text:
Richard Overy

Richard James Overy (born 23 December 1947) is a British historian who has published on the history of World War II and Nazi Germany. In 2007, as The Times editor of Complete History of the World, he chose the 50 key dates of world history.

Life and career
Overy, after being educated at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, and becoming a research fellow at Churchill College, taught history at Cambridge from 1972 to 1979, as a fellow of Queens' College and from 1976 as a university assistant lecturer. He moved to King's College London, where he became professor of modern history in 1994. He was appointed to a professorship at the University of Exeter in 2004.

Overy's work on the Second World War has been praised as "highly effective [in] the ruthless dispelling of myths" (A. J. P. Taylor), "original and important" (The New York Review of Books) and "at the cutting edge" (The Times Literary Supplement).

In 2021, Overy helped to curate objects for displays in the Imperial War Museum's Second World War galleries. Some of these objects included flight goggles and a leather helmet once used by Billy Strachan.

Dispute with Timothy Mason
In the late 1980s, Overy was involved in a historical dispute with Timothy Mason that mostly played out on the pages of Past & Present over the reasons for the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Mason had contended that a "flight into war" had been imposed on Adolf Hitler by a structural economic crisis, which confronted Hitler with the choice of making difficult economic decisions or aggression. Overy argued against Mason's thesis by maintaining that though Germany was faced with economic problems in 1939, their extent cannot explain aggression against Poland and the outbreak of war was caused by the Nazi leadership. For Overy, the problem with Mason's thesis was that it rested on assumptions that were not shown by records, information that was passed on to Hitler about Germany's economic problems.

Overy argued that there was a difference between economic pressures induced by the problems of the Four Year Plan and economic motives to seize raw materials, industry and foreign reserves of neighbouring states as a way of accelerating the Four Year Plan. Overy asserted that the repressive capacity of the German state as a way of dealing with domestic unhappiness was somewhat downplayed by Mason. Finally, Overy argued that there is considerable evidence that Germany felt that it could master the economic problems of rearmament; as one civil servant put it in January 1940, "we have already mastered so many difficulties in the past, that here too, if one or other raw material became extremely scarce, ways and means will always yet be found to get out of a fix".

Awards and honours

 * 1977: Fellow of the Royal Historical Society
 * 2000: Fellow of the British Academy
 * 2003: Fellow of King's College
 * 2001: Samuel Eliot Morison Prize of the Society for Military History
 * 2004: Wolfson History Prize, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany; Stalin's Russia
 * 2005: Hessell-Tiltman Prize, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia

In media

 * Overy was featured in the 2003 ITV documentary Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror.
 * Overy was featured in the 2006 BBC docudrama Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial.
 * KGNU's Claudia Cragg – interview with Overy on "Countdown To War" for Remembrance Day (Veteran's Day) 2010.
 * Overy was a featured commentator in the 2018 series Hitler's Circle of Evil.

Publications

 * William Morris, Viscount Nuffield (1976), ISBN 0-900362-84-7.
 * The Air War: 1939–1945 (1980), ISBN 1-57488-716-5.
 * The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932–1938 (1982), ISBN 0-521-55286-9.
 * Goering: The "Iron Man" (1984), ISBN 1-84212-048-4.
 * All Our Working Lives (with Peter Pagnamenta, 1984), ISBN 0-563-20117-7.
 * The Origins of The Second World War, edited by Patrick Finney, London: Edward Arnold, Hodder Education Publishers (1997), Third Edition (2008) ISBN 0-340-67640-X.
 * Co-written with Timothy Mason: "Debate: Germany, 'Domestic Crisis' and War in 1939", pp. 200–240 in Past and Present, Number 122, February 1989; reprinted as "Debate: Germany, 'Domestic Crisis' and the War in 1939" in The Origins of The Second World War (1997).
 * The Road to War (with Andrew Wheatcroft, 1989), ISBN 0-14-028530-X.
 * The Inter-War Crisis, 1919–1939 (1994), ISBN 0-582-35379-3.
 * War and Economy in the Third Reich (1994), ISBN 0-19-820290-3.
 * Why the Allies Won (1995), ISBN 0-224-04172-X.
 * The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich (1996), ISBN 0-14-051330-2.
 * The Times Atlas of the Twentieth Century (ed., 1996), ISBN 0-7230-0766-7.
 * Bomber Command, 1939–45 (1997), ISBN 0-00-472014-8.
 * Russia's War: Blood upon the Snow (1997), ISBN 1-57500-051-2. There was a companion 10-part television documentary series.
 * The Times History of the 20th Century (1999), ISBN 0-00-716637-0.
 * The Battle (2000), ISBN 0-14-029419-8 (republished as The Battle of Britain: The Myth and the Reality).
 * Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945 (2001), ISBN 0-7139-9350-2 (republished as Interrogations: Inside the Minds of the Nazi Elite).
 * Germany: A New Social and Economic History. Vol. 3: Since 1800 (ed. with Sheilagh Ogilvie, 2003), ISBN 0-340-65215-2.
 * The Times Complete History of the World (6th ed., 2004), ISBN 0-00-718129-9.
 * The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia (2004), ISBN 0-7139-9309-X.
 * Collins Atlas of Twentieth Century History (2005), ISBN 0-00-720170-2.
 * Imperial War Museum's Second World War Experience Volume 1: Blitzkrieg (2008), ISBN 978-1-84442-014-8.
 * Imperial War Museum's Second World War Experience Volume 2: Axis Ascendant (2008), ISBN 978-1-84442-008-7.
 * 1939: Countdown to War (2009), ISBN 978-960-16-3467-8.
 * The Morbid Age: Britain Between the Wars (2009), ISBN 978-0-7139-9563-3.
 * The Bombing War: Europe 1939–1945 (2013), ISBN 0713995610 (later published as The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War Over Europe, 1940–1945, ISBN 978-0-670-02515-2).
 * A History of War in 100 Battles (2014), ISBN 9780007452507.
 * RAF: The Birth of the World's First Air Force (2018), ISBN 978-0-393-35724-0
 * Blood and Ruins: The Great Imperial War, 1931–1945 (2021), ISBN 978-0-713-99562-6
 * Why War? (2024), ISBN 978-1-324-02174-2

title: Richard Overy


text:
8th Golden Raspberry Awards

The 8th Golden Raspberry Awards were held on April 10, 1988, at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel to recognize the worst the film industry had to offer in 1987. Leonard Part 6 was the biggest "winner" with three awards out of five nominations. Although he did not attend the ceremony, actor/producer/co-writer Bill Cosby later accepted all his awards on The Late Show. This marked the only time Cosby "earned" a Razzie prior to the sexual assault allegations levied against him in October 16, 2014, which besmirched his career and legacy.

Awards and nominations
{{Legend|#B0C4DE|Winner (in bold)}}

Films with multiple nominations
These films garnered multiple nominations:

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 8th Golden Raspberry Awards


text:
Neutrality Patrol

On September 3, 1939, the British and French declarations of war on Germany initiated the Battle of the Atlantic. The United States Navy Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) established a combined air and ship patrol of the United States Atlantic coast, including the Caribbean, on 4 September, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared the United States' neutrality on 5 September, and declared the naval patrol a Neutrality Patrol. Roosevelt's initiation of the Neutrality Patrol, which in fact also escorted British ships, as well as orders to U.S. Navy destroyers first to actively report U-boats, then "shoot on sight", meant American neutrality was honored more in the breach than observance.

Background
Upon declaration of war, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany attempted to restrict their adversaries' ability to import raw materials and manufactured goods. The belligerent navies were deployed to intercept ships capable of carrying such imports. Ships evading enemy naval patrols in the open ocean faced a final gauntlet nearing the European Atlantic coast where belligerent warships and patrolling aircraft congregated around the United Kingdom adjacent to Germany's oceanic trade routes. The United Kingdom and France controlled extensive overseas territories in 1939, while Germany had lost its colonial empire as war reparations in 1919. French and British empire seaports and airfields allowed Allied warships and aircraft to patrol around the world, while German warships controlled very few locations where they might safely refuel and resupply, and German military aircraft operations were effectively limited to occupied territory. The United Kingdom and France had more warships than Germany; so German warships relied upon concealment, speed, or disguise to avoid destruction. U-boats were most numerous and active in European coastal areas, while a few German cruisers, battleships, and merchant raiders intercepted Allied shipping on ocean trade routes.

During World War I, outnumbered German warships had shifted patrol areas away from the United Kingdom into the Atlantic to disperse opposing Allied naval forces. After refueling at Newport, Rhode Island on 7 October 1916, SMU U-53 sank five Allied merchant ships the following day in international waters off the coast of the United States. Although K/L Hans Rose scrupulously followed international law, the loss of American export cargoes incensed Americans as neutral United States Navy destroyers were obliged to stand aside while observing nearby merchant ships being sunk, and taking aboard seamen from the sunken ships.

