FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Askold on October 02, 2013, 12:08:08 pm
-
Tom Clancy has died in a hospital in Baltimore. Cause of death has not been revealed yet, therefore I wish to be the first to claim that this was an assassination by a clandestine agency. It's not that there is any evidence for that but it seems appropriate.
I actually liked some of his books and the Harrison Ford movies were pretty good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/books/tom-clancy-best-selling-novelist-of-military-thrillers-dies-at-66.html?hp&_r=1&
-
Tom Clancy has died in a hospital in Baltimore. Cause of death has not been revealed yet, therefore I wish to be the first to claim that this was an assassination by a clandestine agency. It's not that there is any evidence for that but it seems appropriate.
I actually liked some of his books and the Harrison Ford movies were pretty good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/books/tom-clancy-best-selling-novelist-of-military-thrillers-dies-at-66.html?hp&_r=1&
I'll second that, except that the assassination was actually arranged by Clancy himself, because he thought it would be an appropriate way to go out. The agency in question has no idea.
-
Wow, that's sad to hear. He was quite talented.
-
Tom Clancy has died in a hospital in Baltimore. Cause of death has not been revealed yet, therefore I wish to be the first to claim that this was an assassination by a clandestine agency. It's not that there is any evidence for that but it seems appropriate.
I actually liked some of his books and the Harrison Ford movies were pretty good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/books/tom-clancy-best-selling-novelist-of-military-thrillers-dies-at-66.html?hp&_r=1&
I'll second that, except that the assassination was actually arranged by Clancy himself, because he thought it would be an appropriate way to go out. The agency in question has no idea.
And somehow Communists were involved a la The Hunt for Red October, Red Storm Rising, etc. etc.
The one thing I do remember about the man, besides his books being incredibly tedious reads, was that he had this to say on The O'Reilly Factor a week after 9/11:
The political left, they deal in symbols rather than reality. The general difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals like pretty pictures and conservatives like to build bridges that people can drive across. And conservatives are indeed conservative because if the bridge falls down then people die, whereas the liberals figure, we can always build a nice memorial and make people forget it ever happened and was our fault. They're very good at making people forget it was their fault. Alright? The CIA was gutted by people on the political left who don't like Intelligence operations... and as a result of that, as an indirect result of that, we lost 5,000 citizens last week.
Yup, liberals indirectly caused 9/11. Right.
-
That sucks, I like a lot of his books and the games based off those books.
-
Well he did make some really blatant strawman-liberals as sissy villains in his books. But for someone who likes gun- and tech-porn his books were a pretty good timewaster.
But if were gonna disown writers based on their personal beliefs and politics, Clancy was much better than Card or Heinlein for example.
-
I can't remember, exactly how many Tom Clancy novels were ghostwritten by guys who knew utterly nothing about the subject at hand?
-
Well he did make some really blatant strawman-liberals as sissy villains in his books. But for someone who likes gun- and tech-porn his books were a pretty good timewaster.
But if were gonna disown writers based on their personal beliefs and politics, Clancy was much better than Card or Heinlein for example.
HP Lovecraft was pretty bad when it came to his personal beliefs. Not that it bothers me any more than my grandfather's political and social views.
-
Well he did make some really blatant strawman-liberals as sissy villains in his books. But for someone who likes gun- and tech-porn his books were a pretty good timewaster.
But if were gonna disown writers based on their personal beliefs and politics, Clancy was much better than Card or Heinlein for example.
HP Lovecraft was pretty bad when it came to his personal beliefs. Not that it bothers me any more than my grandfather's political and social views.
Well he did write the single most racist poem I've ever read.
But if were gonna disown writers based on their personal beliefs and politics, Clancy was much better than Card or Heinlein for example.
It's not just that for me. Sure he was a smug, know-nothing who blamed everything bad on liberals, but I also thought his books were dry as hell. If you like his stuff, more power to ya. But for me, I just can't find any redeeming qualities in his career. At least I enjoy the Cthulhu Mythos.
-
link to the poem since I would have said White Mans Burden by Kipling
-
The Marquis de Sade could turn a mean phrase. And he had interesting ideas. Warning: a lot of it seems to be written in French.
-
The Marquis de Sade could turn a mean phrase. And he had interesting ideas. Warning: a lot of it seems to be written in French.
Oh yes, the man that wrote 120 Days of Sodom. I once heard someone say "you do not read Sade, you endure Sade". Here's some perspective, his name is where words like sadism and sadistic come from.
-
Well he did write the single most racist poem I've ever read.
Which poem be this?
-
I've read "The Hunt for Red October" and saw the movie as well. I've read a few of Clancy's books and yes some of them were quite dry but they were good.
I want to know of this racist poem that he wrote.
MadCat, thanks for some new reading material.
