem is nearly solved, many are continuing to raise their
budgets. Why? Because Y2K projects are turning out to me more complex
and more expensive than they anticipated. The federal government
initially projected spending $2.3 billion to repair its computers. It's
most recent estimate (June 15, 1999) is a whopping $8.03 billion-an
increase of 287 percent. The amazing thing about that is that this is a
$1.3 billion more than the government projected just four months ago!

Corporate Y2K budgets have followed suit. According to a recent CAP
Gemini survey (May 17, 1999), 85 percent of the Fortune 500 companies
said that their spending would have to rise above current estimates. To
cite but one example, in its annual shareholder's report filed in April,
retail giant Wal-Mart reported that it will spend more than twice as
much as it previously expected to solve Y2K-related problems. Other
companies such as Aetna, AT&T, General Motors, McDonald's, Merrill
Lynch, Sears, and Xerox have experienced a similar, dramatic rise in Y2K
repair costs.

If Y2K is no big deal, why aren't the budgets going down or at least
leveling off?

2. They are still pushing the deadlines out. Although virtually every
corporation in the United States and Canada promised the public that
they would be finished with their Y2K projects by the end of 1998, as of
June 21, 1999, 92 percent of large companies have not actually completed
the work and one in ten will not finish until well into next year.
Worse, 33 percent admitted to being behind schedule; 35 percent are
still waiting for mission-critical software to be delivered by
suppliers. According to the CAP Gemini survey cited earlier, 22 percent
 of the Fortune 500 say they do not expect to have all their mission
critical systems tested and ready for the new millennium by January 1!
If this is true of the largest companies-presumably the ones with the
most resources to throw at the problem-what can we expect from smaller
companies? Every indication is that they are running even further

The federal government has now missed three Y2K deadlines imposed by the
Clinton Administration. The September 30, 1998 deadline came and went
without a single agency able to claim victory. The deadline was then
extended to December 31, 1998. This time two agencies-the Social
Security Administration and the Small Business Administration-met the
deadline. (The U.S. Customs Service and the Health Care and Financing
Corporation (HCFA) also claimed compliance, but these claims were later
proven to be false. )

The deadline was again extended, this time to March 31, 1999. On this
date, the Administration claimed that 92 percent of the government's
mission critical systems were Y2K-ready. However, most of this progress
was made by simply reducing the scope of the project-from some 9,100
mission critical systems in September 1998 to 6,123 systems in March
1999. In addition, the simple fact is that 11 out of 24 key agencies
missed the deadline again, including some of the most critical: Energy,
Treasury, Health and Human Services, Defense, and Transportation. Worse,
of the 43 systems identified as "high impact" (e.g., Social Security,
Air Traffic Control, and Medicare) by the Office of Management and
Budget, only two-Social Security and the National Weather Service-were
compliant as of March 31. (The complete list can be found here.) What
was the administration's response? You guessed it-extend the deadline to
September 30. This, despite the fact that several agencies are not
scheduled to be ready until December at the earliest.

If Y2K is no big deal, why are so many organizations having chronic
difficulty meeting their deadlines? Why do they keep quietly pushing
them back and why isn't the press calling them to task?

3. They are making contingency plans. According to another survey
conducted by CAP Gemini (May 31, 1999), the vast majority of major
corporations have begun to build crisis management centers from which
they will control damage and coordinate the recovery of Y2K-stricken
technology systems. The survey found that 85 percent of Fortune 1000
companies now plan to build Y2K command centers, up from 40 percent in
November 1998. In addition, organizations across the country are
canceling vacations from November through February to make sure their
employees are available to address Y2K-related disruptions.

According to a report issued by the Cranfield School of Management (The
Sunday Times, June 13, 1999) 60 percent of British corporations are
already stockpiling raw materials and finished goods out of fear of
Y2K-related supply interruptions. My guess is that a similar percentage
of U.S. companies are doing the same. Even the Federal Reserve is
stockpiling $50-70 billion in additional cash reserves.

Whatever else a contingency plan is, it is an admission that things may
go wrong. But if Y2K is all but solved, if it will be no worse than your
typical three-day winter snowstorm, why are so many organizations going
to such lengths to prepare for failure? (By the way, would someone
please explain to me why it is that when individuals and families make
contingency plans it is seen as a form of panic, but when governments
and corporations do so, it is seen as simple common sense?)