Neutrality Zone
On 4 September 1939, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) ordered the Atlantic Squadron to establish a combined air and ship patrol to observe and report the movements of ships of warring nations within a line extending east from Boston to 65 degrees west and thence south to the 19th parallel and seaward around the Leeward and Windward Islands. The concept of a naval Neutrality Patrol within that zone was presented to a Conference of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics convened in Panama on 25 September. After considerable debate, the conference agreed the Declaration of Panama on 2 October 1939, to extend the neutrality zone southwesterly parallel to the northeastern coast of South America approximately 300 mile offshore.

The initial CNO orders of September 4 directed the patrols to report the movements of ships of warring nations in cipher. U.S. Navy ships were instructed to avoid making any report while in the vicinity of such ships to avoid performance of unneutral radio direction finding service or the impression that an unneutral service was being performed. However, on October 9, after discussion about delays in the process, President Roosevelt instructed the navy to transmit reports promptly in plain English; and the Neutrality Patrol began to do so on October 20.

The reporting of vessels by US forces gave a benefit to the British. While the Germans, operating out of European bases, could take little advantage of information on shipping in the Americas, the Royal Navy had far greater access to the Atlantic and could send vessels from the UK, Canada or its overseas possessions to intercept.

Organization
Battleships USS Arkansas (BB-33), USS Texas (BB-35), and USS New York (BB-34) with the aircraft carrier USS Ranger (CV-4) (with aircraft squadrons VB-4, VF-4, VS-41, and VS-42 embarked) formed a reserve force at Hampton Roads to support the following patrols:

 * Patrol Zero: Destroyer division 18 of USS Davis (DD-395), USS Jouett (DD-396), USS Benham (DD-397), and USS Ellet (DD-398) were assigned patrol station zero from Newfoundland south to the 40th parallel.
 * Patrol One: Destroyers USS Hamilton (DD-141) and USS Leary (DD-158) were assigned patrol station one along a northwest-southeast line off Georges Bank.
 * Patrol Two: Destroyers USS Hopkins (DD-249) and USS Goff (DD-247), with aircraft of patrol squadron VP-54 and seaplane tender USS Owl (AM-2), operated from Newport, Rhode Island, between the 38th and 43rd parallels.
 * Patrol Three: Destroyers USS Manley (DD-74), USS Barry (DD-248), USS Decatur (DD-341), and USS Reuben James (DD-245) patrolled between the 34th and 38th parallels with aircraft of VP-52 and VP-53.
 * Patrol Six: Destroyers USS Babbitt (DD-128) and USS Claxton (DD-140) patrolled the Florida Strait and Yucatán Channel.
 * Patrols Seven and Eight: Cruisers USS San Francisco (CA-38) and USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37) with destroyers USS Broome (DD-210), USS Borie (DD-215), USS Simpson (DD-221), and USS Truxton (DD-229) patrolled the eastern Caribbean south of the 23rd parallel with aircraft of VP-33 and VP-51 supported by seaplane tenders USS Lapwing (AM-1), USS Gannet (AM-41), and USS Thrush (AM-18). Gannet and Thrush established a seaplane base in Puerto Rico.
 * Patrol Nine: Cruisers USS Quincy (CA-39) and USS Vincennes (CA-44) patrolled within 300 mile of the coast between Newport and Cape Hatteras.

New bases
Neutrality Patrols began operating from Bermuda following the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. The base was commissioned on April 7, 1941; and Carrier Division 3 (USS Ranger, USS Wasp (CV-7), and USS Yorktown (CV-5)) began using the base the following day. By mid-June cruisers USS Memphis (CL-13), USS Milwaukee (CL-5), USS Cincinnati (CL-6) and USS Omaha (CL-4) were patrolling from Trinidad south along the coast of Brazil.

Convoy escort
At the beginning of 1941, President Roosevelt secretly organized a protection-of-shipping task force 24, given the designation of Support Force, United States Atlantic Fleet, under the command of Rear Admiral Arthur L. Bristol. Ships, planes, funding, and personnel were assigned in January and February, and operations began in March. Admiral Bristol remained in Washington, but material for the various bases was assembled and shipped from Naval Air Station Quonset Point. Admiral Bristol insisted that all records be destroyed when an operation was completed. His staff believed he was following Presidential instructions to avoid revealing operations which might not have public-opinion approval. Efforts to document Support Force operations after the war were discouraged to avoid damaging world opinion as to the integrity of United States' neutrality.

To augment the fleet units already engaged in the Neutrality Patrol which President Roosevelt had placed around the eastern seaboard and Gulf ports, the United States Navy recommissioned 77 destroyers and light minelayers which had lain in reserve at either Philadelphia or San Diego. In Newfoundland on August 9, 1941, President Roosevelt agreed to provide American destroyers as escorts for the Canada to Iceland portion of HX convoys and westbound ON convoys. USS Greer (DD-145) ineffectively engaged GS U-652 on September 4; and on September 11 President Roosevelt declared Axis ships entered the neutrality zone at their own risk, and ordered the U.S. Navy to attack any vessel threatening ships under American escort. HX 150 sailed September 16, 1941, as the first convoy with American escort. ON 18 sailed September 24 as the first westbound convoy with American escort. The Gleaves-class destroyer USS Kearny (DD-432) was torpedoed while escorting Convoy SC 48 on October 17, 1941. The destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk on October 31, 1941, while escorting Convoy HX 156 with a loss of 100 lives.

Results
The Neutrality Patrol was a major focus of one of the world's largest navies for the first third of the Second World War. The Atlantic Squadron in that period consisted of three battleships, four heavy cruisers, 29 destroyers, and one aircraft carrier; and their primary mission was confirmed by its being redesignated the Patrol Squadron on 1 November 1940. The Neutrality Patrol enhanced effectiveness of Allied patrols within the declared neutrality zone. On 12 July 1940, Assistant CNO Robert L. Ghormley was ordered to Britain to standardize shipboard communications between British and American warships.

The Royal Navy destroyer HMS Hyperion (H97) intercepted the German liner Columbus off Bermuda on December 19 after six days of radioed position reports by three relays of Neutrality Patrol destroyers shadowing the liner since it departed Veracruz. Roosevelt ordered all reports of the incident should indicate Hyperion encountered Columbus by chance. The Neutrality Patrol similarly radioed position reports of the British RFA tanker Patella a few days later, reasonably confident there were no German ships in position to intercept. The German freighter Konsul Horn left Aruba on January 7, 1940, posing as a Soviet ship to avoid identification by the Neutrality Patrol. The German freighter Helgoland sailed from Colombia on October 24, 1940, and evaded pursuit attempts by Neutrality Patrol destroyers. The German freighter Rio Grande similarly evaded the Neutrality Patrol by sailing from Rio de Janeiro on October 31; but USS Plunkett (DD-431) prevented German ships Orinoco and Phrygia from leaving Tampico, Mexico on November 15.

For each incident of the neutrality patrol reporting a British ship in the Gulf of Mexico, several German ships were intercepted by Royal Navy units responding to the American reports. Of the 211 German merchant ships attempting return to Germany during the last four months of 1939, only 32 (37%) of the 85 ships leaving the western hemisphere through the declared neutrality zone were successful, while 100 (80%) of the 126 leaving other parts of the world successfully evaded Allied interception.

title: Neutrality Patrol


text:
New River

New River may refer to:

Caribbean

 * Nuevo River (Puerto Rico)
 * Rio Nuevo (Jamaica)

Europe

 * New River (Fens), a man-made watercourse in the English Fenlands
 * New River (London), a man-made watercourse in Hertfordshire and London

North America

 * New River (Mexico–United States) (Rio Nuevo in Spanish), which flows from the Mexicali Valley in Baja California into the Salton Sea in California

 * New River (Trinity River tributary), a tributary of the Trinity River in northern California
 * New River (Broward County, Florida), a channel which drains the Everglades through Fort Lauderdale in South Florida
 * New River (Carrabelle River tributary), a tributary of the Carrabelle River in Florida
 * New River (Santa Fe River tributary), a tributary of the Santa Fe River in northern Florida
 * New River (Hillsborough River tributary), a tributary of the Hillsborough River (Florida) in Hillsborough and Pasco Counties in Florida
 * New River (Chattahoochee River tributary), in Georgia
 * New River (Withlacoochee River tributary), in Georgia
 * New River (Louisiana), in Ascension Parish
 * New River (Michigan)
 * New River (New Hampshire), a tributary of the Ellis River on Mount Washington
 * New River (eastern North Carolina), which flows into the Atlantic Ocean in southeastern North Carolina
 * New River (Kanawha River tributary), a tributary of the Ohio River via the Kanawha River, in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia
 * New River (Oregon), in southwestern Oregon, parallels the Pacific Ocean between Coos Bay and Port Orford
 * New River (South Carolina), which flows through Bluffton, South Carolina into the Atlantic Ocean
 * New River (Tennessee), a tributary of the Cumberland River in Tennessee

Oceania

 * New River / Kaimata in the West Coast region of New Zealand
 * An alternative name for the Ōreti River in New Zealand, most commonly used for its estuary

South and Central America

 * New River (Belize), a river that flows north into Chetumal Bay
 * New River (South America), claimed by Suriname and Guyana
 * New River Triangle, the area of dispute

Other uses

 * New River, Arizona, a census-designated place in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area
 * Bradford County, Florida, named New River County from 1858 through 1861
 * New River Tunnel, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
 * Marine Corps Air Station New River, near Jacksonville, North Carolina
 * New River Valley, in Virginia
 * New River Community College, in Virginia
 * New River Coalfield, in West Virginia
 * New River Gorge Bridge, in West Virginia
 * New River Gorge National River, protecting a portion of the river in West Virginia
 * New River Trail State Park, in Virginia
 * New River (ward), London Borough of Hackney
 * New River (album)

title: New River


text:
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996 ICJ 3 ] is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament.

The World Health Organization requested the opinion on 3 September 1993, but it was initially refused because the WHO was acting outside its legal capacity (ultra vires). So the United Nations General Assembly requested another opinion in December 1994, accepted by the Court in January 1995. As well as determining the illegality of nuclear weapon use, the court discussed the proper role of international judicial bodies, the ICJ's advisory function, international humanitarian law (jus in bello), and rules governing the use of force (jus ad bellum). It explored the status of "Lotus approach", and employed the concept of non liquet. There were also strategic questions such as the legality of the practice of nuclear deterrence or the meaning of Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The possibility of threat outlawing use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict was raised on 30 June 1950, by the Dutch representative to the International Law Commission (ILC),, who suggested this "would in itself be an advance". In addition, the Polish government requested this issue to be examined by the ILC as a crime against the peace of mankind. However, the issue was delayed during the Cold War.

Request of the World Health Organization
An advisory opinion on this issue was originally requested by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 3 September 1993:

The ICJ considered the WHO's request, in a case known as the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (General List No. 93), and also known as the WHO Nuclear Weapons case, between 1993 and 1996. The ICJ fixed 10 June 1994 as the time limit for written submissions, but after receiving many written and oral submissions, later extended this date to 20 September 1994. After considering the case the Court refused to give an advisory opinion on the WHO question. On 8 July 1996 it held, by 11 votes to three, that the question did not fall within the scope of WHO's activities, as is required by Article 96(2) of the UN Charter.

Request of the UN General Assembly
On 15 December 1994 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/49/75K. This asked the ICJ urgently to render its advisory opinion on the following question:

The resolution, submitted to the Court on 19 December 1994, was adopted by 78 states voting in favour, 43 against, 38 abstaining and 26 not voting.

The General Assembly had considered asking a similar question in the autumn of 1993, at the instigation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which ultimately did not push its request that year. NAM was more willing the following year, in the face of written statements submitted in the WHO proceedings from a number of nuclear-weapon states indicating strong views to the effect that the WHO lacked competence in the matter. The Court subsequently fixed 20 June 1995 as the filing date for written statements.

Altogether, 42 states participated in the written phase of the pleadings, the largest number ever to join in proceedings before the Court. Of the five declared nuclear weapon states (the P5), only the People's Republic of China did not participate. Of the three "threshold" nuclear-weapon states, only India participated. Many of the participants were developing states which had not previously contributed to proceedings before the ICJ, a reflection perhaps of the unparalleled interest in this matter and the growing willingness of developing states to engage in international judicial proceedings in the "post-colonial" period.

Oral hearings were held from 30 October to 15 November 1995. Twenty-two states participated: Australia, Egypt, France, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Iran, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, San Marino, Samoa, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Costa Rica, United Kingdom, United States, Zimbabwe; as did the WHO. The secretariat of the UN did not appear, but filed with the Court a dossier explaining the history of resolution 49/75K. Each state was allocated 90 minutes to make its statement. On 8 July 1996, nearly eight months after the close of the oral phase, the ICJ rendered its opinion.

Composition of the Court
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. The court's "advisory opinion" can be requested only by specific United Nations organisations, and is inherently non-binding under the Statute of the court.

The fifteen judges asked to give their advisory opinion regarding the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons were:

Deterrence and "threat"
The court considered the matter of deterrence, which involves a threat to use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances on a potential enemy or an enemy. Was such a threat illegal? The court decided, with some judges dissenting, that, if a threatened retaliatory strike was consistent with military necessity and proportionality, it would not necessarily be illegal. (Judgement paragraphs 37–50)

The legality of the possession of nuclear weapons
The court then considered the legality of the possession, as opposed to actual use, of nuclear weapons. The Court looked at various treaties, including the UN Charter, and found no treaty language that specifically forbade the possession of nuclear weapons in a categorical way.

The UN Charter was examined in paragraphs 37–50 (paragraph 37: "The Court will now address the question of the legality or illegality of recourse to nuclear weapons in the light of the provisions of the Charter relating to the threat or use of force"). Paragraph 39 mentions: "These provisions [i.e. those of the Charter] do not refer to specific weapons. They apply to any use of force, regardless of the weapons employed. The Charter neither expressly prohibits, nor permits, the use of any specific weapon, including nuclear weapons. A weapon that is already unlawful per se, whether by treaty or custom, does not become lawful by reason of its being used for a legitimate purpose under the Charter."

Treaties were examined in paragraphs 53–63 (paragraph 53: "The Court must therefore now examine whether there is any prohibition of recourse to nuclear weapons as such; it will first ascertain whether there is a conventional prescription to this effect"), as part of the law applicable in situations of armed conflict (paragraph 51, first sentence: "Having dealt with the Charter provisions relating to the threat or use of force, the Court will now turn to the law applicable in situations of armed conflict"). In particular, with respect to "the argument [that] has been advanced that nuclear weapons should be treated in the same way as poisoned weapons", the Court concluded that "it does not seem to the Court that the use of nuclear weapons can be regarded as specifically prohibited on the basis of the [...] provisions of the Second Hague Declaration of 1899, the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907 or the 1925 Protocol" (paragraphs 54 and 56)". It was also argued by some that the Hague Conventions concerning the use of bacteriological or chemical weapons would also apply to nuclear weapons, but the Court was unable to adopt this argument ("The Court does not find any specific prohibition of recourse to nuclear weapons in treaties expressly prohibiting the use of certain weapons of mass destruction", paragraph 57 in fine).

With respect to treaties that "deal [...] exclusively with acquisition, manufacture, possession, deployment and testing of nuclear weapons, without specifically addressing their threat or use," the Court notes that those treaties "certainly point to an increasing concern in the international community with these weapons; the Court concludes from this that these treaties could therefore be seen as foreshadowing a future general prohibition of the use of such weapons, but they do not constitute such a prohibition by themselves" (paragraph 62). Also, regarding regional treaties prohibiting resource, namely those of Tlatelolco (Latin America) and Rarotonga (South Pacific) the Court notes that while those "testify to a growing awareness of the need to liberate the community of States and the international public from the dangers resulting from the existence of nuclear weapons", "[i]t [i.e. the Court] does not, however, view these elements as amounting to a comprehensive and universal conventional prohibition on the use, or the threat of use, of those weapons as such." (paragraph 63).

Customary international law also provided insufficient evidence that the possession of nuclear weapons had come to be universally regarded as illegal.

Ultimately, the court was unable to find an opinio juris (that is, legal consensus) that nuclear weapons are illegal to possess. (paragraph 65) However, in practice, nuclear weapons have not been used in war since 1945 and there have been numerous UN resolutions condemning their use (however, such resolutions are not universally supported—most notably, the nuclear powers object to them).(paragraph 68–73) The ICJ did not find that these facts demonstrated a new and clear customary law absolutely forbidding nuclear weapons.

However, there are many universal humanitarian laws applying to war. For instance, it is illegal for a combatant specifically to target civilians and certain types of weapons that cause indiscriminate damage are categorically outlawed. All states seem to observe these rules, making them a part of customary international law, so the court ruled that these laws would also apply to the use of nuclear weapons.(paragraph 86) The Court decided not to pronounce on the matter of whether the use of nuclear weapons might possibly be legal, if exercised as a last resort in extreme circumstances (such as if the very existence of the state was in jeopardy).(paragraph 97)

Decision
The court undertook seven separate votes, all of which were passed:

 * 1) The court decided to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;
 * 2) The court replied that "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons";
 * 3) The court replied that "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such";
 * 4) The court replied that "A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful";
 * 5) The court replied that "A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons"
 * 6) The court replied that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake"
 * 7) The court replied that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control".

The court voted as follows:

Split decision
The only significantly split decision was on the matter of whether "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict", not including "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake". However, three of the seven "dissenting" judges (namely, Judge Shahabuddeen of Guyana, Judge Weeramantry of Sri Lanka, and Judge Koroma of Sierra Leone) wrote separate opinions explaining that the reason they were dissenting was their view that there is no exception under any circumstances (including that of ensuring the survival of a State) to the general principle that use of nuclear weapons is illegal. A fourth dissenter, Judge Oda of Japan, dissented largely on the ground that the Court simply should not have taken the case.

Vice President Schwebel remarked in his dissenting opinion that

And Higgins noted that she did not

Nevertheless, the Court's opinion did not conclude definitively and categorically, under the existing state of international law at the time, whether in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the very survival of a State would be a stake, the threat or use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be unlawful in all possible cases. However, the court's opinion unanimously clarified that the world's states have a binding duty to negotiate in good faith, and to accomplish, nuclear disarmament.

United Kingdom
The Government of the United Kingdom has announced plans to renew Britain's only nuclear weapon, the Trident missile system. They have published a white paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent in which they state that the renewal is fully compatible with the United Kingdom's treaty commitments and international law. These arguments are summarised in a question and answer briefing published by UK Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament

The white paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent stands in contrast to two legal opinions. The first, commissioned by Peacerights, was given on 19 December 2005 by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers. It addressed

Drawing on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion, Singh and Chinkin argued that:

The second legal opinion was commissioned by Greenpeace and given by Philippe Sands QC and Helen Law, also of Matrix Chambers, on 13 November 2006. The opinion addressed

With regards to the jus ad bellum, Sands and Law found that

The phrase "very survival of the state" is a direct quote from paragraph 97 of the ICJ ruling. With regards to international humanitarian law, they found that

Finally, with reference to the NPT, Sands and Law found that

Scots law
In 1999 a legal case was put forward to attempt to use the ICJ's Opinion in establishing the illegality of nuclear weapons.

On 27 September 1999, three Trident Ploughshares activists Ulla Røder from Denmark, Angie Zelter from England, and Ellen Moxley from Scotland, were acquitted of charges of malicious damage at Greenock Sheriff Court. The three women had boarded Maytime, a barge moored in Loch Goil and involved in scientific work connected with the Vanguard-class submarines berthed in the nearby Gareloch, and caused £80,000 worth of damage. As is often the case in trials relating to such actions, the defendants attempted to establish that their actions were necessary, in that they had prevented what they saw as "nuclear crime".

The acquittal of the Trident Three resulted in the High Court of Justiciary, the supreme criminal court in Scots law, considering a Lord Advocate's Reference, and presenting the first detailed analysis of the ICJ Opinion by another judicial body. The High Court was asked to answer four questions:

 * 1) In a trial under Scottish criminal procedure, is it competent to lead evidence as to the content of customary international law as it applies in the United Kingdom?
 * 2) Does any rule of customary international law justify a private individual in Scotland in damaging or destroying property in pursuit of his or her objection to the United Kingdom's possession of nuclear weapons, its action in placing such weapons at locations within Scotland or its policies in relation to such weapons?
 * 3) Does the belief of an accused person that his or her actions are justified in law constitute a defence to a charge of malicious mischief or theft?
 * 4) Is it a general defence to a criminal charge that the offence was committed in order to prevent or bring to an end the commission of an offence by another person?

The four collective answers given by Lord Prosser, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Penrose were all negative. This did not have the effect of overturning the acquittals of Roder, Zelter and Moxley (Scots law, like many other jurisdictions, does not allow for an acquittal to be appealed); however, it does have the effect of invalidating the ratio decidendi under which the three women were able to argue for their acquittal, and ensures that similar defences cannot be present in Scots Law.

ICJ documents

 * ICJ documents relating to the case
 * Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (General List No. 95) 8 July 1996
 * Summary of the Advisory Opinion
 * Declarations of individual judges:
 * Declaration of President Bedjaoui
 * Declaration of Judge Herczegh
 * Declaration of Judge Shi
 * Declaration of Judge Vereshchetin
 * Declaration of Judge Ferrari Bravo
 * Separate Opinions of individual judges:
 * Separate Opinion of Judge Guillaume
 * Separate Opinion of Judge Ranjeva
 * Separate Opinion of Judge Fleischhauer
 * Dissenting Opinions of individual judges:
 * Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Schwebel
 * Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda
 * Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen
 * Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry
 * Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma
 * Dissenting Opinion of Judge Higgins


text:
Defender (1981 video game)

Defender is a horizontally scrolling shooter developed by Williams Electronics in 1980 and released as an arcade video game in 1981. The game is set on either an unnamed planet or city (depending on platform) where the player must defeat waves of invading aliens while protecting astronauts. Development was led by Eugene Jarvis, a pinball programmer at Williams; Defender was Jarvis's first video game project and drew inspiration from Space Invaders and Asteroids. Defender was demonstrated in late 1980, before entering production in early 1981. It was distributed in Japan by Taito.

Defender was one of the most important titles of the golden age of arcade video games, selling over 55,000 units to become the company's best-selling game and one of the highest-grossing arcade games ever. Praise among critics focused on the game's audio-visuals and gameplay. It is frequently listed as one of Jarvis's best contributions to the video game industry and one of the most difficult video games. Though not the first game to scroll horizontally, it created the genre of purely horizontal scrolling shoot 'em ups. It inspired the development of other games and was followed by sequels and many imitations.

Ports were developed for contemporary game systems, most of them by either Atari, Inc. or its software label for non-Atari platforms, Atarisoft. The 1982 Atari 2600 version was one of the best-selling games for the system, with over 3 million cartridges sold.

Gameplay

Defender is a side-view, horizontally scrolling shooter set on the surface of an unnamed planet. The player controls a spaceship flying either to the left or right. A joystick controls the ship's elevation, and five buttons control its horizontal direction and weapons. The player starts with three "smart bombs", which destroy all visible enemies. As a last resort, the "hyperspace" button works as in Asteroids: the player's ship reappears in a random—possibly unsafe—location. Players are allotted three ships at the start of the game; another ship and smart bomb are awarded every 10,000 points (adjustable per machine). Two players can alternate turns.

The object is to destroy all alien invaders, while protecting astronauts on the landscape from abduction. Landers pick up humans and attempt to carry them to the top of the screen at which point they turn into fast-moving mutants. A captured human can be freed by shooting the lander, then catching the human before it falls to its death, and dropping it off on the ground.

Defeating the aliens allows the player to progress to the next level. Failing to protect the astronauts, however, causes the planet to explode and the level to become populated with mutants. Surviving the waves of mutants results in the restoration of the planet. A ship is lost if it is hit by an enemy or its projectiles, or if a hyperspace jump goes wrong (as they randomly do). After exhausting all ships, the game ends.

Development

Defender was Williams Electronics' first attempt at developing a new video game; the company's earlier game was a Pong clone. The popularity of coin-operated arcade games in 1979 spurred the company to shift its focus from pinball games to arcade games. The company chose Eugene Jarvis, who had a successful record of Williams pinball games, to head development. Larry DeMar, Sam Dicker, and Paul Dussault assisted Jarvis. At the time, Williams had a small staff and the management was unfamiliar with technology used for its electronic games. As a result, the staff was afforded a large amount of creative freedom.

Initial development
Space was a popular setting for video games at the time, and Jarvis felt the abstract setting would help obscure simple graphics that lacked realism. Initially, Jarvis spent 3–4 months developing color variations of Taito's Space Invaders and Atari, Inc.'s Asteroids. First inspired by Space Invaders, he created a similar game with new gameplay mechanics. After spending a few weeks on the design, however, the team abandoned the idea, believing it lacked enjoyment. Development then shifted to emulating Atari's Asteroids, but hardware differences between Asteroids and Defender's proposed specifications were problematic. Asteroids displays vector graphics on a special monitor, while the staff planned to use pixel graphics on a conventional monitor. The team experimented with recreating the game with pixel graphics, but also abandoned it because they felt the gameplay lacked enjoyment and visual appeal.

Believing their first attempts to be too derivative, the developers held brainstorming sessions. During a session, they agreed that one of Asteroids's favorable elements was its wraparound. They felt a game that allowed the player to fly off the screen would be exciting, and decided to create a game world larger than the screen displayed. The game's environment was made longer than the screen, with the visible area scrolling horizontally. Expanding on the idea, they envisioned a version of Space Invaders rotated 90 degrees. By changing the orientation of Space Invaders' design, the ship moved up and down while flying horizontally. Large asteroids, an element from Asteroids, were then added to the game world, but were later removed because the staff felt it lacked enjoyment. Jarvis intended the screen to scroll only from left to right; fellow Williams employee Steve Ritchie, however, convinced him the game should be able to scroll in either direction.

