Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Japan’

Most Americans Don’t Want Freedom… They Want Security

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 8, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Snowden” (2016) — movie review
Today’s review is for the biographical political-tech-thriller “Snowden”, directed by Oliver Stone and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden, the young intelligence contractor whose growing alarm over mass surveillance pushes him toward a life-altering decision;  Shailene Woodley as Lindsay Mills, Snowden’s girlfriend, whose relationship becomes strained as his secrecy deepens;  Melissa Leo as Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker who helps bring Snowden’s story to the world;  Zachary Quinto as Glenn Greenwald, the journalist whose reporting ignites the global debate;  Tom Wilkinson as Ewen MacAskill, the veteran reporter providing balance and caution;  and Rhys Ifans as Corbin O’Brian, the composite mentor figure representing the intelligence establishment’s worldview.  Supporting roles include Nicolas Cage as Hank Forrester, a sidelined intelligence analyst who hints at the system’s long-standing excesses, and Timothy Olyphant as a CIA operative who embodies the “ends justify the means” mentality.  The film follows Snowden’s path from idealistic Army recruit to disillusioned NSA contractor, showing how a series of small realizations accumulate into a moral crisis.
Background:  I first watched this film with my brother pre-COVID.  He was a massive conspiracy theorist and saw the NSA and CIA behind every political occurrence – domestic or international.  This is my third viewing since COVID and second in the last year, but I’ve just never gotten around to reviewing the film.  I first heard about Edward Snowden back in 2013 when the news broke about the NSA’s mass-surveillance programs.  At the time, I didn’t know what to make of him:  whistleblower, traitor, hero, something in between,  and frankly, I still don’t have a neat label.  Released in 2016, “Snowden” did not receive any Academy Award nominations, but it is historically significant because it dramatizes one of the most consequential intelligence leaks in modern history.  The film is based partly on Luke Harding’s book “The Snowden Files” and partly on the real-life documentary “Citizenfour” (which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature).  While the movie takes dramatic liberties, it captures the broad arc of Snowden’s transformation and the global debate his disclosures triggered about privacy, security, and government power.
Plot:  The film moves between two timelines:  Snowden’s interviews with journalists in a Hong Kong hotel room in 2013, and the earlier years that led him there.  We see him join the Army, wash out due to injury, and then enter the CIA as a bright, patriotic computer specialist. Under Corbin O’Brian’s mentorship, Snowden learns the technical and political realities of intelligence work.  As he moves through various assignments (Geneva, Japan, Hawaii) he becomes increasingly disturbed by the scope of surveillance programs that sweep up data from ordinary citizens with little oversight.  His relationship with Lindsay suffers as he becomes more secretive and stressed.  Eventually, Snowden decides he cannot stay silent.  He gathers classified documents, contacts Poitras and Greenwald, and meets them in Hong Kong to reveal what he has taken.  The film ends with the publication of the leaks, Snowden’s flight to Russia, and a brief appearance by the real Edward Snowden discussing the consequences of his choice.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong;  clean and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Snowden” is a steady, accessible political drama that focuses more on the human side of the story than on the technical details.  It doesn’t try to overwhelm the viewer with jargon.  Instead, it shows how a series of small compromises and realizations can push someone toward a drastic decision.  The film is not a thriller in the traditional sense.  It’s more of a character study wrapped in a political argument.  And it works on / within its own terms / framework.
Acting:  Gordon-Levitt gives a controlled, thoughtful performance.  He captures Snowden’s quiet mannerisms and internal conflict without turning him into a caricature.  Woodley brings warmth and frustration to Lindsay, grounding the story in the personal cost of Snowden’s secrecy.  Melissa Leo and Zachary Quinto are convincing as the journalists trying to understand the magnitude of what they’re hearing.  Rhys Ifans is particularly effective as O’Brian — calm, confident, and unsettling in his certainty that surveillance is simply the price of modern life.  Nicolas Cage’s small role adds a touch of melancholy, hinting at how long concerns about overreach have existed inside the system.
Filming / FX:  The filming is clean and straightforward.  Oliver Stone uses a mix of handheld shots, muted colors, and digital overlays to show how surveillance systems operate without turning the movie into a tech demo.  The scenes in the Hong Kong hotel room are tight and tense, relying on close‑ups and quiet conversations.  The visual effects are minimal:  mostly screens, interfaces, and a few stylized sequences showing data flows, and they serve the story rather than distract from it.  The film’s pacing is steady, and the editing keeps the dual timelines clear.
Problems:  A few.  The film simplifies some of the technical and legal issues, which is understandable but occasionally makes the story feel too neat.  Some characters, particularly the intelligence officials, are drawn broadly, leaning toward archetypes rather than fully developed people.  The romance subplot sometimes feels like it’s there to break up the political material rather than deepen it.  And the final cameo by the real Snowden, is interesting, but kind of breaks the fourth wall.  None of these issues spoil the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a thoughtful, steady drama that raises important questions without shouting at the audience.  I appreciated that it focused on Snowden as a person:  his doubts, his health issues, his relationship — rather than turning him into a symbol.  The film doesn’t demand that you agree with Snowden’s choices;  it simply shows how he arrived at them.  It’s not a movie I’d re-watch often, but it held my attention and made me think.
Final Recommendation:  Strong for the film / MUST see for the political threat it establishes for the viewer:  so, strong to must see recommendation.  “Snowden” is a well-acted, accessible political drama that captures the tension and moral weight of one of the most significant intelligence leaks in recent history.  While it didn’t receive Academy Award recognition, its historical significance is clear, and the film provides a solid entry point into the debate over privacy, surveillance, and government power.  If you’re interested in modern politics, civil liberties, or character-driven dramas based on real events, it’s worth watching.  Just remember:  the real story is still unfolding and will get MUCH worse in the next few years as Artificial Intelligence takes over the surveillance. “A word to the wise should suffice…“
.
Click here (8 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Rebalancing Blue Roar

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 11, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Godzilla” (2014) – movie review
Today’s review is for the reboot of the iconic kaiju franchise:  “Godzilla” (2014), starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Ford Brody (a naval bomb disposal expert and reluctant hero), Bryan Cranston as Joe Brody (a conspiracy-minded scientist haunted by personal loss and father of Ford), Juliette Binoche as Sandra Brody (Joe’s wife who dies early in the film), Elizabeth Olsen as Elle Brody (Ford’s wife and a nurse caught in the chaos), Ken Watanabe as Dr. Serizawa (a scientist who understands the deeper mythos of the monsters), and Sally Hawkins as Vivienne Graham (Serizawa’s colleague and fellow researcher).  The film also features David Strathairn as Admiral Stenz, commanding the military response to the unfolding crisis.
Background:  I’ve seen multiple iterations of Godzilla over the years — from the original 1954 Japanese classics to the 1998 “Jurassic Park” take-off / American version (reviewed yesterday).  This 2014 reboot promised a return to lumbering, scale, and thematic weight.  I bought this film for streaming hoping for something more than just CGI destruction.  I wanted to see a “King Kong / Godzilla” universe develop to complement the comic book universes of DC and Marvel.
Plot:  The film opens with a nuclear plant disaster in Japan, witnessed by Joe Brody and his wife Sandra.  Years later, Joe is still obsessed with uncovering the truth behind the incident, believing it wasn’t a natural accident.  His son Ford, now a soldier, is reluctantly pulled into the mystery.  As ancient creatures called MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) awaken and wreak havoc, Godzilla emerges — not as a villain, but as nature’s corrective force to confront the MUTOs.  The climax unfolds in San Francisco, where Godzilla battles the MUTOs in a city-leveling showdown.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  mostly solid;  excellent F/X;  a few;  yes.
Acting:  Bryan Cranston delivers the film’s most dramatic performance — his grief and paranoia feel earned from the opening scenes / wife’s death.  Unfortunately, he’s gone too early in the film.  Aaron Taylor-Johnson is serviceable (at best).  Elizabeth Olsen does what she can (not much) with limited screen time.  Ken Watanabe brings cinematic gravitas, but his dialogue is mostly exposition.  The supporting cast is fine, but the real star is the monster — and the mood.
Filming / FX:  Visually, the film is terrific.  Godzilla is often glimpsed through smoke, debris, or distant camera angles, which builds suspense, tension and eventually awe.  The destruction is cinematic but not gratuitous.  Godzilla’s roar is iconic!  The FX are mostly top-tier, with the MUTOs rendered as (mostly) believable threats. The final battle is satisfying, with Godzilla’s atomic breath used sparingly but effectively.
Problems:  Several.  The pacing is uneven — the early arc is compelling, but the middle drags until the big fight finally starts.  Ford Brody’s character journey feels coincidental / accidental rather than natural.  The film teases Godzilla for a bit too long;  some viewers may find the restraint frustrating.  The MUTOs are interesting but not memorable.  They are flying “bugs”, but there is a lack of any sense of speed in their flight.  They lumber – even in the air.  And, of course, the BIG problem is they (the director and the film) can’t decide how big Godzilla (or the MUTOs) are.  In one scene they (the monsters) are “maybe” 20 stories tall and in the next they look like they are 40-50 stories.  This is a common “problem” across this entire “Kong / Godzilla” universe.  The MUTOs come in two sizes, but all three “monsters” suffer from this size variability issue / problem.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a reboot that respects the legacy of Godzilla while updating the visuals and tone for modern audiences.  It’s not a monster-mash (fight) from start to finish — it’s a slow burn with moments of grandeur.  The final scene, with Godzilla returning to the ocean, felt deserved and oddly noble.  He’s not just a monster — he’s a mythic force.
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation.  “Godzilla”  is a visually ambitious reboot.  It’s not a “great” movie — some characters are underwritten, and the pacing slows in parts — but it delivers on atmosphere, spectacle, and reverence for its source material.  Is this film a “better” version than the 1998 version – no.  Not really.  It’s just different and much closer to the Kaiju version I knew as a child.  I recommend both…
.
Click here (11 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Find An Island, Open A Tomb, Save The World

