Talk:Weapons of Choice (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject • (Novels, Novellas, Novelettes & Short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured Article): A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events - "10 achieved" Wikipedia wide peer reviews: no reviews currently Novels WikiProject Peer reviews : Master and Commander Improve: The Body in the Library • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon • More... Create: Dover Beach • Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title Adam Bede for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. The new article Fictional locations now exists - as a companion article to Fictional characters - but it is still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. Another new article A Taste for Death (P.D. James novel)‎ now exists - but it is also still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. A new Infobox exists to support the growing number of "Short Story" articles that are tagged as part of the project - take a look at it and comment on it's talk page. I would suggest we use it for "Short Stories and "Novelettes" and leave the main "Book infobox" for "Novels" and "Novellas". New hitlists added to the main worklist. List of literary works with eponymous heroes List of literary works with eponymous heroines Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

This article includes an incomplete infobox, which is part of the standard display of novel information developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. You can help by filling in the missing or incorrect information yourself, or copying the "source code" into the attached article if you need it, and filling in the information yourself, or by providing the following information here on the Talk page so that someone else can construct the box:
	~title of novel~ ~cover image of novel fair use~ ~image caption to give edition details~ ~author of novel~ ~country of publication~ ~language of original novel~ ~illustrator for novel~ ~cover artist name for novel~ ~novel genre~ ~publisher for novel~ ~dd month yyyy~ Print (~binding~) ~pagecount pp (~binding~ edition)~ ~ISBN ~999999999~ (~hardcover~ edition)~ ~prior book in series if relevant~ ~subsequent book in series if relevant~
Edit this message

Contents 1 Problems with the list of ships 1.1 "George Bush-class carrier" 1.2 "Littoral assault ship" 1.3 "Nemesis-class cruiser" 1.4 "LPD-12 landing assault ship" 1.5 How to list ships that don't appear until second book? 2 Liberal Bias? 3 Research Quality

[edit] Problems with the list of ships

[edit] "George Bush-class carrier"

USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) is currently considered the last Nimitz-class ship. Depending on developments, by 2021 she might be reconsidered as the first of a new class. Alternately, if something bad happened to her circa 2010, CVN-78 might be named USS George Bush.

I think this refers to George W. Bush (the current president) and not to George H.W. Bush. -Spotts1701 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But there's currently a George H.W. Bush in the works, and the Navy isn't going to have two ships named "George Bush" at the same time. Mind you, as I said above, there are ways around this problem. ("something bad" was a euphemism for 'gets sunk'.) Of course, the simplest explanation is that the MNF isn't from our timeline, so it isn't bound by our facts.

—wwoods 09:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem to be from our timeline (e.g. there probably won't be a naval variant of the F-22, a fusion-powered ship by 2021 is not gonna happen, it doesn't look like the War on Terror's gonna get out of control like it did in that other timeline, etc).

Another thing is that the author is ready to throw reason overboard just to get a nice chuckle out of it (the George Bush class, the 1942 plane that had to save the fleet -- after 20 years of war against just such threats you'd think they'd be able to fight ships that get closer than a few hundred yards...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.3.204 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Littoral assault ship"

Is this the same as Littoral combat ship?

I think that referred to the Kandahar and iirc her description sounded like an amphibious assault ship. Perhaps an improved version better suited for a War on Terror-threat environment. Could also be that the Navy simply fell in love with the word "littoral" =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.67.221 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Nemesis-class cruiser"

Is "Nemesis" the name of a US Navy ship, a RN ship, or a technology like Aegis?

It seems from the context to be a class of vessels (possibly replacing the Ticonderoga-class guided missle cruiser). -Spotts1701 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I was just wondering about the source of the name of the class, which is usually that of its lead ship.

Nemesis would be an odd name for a US Navy cruiser, which for a long time have been named for battles, cities, and a few people important to the Navy. (Maybe John D. Nemesis was/will-be HRC's SECNAV? :-).

Nemesis would be a fine name for a Royal Navy ship, but even if the USN copied the design, I think they'd give their version its own class name. Or the class might be informally referred to by some characteristic, the way the Ticos are 'AEGIS cruisers', but in that case "Nemesis" shouldn't be italicized.

(The real explanation is probably that when Birmingham made up the name he went with the RN/RAN style, without thinking about whether it was right for a USN ship. But that's no fun.)

—wwoods 07:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "LPD-12 landing assault ship"

USS Shreveport (LPD-12) is of the Cleveland (LPD-7) class, which is being replaced by the San Antonio (LPD-17) class.

—wwoods 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to list ships that don't appear until second book?

There are two ships in the MNF which don't appear at all in Weapons of Choice post-transition, but are important in Designated Targets: the HMS Vanguard (which landed in the Arctic ice and was stripped by the USSR), and the Dessaix (captured and stripped by the Germans, and used by the Japanese to attack Hawaii). At the time of Weapons of Choice, as far as the rest of the MNF knows, these ships either didn't go through the Transition or were destroyed by it.

How should these ships be listed in the Order of Battle? Currently the "Ships of the MNF" section is inconsistent--it lists the Vanguard as "lost and presumed destroyed", but describes the Dessaix's fate as we readers know it from Designated Targets. Any opinions? Narsil 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody responded, so I'm going to change the OoB to represent the state as known to the MNF at the end of WoC--that is, both the Vanguard and the Dessaix are missing and presumed lost. Narsil 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Bias?

• The 'flawless' nature of the 2021 personnel is also viewed as being heavily tainted by liberal bias.

Huh? The main issues with the 1942ers seem to be their racist and sexist attitudes. I thought those two were no longer considered liberal issues. Sexual orientation plays a minor role but even here all that we see is acceptance which is shared (at least officially) by all mainstream Republican politicians. So what is so *heavily* tainted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.67.221 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research Quality

I am currently trying to read this book, and so far have found the quality of the research to be horrible. The author has a Marine Battalion being led by a Colonel (the job of a Lt. Col.), the S-4 Logistics officer being a Lt. Col. (the job of a Captain), and the chief medical officer being a Navy Captain (the job of a Navy Lieutenant). He also has the 3rd Battalion 9th Marine Regiment (3/9) being part of the 5th Marine Division, when it is really a part of the 3rd Marine Division. He also has 3/9 having a "C Company". C Company would belong to 1/9, and 3/9 would have comppanies lettered I, J, andK (plus L if at full wartime strength). An MEU is the equivelant of a Regiment, with a Colonel leading it (who outranks the LtCol that leads the GCU (Infantry) section). The MEU is composed of seperate units combined, and they do not loose their unit designation. 3/9 (or 3rd Bn or Btn, not "3 batt" as the author calls it - Batt is short for "Battery", an Artillary unit) would still be 3/9. The individual armour and artillary units would also keep their designations. The MEU is only a temporary unit, and once the operation is complete it is disbanded. And if it was an MEU of the 5th Division, it would be named a 2 digit number, starting with a 5 (51st MEU, 52nd MEU, etc). An MEU designation of 82nd MEU would belong to the 8th Marine Division (which like the 5th, does not exist - the most ever was 6 during WWII). The author also has new classes of ships (including Amphibious Ships) thrown all over the place, apparently not realizing the length of service that the US Navy actually puts it's ships through. The USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) was in service from 1961-1993. The current Wasp class ships (7 built - 1 under construction) is so new, I can't see the reason for the author designing an entire new class of Amphibious ship. Especially considering what they normally stick the Marines with (20-30+ years is the average life span of an amphib ship). Speaking as a former Marine infantryman, the author should have talked to a few Marines as research before publishing this book. I am only on page 7, and have found a huge number of glaring inconsistancies. No matter what changes may happen (such as women being in an infantry battalion), they would never make such huge changes in the rank structure, or build entire new classes of Amphib ships. A Tom Clancy, Harry Turtledove, or W.E.B. Griffin this guy is not. Mushrom 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does happen, sometimes, that Bns are lead by Cols(He probably screwed up somewhere.). Thats not really so big of an error there. The rest of it, I can't say... I've never read the book. Gelston 17:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, it is a piece of fiction and set in a different timeline. I can not honestly remember seeing or reading that a multinational force made its way to the 40's from the future. As it is a piece of fiction, I don't think your arguments are relavent. ----darkman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.125.16.21 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC).