OT: Is this man a quack, or does he know what he's talking about?

[Guest Mirage2k]

For the past few days I've been reading a book entitled War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink (Peter Vincent Pry, 1999). It's a familiar alarmist premise that the threat of nuclear war is now far greater than it was fifteen or twenty years ago.

That part is familiar—people have been saying that for years. But Pry goes further than terrorism and the lax security measures of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces. He talks about a premeditated Russian attack against the United States and/or NATO allies.

In the book, Pry discusses post-Cold War incidents such as the Norwegian Black Brant XII missile in 1995, the Armenian-Azerbaijan war of 1992, and the failed coup of 1991. In each incident, Russia, or, as in the case of the coup, those that commanded Russian nuclear forces at the time, threatened the United States and/or a major ally with nuclear war. Pry sets this up by saying that Russia had always held a policy of striking first in any nuclear engagement, and, after DESERT STORM, had publicly declared their intention of making a preemptive nuclear strike against a possible conventional attack. As evidence, he declares that Russian nuclear missiles are not adequately prepared to "launch-on-tactical-warning," and cites Operation VRYAN, which, beginning in May of 1981, searched for intelligence supporting a feared nuclear first-strike by the United States so that the Soviet Union would be able to launch a preemptive nuclear attack. During Operation ABLE ARCHER of 1983, in which NATO forces in Europe (including the dreaded Pershing-II theater ballistic missile) simulated a nuclear alert against the USSR, Pry states that Soviet forces were, based on the procedures detailed in Operation VRYAN, a hair's width away from launching an attack, and that only the last-minute uninvolvement of President Reagan in the exercise forestalled a Soviet preemptive strike.

Pry states that since Russia is ever-more dependent on its nuclear forces for security against even a conventional threat, localized events (such as the Armenian crisis) may force them to start a nuclear war against NATO.

My question remains. Is this guy a quack, or does he know what he's talking about?

-Andrew

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 07-22-2000).]

[L4Pilot]

Don't have an answer to your question...

But one of my favorite headlines from the book "Our Dumb Century" (one of the few books that has ever made me LOL) is:

"Cold War Over!! Nuclear Weapons Now Safely in Hands of Small Rogue Nations!"

[swamp]

Mirage2k, thats something I don't hear every day, it's news to me

IMHO aslong as the united states is down with O.P.P.(other peoples problems) we're gonna eventually get nuked pretty bad

[Aszurom]

look, I think pretty much everybody knows that the cold war was actually a cover so we could maintain the budget to develop starwars technology. Why? Because after 1947, we knew the martians were coming to steal our women and we needed Nikolai Tesla particle cannons to shoot down their UFOs.

[DigDug]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aszurom:

look, I think pretty much everybody knows that the cold war was actually a cover so we could maintain the budget to develop starwars technology. Why? Because after 1947, we knew the martians were coming to steal our women and we needed Nikolai Tesla particle cannons to shoot down their UFOs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(taking up the flag of our usual American egocentrism, and ignoring the fact that this is an international forum, I'll say something here...heheh)

Hehehe...right on the money, Azurom, right on the money.

On a serious note, yes indeed these are more dangerous times than the Cold War era. There are many, many nukes that have somehow been misplaced. Not to mention a serious rash of "security leaks" at some of the Nation's top weapons research labs (Los Alamos, NM is the ONE that's getting mass media attention).

Is the world safe from nukes now that the Cold War is over? Hah. Far from it...we're in it deeper than ever before.

And as for being "down with O.P.P. (lol)", one day these leaders playing John Wayne with our National security is gonna get us in a heap 'o trouble. Wish we'd mind our own freakin bidness.

[Guest Mirage2k]

Well, obviously the rogue states/terrorists/lax security at Russian facilities is cause for concern. But the book tends to focus on the threat of a premeditated Russian nuclear attack, directed by its government and/or General Staff against the United States, as if the Cold War had never actually ended.

Weird stuff, but Pry's points do make some sense. With the gradual downsizing of nuclear forces, it is theoretically possible to win a nuclear war (that is, now that the other side doesn't have 10,000 RVs to worry about, it's possible to take out his forces before they can retaliate en masse). Victory goes to the bold. And (I have no idea if this is true or not, but this is what Pry says) Russia has, since 1993, openly declared a military policy involving preemptive nuclear strikes against percieved conventional threats (the Gulf War really shook them up, apparently). Pry cites the Armenia-Azerbaijan War as an example, in which Russia threatened Turkey. Given Russia's increasing reliance on nuclear weapons for basic security, this seems plausible.

Any other opinions?

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[tailz]

It is interesting to note (and my information may be rather dated, so feel free to correct me)... that while miscellaneous defense budget programs (ie F22) are reviewed, delayed or outright cancelled, the US Navy continues its purchase of the new Sea Wolves, and it's 'boomer' fleet remains a state of the art force. Consider the Russians decommissioning much of their fleet... I find it hard to believe they would consider a nuclear response to a perceived conventional threat. The USN alone could bury the former Soviet Union in MIRV's... and the Russians know this. Nuclear terrorism is the real spectre of death for the west... not the rogue states, who no doubt would use their hi-tec toys to exact a continuing toll in their timeless vendettas against their neighbors. (If the Kosovars had nukes, they would use them in a heartbeat I'm sure)

... I could be wrong, so feel free to educate me.

tailz

[Guest Mirage2k]

It's my understanding that, in terms of their navy, the Russians have been decomissioning mostly surface vessels and attack subs, but have bent over backwards to keep their "modern" SSBNs in service.

My info on actual numbers is kind of dated...but in 1997, according to the Russian Navy, there were 26 operative SSBNs of the Delta III, Delta IV, and Typhoon classes in the combined Northern and Pacific fleets. According to www.fas.org, all but one Typhoon are "deactivated for refueling"/"in reserve," six Delta IVs are in service, fourteen Delta IIIs are "in reserve," and a few Delta I and IIs may be operational.

According to STRATCOM's web site (www.stratcom.mil) the U.S. Navy operates 18 Ohio class SSBNs. Of course, the Trident III/IV is a much better missile than anything the Russians have, but the Russians have always depended more on their land-based ICBMs than their sub force, for the simple reason that subs commanders are harder to control than missile complex commanders.

I'm not sure if I buy this Pry guy's conclusions or not. That Russia would launch a nuclear attack a non-nuclear nation (like Turkey) based on the threat of a conventional attack against Russia seems downright stupid on the surface. He does, however, write of a 1994 article by Russian journalist Pavel Felgengauer, in which Felgengauer writes of a hypothetical scenario where Turkey invades Armenia in May 1995 (the same threat Russia faced in 1992).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Felgengauer's scenario, Russia warns Turkey, "Russia would use all means at its disposal to stop the aggression," a nuclear threat also implicit in Shaposhinkov's specter of a new world war in May 1992. However, in Felgengauer's story, "Turkey said it would not yield to nuclear blackmail, obviously figuring that Russia would never opt for nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power that was also a member of NATO." As we have seen, one of the provisions of Russia's new military doctrine debate in May 1992, and officially declared in November 1993, just two months before Felgengauer published his article, was to allow Russian nuclear first use against nonnuclear states aligned with nuclear states through an alliance, like NATO.

In Felgengauer's fictional scenario, Russia makes a preemptive nuclear strike on a U.S. radar station in Turkey, near Kars: "The Russian Supreme Military Council decided to make a preemptory strike on Turkey. A radar station in the vicinity of Kars was targeted. The 100-kiloton air burst, after which there was no noticeable radioactive fallout, destroyed the station. The civilian population practically didn't suffer."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pry states earlier that Felgengauer is known to be well connected to the Defense Ministry and the General Staff, and that the Russian military often uses his articles to speak unofficially. "Western analysts have found Felgengauer's writings a reliable guide to Russian military thinking. His writings have often predicted developments or represented points of view that later have been offically acknowledged."

