Ian Slater receives by far my most mixed review. His series of books that explore what would happen if there was a Third World War between the Soviets/Russia has many positive sides. Unlike most authors of the genre, Slater isn't afraid to face the ugly realites a long horrific war would entail. As you can see by the number of books in the series (and their are even more, I just stopped reading them for reasons I'll get to in a minute)he goes into great detail about the campaigns fought in each of the theatres of the war. So what Tom Clancy does in one book ("Red Storm Rising") Slater does in at least nine books that I am aware of. But if you think of it, no one would ever try to fit all of WWII into a single novel, so why should WWIII be any different.
As a aspiring historian I enjoy these kinds of books because their are in essence future or alternative history. It's a kind of what if game that my mind likes to play. But the American mindset seems to impose several restrictions on writer when it comes to writing stories of WWIII. The first restriction is, the war is never long and drawn out like WWI and WWII. Secondly there is NEVER NEVER a strategic nuclear exchange between the super powers. It's as if we just won't or can't make ourselves look over the nuclear precipice to see what kind of life lies on the other side. American media from books to movies like the 60's classic "Fail Safe" portray nuclear war as an absolute end to everything. A blinding white flash followed by oblivion.
Slater is the only writer I've ever read that examines a scenario where there is a limited nuclear exchange between the two super powers. Several cities are destroyed but the world doesn't end. In fact the conventional war continues. For this reason above all I admire Slater's works.
Now on to Slater's numerous and considerable faults. The most blaring of which is the fact that his books are rife with techinical inaccuracies. Now I know more than almost anyone I know, about modern weapons. This is due to all the time I spend reading books like Slater's and Clancy's, in addition to the info I pick up in my history research. When it comes to novels I'm pretty forgiving. I mean if an author says a missle has a range of 40 miles and I know the figure is actually 60, I don't care. But Slater takes this to the absurd, makeing weapons do things that are totally impossible. Among his finer moments, he says Stealth Technology can be defeated by Extra Long Wavelength Radar, but his coup de grace of inaccuracy occured when he had a Russian ICBM shot down by a sub-sonic Harpoon Anti-Ship Missle! I mean I think the Harpoon's top speed is supposed to be 450 knots. An ICBM is going fast enough to make it into orbit. Not even to mention a Harpoon has no anti-aircraft capability what so ever, it's designed to skim the waves and smash into a ship's hull at the waterline, not shoot down airplanes. It's idiotic occurances like this that eventually made me quit the series in disgust. (But then again, two weeks ago I would have sworn you couldn't have shot a Harpoon at Madison Square Garden or an 80 foot lizard, so maybe I'm wrong.)
To summarize Slater has a lot of talent as a storyteller, he masterfully describes the turmoil caused by war, both on the battle line and at the home front. He is just in desperate need of a competant fact checker.