What are you reading?

[PhrogPhlyer]

First published in 1987 this is a must read. It is detailed enough for the scientist with a story worthy of the novelist.
I have read this several times since I bought a copy in 1987, and I found it to be the story of a) modern physics, b) the atomic bomb, and c) the cold war. This is the foundation read for anyone desiring an understanding of how the A-bomb led to the cold war and how it effects world policy and strategy today.

 

[Odominable]

First published in 1987 this is a must read. It is detailed enough for the scientist with a story worthy of the novelist.
I have read this several times since I bought a copy in 1987, and I found it to be the story of a) modern physics, b) the atomic bomb, and c) the cold war. This is the foundation read for anyone desiring an understanding of how the A-bomb led to the cold war and how it effects world policy and strategy today.

Excellent recommendation. I’ve never read a book that balanced so effectively very thorough technical detail with really, really good prose. The foreshadowing throughout was stupendous.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

And if after The Making of the Atomic Bomb you are thirsting for more, there's the follow on book Dark Sun, Making of the Hydrogen Bomb.
Essential books in what I call my Atomic Bookshelf collection.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Nice, looks like I have a couple new books to add to the bedside table this winter, thanks phrogphlyer

 

[gparks1989]

Just finished Skies of Thunder which is about the China-Burma-India theater broadly, and flying the Hump in particular. The stories of the pilots who flew the route are harrowing, to say the least. And I didn't appreciate the extent to which the CBI was a repository of charlatans and misfits (like Stillwell and Chennault, among many others). I am also always impressed by the British officers who were often fluent in multiple, obscure languages of India, Burma, and elsewhere.

 

[Griz882]

I found this one in the dollar pile at an old book store. So far I’d say it is an interesting premise (although a near impossible dream) that the AF is effectively out-of-touch and a wasteful enterprise whose missions could readily be rolled into the navy and army at considerable cost savings. The AF doesn’t appreciate the book, but they use it in a few courses at their service schools. I haven’t finished it, but it strikes me as more of an economist's argument.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

A review of GROUNDED was published in the Strategic Studies Quarterly (June 22, 2014) written by Dr. Steve "Wilbur" Wright, Deputy Commandant, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.

An interesting and scholarly read.

Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force. - Free Online Library

Free Online Library: Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force.(Book review) by "Strategic Studies Quarterly"; Government Books Book reviews

www.thefreelibrary.com

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

I found this to be a well written and informative read that delves into the development of a culture and social movement around POW-MIA.
It clearly walks the reader though specific terminologies not well understood by the masses (such as the difference between POW and MIA), as well as a detailed accounting of the actual number of US MIAs through various conflicts. I was fascinated with how a clear accountability, and efforts to locate and identify MIAs was turned into a movement, almost a cult for the idea of there being live POWs.

This is not a pro or con discourse, but rather an explanation of the various aspects of POW-MIA, and how they are used by individuals and groups for their own ends.

Well worth the time.

 

[Flash]

I found this one in the dollar pile at an old book store. So far I’d say it is an interesting premise (although a near impossible dream) that the AF is effectively out-of-touch and a wasteful enterprise whose missions could readily be rolled into the navy and army at considerable cost savings. The AF doesn’t appreciate the book, but they use it in a few courses at their service schools. I haven’t finished it, but it strikes me as more of an economist's argument.

But seriously, given how poorly the Army has managed its aviation procurement over the last 30 or more years that decision seems to be...pollyannish, at best.

 

[Griz882]

But seriously, given how poorly the Army has managed its aviation procurement over the last 30 or more years that decision seems to be...pollyannish, at best.

Let’s be brutally honest….that laughter can be aimed at the procurement process of each service. Indeed, if we want to drill down to any hard “what’s wrong” with the U.S. military it all pretty much starts and ends at procurement.

 

[Flash]

Let’s be brutally honest….that laughter can be aimed at the procurement process of each service. Indeed, if we want to drill down to any hard “what’s wrong” with the U.S. military it all pretty much starts and ends at procurement.

The Army's new aviation asset development is a special kind of stupid though, standing out more than others. Which is saying something as you point out.

 

[Griz882]

The Army's new aviation asset development is a special kind of stupid though, standing out more than others. Which is saying something as you point out.

This is true.