On 2005-01-11 bubicus, Seattle, WA United States wrote: I´m a fan of what-if and alt-history books. Although I have owned this book for years, I never got around to reading it until now, 12 years after it was written. Now that I have read it, I´m not impressed. Compared to Sir John Hackett´s ´The Third World War´, ´Pacific Nightmare´ is a half-researched, unbelievable imitator.
First of all, the book is subtitled, ´How Japan Starts World War III´, but there is no World War III in the book, and Japan doesn´t even commit a clearly offensive action. The tension between Japan and US is completely fabricated, and there is no historical basis for it. By 1992 (in our world), it was already clear that the skyrocketing Japanese economic growth was either slowing or had already peaked, and there was little anti-Japanese sentiment among the general public. So, why would the US and Japan have such bad diplomatic relations by 1997? Why would a US president have been elected on the issue of anti-Japanese sentiment? In fact, why would there be diplomatic problems between the two powers if their economic markets are so interdependent? (If relations had been truly bad, consumption of the other country´s goods would be down, possibly even to the point of embargos, which would hurt both economies.) These questions were not satisfactorily explained.
Secondly, the United States´ resolution to the US/Japan conflict is unbelievable. The US did not even attempt diplomacy, but instead performed a military action that would have produced a sharper and longer-lasting global condemnation than what was described in the book. The flimsy excuse given by the Secretary of State did not explain why the US did not contact the Chinese military over the ´evidence.´
Third, it is not even explained how Japan´s military could possibly be considered a threat big enough to cause the US to go to war with Japan. The Self-Defense Force was too small and had very little transport capability even in the early ´90s, so the only way to invade another country (other than air transport), especially a country the size of China, would be to begin a massive industrial/military buildup over a five-year period that every intelligence agency in the world would notice. However, no such buildup was even hinted at, and the SDF contigent was described as ´lightly armed´ by the author. The eventual SDF deployment by air could not be considered an invasion, especially given the spread-out deployment and light weaponry of the SDF units. There weren´t even any artillery, air support, or mechanized vehicles in evidence. Furthermore, it´s not even explained in the book why Japan would even deploy SDF units when the rebel Chinese had already denied them permission. Why would Japan risk an international incident, especially given the history between Japan and the rest of Asia which was already summarized in the book?
The only thing about the book was the Chinese rebellion. If Winchester had stuck to the rebellion and its consequences, and not tried to extrapolate a global war out of it (although he may have been able to pull off an explanation for a regional war, provided he didn´t continue to use broad ethnic and historical stereotypes to explain the causes), the book could have been better.
I´m barely scratching the surface of the inconsistencies within ´Pacific Nightmare´. Simon Winchester seems to be a well-regarded travel writer. Maybe he should stick to that.
. And summed up by saying flawed. Currently Pacific Nightmare : How Japan Starts World War III has an overall rating of 4 over 10.
Pacific Nightmare : How Japan Starts World War III can also be found in the following searches:
Ivy Books claimed On the eve of the twenty-first century, North Korean leader Kim Jong II lays siege to South Korea, precipitating a retaliatory invasion by the Western allies and turning Asia into a war zone. Reprint. NYT.
Item that are similar to Pacific Nightmare : How Japan Starts World War III can be found at: