Talk:The Sum of All Fears

Link at end

Should the link to the full text of the book be removed? I'm no expert on copyright law, but it does seem a little questionable, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.11.118 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Replaced "fighter" with "attack aircraft"

Replaced "fighter" with "attack aircraft" since as far as I remember, the aircraft is an A4 Skyhawk which is not a fighter. Also changed "shot down" by "crashed into a mountain" since this is what happens in the movie. Hope this is also true for the book.

The plane in the book was damaged by a SAM. It didn't go down immediatly but rather disintegrated after a while, crashing into the ground. In the film it's just BOOM... all over in a couple of seconds. --J-Star 12:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Post 9/11-world"

I agree that the script was created before the 9/11-attacks. However, even if the attacks were not the reason for the differens in goal for the terrorists, the difference is still very interresting in the "post-9/11 world". The clarification that the script was created before 2001-09-11 should be enough to remove any ambiguties. --J-Star 12:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Difference Between Movie and Book

From the article: "The goal in the book was for the terrorists to let themselves get caught and frame the Iranian president for the attack in order to provoke the American president into launching a nuclear strike on the city of Qom, which would kill scores of innocents and thus shame the US in the eyes of the world."

Someone wrote that, and I don't believe it's true... I don't have my copy of TSoAF nearby, but I think that THAT was a secondary benefit for the terrorists, after Ryan had thwarted the war between Russia and the US. The terrorists were NOT trying to get caught, from my understanding... they were fleeing Denver and were captured in Mexico City. After this, Ryan was "on the list" of people who could approve a covert missile strike (under a two-man rule) and would not approve the President's missile launch on Qom. But, from my understanding, Qom was sort of a last-second way for the terrorists to salvage some gain out of the bombing, other than the explosion at the Super Bowl. Scot0127 17:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have to ask the author himself to be absolutely certain. However, what I wrote ties in with the beginning of the novel where great progress is made in creating a lasting peace between Israel and the palestinians. I for one think that Clancy intended for the terrorists to use a variant of the classic terrorist concept of the provoking agent. --J-Star 19:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification on that... I hadn't that of it that way. Scot0127 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can recall (been a long time since I read the book), the point about bombing Iran wasn't planned from the terrorists' side. The germans that started the fighting in Berlin were disguised as Russians, and the two terrorists that placed the bomb in Denver expected to get out of country before the bomb went off, so that the outcome would be a war between the US and USSR. The reason for why they even tried to make this happen however, was because of the prospect of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the palestinians. Bjelleklang - talk 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But also note the reply --J-Star 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)when Ryan fools them at the end... they say something to the effect of "Everything you (the US) have done is for nothing".

I thought they were unaware that they had been compromised at the time? As far as I recall, they thought that everything had succseeded, and that the US and USSR were at war against each other. But as I said, it's a long time since I read the book, so I might be wrong. Bjelleklang - talk 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is plainly wrong. The terrorists wanted to get the western and eastern block to destroy themselves and so destroy Israel. The destruction of Qom was not intended; see the end of chapter 43. I've deleted the paragraph.--Oneiros 16:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you quote that section because I'm holding the book in my hand right now and that is not at all what my edtition says. Unfortunatly I can't quote it because mine is non-english. --J-Star 17:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Aw frell it.. here it is, translated from swedish. From "Summan av Skräck", page 763:

"I mean Qum no longer exists. Your friend Daryaei is explaining his misdeeds to Allah". They were simply too tired, Ryan thought. Fatigue was the man's worst enemy, even worse than the (?) ache in his hand. Qati showed no absolutely signs of being upset. His next mistake was even worse. "You have made yourselves the enemy of all of Islam. Everything you have done to create peace in the region will be for nothing because of this." "Was that which was your real goal?" asked Ryan. He became very surprised and struggled to overcome the fatigue from the two hours of sleep he had gotten that night. "Was that what you wanted to do? Oh my god!". (End quote)

