(Part 2) Best military strategy history books according to redditors
We found 580 Reddit comments discussing the best military strategy history books. We ranked the 218 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
My Own Personal Max Boot
When I was a kid, I was a big fan of military history. In 2006 my parents bought me a book called War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World for Christmas. That was the first time I heard the name Max Boot. Hearing it again on Chapo is to go full circle, because Max Boot, and that book - written in the first year of Canadian involvment in Afghanistan - should represent ideas that are rejected unanimously.
The first half of the book was about how gunpowder and the industrial revolution changed warfare. He posited that technology drove military affairs, first to allow the powers that had it to subjugate those that didn’t, and then to destroy themselves.
I thought at the time, that he was making the point that imperial military expansion was a horror, and that Omdurman lead to The Somme. That colonial conflicts with 48 dead British soldiers and 12000 dead Sudanese, and this pat little poem:
>Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
Sold the public on an image of low cost, glorious colonial adventures that left them totally unprepared when the other side shot back.
That technological military advantages let empires cut a bloody swath across the world, and showed that cost, and not morality was the only factor in what was considered a “good” war, and consequently there was no such thing. That the Martini-Henry was what took the British Empire to every corner of the world and not a desire to ban widow burning, emancipate slaves or bring order and good governance to poor oppressed people under the Union Jack.
In the second half of the book, he makes the argument that the American advantage in technology is permanent and will allow America to create a benevolent globe-spanning Empire. Technology will allow this empire to wage war with no cost, no collateral damage and to remake the world to be some kind of utopian Pax Americana.
I put the book down. I couldn’t wrap my head around how after the first half of the book anyone could argue that this time the technological advantage will last forever and this time imperial war will be a force for good.
A few years after that, after I had forgotten about Max Boot and his vision of Omdurman with JDAMs, I joined the Army and went to Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was sold on wells, schools, roads and liberating women from the burqa. In other words, Human Rights, Peace and Security. I didn’t see any of that. My tourmates didn’t either. When they were describing the Contras on Chapo this week I got sick because the ANA and ANP did the same things. I watched them do it, and Max Boot thinks that was right and just. Max Boot and people like him would see the same things happen in every corner of the world, without ever telling people what that vision of foreign policy looks like.
The Afghan National Army and Police wore uniforms and carried rifles like us, and ISAF press conferences refered to them as our Coalition Partners, soldiers just like us. Max Boot has talked about how important it is to build the capability of our allies, and until they can do their job as well as we can, we can’t ever withdraw from Afghanistan. As best as I can explain the “job” of the ANP was to shake down locals and the “job” of the ANA was to use our firepower to settle scores, terrorize people and smoke and sell opium.
For our part, in Max Boot’s mind, our job was to use the latest military technology to so dominate and overawe the locals that under the umbrella of our firepower they would develop a civil society and market economy. Somehow, all of that technology has yet to turn Kandahar into a dusty Minneapolis. We did however use the latest technology to land $200k Raytheon Missile Systems and BAE Systems AB M982 Excalibur 155mm GPS guided shells on the correct mud hut. I was fighting Max Boot’s vision of war.
So I thought everyone had agreed that was bullshit. I mean, even if you didn’t have a roto I thought everyone knew Afghanistan was a shit show and we were all lied too.
Which brings me to Venezuela, Iran, North Korea and other future recipents of imperial benevolence. What bothers me most is guys my age already suffered for this and now it’s happening again. I feel so powerless. It’s like I’m taking crazy pills (and not just the ones for PTSD) and everyone else agrees that this is a great idea. “It’s a just war, it’ll be over in 2 weeks, we’ll be greeted as liberators”. Nobody seems to remember that we have heard all of this before, and that the
warmilitary intervention that we were told would be short, precise, moral, and bloodless was anything but.Fuck Max Boot.
So the argument that the Soviet invasion was more important than the bombs originally comes from another scholar, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose book, _Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan_, was published in 2005. So it's new but not so new. I'm kind of perplexed that Wilson doesn't give Hasegawa at least a name-drop in this article; even if he did come to this conclusion completely independently, Hasegawa's work is not obscure amongst historians of the bomb, even if this particular historical argument (like so many) has not penetrated much into the general public.
Hasegawa's book is very well done. He has managed for the first time to really put together a cohesive, persuasive argument about the end-game machinations in Japan, the United States, and Soviet Union. The other historians of the bomb I know are pretty convinced at least to the point that the Soviet invasion was more influential on the Japanese than the bombs. Not all of them think the bomb was of no influence, or that it would have ended without using them, though Hasegawa himself is apparently convinced of this, from what I've read.
(Personally, I am on the fence to the degree that I just don't see how we can disentangle the atomic bombs from the Soviet invasion as fully as would be necessary to say this with authority, but I am convinced that the Soviet invasion mattered at least as much, if not more, than the atomic bombs.)
So that's your place to look for facts and sources. Hasegawa bases his work on Soviet, Japanese, and American sources, including American intercepts regarding Japanese communications to their ambassador in Moscow. It is thoroughly cited and carefully done.
Note that the question of whether the bombs "worked" or not is a completely separate one from whether the people who used them were justified in doing so according to what they knew at the time. People tend to think that the former implies a moral argument about the latter, but it is an entirely separate issue regarding motivation and "the decision." (Note that even characterizing the use of the bomb as being the result of some large moral deliberation, or some sort of invasion vs. bombing tradeoff, is kind of anachronistic.)
As for the question of whether Japan thinking we had more matters — I'm not sure there's any reason to suspect that was a major role. They had already had similar damage done to 67 other cities due to firebombing. Having big chunks tore out of their cities was not a new thing; they already could not depend against fleets of B-29s so the "only one plane" aspect is, if anything, just a psychological aspect rather than a practical one. Note also that the US probably would have kept atomic bombing, and firebombing, up until a possible invasion of the Japanese mainland (scheduled for November 1945); it was a bluff, of a sort, to claim they had more, but not so much of a bluff (they'd have had another by the end of August 1945, and a production system that was slated to produce three more bombs per month).
As for the rest of it, I need to go over it more closely than I have so far. I think the argument at the end and in the subhead, that US nuclear policy is based on a misunderstanding about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is sort of silly. And I'm not sure what it gets you — is the argument that people should have thought nuclear weapons were less important than they were? How does that not increase the chance of their use? American nuclear strategy and nuclear thinking has always been more complicated than the legacy of WWII, and the weapons themselves rapidly evolved since then. (Consider that in less than a decade after the end of World War II, the US was testing weapons that were 750 times more explosive than the Nagasaki bomb, and capable of radiologically contaminating many thousands of square miles of land in one go.)
