What do you think?
Rate this book
Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S.
One of the great secrets of the Cold War, hidden for decades, is revealed at last.Early in 1968 a nuclear-armed Soviet submarine sank in the waters off Hawaii, hundreds of miles closer to American shores than it should have been. Compelling evidence, assembled here for the first time, strongly suggests that the sub, K-129, sank while attempting to fire a nuclear missile, most likely at the naval base at Pearl Harbor.
We now know that the Soviets had lost track of the sub; it had become a rogue. While the Soviets searched in vain for the boat, U.S. intelligence was able to pinpoint the site of the disaster. The new Nixon administration launched a clandestine, half-billion-dollar project to recover the sunken K-129. Contrary to years of deliberately misleading reports, the recovery operation was a great success. With the recovery of the sub, it became clear that the rogue was attempting to mimic a Chinese submarine, almost certainly with the intention of provoking a war between the U.S. and China. This was a carefully planned operation that, had it succeeded, would have had devastating consequences. During the successful recovery effort, the U.S. forged new relationships with the USSR and China. Could the information gleaned from the sunken sub have been a decisive factor shaping the new policies of detente between the Americans and the Soviets, and opening China to the West? And who in the USSR could have planned such a bold and potentially catastrophic operation?
Red Star Rogue reads like something straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, but it is all true. Today our greatest fear is that terrorists may someday acquire a nuclear weapon and use it against us. In fact, they have already tried.
305 pages, Hardcover
First published September 6, 2005
105 people are currently reading
703 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
March 6, 2018
A speculative, conspiratorial work.
This one sentence from John Craven's book fascinates the author: "there existed a possibility, small though it might be, that the skipper of this rogue submarine was attempting to launch or had actually launched a ballistic missile with a live warhead in the direction of Hawaii. He take this conditional conjecture, throws in a cabal of KGB big shots, and delivers an almost 300-page book. The central thesis behind his assertion of a rogue launch is his claim that the sub went down at 163º W Lon, 24º N Lat. This is critical since the K-129 was armed with three SS-N-5 Serb missiles with a range of approximately 760 nautical miles. Pearl Harbor is 327 nautical miles from the claimed sinking site, well within the range of the Serb missile. If the sub sank at the official claimed site of 180º Lon, 40º N Lat, it would be more than 800 nautical miles short of the presumed target.
That aside, There's a bunch of inaccuracies in his description of the Hughes Glomar Explorer and the raising of the K-129. The essential facts are: The location of the recovery site was not restricted to "ranking members of the Glomar crew and the CIA managers" as Mr. Sewell claims. Certainly the seamen (ship drivers) were well aware of the recovery position, as was the recovery team. Contrary to his assertion, there were no restricted areas on the ship except the commo van and the rig floor during dangerous pipe handling conditions. Others would frequently visit the bridge where we could observe the Transit Nav Sat position being displayed on the navigation console. Besides, anyone with a boy scout's knowledge and protractor could observe the sun at local noon and determine the latitude to within a couple of degrees. The position of the K-129 recovery site was on the180º meridian, approximately 40º N Lat. The longitude was so spot on the International Date Line, that there was some discussion as to the date to use in the recovery log. Since the voyage originated east of the date line, we continued to use this date.
Also, the book states that the one-megaton nuclear warheads carried on the K-129's missile have a yield equivalent to 1000 tons of TNT; in reality, one megaton is about one million tons TNT equivalent. Another simple, verifiable error is that the authors claim that the crews of USS Parche & USS (Richard B.) Russell received awards for their part in the K-129 recovery efforts in late 1968/early 1969. What?! These two subs weren't even built yet! Also, the authors repeatedly use presented hypotheses as facts later in the book - a cardinal flaw in any form of deductive reasoning.
There's some space on nefarious Soviet rogues, but there's no record of them (a memorial later carries extra names, but the authors never follow up on them) - but if they had been there, he asserts, they could have been KGB "Oznaz" commandos who could have commandeered the ship, and would have had training in using nukes; the Americans determine the truth, but kept quiet for "political" reasons (for the authors, it's enough to say how tense the American political situation is and say that the considerations for the cover-up were indeed political without having to get into details). The authors lunge for every possible conclusion, and drop a few sensationalist hints that they never bother to follow up (links to convicted turncoat John Walker and the mysterious loss of the USS Scorpion being two examples; my guess is that Walker's role is overblown here - there's no explanation for how he had access to sensitive diplomatic documents).
The authors' proof is also selectively analyzed. Extra crewmen are "established" to have been on K-129, even though there's no record of their being aboard, and any record, the authors say, could have been falsified by the high-ranking plotters. The authors never consider that evidence establishing that these men ever existed may have been a simple clerical error (if the plotters were highly placed, couldn't they have simply substituted the desired crewmen?). The authors discount a voluntary role played by the actual executive staff because their high rank made them loyal - but then implicate higher ranking members of Soviet leadership; the extra crew accidentally destroy the ship trying to bypass safeguards on the ship's warheads, but it's never explained why loyal agents of such highly authorized sources lacked access to the weapons that obviated a bypass; the authors determine that a missile explosion destroyed the ship - but make the leap to an explosion caused by an attempted launch, and ignore any other hardware failure like the one that caused the Nedelin tragedy, or the one involved in the loss of Submarine K-219 in 1986 (K-219 rates nary a mention in "Rogue"). The authors posit conspirators trained on nuclear-weapons, but not trained adequately. Lastly, the Americans go out of their way to recover K-129 intact because they can use it as proof of the Soviets' plot as leverage against them - even though the sub itself (according to "Rogue") is likely cut up for scrap by those same Americans almost as soon as it's brought back to California.
