12/25/2023 0 Comments Defcon oneThe term was coined by US defence chiefs in 1959 to signal degrees of military threat, ranging from Defcon Five to Defcon OneĪ source close to Ms Thornberry confirmed she had referred to Defcon and films, but denied that she did not know what it meant. It led to a clash with Blairite MP John Woodcock, head of Labour’s defence committee, who was at the meeting of Labour’s international policy commission.ĭefcon stands for ‘defence readiness condition’. We need someone who can talk about the future. Ms Thornberry provoked more controversy later that day when she was accused of snubbing former Admiral of the Fleet Lord Boyce.Īfter Labour foreign affairs spokesman Hilary Benn suggested asking Lord Boyce for advice on nuclear policy, witnesses say Ms Thornberry replied: ‘He has been out of it for too long. Everyone was silently asking themselves, “Has our candidate to be the next Labour Defence Secretary just said she doesn’t know the code for a nuclear war?” ’ The levels date back to 1959, the height of the Cold War, and were little-known outside military circles until the 1983 movie WarGames, about a computer hacker who almost sparked World War Three by accessing US military computers.Ī witness who heard Ms Thornberry’s comment said: ‘The room went quiet. The highest alert the US has used was Defcon Two, which it reached in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The term was coined by US defence chiefs to signal degrees of military threat, ranging from Defcon Five to Defcon One, which means nuclear attack is imminent. She made the remark at a meeting of a group set up to review the Labour leader’s pledge to scrap the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines.Ī nuclear weapons expert present pointed out that Defcon stands for ‘defence readiness condition’. Jeremy Corbyn’s defence spokesman sparked a row last night over claims that she did not know the meaning of ‘Defcon One’ – the term for imminent nuclear war. The narrator was excellent with good inflection and pace to keep the story moving at the right pace but with real emotion.Gaffe-prone Emily Thornberry shocked aides by asking: ‘Can someone explain Defcon One and Two to me? I’ve only ever seen it in films.’ ![]() I found the characters solid and believable and I thought the discussions in White House situation room about possible US response not only believable but with the emotions felt by the participants made it feel like the reader was in the room an unseen witness the soul searching discussions. The action scenes are tense, well written (up there with the best of Clancy and Bond). Add into this naval and air battles and it all makes up a really exciting read. A deep cover agent in the Kremlin has news of the plot, and there is a plan in place to return him to the US with the news, but he and his CIA handler are discovered and what should have been a simple extraction turns into a fight for live across the frozen wastes of Russia. It is a somewhat strange plan as it begins by antagonising the US almost to the brink of war, then pulling back and planning on striking when the US relaxed it's defensive posture. This is a fast paced cold war geo-political thriller that has the 2 superpowers USA and USSR standing off against each other as belligerent and hard line new Soviet General Secretary sets out plans to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US. I had always thought I could happily read some pretty trashy ridiculous light books, it seems I have limits. If you do find yourself part way through the book and are hoping it gets better, um, it doesn't. This narrator may work for some pretty specific books but here, he was as bad as the book and at least in this case, two negatives most definitely didn't make a positive. Sometimes a gifted narrator can rescue some pretty average story telling, this is not one of those times. ![]() The characters, well character is probably too strong a word, the dialog, best not mentioned, even the plot execution was pretty disjointed. This is really not good writing, actually the more you think about it, the worse you have to admit the writing is. The basic premise, that the Soviet Union elected to embark on a nuclear strike rather than concede the cold war I thought had some potential. I wanted to enjoy this book, I even finished it though I couldn't explain why.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |