twilight2000-digest Wednesday, February 10 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 011 The following topics are covered in this digest: BTR-T Re: Y2K in T2K Re: AA guns on tanks? BTR-T Re: AA guns on tanks? Re: Y2K in T2K (?) New Club for T2K Gamers Wayward Nukes (Was Re: Y2K in T2K (?)) Y2k Re: Y2k Re: Y2k Millenium Re: Y2k Re: Y2K in T2K Re: AA guns on tanks? Re: Wayward Nukes (Was Re: Y2K in T2K (?)) Re: Millenium Re: Y2K in T2K Re: Y2k Re: Millenium Re: Y2K in T2K Re: Y2K in T2K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:14:52 -0500 (EST) From: Albert Behnke Subject: BTR-T I've posted my attempt at the Soviet BTR-T...take the cutting torch to it. The direct link is www.gamepla.net/t2kbem/vehicles/btr-t.htm Let me know what you think of my first attempt at vehicle conversion Thanks, Al Behnke www.gamepla.net/t2kbem/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:20:48 PST From: "Chas York" Subject: Re: Y2K in T2K I'm new to the list, so I'm not sure what issues have been covered or not about this Y2K /T2K scenario, I doubt seriously that the y2k computer error will be anything above a nuisance for the technical, but the Human response to the hype could create a plausable campaign seed: First- the stock market-- you can find credible companies advertising that for security against the Y2K bug, diversify in prescious metals-- as the fourth quarter of the year approaches, many could "seek shelter" there, pulling out of stocks significantly to alarm others into the same... Making the global economy falter further. Now, look at all the survivalist organizations (I hate to say militias, as many are more credible than this) that have been looking toward this as their grand moment where their pathetic lives can be turned arround as they prove they're really Rambo (often short, balding and potbellied ones, but Rambo nevertheless). I've been to discussion forums dedicated to the Y2K problem where the topic was "which areas of the country are best defensible and self sufficient for survival against marauderers". I'd consider that a fantasy if I didn't know some of this calibre of person that have moved to apartments in the same part of town to make a more defensible position for their stockpiles... Now, we had these survivalists waiting for the nukes in the 80's, then waiting for the black helicopters to lead the russian tanks through our canadian border in the 90's... neither of these happened, and they were considered harmless. The Year 2000 will definately arrive, this event has an end date- and they will be ready (and some of them hoping) for a conflict. What will happen when it does? Probably nothing. What COULD? Well, let's say that most problems are fixed, and aside from an occasional brownout- nothing technical happens. A few days before- just in case- many folk get a little more shopping done, fill prescriptions early , and get a little more cash out of the bank (recall the US Treasury's predictions on cash needs). Militial Alarmists see store shelves understocked and ATM machines empty (read: "NOT WORKING: TOLD YA THEY WOULDN'T FIX IT ALL) and start to fortify their holdings. The drop in the stock market bolsters their delusions. New Years' Eve: massive partying (little difference between a party and a riot if we look at sports victory parties). USNG is out to assist major urban police forces. The Alarmists in the homes may overreact to a brownout as 1% of the powerplants on the grids go down. They have their guns- they see the revelers/rioters (add racial tension into the mix). A few shots are fired- USNG responds with police. Things get out of hand. Now, in the rest of the country, ATM machines are empty, banks & stores remain closed fearing a run on their resources- which encourages alarmist fantasies. Further, on the working broadcast tv, they see military action against american citizens. If TV wasn't working, then they hear inflamed rumors from like-minded individuals-- Not too far to see these folk getting aggressive from here? eh? Now, make 'em more organized--> the New America from Twilight 2000, perhaps in something closer to a Merc 2000 global economy (forgive me, but I never could get a merc sourcebook, so I'm not clear on the whole domestic situation.) Make it a harsh winter- and thanks to market bottoming, fuel is more expensive, the militias may begin hijacking fuel for their needs, as rationing begins, more hoard, more join militias for defense, other "Have Nots" by the spring are getting aggressive. Military stockpiles care for soldiers & families, keeping desertion low, but civilian populations near bases aren't so lucky, or don't believe they are... You could "reasonably" keep this erosion breaking things down into enclaves, if you wish. It would work best of something happened to the central government's ability to communicate-- commsats go out or something else to hamstring them... Again, I don't think this is a very plausable event to happen, but the tension is there, the radicals are there, and there's enough fear to spur "something" if things aren't managed right... And I even left out all those expecting the "Second Coming," Those that swear by Nostradamus & the Star's Psychic consultants, and the possibility that Saddam, North Korea, or any separatist force worldwide doesn't use the momental chaos to further their own goals. Sorry for the length of this novella, ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 01:07:17 -0800 From: Hale Subject: Re: AA guns on tanks? Brandon Cope wrote: > Does anyone have any more information on this odd tank? If it wasn't a > dead-end design, I doubt that many were built (or standard tanks > refitted). Ya, I saw a show on the discovery channel about 2-3 months ago. It showed the T-80, what everyone is calling the ZSU-30-4, and lastly the T-72Mi. The T-72Mi is nothing but a standard T-72 with the addition of an ADA system. The system consists of Search/Tracking radar & the rest of the controls. These are housed in a box that bolts onto the turret rear, (thus the elongated turret). Next, is the guns. The system uses one of two weapons, either a pair of 23mm AC or a pair of 30mm AC. Whichever gun is used, they are placed one on each side of the turret. The guns are single barreled. They can be used against ground targets, elevation/depression range of 0 to +70 degrees. As indicated above the show also showed the newest in SPADA. What everyone is refuring to as the ZSU-30-4. The show clearly shows that it is nothing more than a copy of the German Geppard SPADA. It is identical in layout. It uses the T-80 chasis with a different turret. The turret has a pair of SINGLE barreled 30mm AC, one on each side. Thats all I can remember right now. TTFN Ron Hale *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:12:16 +0100 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathias_K=F6ppen?=" Subject: BTR-T This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE5425.6F2D1060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You requested pics of the BTR-T? Here's something I stumbled upon last night. http://home11.inet.tele.dk/blackice/BTR-T.htm Mathias K=F6ppen - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE5425.6F2D1060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You requested pics of the = BTR-T? Here's = something I stumbled=20 upon last night. http://home11.inet= .tele.dk/blackice/BTR-T.htm Mathias = Köppen - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE5425.6F2D1060-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:32:03 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: AA guns on tanks? Ron Hale wrote: > As indicated above the show also showed the newest in SPADA. What > everyone is refuring to as the ZSU-30-4. The show clearly shows that it > is nothing more than a copy of the German Geppard SPADA. It is > identical in layout. It uses the T-80 chasis with a different turret. > The turret has a pair of SINGLE barreled 30mm AC, one on each side. > Thats all I can remember right now. I've never heard the latest Russian SPADA referred to as the 'ZSU-30-4', except in T2K. It's always been the 2S6 'Tunguska'. It is armed with 2 30mm guns and 4 SA-19 per side. Total armament 8 SA-19 and 4 30mm. See: Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:18:42 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Y2K in T2K (?) how about the NORAD incident (I can't remember when) when a training tape was accidently left in the computers and their radar screens began showing hundreds of missile tracks incoming. Thankfully they asked all their radar stations to back up their readings, but things did get a little tense for a while. Another situation that comes to mind was the u2 test flight in Alaska during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the plane got lost and ended up in Russian airspace. Thankfully they got it turned around and out before the russian interceptors sent up after it got to it. Michael Cook - ---Chuck Mandus wrote: > > Sounds as good of a scenario as any. Accidental launch of a nuclear > missile(s) have been a fear for a long time. Ever read the book (1962) or > see the movie "Fail-safe" (1964) where a flock of bombers got permission to > go into the USSR due to a part in the computer failing? The bombers enter > Soviet airspace and our President gets the Soviets online so they can both > work together to stop the bombers. Their efforts fail and the succeed in > destroying Moscow so in return, we had to blow up New York City. > > Y2K would be a good reason for a plot. I have mentioned this before but in > 1974, there was a UFO reported over the Minuteman missile fields in North > Dakota and this was supposedly caused the computer to countdown to the > launch of these missiles only to be stopped in the last few minutes > remaining. A similar case happened in the USSR in 1982. > > Another movie I remember seeing, I can't remember the title, it was made in > 1977 where Charles Durning was President where he faced a problem of a > renegade group of servicemen, terrorists, whatever, took over a missile > silo and had 10 missiles under their control and would launch unless their > demands were met. > > I personally think Y2K is way overblown. It still would make a good > scenario though, I could still be wrong about it. > > Chuck > > DE KA3WRW > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:46:34 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: New Club for T2K Gamers Hey everyone, I just put together a new place for T2K gamers on the net to get together, it includes a message board, chat room, picture gallery, and a list of links. It's all just starting, so if anyone wants to check it out, just go to http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/twilight2000andmerc2000 and I'd love to see contributions...if enough people drop by we might even get some live chatting going on. I'm trying to collect a good gallery of pictures of equiptment there, as well as any links you may come across. Of course it's all newborn right now, but I'd love to see it grow if there is interest! --Strategist 2000 _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 23:26:06 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Wayward Nukes (Was Re: Y2K in T2K (?)) All this "Whoops, Apocalypse!" talk reminds me of an episode of 60 Minutes I saw last year. The lead story was all about the lack of control the Russians have over their own nukes. They interviewed Andrew Cockburn (co-author of _One Point Safe_), some Ex US Gov't official whose name I did not catch, and the former commanding General of Russia's nuclear forces (who confirmed the lack of control and expressed plenty of his own worries). One particular incident that kept coming up occurred in Norway in January 1995. A bunch of Norwegian scientists launched a research test rocket at their island of Spitzbergen in the North Atlantic/Arctic Ocean. The government in Oslo sent a warning memo to the Russian consulate well in advance so there would be no mistaking it for a sub-launched ICBM. Of course the memo never made it to the correct desk in the Russian command structure, so when the Norwegians launched their rocket, the Russians immediately confused it for an inbound SLBM. This was all aggravated by the fact that two of Russia's early warning radar stations were allegedly down so they couldn't compute an accurate trajectory. They said Yeltsin had his "football" open with his finger on the button. A "retaliatory" strike was averted with something like three minutes left in the countdown. Three minutes! Evidently, that was the closest we have ever come to a full-on nuclear war. Not during the Berlin crisis, or the Cuban blockade, but in January of 1995. Of course, it later came out that a lot of this may have been hyped just a little bit to promote Cockburn's book, and the movie it spawned -- The Peacemaker. At 01:18 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: >how about the NORAD incident (I can't remember when) when a training >tape was accidently left in the computers and their radar screens >began showing hundreds of missile tracks incoming. Thankfully they >asked all their radar stations to back up their readings, but things >did get a little tense for a while. >Another situation that comes to mind was the u2 test flight in Alaska >during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the plane got lost and ended up >in Russian airspace. Thankfully they got it turned around and out >before the russian interceptors sent up after it got to it. > >Michael Cook *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:30:20 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Y2k <<< Y2K == quick way for "consultants" to make $$$. >>> Just to support us 'consultants' on this one the consultants who programmed these systems warned their managers about the Y2K problem when they designed the systems. The managers normally told them not to worry about it and to save a few bob by skimping on the memory. Air Traffic Control I've spoken to a friend who works for British Air Traffic Control and he assures me that they have no problem with the Y2K, planes will not suddenly loose ground control. They do have a problem around about the year 2070 but that's something else..... Trident There was an article on the news the other day that the British Trident nuclear submarines are not Y2K complient. The fault lies in some part provided by a US company (the Trident supplier?) but the MOD will not confirm which part. The fix is not due to arrive here till the 15th of December. They took the line that if the fix does not arrive (software on time?) then missiles will not be launched by the computer. What might happen is that the Tridents will refuse to launch at all. Nuke Missiles Considering the above point about not launching will that not apply to most missiles? What might happen though is if the software/hardware that the missile controllers are using goes haywire that a controller could potentially intitate a launch but it won't be automatic. The Millenium While I'm mailing away just to clarify a point the Y2K is not the Millenium. The Millenium is at the end of the year 2000. Any software claiming to be 'Millenium' compliant is not claiming anything useful. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:30:14 +0000 From: Eddie Hallahan Subject: Re: Y2k >The Millenium >While I'm mailing away just to clarify a point the Y2K is not the Millenium. >The Millenium is at the end of the year 2000. Any software claiming to be >'Millenium' compliant is not claiming anything useful. What? If this millenium started at the beginning of 1900 then it ends at the end of 1999. Hence the Millenium is at the start of 2000, definitely not the end. What are you talking about if it is not this? A Perplexed EddieH *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:57:51 -0500 From: "Andy Sinden" Subject: Re: Y2k Eddie: To answer your question, what the big debate over this Millenium business is that some people believe the millenium began at 0 (BC or AD whichever you choose) and others (Like Arthur C Clarke) believe it begins at 1 AD. So some people think its a new millenium on Jan 1st 2000 and others Jan 1st 2001. Personally I could care less. But thats what I've heard on the whole deal. Hope this clears things up a bit Andy Sinden *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:19:32 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Millenium - -----Original Message----- From: Andy Sinden <<< some people believe the millenium began at 0 (BC or AD whichever you choose) and others (Like Arthur C Clarke) believe it begins at 1 AD. >>> There was no year zero. The words used would be "in the year of our Lord". The first year would be "in the first year of our lord" (1AD), the year before would have been "in the first year before the coming of our Lord" (1BC). No room for a year 0. <<< Personally I couldn't care less. But thats what I've heard on the whole deal. Hope this clears things up a bit >>> Sorry for starting all this but as a programmer it's been getting up my nose, many apologies..... Mark Oliver-Macklin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:12:36 -0600 From: "ddolllaw" Subject: Re: Y2k There was no year 0 AD or BC. It went from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D., even though BC and AD are known to be meaningless as the roman census in Judea was around 4 BC. - -----Original Message----- From: Andy Sinden To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 7:59 AM Subject: Re: Y2k >Eddie: > > To answer your question, what the big debate over this Millenium >business is that some people believe the millenium began at 0 (BC or AD >whichever you choose) and others (Like Arthur C Clarke) believe it begins >at 1 AD. So some people think its a new millenium on Jan 1st 2000 and >others Jan 1st 2001. Personally I could care less. But thats what I've >heard on the whole deal. Hope this clears things up a bit > > Andy Sinden > > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:55:58 PST From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Y2K in T2K >From: "Chas York" > I doubt seriously that the y2k computer error will be anything above a >nuisance for the technical, but the Human response to the hype could >create a plausable campaign seed: [long, interesting scenario deleted] I don't think that the Y2K problem itself will be that severe -- probably no worse than the worst computer virus, and even that is unlikely. OTOH, people's responses to the percieved threat could be disasterous -- if enough people pulled their money out of banks out of fear of the money "vanishing" on January 1, 2000, it could create a financial disaster seen since, well, the Great Depression. Back to Twilight 2000: I presented an utterly worst-case Y2K scenario just as another alternative to the official Twilight 2000 background. Personally, I don't think the idea of a limited nuclear exchange (as presented in T2K)is realistic either-- as soon as one nation fires off an ICBM, everybody else's will soon follow. Even the feasability of using tactical nukes is shaky, since the losing side might use strategic missiles to delay defeat (ha ha...). A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:00:37 PST From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: AA guns on tanks? >From: Hale >The T-72Mi is nothing but a standard T-72 with the addition of an ADA >system. [rest of description deleted] Ah, I knew I wasn't imagining things! Didn't remember that it had any kind of radar for the light cannons, though. Thanks, A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:12:28 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Wayward Nukes (Was Re: Y2K in T2K (?)) Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, snake.eyes@worldnet.att.net produced: > One particular incident that kept coming up occurred in Norway in January > 1995. A bunch of Norwegian scientists launched a research test rocket at > their island of Spitzbergen in the North Atlantic/Arctic Ocean. The There's an article about that one in the "Scientific American" (dunno which month/year, but it's something like 6-18 months ago). > Of course the memo never made it to the correct desk in the Russian command > structure, so when the Norwegians launched their rocket, the Russians > immediately confused it for an inbound SLBM. This was all aggravated by > the fact that two of Russia's early warning radar stations were allegedly > down so they couldn't compute an accurate trajectory. They did trace the missile, until it became clear that it was much too much pointed upwards to be an attack, IIRC. > They said Yeltsin had his "football" open with his finger on the button. A > "retaliatory" strike was averted with something like three minutes left in > the countdown. A couple of minutes (I don't have the reference here), but more than 3 minutes, IIRC. (And then they probably could have destroyed their rockets in flight.) They did get very nervous, though, but managed to keep their cool and check their trigger happyness. The article offered as a partial solution to remove the hydraulic opening mechanisms for the land based rocked bases, lowering their standby times from something arounds 20 minutes to 24 - 48 hours, reasoning that no strike would be able to wipe enough of them to stop a retailatory strike. > Evidently, that was the closest we have ever come to a full-on nuclear war. > Not during the Berlin crisis, or the Cuban blockade, but in January of 1995. Well, it certainly was a bit of a close call ... Now imagine some terrorist with a rocket (and some explosives, but no nuke) ... should make for a creepy image. - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:03:54 +0000 From: Eddie Hallahan Subject: Re: Millenium I think the point that you are missing Mark is this. Way back then they didn't call it AD or BC or whatever. Those terms were applied much later. The term ad is meant to mean the years after the birth of JC (and yes we all know that wasn't really until 4ADish) and as such the ancient whoevers said "right he was bor at this point in time, anything before then is BC anything after is AD, now 1AD happens here 1 year after said point. Much the same way as my 1st birthday happened exactly 1 year after I was born, for a whole year I was 0 years old. I think there are times when logic blinds you, and this is one of them. EddieH At 14:19 10/02/99 +0000, you wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Sinden > > ><<< some people believe the millenium began at 0 (BC or AD whichever you >choose) and others (Like Arthur C Clarke) believe it begins at 1 AD. >>> > >There was no year zero. The words used would be "in the year of our Lord". >The first year would be "in the first year of our lord" (1AD), the year >before would have been "in the first year before the coming of our Lord" >(1BC). No room for a year 0. > ><<< Personally I couldn't care less. But thats what I've heard on the whole >deal. Hope this clears things up a bit >>> > >Sorry for starting all this but as a programmer it's been getting up my >nose, many apologies..... > >Mark Oliver-Macklin > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:09:37 +0000 From: Eddie Hallahan Subject: Re: Y2K in T2K I heard an interesting statistic for Britain, I'm not sure how well it applies to the rest of the world though. Basically, one of my mates works at a bank and they had just finished a study that says if everyone in britain took out an extra 30 pounds before the new year 'just in case' the economy would collapse. It's a scarily small amount and it is this low due to the amount of transactions that are done electronically. There is simply a lot less hard currency floating about britain than there used to be. EddieH At 08:55 10/02/99 -0800, you wrote: >>From: "Chas York" > >> I doubt seriously that the y2k computer error will be anything above >a >>nuisance for the technical, but the Human response to the hype could >>create a plausable campaign seed: > >[long, interesting scenario deleted] > >I don't think that the Y2K problem itself will be that severe -- >probably no worse than the worst computer virus, and even that is >unlikely. > >OTOH, people's responses to the percieved threat could be disasterous -- >if enough people pulled their money out of banks out of fear of the >money "vanishing" on January 1, 2000, it could create a financial >disaster seen since, well, the Great Depression. > >Back to Twilight 2000: >I presented an utterly worst-case Y2K scenario just as another >alternative to the official Twilight 2000 background. Personally, I >don't think the idea of a limited nuclear exchange (as presented in >T2K)is realistic either-- as soon as one nation fires off an ICBM, >everybody else's will soon follow. Even the feasability of using >tactical nukes is shaky, since the losing side might use strategic >missiles to delay defeat (ha ha...). > >A generous and sadistic GM, > >Brandon Cope > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:16:39 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Y2k At 08:57 AM 2/10/99 -0500, Andy Sinden wrote: >Eddie: > > To answer your question, what the big debate over this Millenium >business is that some people believe the millenium began at 0 (BC or AD >whichever you choose) and others (Like Arthur C Clarke) believe it begins >at 1 AD. So some people think its a new millenium on Jan 1st 2000 and >others Jan 1st 2001. Personally I could care less. But thats what I've >heard on the whole deal. Hope this clears things up a bit > Well, the key here is, there was _no_ "0 AD". The first year AD was 1, and the year before that is 1 BC. So if the centuries start on the "00" years, then the first century was only 99 years long. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:05:20 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Millenium At 05:03 PM 2/10/99 +0000, Eddie Hallahan wrote: >I think the point that you are missing Mark is this. Way back then they >didn't call it AD or BC or whatever. Those terms were applied much later. >The term ad is meant to mean the years after the birth of JC (and yes we >all know that wasn't really until 4ADish) and as such the ancient whoevers >said "right he was bor at this point in time, anything before then is BC >anything after is AD, now 1AD happens here 1 year after said point. > >Much the same way as my 1st birthday happened exactly 1 year after I was >born, for a whole year I was 0 years old. > >I think there are times when logic blinds you, and this is one of them. > No, there was _no_ "year 0", period. There was 1 BC, then there was 1 AD (though obviously they didn't call them that in those years :). So, if the dating had been right, 1 AD would have been the year in which Jesus Christ was 0 years old, and would have ended with his first birthday. What this means is that if the century changes at the year "00" rather than "01", the second century BC would be 100 years long, the first century would be 99 years long, the first century AD would be 99 years long, and then the second century AD would be 100 years long--and that doesn't make any sense. In fact, the idea that the century turns in the year "01" rather than "00" is not a new idea: it's _always_ been like that, and you should have been taught it in school. However, it's also true that, because of the fact that all the numbers change in the year "00", people have always tended to attach significance in those years and to believe, mistakenly, that that must been when the century changed. In previous centuries this popular mistake was overcome by educating the public--but that hasn't happened this time: the media has just been swept along by the popular ignorance (even people who knew better), and even the Pope has decided to celebrate the millenium in 2000 rather than 2001 (as the originator of the dating system, the Catholic Church should be the defender of purism :), most probably because there's a good chance he won't live to see 2001. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:07:03 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Y2K in T2K At 05:09 PM 2/10/99 +0000, Eddie Hallahan wrote: >I heard an interesting statistic for Britain, I'm not sure how well it >applies to the rest of the world though. > >Basically, one of my mates works at a bank and they had just finished a >study that says if everyone in britain took out an extra 30 pounds before >the new year 'just in case' the economy would collapse. It's a scarily >small amount and it is this low due to the amount of transactions that are >done electronically. There is simply a lot less hard currency floating >about britain than there used to be. > Printing up more bills for this occasion is pretty easy though; and I'm sure someone will have though of it--er, actually, I guess you've just proved someone has. :) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 02:03:40 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Y2K in T2K Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, copeab@hotmail.com produced: > I don't think that the Y2K problem itself will be that severe -- > probably no worse than the worst computer virus, and even that is > unlikely. The internet worm. But while Y2K won't be the end of the world, neither was the black friday 1929. And even if the cost in life might be low, the monetary (and stress) cost will be high. To put it that way: Whichever program of some size and is not in the test phase yet will not be ready and tested(!) on Jan. 1st of 2000. > OTOH, people's responses to the percieved threat could be disasterous -- > if enough people pulled their money out of banks out of fear of the > money "vanishing" on January 1, 2000, it could create a financial > disaster seen since, well, the Great Depression. That is the other side. But if you knew some of the programs which handle your money you would probably not keep money at the bank. :-) All in all it depends on how much cool (or blessful ignorance) the general public has ... and how good the Y2K flaws will be hidden, fixed or circumvented. > alternative to the official Twilight 2000 background. Personally, I > don't think the idea of a limited nuclear exchange (as presented in > T2K)is realistic either-- as soon as one nation fires off an ICBM, > everybody else's will soon follow. I think that is really nicely explained and quite beliveable in TW:2K (V1): tit-for-tat, each side one more nuke, but not much more ... for the fear of a massive response. > Even the feasability of using > tactical nukes is shaky, since the losing side might use strategic > missiles to delay defeat (ha ha...). Well, that has been done more than once. Just think about Kamikaze pilots and V1/V2. And if you manage to weaken the enemy, even for some time, you may win time ... even if it costs you both your and the enemy's front. - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #11 ************************************