With this I'm reverting the article. --J-Star 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And how were the western and eastern nations to catch the terrorists after a nuclear war? --Oneiros 20:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

i have read this book multiple times and do not see this part anywhere within the terrorists' goals. if they wanted the United States to nuke Qom, they would have done something else to make it look more like Daryaei did it himself (i don't really know how) but their main goal was indeed to start a war between the Soviet Union and the United States, as can be seen in Gunther and his buddy (i forget his name) pretending to be Soviet tank officers and attacking the Americans there oh also, i dont think they wanted to frame Daryaei or to get caught at all. Daryaei was found by Clark and Chavez torturing Qati and Ghosn to have funded the little operation, and they also did not mean to get caught (why would they get those tickets to mexico city if they wanted to get caught).. 67.180.108.210 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That is all part of the complete act that Darayei wanted to get the US and Russia to go to war. Also, if they didn't act as if they wanted to get away, they wouldn't have been able to plant the lie that Darayei was behind it all. --J-Star 10:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Answer my question. How were the western and eastern nations to detect this "lie" when they had destroyed themselves in a nuclear war? Or do you claim that Daryaei et.al. didn't want to start an all-out nuclear war? --Oneiros 12:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

i have the book in front of me now. "the objective, mr. president, was to drive us and the Russians into a nuclear exchange, or at least to so screw up our relations that the situation in the Gulf would revert to chaos. That would serve Iranian interests - or so Daryaei supposedly thinks." Skhatri2005 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

i must eat my words, it was their desire for Qom to get nuked, "Ryan's next call was to Arnie van Damm. He explained what he had learned. "My god! They were willing to--" "Yeah and it almost worked," Ryan said huskily. "Clever, weren't they?" damn i ate my words here Skhatri2005 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't. "it" = "to drive us and the Russians into a nuclear exchange". My question is still open... --Oneiros 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No... because that was after the part I quoted above. Or are you saying that "he learned" something else that supports your interpretation? Please quote. --J-Star 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If it was their desire to get Qum nuked, why doesn't Ryan tell Daryaei so, when they finally meet?

The quotes we have is:

1. “One more connection, and they would disappear completely. Who would have expected such luck?” (Chapter 39) — they wanted to escape, not be caught
2. “‘the objective, mr. president…’” — global nuclear war
3. “‘My god! They were willing to…’” — this is unclear and can be read both ways, but it's the only source supporting the claim that they wanted Qum nuked
4. “‘It was supposed to be a five-hundred-kiloton device.’ ‘If it had gone off right, we would have known it had to be the Russians,’ Jack said. ‘No one could have stopped it.’” (Chapter 44) — global nuclear war

So we have only one sentence in the whole book that may be read as if they wanted Qum nuked (but that is circumstantial at best), but many more stating the goal of global nuclear war and the terrorists trying to escape.--Oneiros 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Yes, that part speaks for your interpretation. However, that is also the only part. The rest in the book goes just as well for mine. 2) Doesn't prove anything because that is what they want them to believe. 3) - 4) Not something the terrorists could have known and/or planned for.

Yes, we have only a last minute revelation... which is the point... to showcase the great deception. Now I would like you to read the end of chapter 43 and explain how it fits into your interpretation. --J-Star 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you think in 4) the terrorists didn't know/plan? The size of the bomb? The effect?--Oneiros 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you insinst on the end of chapter 43: Yes, Qati is "happy" that the peace efforts in Arabia have failed, as this is their ultimate goal. But that doesn't mean that they wanted Qum nuked — they simply doesn't care how Israel is ultimately destroyed: Either in the wake of a global nuclear war or when the US retaliate. But that doesn't make nukeing Qum something they wanted. They surely didn't want to get caught. Do you have any evidence that they wanted to be caught?--Oneiros 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Qati tried to frame Daryaei after they had been caught, but his goal first was to start a nuclear war and not get caught. The framing of Daryaei was an afterthought, and it's dubious if he believed the USA would nuke Qum because of this. After being told that the USA did, he approves, as this will destroy the peace in Israel (which is "what you wanted to do"). But the sentence "The goal in the book…" is wrong: They did not want to be caught.--Oneiros 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing we could do is try to get hold of Tom Clancy and ask the man himself. Until then I'm content with having the "disputed" flag om that section.--J-Star 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have his number/email? I think its a good idea to leave it as disputed. Skhatri2005 21:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

