In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Merlin" wrote in message
roups.com...
An element of the story of 'Red Storm Rising' changed N.A.T.O. thinking
at the time.

Bullpoopie. Clancy's book did NOT "change NATO thinking". If you think it
did, please provide som proof beyond your personal claims...

I do recall reading a comment in "International Defence Review" of
1988ish that the security of Iceland was taken more seriously then than
it had been previously, with a throwaway mention of Clancy. (One of the
real-world issues being the willingness of the Icelanders themselves to
accept additional security...)

Of course, that is not a reflection of actual NATO doctrine. (One NATO
nation, pressed for its comments on a particular Experimental Tactic,
protested "But we haven't had time to study it yet, we can't possibly
respond in these unrealistically short timescales!" After all, that
EXTAC was only promulgated in 1974...)


But I can see how it could be misinterpreted as such.

"NATO thinking", "thinking of individual NATO nations", and "thinking of
groups of nations within NATO" are not interchangeable.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk