Bear and the Dragon.... 2006

[Fenwick]

I was rereading Tom Clancy's novel and something occured to me... China no longer has the military, or military thinking discribed in the book. Does anyone else agree?

Plus doesn't the whole "new" American weapons during the end seem waaaaay too powerful to defeat the Chinese after the first real battle?

[Lokit]

I really don't like that book. Ameri-wank if you ask me.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Lokit

I really don't like that book. Ameri-wank if you ask me.

Hmmm...

Tom Clancy writing an Ameri-wank book.

Shocking, simply shocking!

[Lokit]

Originally Posted by CalBear

Hmmm...

Tom Clancy writing an Ameri-wank book.

Shocking, simply shocking!

I know, I know.

Red storm was quite good on the other hand. Except for the fact that all americans were saints, while many russians were "evil".

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Lokit

I know, I know.

Red storm was quite good on the other hand. Except for the fact that all americans were saints, while many russians were "evil".

That's because Larry Bond wrote a big chunk of the book, especially the part that was based on Harpoon (which Bond also developed).

[Floid]

Originally Posted by CalBear

That's because Larry Bond wrote a big chunk of the book, especially the part that was based on Harpoon (which Bond also developed).

Ah, Larry Bond. He's supposed to be 'helping' with the upcoming game 'World In Conflict'.

[The Lurker]

Originally Posted by Lokit

I really don't like that book. Ameri-wank if you ask me.

Didn't like it much myself, either. Not exactly sure what all the connotations of 'Ameriwank' are, but the whole President Ryan era shtick with him just strikes me as a guy trying to write out a neocon's bedtime fantasies.

[David bar Elias]

Originally Posted by The Lurker

Didn't like it much myself, either. Not exactly sure what all the connotations of 'Ameriwank' are, but the whole President Ryan era shtick with him just strikes me as a guy trying to write out a neocon's bedtime fantasies.

Yeah....think of Jack Ryan as a far more compassionate, competent, and smart version of GWB.........

[fortyseven]

Ryan says he's pro-life but there shouldn't be one national law on abortion

[xchen08]

Well, that is generally the neocon position, its the evangelicals that want a national ban. About the book, some of it never made any sense to me. First, China would insane to invade Russia and think they won't get nuked considering the difference in strategic deterent between the two. (ie. Russia would lose a few cities, China gets wiped out) Clancy tried to get around this by having both Russia and the U.S. abolish their strategic arsenals, possibly the most ridiculous part of the entire Jack Ryan series. Also Russia joining NATO and magical american weapons that easily destroy all opposition seem impossible. The magical weapons bit is somewhat of a deux ex machina; the war was won much too easily.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by fortyseven

Ryan says he's pro-life but there shouldn't be one national law on abortion

That's probably the best constitutional position. Not to mention a federal attempt to ban abortion outright (not ban a procedure like partial-birth which I don't think used all that often) would be immensely problematic, and possibly unconstitutional (unless make a 14th Amendment case re: right to life).

[Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by David bar Elias

Yeah....think of Jack Ryan as a far more compassionate, competent, and smart version of GWB.........

So, basically, the polar opposite of GW?

[NFR]

Originally Posted by Fenwick

I was rereading Tom Clancy's novel and something occured to me... China no longer has the military, or military thinking discribed in the book. Does anyone else agree?

Plus doesn't the whole "new" American weapons during the end seem waaaaay too powerful to defeat the Chinese after the first real battle?

God, don't bring up that book in my presence. It is a cauldron of racism, stupidity, insultingly stupid portrayal of geopolitical and economic realities, and in general, complete and utter crap of the worse order.

[general_tiu]

You are quite too rough, last poster.

Personally, I didn't like many of the parts of this novel. Especially the political crap. Yet, I did like some of the parts, like China attempting its version of Yakutia .

[NFR]

Originally Posted by general_tiu

You are quite too rough, last poster.

Personally, I didn't like many of the parts of this novel. Especially the political crap. Yet, I did like some of the parts, like China attempting its version of Yakutia .

Why, because it would result in China as a nice shiny pavement in very short order?

And I stand by my statements. It is racist (Re: portrayal of Chinese and to a lesser extent Russians it), stupid (the military problems already pointed out, the little thing about nuclear disarmament), and divorced from reality (if China's economy is in recession (such as we have seen so much evidence of in the last decade), what would happen if you start a war and grab a bunch of gold? Can you say plunge of investment, debt, and inflation like you wouldn't believe? That, and the PLA has not the logistics for the campaign mentioned, and the generally stupid way we reacted to such an invasion).

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Originally Posted by NFR

God, don't bring up that book in my presence. It is a cauldron of racism, stupidity, insultingly stupid portrayal of geopolitical and economic realities, and in general, complete and utter crap of the worse order.

This is pretty much my objection to the Dale Brown oeuvre, though maybe not as harshly worded. I can't understand why in these books countries decide to turn the world order upside down for no reason other than hubris, even if such foolish policies WILL result in national destruction. Admittedly, such scenarios are cool, and they always produce some nice wreckage, but sometimes you have to wonder if every world leader is smoking crack* or something.

I also hate the fact that the Russians rarely win in these stories, especially when they are usually the awesomest bunch of badasses that ever walked the Earth, especially when compared with the American protaganists.

*Well, not Dubya. He gets high on Jesus.

[Johnestauffer]

To have conflict there has to be a bad guy. That usually means that the US or some European power is the 'good' guy.
Granted some of the rationale behind the situations is a little farfetched, but once again you need to create some senario where the good & bad guys are brought into conflict.
I guess I have a flaw - many times I read these books (the first time) for entertainment value and don't focus on all the gotcha's, although based on my past military service I do have a hard time with some combat descriptions.
To me - AH is what could be, not necessarily what is logical. That is what AH is for - to explore the vast range of alternatives that might occur.
I won't get into the political side of this debate. The conservative philosphy tends to dominate, primarily because it seems that the confrontations seem more appropriate when extremes meet.

[marl_d]

besides, when has anything in our history been logical...

[Fenwick]

Yeah its a story and is for entertainment, but come on China loses a war within 24 hours of it begining? I can see Russia getting pushed back at the start, but I was hoping for an actual war. Then the nuclear missles begin flying and....

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Originally Posted by Johnestauffer

To have conflict there has to be a bad guy. That usually means that the US or some European power is the 'good' guy.
Granted some of the rationale behind the situations is a little farfetched, but once again you need to create some senario where the good & bad guys are brought into conflict.
I guess I have a flaw - many times I read these books (the first time) for entertainment value and don't focus on all the gotcha's, although based on my past military service I do have a hard time with some combat descriptions.
To me - AH is what could be, not necessarily what is logical. That is what AH is for - to explore the vast range of alternatives that might occur.
I won't get into the political side of this debate. The conservative philosphy tends to dominate, primarily because it seems that the confrontations seem more appropriate when extremes meet.

Fair enough, fair enough. Heck, I even enjoy some of these stories primarily for entertainment value as well. I'm just the sort of guy who likes his stories with a bit more moral ambiguity, that's all.

EvolvedSaurian, let's not forget the heavily-armed exoskeleton system that be folded up into an easy-to-carry suitcase form (which, given the hydraulic systems it uses, probably violates a few laws of physics) and the, shall we say, boundless enthusiasm every country in Mr. Brown's books has concerning nuclear armaments.