(For the history of nuclear strategic thinking in the US, the standard text is Lawrence Freedman's The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy.)
I feel a little compelled to point out, as an edit, that the argument was also made very early on by the Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 ("Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."). However their argument has been more or less discounted by historians; there was a lot of politics behind their making it. Hasegawa is the first person to put it on very strong grounds.
I have a lot of reading assignments to give you, but I'm not certain how much time you are going to budget for research. At the very least I hope this will help you refine your Google fu and wiki consumption.
Step one : read Sun Tzu's Art of War. It's a short read, and you'll have a firm grasp of how military leadership is based on proven principles. You'll get a crash course on the essentials of intelligence, logistics, strategy, and tactics. If you want to write about warfare, you can't begin without knowing how it is conducted.
Next, I would approach classical warfare. I highly recommend the works of Donald Kagan, a Yale professor who's works on the Peloponnesian War are essentially the gold standard on the subject. He wrote a book called On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace. His thesis statement is that "A persistent and repeated error through the ages has been the failure to understand that the preservation of peace requires active effort, planning, the expenditure of resources, and sacrifice, just as war does." What this means is that peace is not the default condition between two states. The natural tendency in foreign relations is entropy and warfare, and thus peace is only maintained through exhaustive effort. Kagan should inspire a certain level of pessimism/realism that could help you make your "empires" seem less cartoonish, and more like states that made hard pragmatic decisions to ensure the survival of their respective populations.
Skim the works of Nicollo Machiavelli. You need to read two of his books : The Prince, and The Art of War. He was an Italian statesmen during what we consider to be Renaissance Italy. It was a time when the country was broken up into warring city-states that shifted alliances constantly. He wrote The Prince to earn the favor of one of these rulers, and with this book he essentially destroyed every illusion about power being a natural extension of god's grace. He showed the world how "the sausage is made" in politics. It was so utterly cynical and dark that some considered him to be the devil himself, and a few historians can't even believe he took his own position seriously. His thesis : of course a prince should be both loved and feared, but if you must choose one, it is "better to be feared than loved". You'll understand every character from Darth Vader to Tony Soprano better.
Next, I would send you to Max Boot. Specifically, pick up War Made New. His narrative begins with the beginning of the Modern Era (roughly 1490), when gunpowder began to change the rules of warfare, and ends with the modern War on Terror in the early 21st century. He shows you how each technological leap from gunpowder and replaceable parts, through the industrial revolutions, to the internet era each shaped warfare. In turn, he shows you how successes on the battlefield shaped the global landscape.
Thats all I have time for at the moment. Please check back if you have more questions.
Sun Tzu - The Art of War
David Glantz's work on the 1941-1943 era Red Army, Colossus Reborn, contains a section on the development of the artillery branch of the Red Army during that time period. If there are particular figures of note in the Artillery branch, that is where you will find them.
Here what I've picked up
On War by Clausewitz
MCDP 1 Warfighting
FMFRP 12-18 Mao Tse-tung on Guerrilla Warfare
FMFRP 12-13 Maneuver in War
On Grand Strategy
The Art of War by Baron De Jomini
Just and Unjust Wars (apparently it's on the Commandant's reading list too)
Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle
Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla
Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century
The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan
Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare
Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat
Deep Maneuver: Historical Case Studies of Maneuver in Large-Scale Combat Operations (Volume 5)
JP-1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States
DoD Law of War Manual
The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics
Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS
Napoleonic Warfare: The Operational Art of the Great Campaigns
The Air Force Way of War: U.S. Tactics and Training after Vietnam
Strategy: A History
LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media
The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World
MCTP 3-01C Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery
Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis
The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 1: Invasion – Insurgency – Civil War, 2003-2006
The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 2: Surge and Withdrawal, 2007-2011
Illusions of Victory: The Anbar Awakening and the Rise of the Islamic State
Concrete Hell: Urban Warfare From Stalingrad to Iraq
The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy
Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime
This is all I can name off the top of my head right now
Welcome to the club, muahahaha.
Check out Tactics of the crescent moon
And compare it to the Dulles classic
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-War-Sun-Tzu/dp/1936276011
If you want more, you might consider Max Boot's The Savage Wars Of Peace: Small Wars And The Rise Of American Power, which covers a whole slew of these foreign interventions from the campaign against the Barbary Pirates up to the First Gulf War. I can't speak for the historical accuracy or his policy recommendations, but the episodes themselves are well-told and often came as a complete surprise to me ("the US attacked Korea in 1871?"). Some of the events are so outlandish that if a Hollywood movie were made of them, it would be panned as being completely unbelievable.
Their tactics were better than decent. The Germans, Brits and French all developed effective tactics for seizing enemy trenches pretty quickly. That wasn't the problem. The problem is, how do you seize the first enemy line of trenches and hold it while you're under artillery fire and enemy infantry counter attack? You don't have effective radios and artillery is constantly cutting the phone lines you are able to lay. Signaling is difficult because of terrain, weather conditions, smoke created by fires and the fact that if you're visible enough to be seen by your support then you're also probably visible enough to be seen by the enemy. Even if the enemy doesn't counterattack immediately (which they would), how do you get to the second line of trenches under said conditions? How do you coordinate supporting fires and reinforcements when there is quite literally a wall of flying steel (barrage means wall/barricade in French, which is where the term comes from) between you and your start point?
The main issue was that the offensive technologies (communications, motorized vehicles, light supporting weapons, aerial weapons) hadn't caught up to the defense technologies (barbed wire, concrete pillboxes, heavy machine guns, massed artillery, rail-borne reinforcements). Even if you successfully seized line after line of trench, the enemy could always dig in behind their last line and pour in reinforcements via rail faster than you could break through. With all that said, strategically the allies were idiotic. Continuing to attack fortified German positions again and again and again with very little to show for it is just bad strategic judgement.
I've posted these links before, but if you'd like to educate yourself on WW1 infantry tactics/battle:
Stormtrooper Tactics
Infantry in Battle
To Conquer Hell
Infantry Attacks
Storm of Steel
PS. I know you can find the second one for free on the internet.
There's a great book called Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars by Ethan Pollock. Consider this: Communism was regarded as science to the communists. Any dissenting voices, any foreign ideas, were labeled bourgeois, cosmopolitan or a nefarious plot by Western ideologues. Lenin considered Mach's work ignorant while his own physics understanding was vastly limited. Stalin supported Lysenko before Mendel because they were friends and because Mendel wasn't Russian. Quantum Physics was even regarded as a Jewish conspiracy until Stalin wanted the bomb too. I look at the pettiness of government-backed science and sense misuse.
Another example would be in the development of American Nuclear policy where petty bureau squabbling, corrupted intelligence gathering and defense contractors pushed the science of MAD to the boundaries of absurdity. Scientists as eminent as Neumann, Oppenheimer, Feynman and Einstein were used as pawns, both willingly and indirectly. A good example can be found in Navy buildup of Polaris missiles against a growth in ICBMs and Air Command. A good book I would recommend on this is The Wizards of Armageddon by Fred Kaplan. At this point, science ceases to become a method of communication, and begins to misdirect for the highest agency. Intel becomes muddy, ceteris paribum flies out the window, and much of what is revered as logic becomes little more than faith.
Just be skeptical until you can't anymore. Reagan said 'Trust, but verify' and I believe that is a worthwhile compromise before hearing another TED talk or lecture and standing resolute as if the facts are in.
A good overview of the planning for strategic nuclear war is Lawrence Freedman's The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. It is currently one of the only books (that I am aware of) that analyzes nuclear strategy from 1945-modern using any sort of historical method. Unfortunately, many of the books Ive read tend to be more positional, and recommend policy as its ultimate goal (First Strike! does this).
Miscellaneous
The Invisible War: 21st Century Targeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgGgvQqKQ-Q
Shadow Government https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVahu87_tiM
Ring of Power https://vimeo.com/124639871
SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN -1878-2006 by A C Hitchcock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMGtAJqzLEs
The Net: The Unabomber, LSD and the Internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLqrVCi3l6E
Annie Jacobsen: Inside DARPA: The Pentagon’s Brain https://www.amazon.com/Pentagons-Brain-Uncensored-Americas-Top-Secret/dp/0316371769
Google and the World Brain http://www.polarstarfilms.com/en/d_google-and-the-world-brain.php
[DARPA] MOST ADVANCED WEAPONS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDuKR14TEs
Predictive Programming: The Human Microchipping Agenda https://vimeo.com/26487586
Conspiracy Of Silence / The Franklin Cover-up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQHrbJPhus4
Rule from the Shadows: The Psychology of Power https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ERfxWouXs
The Crisis of Civilization https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMgOTQ7D_lk
Terms & Conditions May Apply https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUaXXdcaqfc
One Mainframe To Rule Them All https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dhiKlouSq8
Global Depopulation and the Eugenics Agenda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHqdwmqu-h0
Banking with Hitler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQfroRUWdM
For obvious reasons, there are no examples of MAD actually falling apart, but the DPRK, Pakistan, and France have what Vipin Narang calls an Asymmetric Escalation nuclear posture. This involves the limited first use of nuclear weapons as a way to offset conventionally inferior forces. All three states have been pretty explicit in their first-use intentions and these are, IMO, an explicit effort to avoid the stab-instab paradox. The idea is to eliminate the firebreak between conventional and nuclear forces so that conventionally superior adversaries can't use them to alter the status quo.
For China and Russia, a major concern is crisis instability. Russia is believed by some (including the authors of the most recent Nuclear Posture Review) to have an "escalate to deescalate" strategy. This is similar to DPRK/Pakistan/France in that Russia would use nukes against NATO to try to compel NATO into backing down. In China and Russia, there's also a growing concern about the entanglement between conventional and nuclear forces. This could mean that in a conventional war with China or Russia, the US may strike dual-purpose delivery systems or command and control infrastructure which weakens China/Russia's deterrent. With its deterrent weakened, these states face a "use it or lose it" dilemma - and some believe China/Russia may opt to "use it."
It's getting late so I'm too lazy to look up exact titles and link, but for further reading:
-2018 Nuclear Posture Review
-M. Taylor Fravel on Chinese nuclear strategy
-Caitlin Talmadge on US-China crisis escalation
-Kier Lieber and Daryl Press on counterforce technologies
-Bruno Tetrais on Russian nuclear strategy
-Terrence Roehrig on North Korean nuclear strategy
-Charles Glaser (I think it's him...) on whether the US should accept MAD or pursue damage limitation with China
-To understand how things might fall apart in war, go to the classics. Schelling's "Threat that leaves something to chance," prospect theory (I think Jervis has something on this), and James Fearon's works on signaling and bargaining in crises.
Edit: Added more readings to the list.
From the German Perspective:
Robert Citino's quadrilogy:
From the American perspective:
Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy:
From the Soviet Perspective
Glantz and House's When Titans Clashed is an in depth and authoritative single volume study. If you want to dive into the deep end, expand with:
To the Gates of Stalingrad
Armageddon in Stalingrad
Endgame at Stalingrad, Book One
Endgame at Stalingrad, Book Two
Companion to Endgame at Stalingrad
Glantz has written extensively on the bulk of the war, and his work is quite solid. Punch his name into Amazon for further reading.
There's other books I would recommend, but they're not the sort of flowing and sprawling narrative of the war you seem to be looking for.
As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).
Books I recommend:
Psychology (or: On Human Nature)
The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime
Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)
The Undiscovered Self
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
History
Strategy: A History
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism
Economics
Economics in One Lesson
Basic Economics
Politics
Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government
As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.
Glantz's stuff has been posted already and he's pretty much the one-stop shop for English language discussion of the Great Patriotic War still. Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943 is, like it says on the tin, a detailed treatment of the 1941-1943 period. His Stumbling Colossus is also a solid treatment of the lead-up to the war from the Soviet perspective, up through about the end of 1941. It gave me a lot of perspective on Soviet force posture prior to the invasion, and it goes a long way towards explaining why the Red Army performed so poorly in the initial period of the war.
Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War
Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War
If he's that together and still cannot find a relationship he's fucking weird. That's not an insult.
There are people who are off-putting to others without knowing it, put people in edge and are uncomfortable to be around. A book called Left of Bang explains how humans react to this kind of behavior.
People who are extremely literal or on the spectrum have a lot of trouble identifying these signals and signs, and as a result they can turn people away from them without having any idea why.
JS: If return on investment were the only, or even the primary, metric by which we decided where to spend tax dollars, NASA, science and engineering across the board really, early childhood education, and infrastructure would probably be the best funded parts of the government. Clearly that is not the case. There are A LOT of factors that go into policymaking, but to quote Judy Schneider, long time Congressional Research Service Specialist on Congress, there are three Ps to policymaking: policy, politics, and process; all three have to be done right for a bill to become a law. Bad politics and getting the procedural moves wrong can quickly kill a bill, so often the first P to go is policy.
The question of why NASA's budget isn't bigger, or why any science or education funding line isn't, is largely about the overall size of the budget pie Congress has to split up. The history of R&D funding shows that it is basically a fixed fraction (~ 11%) of the total discretionary funding level. Discretionary funding is the part that Congress debates every year, as opposed to Mandatory programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are funded automatically year to year based on formulas. When there's more funding in general, more tends to flow to R&D. The exception is the Space Race, of course, but as many others can argue much more eloquently than me, that was chiefly about international competition and national security rather than science (see e.g., John Logsdon).
One other important point here is that there have been huge dividends in terms of technological advances out of the Defense Department, especially the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Here's just one piece exploring how (and in part why) DoD research laid the foundation for a lot of modern technology. It's an interesting story. I personally am hoping to read Sharon Weinberger's The Imagineers of War soon.
Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods by John Poole.
And while not exclusively about the Corps, Thunder and Flames deals with the AEF during WW1 leading up to the St Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne Offensives. Lots of stuff in there about the 4th Brigade, which included the 5th and 6th Marines. The same author wrote To Conquer Hell on the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, which although has very little USMC history in it, it is the only book Ive ever read that gave me nightmares.
To Conquer Hell: The Meuse-Argonne, 1918 is by far the best secondary source on the Meuse Argonne Offensive around. Ed Lengel, who teaches now at UVA does a really good job of utilizing primary accounts to show just how grueling the battle was.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conquer-Hell-Edward-G-Lengel/dp/0805089152
If you still have some cash leftover after helping out with the other requests, I would love to have this book used would be fine.
Edit: Or this one :)
I have the pocket sized one from Collins Gem; ISBN 978-0-00-732081-3
https://www.amazon.ca/Collins-Gem-Sas-Survival-Guide/dp/0007320817/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503863570&sr=1-1&keywords=9780007320813
Left of Bang: How the Marine Corps' Combat Hunter Program Can Save Your Life https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00L45NXF4/ref=aw_ss_kndl_dp/
Here's the amazon link. Hope it's what you're looking for!
International Relations and Foreign Policy are two different things.
For a background in the former, the geopolitics Wiki is top tier (avoid the sub).
For American FP, which is the FP that matters, The Grand Chessboard provides the foundation for American Grand Strategy.
Kissinger is worth reading too, especially Diplomacy.
Other users here have mentioned Robert Kagan. I love the man, but he's more American cheerleader than FP analyst.
Adding Even More Books:
Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758. Fascinating book, very thick and goes in depth on the man who helped found the current United States, I always like a good history book, not sure how Grey would like it.
War Made New :Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World by Max Boot
https://www.amazon.com/War-Made-New-Weapons-Warriors/dp/1592403158. Talks about how the shifts in technology helped further the world today. It was interesting in the way Gustavus Adolphus and Helmuth von Moltke created the armies we had in the 20th century. Tech things always fascinate me too.
In Search of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JN1CIS/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0.
The history of quantum physics is a subject which I am not sure how it would translate to audiobook format, though helped me partially understand the quantum. May be a turn off if Grey does not want to deal physics again.
The Evoution of Nuclear Strategy by Lawrence Freedman is the best book I've read on that subject. It's fascinating read about the journey to stability.
Break yoself: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0190229233/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
If you want to really punish/enlighten yourself, here's a decent chunk of the texts from the course list:
Nations and Nationalism (New Perspectives on the Past)
The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism (Wiles Lectures, 1996.)
The Brothertown Nation of Indians: Land Ownership and Nationalism in Early America, 1740-1840
Gendered Nations: Nationalisms and Gender Order in the Long Nineteenth Century
Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration
Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837; Revised Edition
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (New Edition)
Globalisms: The Great Ideological Struggle of the Twenty-first Century (Globalization)
Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb might be what you're looking for. Mike Davis is one of my favorite historians living today, he is an excellent, readable, writer, and chooses topics that I (and perhaps you as well) am instantly drawn to. Despite the title of the book it about exactly what you're asking and not just car bombs specifically. There are other books that I've read that delve deeper into the root causes of terrorism, but for a concise history of terrorism in the 20th century this book will get you up to speed on a wide array of various factions and event on a global scale. If you want some suggestions let me, but I think this is a good place to start.
First thing to get out of the way, we do not have a significant amount of "anti-nuclear weapon equipment" because we don't have the technology for it or because we think it would be pointless because it probably wouldn't be able to intercept all the warheads or whatever.
Rather, the reason is strictly political. So the history of all this is rather long and complicated so I will do my best to summarize it, but it will not be complete and if you want to learn more I suggest a book called "Wizards of Armageddon" by Fred Kaplan.
Anyway, back during the early Cold War with the US and USSR, there was a stalemate. Both sides had nuclear weapons and no way to protect against them. This lead to a foreign policy called "Mutual Assured Destruction" (also known at MAD, funny enough). The mentality then was basically this, "If you launch your nukes at us, then we will retaliate before your nukes get to us by launch all of our nukes at you!" aka, if you destroy us then we will take you down with us. This policy worked in the sense that it deterred either side from wanting to attack the other out of fear of total annihilation.
However, a bit further into the cold war and suddenly scientist and engineers realized that it was possible to build a way to defend against nuclear war heads. There were lots of plans and ideas and everyone was very confident that they would work. But, then a certain realization came about. Say the USA was able to build a defense network that was about to intercept a vast majority of a nuclear attack. Suddenly, the USA has the incentive to strike first against the USSR because they are confident that they can survive a retaliatory nuclear attack from Russia. Yes, a few would make it through but a lot of people really believed that the USSR was that big of a threat.
It also gets worse then this, say the USSR finds out about this (they did after all learn about the atomic bomb before it was declassified), now Russia has incentive to attack the US before it finishing it's defense equipment because otherwise they could be killed without being able to kill them back. In summary, a nuclear defense would completely void the policy of MAD, at least that is what most of the higher up's came to believe, and so they opted to not build them. They had many talks with the USSR and both decided to not build them to keep the status quo so to speak.
Now thats not to say that there exists absolutely no defense nowadays. The USA does have one line of defense where they can intercept a warhead in mid flight with what it basically a chunk of metal. But this does not have a comfortably high chance of success especially if there are lots of nukes launched at us.
sorry this got kinda long but it is not exactly a simple subject :). Hope this helps.
