willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) (12/08/89)
From: willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Fans of Tom Clancy should read the article by Scott Shuger in the November issue of the _Washington Monthly_. Mr. Shuger's main point is that Clancy writes about how weapons are _supposed_ to work and how they are _intended_ to be used, but that these bear very little relation to the reality of actual combat. Mr. Shuger makes another assertion that is frightening indeed, if true. He says that high government officials make policy on the basis of Clancy's novels. While I am skeptical on this point, I have to admit that the article makes a good case for it. Having just finished _Red Storm Rising_ (1986), I'll append a capsule review. The novel's strength is the number of interesting and surprising strategems it contains, but I considered the plot badly flawed by a major hole. There were other, minor errors in the plot logic and in the technology of infrared imaging, though as far as I could tell most of the other technology was accurate. (But infrared imaging is something I get paid to do; my knowledge of the other technologies is limited.) The characters were stereotypical. And Mr. Shuger's criticism is valid; weapons - especially US weapons - almost always work as intended, and intelligence (on the US side, anyway) is far too accurate to be convincing. I guess what I'm saying is that I had a lot of trouble "suspending my disbelief." If you want to see this sort of thing done right, read _The Third World War_; it's by a retired general and is much more convincing. (My copy has somehow disappeared, so I can't give author's name or publisher, and there is some chance the title is slightly wrong. It was published in the early 1980's, I think.)
rabbit@uunet.UU.NET (Warren J. Madden) (12/09/89)
From: gatech!mit-eddie!eddie.mit.edu!rabbit@uunet.UU.NET (Warren J. Madden) In article <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM> willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes: > > >From: willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) > ...[Stuff about Tom Clancy and accuracy deleted] > >If you want to see this sort of thing done right, read _The Third World >War_; it's by a retired general and is much more convincing. (My copy >has somehow disappeared, so I can't give author's name or publisher, >and there is some chance the title is slightly wrong. It was published >in the early 1980's, I think.) The title was indeed "The Third World War" and it was by General Sir John Hackett, a high level British NATO type. It described a hypothetical war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact occurring in August of 1985, and was written from the perspective of historians looking back on the war shortly after it had concluded. It was written in the very early 80's to try to point out what he saw as NATO's shortcomings. Hackett frequently says things like, "... as a result of the improvements instituted between 1980 and 1985, disaster was averted." Not as good a story as Red Storm Rising, but interesting reading nonetheless. A few years later Hackett put out a second book, entitled "The Third World War Revisited," in which he expanded upon the original and revised the scenario to take into account events that happened between the two books, such as the downfall of the Shah of Iran. This hypothetical war again pops up in Harold Coyle's book "Team Yankee." Coyle apparently got Hackett's permission to use the scenario in TTWW as the framework around which the story in TY revolves. IMHO, Team Yankee is an excellent book and well worth reading, especially if you enjoyed Red Storm Rising. Warren J. Madden rabbit@eddie.mit.edu ...!eddie!rabbit [mod.note: Urgh. I read _Team Yankee_ myself, and was decidedly underwhelmed. To give Coyle credit, I think he did an excellent job of portraying the fog of war and included many credible, if decisive mistakes; the stuff of which battles are made. But overall, I found the book disappointing. IMHO - Bill ]
illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) (12/09/89)
From: illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) In article <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM> willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes: >From: willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >Fans of Tom Clancy should read the article by Scott Shuger in the >November issue of the _Washington Monthly_. Mr. Shuger's main point is >that Clancy writes about how weapons are _supposed_ to work and how >they are _intended_ to be used, but that these bear very little >relation to the reality of actual combat. I have to agree with Mr. Shuger wholeheartedly. Mr. Clancy has a great capacity for absorbing information and presenting it very well on paper for our entertainment but if there is one area where his lack of any true military experience shows it is in his presentation of how weapons are utilized (not physically used) in combat. I felt his first couple of times at bat he gave us just enough to make it (the book) more interesting but in his last few works there has been too much of a reliance in weapons to simply resolve crisises in themselves. History proves that this is rarely the case (although they do make a helluva good starting point). >Mr. Shuger makes another assertion that is frightening indeed, if >true. He says that high government officials make policy on the basis >of Clancy's novels. While I am skeptical on this point, I have to >admit that the article makes a good case for it. I really feel that Mr. Clancy's publisher came up with this. With the exception of his latest he has rarely come up with a point of policy in his books. I'm referring to the development of policy; not the implement- ation. Clancy is very good at describing the implementation process. Even though Ronald Reagan appeared on one of his book jackets as an avid reader I can't imagine his (or the present) administration referencing a Clancy novel to determine policy. >If you want to see this sort of thing done right, read _The Third World >War_; it's by a retired general and is much more convincing. (My copy >has somehow disappeared, so I can't give author's name or publisher, >and there is some chance the title is slightly wrong. It was published >in the early 1980's, I think.) That was General Sir John Hackett (apoligies on the spelling maybe). By far the best and most realistic apprasial of combat readiness and order of battle in this decade. I thought he sorta fell flat with the ending but how can one man pick a favorite nuke target. That's an ending that any one would have a problem writing. After reading that book it finally sunk into my head why exactly I was spending all those years in Europe.