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 22, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Tomb Raider”  (2018)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the action-adventure reboot:  “Tomb Raider” (2018), starring Alicia Vikander as Lara Croft (hero), Dominic West as Lord Richard Croft (hero’s father), Walton Goggins as Mathias Vogel (bad-guy muscle), Daniel Wu as Lu Ren (hero’s friend / side-kick), and Kristin Scott Thomas as Ana Miller (bad-guy brains).
Background:  Back in the 1990s, “Tomb Raider” was a popular first person, adventure style video game.  Basically, you “pretended” to be an athletic young lady who went on all kinds of adventures.  If I sound a little fuzzy on this, it’s because I’ve actually never played the game.  It was, however, extremely popular and got turned into two movies starring Angelina Jolie.  I know I’ve seen one of the two, but I don’t remember which and I also don’t remember much about the one I did see.  This film is a “pre-icon” Tomb Raider reboot / origin story of the Lara Croft character and the film franchise.  Based loosely on the 2013 game reboot, (I’m sensing a theme) this film is more interested in forging character than flaunting spectacular explosions.  I came into this film expecting some popcorn action, two big pistols and possibly a CGI-heavy trek through ruins and riddles / clues – basically, a young, female action hero on some type of a quest.
Plot:  Lara Croft ekes out a living as a bike courier, while mourning her missing father, who left her years ago on a quest of his own.  When Lara discovers a clue about his last-known location — a mythical tomb on a Japanese island in the Devil’s Sea — she sets off in search of answers.  (HINT:  “How do I find and save Daddy.”)  Captured by Trinity (a secret, world-wide corporate cabal) mercenaries, Lara uncovers the truth behind Queen Himiko’s legend and makes a decisive stand against both supernatural myth and corporate manipulation.  The plot plays out with fairly typical “Indiana Jones” tropes of danger and escape, …wash, repeat…  Blah, blah, blah, she solves the problem and saves the world (and almost saves Daddy).
So, is the movie any good?  Acting?  Filming / FX? Any problems?  And, did I like it?  Short answers:  Yes;  mostly about average for the genre;  good to very good;  there’s almost always problems with this genre, but nothing show stopping;  and, yes, it’s entertaining, but not earthshaking.
Any good:  Yes.  There is nothing original (or particularly believable) about the movie, but it’s shot well and the pacing is smooth, so I never felt like I needed to look at my watch or to see how much time was left in the film.  It is what it is:  an action-entertainment movie.  And, of course, a set-up for a franchise…
Acting:  Alicia Vikander delivers a strong, clean, physical performance as Lara despite the fact she strikes me as a fairly petite actor — and fortunately all of her physical opponents are sized for “some” martial believability.  Plus, she injures a lot of guys, but doesn’t seem to kill very many of them.  This is a film about thinking fast and resourcefulness and not about masculine physical domination in martial combat.  Dominic West carries quest obsession with flickers of paternal warmth.  I’m not a “fan” of West and this role did not move the needle for me.  Walton Goggins offers a competent if generic baddie.  Goggins appears to be type-cast for these roles.  He’s made out to be the weary company man driven by desperation to end his personal “quest” / this assignment and return home to his own family.  But, (IMHO) it’s not believable and the script should have just leaned on the bad-guy persona.  Daniel Wu’s Lu Ren role provides understated humor, support / loyal friendship and he avoids unnecessary romantic involvement.  Kristin Scott Thomas is adequate as the corporate “behind the scene” brains left for sequel bait.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography favors wet grime (jungle) over dry grime (desert).  The jungle sequences are serviceable and FX were not obviously bogus.  The visual tone leans toward realism, though the tomb’s internal architecture is pretty basic when compared to the “Indiana Jones” or “National Treasure” franchises.  But really, the dangers only have to fit the film and keep the pace of action smooth.  The waterfall plane wreck and collapsing tomb finale are the best of the lot.
Problems:  The main problem is establishing (and maintaining) the lead’s ability to hold her own in any situation.  This is done early via a bike race (she’s a bike messenger) and with her in MMA training (she shows willing but gets thoroughly whomped by a bigger female).  So, what do we know?  She’s intelligent, athletic and thinks fast on her feet, but she isn’t super-human.  What happens the rest of the movie?  You guessed it – she’s super-human.  She’s supposed to be brilliant, but she rushes off on this escapade with few funds and no plan.  Like I mentioned earlier, typical of the genre and not a show stopper.
Final Recommendation:  Good to Strong.  If you enjoy character-driven reboots / origin stories with a bit of a survivalist / escapist edge, “Tomb Raider” is entertaining. Vikander “represents” with sincerity, and while it doesn’t do anything to reset the genre, the film adequately lays the groundwork for sequels.  This is Lara before she becomes iconic — and that makes the journey more interesting (and believable) than the destination.  As an aside, since the production company has lost the rights to the franchise and as it’s been seven years since this release, it’s unlikely there will be any sequels with Vikander in the lead role.
.
Click here (22 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