SAS Survival Guide by Lofty Wiseman is a very useful little book that cover all those points and more - only about 3"x3"x1" as well so very compact
http://www.amazon.com/SAS-Survival-Guide-Survive-Collins/dp/0007320817
e.reader is all well and good but remember a lot of situations will get you wet, floods, hurricanes, crossing bodies of water etc and anything electronic should not be relied on.
Stalingrad, by Anthony Beevor.
http://www.amazon.com/Stalingrad-Anthony-Beevor/dp/0140249850/
Had me nearly crying in impotent rage in the middle of a transatlantic flight.
The following should give you a good grounding:
The Russian Way of War: Operational Art, 1904-1940
Architect of Soviet Victory in World War II: The Life and Theories of G.S. Isserson
Colossus Reborn: The Red Army At War, 1941-1943
Storm of Steel: The Development of Armor Doctrine in Germany and the Soviet Union, 1919-1939
Strategy
The Nature of the Operations of Modern Armies.
The last two are highly esoteric so I wouldn't recommend starting with them.
You're joking, but I just finished this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Pentagons-Brain-Uncensored-Americas-Top-Secret/dp/0316371769/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452884324&sr=8-1&keywords=pentagons+brain
There's a whole chapter about how DARPA is engineering cyborg animals and drones that look like birds and dragonflies.
Lots of great answers everyone. I see that I have a lot of reading to do and that is a good thing. Just for anyone also interested I compiled all of the named books into a list and sourced them, for your reading pleasure.
The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen
Counterinsurgency by David Kilcullen
Out of the Mountains by David Kilcullen
Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya and Vietnam by John Nagl
Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods by John Poole
Modern War: Counter-Insurgency as Malpractice by Edward Luttwak
A Savage War of Peace by Alistar Horne
The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Lester Grau
Invisible Armies by Max Boot
Vid Putivla do Karpat by Sydir Artemovych Kovpac
Fire in the Lake by Frances FitzGerald
Inside Rebellion by Jeremy M. Weinstein
You'd like this book.
I highly recommend Annie Jacobsen's book The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top Secret Military Research Agency. Her book is definitely in the top-10 most interesting books I've read in the past year.
From a Washington Post review:
>DARPA is responsible for stealth technology, tank simulators and the M-16 rifle on the one side of the ledger, but on the other side data-mining programs such as Total Information Awareness and the research that led to harsh interrogation techniques used on prisoners after 9/11. DARPA’s original members were working in the Southern California offices of the Rand Corp. think tank in the 1950s. And nowhere was that competitive spirit more apparent than at lunchtime, when the scientists began playing Kriegspiel, a chess variant once favored by the German military. With maps of the world spread across lunch tables, the great minds of the Cold War era would spend hours on the game.
Here is a part on John von Neumann (Jacobsen writes about him a quite a bit):
>The master of these games, by Jacobsen’s account, was a mathematician and former child prodigy named John von Neumann. He was considered so bright that he was hired by Rand’s mathematics division on rather unusual terms: He was supposed to “write down his thoughts each morning while shaving, and for those ideas he would be paid $200 a month — the average salary of a full-time RAND analyst at the time.” Eventually, he was also charged with a rather delicate project. He performed the precise calculations that determined at what altitude over Hiroshima and Nagasaki the atomic bombs had to explode in order to kill the maximum number of civilians on the ground. He determined that height was 1,800 feet.
And on:
>Von Neumann was one of the original members of DARPA and its precursor organizations. Other notables included John Wheeler, a Princeton University physicist who coined the term “black hole”; Herb York, the first director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; theoretical physicist Edward Teller; and a former president of the California Institute of Technology, Marvin “Murph” Goldberger. It wasn’t until Congress formally created DARPA in 1958 that its key advisers moved from the lunch tables at Rand and other think tanks and took on a more conventional shape. What were once brainstorming sessions at summer homes on the Cape became official meetings at the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington. The Defense Department gave the group a code name — Project 137.
And on:
>Fast-forward to today: With its $3 billion annual budget and its advanced technologies and programs, DARPA is the force behind some of the world’s coolest gizmos, my personal favorite: the Stealthy Insect Sensor Project, which used honeybees to locate bombs. “Bees have sensing capabilities that outperform the dog’s nose by a trillion parts per second,” Jacobsen writes. Jacobsen conducted dozens of interviews with former DARPA members. DARPA, Jacobsen writes, was responsible not only for early research into brainwashing and Agent Orange, but also the hearts and minds campaign in Vietnam and post-9/11 data-mining programs.
Here is another review that uses the information in her book to be quite critical of DARPA:
>Based on interviews with DARPA scientists and classified government documents and reports, Jacobsen’s book provides a history of the agency, which was created by Congress in 1958 and that has led to innovations such as the global positioning system (GPS) and the Internet. Jacobsen previously wrote Operation Paperclip on the recruitment by the Pentagon and CIA of Nazi scientists such as Wernher Von Braun, creator of the German V-2 rocket.
And on:
>Von Braun was part of the milieu of many of the top defense intellectuals and scientists associated with DARPA’s early history, including Edward Teller, father of the Hydrogen bomb, Herbert York, the head of Berkeley’s Livermore radiation laboratory, Harold Brown, the first physicist to hold the position of defense secretary under Jimmy Carter, and John Von Neumann, the “father of modern computers.” They and their successors spearheaded DARPA’s sponsorship of research that led to the so-called revolution in military affairs. The technologies included computerized control and command centers, laser-guided bombs, space-based satellites, night-vision devices and stealth fighter bombers invisible to radar. Psychological warfare techniques and behavior modification software designed to predict peasant behavior in Third World countries.
You can also read some portions of the book that someone highlighted here and here. Whether you like or dislike DARPA, Jacobsen's book is an essential read if you want to understand what's happening in the world. I'm surprised that Harris hasn't interviewed her given that he talks about the implications (the impact of technology) of many of these issues.
And there's a wonderful book that would make a perfect text for a course on that: http://www.amazon.com/The-Savage-Wars-Of-Peace/dp/046500721X
Just finished The Good Soldiers. A beautifully written and very moving account of US a Army Ranger battalion in Baghdad in 2007, during the 'surge'.
Halfway through After the Ice. A bit of paleontology / anthropology. Specifically about the era just pre-civilisation. That is when humanity was settling out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and was tentatively domesticating plants and animals. Still prehistoric, as we have no writing from that era. (And they were almost certainly illiterate).
I don't read much fiction anymore because truth is stranger than fiction, but when I do, it's generally a classic of one sort or another.
I love my local library!
