Deaver's Double O Section?
#1
Posted 15 June 2010 - 04:40 PM
#2
Posted 15 June 2010 - 04:45 PM
#3
Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:01 PM
#4
Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:13 PM
Well, there has to at least be seven, doesn't there?Since we all know it's going to be a ultra secret branch within MI6, I'm wondering if it will be something small with three agents like Fleming? Or will he possibly say that there are about ten OO agents total?
#5
Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:26 PM
Hm. Not a bad title, that. "Kindergarten for Psychopaths". I'd buy it.
#6
Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:38 PM
A kindergarten for psychopaths.
Hm. Not a bad title, that. "Kindergarten for Psychopaths". I'd buy it.
I wouldn't. It's the yearbook of the current German government. Hardly action, no characters, next to no sex; and the little there is is of the ultra-kinky variety not even magazines and websites cater to. And you know what that means...
#7
Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:39 PM
A kindergarten for psychopaths.
Hm. Not a bad title, that. "Kindergarten for Psychopaths". I'd buy it.
I wouldn't. It's the yearbook of the current German government. Hardly action, no characters, next to no sex; and the little there is is of the ultra-kinky variety not even magazines and websites cater to. And you know what that means...
It means The DaVinci Code?
Still, it sold a bundle.
#8
Posted 15 June 2010 - 06:09 PM
#9
Posted 15 June 2010 - 08:52 PM
#10
Posted 15 June 2010 - 10:53 PM
001, 002, and 007? That makes a lot of sense...Three people would be my guess.
#11
Posted 16 June 2010 - 04:18 AM
001, 002, and 007? That makes a lot of sense...Three people would be my guess.
No, I'd rather have them 003, 007 and 008. As for the missing numbers, well, they are missing.
#12
Posted 16 June 2010 - 08:56 AM
Good numbers. Those are the ones I'd choose. As for 001, 002, 004, 005, and 006, I'm sure they were told when they signed on that double-ohs have a short life expectancy--at least they would have had they seen Casino Royale--so it couldn't be surprising for them or us when "their number came up."001, 002, and 007? That makes a lot of sense...Three people would be my guess.
No, I'd rather have them 003, 007 and 008. As for the missing numbers, well, they are missing.
#13
Posted 16 June 2010 - 09:25 AM
I am unaware that the SIS keeps assassins on staff?
Doesn't the British Government sub-contract all its wet work to the lads from Hereford?
Only too happy to be corrected by anyone who might know better.
#14
Posted 16 June 2010 - 09:38 AM
#15
Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:09 AM
Surely, if we're dealing with any kind of realism, Deaver's 00 section should be the SAS.
I am unaware that the SIS keeps assassins on staff?
Doesn't the British Government sub-contract all its wet work to the lads from Hereford?
Only too happy to be corrected by anyone who might know better.
The point of the exercise would be that the 00's are operating on a less spectacular level. So the fact that you, me, all of us are unaware of assassins in the SIS is just as it should be. I would even suggest that the 00's and their respective purpose are not even common knowledge within the SIS, apart from a small number of people with need-to-know.
#16
Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:14 AM
Surely, if we're dealing with any kind of realism, Deaver's 00 section should be the SAS.
I am unaware that the SIS keeps assassins on staff?
Doesn't the British Government sub-contract all its wet work to the lads from Hereford?
Only too happy to be corrected by anyone who might know better.
The point of the exercise would be that the 00's are operating on a less spectacular level. So the fact that you, me, all of us are unaware of assassins in the SIS is just as it should be. I would even suggest that the 00's and their respective purpose are not even common knowledge within the SIS, apart from a small number of people with need-to-know.
Very fair comment indeed.
#17
Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:30 AM
Surely, if we're dealing with any kind of realism, Deaver's 00 section should be the SAS.
I am unaware that the SIS keeps assassins on staff?
Doesn't the British Government sub-contract all its wet work to the lads from Hereford?
Only too happy to be corrected by anyone who might know better.
The point of the exercise would be that the 00's are operating on a less spectacular level. So the fact that you, me, all of us are unaware of assassins in the SIS is just as it should be. I would even suggest that the 00's and their respective purpose are not even common knowledge within the SIS, apart from a small number of people with need-to-know.
