| ||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Still Relevant Because NOTHING HAS CHANGED,
By Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER) (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)
This review is from: National Defense (Hardcover)
I bought this book, used, after it was recommended as a key source to a just-published book by Robert Coram, "BOYD: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War," which I recommend very strongly, together with this book for historical perspective. Although there may be a few inaccuracies (I did not notice anything substantial) what really matters about this book are two things: the author is a very serious critic with both Public Citizen and Atlantic Monthly credits, and the taxpayer's best interests in mind; and NOTHING HAS CHANGED since this book was published in 1981. If anything, it has gotten worse. One page (43) really jumped out at me, as it contains a chart showing how many planes can be bought for the same amount of money (1000 F-5s, 500 F-4s, 250 F-15s) and then now many sorties per day they can do because of complex logistics and other constraints (2.5/day for F-5's, 1.5 per day for F-4s, 1 per day for F-15s), finally concluding on the "real force" numbers: 2,500 for the F-5, 750 for the F-4, and 250 for the F-15. As General Wes Clark noted in his book of lessons learned as NATO Commander during the Kosovo crisis ("Waging Modern War"), he found the new USAF airplanes so unresponsive that they needed a full 24 hours notice to shift from one pre-planned task to another. The author is equally effective in criticizing the Navy for its obsession with carriers and other big ships; and the Army for complex helicopter systems that--as General Clark documents in his book--they are loath to actually use in combat because they might not work as advertised or might be blown out of the sky. In this book, the author gets the "constants" right, and they are still with us. First, he focuses on the rapidly changing nature of external threats, and the importance of having a military--we do not--that is agile and able to surge in varied directions. The Cold War "one size fits all" military simply will not do....yet the current Administration continues to spend in that direction, with $7 billion for a lunatic anti-missile defense (we would be better off detecting cargo containers with nuclear bombs in them), and another $72 billion for ultra-modern (code for ultra-expensive) weapons systems that a) have not been defined, b) do not provide for the intelligence support needed to make them effective and c) have no connection to the real world of sub-state violence and instability. The second thing he gets right is the importance of both oil, and instability, as the twin threats to American prosperity--with our over-dependence on cheap oil being a form of Achilles' heel, and our ignorance and tolerance of Arab and other instability and repression being the other side of that same coin. The third thing he gets right is the need for an independent test authority, because the US military services have proven over and over again that they are corrupt when it comes to weapon acquisition. Whether it is the Navy or the Air Force or the Army is irrelevant--they all fail to do proper requirements analysis and concept development before jumping into bigger more expensive weapons systems that are both not needed for the kinds of threats we have today (America spends as much on national security as the next *twenty* countries, including Russia and China, *combined*), and that do not work as advertised. The taxpayer needs and must demand an Independent Test Authority for all military as well as intelligence systems. I found this book, and one other, by Paul Seabury and Angelo Codevilla, "WAR: Ends and Means," to be very helpful starting points in thinking about whether the taxpayer's $500 billion a year that is spent on national defense, is spent wisely. The other two, mentioned above, are the four book beginning to a 100+ book list on making America safe that I will be reviewing here on Amazon over the next 18 months.
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
This book will open your eyes!,
By John A. Overton (Nampa, Idaho) - See all my reviews
This review is from: National Defense (Hardcover)
I was first introduced to this book in College. When I went to look for it, it was out of print. James Fallows has documented events that took place in our own bumbling political recent past with the precison of a radar guided missile. It will open your eyes to a world of waste, and it will truly make you sit up when you learn the true history of the Armalite AR-15 combat rifle and how our military almost destroyed it before giving it out to our troops in Vietnam.
11 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Engaging and full of errors,
By Michael J Edelman (Huntington Woods, MI USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER) (VINE VOICE) (REAL NAME)
This review is from: National Defense V306 (Paperback)
James Fallows is an excellent writer with one serious shortcoming- once he learns a little bit about an area, he assumes he's an expert, and starts repeating what he's been told as if it were gospel. He seems to have difficulty in reasearching alternatives once he's gotten and explainantion that appeals to him. His lack of scientific and technical education often leads him to make faulty conclusions based on incomplete or incorrect beliefs.This book is an excellent case in point. Much of it is factual- at least as far as it goes- but much is laughingly ignorant. He repeats urban legends about Soviet weapons. His M1 Abrams story contains some real howlers, the biggest one being his criticism of the M1's smoothbore main gun, since "everyone knows" that rifled barrels are more accurate. Every except M1 gunners, that is, who made countless one-shot kills at ranges of one to two miles during the Gulf War! Having learned, no doubt, that rifles replaced unrifled muskets in the 19th Century because they were more accurate, he assumes that rifled tank guns must obviously be more accurate than smoothbore guns. His telling of the F16 story is partially accurate, but shows he doesn't really understand the role of air superiority fighters. And so on. So read it, should you find a copy, but do so with a critical eye. There's an awful lot of misinforation woven in among the facts.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
|
|
