Article Archive

Instead of sipping champagne in celebration at the millennium we may well be glued to our battery operated radios listening for news about how the rest of the world is coping with massive system failures. At home we could also be dealing with intermittent power outages, long lines at the supermarket and ATMs or our inability to obtain water from the tap. However Australia is generally considered to among one of the best prepared countries to cope with Y2K - the year 2000 bug. The developing world is another story. Most of its nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America have yet to come to grips with the computer problem exhibited when date related hardware, software and microchip systems read 1900 instead of 2000.

Ironically, the Pentagon, with the largest set of computer systems in the world, became aware of the date related glitch by the 1970s but decided in its wisdom not to fix the problem. This then became the official US policy and by default set the standard for the world. In fact it became the world�s �worst� practice.

Although many first world nations, including Australia, are preparing for possible Y2K-related societal disruptions, there are even more serious issues to consider. While it is true that the computerization of amenities such as coffee machines, toasters, traffic lights, cars and VCRs could transitorily disturb our comfortable existence, the reliance of chemical plants, nuclear reactors and nuclear weapon systems on date- related computer systems could well prove catastrophic in its consequences.

For of all the emergency situations that could arise at the turn of the millennium and the months following, the most severe and unforgiving will involve nuclear technology. In fact it beggars comprehension that the Pentagon computerized nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and early warning systems knowing that there was a date- related problem. The nuclear power industry made the same mistake.

Let us first examine the nuclear power dilemma.

There are 433 non-military nuclear power reactors in the world, 103 of these in the US. All are completely dependent upon an intact coolant system, which for a standard 1000 megawatt reactor means the circulation of 1,000,000 gallons of water per minute to prevent the100 tons of intensely hot fissioning uranium from melting down.

In most reactors, integral components of the cooling system are computerized. Thus should any date-dependent fixture � an embedded chip or part of the hardware or software -- of this system remain unrepaired by January 1, 2000, the water could stop circulating and the reactor would melt down within minutes.

How to deal with this? Even if the reactor is taken �off line� -- meaning the fissioning process is stopped on December 31, and the cooling system fails on January 1, it will still melt down within two hours. Not an ideal solution you would say. Yet, the truth is even if the fission reaction were to be stopped now in June 1999, the core would still be so hot in six months that it would melt down within twelve hours anyway if the coolant system failed.

There is more. The circulation of coolant water is also dependent upon an external electricity supply and an intact telecommunications system. Yet experts predict there is a good chance that some parts of the US will experience Y2K related power failures , as well as telecommunication malfunction, leaving the reactors vulnerable. Because of this possibility, each US reactor has been equipped with 2 back-up diesel generators. But at best, such generators are only 85% reliable and some run well only for some days before overheating. So, if the power failure is prolonged because the grid goes down for a week or more, the back-up diesel generators will not necessarily prevent a nuclear catastrophe...

Sixty- seven Russian-built reactors are even more vulnerable because they have no backup generators. What�s more, the Russian electricity grid is itself at great risk because, as one might expect, the political and economic turmoil in that country have insured that the Y2K problem has hardly been examined. Further, there are 70 old nuclear reactors on old Russian submarines moored at dock in the Barents sea, and if they lose the electricity grid powering their cooling systems, they will also melt

Eighty percent of France�s electricity is nuclear generated; its government has announced that it will close its nuclear power plants for 4 days over the New Year, but this will not stop meltdowns if the external electricity supply is lost and the coolant fails to reach the intensely hot radioactive cores.

Because the air masses of the two hemispheres do not generally mix at the equator, Australia will be largely protected from the fallout from any catastrophic radioactive events in the northern hemisphere where most reactors are located.

But nuclear weapons may alter this immunity, for despite the end of the Cold War, Russia and America continue to maintain an arsenal of 2-3000 nuclear warheads targeted at each other and their allies. These strategic weapons are on hair-trigger alert, meaning only minutes are allowed for either side to determine whether an apparent attack is the result of a computer error (which has happened on a number of occasions in the past).

It is well accepted that 1000 hydrogen bombs exploding over 100 cities could induce nuclear winter and the end of most life on earth.

Australia is home to several of these Russian targets, among them Pine Gap, Nurrunga, North West Cape, Tidbinbilla . In the event of a nuclear war � accidental or deliberate � they would almost certainly be on the receiving end of at least one hydrogen bomb each.

As the Pentagon maintains the largest number of computer systems in the word, many of which were bought �off the shelf� from vendors who may no longer exist, it is in some state of disarray vis a vis Y2K.. It is physically impossible to locate all the embedded microchips within the systems as the Pentagon itself admits. And even if a system is deemed Y2K compliant, each systems interfaces with others meaning a faulty embedded chip or hardware problem in one system can infect another that is deemed Y2K compliant and �bring it down�.

Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre said in October 1998 �Probably one out of five days I wake up in a cold sweat thinking (Y2K) is much bigger than we think, and then the other four days I think maybe we are on top of it. Everything is so interconnected, it�s very hard to know with any precision that we have got it fixed.�

It has well been documented that Pentagon early-warning computers experience over 100 significant errors each year, some which have brought us to within minutes of nuclear war. On the Russian side in one well-reported 1995 incident, their computers detected telemetry from a US missile which was launching a Norwegian weather satellite. Thinking the Americans had initiated a nuclear war, the Russians, for the first time, actually opened the nuclear �football�, the computer which is used to initiate nuclear war. For some minutes President Yeltsin contemplated �pressing the button.� Only when the missile veered off target did the Russians realize that they were not under attack.

Yet it is not outside the realm of possibility�though it is unlikely -- that a missile could launch itself; each missile contains three computerized launch codes which could be affected by date-related error.

More likely the early-warning system will be at Y2K risk. False date-related messages could be received because of computer malfunction in the infra red satellites used to detect missile launches; in the �over the horizon� radar system which monitors missile flight; or within the overall C3I (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) System �set up to detect Russian missile launches.

Hair-trigger alert is extraordinarily dangerous because if a nuclear attack is detected by one side, their missiles must be launched immediately to avoid destruction from the other side�s first strike. But intercontinental missiles take only 30 minutes from launch to landing, allowing virtually no time to analyze Y2K computer related errors.

Russia has virtually not examined, nor taken seriously its Y2K dilemma relating to its nuclear arsenal. As for the US, months-long preoccupation with the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton followed almost immediately by the Kosovo crisis has meant that its leaders have not concentrated on assisting Russia�s with its Y2K problems. There was talk at the highest levels before Kosovo of establishing a joint early warning room so that Russia and America could reassure each other if accidents or computer failures arose. Once the first NATO bombs were dropped on Kosovo however the Russians backed away.

So that is the overall picture, which is potentially very grim. Can anything be done? Yes.

With regard to nuclear power, because diesel generators are unreliable, every reactor needs the urgent installation of back-up alternative electricity sources such as solar or wind This is not an impossible task and could be achieved if the US exhibited the same level of commitment as it displays to the Kosovo crisis.

As for nuclear weapons, the arsenals of France, England, Israel, India, Pakistan and China are not on hair-trigger alert. But all the strategic weapons in Russia and America need to be decoupled within the next six months, meaning the weapons will physically be removed from their missiles. Also the bombs themselves must be de-alerted.

Yet although several prominent US Senators including Bob Kerry and retired Senator Sam Nunn have advocated rapid dealerting there is widespread ignorance and apathy within the Congress and indeed the White House itself about nuclear Y2K.

The truth is that we have less than 7 months to deactivate these deadly arsenals before January 1st 2000, but such a momentous action will take place only if the international community , including Australia, demand it that it be done.