Though claiming the attack was meant to frame the Chinese, the authors utterly fail to present evidence pointing to China: K-129 was an advanced member of a class of subs found only in Soviet service, crewed by uniformed Soviet sailors and armed with Soviet missiles. The authors utterly fail to provide information that Americans in 1968 would have needed to link the attack to China, or explain how the Soviets could have refuted suspicions that the attack was their own. It's as if the authors spent most of the book hyping some horrible plot - then neglecting to include the plot as well.
The author's spend most of the book "debunking" the nearly-official story of K-129 & her recovery, dismissing some claims as ludicrous - but still relying on many such sources for corroboration. Why the accepted story is the wrong story, but sufficient for their purposes will remain a mystery the authors are not likely to reveal in the near future.
The book gets goofier and goofier as you go along: he describes a "cold launch" system to fire the missiles FROM A SURFACED POSITION - in essence this system uses compressed air to blow the missile free from its launch tube AS THE SUBMARINE IS SUBMERGED. The predecessor to the submarine, the Golf I class HAD to fire while surfaced, and used an elevator platform to lift the missile clear of the launch tube, of which there were three located in the sail. The Golf II was specifically created to be able to utilize the R-21 missile, which GAVE IT AN UNDERWATER LAUNCH CAPABILITY. If the author had even bothered to actually read Pavel Podvig's book, Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces WHICH HE CITES, he would know that the K-129 would not have fired from the surface, but submerged. But well, that would conflict with the story....
So the permissive action lock triggered the missile's warhead to self destruct? What? How? The PAL prevents the missile from firing, or the warhead from detonating, but it does NOT pop the explosives. It would render it inert, assuming the R021 had such a system. Not to mention that such an explosion would have opened up the missile's fuel tanks (it was a liquid-fuelled missile after all) and most likely would have blown open the missile hatches covering the other two birds in their tubes. Then you have two more missiles blowing their fuel tanks, and in the end, there wouldn't be enough of that sub left to fit in a sardine can.
Elsewhere young sailor found wearing a senior officer's sheepskin coat is cited as evidence of a mutiny. The authors say anonymous sources reported twelve mysterious men were added to the crew, but they do not have a list of the crewmembers. The authors say such a list would be faked anyway. Huh?
This was actually my first book on K-129, unfortunately.
This one sentence from John Craven's book fascinates the author: "there existed a possibility, small though it might be, that the skipper of this rogue submarine was attempting to launch or had actually launched a ballistic missile with a live warhead in the direction of Hawaii. He take this conditional conjecture, throws in a cabal of KGB big shots, and delivers an almost 300-page book. The central thesis behind his assertion of a rogue launch is his claim that the sub went down at 163º W Lon, 24º N Lat. This is critical since the K-129 was armed with three SS-N-5 Serb missiles with a range of approximately 760 nautical miles. Pearl Harbor is 327 nautical miles from the claimed sinking site, well within the range of the Serb missile. If the sub sank at the official claimed site of 180º Lon, 40º N Lat, it would be more than 800 nautical miles short of the presumed target.
That aside, There's a bunch of inaccuracies in his description of the Hughes Glomar Explorer and the raising of the K-129. The essential facts are: The location of the recovery site was not restricted to "ranking members of the Glomar crew and the CIA managers" as Mr. Sewell claims. Certainly the seamen (ship drivers) were well aware of the recovery position, as was the recovery team. Contrary to his assertion, there were no restricted areas on the ship except the commo van and the rig floor during dangerous pipe handling conditions. Others would frequently visit the bridge where we could observe the Transit Nav Sat position being displayed on the navigation console. Besides, anyone with a boy scout's knowledge and protractor could observe the sun at local noon and determine the latitude to within a couple of degrees. The position of the K-129 recovery site was on the180º meridian, approximately 40º N Lat. The longitude was so spot on the International Date Line, that there was some discussion as to the date to use in the recovery log. Since the voyage originated east of the date line, we continued to use this date.
Also, the book states that the one-megaton nuclear warheads carried on the K-129's missile have a yield equivalent to 1000 tons of TNT; in reality, one megaton is about one million tons TNT equivalent. Another simple, verifiable error is that the authors claim that the crews of USS Parche & USS (Richard B.) Russell received awards for their part in the K-129 recovery efforts in late 1968/early 1969. What?! These two subs weren't even built yet! Also, the authors repeatedly use presented hypotheses as facts later in the book - a cardinal flaw in any form of deductive reasoning.
There's some space on nefarious Soviet rogues, but there's no record of them (a memorial later carries extra names, but the authors never follow up on them) - but if they had been there, he asserts, they could have been KGB "Oznaz" commandos who could have commandeered the ship, and would have had training in using nukes; the Americans determine the truth, but kept quiet for "political" reasons (for the authors, it's enough to say how tense the American political situation is and say that the considerations for the cover-up were indeed political without having to get into details). The authors lunge for every possible conclusion, and drop a few sensationalist hints that they never bother to follow up (links to convicted turncoat John Walker and the mysterious loss of the USS Scorpion being two examples; my guess is that Walker's role is overblown here - there's no explanation for how he had access to sensitive diplomatic documents).
The authors' proof is also selectively analyzed. Extra crewmen are "established" to have been on K-129, even though there's no record of their being aboard, and any record, the authors say, could have been falsified by the high-ranking plotters. The authors never consider that evidence establishing that these men ever existed may have been a simple clerical error (if the plotters were highly placed, couldn't they have simply substituted the desired crewmen?). The authors discount a voluntary role played by the actual executive staff because their high rank made them loyal - but then implicate higher ranking members of Soviet leadership; the extra crew accidentally destroy the ship trying to bypass safeguards on the ship's warheads, but it's never explained why loyal agents of such highly authorized sources lacked access to the weapons that obviated a bypass; the authors determine that a missile explosion destroyed the ship - but make the leap to an explosion caused by an attempted launch, and ignore any other hardware failure like the one that caused the Nedelin tragedy, or the one involved in the loss of Submarine K-219 in 1986 (K-219 rates nary a mention in "Rogue"). The authors posit conspirators trained on nuclear-weapons, but not trained adequately. Lastly, the Americans go out of their way to recover K-129 intact because they can use it as proof of the Soviets' plot as leverage against them - even though the sub itself (according to "Rogue") is likely cut up for scrap by those same Americans almost as soon as it's brought back to California.
Though claiming the attack was meant to frame the Chinese, the authors utterly fail to present evidence pointing to China: K-129 was an advanced member of a class of subs found only in Soviet service, crewed by uniformed Soviet sailors and armed with Soviet missiles. The authors utterly fail to provide information that Americans in 1968 would have needed to link the attack to China, or explain how the Soviets could have refuted suspicions that the attack was their own. It's as if the authors spent most of the book hyping some horrible plot - then neglecting to include the plot as well.
The author's spend most of the book "debunking" the nearly-official story of K-129 & her recovery, dismissing some claims as ludicrous - but still relying on many such sources for corroboration. Why the accepted story is the wrong story, but sufficient for their purposes will remain a mystery the authors are not likely to reveal in the near future.
The book gets goofier and goofier as you go along: he describes a "cold launch" system to fire the missiles FROM A SURFACED POSITION - in essence this system uses compressed air to blow the missile free from its launch tube AS THE SUBMARINE IS SUBMERGED. The predecessor to the submarine, the Golf I class HAD to fire while surfaced, and used an elevator platform to lift the missile clear of the launch tube, of which there were three located in the sail. The Golf II was specifically created to be able to utilize the R-21 missile, which GAVE IT AN UNDERWATER LAUNCH CAPABILITY. If the author had even bothered to actually read Pavel Podvig's book, Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces WHICH HE CITES, he would know that the K-129 would not have fired from the surface, but submerged. But well, that would conflict with the story....
So the permissive action lock triggered the missile's warhead to self destruct? What? How? The PAL prevents the missile from firing, or the warhead from detonating, but it does NOT pop the explosives. It would render it inert, assuming the R021 had such a system. Not to mention that such an explosion would have opened up the missile's fuel tanks (it was a liquid-fuelled missile after all) and most likely would have blown open the missile hatches covering the other two birds in their tubes. Then you have two more missiles blowing their fuel tanks, and in the end, there wouldn't be enough of that sub left to fit in a sardine can.
Elsewhere young sailor found wearing a senior officer's sheepskin coat is cited as evidence of a mutiny. The authors say anonymous sources reported twelve mysterious men were added to the crew, but they do not have a list of the crewmembers. The authors say such a list would be faked anyway. Huh?
This was actually my first book on K-129, unfortunately.
June 1, 2009
I thought this book was a good editor away from being a five star book, but there are a number of reasons why I like it.
First of all, assuming that this book is completely true and full of facts, it's a scary reality, and it's certainly plausible. Did this happen? Was all of society nearly snuffed out? Is this worth reading again with Pakistan's shaky society and North Korea's nuclear ambitions? In short, simply the prospect of what could have been is scary enough for me, and I found this part to be gripping.
Additionally, did Tom Clancy get the idea for The Hunt for Red October from this story? The similarities are there, but since I'm someone that enjoys an occasional Clancy novel or three, if you want something as well-written as possible, you take Clancy and the Red October.
Lastly, though, I was engrossed with the inclusion of the Glomar Explorer. As a young boy, I remember reading Janes and all sorts of good military history, and I always wondered what that ship was for...until I read this book. Some things I've always wondered about fit into place, and with that, we get a four star book. If only the writing was stronger...
First of all, assuming that this book is completely true and full of facts, it's a scary reality, and it's certainly plausible. Did this happen? Was all of society nearly snuffed out? Is this worth reading again with Pakistan's shaky society and North Korea's nuclear ambitions? In short, simply the prospect of what could have been is scary enough for me, and I found this part to be gripping.
Additionally, did Tom Clancy get the idea for The Hunt for Red October from this story? The similarities are there, but since I'm someone that enjoys an occasional Clancy novel or three, if you want something as well-written as possible, you take Clancy and the Red October.
Lastly, though, I was engrossed with the inclusion of the Glomar Explorer. As a young boy, I remember reading Janes and all sorts of good military history, and I always wondered what that ship was for...until I read this book. Some things I've always wondered about fit into place, and with that, we get a four star book. If only the writing was stronger...
September 24, 2021
Potential readers should know this is primarily a work of speculation. The author, Kenneth Sewell, does state this in his opening. However, there are places throughout the book where it can be difficult to untangle fact from hypothesis. Towards the later chapters the hypothesis really starts to break into hardcore fiction with little evidence to backup the author's speculations. That aside there is a lot of Cold War history recounted in these pages - both political as well as military operations. The recounted story includes a significant amount of Soviet naval and submarine information as well as US intelligence collection capabilities against the Soviet submarine force. This information alone makes the book worth the read. Recommended for those interested in Cold War relations and naval operations for the same period of history.
April 29, 2010
Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richmond (the authors) share an amazing amount of information about the rogue nuclear-powered Russian sub K129 that almost launched a nuclear attack on Pearl Harbor in 1968. Using a plethora of available facts--many only recently released--they are not afraid to draw logical conclusions and weave a daunting picture of what might have been had the attack succeeded. Though we can't know (no videos, journals, captain's log remain--the sub's carcass is lost deep beneath the ocean) what happened, I have read no other conclusions that fit the facts as well as theirs. As much as they can figure, Pearl Harbor and the USA survived only by virtue of the fail safe devices installed as standard equipment on nuclear weapons, designed to prevent just such a hijacking by the bad guys of the world.
Whether true or not, it's a fascinating read, filled with specifics that can't fail to make you cross your fingers in hopes we never get this close again.
Whether true or not, it's a fascinating read, filled with specifics that can't fail to make you cross your fingers in hopes we never get this close again.
May 7, 2016
Probably could have told the story in half the pages. Lots of leaps here. And repetitive. Probably could have told the story in half the pages.
April 15, 2015
Red Star Rogue stayed its course to the very last page, anchoring me place with its un-floundering execution of this captivating, intrigue-rich analysis of the K-129 incident.
Okay, enough with the nautical play on words. Sewell did an outstanding job here. Anyone fond of Tom Clancy’s work, or all things thick with espionage and skullduggery will thoroughly enjoy this book. The author did his homework, and showed a healthy amount of analytical objectivity to answer reader’s questions before they were asked.
With that said - I’m going to go on a bit of a tirade here so please excuse me. According to this book (*spoiler alerts) satellite technology circa 1969 could not only see an object in the middle of the ocean measuring only 5 ft. by 5ft., it was also capable of identifying burning fuel as the type and grade used by Russian attack subs of that time. Satellites could virtually smell petrol from outer space. So, how is it that in 2014 not one nation on this planet was able to tell us what happened to the still-missing jumbo jet MH 370.
My theory then, now reinforced by revelations within this book, was that most likely several countries are well aware of what happened to that mysterious flight, or in the least, “where” it happened. However, saying so would inadvertently shed too much light on their surveillance technology’s efficacy. Still, you would hope that someone, somewhere would at least hint, as in, “Hey, maybe someone should look over here. We saw a blip or something around the time of its disappearance.”
I didn’t buy the story, or lack there of, then, and I certainly don’t buy it now. Red Star Rogue made me re-think flight MH 370. I hope others will sit up and take notice as well.
Okay, enough with the nautical play on words. Sewell did an outstanding job here. Anyone fond of Tom Clancy’s work, or all things thick with espionage and skullduggery will thoroughly enjoy this book. The author did his homework, and showed a healthy amount of analytical objectivity to answer reader’s questions before they were asked.
With that said - I’m going to go on a bit of a tirade here so please excuse me. According to this book (*spoiler alerts) satellite technology circa 1969 could not only see an object in the middle of the ocean measuring only 5 ft. by 5ft., it was also capable of identifying burning fuel as the type and grade used by Russian attack subs of that time. Satellites could virtually smell petrol from outer space. So, how is it that in 2014 not one nation on this planet was able to tell us what happened to the still-missing jumbo jet MH 370.
My theory then, now reinforced by revelations within this book, was that most likely several countries are well aware of what happened to that mysterious flight, or in the least, “where” it happened. However, saying so would inadvertently shed too much light on their surveillance technology’s efficacy. Still, you would hope that someone, somewhere would at least hint, as in, “Hey, maybe someone should look over here. We saw a blip or something around the time of its disappearance.”
I didn’t buy the story, or lack there of, then, and I certainly don’t buy it now. Red Star Rogue made me re-think flight MH 370. I hope others will sit up and take notice as well.
May 29, 2014
Lots of problems with this book. Sewell and Richmond may be the kings of redundancy, with paragraph after paragraph making the same point--in only slightly modified language. 300 pages could have been condensed to 125 easily.
Then there are the questionable facts. A one-megaton warhead is NOT a low-yield device. The US did NOT have digital spy satellites that could spot a nuclear launch (those came in the 1970s). The Chinese nuclear "arsenal" was almost non-existent and the Chi-Coms had no boomer submarines at that time (to launch such a missile). Also (though my nuclear physics is a bit rusty), I'm pretty sure the plutonium in a thermonuke is not powdered, but rather a pretty hard yet pretty metal.
Then there are the questionable facts. A one-megaton warhead is NOT a low-yield device. The US did NOT have digital spy satellites that could spot a nuclear launch (those came in the 1970s). The Chinese nuclear "arsenal" was almost non-existent and the Chi-Coms had no boomer submarines at that time (to launch such a missile). Also (though my nuclear physics is a bit rusty), I'm pretty sure the plutonium in a thermonuke is not powdered, but rather a pretty hard yet pretty metal.
February 3, 2009
I had a hard time putting this book down once I started it. It has the feel of a fictional spy thriller, but only small details of the story are currently unverifiable and probably always will be. The apparent shake-up at the Kremlin says enough for me.
November 28, 2021
I bought a hardcover copy of this book for just the equivalent of half a dollar at a bargain bookstore two years ago. The events surrounding the motive of the submarine and its crew are mostly through educated guesswork.
October 24, 2023
Starts out reading like a spy novel but ends up lost in a sea of speculation. Makes a compelling case for a scenario in which a rogue Soviet submarine was within seconds of launching a nuclear missile at Hawaii. Fortunately, it did not happen but the submarine was destroyed and sank. The recovery efforts by the CIA are a worthy story that has been covered in other books but not quite as well as here. Overall, this is well written and researched but unsatisfying for the reader since nothing definitive is offered up.
December 11, 2017
I enjoyed this book and read it cover to cover in just a few sittings. However, you have to enjoy this book for what it is and not be disappointed by what it isn't. This book is an exciting political and military thriller that'd be at home next to the best works of Tom Clancy. This book is not an historical reference book.
Here's the actual history that we know. In March of 1968 a Soviet ballistic missile sub, the K-129, sank in the Pacific Ocean and there were no survivors. Despite a large scale search and rescue effort by Soviet forces they were unable to locate their sunken submarine. Thanks to a host of technologies the United States was able to locate the wreck of the Soviet submarine. It was thoroughly documented via photographs and some debris was recovered. This effort reached its zenith in 1974 when Project Azorian (mistakenly referred to as Project Jennifer by the author) attempted to raise the entire submarine off the ocean floor using a specially built ship called the Hughes Glomar Explorer. The success of that effort is open to some debate. Both the US and Russian authorities have made only limited public statements about these events and they remain among the most highly classified events that occurred during the Cold War.
The author presents the hypothesis that the Soviet submarine was in fact on a rogue mission to launch a ballistic missile at the US Navy Base at Pearl Harbor. In this hypothesis, the author indicates that the rogue entities within the KGB designed this mission to implicate China in the nuclear destruction of Pearl Harbor in order to start a devastating war between the United States and China. This would eliminate two major foes of the Soviet Union simultaneously. I daresay that the authors hypothesis, as presented, is plausible. However, the distance between plausible and likely is wide and filled with hearsay and highly circumstantial evidence.
My only real complaint is the authors tendency to present hearsay and conjecture as absolute fact. Additionally, in one breath he'll condemn an official government position as part of the cover up and in another he'll use that same position to support his own conclusions.
I enjoyed the book tremendously despite its flaws. It presented a very interesting hypothesis which seems to fit much of the circumstantial evidence surrounding the sinking and recovery of this submarine. While the author presents his conclusions as fact, I suggest that the reader maintain a more critical mindset while reading this book and formulate their own conclusions about the plausibility and likelihood that the events actually transpired as the author describes.
Here's the actual history that we know. In March of 1968 a Soviet ballistic missile sub, the K-129, sank in the Pacific Ocean and there were no survivors. Despite a large scale search and rescue effort by Soviet forces they were unable to locate their sunken submarine. Thanks to a host of technologies the United States was able to locate the wreck of the Soviet submarine. It was thoroughly documented via photographs and some debris was recovered. This effort reached its zenith in 1974 when Project Azorian (mistakenly referred to as Project Jennifer by the author) attempted to raise the entire submarine off the ocean floor using a specially built ship called the Hughes Glomar Explorer. The success of that effort is open to some debate. Both the US and Russian authorities have made only limited public statements about these events and they remain among the most highly classified events that occurred during the Cold War.
The author presents the hypothesis that the Soviet submarine was in fact on a rogue mission to launch a ballistic missile at the US Navy Base at Pearl Harbor. In this hypothesis, the author indicates that the rogue entities within the KGB designed this mission to implicate China in the nuclear destruction of Pearl Harbor in order to start a devastating war between the United States and China. This would eliminate two major foes of the Soviet Union simultaneously. I daresay that the authors hypothesis, as presented, is plausible. However, the distance between plausible and likely is wide and filled with hearsay and highly circumstantial evidence.
My only real complaint is the authors tendency to present hearsay and conjecture as absolute fact. Additionally, in one breath he'll condemn an official government position as part of the cover up and in another he'll use that same position to support his own conclusions.
I enjoyed the book tremendously despite its flaws. It presented a very interesting hypothesis which seems to fit much of the circumstantial evidence surrounding the sinking and recovery of this submarine. While the author presents his conclusions as fact, I suggest that the reader maintain a more critical mindset while reading this book and formulate their own conclusions about the plausibility and likelihood that the events actually transpired as the author describes.
July 25, 2011
The sinking of the Soviet submarine K-129 and the CIA's subsequent attempts to recover it has long been of interest to me. So, having finally gotten the chance to read this book, I was intrigued by this new angle on what seemed a familiar incident. In fact if you think you know anything about this event then you might want to think again.
Red Star Rogue puts forward a compelling case that the event that sank K-129 was far more sinister then the public has ever been told. In fact authors Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richard use interviews (mostly with unnamed sources), declassified documents and supposition they come to the conclusion that on March 7, 1968 the U.S. came within moments of a nuclear attack by a rogue Soviet submarine. While they certainly make a compelling case it is by no means convincing.
The make that case the authors fall into the trap often found in conspiracy theory boos of building a theory that fits facts but not the supporting evidence. The authors contend that a rogue group of hard-line Soviet officials put a KGB team on K-129 who then hijacked it and attempted to launch a missile in an attempt to start a war between the U.S. and China. Sadly the authors try to make up for a lack of evidence with supposition by the bucket load and the result, while compelling, is far from convincing.
Where the authors are more successful is in the revelations about the CIA attempt to recover the wreck of K-129. The authors reveal a web of intrigue and deceit used to cover up where the sub sank, how it was found and how much of it was recovered. Here, armed with much better evidence, the authors make both a compelling and convincing case. The revelation that much more of K-129 was recovered then has ever been admitted has to be read by anyone who thinks they know all there is to know about this incident.
Red Star Rogue is a compelling book. Though not convincing in its premise of a near miss with a nuclear attack, the case for a CIA cover-up in the recovery effort is. While it might not be entirely convincing it is certainly compelling and should be a fascinating read for anyone interested in the Cold War era.
Red Star Rogue puts forward a compelling case that the event that sank K-129 was far more sinister then the public has ever been told. In fact authors Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richard use interviews (mostly with unnamed sources), declassified documents and supposition they come to the conclusion that on March 7, 1968 the U.S. came within moments of a nuclear attack by a rogue Soviet submarine. While they certainly make a compelling case it is by no means convincing.
The make that case the authors fall into the trap often found in conspiracy theory boos of building a theory that fits facts but not the supporting evidence. The authors contend that a rogue group of hard-line Soviet officials put a KGB team on K-129 who then hijacked it and attempted to launch a missile in an attempt to start a war between the U.S. and China. Sadly the authors try to make up for a lack of evidence with supposition by the bucket load and the result, while compelling, is far from convincing.
Where the authors are more successful is in the revelations about the CIA attempt to recover the wreck of K-129. The authors reveal a web of intrigue and deceit used to cover up where the sub sank, how it was found and how much of it was recovered. Here, armed with much better evidence, the authors make both a compelling and convincing case. The revelation that much more of K-129 was recovered then has ever been admitted has to be read by anyone who thinks they know all there is to know about this incident.
Red Star Rogue is a compelling book. Though not convincing in its premise of a near miss with a nuclear attack, the case for a CIA cover-up in the recovery effort is. While it might not be entirely convincing it is certainly compelling and should be a fascinating read for anyone interested in the Cold War era.
October 21, 2010
This book ties together some well known facts, some new revelations that are thinly sourced, and circumstantial evidence to paint a chilling picture of what may have been happening in 1968 when K-129 sank off Hawaii. Whether the story is true or not will likely never be known - even if hard information to confirm the machinations of the KGB and Politburo exist, I seriously doubt that it will come to light. With the information available, the narrative that Mr. Sewell paints is truly terrifying and shows the great lengths to which Cold War enemies went to play each other. What is even more terrifying is that it is so plausible as to be real, and that it was very near a success rather than a failure on the part of the men aboard K-129. How the United States would have reacted to a nuclear strike on Pearl Harbor in 1968 is no secret - the missiles would have flown at whoever Johnson could blame first. The author's links to the coming glasnost and perestroika show that the Soviet and American leadership knew how close they were to nuclear catastrophe and saw the need to reduce tensions and bring the Cold War to an end. If this was the result of 98 men losing their lives off Hawaii, then perhaps the story does have a positive ending after all.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 13, 2012
This is a very engaging book; well, if you're into historical non-fiction about submarine warfare. I found it very interesting.
Sewell presents a somewhat radical theory about the well-known K-129 incident. I had read about this book from articles about K-129 that say that Sewell's theory is nonsense and the work of a crackpot. I think that's an unfair characterization of Sewell. Right or wrong, he presents a very well-researched, well-argued position. There are places where his reasoning does not seem sound - he's far too willing to interpret lack of evidence as evidence of secrets, and there are a few places in the text where he states things as "obvious" conclusions that seem a bit strained to me.
In the end, Sewell's argument hinges on information that he gleaned from more than a dozen anonymous sources. You have to judge for yourself whether you think Sewell trustworthy, whether you're willing to believe in the existence of these sources of if you think he must made them and their material up.
Sewell presents a somewhat radical theory about the well-known K-129 incident. I had read about this book from articles about K-129 that say that Sewell's theory is nonsense and the work of a crackpot. I think that's an unfair characterization of Sewell. Right or wrong, he presents a very well-researched, well-argued position. There are places where his reasoning does not seem sound - he's far too willing to interpret lack of evidence as evidence of secrets, and there are a few places in the text where he states things as "obvious" conclusions that seem a bit strained to me.
In the end, Sewell's argument hinges on information that he gleaned from more than a dozen anonymous sources. You have to judge for yourself whether you think Sewell trustworthy, whether you're willing to believe in the existence of these sources of if you think he must made them and their material up.
June 16, 2011
The best part about this book is that the events occurred and were kept a secret for so long. Now that the information is out there, it is largely unknown that in 1968 the world was closer to Nuclear War than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That is the reason for three rather than two stars.
Now for the bad part about this book. I didn't like the way it was presented. It wasn't well organized, so it seemed like I was reading an extremely detailed account that repeated itself frequently from passage to passage. In short, I think this one could have been written in 1/3 the number of pages and still been interesting. As it was, I got bored with the rehashing in every passage and thought that the additional detail was more of a detractor than enhancement.
Now for the bad part about this book. I didn't like the way it was presented. It wasn't well organized, so it seemed like I was reading an extremely detailed account that repeated itself frequently from passage to passage. In short, I think this one could have been written in 1/3 the number of pages and still been interesting. As it was, I got bored with the rehashing in every passage and thought that the additional detail was more of a detractor than enhancement.
June 4, 2024
This was a very interesting read . With all the nonsense that we talk about these days, it's amazing that we don't talk about a Russian missile submarine that almost fired on the United States in 1968 . Reading this book was the first time I ever heard about this story.
My one criticism is that this book was too long. Many of the points and facts in the book are stated and restated and restated again. Instead of being 370+ pages, I think this book could have easily been 175 to 225 pages. Parts of this book just felt like the authors were restating the facts again because there weren't many facts to talk about.
If you're interested in history, international relations and spies, this is a book worth reading. This is a good book, just not a great one.
My one criticism is that this book was too long. Many of the points and facts in the book are stated and restated and restated again. Instead of being 370+ pages, I think this book could have easily been 175 to 225 pages. Parts of this book just felt like the authors were restating the facts again because there weren't many facts to talk about.
If you're interested in history, international relations and spies, this is a book worth reading. This is a good book, just not a great one.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 1, 2008
I really wanted to enjoy this book...I am a huge fan of Tom Clancy and I loved Blind Man's Bluff, but I just couldn't. Part of it is that it isn't very well written; the narrative wanders and repeats itself quite a bit. The bigger reason though is that it's almost all conjecture. There's almost no hard evidence provided to support the theory the author has. Because of that, it fails to rise to the standard of a piece of history. Unfortunately, since it's poorly written, it doesn't stand up to Clancy or Cussler either.
Read
September 8, 2009An interesting story piecing together various pieces of military intelligence to indicate that a Soviet nuclear sub was taken over by rogue elements and attempted to launch a nuclear missle at Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure it's true - to my mind, it is short on facts and long on speculation. Also - a bit repetitive and non-linear in its telling of the tale. Could've used an editor to streamline the narrative a bit.
But a nice, thrilling read. Could make a good movie...oh wait...Red October is already made...
But a nice, thrilling read. Could make a good movie...oh wait...Red October is already made...
May 3, 2011
I read this book since I was wondering what intrigued my father to read it....It is truly an amazing story, which was under the radar for the past 30+ years. It is very interesting in understanding some of the inner workings of the Intelligence Services. Now I have a Clear understanding why the Iron Curtain of Russia colapsed and why Pres. Richard M Nixon was able to develop a friendly relationship with China. If you want to know read this book.....Also if you want to know how close we came to World War III then you must read it....
Appropriately I finished reading the book on May 1st.
Appropriately I finished reading the book on May 1st.
December 19, 2017
Having followed the Glomar Explorer mission as it unfolded, I enjoyed this in-depth look at that mission. The idea that the K-129 was in the process of launching a nuclear missile at Hawaii is a scary thought. I have seen the reports that the United States recovered only the forward third of the Soviet submarine. But, the idea that this was the intelligence community's disinformation is highly plausible. As a former submariner, I like to read these type books. It is obvious the author did lots of research into this.
June 6, 2010
I agree that this riveting story lacks good editing. I felt like each chapter was somehow dissociated with the others - regurgitating information already shared. But who needs sci-fi when (1) real people plan and implement such dastardly deeds and we - I lived in Hawaii - are protected by a simple fail-safe device; (2) technology offers untrammeled access to previously inaccessible unearthly locations; and (3) politicians, intelligence agencies and fear mongers rule?
January 3, 2013
Wow!!! In spite of many small errors, it was a well organized book detailing an AMAZING series of events. A ficticious version couldn't have been more dramatic! This should be required reading for every diplomat, politician, and military officer in all countries so that it doesn't happen again.
July 11, 2024
3.5⭐️
August 27, 2022
A book looking at the possibility of a russian attempt to launch a nuclear weapon during the cold war, state sponsored or otherwise.
My main burning questions from this is how does the author know the location of sinking and how does he know the boat was surfaced? (The body is not enough for me)
This would rule out the leaking seawater theory and ultimately seal the deal for me.
I was hoping the author would take some liberties when explaining the actions on the boat between last transmission and attempted launch, then revert to facts, but this ofcourse would give debunkers undue leverage. The physical book may be heavily sourced (I listened to the audio version), but it would have been good to see 'document such and such from department x, dated 1964 details...' to add credence to some of the facts and references mentioned.
It would be interesting to see the source of information regarding the radiated fuel patch that was found. The book begins to weaken at the end regarding the investigations into the wreck and possible salvage, some points are plausible but others remarkably less so.