sysmgr@dover.eng.umd.edu (System Manager) (12/09/89)
From: sysmgr@dover.eng.umd.edu (System Manager)
In article <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM>, willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes...
:
:
:
:Having just finished _Red Storm Rising_ (1986), I'll append a capsule
:review. The novel's strength is the number of interesting and
:surprising strategems it contains, but I considered the plot badly
:flawed by a major hole. There were other, minor errors in the plot
:logic and in the technology of infrared imaging, though as far as I
:could tell most of the other technology was accurate. (But infrared
:imaging is something I get paid to do; my knowledge of the other
:technologies is limited.) The characters were stereotypical. And Mr.
:Shuger's criticism is valid; weapons - especially US weapons - almost
:always work as intended, and intelligence (on the US side, anyway) is
:far too accurate to be convincing. I guess what I'm saying is that I
:had a lot of trouble "suspending my disbelief."
:
:If you want to see this sort of thing done right, read _The Third World
:War_; it's by a retired general and is much more convincing. (My copy
:has somehow disappeared, so I can't give author's name or publisher,
:and there is some chance the title is slightly wrong. It was published
:in the early 1980's, I think.)
"The Third World War" Gen. Sir John Hackett, I believe.
Having rapping with Clancy on GEnie and sat in on two Roundtables
on said service with him, I think your summation is pretty correct;
things *do* work too well
in his books (Maybe why the Government likes 'em?) and he tends to be
a little 2-D in his characterizations.
You want good FICTION, try "The Day Before Midnight" by Steven Hunter.
Or is it Steven Maynes? Hum.
Doug
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/11/89)
From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) } From: illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) } In article <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM> willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes: } >From: willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) } >Fans of Tom Clancy should read the article by Scott Shuger in the } >November issue of the _Washington Monthly_. Mr. Shuger's main point is } >that Clancy writes about how weapons are _supposed_ to work and how } >they are _intended_ to be used, but that these bear very little } >relation to the reality of actual combat. Hey, come on it's fiction, it's supposed to be fiction.... } I have to agree with Mr. Shuger wholeheartedly. Mr. Clancy has a great } capacity for absorbing information and presenting it very well on paper for } our entertainment but if there is one area where his lack of any true } military experience shows it is in his presentation of how weapons are } utilized (not physically used) in combat. I felt his first couple of times } at bat he gave us just enough to make it (the book) more interesting but in } his last few works there has been too much of a reliance in weapons to simply } resolve crisises in themselves. History proves that this is rarely the case } (although they do make a helluva good starting point). Yep! It's still fiction... } >Mr. Shuger makes another assertion that is frightening indeed, if } >true. He says that high government officials make policy on the basis } >of Clancy's novels. While I am skeptical on this point, I have to } >admit that the article makes a good case for it. I doubt it. But what I suspect they might do is make a subjective evaluation of the political tone of the Clancy novels, and then make an assumption based on the popularity of the novels. Sorta like making decisions based on political polls. Equally valid, equally invalid. i.e. junk. I hope our government is not making decisions based on fiction. } I really feel that Mr. Clancy's publisher came up with this. With the } exception of his latest he has rarely come up with a point of policy in } his books. I'm referring to the development of policy; not the implement- } ation. Clancy is very good at describing the implementation process. } Even though Ronald Reagan appeared on one of his book jackets as } an avid reader I can't imagine his (or the present) administration } referencing a Clancy novel to determine policy. John Kennedy appeared on a jacket as an avid reader of Matt Helm. As important, non-important, or irrelevant. } >If you want to see this sort of thing done right, read _The Third World } >War_; it's by a retired general and is much more convincing. (My copy } >has somehow disappeared, so I can't give author's name or publisher, } >and there is some chance the title is slightly wrong. It was published } >in the early 1980's, I think.) Which sort of thing? A good story, or a good tactical description of a war. Come on! Clancy is a GOOD *fiction* writer. He has managed to aquire a very good degree of technical *background* for his stories. As a writer he twists that background as he needs it to fit his desired story, not to fit any reality. } That was General Sir John Hackett (apoligies on