Very fair comment indeed.
You know what I was just now thinking? Suppose they (they = SIS, but hush...) really had a 00-section. Wouldn't this be exactly how they (this time they = Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, but hush...) were running the gig?
#18
Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:38 AM
You know what I was just now thinking? Suppose they (they = SIS, but hush...) really had a 00-section. Wouldn't this be exactly how they (this time they = Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, but hush...) were running the gig?
Suspect there might have been more boredom and not too much action.
You know, all those time-consuming reports that need reading and intialling. The stuff 00s find particlarly tortuous, but which fills "a typical day at headquarters".
Cos if my British government are really using assassins within the SIS to knock of foreign targets they must be brilliant at it, wonderfully discreet. Unlike their mates in the SAS who made a big public show of it last time out when they slotted those Paddy Republicans in Gibraltar....
I get it now. The 00 section might be underused. But they're damn good when they do work.
#19
Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:50 AM
#20
Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:55 AM
Oh, just suppose SIS got its 00-toy after '88. Precisely to avoid what came in the aftermath of that operation. That would also explain, why SIS has only arrived at 008 as yet. Instead of 00376.
If Jeff uses that in his book, I want a joint credit with you, Trident!
#21
Posted 16 June 2010 - 11:04 AM
Oh, just suppose SIS got its 00-toy after '88. Precisely to avoid what came in the aftermath of that operation. That would also explain, why SIS has only arrived at 008 as yet. Instead of 00376.
If Jeff uses that in his book, I want a joint credit with you, Trident!
Let's close our eyes and see what we'll get...
#22
Posted 17 June 2010 - 05:31 PM
#23
Posted 17 June 2010 - 05:56 PM
#24
Posted 17 June 2010 - 09:42 PM
You'd be very surprised just how discreet 'they' in fact are when it comes to 'knocking off foreign and domestic targets' David. Furthermore, the public would be very surprised at how many IRA terrorists were 'discouraged' to take up 'arms and bombs' against the Brits by the very public assassination you mentioned in your piece, which is why, in the end, Operation Flavius was such a 'public show'.It didn't stop young men joining the IRA cause entirely, as history shows, but it is a fact that Operation Flavius did manage to keep the numbers down considerably, no matter how crude that may sound to some.
Success, after all, is measured in many ways...
Public executions have that effect on people you see.
However, back to the point. I believe that Deaver's Double ‘O’ Section will most certainly work outside the normal rules of law (what's new in that?) and on extremely delicate operations with a sole purpose to deal harshly with men and women who use violence to enforce their ideals. It will be made up of men and women who will trade violence with violence, however unpalatable it may seem to some and our man Bond will be sent out to hunt down these terrorists and subversive activists and, instead of investigating them, will simply dispose of them.
From what I understood from Mr. Deaver's latest interview, his Double O Section will offer tough approaches for very tough situations.
But then, nothing new there is there?
At the end of the day that is exactly why Ian Fleming's Double ‘O’ Section was set up in the first place,and which, ultimately, is why men like James Bond were given a license to kill...
Harry Fawkes
#25
Posted 24 June 2010 - 05:28 PM
#26
Posted 25 June 2010 - 06:54 AM
#27
Posted 30 January 2011 - 09:35 PM
#28
Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:44 AM
In that case, I could see Bond's number marking him as the seventh Double-Oh Agent; once a Double-Oh is killed, his or her number would be retired and the next one in sequence is picked up.Small-ish I suppose. Doesn't exactly make sense, ultra secret and needing an entire tube line to bring all operatives to HQ. No, seriously three to four should suffice. How many people would the SIS possibly need to be removed from the picture? Cannot be that many.
#29
Posted 04 March 2011 - 01:32 AM
From what I have read about Carte Blanche, it seems as though Jeffrey Deaver is not too concerned with the Ian Fleming literary canon. I presume that Carte Blanche will be a reboot of the James Bond literary universe considering the number of changes that have already been revealed. I also presume that Deaver will re-create the 00 Section, so its anyone's guess the number of agents that constitute the new 00 Section.