beckerd@grover.cs.unc.edu (David Becker) (12/09/89)
From: beckerd@grover.cs.unc.edu (David Becker) 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_. >... 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. _Red Storm Rising_ and other Clancy novels make US intelligence a central part of the story. Are the real US intelligence agencies even close to as good as Clancy portrays them? > ... 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, _The Third World War_, by General Sir John Hacket, a retired British general who, if I remeber right, commanded NorthHAG in the 70s. He also wrote _The Third World War: The Untold Story_. These books are a collection of events that happen in WW III if it started in 1985(they were written around 80 and 83 respectively) and included a nuclear exchange where Minsk and a British city, Birmingham?, are nuked. The stories concentrate much more on the hardware and strategies than Clancy, have less characterization and a LOT more TLAs. (Three Letter Acronyms) At points Hacket uses the books as his personal soapbox. He champions weapons systems and complains about NATO unrediness. The Soviets are portrayed as fighting the enemy because the KGB is worse but then again Clancy does that too. The good guys win as Soviet Empires disintegrates from within. Basically just some cold war nostalgia. David Becker beckerd@cs.unc.edu
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (OFV) (12/12/89)
From: Mary Shafer (OFV) <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> David Becker writes (in reference to General Sir John Hacket): >He also wrote _The Third World War: The Untold Story_. These books are >a collection of events that happen in WW III if it started in 1985(they >were written around 80 and 83 respectively) and >included a nuclear exchange where Minsk and a British city, Birmingham?, >are nuked.>The stories concentrate much more on the hardware and >strategies than Clancy, have less characterization and a LOT more TLAs. >(Three Letter Acronyms) >At points Hacket uses the books as his personal soapbox. He champions weapons >systems and complains about NATO unrediness. The Soviets are portrayed >as fighting the enemy because the KGB is worse but then again Clancy >does that too. The good guys win as Soviet Empires disintegrates from >within. For those of us who haven't read the book and were looking forward to it, this is a real downer. Thanks a whole lot. Reviews of non-fiction can be very explicit. Reviews of fiction, particularly if even a grain of suspense exists, should not tell us "how it comes out." If it's absolutely impossible to resist this temptation, perhaps the "spoiler" should be explicitly marked, both in the Subject field and in the text. They handle this very nicely in the groups that regularly discuss fiction. [mod.note: Frankly, I don't feel too bad about this. This isn't a book review group, or rec.arts.startrek. We deal in facts, and I can't see being coy about the ending of a book, fiction or not. But, if you think of it, let's include "Spoiler" early in the text if we disclose something like, oh, that _Red Storm Rising_ ends when the Soviet military overthrows the Politburo. Oh, BTW, SPOILER WARNING. 8-) - Bill ] On a related note, I saw a paperback "Rolling Thunder" at the supermarket yesterday. It had a really spiffy F-4 on the cover and was a Military-Book-of-the-Month Club (I don't remember the club's real name) selection, so of course I bought it. Imagine my surprise when I started reading it and discovered that there are no F-4s anywhere in the damn book. This is a terrible thing to do to an F-4 fan. There doesn't appear to be anything about Rolling Thunder either, but I'm only halfway through and still hoping. Actually, it's a pretty good book and I'm really enjoying it. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
yla@IDA.LiU.SE (Yngve Larsson) (12/14/89)
From: Yngve Larsson <yla@IDA.LiU.SE> In article <12145@cbnews.ATT.COM> beckerd@grover.cs.unc.edu (David Becker) writes: >At points Hacket uses the books as his personal soapbox. He champions weapons >systems and complains about NATO unrediness. The Soviets are portrayed >as fighting the enemy because the KGB is worse but then again Clancy >does that too. The good guys win as Soviet Empires disintegrates from >within. > It's been a long time since I read _TWW_, but I remember being disappointed by the (in my opinion) blatant axe-grinding by Hackwell. Obviously, he feels that NATO is underarmed and unprepared, and this shines through in the book. What disturbed me most is that all NATO assessments and preparations seemed pathetically off-target, but all the Soviet dito were diabolically correct and clever. _Red Army_ by Peters(?) is a much better book, IMHO. To bring this back into the realm of sci.military, I would like to discuss military intelligence. Presumably, the US has a technological advantage in areas such as satellite imaging and communication analysis (such as counting radio messages between higher echolon army units in Ukraina, etc.). BUT, the soviets seems to have an advantage in human-based intelligece, i.e. pure old-fashioned spies. Now and then, one hears about US military personnel, high-ranking british officials or West German politicians (or at least their secretaries) being revealed as Soviet spies. Also, western military secrets has a history of showing up in the Soviet Union rather fast. Seldom, if ever, is there a story about western spies in the USSR. As I see it, this can only have four explanations: 1) Western spies caught in the USSR are not mentioned in the press. 2) There is a fraction of extreme-left individuals doing this out of ideological reasons. 3) The Soviets pay very well. 4) There are no worthwile secrets in the Soviet Union. [mod.note: Might I add: 5) Western spies in the USSR are so good they don't get caught. Not, mind you, that I suggest this is the case, but it *is* within the realm of possibilities. - Bill ] What is the concensus of the net? Yngve Larsson UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla Dept of CIS Internet: yla@ida.liu.se Linkoping University, Sweden Phone: +46-13-281949