Weird stuff. I still haven't decided if I believe it or not.

-Andrew

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 07-23-2000).]

[Monkeybutt]

The Russians keep their SSBN subs in port mostly due to cost,but considering their range of their missles,they don't need to go to sea.They could just fire them from their port area.

Also remember they have a bunch of mobile ICBM's roaming around Russia that make an effective missle force.I forget the number they have though.

-Monkeybutt

------------------

The Combat Mission Scenario Dump! http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/3805/Cm.html

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Russians keep their SSBN subs in port mostly due to cost,but considering their range of their missles,they don't need to go to sea.They could just fire them from their port area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keeping them in port makes then next to useless as a defense, however. Given Russia's deteriorating early warning systems, it would be possible to take out the port cities before the subs could be manned and the missiles fired.

And those missiles aren't accurate enough to be used in a first-strike scenario. If Russia were to launch a nuclear attack at any country, it would use its silo-based ICBMs, probably from its force of SS-18 Satan missiles.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 07-23-2000).]

[Disaster]

You have to keep in mind that generals in Russia more and more have to play to politics, not only in global security dialogue but also internally.

Globally, Russia could be sending a message not just to the United States but to its neighbours. Russia certainly appears weaker to China and especially to Muslim neighbouring states that seem to be angling to decrease Russian involvement in the Caucuses and the oil bearing regions. By threatening first strike, Russia is showing that it is paying attention to the rising power of its neighbours and former satellite states.

As far as its relationship with the United States goes, Russia is concerned that it is falling behind in modernizing its decreasing number of nuclear weapons and also the spectre of the redevelopment of a Star Wars defense for North America. One card it can play is to sabre rattle and cause alarm in the U.S. with those who also see the Star Wars redevelopment as an acceleration of the arms race. By raising the possibility of first strike, Russia raises the stakes again, challenging the U.S. to also ante up or withdraw the missile defense (the logic and practicality of the missile defense is separate debate). Finally, this also paradoxically increases the stakes in the aid regime that is funelling money to prop up the Russian economy and industrial development. Some call it nuclear blackmail, but it's part of a dialogue that recognizes the basic formula: if people are busy making money, they have less time for war.

Internally, Russian generals have become more and more politicized, playing to the various factions who want to see Russian arms rebound to their former reputation (however ill earned). Based upon their endorsement of Putin in his election as well as in his continuing campaigns in Chechnya, Russian citizens want a return to its perceived power and are tired of scandalous stories of the decline of its military and of breakaway nations upsetting Russian security.

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Globally, Russia could be sending a message not just to the United States but to its neighbours. Russia certainly appears weaker to China and especially to Muslim neighbouring states that seem to be angling to decrease Russian involvement in the Caucuses and the oil bearing regions. By threatening first strike, Russia is showing that it is paying attention to the rising power of its neighbours and former satellite states. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

China, Muslim neighboring states, and former Soviet republics are, of course, of primary interest to Russia. I still find it interesting that Russia made some very threatening moves towards Turkey (a NATO member) during the 1992 Armenia-Azerbaijan War, and the Felgengauer article is interesting, if it indeed mirrors the policy of the General Staff.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Internally, Russian generals have become more and more politicized, playing to the various factions who want to see Russian arms rebound to their former reputation (however ill earned). Based upon their endorsement of Putin in his election as well as in his continuing campaigns in Chechnya, Russian citizens want a return to its perceived power and are tired of scandalous stories of the decline of its military and of breakaway nations upsetting Russian security. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another interesting tidbit (if it's true) that I had not known earlier: while only the Russian president can legally order a nuclear attack, the Russian nuclear command and control is decentralized enough to allow the General Staff, the Defense Minister, the head of the Chekov strategic command center, and other major command facilities to order a nuclear attack. The arrangement was, of course, constructed during the Soviet years, when a coup or disobediant commander was unheard of. At that time, the Soviets were most concerned about redundancy. In fact, there are three Russian nuclear "footballs." And, according to General Geliy Viktorovich Batenin, former commander of an SS-18 ICBM division, stated in a 1991 interview that "military personnel can, technically, launch missiles from their facilities," and that the authority to launch or initiate nuclear weapons extends "down to the level of the General Officer on Duty in charge of the Central Command Post of the Armed Forces," who can, "activate one of the operational plans, by which all operations, both human and machine, would proceed aaccording to a set schedule. The operational plan is put into operation: and that's it. Everything would proceed automatically."

Other sources say that even the crews of missile launchers have the capability of firing their weapons. According to the book, a former submarine commander said his "most important job was making sure no one launched the missiles without authorization."

Yikes.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Monkeybutt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Keeping them in port makes then next to useless as a defense, however. Given Russia's deteriorating early warning systems, it would be possible to take out the port cities before the subs could be manned and the missiles fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed,but what I remember from the article I read(forgot which magazine),they have no choice.Only 1 or 2 boomers are out at sea at any time.

www.strategypage.com usually has news on the stategic nuclear weapons.

-Monkeybutt

------------------

The Combat Mission Scenario Dump! http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/3805/Cm.html

[Blue Macs]

what i want to know is that if some of the star wars radar relay stations are going to be based in england, then do we get the protection aswell.

[Monkeybutt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what i want to know is that if some of the star wars radar relay stations are going to be based in england, then do we get the protection aswell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is supposdedly the plan by the Pentagon.

-Monkeybutt

------------------

The Combat Mission Scenario Dump! http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/3805/Cm.html

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what i want to know is that if some of the star wars radar relay stations are going to be based in england, then do we get the protection aswell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had assumed that all NATO countries would get protection.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Disaster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Macs:

what i want to know is that if some of the star wars radar relay stations are going to be based in england, then do we get the protection aswell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, while not discussing the credibility of the Star Wars program, this does bring up interesting questions based upon the U.S.' relationship with its allies. As you know, since the end of the Cold War, Europe has become ascendant and more eager to practise independence from the NATO / U.S. fold. At the same time, the U.S. wants to cut back on its overseas forces (as was evident during the negotiations leading up to the intervention in Kossovo). Economically, there have been quite a few disputes and of course great competition between the EU and America.

The card the U.S. has always held over Europe has been its military support during the Cold War. Since tensions between the west and Russia have eased (relative to the height of the Cold War), everyone has sought to rationalize their defense spending and this has meant a reduction in U.S. military spending overseas. This means that the U.S. doesn't have the same clout it has held in previous years. But if Russia continues to rattle its sabre, Europe has two choices if it wants to meet the Russian threat with a 'credible' defense, use the American system or head up its own defenses. What would be a most interesting outcome would be if Europe went ahead and began spending money on its own research. It certainly has the industrial and aerospace base to at least begin looking at the problem. If they make that choice, that would be a clear signal that Europe is ready to go it alone in other defense matters.

Once again, not speaking to the actual feasibility of any of these systems. Even if the U.S. successfully develops an ABM defense, Europe's would have to be much better if they expect to defend against close neighbours.

[This message has been edited by Disaster (edited 07-24-2000).]

[Guest Mirage2k]

That would be interesting. Of course, NATO as an alliance seems to lack purpose at the moment, as the chances that Russia will try to invade western Europe are basically nil. And neither France nor Germany seem particularly enthusiastic about any American military undertaking.

But at least the Brits will stick by us...for the moment, anyway.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Zebulon]

What would Russia have to gain from striking the US?

I would suggest that even though they are somewhat still separate from the global marketplace, the huge shock of the US (and probably Canadian) economies cascading around the globe would leave them far worse off than they are now.

In addition, I believe the loss of North American food production would place the majority of Russia (and most of the world) in a state of starvation.

Not to mention the poisoning of the environment will likely affect other food production centers and fisheries.