the spelling maybe). } By far the best and most realistic apprasial of combat readiness and } order of battle in this decade. I thought he sorta fell flat with the ending } but how can one man pick a favorite nuke target. That's an ending that any } one would have a problem writing. After reading that book it finally sunk } into my head why exactly I was spending all those years in Europe. Tom Clancy has created some wonderful stories. If you have enjoyed his *fiction* as I have, great. If you believe the stories real, I have a bridge to sell you. If you believe the fact that high government officials have enjoyed or appreciated the stories means they are real, I have a bridge... Tom Clancy has created a *FICTION*. The fact that it is a political and technologically based fiction portrayed as todays political and technology has no reality. Do you think Tale of Two Cities and How Green was My Valley totally and absolutely accurately described the political and technological conditions at the time? I believe those two stories are very important descriptions of two important historical periods. Technical historians can find similar faults in them to the faults you find in Tom Clancy's works. I don't believe time will place Tom Clancy's works in the same category with those two classics. Maybe I will be wrong. Discussion of the technical errors in Tom Clancy's books may be appropriate for sci.military. Deciding the books are bad because of technical inaccuracy assumes they are not fictional. [mod.note: An excellent point, and a good guideline for Clancy's books. We'll talk about the technicalities here, and criticize the style in some other group. Besides, let's face it; we're all just sore that *we* didn't beat Clancy to the punch. 8-) - Bill ] jim -- Jim Budler jim@eda.com ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim compuserve: 72415,1200 applelink: D4619 voice: +1 408 986-9585 fax: +1 408 748-1032
christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) (12/12/89)
From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) > In article <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM>, willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes... > : > :Having just finished _Red Storm Rising_ (1986), I'll append a capsule > :review. The novel's strength is the number of interesting and > :surprising strategems it contains, but I considered the plot badly > :flawed by a major hole. There were other, minor errors in the plot > :logic and in the technology of infrared imaging, though as far as I > :could tell most of the other technology was accurate. (But infrared > :imaging is something I get paid to do; my knowledge of the other > :technologies is limited.) The characters were stereotypical. And Mr. > :Shuger's criticism is valid; weapons - especially US weapons - almost > :always work as intended, and intelligence (on the US side, anyway) is > :far too accurate to be convincing. I guess what I'm saying is that I > :had a lot of trouble "suspending my disbelief." > I've read _RSR_ a couple of times, and I also found a couple of minor mistakes...I'm a little confused about the IR, though. The main area where IR comes into play are the tank-battle sequences. Clancy (correctly, I thought) refers to the M1's sights as thermal imaging, not IR. Now I know that there is a large IR signature associated with heat, but I think you can have thermal imaging which is not dependant on IR. I've only worked with available light image-intensifiers, so I'm not positive about this, but surely it is related to the same technology which measures body temperatures? I'm referring to the medical uses, which scan for cancers by locating patches of high-temperature cells. My main beef with _RSR_ had to do with the land-combat sequences in general. Clancy is obviously at least conversant with Navy strategy and technology, but it is obvious that he didn't do nearly as much research on the land end of things (probably because HE wasn't as interested in it-no problem there, it's his choice). An example, though: in the entire book, Apache attack helicopters are mentioned only ONCE. I just have a hard time believing that the Apache wouldn't play more of a role in any conflict (wishful thinking? they're SO expensive! :) ) [mod.note: One thing I did like was the Soviet troops nicknaming the A-10 "The Devil's Cross." That has a good Russian feel to it, they're quite attached to invoking the Devil for such things. To quote von Mellenthin (_Panzer Battles_), "Whenever the Devil and his near relations are mentioned in Russian signals one can assume that a crack-up is at hand." - Bill ] In the same vein, I just finished _Red Phoenix_, by Larry Bond, co-author of _Hunt for Red October_ and creator of the game _Harpoon_. I enjoyed it. His grasp of land warfare does seem better than Clancy's, but then a Korean conflict wouldn't depend as much on Naval affairs as a European war. Any thoughts on this? Chris Thompson --
emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) (12/12/89)
