Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising...

The Soviets need oil after one of their major refineries is destroyed. They figure that their economy will grind to a halt unless they cut back on oil or "secure" another source.

The Soviets decide that they must acquire more oil, so they attack NATO. The Soviets plant a bomb in a part of the Kremlin and blame it on the Germans. They lie to get the public's support. National pride is on the rise and is as high as it's ever been, even since the Great Patriotic War. So they invade...

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

[Edited on 27-10-2003 by PolskieWojsko]

Yes.........very familiar. Was Tom Clancy a Prophet, or did he simply have insight and knwoledge within the govornment to know what was really going on?

I love Tom Clancy.

He also foretold airliners being turned into weapons; only in his version it was part of a Japanese war against the States. I�ve often wondered if some terrorist didn�t get their inspiration from that.

I�ve often wondered if some terrorist didn�t get their inspiration from that.

Im sure Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were both avid fans of Tom Clancy too.

I would almost say george Bush, But I distrust that he can read at that level.

Or maybe Tom Clancy got the idea talking to our terrorists in command.....way back when...who knows?

This has to be one of my favourite books of all time, the scenario is great but it wont be reproduced as a frontal assault on europe by the soviets, the russians arent that stupid, nato could wipe the floor with them now.

A great read nonetheless, i recommend it to anyone

Originally posted by Nerdling
This has to be one of my favourite books of all time, the scenario is great but it wont be reproduced as a frontal assault on europe by the soviets, the russians arent that stupid, nato could wipe the floor with them now.

A great read nonetheless, i recommend it to anyone

Are you sure? For all we know they could already have nukes planted in major NATO cities. All done after the collapse or communisum.

Originally posted by Britman

Originally posted by Nerdling
This has to be one of my favourite books of all time, the scenario is great but it wont be reproduced as a frontal assault on europe by the soviets, the russians arent that stupid, nato could wipe the floor with them now.

A great read nonetheless, i recommend it to anyone

Are you sure? For all we know they could already have nukes planted in major NATO cities. All done after the collapse or communisum.

You didnt read the book did you?

No nukes were used due to the fear of a massive NATO response, the soviet ground forces...even the category A are still no match for the combined forces of NATO.

Would be like shooting fish in a barrel when using our air power.

No, Russia does not have the capability of taking on NATO. Unless they used stratiegic nuclear weapons, and even then they would probably be destroyed.

If they really wanted to invade NATO now, they would have to form a union with all of the slavic countries and strengthen their military.

As for the Soviet Union, it's spirit still lives on in the Bush administration... just in different form.

A good companion read is "The Thrid World War" by General Sir John Hackett - although this scenario does actually have a nuclear release over the UK at the closee of the war. Both were pretty much required reads during the late 80s for those studying international politics and strategic studies in Europe - they sure were for me.

They both seem to have been based on a couple of "War Games" theorised during the early 80s - although I think Clancy's model incorporating fundamentalism was probably the closest in some ways to today - although there is no way the former Wasaw Pact Nations would be able to pull this off.

A note here btw - both Red Storm and "TTWW" were based heavily upon the involvement of Wasaw Pact members forces - although Red Storm did predict that these wuld be totally under Soviet - and not Russian control.

Most of those countries no longer exist today - and the definition of "Soviet" vs Russian control is a significant and very misunderstood point. A simple analogy would be to redefine the US - today US forces means the WHOLE of the US - whereas the soviet example is now more akin to North Western Forces controling forces from the South and West- who are independent from Washingtons direct control.

Another book of note - but I cant remember the name of centered upon on tank unit during the incidents of Red Storm Rising.

Tom Clancy is very much admired amongst the Hawk factions - and was even to found on TV on 9/11 - just hours after the events - condeming the rundown of CIA ground forces in the Post Cold war world. Check out also his book on the air war during Gulf 1.

Always admired his earlier books although today hes become more thriller and less techno as an author.

Originally posted by Silk
A good companion read is "The Thrid World War" by General Sir John Hackett

I have that too!!!!

Nerdling - well some of that book is actually based upon "The Psychological Effects of Nuclear War" - sorry my copy is else where or I would let you have the author - if you want to read it and cant find the info let me know - ill dig it out for you and let you have the details. One warning though - it is a psychology book - not anything like John Hacketts book.

Originally posted by Silk
Nerdling - well some of that book is actually based upon "The Psychological Effects of Nuclear War" - sorry my copy is else where or I would let you have the author - if you want to read it and cant find the info let me know - ill dig it out for you and let you have the details. One warning though - it is a psychology book - not anything like John Hacketts book.

I'll think about that one silk, i prefer the actualy military strategies involved rather than the psychology. Totalwar 2006 was also great.

"Most of those countries no longer exist today - and the definition of "Soviet" vs Russian control is a significant and very misunderstood point. A simple analogy would be to redefine the US - today US forces means the WHOLE of the US - whereas the soviet example is now more akin to North Western Forces controling forces from the South and West- who are independent from Washingtons direct control. "

Excellent point, however I believe that if the Soviets could have FULLY integrated their respective Warsaw pact members, they could have succeed in launching a suprise attack on NATO.

As of now however, most of the former Soviet Territories and Warsaw Pact members resent each other with a passion. But wounds do heal and cultural bonds ultimatly win... from what I have read, the majority of the population from Belarus supports a loose Union with Russia(if anyone from Belarus has any comments please u2u me).

Originally posted by PolskieWojsko
The Soviets need oil after one of their major refineries is destroyed. They figure that their economy will grind to a halt unless they cut back on oil or "secure" another source.

The Soviets decide that they must acquire more oil, so they attack NATO. The Soviets plant a bomb in a part of the Kremlin and blame it on the Germans. They lie to get the public's support. National pride is on the rise and is as high as it's ever been, even since the Great Patriotic War. So they invade...

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

[Edited on 27-10-2003 by PolskieWojsko]

i think that someone needs to read the booka again. the invasion of western europe is a decoy manuver so that the soviets can invade the Oil rich Arab lands

"the invasion of western europe[liberation of iraq] is a decoy manuver so that the soviets[americans] can invade[capture] the Oil rich Arab lands"

Ironicly, you helped to prove my point.



[Edited on 28-10-2003 by PolskieWojsko]

Originally posted by PolskieWojsko
"the invasion of western europe[iraq] is a decoy manuver so that the soviets[americans] can invade[capture] the Oil rich Arab lands"

Ironicly, you helped to prove my point.

what was your point again? sorry its been a long day