Not to mention the majority (if not entirety) of the world would likely have a great hatred of Russia for such an act.

Not to mention the retaliatory response from the US, Britain, and France (and others?).

If you believe that Russia conquering the nations of the Middle East and Europe would make up for all this, think of the hard time Russia had with the Chechin (sp?) wars. Wouldn't you think countries like Iran, Turkey, and Germany would be able to put up even greater resistance?

I am no political scientist or military strategist, but I'd say the guy is a quack.

[Buzzer]

As a Norwegian I remember the Black Brant XII-rocket in 1995(?). There was a lot of writing about it at the time, and Yeltsin was kind of proud that he had "used" the "Atomic-suitcase" (or what its called), and was proud to show that the Russian missile warning system was working...

The rocket was launched from a scientific site at Andoya in northern Norway, with a large impact area not far from the North Pole. As the different stages of the rocket were used and released it is belived that they might have looked like several intercontinetal missiles approaching the Cola-peninsula. The Russians had been warned about the missile but obviously the warning had not reached all that should know about it...

Personally I dont belive the Russians were close to launching a counter-attack, but mostly wanted to show the world that the Russian Bear was alive .

PS! The people at Andoya-rocket-range made some T-shirts with the text:"We almost started WorldWar3" as rememberance of that day .

[Doug Beman]

Zebulon, the fact that a nuclear war would have worldwide, very negative, repercussions even for the "winner" has always been true. This fact was ignored in all the near-war scares (Cuban Missile, and the others I'm not so familiar with) in favor of rattling sabres and refusing to back down.

The fact that a nuclear war now, just as always, would be a very bad thing for everybody won't, IMHO, matter much in the minds of the people in charge if they feel nuclear war is the way to go.

The fact that (to use your example) the Russian people rely quite heavily on U.S. help won't matter much to the Russian military; the military will always get what it needs if it can.

DjB

[dbaulch]

What you really have to look out for is America`s Arogance on the whole deal. The US is trying to re-word the Treaty signed with Russia and China. At the moment any form of Missile Shield is not permitted. However, the US is trying to get a section added to allow them to create one ( In fact testing is still in a preliminary stage and hasnt been too successful yet ). China and Russia are naturally against the idea and with good reason. An active defense shield would make their technologies obsolete but allow the US to launch a missile strike if they felt the need. On a wider picture, if the US gives this technology to its Allies, i.e. South Korea as has been suggested in the past, the world could once again fall into a massive arms race. Weapons to counteract the shield system, weapons to countact the counterweapons etc...

Why not just get pissed and shout a bit. Works for me after a weeks work!

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What you really have to look out for is America`s Arogance on the whole deal. The US is trying to re-word the Treaty signed with Russia and China. At the moment any form of Missile Shield is not permitted. However, the US is trying to get a section added to allow them to create one ( In fact testing is still in a preliminary stage and hasnt been too successful yet ). China and Russia are naturally against the idea and with good reason. An active defense shield would make their technologies obsolete but allow the US to launch a missile strike if they felt the need. On a wider picture, if the US gives this technology to its Allies, i.e. South Korea as has been suggested in the past, the world could once again fall into a massive arms race. Weapons to counteract the shield system, weapons to countact the counterweapons etc...

Why not just get pissed and shout a bit. Works for me after a weeks work!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the system's only designed to handle a few incoming warheads, and so China and Russia should be safe for the immediate future (even China, with only 20-something missiles can still rain destruction on the U.S., despite the proposed missile shield). Now, if George W. Bush gets elected, then it's a different story.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would Russia have to gain from striking the US?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not so much what would they gain as it is what would they NOT lose? According to the book (which I still haven't decided to wholeheartedly believe, though it is interesting reading), Russia's General Staff, many of whom are throwbacks from the 1980s, above all else fear that, in their weakened condition, outside parties would be tempted to exploit situations on their borders. The fear of Turkish involvement in the 1992 Armenia-Azerbaijan War is a good example. Total Russian forces in the area were 5,000 soldiers and one squadron of MiG-23s (approximately twenty aircraft). On alert, the Turkish 3rd Army comprised 300,000 men. Also on alert, the Turkish 2nd Air Force had about 200 fighters, including 70 F-16s (2nd Air Force comprised about half of Turkey's total air power). That Turkey's modern, NATO-style troops were well-equipped and well-trained, and Russian forces were not, did little to allay Moscow's fears of NATO involvement in Russian affairs. According to the book, Russia barely disguised threats of nuclear war, which Turkey apparently took seriously enough to not intervene in the conflict (though they may also have had pressure from NATO).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In addition, I believe the loss of North American food production would place the majority of Russia (and most of the world) in a state of starvation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russia is already at something close to that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not to mention the retaliatory response from the US, Britain, and France (and others?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a crisis situation, military leaders may feel that they have no alternative. Operation VRYAN (according to the book...again, I don't necessarily believe this), which beginning in May of 1983 searched for signs of an impending surprise nuclear attack by the U.S., was apparently designed to give Russia enough warning to launch a preemptive strike of their own. And that was back before the numbers of RVs on both sides had started to decline, and MAD was virtually certain. Given the right mix of forces, it may be possible to survive (it depends on what you mean by "survive," of course) a nuclear reprisal and "win" the war.

One thing the book points out is that what pro-Western politicians (like Yeltsin) say and what those on the General Staff (people who have direct control of nuclear and conventional forces) feel may be completely different. Also, Yeltsin was indebted to the military for saving him from the October 1993 coup attempt, and may have been forced into making serious concessions on military policy (the official declaration of Russia's "strike first" policy in November of 1993 might be one example) even while he promised cooperation with the West. Putin, who is ex-KGB and much more hawkish than Yeltsin, might be even more willing to go along with the military's point of view.

-Andrew

PS: I hope everyone here doesn't think I'm just touting this book or something. I honestly don't know whether I believe what I read or not, so I'm just left with quoting the Pry's point of view.

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Galland0]

Well,

Personally I don't trust any goverment period. Each one in every country of the world is run by a very few individuals who

can create or avoid war much in the same way we as citizens have good days or bad days at work.

IMHO WWII was the result of unfinished business in WWI. And on and on back, feuds because of fueds, and sadly each war will bring more and more deadly weapons to bear.

Yes I am intriged by history, absolutely love wargames, but I am not one to believe the TV, newspapers, or radio. It is all propaganda.

If my education is correct the U.S. missed opportunities to save lives and money many many times this century,

Didn't the U.S. once use Ho Chi Minh as a guerrilla leader against the Japanese in Southeast Asia. After the war we were so worried about the creation of Nato that we dismissed his appeal to be recognized as a independant nation.(Could of missed Vietnam)

Father was there...

Didn't the U.S. stop backing Chang Kha Shek

and opt to back Mao because Mao was getting better results against the Japanese.(Could of missed Korea)

Grandfather was there...

And the U.S. laughed in the face of Fidel Castro rather than use diplomacy.(Could of missed the Cuban Missle Crisis)

We all were there...

How bout the fact that the U.S. built the very military for Saddam that we had to destroy.(Could of missed Desert Storm)

Brother was there...

The sad part is the majority of U.S. citizens

do not agree with some of these bungled decisions. Or the ones being made now, and it's embarassing to me that a president of my country cannot get a blowjob on the side with out the whole country finding out about it!

National Security?????

Nukes, yeah the great answer to the conventional war solution. The truth about nukes to me IMHO is some knuckel head will launch one day, and the world will lose period. Doesn't matter what systems are developed to stike first, last, or even prevent a strike. What really surprises me is that were still here. 55 years without an exchange THAT really surprises me.

Qoute from my grandfather: "Just remember son

no matter what you do in life, no ones ever gotten out alive..."

[This message has been edited by Galland0 (edited 07-24-2000).]