wikipedia_id stringlengths 2 8 | wikipedia_title stringlengths 1 243 | url stringlengths 44 370 | contents stringlengths 53 2.22k | id int64 0 6.14M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
the Navy's budding aircraft carriers. Following Battle Fleet maneuvers during August, she entered Mare Island in November for repairs. The destroyer sailed 4 February 1931 for Panama, where she resumed plane guard duty for . "Jacob Jones" transited the Panama Canal on 22 March, and sailed for maneuvers in the Caribbean Sea. She sailed for the United States on 1 May and took part in joint Army-Navy maneuvers in the Chesapeake Bay 26 to 29 May. During the remainder of the summer, she operated with Destroyer Division 7 along the New England coast before retiring to the Boston Navy Yard 2 October for overhaul.
"Jacob Jones" steamed from Boston on 1 December for maneuvers off Haiti. On 13 February | 11,700 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
1932 she departed the Caribbean to begin 13 months of plane guard duty and torpedo practice along the California coast. She returned to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba on 1 May 1933 for general drill and battle problem exercises, and on 26 May she sailed for Norfolk, Virginia to undergo self-upkeep on rotating reserve.
Following two months of at Charleston, "Jones" returned to Guantanamo on 29 November for scouting and firing exercises. She interrupted her maneuvers on 29 June 1934, and sailed for Port-au-Prince, Haiti, where she served as an escort during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Good Neighbor" visit to Haiti. She resumed Caribbean operations in July and participated in landing force | 11,701 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
exercises at Guantanamo Bay during September. She retired from the Caribbean late in November and entered Norfolk Navy Yard 3 December 1934 for several months of upkeep.
In May 1935, "Jacob Jones" embarked midshipmen from the Naval Academy for an Atlantic training cruise. She returned to Norfolk 7 June for three months of coastal patrols and maneuvers. She steamed to New York in September to participate in destroyer maneuvers and operated out of New York until entering Brooklyn Navy Yard in January 1936 for upkeep and inspection.
On 15 June 1936, the destroyer departed New York with reserve officers on board for training cruises in the Caribbean which continued through September. In October, | 11,702 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
she participated in joint Army-Navy coastal maneuvers; and, following her annual inspection at Norfolk, she participated in minesweeping training during February 1937. In March, she trained officers of the 5th Fleet Reserve and in June she resumed training cruises for midshipmen. She continued to operate as a practice ship for reserve officers until 15 January 1938, when she departed Norfolk for fleet landing exercises and battle maneuvers in waters off Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. "Jacob Jones" returned to Norfolk on 13 March for overhaul. In June she resumed operations out of Norfolk, serving as a carrier plane guard and conducting torpedo and gunnery practice.
After attending the | 11,703 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
Presidential Regatta in September, "Jacob Jones" prepared to sail for Europe to join Squadron 40-T in the Mediterranean Sea. Organized in September 1936 to protect and evacuate Americans from Spain during the civil war, the squadron remained in the western Mediterranean. Departing Norfolk 26 October, "Jacob Jones" reached Gibraltar on 6 November, and arrived Villefranche on 17 November. She operated out of that French Mediterranean port on patrol until 20 March 1939. She visited Algiers from 24 to 25 March 1939 and, during the next seven months, steamed to various Atlantic European ports from Rotterdam to Lisbon. Departing Lisbon on 4 October, she sailed for the United States and anchored at | 11,704 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
Norfolk on 14 October.
Resuming her coastal operations, "Jacob Jones" conducted plane screening patrols from Norfolk to Newport, Rhode Island and in December she escorted the submarine during its Caribbean shakedown.
## World War II.
After two months of upkeep and inspection at Norfolk, "Jacob Jones" sailed for Charleston on 4 April 1940 to join the Neutrality Patrol. Organized in September 1939 as a response to the war in Europe, the Neutrality Patrol was ordered to track and report the movements of any warlike operations of belligerents in the waters of the Western Hemisphere. The basic purpose of the patrol "was to emphasize the readiness of the United States Navy to defend the Western | 11,705 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
Hemisphere." In June, after two months of duty with the Neutrality Patrol, "Jacob Jones" returned to training midshipmen.
