Tom Clancy's "The Bear and the Dragon"

Stephen King's earlier works were really fantastic. I liked IT, but I did not get very far in it. (I had to return it to the library!) I also read 'Who Goes There', which was a short story that became the bassis of the 1982 movie The Thing. The only other military-ish novel was a book by Robert Ludlum, the guy who made The Bourne series. I think it was called "The Prometheus Factor" or something to that effect. It was very confusing, and this sense of confusion is even sort of parodied when the main charicter towards the end of book falls to his knees and grips his head from it all.

Soviets had the one of the most magnificent scifi literature...Ever heard of Argadi and Boris Stugarski?? not to mention, all the 'real' russian and soviet literature...

I advice you all the reading of The Third World War. August 1985 edited by Sir John Hacket (he commanded airborne units during WW2 including a brigade at Arnhem and became after the war, among other commands, CinC of the British Army of the Rhine).

The book has been written in 1978 and is about a real war fought all over the world in 1985. It is not written as a novel but as a book written in 1986 trying to explain why NATO and Britain won the war.

What is really fascinating is the description of the causes and aftermath of the conflict. It is not Red Storm Rising or The Bear and the Dragoon! Fascinating too is to see what the authors had right or wrong. For instance, Iran plays a important role against USSR. But after the Islamic Revolution...

I only see two major bad points. First, the account of naval war is not up to what it should. Then, the authors imagine that a socialist President in France is elected in 1981 with a Radical/Socialist/Communist coalition. That's what happened. The Soviets then thought it was possible to wage war on NATO without a french reaction. That's stupid. Nobody but ignorant and french conservatives could have done such a mistake (I met quite a lot of russian diplomats and politicians. They really knew and know what the West is about).

Anyway, a great book still smelling a world that is no more.

Tom Clancy's best work dates back to Hunt for the Red October. The latter books slowly degraded. Of all the authors who dabble in modern-day politics in their fictions, I like Jerry Pournelle the best.

For alternate history, my favorite author is S.M. Stirling's Domination of Draka series. I'm a big fan of genetic science.

For sci-fi, my favorite author is Robert Asprin's earlier (pre-Peter J. Heck) Phule's Company series, in addition to Tambu and The Bug Wars. Though technically, they aren't hardcore sci-fi, and are more human/alien relations. For hardcore sci-fi, there's always William Gibson's Sprawl Trilogy.

Well, since the forum is moving toward other books...

Have any of you heard of the Dragon's Fury series? Allegedly, it was written by Jeff Head (if there is no relation between the author and the Forum member, my apologies). It has a tad bit of a conservative/one sided bent against Chinese, at least, from the excerpts I have read. Of course, if any of you have any opinions against this, feel free to respond.

Allegedly, it was written by Jeff Head (if there is no relation between the author and the Forum member, my apologies).

Click to expand...

...Jeffy is gonna eat you alive

oooo, you are so screwed now.. jk.. it is written by our very own Jeff Head. so if you want to discuss the book, just pm him, and BUY a copy. i'm sure he'll appreciated it.

Now that I've got all your attention...:rofl:

Well, I've always been a fan of technothrillers. I should read this one out...

PS: No offence meant...

I think Jeff still has his book avail via free download (.pdf) from his web site (jeffhead.com?), but I'm sure he'd be happy if ya'll went and bought a copy off amazon.com.

IMO Dragon's Fury is far better than Bear and the Dragon. In Bear and the Dragon the Chinese had no contingency plan whatsoever for foreign involvement, which is completely unrealistic. In Dragon's Fury at least Jeff explore the possibility of terriorism as a tool to damage US economic and industrial capability.

Personally I think western authors tend to write Chinese expansionism based on their own "western" perception of expansionist powers, specifically a megalomanic drive to crush and conquer as much as possible -- Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, various Roman emperors, etc. You could also say that the Japanese in WW2 was influenced by this type of western thought.

However I think very few of them explore the possibility that Eastern (and sone western) conquerers are content with grabbing what they want, then build a wall and sit on it instead of going further, after a "cost-benefit" analysis. Examples include Hadrian's Wall, and even the Soviet Union. Had the Soviets been hell-bent on miltiary conquest of the world, they wouldn't have lasted 70 years. Imagine if Hitler had been content with his earlier conquest and not declared war on US or Russia.

This is one reason why I like SM Stirling's Draka-series. Instead of the typical foam-at-the-mount, drug-crazed and wild-eyed villian hellbent on global conquest in 3 years, the Domination of the Draka is far more intelligent and willing to sit and consoldiate their conquest, then slowly creep forward to grab more territory. From the time when th Draka developed their world domination ideology, to the time of total global conquest, roughly took a century to complete.

I have yet to see fictions where the PRC becomes economically and politically powerful in the 21st century, extend its influence over Asia, then engage in a cold-war style power struggle vs. the US over a span of 50-100 years, or even a 3-way power struggle in 2100 between Chinese & Indian dominated Asia, vs. Muslinm-dominated Middle East-Europe-Africa, vs. the American Empire. Typical American fiction leans toward crazed oriental vs. white american male savior of the world with very short timelines, which is getting really old.

adeptitus said:

However I think very few of them explore the possibility that Eastern (and sone western) conquerers are content with grabbing what they want, then build a wall and sit on it instead of going further, after a "cost-benefit" analysis. Examples include Hadrian's Wall, and even the Soviet Union. Had the Soviets been hell-bent on miltiary conquest of the world, they wouldn't have lasted 70 years. Imagine if Hitler had been content with his earlier conquest and not declared war on US or Russia.

Click to expand...

A little correction. Hitler didn't declare war on US. US declared war on Germany after some U-boats sunk a few American convoy ships to UK. Hitler didn't declare war on USSR either; he just directly started attacking Russia. IMHO even if he didn't invade USSR, Stalin would've probably opened war with Germany eventually. The secret treaty between Germany and USSR were only temporary, and they both knew it.