From: emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) Of the genre (WW-III stories), I think my favorite is Coyle's _Swordpoint_, which is now available in paperback. The scenario is U.S. vs U.S.S.R. in Iran (and invites very favorable comparison with Clancy's _Cardinal_of_the_Kremlin_). Incidentally, for those of you who have read _Swordpoint_, I knew a female M.I. Captain who was very similar to the M.I. Captain in the story. She wasn't as pretty and she was happily married with 2 kids, but she the best M.I. officer I knew during 4 years on active duty (with the 101 Abn Div (AAslt). dave emery emery@aries.mitre.org p.s. I've recently seen the "Marine version" of _Team_Yankee_. It's a $11.00 comic book...
marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall) (12/12/89)
From: marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall) In article <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM> willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes: > > >From: willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >Fans of Tom Clancy should read the article by Scott Shuger in the >November issue of the _Washington Monthly_. Mr. Shuger's main point is >that Clancy writes about how weapons are _supposed_ to work and how >they are _intended_ to be used, but that these bear very little >relation to the reality of actual combat. [stuff deleted] >The characters were stereotypical. And Mr. >Shuger's criticism is valid; weapons - especially US weapons - almost >always work as intended, and intelligence (on the US side, anyway) is >far too accurate to be convincing. I guess what I'm saying is that I >had a lot of trouble "suspending my disbelief." Tom Clancy is a pretty blatant "Go U.S." writer, to the point that I'm not going to rush out to get whatever his next novel turns out to be. In "A clear and present danger" he condones a number of unethical actions on the ground that the means justifies the ends, and besides, these people are only Third World target practice anyway. > >If you want to see this sort of thing done right, read _The Third World >War_; it's by a retired general and is much more convincing. (My copy >has somehow disappeared, so I can't give author's name or publisher, >and there is some chance the title is slightly wrong. It was published >in the early 1980's, I think.) However, I can't agree with this either. I read the book (and also forgot the author), and found the whole thing highly improbable. The plot was a bit simplistic, and the ending was a bit "low impact." While I don't want to get into the political realm here, I found "Red Storm Rising" to be a much better _motivated_ World War III novel because it explained the desperation on the Soviet side. I'm in the process of reading "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman. Around August 20th, 1914, the German general staff was telling the generals in the Ardennes that the British Expeditionary Force wasn't going to arrive in France for several more weeks while simultaneously telling the generals near Brussels that the BEF was probably landing near Dunkirk that very day. This sort of screw-up is independent of technology and era. I don't think that Tom captures this sort of problem very accurately. Ralph Marshall marsh@linus.mitre.org
mec@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (michael.e.connick) (12/13/89)
From: mec@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (michael.e.connick) [spoiler warning] In article <12211@cbnews.ATT.COM> marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall) writes: > > Tom Clancy is a pretty blatant "Go U.S." writer, to the point that I'm > not going to rush out to get whatever his next novel turns out to be. > In "A clear and present danger" he condones a number of unethical > actions on the ground that the means justifies the ends, and besides, > these people are only Third World target practice anyway. Have you read this book? All the way through? "Our hero", Jack Ryan, takes a completely different view of the goings on in Columbia and blows the whistle on the whole operation. I can only assume we're supposed to agree with the book's hero and not the nefarious National Security Advisor. BTW, as it happens my brother-in-law is a friend and neighbor of Mr. Clancy. Tom Clancy even used to be his insurance agent. My brother-in-law served in the Navy on a "boomer" and was used as an informal technical consultant for the "Hunt for Red October". He has a bunch of autographed copies on Clancy's books, including a copy of the "Hunt for Red October" in which Clancy thanks him in writing for giving him the idea for the "Crazy Ivan" manuever. According to said brother-in-law, Mr. Clancy started off with virtually no knowledge of weapons systems, but gathered information from books, journals, and very persistant questioning of every former or current military officer he could find. Since he lives alot closer to Annapolis than West Point, I think that's the cause of his more detailed knowledge of Navy tactics and strategies than those of the Army. He also lives close by to Patuxent Naval Air Station, giving him more of a naval aviation viewpoint than an Air Force one. I was working at the Naval Surface Warfare Center when "The Hunt for Red October" was released. It caused a real sensation at the center in just how accurate it was in portraying many of the capabilities of US subs. There was endless discussion about "who this Clancy guy really is" and how he got hold of the information. I find it quite humorous that he got it all just by reading and asking questions! At this point, he's rather a "darling" of the military and has fairly good access to any reasonable information he wants! ----------------------------------------------------- Michael Connick mec@mtfmi.ATT.COM 201-957-3057 AT&T Bell Labs MT 3F-113 (Dept. 79153)