After six months of development, the team felt the game had not made enough progress. They examined other games and concluded that survival was a necessary component to implement. To achieve this, they devised enemies to present a threat, the first of which was the "Lander". Jarvis enjoyed violent, action entertainment, and wanted the game to have those elements, but felt the action should have a reasonable objective. Inspired by the 1960s television show The Defenders, Jarvis titled the game Defender, reasoning that the title helped justify the violence. He added astronauts to expand on the space theme and give players something to defend while they shot enemies. The element of flying over a planetscape was added after a brainstorming session between Jarvis and Ritchie. The landscape is depicted as a line only a pixel wide, primarily because the hardware was not powerful enough to generate anything more detailed.

Later development
By July, development was behind schedule and Jarvis's superior began to pressure him to finish the game in time for a then-upcoming trade show, the AMOA, in September. Jarvis spent several weeks creating the astronauts, which his boss felt should be omitted if the process didn't speed up. The pressure frustrated him to the point he considered resigning. Around that time, a new programmer named Sam Dicker was hired. He assisted in programming the game and added visual and audio effects. For example, Dicker implemented a particle effect algorithm to generate unique explosions for destroyed enemies. The new elements re-invigorated Jarvis, who felt the project began to show promise.

Development then shifted focus to the enemies. Landers were given the ability to capture humans, and a new enemy was devised from the mechanic: "Mutants", captured humans that had turned hostile. The Mutants added a rescue element to the game that Jarvis believed made it more interesting to players and encouraged them to continue playing. The element of making a "comeback" from a dire situation was applied to the planet as well. Jarvis felt it mimicked the ups and downs of real life. "Bombers", enemies which release floating bombs on the screen, were added next. More enemies were added to create different gameplay elements. "Swarmers" and "Pods" were designed to attack the spaceship as opposed to the astronauts. "Baiters" were included to add pressure to the player by preventing them from lingering. The enemies quickly follow the spaceship to collide with it, and were based on a similar enemy in Asteroids.

By September, the game was still unfinished, and almost every Williams programmer assisted in meeting the deadline for the AMOA trade show. The evening before the trade show, the arcade cabinets were delivered for display. The developers, however, forgot to create an attract mode (an automated sequence designed to entice an audience to play) and high score system for the game, and began working on them that night, with DeMar coding the attract mode, Dussault and Dicker creating the high score table, and Jarvis doing playtesting and bug fixes. Early the next morning, the team created the final EPROM chips for the mode and installed them in a cabinet. The chips were put in backwards, causing an electrical short when the cabinet was turned on, so the team had to quickly burn a new set of EPROMs. Once the attract mode was operational, Jarvis and the team returned to their homes to prepare for the show. After the show, the developers expanded the game to allow users to play indefinitely. The display model featured five levels, which the team felt was more than enough because of the game's difficulty. Most Williams employees could not progress past the third level and Jarvis's score of 60,000 points seemed unbeatable to them. The developers decided it was best to be prepared for players that might exceed their expectations and added more levels that repeated.

Hardware
The game features amplified monaural sound and pixel graphics on a CRT monitor. A Motorola 6809 central processing unit handles the graphics and gameplay, while a Motorola 6800 microprocessor handles the audio. A pack of three AA batteries provide power to save the game's settings and high scores when the machine is unplugged from an electrical outlet. The cabinet artwork is stenciled on the wooden frame.

Development started by focusing on the game's hardware. The staff first debated what type of monitor to use: black-and-white or color. They reasoned that using advanced technology would better establish them as good designers and chose a color monitor. The developers estimated that the game would require 4 colors, but instead chose hardware that could display each pixel in 16 colors. At the time, the designers believed that was more than they would ever need for a game. The monitor's resolution is 320×256, an expansion from the then-industry standard of 256×256. The staff believed that the wider screen provided a better aspect ratio and would improve the game's presentation. Video games at the time relied on hardware to animate graphics, but the developers decided to use software to handle animation and programmed the game in assembly language. The switch allowed them to display more on-screen objects at a lower cost.

The game's control scheme uses a two-way joystick and five buttons. Jarvis designed the controls to emulate both Space Invaders and Asteroids simultaneously. The player's left hand manipulates the joystick similar to Space Invaders and the right hand pushes buttons similar to Asteroids. The button functions also use a similar layout to Asteroids, with the button to shoot projectiles and accelerate on the far right and left, respectively. Jarvis reasoned that players were accustomed to the control schemes of past games, and felt altering past designs would prove difficult for them.

Commercial performance
The game was slow to gain popularity, not attracting much attention at the 1980 AMOA show. In retrospect, Jarvis believed many passersby were intimidated by its complexity. The game was well-received in arcades, and crowds gathered around the cabinet during its first nights of play testing. The success spurred Williams to release a cocktail version as well. Defender eventually became Williams' best-selling arcade game, with over 55,000 units sold worldwide, and it became one of the highest grossing arcade games ever, earning over US$1 billion. It has sold 70,000 arcade units as of 2020, and grossed over US$1.5 billion worldwide as of 2000.

Six months after its release, the game was one of the top earners in the United States video game industry. On the 1981 arcade game charts, it topped the Play Meter arcade chart in August, and the RePlay arcade charts for most months between April and November. The annual Cash Box and RePlay arcade charts listed Defender as the second highest-grossing arcade game of 1981 in the United States, just below Pac-Man. The Amusement & Music Operators Association (AMOA) later listed Defender among America's six highest-grossing arcade games of 1982.

Co-designer Larry Demar was surprised by the game's popularity. At the time of its release, Stan Jarocki, director of marketing at then-competitor Midway Manufacturing, described the game as "amazing".

In Japan, Defender was not as highly successful, but was a moderate success. It was tied with Turbo and Galaxian as Japan's 18th highest-grossing arcade video game of 1981.

The Atari VCS port sold over 3 million copies, becoming the second best-selling Atari home video game of 1982 (just below the Atari version of Pac-Man). However, at least 68,993 copies of Defender were returned in 1983. Across all home platforms, the game has sold over 5 million cartridges worldwide as of 2000.

Reviews
Softline in 1983 wrote that it "remains one of the hardest arcade games ever developed. Initial attempts lasting less than ten seconds are not uncommon for novices". In his 1981 video game guide How to Master the Video Games Tom Hirschfeld reported "Mastering DEFENDER requires some perserverance, but most players find the effort worthwhile".

Ed Driscoll reviewed the Atari 2600 version of Defender (where, due to its graphical limitations, was reformatted to a city setting, rather than the planet setting of the original arcade version) in The Space Gamer No. 57. Driscoll commented that "all in all, if you want a good game for your Atari, this qualifies. Defender lovers have a few gripes, but I would recommend this one to any VCS owner". The port won the "Best Science Fiction/Fantasy Videogame" category in the 1983 Arcade Awards. Computer and Video Games later reviewed the game, giving it a 90% rating.

In 1983 Softline readers named the port for the Atari 8-bit computers fifth on the magazine's Top Thirty list of Atari programs by popularity. The magazine was more critical, stating that "the game's appeal does not justify its unreasonable cost" of being shipped on ROM cartridges. David H. Ahl of Creative Computing Video & Arcade Games said in 1983 that the Atari 5200 version was "a substantial challenge to the most seasoned space gamers". Computer Games magazine reviewed the IBM PC conversion, giving it a mixed review. They said the "action is very fast" but "it becomes boring after a short time."

Retrospective
In 1995, Flux magazine rated Defender 34th in its Top 100 Video Games. They lauded the game stating: "the ultimate side scrolling arcade shooter." Next Generation ranked the arcade version as number 13 on their 1996 "Top 100 Games of All Time", saying that its balanced difficulty makes gamers keep coming back for more instead of giving up. In 1996, GamesMaster listed the game number 5 in their "Top 100 Games of All Time", they described the game as "One of the greatest shoot-‘em-ups of all time." In 1999, Next Generation listed Defender as number 23 on their "Top 50 Games of All Time", commenting that "despite exceptionally complicated controls, gamers fell in love at first sight. The difficulty is high but fair - when you die, it's always your fault, and that leaves you wanting one more chance to beat the game". In 2004, Defender was inducted into GameSpot's list of the greatest games of all time. In 2008, Guinness World Records listed it as the number six arcade game in technical, creative, and cultural impact. That same year, Retro Gamer rated the game number ten on their list of "Top 25 Arcade Games", citing it as a technical achievement and a difficult title with addictive gameplay. Also in 2008, Edge ranked Defender the sixth best game from the 1980s. The editors described its design as very "elegant" despite a lack of narrative and characters.

GameSpy's David Cuciz lauded Defender's challenging gameplay, commenting that it is representative of what other games should be. He described the graphics as "beautiful", citing the varied sprites and flashing explosions. Matt Barton and Bill Loguidice of Gamasutra stated the audio-visuals and gameplay's depth balanced the excessive difficulty. They praised the game's "catch and rescue" feature, as well as the mini-map. Cuciz also praised the mini-map, stating that the game is impossible without it and that it allows players to plan strategies. Author John Sellers praised the audio-visuals and the connection between the game's plot and gameplay.

GameDaily in 2009 rated Defender the ninth most difficult game, citing the attack and rescue gameplay. Author Steven L. Kent called it "one of the toughest games in arcade history". He also stated that novice players typically are able to play only a few seconds, and that enthusiasts saw proficiency at the game as a "badge of honor". David Cuciz echoed similar comments. Sellers described Defender's difficulty as "humbling", saying that few could play it with proficiency. He further stated that players would continue to play despite the difficulty. Author David Ellis attributes the game's success to its challenging design. Its difficulty is often attributed to its complex control scheme. Edge magazine called Defender "one of the most difficult-to-master" games, describing its controls as "daunting".

Impact and legacy
Players have competed to obtain the highest score at the game and the longest play time on a single credit. Competitive playing for the longest play time was popularized by Mario Suarez from Atlantic City, who played Defender for over 21 and a half hours in 1982 at the Claridge Casino Hotel in Atlantic City. It was authenticated by the facility and the many witnesses that watched along with the press of Atlantic City; the media attention spurred other players to attempt the same feat. Expert players exploited software bugs to extend the length of their play time. Defender was the focus of the first Twin Galaxies video game contest. Players in 32 cities simultaneously competed on the weekend of April 3–4, 1982. Rick Smith was the victor with a score of 33,013,200 which took 38 hours. One bug, related to how the game keeps track of scoring, allows players to earn a large number of "extra lives". Players can then use the extra lives to leave the game unattended while they rest. Other bugs allow the ship to avoid damage from the enemies, also prolonging the length of play.

Defender is considered the first side-scrolling shoot 'em up, predating Scramble by two months. Professor Jim Whitehead described Defender as a breakthrough title for its use of full 2D motion, multiple goals, and complex gameplay that provides players with several methods to play. James Hague of Dadgum Games called Defender a landmark title from the 1980s. Stearny said that the game's use of scrolling helped remove design limitations associated with the screen. Cuciz stated that Defender's use of scrolling introduced the "first true 'gaming environment'". He further said that though the game's mini-map feature had been introduced before, Defender integrated it into the gameplay in a more essential manner. Stearny described it as the most important space game in the early 1980s. He commented that its realism and technological advances pushed developers to create more popular games, citing Gorf and Phoenix as examples. Vince listed the game as a classic title that introduced new technology, specifically scrolling. Ellis stated that prior to Defender, companies designed video games to have a balanced challenge. They believed games should be easy enough to attract players, but difficult enough to limit play time to a few minutes; anything too challenging would dissuade players. Loguidice and Barton commented that Defender's success, along with Robotron: 2084, illustrated that video game enthusiasts were ready for more difficult games, which spurred developers to create more complex game designs.

Jarvis's contributions to the game's development are often cited among his accolades. Author John Vince considered him one of the originators of "high-action" and "reflex-based" arcade games, citing Defender's gameplay among other games designed by Jarvis. Ellis said that Jarvis established himself as an early "hard-core" designer with Defender. In 2007, IGN listed Eugene Jarvis as a top game designer whose titles (Defender, Robotron: 2084 and Smash TV) have influenced the video game industry. Barton and Loguidice stated that the game helped establish Williams and Jarvis as key figures in the arcade game industry. Sellers echoed similar comments. After the success of Defender, Williams expanded their business by building a new facility and hired more employees. Before the expansion, Jarvis could work in isolation. But the influx of people created an environment he was unhappy with. He left Williams along with DeMar to found their own development company, Vid Kidz. The company served as a consulting firm to Williams and developed two games for them.

Remakes and sequels

The success of Defender prompted Williams to approach Vid Kidz, who originally wanted to create a new game. DeMar, however, suggested creating an enhanced version of Defender to meet Williams' four-month deadline. Vid Kidz titled the game Stargate, and developed it as a sequel to Defender. It features new elements and improved the original's performance. Some home ports of Stargate were released under the title Defender II for trademark purposes.

Williams released a Defender-themed pinball machine in 1982. It has many elements from the original game: sound effects, enemies, waves, and weapons. Williams produced fewer than 400 units.

Midway's 1991 Strike Force is an arcade update to Defender in the same way that Smash TV is an update to Robotron: 2084. Jarvis and DeMar assisted with the game, but it was not widely distributed.

Atari Corporation released Defender 2000 in 1995 for the Atari Jaguar. It was written by Jeff Minter, who had previously updated Tempest as Tempest 2000.

Defender is included in the 1996 compilation Williams Arcade's Greatest Hits.

In 1997, Tiger Electronics released a handheld edition of Defender with a grayscale LCD screen, which doubles as a keychain ornament.

A 2002 remake, published simply as Defender, uses 3D graphics and a third-person viewpoint. It was released for the Xbox, GameCube, and PlayStation 2.

Influenced games and clones
Home games that copied Defender's design include Gorgon (1981) and Repton (1983) for the Apple II, Alien Defense (1981) for the TRS 80 Model III, Defender 64 (1983) and Guardian (1984) for the Commodore 64, Invasion of the Body Snatchas! (1983) for the ZX Spectrum, Dropzone (1984) for the Atari 8-bit computers, and for the BBC Micro Defender (1982) was renamed to Planetoid (1984) to avoid litigation. It influenced Jeff Minter's Andes Attack for the VIC-20 home computer, and later his bigravitational Sheep in Space.

Other games built upon the core concept of protecting people or vehicles along the ground in a horizontally scrolling world, such as Protector II for the Atari 8-bit, Chopper Command for the Atari 2600, and Choplifter, all three of which were released in 1982.

Some later games were also influenced by Defender, like Datastorm (1989) for the Amiga and Fantasy Zone (1986) for arcades and a variety of home consoles.

Cultural references
The game has been referenced in music: Lou Reed's song "Down At The Arcade" on his 1984 album New Sensations, Manilla Road's song "Defender" on their 1982 album Metal, Buckner & Garcia's song "The Defender" on their 1982 album Pac-Man Fever, and the Beastie Boys' song "Body Movin'" on their 1998 album Hello Nasty. Nerdcore rapper MC Chris mentions Defender in the chorus of his anthemic song "Never Give Up" from his 2008 album, MC Chris is Dead. Other artists to have used sound effects from Defender include Aphex Twin (on "Mt Saint Michel + Saint Michaels Mount" and "Bucephalus Bouncing Ball"), and Limp Bizkit (used to censor swearing on the clean version of "My Generation"). The game was featured prominently in the music video for the Sheena Easton song "Almost Over You".

In an episode of the TV series CHiPs (Season 4, Episode 19), titled 'Vigilante', the game is featured in a scene where one of the characters is playing it.

Tim Waggoner's 2004 novel Hyperswarm is based on the video game.

The game is used as a running gag in the film Avengers: Infinity War, where Groot is playing the game despite being told not to.

In Ready Player One, the ship from Defender is referenced, mentioning its ability to jump into hyperspace.

In Wonder Woman 1984, in the Shopping Mall scene, there is a Defender machine visible inside the Amusement Centre.

In the fourth episode of season 3 of NewsRadio entitled "Arcade", station manager Dave's addiction to Defender as a teenager returns when the station gets a Defender arcade machine to replace an unused sandwich machine.

Defender is one of many classic arcade games that appear in the Midway Arcade World in Lego Dimensions, as it is played in Gamer Kid's level "Retro Wreckage", both in the start of the level, as he is shown playing Defender on his phone while he has his headphones in and it is playable in Gamer Kid's world using the Arcade Machine vehicle, which is a part of Gamer Kid's Level Pack.

title: Defender (1981 video game)


text:
New River (Kanawha River tributary)

The New River is a river which flows through the U.S. states of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia before joining with the Gauley River to form the Kanawha River at the town of Gauley Bridge, West Virginia. Part of the Ohio River watershed, it is about 360 mi long.

The origins of the name are unclear. Possibilities include being a new river that was not on the Fry-Jefferson map of Virginia, an Indian name meaning "new waters", or the surname of an early settler. It was once called Wood's River for Colonel Abraham Wood, an English explorer from Virginia, who explored the river in the mid-17th century. Despite its name, the New River is one of the five oldest rivers in the world geologically. However, a claim that the river is the second oldest in the world is disputed by the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey and the National Park Service.

