Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by elliottzink
Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy
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.
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.