-
Ive read a 120 days of sodom, eventually de sade got tired of writing dialogue and a general story, and just listed various tortured.
I tried to read clancy, i just found it too dry and tedious. Guns guns random american army company more guns!
-
I tried to read clancy, i just found it too dry and tedious. Guns guns random american army company more guns!
This is why I have not read a book by Tom Clancy and never will.
And at the risk of sounding incredibly callous, this is also why I'm not startled to hear about his demise.
-
One day I will read a thread about someone who wasn't a bad person dying and I won't have to see people posting just to say they didn't like the person who died. Or at least not within a few posts.
Today isn't that day.
Anyways, I enjoyed his books though I found the video games to be a bit more fun. I have spent many an hour with Rainbow Six and the like. I enjoyed the books mainly because it also helped shape the way I write certain characters who have similar jobs to Rainbow Six.
The guy knew his stuff. He may not have written about awe-inspiring things or jaw-dropping plots but what he wrote wasn't horrendous.
-
link to the poem since I would have said White Mans Burden by Kipling
Which poem be this?
I want to know of this racist poem that he wrote.
It was a 1912 poem called On the Creation of Niggers:
"When, long ago, the gods created Earth
In Jove’s fair image Man was shaped at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next designed;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man,
Th’Olympian host conceiv’d a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger."
-
I haven't read his books, only payed the video games based on them. From what's been said I take it it's the 50 Shades of Grey of gun porn?
-
That's insulting. Maybe if it were poorly written and carried a message of poor gun control (i use gun control in the literal not the political sense) and use then yes.
-
I haven't read his books, only payed the video games based on them. From what's been said I take it it's the 50 Shades of Grey of gun porn?
With some Red Scare melodrama thrown in.
-
That's insulting. Maybe if it were poorly written and carried a message of poor gun control (i use gun control in the literal not the political sense) and use then yes.
Fair enough. One question though, what did he class the AKs-74u as? A rifle, a PDW, or an SMG?
-
That weapon wasn't used in his writing as far as I'm aware.
Weapons such as the Beretta 8045 Cougar, H&K MP5/10, and M60s were more common. With the Remington M24 and Knight's Armament M110 for snipers.
But it depends on which series you're talking about. And frankly, I really have no time to go digging into my books to see what named weapons were used.
-
link to the poem since I would have said White Mans Burden by Kipling
Which poem be this?
I want to know of this racist poem that he wrote.
It was a 1912 poem called On the Creation of Niggers:
"When, long ago, the gods created Earth
In Jove’s fair image Man was shaped at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next designed;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man,
Th’Olympian host conceiv’d a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger."
Wow :o
-
I personally enjoyed many of his books. I admit he had his issues, but he was a good writer in my opinion.
-
That's insulting. Maybe if it were poorly written and carried a message of poor gun control (i use gun control in the literal not the political sense) and use then yes.
Fair enough. One question though, what did he class the AKs-74u as? A rifle, a PDW, or an SMG?
[gun nerd]
It should properly be classified as a rifle, as it's a longarm (it has a stock and is meant to be held with two hands) that fires a rifle cartridge. By definition it can't be a submachine gun, as 5.45x39mm isn't a pistol cartridge. Some would try to classify 5.7x28mm and 4.6x30mm as rifle cartridges or otherwise claim that they're not pistol rounds, but just because they're shaped like rifle rounds doesn't mean that they ARE. Go shoot a 5-7 and tell me that you're firing a rifle round.
"PDW" is a nebulous concept that refers to the purpose for the gun, rather than its design. Even now we're going back and retroactively trying to classify weapons as PDWs that were made before the term was ever coined. It can be a submachine gun, a carbine, whatever. As long as it's small, relatively powerful (especially against armor), and preferably full auto.
If you try to call the AKS-74U a submachine gun, though, you should be slapped.
[/gun nerd]
-
One day I will read a thread about someone who wasn't a bad person dying and I won't have to see people posting just to say they didn't like the person who died. Or at least not within a few posts.
Today isn't that day.
Good point. I might not like all the writers and bands in the world but if I'm going to show up just to say how glad I am that person X is dead it will have to be someone I utterly despise and they better be a monster. Like Hitler, Gaddafi, or something on that scale. Not just a writer I didn't care for.
[gun nerd]
I personally would call AKs-74u and the similar AR-15 versions carbines. They fire an intermediate/rifle round and are short rifles. Carbine.
And I also understand why they are often lumped together with SMGs, they fill the same "slot." Short automatic weapon for special force, tank crews and other troops that require something smaller than a full sized assault rifle. The fact that they use the same ammo as the assault rifles is a bonus since it makes support easier with less calibers and ammo types to worry about.
And I'm not even going to complain about this derail since this really seems appropriate.