Two great books I just finished:
The first, The Wizards of Armageddon by Fred Kaplan, is a fantastic overview of the development of U.S. nuclear strategy during the Cold War. Kaplan is a great writer who knows how to clearly detail and express information, with some humor sprinkled in making it a fun read. (Just as an aside, if you want to fit this book and nuclear strategy in general into the historical context of U.S. Cold War grand strategy read Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold War By John Lewis Gaddis.)
My second recommendation, this one for modern nuclear strategy in the 21st century, is Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang. It is a brilliant book and very important for understanding how states chose various nuclear strategies/postures and the deterrent power each nuclear posture holds. Amazing book.
The Armed Forces of the USSR
Desert Battles: From Napoleon to the Gulf War (Stackpole Military History Series)
Jane's Guns Recognition Guide
Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods
Militant Tricks: Battlefield Ruses of the Islamic Insurgent
The Warfare in the Eighteenth Century (Smithsonian History of Warfare)
My bookshelf looks like a mixture of some Right-wing militia leader and a super-fan of Tolstoy, Lenin and Robert Ludlum.
IF your interested in a list of fucked up things the US did to other nations read rouge nation https://www.amazon.com/Rogue-Nation-American-Unilateralism-Intentions/dp/0465062806
if your interested how think tanks came to be and how that shaped us forign pollicy read Wizards of Armageddon https://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Armageddon-Stanford-Nuclear-Age/dp/0804718849/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479847753&sr=1-1&keywords=wizards+of+armageddon
I found both hard to read as they are either constantly dropping names or other facts. In the end I stopped trying to remember it all and just let it wash over me till I felt dirty and informed.
Apparently this book, The Good Soldiers is really good, I should buy it and read it - it is about the Iraq war but describes the experience of a group of soldiers. There was an interview with the author by Philip Adams and the experience sounds pretty hardcore. There was one guy who got badly burnt - it's kinda scary the folk who survive war as casualties Today.
Buy and read this then.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stalingrad-Antony-Beevor/dp/0140249850
Its actually worse than you think.
Its a highly strategic area, fought over for centuries.
Read this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/046509435X
and another good one for geo politics
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/046509435X
I have this. It doesn’t have every single plant ever in it. But I remember it having a section dedicated to identifying edible plants/mushrooms and such. It also tells tells you a multi-step approach to checking if something is edible, if you’re not 100% sure. You can see the size in the customer reviews, I always pack it on camps, just in case :)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/SAS-Survival-Guide-survive-Collins/dp/0007320817/ref=mp_s_a_1_13?keywords=sas+survival+handbook+pocket&qid=1574047520&sprefix=sas+survival&sr=8-13
Would you be interested in The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington in exchange for Brothers Karamazov? (I've read it like 3 times off my screen, I really would like a hard copy.)
http://www.amazon.ca/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/dp/0684844419
You are looking at it from the cultural perspective of Westerner. Try to take a step back and look at it from their point of view. It's a bit uncomfortable, but it's necessary to appreciate their reality versus you own.
As to the invasion of Saudi Arabia, you bring up some very valid points, but miss one giant one. Like Iraq, the Saudi Government was oppressive, not free democracy, sponsored (or turned a blind eye to) terrorists within its ranks, and hated the USA. But, the Saudis play ball with American corporations as their dictators (the "king" and his relatives) sell out their nation for personal gain.
And for what it's worth, most Iraqis and most Afghans just go to work everyday and hang out in coffee bars..but we sure kicked their ass when they pissed us off...
If you get a chance, check out This Book to gain some insight into cultural differences. It actually predicted 9/11 to some extent.
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy
The Evolution of International Security Studies
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict
The Fallacies of Cold War Deterrence and a New Direction
The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate
Buda's Wagon. is more post war/Cold War/The situation we're in but is good for understanding why we're in the situation we're in.
Colossus actually covers the entire span of U.S. history focusing particularly on foreign affairs which held significance in the narrative of empire building, but, of course, you can skip around to the parts that interest you most.
Atlantic Crossings is just plain old amazing, covers WWI.
More to come as they come to mind.
The Tao of Jeet Kun Do
This one is the one I'm most familiar with. It's all rooted in martial arts philosophy but you'll find a way to apply it. He's brilliant that way.
Striking Thoughts
|
How to Express the Human Body
Here is 760 pages of awesome:
Strategy: A History
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190229233/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awd_x_P7D5xbNFJSMP3
I will leave this here http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0190229233/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
The only difference between bravery and stupidity is the outcome. If it works your brave. If it doesn't you're an idiot.
Running out to fight for any ol' reason is not brave or bold. It's simply stupid. Ignoring facts is stupid. Don't take my word for it though. This is all you need.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-War-Sun-Tzu/dp/1936276011
t applies to more than just military thinking. It's also considered a must-read business strategy book.
Honestly, if you don't recognize the name of the book and/or the author, you have no business posting in this subreddit or any others that would be associated with this type of subreddit.
CMDR-FusionCor3 :
Why does NASA not have double the funding from Obama era? I did an EPQ
dissertation on wether NASA was worth the cost, and found that, holy shit yes
it was. Instead of having an army three times as big as the next biggest and
twelve times as big as the next, why not divert funding to education and
science?
: SirT6 :
:
: Interestingly, if you look at their budget
: dashboard, you'll see
: that defense spending has contracted sharply since the beginning of the
: reporting period. Most budget growth appears to be in the form of mandatory
: spending outlays, mostly associated with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
: Security.
:
:: EconomistMagazine :
::
:: That still means we have a huge military though. Even if it's cut it's
:: still many times bigger than it needs to be.
::
::: AAAS-AMA :
:::
::: JS: Both /u/idtenterro and /u/Minotard make good points below. And I
::: think the broader point I would make is, science and space advocates
::: should make a prospective case for why NASA funding is important, not
::: attack other areas of funding that are important for their own reasons
::: and deeply valued by others. Also, even if the Defense Department were
::: cut, there's no guarantee (and indeed not even a likelihood) that that
::: funding would go to NASA or any other particular place. The piece I
::: linked to above bears that out historically, and there are procedural
::: reasons why that would be highly unlikely as well.
:::
:: AAAS-AMA :
::
:: JS: This is a really important point. Matt wrote this excellent
:: piece
:: about what he termed the "peace dividend" a couple years ago. In it he
:: makes exactly this point, as defense spending has ramped down after wars,
:: that funding has by and large gone to payments to individuals (largely
:: through entitlement programs). The category of things considered
:: investments -- namely research, education, and infrastructure -- have been
:: on a steady decline as a share of the budget since the peak of the Apollo
:: Era. This has been true across both Republican and Democratic Congresses
:: and Administrations.
