Reviews - Red Storm Rising

You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.

185 reviews for:

Red Storm Rising

Tom Clancy

3.89 AVERAGE

leberwesley's review against another edition

4.5

tense medium-paced

Plot or Character Driven: Plot

Strong character development: Complicated

Loveable characters: Yes

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: Complicated

gtaney's review against another edition

4.0

adventurous fast-paced

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: N/A

Loveable characters: N/A

Diverse cast of characters: No

Flaws of characters a main focus: No

Look, I'm a sucker for military and geopolitical thrillers, and this is Clancy at his best. The book is set outside the Ryan universe (thankfully) and imagines a conflict between NATO and the USSR. It's fast, relies on a decent level of military analysis, and understands strategy.

Content Warnings

pdmarquart's review against another edition

2.0

I don’t think I enjoy military details enough to enjoy a Tom Clancy novel. I appreciate the three paragraphs describing a torpedo, but it just drags on and on.

andrew_hart's review against another edition

5.0

"U.S.S. Navy Nerd Firing for Effect"

I enjoy Tom Clancy and this book is for those who are into the hypothetical and are full fledge Navy/Air Force nerds. Still enjoyed it but at times the fanboy really comes out and it's just too much. Still well performed and an easy enough book to follow with some really thrilling moments.

grumpyscamp's review against another edition

5.0

Back in the late 80's I used to play the computer game by Sid Meier's Microprose based on this book. We had a kid in class who claimed he had read it. Well, I doubt that he really had, but he was considered chad for it anyway and I was hugely jealous. Now, almost 40 years later, I've read it myself and it was at least as amazing as the computer game!

elliottzink's review against another edition

1.0

I have several problems regarding the overall strategic situation of this book. First, I think it's incredibly naive of Clancy to suppose WWIII would be fought purely with conventional means and not involve the use of either chemical or nuclear weapons. NATO would have enough reason to utilize tactical nuclear weapons especially in the event of a Soviet breakthrough which does actually occur, or if the United States were impeded in reinforcing Europe (which also occurs). Logically if the Soviets had taken Iceland, this would also mean that Soviet strategic aircraft could now more easily strike targets in the United States and Canada (why Clancy does not show even conventional bombing against the mainland United States is odd considering it could be done by the Soviets on Iceland), I cannot imagine American commanders in such a situation not hitting Iceland to deny this airfield to the Soviets. Meanwhile the Warsaw Pact would have needed a quick breakthrough with their strategic situation. Chemical weapons would be their best option in such a situation and their early rejection does not make sense from a tactical standpoint. The Soviets are interested in Middle Eastern oil, not pacifying or decontaminating Western Europe, there should be no real issue here. But, Clancy wants to take the easy way out. America has to win, and has to do so in a way that: A. justifies the then four decade long arms race and mantra of mutually assured destruction. B. creates a side of heroes (America) and villains (Communists). C. assuage widespread fear that modern war cannot be controlled and would invariably lead to nuclear apocalypse.
My second big complaint is why should the Soviets risk destruction of the Middle Eastern oilfields by invading them any way? A better solution would be to help negotiate a ceasefire between Iran and Iraq during their then ongoing war and as the host nation extend offers then. This would leave the U.S. in a bad position diplomatically and economically plus it would have the added benefit of not destroying the Soviet Army.
Finally, the way Clancy has Greece and Japan drop out is equally dubious. It seemed more a cop out than logical development.

jdarnold's review against another edition

4.0

So I originally read Red Storm Rising when it first come out in paperback in 1988 and carrying around that big beast of a book (725 pages!) so I could read it whenever I could find the time. Not sure what spurred me on to try it again (not usually a big fan of rereading books - with a Want To Read list over 1200 books at this point!) but I was interested to see what it would be like 30(!) plus years later, this time in a much more portable ebook format.

And you know what - it really held up! It took a bit more to get into but by the middle of the book I was once again riveted and couldn't wait to get back to it. It has its limitations to be sure - it is purely a military book, with lots of male battlefield heroes (although there are a couple interesting female ones). And of course the technology and weaponry would be certainly wildly out of date.

But the story, despite its constant flashing around to various fronts (mostly air and sea, strangely enough, with a couple interesting land battles described), held together pretty well and there were lots of interesting vignettes. So this is one reread that really held up and if you are at all a "military novel" kind of person, I highly recommend this book, even after all these years.