In September, "Jacob Jones" departed Norfolk for New London, Connecticut, where her crew underwent intensive ASW sound school training. Returning briefly to Norfolk on 6 December, she sailed to Key West for further anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training. She resumed her operations with the Neutrality Patrol in March 1941, patrolling the waters from Key West to Yucatán Channel. In May, she joined the ships which guarded the waters of Vichy-controlled islands, Martinique and Guadeloupe in the Lesser Antilles. "Jacob Jones" maintained her Caribbean operations throughout the | 11,706 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
summer.
On 30 September 1941, she departed Guantanamo with Destroyer Division 54 to prepare for escort duty in the North Atlantic. "Jones" received two months of upkeep and inspection at Norfolk and on 1 December 1941, departed for convoy escort training along the New England coast. Clearing Boston Harbor on 12 December, she sailed to Naval Station Argentia, Newfoundland, to begin her escort duty. On 16 December she escorted the submarines and through heavy seas to Boston and returned to Argentia on 24 December. "Jacob Jones" once again departed Argentia on 4 January 1942 escorting and . While steaming to join Convoy SC 63, bound for the British Isles, the destroyer made an underwater contact | 11,707 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
and commenced a depth charge attack. Losing contact with the submarine, she escorted her ships to the convoy and returned to Argentia on 5 January.
Sailing from Argentia on 14 January 1942, "Jacob Jones" joined Convoy HX 169, which was headed for Iceland. The convoy encountered a violent storm; heavy seas and winds of force 9 scattered its ships' convoy. Separated from the convoy, the destroyer steamed independently for Hvalfjörður, Iceland. Though hampered by a shortage of fuel, an inoperable gyro compass, an erratic magnetic compass, and the continuous pounding of the storm, "Jacob Jones" arrived on 19 January. Five days later, she escorted three merchant ships to Argentia. Once again heavy | 11,708 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
seas and fierce winds separated the ships, and "Jacob Jones" continued toward Argentia with one Norwegian merchantman. She detected and attacked another submarine on 2 February 1942, but her depth charges yielded no visible results.
Arriving at Argentia on 3 February, she departed the following day and rejoined Convoy ON 59, bound for Boston. Reaching Boston on 8 February, "Jacob Jones" received a week of repairs. She sailed on 15 February for Norfolk and three days later steamed from Norfolk to New York.
In an effort to stem the losses to Allied merchant shipping along the Atlantic coast, Vice Admiral Adolphus Andrews, Commander of the Eastern Sea Frontier, established a roving ASW patrol. | 11,709 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
"Jacob Jones", Lieutenant Commander Hugh Black in command, departed New York on 22 February for this duty. While passing the swept channel off Ambrose Light Ship, "Jones" made a possible submarine contact and attacked immediately. For five hours, "Jones" ran twelve attack patterns, dropping some 57 depth charges. Oil slicks appeared during the last six attacks, but no other debris was detected. Having expended all her charges, "Jones" returned to New York to rearm. Subsequent investigation failed to reveal any conclusive evidence of a sunken submarine.
## Fate.
On the morning of 27 February 1942, "Jacob Jones" departed New York harbor and steamed southward along the New Jersey coast to patrol | 11,710 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
and search the area between Barnegat Light and Five Fathom Bank. Shortly after her departure, she received orders to concentrate her patrol activity in waters off Cape May and the Delaware Capes. At 1530 she spotted the burning wreckage of tanker , torpedoed the previous day east of Barnegat Light; "Jacob Jones" circled the ship for two hours searching for survivors before resuming her southward course. Cruising at through calm seas, she last reported her position at 2000 and then commenced radio silence. A full moon lit the night sky and visibility was good; throughout the night the ship, completely darkened without running or navigation lights showing, kept her southward course.
At the first | 11,711 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
light of dawn 28 February 1942, the undetected fired a spread of torpedoes at the unsuspecting destroyer. The torpedoes were not detected and two or three struck the destroyer's port side in rapid succession.
According to her survivors, the first torpedo struck just aft of the bridge and caused major damage. Apparently, it exploded the ship's magazine; the resulting blast sheared off everything forward of the point of impact, destroying completely the bridge, the chart room, and the officers' and petty officers' quarters. As she stopped dead in the water, unable to signal a distress message, a second torpedo struck about forward of the fantail and carried away the after part of the ship above | 11,712 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
the keel plates and shafts and destroyed the after crew's quarters. Only the midships section was left intact.
All but 25 or 30 officers and men, including Lieutenant Commander Black, were killed by the explosions. The survivors, including a badly wounded, "practically incoherent" signal officer, went for the lifeboats. Oily decks, fouled lines and rigging, and the clutter of the ship's strewn twisted wreckage hampered their efforts to launch the boats. "Jacob Jones" remained afloat for about 45 minutes, allowing her survivors to clear the stricken ship in four or five rafts. Within an hour of the initial explosion "Jacob Jones" plunged bow first into the Atlantic; as her shattered stern disappeared, | 11,713 |
512052 | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS%20Jacob%20Jones%20(DD-130) | USS Jacob Jones (DD-130)
fts. Within an hour of the initial explosion "Jacob Jones" plunged bow first into the Atlantic; as her shattered stern disappeared, her depth charges exploded, killing several survivors on a nearby raft (as had happened to in 1917).
At 0810, an Army observation plane sighted the liferafts and reported their position to of the Inshore Patrol. By 1100, when strong winds and rising seas forced her to abandon her search, she had rescued 12 survivors, one of whom died en route to Cape May. The search for the other survivors of "Jacob Jones" continued by plane and ship for the next two days, but none were ever found.
# External links.
- USS "Jacob Jones" web page at Destroyer History Foundation | 11,714 |
512080 | What Do You Know, Deutschland? | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What%20Do%20You%20Know,%20Deutschland? | What Do You Know, Deutschland?
What Do You Know, Deutschland?
What Do You Know, Deutschland? is the second 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?" | 11,715 |
512080 | What Do You Know, Deutschland? | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What%20Do%20You%20Know,%20Deutschland? | 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.
# 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".
# Track listings.
## 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 | 11,716 |
512080 | What Do You Know, Deutschland? | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What%20Do%20You%20Know,%20Deutschland? | What Do You Know, Deutschland?
h industrial grit to keep KMFDM fans interested in, if not awed by its dark intentions".
# Track listings.
## 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
- Jr. Blackmail – vocals ("Lufthans")
# External links.
- KMFDM DØTKØM "What Do You Know, Deutschland?" lyrics at the official KMFDM website | 11,717 |
512118 | Buckingham County | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buckingham%20County | Buckingham County
Buckingham County
Buckingham County may refer to:
- Buckingham County, Virginia, United States
- Buckingham Land District, formerly Buckingham County, Tasmania, Australia
- County of Buckingham (South Australia)
- Buckinghamshire, ceremonial county, England, United Kingdom | 11,718 |
512093 | Sedimentation equilibrium | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedimentation%20equilibrium | Sedimentation equilibrium
Sedimentation equilibrium
Sedimentation equilibrium in a solution or suspension of different particles, such as molecules, exists when the rate of transport of each material in any one direction due to sedimentation equals the rate of transport in the opposite direction due to diffusion. Sedimentation is due to an external force, such as gravity (for very large particles) or centrifugal force in a centrifuge.
Modern applications use the analytical ultracentrifuge. The theoretical basis for the measurements is developed from the Mason-Weaver equation. The advantage of using analytical sedimentation equilibrium analysis for Molecular Weight of proteins and their interacting mixtures is the avoidance | 11,719 |
512093 | Sedimentation equilibrium | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedimentation%20equilibrium | Sedimentation equilibrium
g analytical sedimentation equilibrium analysis for Molecular Weight of proteins and their interacting mixtures is the avoidance of need for derivation of a frictional coefficient, otherwise required for interpretation of dynamic sedimentation.
It was discovered for large particles by Jean Baptiste Perrin for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1926.
# Application in determining molecular mass.
Sedimentation equilibrium can be used to determine molecular mass. It forms the basis for an analytical ultracentrifugation method for measuring molecular masses, such as those of proteins, in solution.