And The Truth Will Set You Free

Posted in History, Other Blogs, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 1, 2025| 7 Comments »

No, the meeting did not go badly for Ukraine.  It exposed in the most undeniable, unequivocal way possible the pro-Putin commitments of the president and vice president.  That was information Americans and allies needed to have clear before them.
9:56 AM · Feb 28, 2025
    –    David Frum
Speechwriter for Former President George W. Bush
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
    –    Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
   –    Edmund Burke (generally attributed to)
I support Ukraine!
art credit:  Lele Saa  (a Spanish illustrator living in England)
The illustration was posted on one of the blog sites I follow:  I Didn’t Have My Glasses On
The specific post was:  Slava Ukraini
Please visit the original site if you have a few spare moments…
[I find it difficult to express the amount of disgust I have for our current American Presidential administration.
Americans and our former allies (NATO and SEATO) should make NO mistake, BOTH Russia and China are authoritarian nuclear superpowers and are intent on supplanting the United States as the world’s dominant national actor – economically and militarily.
President Trump may or may not be a “puppet” of Russian leader Putin, but Trump is not acting in the long term “best” interests of the United States or our allies.  While all three of the superpowers have the ability to destroy the world, none have the ability to unilaterally command the rest of the world’s nations to do their bidding – and, yes, I include the United States under that limitation.
There is no “Pax Americana” without our allies support.
I am opposed to Ukraine signing any mineral treaty with the United States in exchange for “security”.  A U.S. guarantee of security is purely an illusion for the Ukranians (and the rest of the “free” world).  There can be no U.S. backed guarantee of security for any country as long as we have our current convicted criminal in the Oval Office.  Let’s be clear:  President Trump is a man without honor and a contract, which is all a treaty is, means less to him than the paper it is written on.  Trump has a lifetime history of ignoring his side of any contract and he has been responsible for the failure of many businesses which made the mistake of delivering on their side of a contract before full payment has been made by his companies.
All of the NATO allies should take full account of President Trump’s actions and recognize there is NO Article V, guarantee of mutual support and defense by the United States any longer (now or in the future).  When it is possible for an unethical criminal to be elected President of the United States (and then re-elected), all of our allies must assume it will happen again and base their current and on-going security policy free of illusion.
For now, the other NATO countries are fortunate that Ukraine has so weakened Russia over the last three years, that it will take years for Russia to rebuild their conventional forces so that Russia is again a major ground threat to ALL of Europe.  The key for a free Europe is to start developing your security forces NOW, not in two years time when Russia completes their rebuild and finally crushes Ukraine or 3-4 years from now or when Russia invades Poland or the Baltic States.
Unfortunately, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have not had an immovable object (like Ukraine) to blunt / spend the buildup of conventional Chinese forces as Ukraine as done to Russia for the benefit of the rest of Europe and the Middle East.  So, what was true for NATO is now equally valid for SEATO:  you cannot rely on the United States for mutual defense.
Trump’s “America first!” really means “America Alone…” to the rest of the world.
A word to the wise should suffice.
    —    kmab]
.
Click here (1 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

Posted in 2022 Book Review, Book Review, History, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 2, 2022| Leave a Comment »

[Another LONG post…  You’ve been warned!  (LoL)    —    kmab]
The Third World War:  August 1985  (1978©)   —   book review
This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985.  The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results.  The “advisors” were listed as:  John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).
The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978.  It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980.  I initially read the paperback version.  I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore.  In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year.  (review here:  A Novel War).  The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work.  This prompted my re-interest in the original…
During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico.  The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance.  We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming.  This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s.  I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.
Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them).  They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact.  The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France.  The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s.  The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.
In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1)  an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2)  a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3)  resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective;  and,
4)  the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.
When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike.  The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city;  (and like falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation;  the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat;  the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR;  and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order.  The “war” is barely a month old before it is over.  Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).
Is this a “good” book?  Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)?  Is it entertaining or interesting?  Do I recommend this book?  With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are):  yes to so-so…
The book is not a “good” novel.  There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone.  In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel.  It is very much an military style “after-action” report.  If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book.  If you are not, you will not.  I did.  Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war?  Yes!  Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city.  (Very much:  “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”)  Is the book entertaining or interesting?  This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”;  but, I did find the book interesting.  I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight.  There is no China – Japan alliance;  the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985);  South Africa did not fall to external forces;  and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable.  I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too.  For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?).  Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later.  It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed.  At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so.  My reaction to “2034” was reinforced:  this version is much better than the more recent book.  If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else.
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price (for an old / used book) and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
Click here (2 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started