4. They are passing legislation to limit Y2K litigation. When I first
began doing research on Y2K, the GartnerGroup, Giga Information Group,
and others were estimating that litigation stemming from unresolved Y2K
problems could approach $1 trillion. (Just to put that amount in
perspective, that is one-seventh of the annual U.S. economic output. It
is equivalent to the entire U.S. healthcare industry.) According to USA
Today, "Litigation resulting from Year 2000 meltdowns will be more
costly than asbestos, breast implant and Superfund cleanup lawsuits

The first Y2K lawsuit was filed in August 1997. By the end of 1998, ten
more lawsuits had been filed. Soon, the trickle was threatening to turn
into a flood. As of March 1999, a total of eighty lawsuits had been
filed along with 790 "demand letters" (the step in the litigation
process that comes prior to filing a lawsuit). Almost immediately, the
Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-to-7 to limit lawsuits against
high-tech companies stemming from Y2K malfunctions. By June, the Senate
had passed the Y2K liability bill. On July 1, the House passed the same
bill, and on July 20, President Clinton signed the bill into law. The
new legislation is aimed at limiting frivolous lawsuits by setting a
ceiling on punitive damages, narrowing the guidelines for class-action
suits, and ensuring that defendants will be held liable only for the
share of any damages that they cause.

But here's the question: why are they so concerned about mounting
litigation? If Y2K is all but solved, there will be few failures, right?
If there are few failures, there won't be many lawsuits, right? You
would think so, but obviously the President and Congress are expecting
something different-something contrary to what they are stating

5. They are even preparing for martial law. Even though I get asked
about this subject wherever I go, I have studiously tried to avoid
discussing it. It's always sounded to me like something that only
conspiracy theorists take seriously.

Initially, it was hard for me to admit that the government might be
saying one thing and doing another. But, as I've watched Y2K unfold,
I've gradually become more and more convinced that they are doing
exactly that. As I testified before Congress in September 1998:

"I have detected a disturbing attitude in Washington and elsewhere as I
have traveled the country. There are those who, if not saying it
directly, are acting as if the people cannot be trusted with 'dangerous
information.' This attitude betrays a fundamental presupposition about
our citizens that I do not share: that is, if people know the truth they
will act irrationally and without concern for their neighbors. While
this may be true in isolated incidents, it is not true of our people as
a whole, as any cursory reading of our history will show."

Now the handwriting is clearly on the wall.

*The London Sunday Times reported that the British government has drawn
up secret plans to use elite special forces to deal with Y2K disruptions
when January 1 arrives. Code-named "Operation Surety," the plans call
for members of the SAS-comparable to the U.S. military's Army Rangers or
Navy Seals-to protect not only key government sites, but also civilian
installations such as banks, airports, and power stations if civil
unrest becomes widespread. You can bet that if they are doing this in
Great Britain, they are doing it in the other NATO nations as well.

*The Washington Post reported that a contingent of Marines based in
Washington D.C. recently trained in Quantico, Virginia, to hone its
skills in dealing with civil unrest. In the mock scenario, an angry mob
of disgruntled federal workers had not received their paychecks because
of Y2K computer problems and were storming government buildings.
Equipped with riot shields and concertina wire, the Marines practiced
various techniques for controlling the crowds.

*According to Federal Computer Week, "the Defense Department has
instructed all military commanders to maintain their units' ability to
go to war in the event of widespread Year 2000-related critical
infrastructure failures, relegating local community assistance to the
bottom of the department's priority list. Local commanders at military
installations across the United States and abroad will be authorized to
'undertake immediate, unilateral, emergency response actions that
involve measures to save lives, prevent human suffering or mitigate
great property damage' in the event of catastrophic infrastructure
 failures, according to a recent memorandum signed by deputy secretary
of Defense John Hamre.

These examples do not even include the myriad reports I am getting from
private citizens and military personnel about urban assault training,
low flying military helicopters at all hours of the day and night (I
have witnessed this myself on two separate occasions, one of them last
night), the erection of convoy signs on Interstates, special Y2K
operating procedures, and the re-opening of military bases that have
been closed since World War II. Some of these reports may, in fact, be
bogus, but I can tell you the volume has increased substantially and
some of them are coming from sources I trust.

Think about this: if there aren't going to be significant problems, why
would the military be anticipating civil unrest and "critical
infrastructure failures"? Why would they be engaged in such
comprehensive mobilization exercises? Why would the Deputy Secretary of
Defense be instructing all military commanders to be prepared for a
situation that can only be described as something akin to war?

The bottom line is this: forget what you are hearing in the mainstream
media. Forget the happy-face notices you are receiving in the mail from
your suppliers and from government officials. If these spin doctors
really believed that Y2K has been substantially solved, they would not
be doing what they are doing. Specifically, they would not continue to
raise budgets, push the deadlines out, make contingency plans, pass
legislation to limit Y2K litigation, and prepare for martial law. But
they are, and in doing so, they betray their true colors.

Again, forget what they are saying, and watch what they are doing. Like
your Momma used to say, "actions speak louder than words."