::
: AAAS-AMA :
:
: JS: If return on investment were the only, or even the primary, metric by
: which we decided where to spend tax dollars, NASA, science and engineering
: across the board really, early childhood education, and infrastructure would
: probably be the best funded parts of the government. Clearly that is not the
: case. There are A LOT of factors that go into policymaking, but to quote Judy
: Schneider, long time Congressional Research Service Specialist on Congress,
: there are three Ps to policymaking: policy, politics, and process; all three
: have to be done right for a bill to become a law. Bad politics and getting
: the procedural moves wrong can quickly kill a bill, so often the first P to
: go is policy. The question of why NASA's budget isn't bigger, or why any
: science or education funding line isn't, is largely about the overall size of
: the budget pie Congress has to split up. The history of R&D funding shows
: that it is basically a fixed fraction (~
: 11%) of the total
: discretionary funding level. Discretionary funding is the part that Congress
: debates every year, as opposed to Mandatory programs like Medicare, Medicaid,
: and Social Security, which are funded automatically year to year based on
: formulas. When there's more funding in general, more tends to flow to R&D.
: The exception is the Space Race, of course, but as many others can argue much
: more eloquently than me, that was chiefly about international competition and
: national security rather than science (see e.g., John Logsdon). One other
: important point here is that there have been huge dividends in terms of
: technological advances out of the Defense Department, especially the Defense
: Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Here's just one
: piece
: exploring how (and in part why) DoD research laid the foundation for a lot of
: modern technology. It's an interesting story. I personally am hoping to read
: [Sharon Weinberger's The Imagineers of War](https://www.amazon.com
: /Imagineers-War-Untold-Pentagon-Changed-ebook/dp/B01HA4JUEA) soon.
:
: AAAS-AMA :
:
: MH: Adding to what Josh said, and to try to bring this down to the point at
: which Congress has to actually decide: agencies are divvied up in spending
: bills, and if you're an appropriator and you want to (say) double NASA:
: either you need a much bigger spending bill, or you need to find that money
: by cutting something else currently in your bill. Well, in the current
: process NASA is in the same bill as NSF and the Commerce and Justice
: departments. If you don't have a bigger bill, what do you cut to grow the
: NASA budget? FBI? The Weather Service? The National Marine Fisheries Service?
: Most things in most bills have supporters that will put up a fight, even if
: they support your ultimate goal of growing NASA. These are the kinds of
: trade-offs appropriators have to grapple with.
:
-----------------------------------------------------------
SirT6 :
Hi and thank you for doing this AMA! Can you talk a bit about how US spending
on R&D compares to other nations? Further, when determining how to spend R&D
dollars, what are the key metrics that politicians consider (return on
investment, portfolio diversification etc)?
: AAAS-AMA :
:
: Matt Hourihan (MH): OECD maintains some very useful country profiles that put
: national S&T metrics in international context - [here's the U.S. one](https:/
: /www.oecd.org/sti/outlook/e-outlook/sticountryprofiles/unitedstates.htm). In
: a nutshell, we're at or near the top on several metrics like total dollars
: spent, number of elite universities, high-impact papers, triadic patents,
: etc; but a lot of this is due to our size. On some science-relevant metrics
: we're closer to the OECD median (which is not a bad place to be, though we
: can also do better). One of our bigger strengths, besides size, is an
: innovative and dynamic business sector. On R&D/GDP overall we're 10th in the
: world, with investment ramping up in the Far East in recent years. But that
: OECD link has a lot more really interesting data comparisons.
:
-----------------------------------------------------------
modestmeece91 :
When discussing R & D with republican senators (not in regards to environment)
is their any enthusiasm in regards to funding progress in research involving
biology and medicine? has the well been poisoned by partisan politics involving
scientific policy?
: AAAS-AMA :
:
: MH: Biomedical research most definitely has bipartisan support, and has for
: many years. Republicans were in the front lines during the push to double NIH
: in the 1990s. [Here's an interview with Tom Cole of
: Oklahoma](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/23/15674704/trump-
: health-research-tom-cole), Republican who runs the House appropriations panel
: responsible for NIH funding, and who loves him some NIH. And [here's an
: item](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-
: government/congress/article138974053.html) on Cole's counterpart in the
: Senate, Missouri's Roy Blunt, among others. Another big NIH supporter.
:
-----------------------------------------------------------
IamAbot_v01. Alpha version. Under care of /u/oppon.
Comment 5 of 6
Updated at 2017-06-02 07:51:50.575830
This is the final update to this thread
Patriot Fire Team Manual by Paul G. Markel
Its not necessarily a "prepper" book, but really should be read by everyone (seriously...everyone): Left of Bang: How the Marine Corps' Combat Hunter Program Can Save Your Life
Anything by Anthony Beevor.
I finished Stalingrad and am currently reading Crete and they are two of the best history books I've ever read.
Apparently everything he's done is just as good (a friend highly recommends Berlin but apparently it's as draining as Stalingrad, which was incredibly harrowing to read so I'm going to let a bit of time pass).
Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"
Dune by Frank herbert
Crucial Conversations
If It Hurts, It Isn't Love: And 365 Other Principles to Heal and Transform Your Relationships
Halfway Human by Carolyn Ives Gilman
The SAS Survival guide is the Ultimate guide to how to survive just about anything and should be fairly easy to pick up in the US as well.
To Conquer Hell- Its about the Meuse-Argonne offensive and is pretty well written. It does a nice job of showing the individual accounts while detailing the overall movement.
http://www.amazon.com/To-Conquer-Hell-Meuse-Argonne-Battle/dp/0805089152
The Savage Wars Of Peace: Small Wars And The Rise Of American Power: Max Boot. 2003.
Every American military officer has read it. Almost no one else has.
Here is a used copy for a penny
I never knew that the US had enough US troops in Russia to have stopped the Bolshevik revolution.
What nation did the US occupy for 104 years? (China) Who knew?
Want to really understand Haiti?
Made an account just to say this:
I read most of the replies and didn't see anything regarding it; there is a book called "Striking Thoughts", which is basically a compilation of quotes attributed to Bruce Lee. I read my first copy so many times that I wore it out. Everything in it is good, but some of the things he says really make you reflect.
http://www.amazon.com/Bruce-Lee-Striking-Thoughts-Library/dp/0804834717/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450383301&sr=8-1&keywords=striking+thoughts
You might want to read Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace. He gives a pretty good history of the marine corps, their first deployment against the Barbary pirates, and the long list of actions they've been assigned since. Back in the early 20th century, they were actually referred to as "State department troops." We used them to invade Korea, Nicaragua, Mexico three times! (that whole "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" thing). Fun stuff.
