March, 1998

Dear ICE Subscriber:

For over a year, I have written in these cover letters about the Year 2000 Problem. I shall continue to do so. Once again, I ask you to decide: How much risk are we facing?

Here is the recent risk assessment of the Year 2000 Problem by Prof. Leon Kappelman. Dr. Kappelman is the Co-Chair, Society for Information Management (SIM) Year 2000 Working Group. SIM is an association of over 2,500 computer professionals. He is Associate Professor, Business Computer Information Systems, University of North Texas. He is the editor of a recent book on the Year 2000 problem (in which he graciously included some of my observations on y2k). He has posted an open letter to President Clinton on his Web site (http://www.year2000.unt.edu/kappelma/prez.htm). He says, in part:

Time is of the essence so I will be brief. I humbly ask you to please declare a national and global state of emergency because of the year-2000 (or century-date computer-processing) problem. I base this request not on some precognition about the future but on empirical evidence of both the enormous risks posed by this problem and on the minuscule probability that we will be able to effectively mitigate all of these risks in the time remaining.

Would you declare a state of emergency if you were informed today that millions of meteors, ranging in size from the diameter of a baseball to that of the moon, were due to strike Earth on January 1, 2000? Metaphorically that is the situation we face. And just as people who examine the heavens without the benefit of telescopes might deny the existence of such meteors, this would not reduce the risks posed by them.

Whether we like it or not, the world is now in such a state of emergency. Regrettably we are not behaving as such and thus precious time is wasting. Fighting the century-date computer-processing problem is much like a war effort. But not only do we have the problem itself to defeat, but also the enemies of limited time as well as other resources, compounded by the near invisibility of the problem to the naked eye. The near 100% increase in total federal year-2000-project cost estimates over that past few months is evidence of how little of this problem can be seen at first glance. Your leadership is intensely needed Mr. President. . . .

The time for denial is long past. It is time for triage directed at a clear and urgent focus on the most life-threatening and mission-critical systems. Real tests of these systems are needed, not wishful thinking. Please ask to see proof not just promises that all is well. Priorities must be set in order to focus limited resources of time and skills on repairing those systems that can cause the most damage, disruption, or death.

On February 4, President Clinton issued an executive order on y2k. According to the President, these systems are at risk: "the banking and financial system, the telecommunications system, the public health system, the transportation system, and the electric power generation system. . . ." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/pagegen.cgi)

This executive order is a follow-up to his July, 1996, executive order which set up the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP). Officially, this Commission must deal with the threat of terrorist attacks. It is funded by the Department of Defense. What is at stake? Everything. The Commission has posted this on its FAQ (frequently asked questions) list:

The Commission has identified eight critical infrastructures for review: telecommunications, transportation, electric power, oil and gas (delivery and storage), banking and finance, water, emergency services, and continuity of government services. During the course of our review, the Commission may discover other areas to add to that list. . . .

Q: What threats are out there?

A: Threats to these infrastructures fall into two categories: physical threats to tangible property ("physical threats"), and threats of electronic, radio-frequency, or computer-based attacks on the information or communications components that control critical infrastructures ("cyber threats").

 

Q: Hasn't this area been studied before?

A: No. While there have been a number of reviews in specific areas of computer security and emergency preparedness, for example, the Commission's job is unprecedented in scope. The Commission has been tasked to bring together the combined forces of the private industry and government to develop a national strategy for protecting and assuring the continued operation of this nation's critical infrastructures. . . .

 

Q: What is the Year 2000 issue as understood by the PCCIP?

A: In the early years of computers, data storage space was at a premium, and to save space the date was written as a two-digit code. Many of the older computer systems which remain in use today still have the two-digit date code. The problem arises when an older computer system tries to use the year 2000 date because it thinks the date is 1900, not 2000. This misreading can potentially cause serious problems, the extent and scope of which are not fully understood. (http://www.pccip.gov/faq.html)

The Year 2000 Problem is here compared with international terrorism as a major threat to this nation. But the Year 2000 Problem threatens all of these systems, all over the world, on the same day. No terrorist organization could achieve anything like this.

On January 28, 1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued this warning: "Thus far, NRC has no information that such computer-related problems exist with safety-related systems in nuclear power plants. But 'Year 2000' problems have been found in non-safety, but nevertheless important, computer-based applications such as security computers, control room display systems, inventory control, engineering programs, control systems, radiation monitoring, and emergency response." (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NEWS/year2000.html) The NRC is required by law to make sure that all nuclear power plants are y2k compliant. There is no nuclear power plant today that claims to be compliant. If the NRC shuts down nuclear power plants for noncompliance in late 1999, this could be all 108 of them. In one shot, this would remove 20% of America's power-generating capacity. Meanwhile, what about coal-fired plants, which supply another 20% or more? Roleigh Martin, who has a Web site on embedded chips, posted this message on Peter de Jager's discussion forum:

In the testing of two [name of city snipped] coal-fire power plants (which were currently off-line and being used as "hot spares") for year 2000 compliance, the clocks were simultaneously rolled over to the year 2000, causing immediate plant failure. In an attempt to better understand the failure, the roll over test was repeated. In the second test, the plants again failed, but a different embedded controller was determined to be at fault. The roll over test was repeated a third time in hopes of replicating one of the previous failures. In this test, the plants failed from yet a different embedded controller. It was determined that this last failure would have caused a grid-wide failure had the plants been on-line. It took 13 days in order to restore the plants to working condition from the last failure.

If the world's power grids go down, this civilization will cease to exist. All of our urban life-support systems are dependent on electricity. Water, heat, lighting, police protection — all would be shut down. Yet there are no assurances from the engineers who maintain the grid that it will survive the Millennium Bug. The lives of a billion people are on the line, yet the experts are not sure what will happen. What they know is this: there is no compliant urban electrical utility today anywhere on earth. And every major urban utility has thousands of suppliers, few if any of which are compliant.

Why Should I Bother to Warn You?

Back in late 1996, when I first began to pursue the Year 2000 Problem, I was given this advice by the programmer who told me about the magnitude of the problem. "Don't bother to warn people. Nobody will believe you, and you'll subject yourself to needless ridicule." Yet, I believed him when he told me. Why? First, he had considerable experience. He had been one of the original programmers for Medicaid. He told me:

The code that I wrote and the other team members wrote cannot be revised in time. The states have "patched" it for two decades. The original code's documentation is gone. The code's compilers [organizers] are gone. Medicaid is a state program. The states don't know where I am. Nobody has called me. Our team is scattered. Medicaid will go under on Jan. 1, 2000.

Second, I had known of the y2k problem ever since 1992. I had read about it in "Robert X. Cringely's" book, Accidental Empires (1992). He predicted that 2000 would end the IBM company. But this had just not registered with me. I did not see the implications because I was not aware of 35 years of legacy code. I also did not learn of the embedded chips problem until 1997. So, I recognized my friend's warning. People will not immediately believe this story, if then. After all, I hadn't. It takes months of evidence to convince people, yet most people will not devote month to a study of this problem. But the day will come when mass psychology will take over. The media will eventually realize that: (1) there is no solution; (2) all of the public relations departments are lying; (3) the public is voracious about this story. The panic will begin. Then the public's learning process will speed up. When it does, nobody will be able to do much to protect himself or his family.

I decided to do my homework in late 1996. What I wound up with is a new career — for three years. In 2000, I will wind up with a new world. So will you.

In Bible times, prophets warned kings and common people of judgment to come. The days of prophecy are over. So is the negative for false prophecy: stoning. (I devote a chapter to this matter in my commentary on Deuteronomy, which is now being typeset.) But the watchman on the wall still has a job to do (Ezek. 33:2-7). I see myself as a watchman on the wall. I do this by default; on the issue of y2k, the pastors, whose job it is to warn their people, refuse to sound the alarm. If anything, they tell their people that there is no judgment coming. People do not want to hear about impending judgment and days of vengeance. That is why the days of vengeance come: the closed ears of the people.

The heart of the Great Commission is God's covenant lawsuit against individuals and societies. This covenant is two-edged: positive and negative. Jonah's ministry reveals both sides. In our day, few ministers preach negative sanctions. The old-style fire-and-brimstone evangelism is pretty much a relic. Kenneth Kantzer of Christianity Today a decade ago wrote that he had not heard a sermon on hell in 25 years. I can remember only one: D. James Kennedy preached it. What sells today is positive sanctions, from the "positive confession" charismatics to the toe-tapping electrified jingles of neo-evangelicalism.

Our cultural environment is visibly debauched, yet Christians have made their peace with it. They, like their contemporaries, are convinced that the Cajun worldview has become the irreversible trend of our time: Bon temps roulet — "Let the good times roll."

The good times have fewer than 22 months to roll.

Rev. Ostrich

For saying this, I have deeply offended certain shepherds. One of them, whom I shall call Rev. Ostrich, recently sent an e-mail. Eventually, it got forwarded, as e-mails tend to do. The author is a Calvinist. He is a seminary graduate. He ought to be well-read. Here is his assessment of the Year 2000 Problem:

I think it's a big joke! There has been so much talk about it for years that it is hard to imagine that it will take anyone by surprise. I've spoke with some people in the computer industry who have told me that large systems (gov't agencies, credit agencies, etc.) will not be effected (the problem was anticipated 20 years ago and planned for), and that even most PC's won't miss a beat, though some of the older ones, if they are using the prototype o/s's will. Do expect to see books from Hal Lindsay and the like on this though, as being "the sure sign of the end of the world." Gary North in fact has moved to Arkansas because of some revelation that Arkansas is the only place that won't be effected. I guess Bill Clinton did SOMETHING right there before he left for the Whitehouse!

First, the man cannot spell. The word is "affected," not "effected." Second, he is a would-be destroyer of reputations. He invokes the eschatological bogeyman: Hal Lindsey. "Use Lindsey's name: guilt by association! That will ruin North!" Yet, as I reported in my July, 1997, cover letter, Hal Lindsey shares Rev. Ostrich's view of 2000.

Hal Lindsey, the prophetic author who wrote the 1970's best seller, "The Late Great Planet Earth," which predicted the coming of the end of time as we know it, is undaunted by the year 2000.

"I don't think there's anything special about the changing of the millennium," he says. ("Predictor of end doesn't fear 2000," Cleveland Plain Dealer, Feb. 3, 1997.)

Rev. Ostrich then continues his rhetorical blast: "Gary North in fact has moved to Arkansas because of some revelation that Arkansas is the only place that won't be effected." Right: I got a revelation that Arkansas won't be "effected." This is really, truly silly. I have warned you and hundreds of thousands of others that there is no safe haven, that this problem, unlike anything since Noah's flood, is universal. But there are safer havens.

I have done my best to take care of my family. I believe Paul. "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (I Tim. 5:8). I have sounded repeated warnings to heads of households: "Recognize the terrible threat that faces your family, and take action." And for my trouble, I am treated with all the respect that Ahab showed to Micaiah (I Kings 22:27).

He says that "large systems (gov't agencies, credit agencies, etc.) will not be effected (the problem was anticipated 20 years ago and planned for)." James Leach, who chairs the House Banking Committee, sees it differently:

When the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999, many computers could malfunction or even shut down. At financial institutions, it could mean errors in checking account transactions, interest calculations, or payment schedules. It could mean problems with ATM systems or credit and debit cards. It could affect bank recordkeeping, investments, currency transfers, and legal liability. It might interfere with payment systems, both here and abroad, and affect EFT [electronic funds] transfers for payroll or pension recipients. It takes little imagination to picture the ricochet effects that malfunctioning computer systems could have on important bank operations. . . .

Experts also emphasize that the problem must be fixed properly and on time if Year 2000 related problems are to be avoided. I was intrigued by a statement Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made a couple of weeks ago. He pointed out that 99 percent readiness for the Year 2000 will not be enough. It must be 100 percent. Thus, the message seems clear: all financial institutions must be ready; federal and state regulatory agencies must be ready; data processing service providers and other bank vendors must be ready; bank customers and borrowers must be ready; and international counterparties must be ready. (http://house.gov/banking/11497lea.htm)

Greenspan says banks need 100% compliance: at 13,000 U.S. banks and every other bank on earth with which any U.S. bank may interact. Yet there is not one 2000-compliant bank on earth. They are all dependent on software vendors who have not introduced compliant programs. As for twenty years' notice, the computer department informed the President of Citicorp of the y2k problem only in 1995. What is Citicorp's technical problem? It has 400 million lines of code to correct and test. Yet no organization that I am aware of has ever made 2000-compliant a system with as few as 10 million lines.

Leach went on: "Unfortunately, the fact that success or failure in meeting the Year 2000 challenge won't be evident until just over two years from now has led some to ignore or downplay its importance." Exactly! That is Rev. Ostrich's problem.

Rev. Ostrich and his peers are not interested in evidence. They do not care what I have posted on my Web site. Hearing, they will not hear. If information conflicts with their employment skills or retirement plans, it cannot be true. It must not be true. It isn't true.

Rev. Ostrich's letter does not bother me personally. I have a thick skin. I have traded rhetorical blows with more skilled men than he. This ill-equipped man does not understand what honesty in communication is all about, especially honesty in a life-and-death matter. He cannot disentangle his logic (citation of unnamed computer experts) from rhetoric (untruths). He is ignorant — willfully, dangerously ignorant — about y2k. He is not alone. Most pastors are equally uninformed. Those few who are somewhat better informed generally share his views — and Mr. Lindsey's. But they are more gifted rhetorically than Rev. Ostrich, or at least more silent. To a man, they will lose their pensions for their blindness. God is not mocked. (I have written a report on the demise of pensions. It is available only on the Internet. Send an e-mail to pension@remnant.org .)

What does bother me greatly about his letter is that the sheep who are under his protection are being encouraged in the very complacency that Congressman Leach says afflicts the higher levels of government and business, and which threatens the world banking system. Everything they possess except their salvation is at risk, yet they line up, heads in the sand, right beside their pastors. "My pastor says. . . ." They will suffer together. The question is: How much will they suffer?

Pastors today shun controversy. Few of them come before their congregations or the public and declare, "Thus saith the Lord," on controversial, congregation-splitting matters: legalized abortion, the public schools, or no-fault divorce. This has left leadership to laymen. This was not true a century ago in the United States, although it was beginning.

The Millennium Bug is an issue that cannot be avoided indefinitely. But pastors do not want to face it, any more than politicians do, or stock brokers do, or, perhaps, you do. They prefer to wait and see what happens. It is worse than Kappelman's meteor shower, which could be seen. The Bug is invisible to all but a few programmers. But its effects (not affects) will be all too visible in 2000. Men can wait. And they will see.

It's Your Decision

It is now time for you to fish or cut bait. You are better informed about y2k than almost anyone on earth. If you have visited my Web site a few times — http://www.remnant.org — you are a y2k expert compared to anyone else you know. Now, you must make a decision. If you are under the authority of a shepherd who shares Rev. Ostrich's views, you are at risk. So is your family. Any pastor who has seen all of my ICE cover letters and two hour's worth of my Web site's documentation, and who then tries to stay neutral by staying silent, is playing the ostrich.

I am no prophet. My interpretation of the evidence could be wrong. On key issues, such as the percentage of (possibly) 25 billion embedded chips that are defective, out of production, and systems-threatening, we have no systematic, scientific study. But the professional engineering associations that have addressed the problem all say it is very, very serious. I have placed links to these sites on my site under "Noncompliant Chips." Your decision must be made in terms of the available evidence, not what you want to hear.

Those who criticize my views offer rhetoric, not evidence. There are no happy-face noncommercial Year 2000 Web sites. Mine is the most apocalyptic, but none has good news. So, my critics do not present evidence. They substitute rhetoric. But they have this huge advantage: they tell people what people want to hear. This is why the public believes, briefly, fairy tales: a 14-year-old boy or a 77-year-old man who has invented a y2k solution. When one story fizzles and the y2k problem remains, the press goes on to another.

In times preceding a crisis, people do not want to choose sides. "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word" (I Kings 18:21). The crisis is coming. It is time for you to choose whose story to believe.

I write now to heads of household. You are responsible. You must now choose on behalf of your family. This is the meaning of family leadership. You must decide if y2k's threat to your lifestyle and maybe your life is real. The public has at last begun to sense a problem: the possibility that the Federal Aviation Administration's computers will fail. The hole in the dam is now visible — the dam of public confidence. That dam will eventually break, and with it, the supporting framework of the banking system and everything that relies on banks, which is almost everything. You had better not be under it when it breaks.

When you make this evaluation, and then begin making the decisions that flow from it, you will alienate all those other heads of household who are more afraid of their wives than they are of y2k. (For wives who face husbands in denial, I have no counsel except prayer: you are truly trapped.) You will also alienate the elders and the pastor. You are saying, by your actions, "I'm taking North seriously on this. I trust his judgment, not yours". By this, you will not win friends and influence people . . . until the crisis hits. By that time, you had better be where your neighbors and fellow church members are not totally unprepared.

To pastors, I say: it is time to risk getting fired. The day will come when thousands of pastors will preach fearlessly (but retroactively) about the judgment of God in the year 2000. But to make their case more convincing then, they should identify y2k as such before it hits, before the public knows what is going to happen. But most pastors will resist this for as long as the humanist media are complacent. They want to be absolutely sure that y2k will hit; otherwise, they might look foolish retroactively. Well, that's the risk of leadership. The only pre-war British leaders that the world remembers today are Churchill and Chamberlain. It is easy to be a Chamberlain before the shooting starts. "Peace in our time." Or: "Large systems will not be effected." Better to be remembered as a Churchill.

Sincerely yours,