# External links.
-
- Reversible Associations in Structural and Molecular Biology | 11,720 |
512081 | Scott Wolf | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott%20Wolf | Scott Wolf
Scott Wolf
Scott Richard Wolf (born June 4, 1968) is an American actor. He is known for the television series "Party of Five" as Bailey Salinger, as Jake Hartman in "Everwood" and Chad Decker in "V".
# Personal life.
Wolf was born in Boston, Massachusetts. His mother, Susan (née Levy), is retired, and his father, Steven Wolf, is 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. He attended The George Washington University and received a Bachelor of Arts degree in finance. He also became a Brother of the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity. His cousin is Josh Wolf.
Wolf was engaged to Alyssa | 11,721 |
512081 | Scott Wolf | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott%20Wolf | Scott Wolf
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 "", after meeting her through mutual friend Joel Goldman in New York City. 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 2014, and the family resides in Park City, Utah.
# 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 | 11,722 |
512081 | Scott Wolf | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott%20Wolf | Scott Wolf
er born 2014, and the family resides in Park City, Utah.
# 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 "", 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 pilot episode.
# External links.
- Scott Wolf cast bio on The WB | 11,723 |
512121 | Follow focus | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Follow%20focus | Follow focus
Follow focus
A follow focus is a focus control mechanism used in filmmaking with film cameras and in television production with professional video cameras. It is ergonomic rather than strictly necessary; in other words it does not contribute to the basic functionality of a camera but instead helps the operator be more efficient and precise. It is usually operated by a focus puller (often called the 1st assistant camera, or 1st AC) but some camera operators prefer to pull their own focus (the act of changing focus is called "pulling" or racking focus).
# Overview.
Manual focusing is usually a requisite for professional filmmaking, because autofocus systems may focus on undesired objects, or | 11,724 |
512121 | Follow focus | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Follow%20focus | Follow focus
fail to adjust quickly enough to sudden changes. The job of the focus puller then is to adjust the focus onto different subjects as well as maintain focus during movement of the camera relative to the subject.
The mechanism works through a set of gears on the follow focus that are attached to teeth on the focus ring of the lens. These gears feed to a wheel that, when turned by a focus puller, spins the teeth and thus the ring on the lens. Practically, the device is not necessary as the operator can directly turn the ring on the lens. However, this would place the hand in an awkward position perpendicular to the camera rather than parallel, and turning beyond a certain distance (such as 360 | 11,725 |
512121 | Follow focus | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Follow%20focus | Follow focus
degrees) would be impossible. Sometimes, such a "focus pull" would even be difficult with a follow focus, so an L-shaped metal rod called a speed crank can be attached in the provided square hole at the center of the wheel. Thus, the hand merely has to spin the rod, which turns the wheel. If it is necessary for the operator to stand a short distance from the camera, e.g., if the camera is inconveniently high, a short flexible cable called a "focus whip" can be used.
The stationary white disk surrounding the wheel is used by the focus puller to jot down marks, and take care of the focus according to the marks he/she took during rehearsals. A focus puller often uses a tape to correctly measure | 11,726 |
512121 | Follow focus | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Follow%20focus | Follow focus
the distance from the lens to the subject, allowing for accurate marking of the disk.
Some autofocus lenses with a focus ring (such as those on most consumer and prosumer camcorders) are not "true" manual focus lenses—meaning that turning the ring does not directly adjust the elements inside the lens, but rather actuates the internal camera electronics that predict how the focus should go depending on how fast or far the ring was turned. These lenses make precise and repeatable focus pulls difficult, and use of a follow focus impractical. They are sometimes called "servo" focus lenses or "focus by wire" cameras.
# See also.
- Racking focus
- Follow shot
- Simple, Affordable Follow Focus | 11,727 |
512121 | Follow focus | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Follow%20focus | Follow focus
istance from the lens to the subject, allowing for accurate marking of the disk.
Some autofocus lenses with a focus ring (such as those on most consumer and prosumer camcorders) are not "true" manual focus lenses—meaning that turning the ring does not directly adjust the elements inside the lens, but rather actuates the internal camera electronics that predict how the focus should go depending on how fast or far the ring was turned. These lenses make precise and repeatable focus pulls difficult, and use of a follow focus impractical. They are sometimes called "servo" focus lenses or "focus by wire" cameras.
# See also.
- Racking focus
- Follow shot
- Simple, Affordable Follow Focus Gear | 11,728 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ 2 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that there is no source of law, customary or treaty, that explicitly prohibits the possession or even use of nuclear weapons. The only requirement being that their use must be in conformity with the law on self-defence and principles of international humanitarian law.
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 | 11,729 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 outlawing use of nuclear weapons | 11,730 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
in an armed conflict was raised on 30 June 1950, by the Dutch representative to the International Law Commission (ILC) J.P.A. François, 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 | 11,731 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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, | 11,732 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 that year push its request. 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 forty-two states participated in the written phase | 11,733 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
of the pleadings, the largest number ever to join in proceedings before the Court. Of the five declared nuclear weapon states 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, | 11,734 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,735 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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:
## Court's analysis.
### 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 | 11,736 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,737 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,738 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,739 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear 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 | 11,740 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,741 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,742 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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:
- | 11,743 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,744 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,745 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,746 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,747 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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.
# International reaction.
## 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 | 11,748 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,749 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,750 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
of charges of malicious damage at Greenock Sheriff Court. The three women had boarded the "Maytime" a barge moored in Loch Goil and involved in scientific work connected with of 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 | 11,751 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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 | 11,752 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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.
# See also.
- Global Security Institute
- | 11,753 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
International humanitarian law
- List of International Court of Justice cases
- The Martens Clause
- Mutual assured destruction
- Nuclear warfare
- Nuclear weapons convention
- Humanitarian Initiative
- Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
# References.
- Sands, Philippe; and Law, Helen; "The United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent:Current and future issies of legality" (PDF) for Greenpeace.
- Singh, Rabinder; and Chinkin, Christine; "The Maintenance and Possible Replacement of the Trident Nuclear Missile System Introduction and Summary of Advice" for Peacerights
- United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament "Britain's Nuclear Deterrent"
- | 11,754 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
United Nations General Assembly A/RES/49/75/K: Request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons 90th plenary meeting 15 December 1994.
- Weiss, Peter; "Notes on a Misunderstood Decision: The World Court's Near Perfect Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Case", website of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) July 22, 1996
## 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
- | 11,755 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
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
# Further reading.
- David, Eric; "The Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons" (1997) 316 "International | 11,756 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
Review of the Red Cross" 21.
- Condorelli, Luigi; "Nuclear Weapons: A Weighty Matter for the International Court of Justice" (1997) 316 "International Review of the Red Cross" 9, 11.
- Ginger, Ann Fagan; "Looking at the United Nations through The Prism of National Peace Law," 36(2) "UN Chronicle"62 (Summer 1999).
- Greenwood, Christopher; "The Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons and the Contribution of the International Court to International Humanitarian Law" (1997) 316 "International Review of the Red Cross" 65.
- Greenwood, Christopher; "Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion" in Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Phillipe Sands (eds), "International Law, | 11,757 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons" (1999) 247, 249.
- Holdstock, Dougaylas; and Waterston, Lis; "Nuclear weapons, a continuing threat to health," 355(9214) The Lancet 1544 (29 April 2000).
- Jeutner, Valentin; "Irresolvable Norm Conflicts in International Law: The Concept of a Legal Dilemma" (Oxford University Press 2017), .
- McNeill, John; "The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Cases--A First Appraisal" (1997) 316 "International Review of the Red Cross" 103, 117.
- Mohr, Manfred; "Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons Under International Law--A Few Thoughts on its Strengths | 11,758 |
512075 | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advisory%20opinion%20on%20the%20Legality%20of%20the%20Threat%20or%20Use%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons | Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
ty Press 2017), .
- McNeill, John; "The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Cases--A First Appraisal" (1997) 316 "International Review of the Red Cross" 103, 117.
- Mohr, Manfred; "Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons Under International Law--A Few Thoughts on its Strengths and Weaknesses" (1997) 316 "International Review of the Red Cross" 92, 94.
- Moore, Mike; "World Court says mostly no to nuclear weapons," 52(5) "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists," 39 (Sept-October 1996).
- Moxley, Charles J.; "Nuclear Weapons and International Law in the Post Cold War World" (Austin & Winfield 2000), . | 11,759 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
Defender (1981 video game)
Defender is an arcade video game developed and released by Williams Electronics in 1981. A horizontally scrolling shoot 'em up, the game is set on an unnamed planet 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' first video game project and drew inspiration from "Space Invaders" and "Asteroids".
"Defender" was one of the most important titles of the Golden Age of Video Arcade 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 | 11,760 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
game's audio-visuals and gameplay. It is frequently listed as one of Jarvis' 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 shooters. It inspired the development of other games and was followed by sequels and many imitations.
Several ports were developed for contemporary game systems, most of them by either Atari, Inc. or its software label for non-Atari platforms, Atarisoft.
# Gameplay.
"Defender" is a two-dimensional side-scrolling shooting game set on the surface of an unnamed planet. The player controls a space ship as it navigates the terrain, | 11,761 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
flying either to the left or right. A joystick controls the ship's elevation, and five buttons control its horizontal direction and weapons. The object is to destroy alien invaders, while protecting astronauts on the landscape from abduction. Humans that are abducted return as mutants that attack the ship. 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. Players are allotted three ships to progress through the game and are able to earn more by reaching certain scoring benchmarks. | 11,762 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 | 11,763 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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'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 | 11,764 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
"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 brain storming sessions. During a session, they agreed that one of "Asteroids"s favorable elements was its wrapping effect. 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 | 11,765 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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. | 11,766 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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. However, he 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. | 11,767 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 an 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 programming the game and added visual and audio effects. For example, Dicker implemented a particle effect | 11,768 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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, | 11,769 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 | 11,770 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
to play—for the game, and began working on it that night. Early the next morning, the team created the final EPROM chips for the mode and installed them in cabinets. The chips, however, did not work and the designers made additional attempts to correct the problem. 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. | 11,771 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 | 11,772 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 | 11,773 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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.
# Reception.
Initially, | 11,774 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
the game was slow to gain popularity. "Defender" did not attract much attention at the 1980 AMOA show. In retrospect, Jarvis believed many passersby were intimidated by its complexity. The game, however, 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. By 2004, the game was a popular collector's item; the upright cabinets were common, while the cocktail models were more rare. Since its release, it has become one of the highest grossing arcade games ever, earning | 11,775 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
over US$1 billion. Williams employee Larry Demar was surprised at the game's popularity, stating that it was the only game he'd seen able to earn that quantity of quarters. Six months after its release, the game was one of the top earners in the United States video game industry. Mark Stearny of "JoyStik" magazine called "Defender" the most successful game in 1981, commenting that it outperformed "Pac-Man".
The game garnered praise for its graphics, audio, and gameplay features. 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. | 11,776 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 minimap. Cuciz also praised the minimap, 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. At the time of its release, Stan Jarocki, director of marketing at then competitor Midway Manufacturing, described the game as "amazing". Ed Driscoll reviewed the Atari version of "Defender" in "The Space Gamer" No. 57. Driscoll commented that "All in all, if you want a | 11,777 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
good game for your Atari, this qualifies. "Defender" lovers have a few gripes, but I would recommend this one to any VCS owner."
"Next Generation" ranked the arcade version as number 13 on their 1996 "Top 100 Games of All Time", saying that its balanced play difficulty makes gamers keep coming back for more instead of giving up. 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. | 11,778 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
The editors described its design as very "elegant" despite a lack of narrative and characters.
"Defender" is often described as one of the most difficult games in the industry. "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." 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 | 11,779 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
similar comments. Sellers described "Defender"'s difficulty as "humbling", saying that few could play it with proficiency. He further stated, however, 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". "Retro Gamer" writer Craig Grannell called the game and controls "ruthless" and "complex" respectively.
In 1983 "Softline" readers named the Atari 8-bit version fifth on the magazine's Top Thirty list of Atari programs by popularity. | 11,780 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
The magazine was more critical, however, stating that "The game's appeal does not justify its unreasonable cost" of being shipped on ROM cartridge. 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".
# 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 half hours in 1982 at the Claridge Casino Hotel in Atlantic City. It was authenticated by the facility and the many witnesses | 11,781 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 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 | 11,782 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
of play.
Professor Jim Whitehead listed "Defender" as the first horizontally scrolling shooting game, and describes it 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 introduce the "first true 'gaming environment'". He further said that though the game's minimap feature had been introduced before, "Defender" integrated it into the gameplay in a more essential manner. | 11,783 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 "", illustrated that video game enthusiasts were | 11,784 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 as one of the originators of "high-action" and "reflex-based" arcade games, citing "Defender"s gameplay among other games designed by Jarvis. Ellis stated 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 | 11,785 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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 | 11,786 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
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, which have become rare machines.
Midway's 1991 "Strike Force" is an arcade update to "Defender" in the same way that "Smash TV" is an update to "". Jarvis and DeMar assisted with the game, which was programmed by Todd Allen and Eric Pribyl. The game was | 11,787 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
not widely distributed.
Atari released "Defender 2000" in 1995 for the Atari Jaguar console. It was written by Jeff Minter, who had previously updated "Tempest" as "Tempest 2000".
A 2002 remake, published simply as "Defender", features 3D graphics and a third-person viewpoint. It was released for the Xbox, GameCube, and PlayStation 2.
Emulated versions of "Defender" have been included in various home compilations, such as "Williams Arcade's Greatest Hits".
## 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 | 11,788 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
Commodore 64, "Invasion of the Body Snatchas!" (1983) for the ZX Spectrum, "Dropzone" (1984) for the Atari 8-bit family, and for the BBC Micro "Defender" (1982) renamed to "Planetoid" (1984) to avoid litigation. One of Jeff Minter's early games was a clone called "Andes Attack" for the VIC-20 home computer.
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 family, "Chopper Command" for the Atari 2600, and "Choplifter", all three of which were released in 1982.
## Cultural references.
The game has been referenced in music: Lou Reed's song "Down At The Arcade" on his 1984 album | 11,789 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
"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 figured prominently and somewhat incongruously in the music video for the Sheena Easton | 11,790 |
512076 | Defender (1981 video game) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defender%20(1981%20video%20game) | Defender (1981 video game)
der" 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 figured prominently and somewhat incongruously in the music video for the Sheena Easton song "Almost Over You".
In 2004, Tim Waggoner authored a novel called "Hyperswarm" based on the video game.
The game is used as a running gag in the film "," where Groot is playing the game despite being told not to.
# See also.
- Golden age of video arcade games
# External links.
- "Defender" at Coinop.org
- "Defender" for the Atari 2600 at Atari Mania
- "Defender" for the Atari 8-bit family at Atari Mania | 11,791 |
512125 | Jeremy London | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy%20London | Jeremy London
Jeremy London
Jeremy Michael London (born November 7, 1972) is an American actor. He is best known for his regular roles on "Party of Five", "7th Heaven", and "I'll Fly Away", a starring role in the 1995 comedy film "Mallrats", as well as a notable supporting role in the Civil War epic "Gods and Generals". London made his directorial debut with the 2013 horror film "The Devil's Dozen", in which he also appeared.
# Early life.
London was born in San Diego, California, the son of Debbie (née Osborn), a waitress, and Frank London, a sheet metal worker. He was raised mainly in DeSoto, Texas. After divorcing Jeremy's father, his mother moved the family 13 times in six years. His identical twin | 11,792 |
512125 | Jeremy London | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy%20London | Jeremy London
brother, Jason, is older by 27 minutes and is also an actor. Jeremy has worked mostly in television while Jason has opted for a career in feature films. The two have acted alongside each other only once – in the February 3, 2003 episode of the WB's "7th Heaven", entitled "Smoking." They have also competed for the same role – Jeremy's first audition was for a part in the 1991 film "The Man in the Moon", which Jason won, leaving Jeremy the part of his brother's stunt double.
# Career.
London's first and second major television roles were playing Nathan on the critically acclaimed 1991–1993 drama series "I'll Fly Away". His brother Jason stepped in for Jeremy for the final episode of the show.
In | 11,793 |
512125 | Jeremy London | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy%20London | Jeremy London
1995 he played T.S. Quint in Kevin Smith's second film, "Mallrats".
In 1995, he joined the cast of the hit Fox series "Party of Five", playing Griffin Holbrook for three seasons, after serving as a recurring guest star. He then went on to play a young minister named Chandler Hampton on "7th Heaven" from 2002 to 2004. His "7th Heaven" character had a father with lung cancer, much like Jeremy's real-life family members. He has since been in many TV serials, TV movies and feature films.
London was a cast member during the fourth season of "Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew", which premiered on VH1 in December 2010.
# Personal life.
London and his wife Melissa Cunningham were married in September | 11,794 |
512125 | Jeremy London | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy%20London | Jeremy London
2006. They divorced five years later. They have a son named Lyrik.
London married Juliet Reeves on June 3, 2014 and they have one son named Wyatt who was born in June 2014.
London was a cast member during the fourth season of "Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew", which aired on Vh1 from December 2010 to January 2011, and depicted his treatment for addiction at the Pasadena Recovery Center in Pasadena, California. The third episode of that season depicted discussions involving him, Dr. Drew Pinsky and London's wife, Melissa Cunningham, who was simultaneously being treated for addiction herself at a separate wing of the Center. His father, Frank, also appeared in Episode 7, which was filmed during | 11,795 |
512125 | Jeremy London | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy%20London | Jeremy London
June 3, 2014 and they have one son named Wyatt who was born in June 2014.
London was a cast member during the fourth season of "Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew", which aired on Vh1 from December 2010 to January 2011, and depicted his treatment for addiction at the Pasadena Recovery Center in Pasadena, California. The third episode of that season depicted discussions involving him, Dr. Drew Pinsky and London's wife, Melissa Cunningham, who was simultaneously being treated for addiction herself at a separate wing of the Center. His father, Frank, also appeared in Episode 7, which was filmed during Family Day, in which the patients discussed the effect of addiction on their family relationships. | 11,796 |
512111 | Seram Island | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seram%20Island | Seram Island
Seram Island
Seram (formerly spelled Ceram; also Seran or Serang) is the largest and main island of Maluku province of Indonesia, despite Ambon Island's historical importance. It is located just north of the smaller Ambon Island and a few other surrounding islands, such as Haruku, Geser, Nusalaut, Banda and Saparua.
# Geography and geology.
Seram is traversed by a central mountain range, the highest point of which, Mount Binaiya, is covered with dense rain forests. Its remarkably complex geology is because of its location at the meeting of several tectonic microplates, which have been described as "one of the most tectonically complex areas on Earth". Seram actually falls on its own microplate, | 11,797 |
512111 | Seram Island | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seram%20Island | Seram Island
which has been twisted around by 80° in the last 8 million years by the relatively faster movement of the Papua microplate. Meanwhile, along with the northward push of the Australian Plate, this has resulted in the uplift that gives north-central Seram peaks of over 3000m. On the island, there are important karst areas. In the mountains, near Sawai, there is the cave Hatu Saka, currently the deepest cave in Indonesia (-388 m). In Taniwell district, on the north coast, is the underground river Sapalewa, one of the largest underground rivers on the planet.
The population of the island in the 2010 Census was 434,113 people, administered among 3 regencies, Maluku Tengah Regency had 170,392 people | 11,798 |
512111 | Seram Island | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seram%20Island | Seram Island
on Seram Island itself and 191,306 on the lesser islands (majority on Ambon Island), the entirety of Seram Bagian Barat Regency and Seram Bagian Timur Regency.
# Ecology.
Seram Island is remarkable for its high degree of localised bird endemism. There are 117 species of birds on the island, 14 are endemic, including the eclectus parrot, purple-naped lory, salmon-crested cockatoo, Seram masked owl, lazuli kingfisher, sacred kingfisher, grey-necked friarbird and Moluccan king parrot.
The mammals found on Seram include Asian species (murid rodents) as well as Australasian marsupials. The mountain area of Seram supports the greatest number of endemic mammals of any island in the region. It harbors | 11,799 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.