plot summary

Silly argument above. The book is abundantly clear and the idea of the terrorist's goal being to provoke a US retaliation against anyone other than Russia doesn't enter into it. The whole point of (a) a very big bomb and (b) starting the fighting in Germany is to provoke a war between the super powers. Why all this confusion above? Maybe the film (which I have not seen) has a different plot, and some people have been confused by that. But there is no question that the plot in the book (which I have a copy of, and have read several times - it is perhaps the most compelling of all the Tom Clancy novels - is as stated. Tannin 07:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is not that clear... because nothing you have said contradicts the argument that this was done in order to willingly admit to the act in order to enrage the superpowers into lashing out viciously in a way that would shame them to the world's muslims (and everyone else as well fro that matter). --J-Star 07:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to even a single reference to support your reading of the book? It is not reasonable to insist on imposing a strictly personal view which is undocumented, unreferenced, and not supported by (from my quick reading of the discussuion above) any of the other editors of this page. What I am saying, in other words, is that if you want to insert an odd-ball private theory into this article, then the onus is on you to persuade other editors that your view is correct. That's fine by me: go ahead and present your evidence here on the talk page. If you can persude other editors that your theory is correct, then changing the text is appropriate. But it is not reasonable to simpy insist on inserting your views against the majority. Tannin 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have. Read through the section "Difference between the movie and the book" above. The final word was that we should get into contact with Toim Clancy himself and ask and that we should leav ethe "disputed" tag in the article. --J-Star 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have found it now. Tom Clancy hasn't answered the USENET posting, but someone else hinted me. In the very end of chapter 20, Bock and Qati discuss a backup plan in case of a failure. I assume that this is where the Agent provocateur plan is born. It was not the main plan as I claimed, but it was indeed a part of the planning. --J-Star 07:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The movie was portrayed in a bad manner

i read the book before reading the movie i felt it would have been better if the producer wold have made the movie on the book

The object of wikipedia is to provide a non POV base of knowledge and personal opinions have no place in it Citizen erased 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Move section to (film) article

• Split - The film article already exists. Either remove the duplicate info from this article, or merge the section into the film article. --Shuki 22:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

books name

Can anyone tell me where the name of the book came from? it might be a useful bit of trivia -mickiscoole ^Talk 12:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is written in the beginning of the book.--J-Star 12:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Qom?

The article never mentions why Qom is selected as the target for the US strike. The two-man rule article implies that this was because a terrorist leader was suspected to be in the city. Is this correct? If so, I believe this should be mentioned, it seems like a major point. However, the two-man rule fails to mention who was suspected to be in the city. This too seems like an important point. Could someone add these details? Maury (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Qom was selected because the terrorist mastermind of the attack, after being captured and interrogated (tortured) by John Clark, claimed that an Iranian cleric living in Qom was the true mastermind. As it turned out, this was not the case -- the Iranians had nothing to do with the attack -- but because Qom is a holy city, the US would have paid a significant price in political fallout in the Islamic world for nuking that city, likely ending the peace process. 38.104.120.214 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

why ids there no f...... character list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.214.1 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if a terrorist behind a successful attack in the USA was living in Qom, why obliterate Qom with a nuclear weapon, and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? This would be clearly illegal, an atrocity and a war crime. Essentially mass murder. I have not read the book, but does it try to explain why an atrocity of this nature would be proposed, let alone endorsed by a US president?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl

In the book, it's made explicitly clear that the Super Bowl is being played in Denver, Colorado, between the Vikings and the Giants. That's the reason the bomb is set off there. If it was being played in Baltimore, Maryland, as the edit before mine indicated, the bomb would have been set off there.

76.119.208.151 (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous edit above and the edit to the article from the same IP were both made by me—I had forgotten to log in. SeveredCross (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

first edition cover art takes precedence over re prints

RE: "Revert good faith edit - again, first edition cover art takes precedence over re prints"

This sounds like total bunk, and if it is a rule, it is a dumb one, one of many here. I am sure someone can find some essay supporting this. Or some guideline which only four or five people actually took part in, forcing their view of wikipedia on everyone.

I guess it doesn't matter now, as the image was promptly deleted. Way to welcome editors edits. :/ Adamtheclown (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference removed because it links to a copyright violation

I had no choice but to delete the article's only reference notation because the link is to a download of a PDF of the entire novel. Unless Clancy has released the book to the public domain (something not indicated in the article), we cannot link to such files as that violates Wikipedia's Copyright rules. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)