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (12/13/89)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12166@cbnews.ATT.COM> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: > > >} In article <12095@cbnews.ATT.COM> willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes: > >} >From: willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >} >Fans of Tom Clancy should read the article by Scott Shuger in the >} >November issue of the _Washington Monthly_. Mr. Shuger's main point is >} >that Clancy writes about how weapons are _supposed_ to work and how >} >they are _intended_ to be used, but that these bear very little >} >relation to the reality of actual combat. > >Hey, come on it's fiction, it's supposed to be fiction.... > <stuff deleted> >Come on! Clancy is a GOOD *fiction* writer. He has managed to aquire a >very good degree of technical *background* for his stories. As a >writer he twists that background as he needs it to fit his desired >story, not to fit any reality. > I won't discuss the issue of whether he is a good writer. The comments about the technical validity of the Clancy novels are important. I don't know which people believe it but I have seen Clancy paraded out as a military expert. This is somewhat disturbing because early on Clancy admited knowing next to nothing about modern warfare. I doubt he has learned that much in the few years since HRO. Does he believe what other's are saying about his books? I have never heard of any validation of the material in his books. I was told by an intel officer friend that his book had been submitted for review. The Navy told him they would have to either approve or disapprove the entire book. After all telling him which parts to remove would tell him what parts were *true* and which parts were speculation not near the mark. The impression I got was that there were some sensitive details contained in the book, but most of it bordered on the speculative side. Clancy (and probably his publisher) is to be commended for creating the attitude that he is very knowledgeable on the subject of his books. He garnered enough information from social contacts to lend creditability to his first books, and they were well received. Since at least *some* people consider him an expert, and use his books as references, it is valid to discuss the technical validity of those books. He can't have it both ways; use the books as a claim to some expertise, and then hide behind the claim of FICTION to discount any technical errors. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
cjl@uncecs.edu (Charles J. Lord) (12/13/89)
From: Charles J. Lord <cjl@uncecs.edu> In article <12144@cbnews.ATT.COM>, illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) writes: > Even though Ronald Reagan appeared on one of his book jackets as > an avid reader I can't imagine his (or the present) administration > referencing a Clancy novel to determine policy. Well, when he was still a Senator, Dan Quayle held up a copy of _Cardinal.._ while addressing the Senate regarding the evils of SDI cuts and said something to the effect of "Gentlemen, *this* is what it's all about!" Critics never seemed to jump up and point out that the book was fiction therefore SDI must be fiction... but that was when no one suspected DQ would become VP and thus never took him seriously ;-) -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include <std.disclamers> cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include <cutsey.quote> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (12/14/89)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12255@cbnews.ATT.COM> mec@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (michael.e.connick) writes: > > >From: mec@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (michael.e.connick) > >is" and how he got hold of the information. I find it quite humorous >that he got it all just by reading and asking questions! > It's not humorous, it's scary. There is an urban legend in the Navy about an operation in the SOCAL (Southern California) OPAREA. One officer was tasked with finding out all he could about an upcoming operation, without accessing classified documents or breaking any laws. At the final pre-op briefing that officer was able to outline the entire operation. As the story goes the admiral in charge ordered the doors closed until the source was revealed, and presumably hung :-) The officer explained that everything was found out legally and no one involved intentionally revealed any information. How did he find out? Basically he was simply nosy. A ship preparing for an operation will have increased supply activity among other things. By simply watching which ships are storing supplies, and especially ammo, you can get an idea which hsips are involved. Such exercises are also tied to deployment schedules so that provides information. The officer involved was experienced with the SOCAL OPAREA so he could infer other information based upon their requrements. He had an advantage since it was a peacetime exercise; Notice to Mariners would be required giving some navigation information. Once you have the ships it is easy to find the length of the underway period. Sit around the O club and listen to people complain about another separation. Call the ship or even wives, and try to schedule some service. When you are told that so and so won't be available until after XXXXXX, then you have the length of the exercise. You get the idea. But this was an exercise, Clancy got real world actual classified information. That's different. Right? The Navy was recommissioning an old enging repair ship. It was base on a WWII LST hull to repair boat engines. That Navy doesn't need anything that old and slow, and there aren't that many boat engines. So why recommision it? There was a rumor that certain intelligence communities were interested in its shallow draft to operate close ashore for electronic monitoring. I called someone at the naval branch of NSA and asked him about the ship. He said he could only read from a press release on his desk that really said nothing. The mere fact that he had an agency press release was significant. He apologized for not telling me more. I told him he had said everything I needed to know, and he said he was aware of it. Considering the social circuits Clancy had available, it's not surprising at all that he got such information. Remember that only those *in the know* which parts are accurate and which are garbage. Remember that he didn't have military training so the doctrine presented is his best guess, and may be wide of the mark. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (12/14/89)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) In article <12210@cbnews.ATT.COM> emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) writes: > >similar to the M.I. Captain in the story. She wasn't as pretty ^^^ hate to get into inter-service rivalries but it would take the army to dedicate an entire branch to an oxymoron... :-) >I knew during 4 years on active duty (with the 101 Abn Div (AAslt). does air-assault mean you couldn't figure out how to fall out of them until they were closer to the ground? >p.s. I've recently seen the "Marine version" of _Team_Yankee_. It's >a $11.00 comic book... yeah, and the army version comes with a reader because they can't understand captions... /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
patterso@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) (12/15/89)
From: patterso@ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) stuff deleted >>} >From: willner@cfa203.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >>} >Fans of Tom Clancy should read the article by Scott Shuger in the >>} >November issue of the _Washington Monthly_. Mr. Shuger's main point is >>} >that Clancy writes about how weapons are _supposed_ to work and how >>} >they are _intended_ to be used, but that these bear very little >>} >relation to the reality of actual combat. >> >>Hey, come on it's fiction, it's supposed to be fiction.... >> ><stuff deleted> > I have enjoyed reading Clancy's books as fiction. I detected repeated technical errors but I was just reading for the fun of it and didn't let it bother me. The only time I was bother was in a meeting for work when an officer quoted doctrine and cited Hunt for Red October as the source. As a side light, in Clear and Present danger, Clancy makes an attempt to answer the critism of his machines always working by taking out the rader on a plane due to lack of mainainance and replacement of a diode. (Not really effective-clearly something he threw in to answer the critics.) Again, it's fiction and doesn't claim to be an authoritative source-so read and enjoy or go to a different type of book. my $0.02 worth Tim
stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) (12/20/89)
From: stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) In article <12211@cbnews.ATT.COM> marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall) writes: >[stuff deleted Re Clancy's book] >In "A clear and present danger" he condones a number of unethical >actions on the ground that the means justifies the ends, and besides, >these people are only Third World target practice anyway. I saw Clancy interviewed on one of the morning talk shows and from what I gathered he wrote "Clear and Present Danger" with the idea in mind that such "unethical" actions will envitably get us into hot water. Point being that he doesn't seem to condone these actions and was using the book as a way of saying so. Steve Wilson