This low-level crossing of the Appalachians, many millions of years old, has long been a biogeographical corridor allowing numerous species of plants and animals to spread between the lowlands of the American East Coast and those of the Midwest. Unusual kinds of plants occur on the gorge's cliffs or rim-top ledges. Portions of this corridor are now also used by various railroads and highways, and some segments of the river have been dammed for hydroelectric power production.

The New River Gorge is not only quite scenic, but also offers numerous opportunities for white-water recreation such as rafting and kayaking. Many open ledges along the rim of the gorge offer popular views, with favorites including Hawks Nest State Park and various overlooks on lands of the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve.

The New River Gorge and the U.S. 19 bridge crossing it are shown on the West Virginia State Quarter, minted in 2005.

Course
This ancient river begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, and its North Fork and South Fork meet near the City of Boone, North Carolina. It flows generally northeastward through the New River Valley portion of the Great Appalachian Valley in western North Carolina and Virginia. It then crosses through the Ridge and Valley Province, cutting between Walker Mountain and Sinking Creek Mountain, and then between East River Mountain and Peters Mountain. It then turns and following a more northwestward course into West Virginia, where it then cuts through the Appalachian Plateau in the New River Gorge. It meets the Gauley River to become the Kanawha River in south-central West Virginia. The Kanawha then flows into the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia. Much of the river's course is lined with steep cliffs and rock outcrops, particularly in its gorge in West Virginia.

The New River is formed by the confluence of the South Fork New River and the North Fork New River on the Ashe County-Alleghany County line in North Carolina. It then flows through Alleghany County into southwestern Virginia, passing near Galax, Virginia. It is impounded by three small dams between Galax and Ivanhoe: at Fries, by Byllesby Dam, and by Buck Dam. Continuing north, the river enters Pulaski County, Virginia, where it is impounded by Claytor Dam, creating Claytor Lake. North of the dam the New River accepts the Little River, bends around three sides of the city of Radford, Virginia and bends again around the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, marking the boundary between Pulaski and Montgomery County, Virginia, before passing through Walker Mountain via a narrow water gap. After flowing north through Giles County, Virginia and the town of Narrows, the river crosses into West Virginia.

Dams and bridges
The New River is impounded by Bluestone Dam, creating Bluestone Lake in Summers County, West Virginia. The Bluestone River tributary joins the New River in Bluestone Lake. Just below the dam the Greenbrier River joins the New River, which continues its northward course into the New River Gorge. Near the end of the gorge the river flows by the town of Fayetteville, West Virginia. A few miles northwest of Fayetteville, much of the New River's flow is diverted through the 3 mi Hawks Nest Tunnel for use in power generation. The water re-enters the river just upstream of Gauley Bridge, where the New merges with the Gauley River to form the Kanawha River. The Kanawha is a tributary of the Ohio River, which in turn is a tributary of the Mississippi River.

Few highways cross the gorge, with the most dramatic bridge by far being the New River Gorge Bridge on U.S. 19, a steel arch bridge spanning 1700 ft, with the roadway 876 ft above the average level of the river. This structure is the fifth-longest single-arch bridge in the world, and is also the world's twenty-third-highest vehicular bridge, and the fourth highest in the Americas. At the time it was built, New River Gorge Bridge was the world's highest bridge carrying a regular roadway, a title it held until the 2001 opening of the Liuguanghe Bridge in China.

Geology
Ironically, the New River is considered by some geologists to be one of the oldest rivers in the world, and certainly one of the oldest rivers in North America. The New River flows in a generally south-to-north course, at times cutting through the southwest-to-northeast-trending ridges and geological texture of the Appalachian Mountains, and flows directly through the Appalachian Plateau, contrasting with the west-to-east flow of most other major rivers to the east and northeast in Virginia and North Carolina, and on the west side of the Appalachians on the Plateau.

It may have been in its present course for at least 65 million years. In the geologic past, the New River was a much longer stream. Geologists have named it the Teays. The last advance of Pleistocene continental glacial ice buried most of this river. At that time, the waters of the New were diverted into rivers (the present-day Ohio & Kanawha Rivers) created by the glaciers.

Natural history
On its journey through the New River Gorge, the New River passes through an extensive geological formation. Emergent rocks and rock outcrops are found to provide diverse habitat producing rich and abundant flora and fauna species. In the gorge, there is typically a 1000 feet difference in elevation between the river bottom and the adjacent plateau. The New River dissects all physiographic provinces of the Appalachian Mountains, and therefore is believed to be a corridor facilitating the movement of southern plant and animal species into West Virginia. In addition to serving as a refuge for some species, New River Gorge provides a geographical barrier that limits the east-west distribution of other species.

Because the New River is so old, its habitats and wildlife have been able to achieve a form of stability. Millions of years of available passage have allowed many species of plants and animals to move in and persist in the area. Since the New River cuts from east to west through the Appalachians, we find species that are typically Atlantic coastal plain and piedmont, such as melic grass, living with northern mountain species. Because time has favored the New River Gorge, certain unique species have been able to carve their own niches here. Several species of fish have evolved that are endemic (found nowhere else) to this river.

Plants
New River Gorge lies at the core of the largest remaining block of relatively unfragmented, mid-latitude forest in the world. The gorge section of New River supports the most diverse plant assemblage of any river gorge in the central and southern Appalachians. This is due, in part, to the moisture gradient extremes that exist between the rim and river. This portion of southern West Virginia falls within the Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region. Recognized forest types include oak-hickory, mixed oak, oak-maple, oak-yellow pine, hemlock-hardwoods, northern hardwoods, cove hardwoods, and bottomland and floodplain hardwoods.

Also located in the gorge is the rare Appalachian Flatrock plant community which includes sedges, cedars and pines. This plant assemblage occurs on flat sandstone ledges along the New River and is dependent on the scouring caused by occasional flooding for its long-term integrity.

Animals
A wide variety of animals live in and around the New River, the Gorge, and the surrounding forests. The New River has long served as a migration corridor for both plants and animals. For this reason, animals more commonly found much farther south may reach the northern extent of their range in the New River Gorge area. Likewise, animals more commonly associated with the northern forests may reach the southern extent of their range in this area. Other animals are found only in the New River area. These species, called endemics, were isolated from similar populations by the steep, rugged terrain of New River Gorge and/or the tumultuous rapids and waterfalls of New River. Thus isolated, these animals evolved to be adapted to the unique circumstances of New River Gorge.

Approximately 65 species of mammals are known to occur in the New River Gorge area, such as beaver, mink, muskrat, river otter. Continuous forest, abandoned mine portals, rivers and streams provide habitat for a diverse variety of amphibians like hellbenders (large aquatic salamanders). There are nearly 40 species of reptiles like the eastern fence lizard, five-lined skinks, copperhead snake, black rat snake, river cooter, stinkpot turtles (common musk turtle) and snapping turtles. And many Benthic Macroinvertebrates including worm, crustaceans and immature forms of aquatic insects such as dragon fly, stonefly and mayfly nymphs.

The New River and the gorge area provides critical habitat for birds such as bald eagles, osprey, great blue herons, kingfishers, numerous ducks and migrating waterfowl like loons, cormorants, hooded mergansers and other migratory birds including the Cerulean warbler, a species in decline elsewhere in its range.

Fish
The New River basin has seven endemic species of fish, which are the: Appalachia darter, bigmouth chub, bluestone sculpin, candy darter, Kanawha darter, Kanawha minnow, and New River shiner.

History
The fur trading Batts and Fallam expedition of 1671, sent by Colonel Abraham Wood, was the first recorded exploration of the river. Variant names of the New River include "Wood River" and "Wood's River", after Abraham Wood. Mary Draper Ingles traversed the gorge during her 1755 escape from captivity among the Shawnees. Hiking or driving through New River Gorge today will provide glimpses of old stone walls, foundations of homes and buildings, coal mine entrances, and coke ovens decaying alongside the railroad tracks.

The New River and its Gorge and Valley have been turned into protected parks and recreation areas along much of the river. Congress has designated the New River Gorge the "New River Gorge National River". The choice of national river designation came about through a long series of discussions among interested parties. A grassroots coalition formed and pleaded the case for protection of the area in Congress. The initial goal, however, was not protective designation of the gorge in West Virginia, but stopping an engineering project on the Virginia-North Carolina border. Plans had been proposed in the early 1960s to dam the New River in Virginia, backing up water into North Carolina for pumped storage, the production of hydroelectric power, and the regular flushing of pollution downstream. Proponents called it the Blue Ridge Pumped Storage Project. Many citizens in West Virginia felt that such a dam would negatively affect the gorge. Water flow and quality were major concerns. These West Virginia opponents to the dam joined those in Virginia and North Carolina and helped block the dam before shifting attention toward protection of the New River in West Virginia. The coalition ultimately chose a designation for the New River Gorge that would have a chance of success in Congress. That designation passed Congress in 1978.

Recreation
The New River exhibits class II to IV rapids in the summer, making it a popular whitewater rafting and kayaking destination. The spring runoff brings class IV and V rapids. Several commercial outfitters offer guided river trips. New River Gorge National Park and Preserve contains numerous trails for hiking and mountain biking, as well as over 1400 established rock climbs.

The New River is spanned near Fayetteville, West Virginia, by the New River Gorge Bridge (US 19). "Bridge Walk" tours are offered on the 2 ft wide steel catwalk running under the bridge deck. The bridge is also open for BASE jumping once annually on Bridge Day.

Parks, forests, and trails
Listed from upstream to downstream:
 * Pisgah National Forest (on the South Fork)
 * Elk Knob State Park (on the North Fork)
 * New River State Park, North Carolina
 * New River Trail State Park, Virginia
 * Shot Tower Historical State Park, Virginia
 * Claytor Lake State Park, Virginia
 * Jefferson National Forest
 * Appalachian National Scenic Trail
 * Bluestone Wildlife Management Area
 * Bluestone State Park, West Virginia
 * New River Gorge National Park and Preserve
 * Babcock State Park, West Virginia
 * Hawks Nest State Park, West Virginia

Environmental factors
Much of the river's course through West Virginia is designated as the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve, and the New River is one of the nation's American Heritage Rivers. In 1975, North Carolina designated a 26.5 miles segment of the river as "New River State Scenic River", by including it in the state's Natural and Scenic Rivers System. The segment was added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System the following year.

The quality of the surface water resources of the New River has been studied in recent years by both the State of West Virginia and New River Gorge Park Resource Management staff. Data from these studies suggest the presence of metals, organic contaminants and influx of raw sewage are common in many tributaries of the New River. Metals contamination, resulting from mining activities and or urban surface flows, are present in most tributaries. Other sources of pollutants within park boundaries include unlined landfills, illegal dumps, pesticide sprayed directly into the New River, agricultural runoff, road salt runoff, direct discharge of residential sewage, inadequate municipal sewage treatment facilities, recreation waste streams, and industrial discharges. Pollution of rural streams by fecal coliform bacteria is a widespread issue. Since fecal coliform bacteria live in the gut of warm-blooded animals, fecal contamination of rural streams can come not only from humans, but also from livestock, pets, and wildlife (including birds). Several research efforts have been made to understand the role of these various potential sources of bacteria. One of these studies was conducted in New River Gorge by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service. The results indicate that human-caused wastewater pollution is present in each of the four New River Gorge tributaries sampled. The report also found other sources of contamination in some streams.

Most of the original deciduous forest stands and understory species have been impacted by past and current activities associated with timbering, mining, agriculture, transportation, utilities, and the exclusion of fire. Internal development projects, increasing recreational activities, and expanding commercial and residential influences on the boundary continue to put pressure on a highly fragmented base resource. Power lines and rights-of-way present additional problems. There is currently only limited information on all such areas throughout the park. Right-of-ways are routinely maintained with herbicides application or mechanically treated. There are currently no Special Use Permits in place to regulate this activity. Herbicides are managed through the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. The park lies directly in the path of the leading edge of spongy moth infestation. Baseline data on the condition of resources, which would be the indicators of the effects of defoliation, does not exist. Critical documents, such as the Environmental Assessment for spongy moth management, require detailed information and hard scientific data in order to justify management actions.

Many areas within New River Gorge have been impacted by either strip or deep mining for coal, as well as by oil and gas operations. The park has completed an Abandoned Mine Lands Inventory (AML Inventory) that identifies 115 sites that are abandoned. Many of these sites were abandoned prior to the 1977 Surface Mining Reclamation Act (SMCRA), and are completely or partially unreclaimed. Since 1987, the National Park Service and the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) have worked together to mitigate the most severe safety hazards identified on this inventory.

Air pollution sources resulting from activities within the park includes windblown soil and dust from construction activities, smoke from residential wood burning, automobile emissions, and forest fires. A significant issue for the park is solid waste management. Hundreds of illegal dumps and roadside trash create both aesthetic and health and safety problems. Hazardous waste is also an issue. The area has active rail lines and abandoned mine operations. There is great potential for hazardous material spills to occur within the gorge. Also, some potential development sites within the New River Gorge have been surveyed during preliminary development concept planning. Asbestos has been found in several historic structures within the park, and this has lengthened the time and costs involved in renovation of these buildings.

Over time, the New River Gorge has provided a refuge for plants and animals as habitats have shifted with changing weather patterns. As global climate change progresses, the New River Gorge will provide critical habitat for species displaced from warmer climates.

Variant names
According to the Geographic Names Information System, the New River has also been known as:
 * Conhaway River
 * Great Konhaway River
 * Kanawha River
 * Kunhaway River
 * Mon-don-ga-cha-te
 * Wood River
 * Wood's River
 * Woods River

title: New River (Kanawha River tributary)


text:
What Do You Know, Deutschland?

What Do You Know, Deutschland? is the debut studio album by German industrial band KMFDM, released in December 1986 by Z and Skysaw Records.

Background
What Do You Know, Deutschland? was recorded from 1983–86, with some tracks recorded before En Esch had started working with KMFDM founders Sascha Konietzko and Raymond Watts, some even before the band officially formed in 1984.

Release
Originally released by Z Records in Germany in 1986 with different artwork, the album was re-released, including songs from the "Kickin' Ass" single, in 1987 by SkySaw Records in the United Kingdom. In 1991, Wax Trax! Records released What Do You Know, Deutschland? in the United States without "Zip". "Zip" was later released on the compilation album Agogo.

A remastered reissue of What Do You Know, Deutschland? was released September 12, 2006, featuring new liner notes and photos of the band.

A new version of the track "Kickin' Ass" was released under Watts' musical project PIG in November 2020, featuring guitarwork by Esch.

Reception
Vincent Jeffries of Allmusic said many of the songs lack the "guitar fury" of later releases, but that the album as a whole "has enough industrial grit to keep KMFDM fans interested in, if not awed by its dark intentions".

Z Records release (1986)
"Me I Funk" is a partial cover of T. Rex's "Ballrooms of Mars" from The Slider.

SkySaw Records release (1987)
This version was released by Wax Trax! in 1991 (without the track "Zip"), and remastered by Metropolis in 2006 (with "Zip" reinstated).

Personnel

 * Sascha Konietzko – bass, vocals, guitar, synths, programming
 * En Esch – vocals, guitars, drums, programming
 * Raymond Watts – vocals, programming, engineering
 * Jr. Blackmale – vocals ("Itchy Bitchy", "Lufthans")

title: What Do You Know, Deutschland?


text:
Scott Wolf

Scott Richard Wolf (born June 4, 1968) is an American actor. In television, he is known for his roles as Bailey Salinger in Party of Five (1994–2000), as Jeremy Kates in The Nine (2006–2007), as Donnie Ryan in Perception (2013–2015) and as Carson Drew in Nancy Drew (2019–2023). In film, he is best known for starring in Go (1999) and voicing Scamp in Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure (2001).

Early life
Wolf was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He is the son of Susan (née Levy) and Steven Wolf, a health care executive. Wolf was raised in a Reform Jewish family. He grew up in West Orange, New Jersey, and graduated in 1986 from West Orange High School. His cousin is comedian and scriptwriter Josh Wolf.

Wolf attended George Washington University and received a Bachelor of Arts degree in finance in 1991. He also became a Brother of the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity.

Career
Wolf is known for his role as Bailey Salinger on Party of Five. On both Everwood and the short-lived The Nine, he portrayed a doctor; and he portrayed Dr. Scott Clemmens on NBC's The Night Shift. He made guest appearances as himself on Action and Kids Inc. His sole Broadway theatre credit to date is Side Man. He has also made a few brief appearances on Voltron: Legendary Defender, as Rax, a Balmeran.

In 2019, Wolf was cast in the lead role of Carson Drew in The CW drama series Nancy Drew. He took over the role from Freddie Prinze Jr., who played the character in the original unaired pilot episode.

Personal life
Wolf was engaged to Alyssa Milano in 1993, but they separated after a year and a half.

In 2002, he began dating Kelley Marie Limp, an alumna of MTV's The Real World: New Orleans, after meeting her in New York City through a mutual friend. They married on May 29, 2004, before temporarily living in Santa Monica, California. They have three children – sons born in February 2009 and November 2012;  and a daughter born in 2014. The family resides in Vancouver in western Canada.

title: Scott Wolf


text:
User talk:Ravenwing

Hi there! An editor, eh? Well, we can never have too many of those here. Glad you've showed up, and hope you stay. When you get a chance, drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Welcome is a good place to start. How does one edit a page gives editing help. Manual of Style gives formatting info. Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now. Help covers a broad range of useful topics. Village pump is a place to ask questions. Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 04:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ravenwing