[/gun nerd]
-
That's insulting. Maybe if it were poorly written and carried a message of poor gun control (i use gun control in the literal not the political sense) and use then yes.
Fair enough. One question though, what did he class the AKs-74u as? A rifle, a PDW, or an SMG?
[gun nerd]
It should properly be classified as a rifle, as it's a longarm (it has a stock and is meant to be held with two hands) that fires a rifle cartridge. By definition it can't be a submachine gun, as 5.45x39mm isn't a pistol cartridge. Some would try to classify 5.7x28mm and 4.6x30mm as rifle cartridges or otherwise claim that they're not pistol rounds, but just because they're shaped like rifle rounds doesn't mean that they ARE. Go shoot a 5-7 and tell me that you're firing a rifle round.
"PDW" is a nebulous concept that refers to the purpose for the gun, rather than its design. Even now we're going back and retroactively trying to classify weapons as PDWs that were made before the term was ever coined. It can be a submachine gun, a carbine, whatever. As long as it's small, relatively powerful (especially against armor), and preferably full auto.
If you try to call the AKS-74U a submachine gun, though, you should be slapped.
[/gun nerd]
Exactly. I listed listed the answers from most acceptable to least, knowing full well PDW is a very nebulous concept. I think most video games class is as an SMG because it's used by the same class (Usually engineer or medic) that normally uses SMGs. That doesn't make it any less eye twitch inducing when it's called an SMG.
The AKs-74u is really good for seeing if people know anything about guns outside of COD.
-
One day I will read a thread about someone who wasn't a bad person dying and I won't have to see people posting just to say they didn't like the person who died. Or at least not within a few posts.
Today isn't that day.
Good point. I might not like all the writers and bands in the world but if I'm going to show up just to say how glad I am that person X is dead it will have to be someone I utterly despise and they better be a monster. Like Hitler, Gaddafi, or something on that scale. Not just a writer I didn't care for.
[gun nerd]
I personally would call AKs-74u and the similar AR-15 versions carbines. They fire an intermediate/rifle round and are short rifles. Carbine.
And I also understand why they are often lumped together with SMGs, they fill the same "slot." Short automatic weapon for special force, tank crews and other troops that require something smaller than a full sized assault rifle. The fact that they use the same ammo as the assault rifles is a bonus since it makes support easier with less calibers and ammo types to worry about.
And I'm not even going to complain about this derail since this really seems appropriate.
[/gun nerd]
Typically, the only nations that lump compact carbines in with SMGs are ones like the Soviet Union that, at the time, used very few or no actual submachine guns. SMGs in the USSR (especially Russia itself) were very rare, as the assault rifle was meant to generally supersede them, so the AKS-74U was basically the closest they got. It's mostly just a cultural quirk.
Exactly. I listed listed the answers from most acceptable to least, knowing full well PDW is a very nebulous concept. I think most video games class is as an SMG because it's used by the same class (Usually engineer or medic) that normally uses SMGs. That doesn't make it any less eye twitch inducing when it's called an SMG.
Call of Duty specifically makes it an SMG in all manners (including power, so it hits no harder than an Uzi) except for being capable of penetrating barriers like rifles.
-
Skorpian, PM63, Kiparis, and most notably the PPSH. Those are just the ones I know off the top of my head from the appearance in COD:BO. They had SMGs, most aren't particularly famous though.
-
Also, they had PPD which was a predecessor to PPSH (And the appearance was quite similar though they work differently.) And I think some of the warsaw pact countries had other SMGs as well.
Skorpian, PM63, Kiparis, and most notably the PPSH. Those are just the ones I know off the top of my head from the appearance in COD:BO. They had SMGs, most aren't particularly famous though.
I think skorpion vz 61 and PPSH are quite famous. And near the end of WWII they had entire battalions armed mostly with SMGs for close combat and assault firepower.
-
Yeah, but the PPSh-41 (as well as its predecessor, the PPD-40 and its successor, the PPS-43) was built in a time before the assault rifle existed in the first place. Back then you either had a submachine gun or you had a gigantic bolt-action rifle with a low capacity and way more power and range than any soldier would actually need. The assault rifle was meant to bridge the gap by totally replacing both weapons in Soviet service with non-specialist soldiers, as it had relatively low recoil and just as much volume of automatic fire as an SMG while still hitting harder than a pistol cartridge.
Most other nations actually kept building SMGs (this is when the "second generation" of submachine gun design came into vogue everywhere, with ultra-cheap guns made of stamped and spot-welded steel with cheap plastic grip panels; the "first generation" was the relatively expensive, heavy stuff made with fancy wooden furniture derived from rifles like the MP-18 and the "third generation" is where we are now, with PDWs that can punch through armor and Picatinny rails and strong plastic receivers), but the Soviet Union tried to use the AK to replace them almost entirely.
The Skorpion, for instance, was almost totally restricted to vehicle crews and got most of its pop culture reputation from use by criminals and guerrillas; they even built the AKS-74U exclusively as a crew weapon before the special forces realized how useful such a compact carbine would be. The PM-63 I believe was exclusively restricted to Poland, and most communist nations that built SMGs were generally Warsaw Pact countries that built them independently and kept them to themselves. The USSR did build a new design, the OTs-02 Kiparis, which was designed in the 1970s but never actually entered service until the 90s after the Soviet Union collapsed. Only in more recent years has Russia started to embrace the submachine gun as a general service weapon in the age of assault rifles.
Even then, they want to overdo it: they made their own custom loads for the 9x19mm round that increase its power to try and make it punch through body armor better, and most of their current 9mm weapons are built stronger than normal so they can easily fire such a powerful cartridge.
-
The chinese also treated AK47 like a submachine gun. At some point they had most of the infantry squads using SKS (btw, I like SKS despite the fact that by the time it was in production it was already outdated and more expensive than AK47 as well) with just the squad leader and his assistant using an AK47. Much like rifles/SMGs had been used in WWII era armies.
And since we are getting into gun nerd SUPER mode (Still appropriate for any discussion about Tom Clancy) I would like to tout my own opinion on SMGs as well: I think the Soviet idea of restricting SMGs to back up role for people who don't need a large gun is a good idea. Submachine gun might be useful for police work (where overpenetration is dangerous) or clearing out buildings during urban warfare but for most troops an assault rifle is a much better choice.
Vehicle crews nad support personnel need some type of gun to defend themselves but an full sized assault rifle is too heavy and cumbersome. A submachine gun or PDW is better than nothing and hopefully cheaper as well. But for frontline troops having yet another type of ammo to carry complicates supply and an assault rifle can do a better job than a SMG in most situation. Apart from close quarters fighting such as clearing out rooms where the higher rate of fire combined with greater controllability is handy.
And I think one of the reasons why Russia made a superpowered 9x19mm load is that they can now use common commercial 9mm para ammo for their guns in case of emergency but hostile forces can't load their pistols or SMGs with the Russian ammo. Much like when they made the 82mm mortar. (Most countries had 81mm mortars and Soviet 82mm could fire their ammo but the same was not true for 81mm mortars.)
-
Well, most guns can still run the Russians' hot loaded 9x19mm ammo. It'll probably decrease the service life quite a bit, but their guns won't burst. Not to mention that if they needed to, they could just ship the rounds to the armory to have the bullets pulled and a little powder dumped out to bring them down to a safer level, rather than having an actual diameter problem.
The reason compact carbines took precedence over submachine guns in the past was because there was no P90 or MP7 that bridged the gap between intermediate rifle cartridges and pistol cartridges. It's always best to have something capable of defeating body armor, especially in a modern conflict where every professional soldier has torso armor that can withstand multiple 7.62x51mm NATO rounds (I've seen it myself) and even guerrillas and civilian insurgents can at least get their hands on Kevlar. Modern technology means that we can now make low-recoiling armor piercing SMGs that are smaller than any carbine but still have punch.
(btw, I like SKS despite the fact that by the time it was in production it was already outdated and more expensive than AK47 as well)
It's only outdated if you're talking about how it stacks up in a modern battlefield scenario. It has a lower capacity (unless you use a model that can load AK magazines or modify it with a cheap kit) and is semi-auto only (again, unless it's modified in some way). But it's also more accurate and powerful thanks to the longer barrel and improved manufacturing techniques (rather than being slapped together as fast and cheaply as possible) and you can carry more ammo for lighter weight due to not needing heavy steel magazines.
-
The political left, they deal in symbols rather than reality. The general difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals like pretty pictures and conservatives like to build bridges that people can drive across. And conservatives are indeed conservative because if the bridge falls down then people die, whereas the liberals figure, we can always build a nice memorial and make people forget it ever happened and was our fault. They're very good at making people forget it was their fault. Alright? The CIA was gutted by people on the political left who don't like Intelligence operations... and as a result of that, as an indirect result of that, we lost 5,000 citizens last week.
Because conservatives are never, ever hypnotised by symbology. They absolutely love pragmatic government spending on infrastructure, too.
Tom Clancy was a deeply silly person. He wrote some occasionally entertaining pulp fiction with tanks in it, but he also reflected a deep sickness at the heart of conservatism- irrationality, childishness, lack of serious thought, narrow-mindedness, dishonesty, hubris. HUBRIS. And that's being very kind to him.
It's beautifully apt that Clancy and Vo Nguyen Giap died within a few days of each other- the greatest author of American hubris and the man who most ruthlessly exploited it.