In the absence of a proper read, you could always just verify it on wikipedia.
I mostly read speculative fiction, which is typically divided between the subgenres of fantasy, sci-fi, and alternate history. Alternate history is technically considered a subgenre of Sci-Fi, but I read enough of it to make it worth counting as a separate group. Within each of those subgenres, there is a wide variety of styles and some people might find themselves not a fan of one style but a fan of another. If you are not well read in these genres, then you will want to try a few different styles of story before dismissing it. I also sometimes read novelizations of historical events which have their own sort of enjoyment to them that fictional stories lack. Then there are books that are set from an animals point of view, which range from attempts to be as accurate as possible to being practically fantasy stories.
As far as individual books, I will try to give you a few of the best to pick from without being overwhelming. Some are stand alone stories while others are parts of series.
Fantasy single books:
After the Downfall
Fantasy series:
The Dresden Files
A Song of Ice and Fire aka Game of Thrones
Sci-Fi single books:
Slow Train to Arcturus
Mother of Demons
Sci-Fi series:
The Thrawn Trilogy There are a great many Star Wars books worth the read, but this is definitely the place to start.
Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow
Alternate History single books:
The Guns of the South
1824: The Arkansas War Technically this is a sequel to an earlier book, but this one is leagues better and you don't need to read the first book to understand what is going on.
Alternate History series:
How Few Remain
1632
Worldwar
Non-Fiction:
Band of Brothers
War Made New This one isn't even really a novelization, just an analysis of the changes to military technology, tactics, and training over the last 500 years. Regardless, it is very well written and a great read.
Animal POV books:
Watership Down
Wilderness Champion
The Call of the Wild and White Fang These two books are by the same author and go in pretty much opposite directions. Among literature fanatics, there is no consensus over which one is better and I don't think I can decide for myself so I am recommending both.
Edit: I forgot to mention, the first book in the 1632 series is available online for free. This is not a pirated version, but something the author put up himself as a part of an effort to move publishing into the modern day with technology and make books more accessible to readers.
I highly recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Striking-Thoughts-Wisdom-Living-Library/dp/0804834717
It's a collection of quotes by Bruce Lee on various subjects, and it's extremely interesting to read through.
If you get a chance check out a book by Antony Beevor called Stalingrad. It came out years ago but it still one of the best history books that I've ever read.
Also it's quite a different area of history than what you've been reading lately. He also has another book about D-Day if you're interested in that as well.
English version of this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HA4JUEA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
>Secondly, I think a comparison to past regimes supported by vastly different American administrations
If you think that is in any way shape or form true, might I suggest this book for you:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Savage-Wars-Of-Peace/dp/046500721X
it is utterly de-political and used by the US army in the field quite extensively. If nothing else just look at how often the same names appear again and again as people who the US has liberated ... from the last people the US put in place there.
After the 5th time you invade Panama surely someone would think there was continuity in US politics?
> is borderline whataboutism at best and completely disingenuous at worst.
"whataboutism" is an intellectually dishonest tactic used by media shills to shut down any rational comparison between different political system. It is trying to make something sound like a non-sequitur when it isn't.
For example the usual example given by the Economist, which is who coined this word, was Khrushchev calling out "And you hang niggers" to every criticism levied at the USSR.
While everyone in the Western media just laughs at him for being "out of touch" anyone in the ghettos knows exactly what he is saying. The USA uses a class stratified society to extract as much value out of poor people as it can without any recompense. By comparison the USSR and Russia today still have free universal healthcare, as does Cuba, while the average person in the Ghetto will more than likely die of diabetes in their 40's after working 3 minimum wage jobs a day since they graduate from high school. The poorest people today are the descendants of slaves, which were predominantly black or mixed race. Therefore it is an inescapable part of the capitalist political system to "lynch niggers" as part of its basic operation.
The difference today is that the niggers have been off-shored or become illegal immigrants. Thanks to the black panthers and other violent black supremacist organizations in the 1960's-70's blacks can no longer be tread upon. Just locked up in prisons en-mass for a crime that any white (read as rich) kid will get a slap on the wrist for.
As for the rest, I would respond if you'll actually read it, there is nothing more annoying that typing out a wall of text only to have the other person call you a shill for listing the UN red-cross as a source which contradicts the state department.
>I'm just guessing, but I imagine it is being downvoted by people who think it doesn't really add much to the conversation
Pointing out that I studied a piece of Sagan's work, which is widely critiqued as bad, doesn't add to a conversation about why he was denied membership in a scientific organization that considers your work?
>He responded to someone talking about the quality of some of Sagan's work to mention that he has read only one thing, isn't familiar with his work and "imagines" that the rest of his work was erroeneous. It isn't particularly logical and doesn't add much to the conversation.
Nothing in my post claims that the rest of his work must have been as erroneous. I point out that this particular bit of his work was dogshit, and any work he produced with problems of this caliber probably factored into his denial.
If you every want to know how bad the paper was, read The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, then read his paper, and then read the peer reviews. The peer reviews do a good job pointing out the flaws from the perspective of their scientific field, and the book will give you a grasp of how nuclear war actually works, so when you read through his paper you'll understand how flawed Sagan's assumptions are. Survival guides such as this one serve as a good cheat sheet if you don't want to read a 550 page book, and they also touch on the physics involved, such as the effects of a nuclear weapon's thermal pulse, which Sagan also made incorrect assumptions about.
>I could see people, especially those that like Sagan not caring for such a post.
They don't care for the post because they have a weird pop-science fetish and want to believe Sagan is infallible. That the only explanation for why he was denied membership must have been spite, and had nothing to do with glaring problems with his actual work.
> That's the difference between civilized and uncivilized.
Right, so first of all accusing foreign cultures and people of being 'uncivilized' is so 19th century. It reeks of Eurocentrism and Western Imperialism.
But since were expressing offensive opinions: I think this is Barbaric, this too by the way.
This however, just might be progress
https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/046509435X/
It's about who sets the rules of international trade and who benefits, if china becomes powerful the US can't impose its laws and values on the world. So the US wants to contain china's power otherwise it loses it's ability to set the rules of things like IP, etc. AKA the US wants everyone to have its bullshit corrupt laws that mainly benefit US corporations.