It has done its job though by spurring an interest in the story and I feel if more information does come to light in the media in the future I would take a much keener interest and be less likely to dismiss this theory.
My main burning questions from this is how does the author know the location of sinking and how does he know the boat was surfaced? (The body is not enough for me)
This would rule out the leaking seawater theory and ultimately seal the deal for me.
I was hoping the author would take some liberties when explaining the actions on the boat between last transmission and attempted launch, then revert to facts, but this ofcourse would give debunkers undue leverage. The physical book may be heavily sourced (I listened to the audio version), but it would have been good to see 'document such and such from department x, dated 1964 details...' to add credence to some of the facts and references mentioned.
It would be interesting to see the source of information regarding the radiated fuel patch that was found. The book begins to weaken at the end regarding the investigations into the wreck and possible salvage, some points are plausible but others remarkably less so.
It has done its job though by spurring an interest in the story and I feel if more information does come to light in the media in the future I would take a much keener interest and be less likely to dismiss this theory.
October 21, 2017
Es mag ja Themen geben, die Verschwörungstheoretiker magisch anziehen, insbesondere dann, wenn man noch nicht alles zu den Geschehnissen weiß, aber der Verfasser dieses Buches ist deutlich über Ziel hinausgeschossen und verliert sich in immer mehr völlig unglaubwürdige Behauptungen, wilden Sprüngen in der Recherche, verzweifeltem Verstecken von nicht passenden Fakten und permanenten Selbst-Widersprüche. Zum Schluss ist man nur noch froh es durch zu haben. Dabei können auch Bücher von Verschwörungstheoretikern durchaus mal interessant sein, wenn sie ein paar ungeklärte Punkte aufzeigen und mit eigenen Ideen füllen. Dieses Buch gehört leider nicht dazu.
September 21, 2017
This extremely interesting book looks at an incident in which a Kilo-class Soviet ballistic missile submarine sank in 1960 a few hundred miles from Hawaii. Piecing together public information and some classified information Mr. Sewell argues that this submarine was actually lost during a rogue attempt to launch a nuclear missile at the United States and he makes a very compelling case. Unfortunately, most historians simply see this incident as an unfortunate accident and the photos and physical evidence which would prove (or disprove) that theory is still classified or in secret storage somewhere.
Definitely glad I read this!
Definitely glad I read this!
January 8, 2023
This is a stunner I read years ago. Diesel-electric Soviet submarine K-129 sank off the coast of Hawaii in early 1968.
One theory for her sinking with all souls lost was she was hit by depth charges from US Navy ships. The other theory is she launched a nuclear missile, which destroyed the sub; this is the story of Red Star Rogue. The story is plausible: rogue elements in the Kremlin ordered the sub to attack Pearl Harbor, mimicking a Chinese sub. The Americans then attack China.
Howard Hughes' salvage ship The Glomar Explorer beat the Russians to the site and recovered it.
If this was an aborted nuclear strike, who can say that it wasn't an Act of God? Highly recommended.
One theory for her sinking with all souls lost was she was hit by depth charges from US Navy ships. The other theory is she launched a nuclear missile, which destroyed the sub; this is the story of Red Star Rogue. The story is plausible: rogue elements in the Kremlin ordered the sub to attack Pearl Harbor, mimicking a Chinese sub. The Americans then attack China.
Howard Hughes' salvage ship The Glomar Explorer beat the Russians to the site and recovered it.
If this was an aborted nuclear strike, who can say that it wasn't an Act of God? Highly recommended.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 16, 2018
I don't recall hearing this story when it came initially came out. I agree with the comment from another review that it could have done with a little more editing. However, it was a fascinating read and he seems to have come up with a story that matches the available facts.
If we really were that close to a nuclear bomb on Hawaii, we were remarkably fortunate that it turned out the way it. He spends a lot of time describing the rationale for secrecy for both the US and the USSR on the whole topic. Somehow the story doesn't really have a great rationalization why the US won't tell more of the story all these years later. It leaves me thinking that something is missing.
If we really were that close to a nuclear bomb on Hawaii, we were remarkably fortunate that it turned out the way it. He spends a lot of time describing the rationale for secrecy for both the US and the USSR on the whole topic. Somehow the story doesn't really have a great rationalization why the US won't tell more of the story all these years later. It leaves me thinking that something is missing.
November 18, 2020
Sewell explores what happened to a nuclear-armed Soviet submarine that went missing in the Pacific in 1968 during the Cold War. He puts together pieces from the US and from Russia. He makes a good case for what he thinks happened. His speculation over how the US, specifically Kissinger and Nixon, used what the US found out and why subsequent administrations have fought to keep that information hidden is pretty much just that, speculation, but interesting speculation. Clearly written. Maps and diagrams are invaluable to understanding the book.
May 15, 2021
Good research throughout with sensible conclusions. The best part is early when discussing the lives of the Russian crewmembers and their preparations to leave. The book is done in a linear timeline style and more facts are laid out as the time progresses.
Overall I believe the biggest obstacle to enjoying the book it that it just rambles on and uses the very few known facts. It would be stronger if an investigative journalist tackled the subject and logically layout discussion points, known facts, and possible explanations.
Overall I believe the biggest obstacle to enjoying the book it that it just rambles on and uses the very few known facts. It would be stronger if an investigative journalist tackled the subject and logically layout discussion points, known facts, and possible explanations.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews