Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

  1. #1
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye



    Contents
    The Stalingrad Airlift by Limskj.
    Troubles facing the British Military by the Black Prince.
    New York Hungaria by Acco.
    The Trouble with Sitcoms by rez.
    Rahl's Rants: Musings on God Part Deux by Lord Rahl.
    Globalisation and the new social order by Atlaas.






    From the Editor:

    Greetings all,

    This is probably my favourite duty as an editor as I can simply use this space as a stream of consciousness in true editorial style. As I write this, on the flatscreen television which my university’s café recently purchased with the help of my tuition fees, I can see the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams standing together at a lectern, addressing an assembly of cardinals and bishops. Unfortunately the sound is too low for me to hear what they’re saying but I’m sure it’s nice and fluffy about inter-faith co-operation and the importance of being Christian.

    Being in Edinburgh at the moment, I witnessed the Pope’s visit first hand and there was rather a surreal atmosphere around the city centre. Scotland is by no means a Catholic country; Presbyterianism saw its birth in Scotland, a doctrine which more or less eschews the more rigid hierarchical organisation of the Catholic Church, and yet people of all ages were wandering around with little Scottish and Vatican City flags. I’m probably being too cynical; most people probably don’t see such an event very often, if indeed at all, and were probably enjoying the atmosphere of the occasion. Still, cynicism about religion is more or less ingrained in me and I couldn’t help laughing at the news that 35,000 tickets to the Pope’s mass – costing £25 no less – had not been sold. I’m not sure how accurate the number is as I’ve heard varying figures thrown around but I would be amused by any vaguely significant amount.

    Anyway, as anyone who regularly visits the Mudpit can attest, this whole subject has more or less been done to death by far more qualified posters than myself on both sides of the discussion. If you do frequent the Mudpit, I would also urge you to drop by Garbarsardar’s Fight Club, a corner of our fine forum which has been sadly neglected as of late. Why not issue a challenge on an issue you feel strongly about?

    For those of you expecting a continuation of my Napoleonic history articles, I hope you will forgive me but I’m currently in the process of getting back to university, involving lots of lugging heavy bags around and paying exorbitant amounts of money before being able to move into a flat of my own. As such, I’m actually internet-less at my flat for at least 10 days (what takes them so long?) so anything that needs to be done will be done slowly, but will still get there in the end.

    Jom




    Limskj
    We have another unfamiliar face for your reading pleasure in the Helios this edition: Limskj. He’s written a piece on the Stalingrad Airlift, a massive relief operation organised to try and save the German 6th Army. I must say it’s great to see so many interesting and talented writers coming out of the woodwork to join our team. If you think you could do what these guys do, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

    The Stalingrad Airlift

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Many of you may have heard of the Berlin Airlift, an 11 month operation by the western allies. During the operation, about 13,000 tons of supplies were flown into Berlin.

    You may not have heard of the Stalingrad Airlift. This the Wehrmacht’s attempt to sustain General (later Field Marshal) Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst Paulus’s German Sixth Army until it could be relieved by Field Marshal Manstein’s Eleventh Army. However, the entire operation didn’t look very promising from the start. On 30 November 1942, General Paulus’s Sixth Army was surrounded when the Russian Shock Armies under General Zhukov rolled over the Rumanian army holding their flanks and captured the vital supply bridge at Kalach. Recalling a previous success at Demyansk, the OKL (the Nazi air force High Command) ordered Goering’s Luftwaffe to supply the Sixth Army from the air. The operation was beset by bad luck from the beginning. Goering figured that he would be able to supply General Paulus the required supplies on a daily basis. Paulus, however, highlighted that the army needed 700 tons every day, even the minimum of 300 tons would have demanded a fleet of about 300 Ju 52/3s. The Luftwaffe only had 70, of which only 25 were serviceable. So to make up the difference, General von Richthofen appointed Oberst Dr Ernst Kühl to take charge of Lufttransportführer 1. All HE 111s available were employed for use as transports. Obsolete He 111Ds and Fs as well as bomber versions He 111Hs and Ps were all cannibalised for use as transports.

    The first two days looked bleak. Only 70 tons of supplies were delivered to Pitomnik and Tazinskaya. However, the arrival of the first He 111s and another Gruppe of Ju 52/3ms meant the daily increased to 100 tons by the end of the month. The arrival of the old Ju 86 transports and instrument trainers further bolstered their numbers. Success seemed to be on the horizon when 700 tons were flown in between 19 and 21 December. However, the success was short-lived. In fact, the Luftwaffe would never be able to repeat this feat ever again.

    The next day made a mockery of the achievements of the day before with a freezing fog preventing any transports from flying. 23rd December saw Soviet shells falling around Tazinskaya, causing utter confusion and desperation among the flight crews of the 108 Ju 52/3ms and Ju 86s sent out to supply the Sixth Army. They scrambled into the air and back to their airbases at Novocherkassk and Rostov. That same day, Kühl was forced to recall the He 111s back to Novocherkassk when Russian tanks threatened their base at Morosovsk.

    The New Year was no better. Atrocious flying conditions caused as many accidents as Russian resistance. So high were the losses that daily tonnage fell to 140 tons. The next day, the Viermotorige Transportstaffel (four-engine transport squadron) was formed under Major Hans-Jürgen Williers. 7 Ju 90s, 2 Ju 290s, 1 Ju 252, 1 Fw 200B and 18 Fw 200Cs of KGrzbV 200 ( part of I/KG 40) made up this squadron. They were able to land at Pitomnik initially, but were later forced to parachute in supply containers to the trapped army. About 20 He 177A-3s from Fernkampfgruppe 2 flew several missions but lost 7 due to engine failure. Even the massive Me 323s were employed although they only ferried supplies to Rostov to await further transport by the Ju 52/3ms, Ju 86s and He 111s.

    By 11 January, the transport fleet had flown 3,196 missions and successfully delivered 8,500 tons of supplies. Among these were 1,700 tons of fuel, 2,500 tons of food and 3,100 tons of ammunitions – a far cry from what was achieved at Demyansk. The final 2 weeks saw the total amount rise to 10,000 tons.

    16 January saw another blow dealt to the operation when the airfield of Pitomnik was captured by the Russions. The final nail into the coffin was hammered when the airfield at Gumrak was captured on the 23rd. General Paulus surrendered 8 days later.

    By that time, the losses were insurmountable. Out of the 1,180 aircraft committed, 700 were lost. These included 168 He 111s, 276 Ju 52/3ms and 41 Ju 86s. Not to mention 140,000 Wehrmacht, Italian and Rumanian troops killed and 110,000 taken prisoner. Fewer than 10,000 of those taken prisoner will survive to return home after the war. It was a total disaster for the Germans. The losses among aircrews and aircraft were so great that the Luftwaffe was never able to replace the losses suffered during the airlift.


    the Black Prince
    After long absence, the Black Prince has come back into the warm embrace of the Helios’ fold Bringing his unique political experience and expertise to this edition, the Black Prince has written a piece about the problems faced by the British Military during this time of economic crisis where every section of government is being scrutinised for cuts.

    Troubles facing the British Military
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Right now is either the very best or the very worst time to be an advocate for the British Military.

    For someone who cares about HM Forces, right now is a very depressing time. It seems a week cannot go by without some headline outlining another capability lost, another asset judged to be unaffordable.

    For years, I have watched with mounting concern the deteriorating condition of the Forces. I take little solace in that I do not watch alone, and that my concerns are shared by such eminent and prestigious personages as Winston Churchill, President of the UK National Defence Association, Admiral the Lord Boyce and General the Lord Guthrie, both former Chiefs of the Defence Staff.

    For years the sole hope for the future of the Forces seemed to be a Conservative government. I met Liam Fox when he was shadow defence secretary at the Conservative Party Conference in 2009 and I went from being dubious about him to being utterly convinced that he was the right man for the job. I remain so. I can think of no better advocate for the Forces with government than him.

    Sadly it seems our concerns are not shared by others at the cabinet table. George Osborne was someone else I had long been dubious about. Now, if I had the power to sack any member of the cabinet, it would be him. Words cannot express my disbelief that after all the Conservatives said during the campaign, all that Fox said we stood for, Osborne is, unbelievably, prepared to make precisely the same mistakes as Gordon Brown of all people.

    No party has a good record on funding. I don’t speak as if my party has a shining history in this area for I know we do not. Nevertheless, under the last Labour government, Armed Forces commitments increased and funding was cut.

    It is now apparent to us that the 1998 Strategic Defence Review was a sham. By the time we got to Iraq it was outdated anyway, but had the Labour government even stuck to its plan, the long term impacts on the Forces would not be as bad. However, we can now see that Gordon Brown refused to fund the plan right from the start, and that Blair never had the political courage to force the issue. If we use the position of the SDR as a baseline, capability has fallen. Labour politician after Labour politician can say what they like, and you can trot out as many MoD (Ministry of Defence) spokespeople as you want, we all know that capability fell below what the SDR called for, and even that didn’t predict the resources we would need for Afghanistan and Iraq. Ex forces members of all ranks, from forward commanders on the ground to ex chiefs of staff like General Jackson and General Dannatt all say the same thing.

    After over a decade of under-investment, out Forces have reached a situation that the Chiefs have warned about for years. We now have a situation where a considerable amount of the Forces equipment, be it cars, guns, planes or ships is reaching the end of its useful service life. Unfortunately, the procurement projects to replace much of these assets are over budget and behind schedule, facing cuts in scale and numbers, and that’s assuming they exist at all. The RN (Royal Navy) and RAF (Royal Air Force) are both in a position where current assets are being sold off to pay for future assets that may never arrive and have been since at least 2005. The army yet again faces infantry battalion loses at a time when these are precisely the units we need to fight current campaigns.

    This is a time when we must ramp UP the spending on the Forces to counter years of decline. Yes, we must combat waste in the MoD. Absolutely, yes, we must deal with the shocking blunders being made in our procurement process. Yes, we must do something about the ridiculous number of civil servants the MoD employs. Yet sorting out all those problems is not a reason to cut yet more from the MoDs coffers. The money saved from sorting out the MoD is money that must be re-invested on our service personnel and their equipment.

    The MoD faces difficult choices. A new strategic defence review will identify the needs of the future and the equipment we need to face it. It will fail for two reasons. Firstly, no SDR (Strategic Defence Review) has ever predicted future crises. The Falklands war was not predicted, Iraq and Afghanistan were not. Secondly, this review more than any other in modern history is being dictated by budget. The Treasury is dictating the budget and the MoD is working out how to get the most. That is a dangerous approach to take. We need to identify the missions first, the capabilities second, the equipment third and at best, budget considerations must come fourth. Only once we know what equipment we need must we consider the cost effective ways of providing it.

    The danger is, once we lose capability, it can take a generation to recover it. If we don’t have the ships, the planes, the armoured vehicles we need, we cannot create them over night. It takes time to replace them, and it costs more to do it quickly in need to, than to be ready up front. We have seen this in Afghanistan with both the lack of appropriate helicopters and lack of the right armoured vehicles.

    6 destroyers cannot do the work of 12, no matter how more advanced they are compared to their predecessors. You cannot build ships over night if you realise you need them. But worse is losing capability altogether. Having not enough assets is worrying enough, but most recently the talk has been of giving up entire branches of our capability. Are we to lose the ability to combat anti-submarine threats? Fast attack jets? We do not know.

    So far, the Forces, through the bravery of the men, the capability of the officers and sheer bloody mindedness of the British fighting spirit, our Forces have overcome the challenges they face. But their greatest challenge remains the ignorance and idiocy of their political masters in Westminster and there will come a time when our Forces will fail, when they have lost too much and simply cannot match the foe they face. Some say that time has already come in Afghanistan. Not so much that the campaign is doomed, but where time and time again the British Forces have been bailed out by the Americans. Don’t look for the reports in the British press, the MoD is still reasonably good at keeping it quiet, but the reports filter through the defence community...

    So we come back to Osborne, master of the money. We accused Brown and Blair of having the blood of British forces on their hands, not for putting them in harms way, but for doing so with inadequate resources. How many of our soldiers sailors and airmen have to die before our politicians, especially those in the Treasury, learn the simple fact that you cannot do defence on the cheap?
    Don’t even get me started on the notion that the MoD should the capital price for Trident. If I were Fox, my reply to that would be fine, but Trident will then become a sole MoD project and subject to the same operational necessity test as any other bit of kit. I’d axe Trident at that point. Firm believer as I am in the need for a British nuclear deterrent, as a piece of defence kit, its right at the bottom of my priority list. Carriers, F35, new Frigates, all more important. Trident is a political weapon, not a military one. If any sole department should bear the cost, it should be the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office).

    And so we come to the final stages of making some of the biggest decisions of our time. The decisions made will be the wrong ones because the starting point for them is that money must be cut. If any department needs to have its budget ring-fenced, it’s the MoD, with the same provision that like the NHS, savings must be made and money put back into the front line.

    Cameron and Fox have both said since taking office, that they have not forgotten that the first priority of any government is the defence of the realm. Fox believes this, but does Cameron? If so, will he have the political will to do what Blair could not, and face down his Chancellor over the defence budget.

    You made your promise David, now prove to us all that you will keep it.

    UPDATE
    Daily Telegraph reveals that SDR is planning to cut TWENTY THOUSAND uniformed posts from the Armed Forces, the majority of which will come from the Army... At the same time, the plan is to actually INCREASE the number of civilian MoD posts by replacing uniformed staffers with civilians. So less front line soldiers but little evidence of plans to cut the number of civil servants needed to administer them.

    They've completely lost the plot... This news, if true, makes me ashamed and embarrassed to be a Conservative politician.


    Acco
    Another familiar and welcome face will be that of Acco. Those who are fans of sport will no doubt be familiar with his postings in the Universitas Ludus Olympus. This edition, he has written a history of American-Mexican football rivalry, focussing on the club New York Hungaria.

    New York Hungaria
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    It was late at night in Estadio Azul, on August 25, 2010, and the home side, Cruz Azul, eight-time Mexican Primera División champions, were ready to kick off their second game of the CONCACAF Champions' Leage group stage. Los Cementeros experienced disaster in their first game of the competition, a shocking 2-1 loss to Major League Soccer outfit Toronto FC, and the players knew that they had to win this match, especially in front of their loyal fans. After all, history was at stake here. A MLS team has never managed to defeat a Mexican team on Mexican soil in an official competition since the league's inception in 1996, and imagine the embarrassment Cruz Azul would face should they break the curse. Never mind that they were up against the defending American champions, Real Salt Lake, Cruz Azul simply wanted a win.

    As such, they began the game attacking. In the fifth minute, Javier Orozco was slotted a beautiful through-ball off a free kick, outran the chasing the defenders and calmy dispatched the ball past the hapless Real Salt Lake keeper. 1-0 Cruz Azul. A disappointing but unfortunately familiar start for the Americans. However, as the game progressed, Real Salt Lake began to gain a share in the possession and, soon enough, were rattling the Mexicans for an equalizer. The moment came in the twenty-third minute, when Fabian Espindola was taken down in the box and the referee pointed to the spot. Costa Rican striker Alvario Saborio knew better than to miss from there, and leveled the pegging at 1-1. After the penalty, torrential rain began to cover the stadium grass. The poor drainage system of Estadio Azul led to the creation of gaping puddles, and soon players were slipping and sliding all over the place. The role the rain played on the pitch became evident when Horacio Cervantez, a defender for Cruz Azul, attempted to pass back to his keeper. The ball slid to a stop halfway to its destination, and Saborio of Real Salt Lake was there to grab the ball and give the Americans a shocking 2-1 lead at halftime.

    When play resumed, Real Salt Lake continued its dominance. In the 64th minute, the Americans truly shocked the hosts and their fans when a 2-on-1 opportunity was finished by Fabian Espindola to give Real Salt Lake a 3-1 lead. Cruz Azul was beginning to lose hope, the dreaded curse would finally be broken. But then, in the 76th minute, a shot by Orozco deflected off of a Real Salt Lake defender and slipped into the net to make the scoreline 3-2. This goal helped infuse new life into the hosts, and as Real Salt Lake assumed defensive positions for the rest of the match, the Mexicans began to dominate. Time seemed to be running out, but the golden boot of Orozco did it again in the 87th minute when he smashed a ball hard and low past the keeper to equalize the score at 3. The Americans were in total disarray, and in the 89th minute an angular shot by, guess who, Orozco, with his fourth goal of the game, gave the hosts the stunning 4-3 lead with little to no time on the clock. Real Salt Lake attempted one last run towards the net and were rewarded for their efforts when Will Johnson flicked the ball over the Mexican keeper to equalize the score at 4. The Americans thought all was done, but after a clearance by the Salt Lake defense, Christian Giménez saw the ball rolling at the top of the box and spared no time to smash a shot on net. The keeper was in the wrong position; no defender was there for the deflection. It guided straight into the net, winning the game 5-4 for Cruz Azul. The curse would have to be broken another time.


    *****************************************

    To this day, for whatever reason, be it shady refereeing decisions, poor pitch conditions or simply lack of quality, Major League Soccer and the United States men's national soccer team have yet to record a single victory against Mexico or a Mexican club on Mexican soil in official competitions. The North American Soccer League (NASL), the top-flight of American and Canadian soccer from 1968 to 1984, also failed to earn a single victory south of the border. Actually, NASL teams rarely played in regional competitions. In their stead, and during the 1960s before the NASL was created, amateur teams from metropolitan leagues were sent as American representatives.

    The amateur leagues of metropolitan New York, Philadelphia, Boston and other bustling Atlantic Coast cities continually showcased American soccer talent in pre-NASL days. These leagues were interestingly organized around ethnic lines. The German-American Soccer League (GASL) was one of the most prestigious and ethnically-diverse soccer tournaments in New York City and indeed the entire East Coast. It comprised teams of Greek, German, Ukrainian, and, most importantly, Hungarian descent. Politics in Europe helped to stimulate and provide fresh and experienced talent for the GASL. For example, the political and economic oppression in the USSR in the late 1940s coerced many famous Ukrainian footballers across the Atlantic, and many ended up playing for GASL-outfits Ukrainian SC. However, it was the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 that revolutionized American soccer for years to come.

    Top-class Hungarian footballers fleeing the violence of the Revolution were finding their way into New York amateur clubs. At the time, Hungary possessed the greatest national football team in the world. They completely altered the tactics and style of football, shocking the indomitable and supposedly-undefeatable English 6-3 at Wembley Stadium. However, the Revolution of 1956 destroyed the 'Golden Team', and Hungary, while remaining a formidable team in the near-future, eventually lost its footballing prowess. Notable Hungarians that immigrated to the United States following the Revolution included the Geza brothers and goalkeeper Heni, who capped 19 times for the legendary Hungarian national team. All of these players flocked to one GASL team in particular: New York Hungaria.

    Led by Hungarian midfielder Andy Mate, New York Hungaria exploded onto the soccer scene of NYC. They won four consecutive GASL titles from 1958 to 1962. They were such a cohesive team that, in 1962, the US State Department selected the team to represent the United States in a footballing tour of the Middle East, in which they returned undefeated after several good results against top-notch Iranian, Turkish and Syrian clubs. In 1963, they won the US Open Cup, a soccer competition open to all United States Soccer Federation-affiliated teams, similar to the FA Cup in England, with a 3-2 win over the San Francisco Scots. The victory in the Open Cup final resulted in an invitation for New York Hungaria to compete in the 1963 CONCACAF Champions' Cup, a new tournament pitting the club champions of North and Central America and the Caribbean against each other.

    In the 1963 edition of the CONCACAF Champions' Cup, history would be made, history that would generally be forgotten. New York Hungaria were paired up with Club Deportivo Oro of Guadalajara, Mexico in the First Round of the Cup. The first leg between the two took place at Estadio Jalisco in Mexico. No time records exist for the goals scored during the match, but Andy Mate, the star of the New York Hungaria team, slotted the ball past the Mexican keeper three times in the game to earn a huge 3-2 win over CD Oro, the then-Mexican champions.... in Mexico. The crafty Hungarians made American soccer history by becoming the only American soccer club to defeat a Mexican team on Mexican soil in an official competition.

    New York Hungaria's CONCACAF Champions' Cup run came to a sudden end after their series versus CD Oro. In the second round, Andy Mate failed to give New York Hungaria an advantage over CD Guadalajara in the home leg in New York, and the Mexicans made them pay. Unable to replicate their earlier victory in Mexico, CD Guadalajara netted two goals to take the game and series 2-0 on aggregate, ending the American push for the title. Nevertheless, New York Hungaria assumes a special station in American sports history as being the only club to have defeated a Mexican team in Mexico. Today, their pioneering footballing skills have yet to be matched by the American national team or Major League Soccer. Of course, as Major League Soccer improves in quality, the curse will end eventually, but none can neglect the trailblazing efforts of Andy Mate and his Magyars.


    rez
    Rez is continuing his run of non-Persian articles with his offering this edition continuing in the sitcom vein, this time expounding on the problems with sitcoms and how they handle combining emotion with humour. Next issue he’ll be treating us to an analysis of that greatest form of humour ever conceived: British humour.

    The Trouble with Sitcoms
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Since my last piece dealt with the technical successes of of the world's most famous sitcom this time I'd like to take a look at the inevitable shelf life of the traditional, socially based sitcom. I actually made a mistake in the last article as I said the continuous plot was never an issue in "Friends" when I meant to say it wasn't an issue in the early seasons. Furthermore my previous praise for "Friends" was on the technical work that went into ensuring its wide ranging appeal rather than its actual hilarity so don't get confused by my criticisms of the show below.

    "Friends" is the ultimate example of the "Sitcom Curse" as it demonstrates the degeneration of a comedy perfectly. Perhaps degeneration is too strong a word, depending on your taste in television you might call it a metamorphosis. But as a comedy fan with a disdain for clichés I can't help but mourn the downward spiral of a previously superb show into only a mediocre one. The problem stem's almost entirely from a writer's innate desire to develop and round the characters that they create. This is most easily achieved by putting them through stressful situations in which the character often learns something about themselves. But the moment that a writer chooses empathy over Schadenfreude the comedy is in serious danger of withering.

    The classic example here is the break up of Ross and Rachel. The writers did their best to intersperse humour with the heartbreak but by the end of the scene "Friends" had taken disturbingly large leaps down the slippery slope to becoming a drama with jokes attached. The viewers had been duped into caring about the fact that a couple on what was supposed to be a comedy show were no longer an item. The trademark bombshell of brain boilingly retarded programs like Hollyoaks. And as the seasons of "Friends" progressed so did the attempts to develop the characters. Joey is a great example as his blaring success with women was previously a set template for straightforward comedy. But with the introduction of his love for Rachel we get an uncomfortably close look at the emotional side of an erstwhile Lady-killer. However, when the writers realised an attached Joey robbed them of one of their staple, comic templates they returned to the previous arrangement but the viewer's insight into Joey's emotional heartache made all of his later liasons appear to be constructed as self referential in-jokes to how he used to be. If Joey had only been left to his original template the writers would have been able to be far more adventurous with his shenanigans as they would not be lumbered with the excess baggage of viewer empathy.

    I find this second example so interesting because it has an exact mirror in a more modern sitcom that really should have known better. "How I met Your Mother" also started with a fantastic Lady-killer template in the form of Barney. Barney was a superb constructionbecause from the outset his antics were outrageous but a veil of mystery still surrounded his motivations and background. When Barney also falls in love with another main character we are again taken too close to the sun and the wax of Barney's mystique melts away all too quickly. When these writers realised they had also sacrificed one of their main comic templates they reversed the situation but Barney's new exploits just feel so incredibly contrived as to be ridiculous now we've seen enough of his background and motivation throughout his trials of serious romance.

    The slippery slope of character development takes us from the heights of a lovable collection of twenty-somethings getting themselves into trouble, right down to the valley of cozy, thirty-somethings who are making important life decisions as they settle down and nest with each other. Here be tedious pregnancy based humour. Here be episodes so heavily laden with emotional growth at events like childbirth that they can barely even be called comedy. Here be characters accepting that they have to grow up - practically the ultimate mood killer for situational humour. By this point the audience is watching for the collective story lines as much as they are for the laughs. Essentially, the unprepared sitcom's destiny is to end up as a strange breed of soap opera.


    It is worth noting that this sort of degeneration can often be facillitated by the huge length of American seasons. It is far easier to retain a comedy template in a season of only six or so episodes that hammer home six well constructed concepts but in a set of over twenty episodes it is far too tempting for a soppy writer to want to engage more with the characters. The nightmare case of the Janitor from "Scrubs" still haunts me. They took a character that was based on inexplicable malice, ingenuity and juxtaposed intelligence but then presented him as a love rat for one of the main characters and completely killed his mystique. Seeing zainy characters as weak and vulnerable makes them too relatable to be considered zainy anymore and just debases the whole point of their character. If Scrubs had only had ten episodes per season the janitor might have remained as the great construct he once was.

    There are, of course, exceptions to this as excellent writers have the discipline required to stick to the point. But for the most part the basis of successfully long running comedies that actually retain the essence of humour is to shy away from the easy cliché of a group of varying friends. Perhaps predictably, the shows that protect their original purpose with the greatest ease are often cartoons rather than live action since it is a common staple for illustrated comedies to have everything return to normal at the end of an episode. This almost entirely cancels out the possibility for character growth and ensures that Cartman will always be Cartman and Quagmire's one foray into love is over before any damage can be done.


    Lord Rahl
    Lord Rahl is also an author continuing in a vein which he started last edition, which is that of religion and God. This edition he examines the book of Genesis and dissects certain verses for the meaning behind them, highlighting the problems behind them.

    Rahl’s Rants: Musings on God Part Deux
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    So I am still at a time when I'm thinking a lot about my beliefs. This Helios editorial will be centered upon Christianity and God again like my previous one, for all the four and a half of you that read it. I appreciate it, guys! As I said also in the last issue, at some time in the near future I will write out a long assemblage of my contemplations on the subject in the EMM sub-forum. I've spent far too long and put too much energy into the subject to not give y'all a good reading. Anyway, the last editorial rant I...ranted was a sort of overview of the book I'm reading now called The Reason For God by Timothy Keller, as well as people's evolution of sorts of beliefs, and why the world we live in is not so evil or wrong as Christianity would like us to believe, in my opinion. For this Helios, I will discuss God's purpose of Creation, of Man, the Tree of Knowledge, and original sin. It is a topic that confuses me, that hasn't been properly, in my opinion, explained to me in all of my years of being a Christian, something I am no more, or now as a person interested in better understanding Christian beliefs. Now, without further adieu...

    You have to be from another planet to not know of Christianity's idea and story of Creation, Adam and Eve, and the Fall of Man or original sin. As a summary, God creates everything in six days, including Man, and in the Garden of Eden God also creates the Tree of Knowledge. God lets Adam and Eve do whatever they want except He gives them one single command: they cannot eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Well, the evil Devil deceives Adam and Eve into taking a bite of the fruit from the tree. Since that was against God's only command He banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and everything from that point hurtful, bad, or evil was known and to be experienced. This is Creation to the Fall of Man in a nutshell. If you want to read it for yourself then do so: Genesis: 2-3.

    Original sin is very important to Christianity because before Jesus only a select few on Earth were faithful enough to God acceptance into Heaven. Once Jesus came, everyone had and have a chance to admit they are a sinner and Jesus is their savior to forgive them of their sins, something that everyone has at the moment of birth, so is accepted by most. But the more I think about Creation with Man and the Tree of Knowledge the more I don't understand its meaning or why original sin makes sense. Let's look at Genesis 1 for some reference to begin the 'meat' of my rant. When God created the universe and God He made it all and then judged it to be "good". For example,

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis 1: 10, 12, 18
    10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
    12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    So we see that everything God made was "good". He looked down upon his creation and judged it to be up to His standards, which ought to be perfect. God then creates Man,

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis 1: 26-27
    26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    While the Bible doesn't say specifically that God judged Man to be "good", although verse 31 does say, "31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good," we should assume that this is a given. Why would God create something he would not consider so? This is one thing about the story of Creation that annoys me a bit because assumptions are a must, as is considering the story as symbolism instead of literal fact. However, in understanding Christianity one must balance the two since leaning too much one way or the other can lead to misguided opinions and beliefs on the subject. As with anything so significant and huge in scope the Bible must be truly studied in order to better understand it.

    It is a wonder to me us the purpose of God creating everything, especially Man. God already had been existing for an eternity and had His angels to worship Him. Why create a mortal universe with lesser mortal beings? To my knowledge the Bible doesn't give a definitive answer, although it has come to my understanding that God created us out of love so that we could love and praise Him. It makes more sense for an ever-existing God to create other things ever-existing - this is why angels make sense - but not a finite universe with finite things. It's as if God created everything and Man and thought, "Behold, I have created you! You will never be able to comprehend who I am but love Me." I'll not go into God's seeming oh-too-human personality in this rant, but it seems that God created everything so that He could be worshiped (more). So why did God create? I don't know and I think it is a question that may be too difficult to answer unless some Christianity expert or theologian provides me with an adequate answer.

    We now move onto the Tree of Knowledge and original sin. In Genesis 2 we learn of the existence of the Tree of Knowledge, God commanding Adam not to eat of the tree, and of God creating for Adam a woman, Eve. About the Tree of Knowledge, I am also very confused and interested in why God created it. If God is omniscient then He would know that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree and no longer be in a personal relationship with Him, be free to do anything even against His will, etc. So, if God knew all of this then He created the Tree of Knowledge for a purpose. What purpose then? This interests me greatly. Either God created it as a gift of freedom to Man, even though with dire near-eternal consequences, or as a sort of damnation. Why God would create the Tree of Knowledge to damn Man is beyond me since He created Man out of love and to worship Him, so the former position makes more sense with the overall belief of Christianity. However, a gift of freedom but damnation is hardly a gift at all and it is all too difficult to believe in a loving God that would do such a thing.

    Next comes the Fall of Man. Let us remember what God commanded of Adam (Eve was not yet created),

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis 1: 17
    17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    God gave Adam no other commandment to obey, not one more. That should have been easy to do, right? But the story gets more complicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis 3: 1-6
    1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

    2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

    3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

    4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    Oops! I guess following God's only commandment was not so easy. The serpent's identity is attributed to Satan, as we all know, and it is not all known to me how God could let Satan corrupt His creation (of Man). After all, everything was God's creation and He is more powerful than Satan so why let evil corrupt it? But as I said before, God created the Tree of Knowledge on purpose so He must have known Satan would do what he did and therefore let it happen. Is this logic melting anyone else's brains? GAH! Something else to consider is the sheer stupidity of Adam and Eve at this moment. God created them and gave them only one command...and they still screwed up. Seriously, if I was Adam and had literally everything I wanted and an all-powerful and all-loving God created me there would be no chance I would go against His will. All it took were a few words from Satan to unravel all "good" in creation. How stupid were Adam and Eve? God, the creator of everything, tells them not to eat of the tree and then some snake (WHO THE TRUSTS A TALKING ING SNAKE?!?!?!) tells them that it's OK. Yeah, great thinking before acting Adam and Eve. Are we to believe that Man failed at the single rule God gave after Creation? That Man was so disloyal, non-compliant, so stupid as to disobey the KNOWN creator’s only command that had such dire and near ever-remaining consequences for mankind? I guess if I was God and then I saw that my creation was so utterly gullible and foolish then I'd get pissed too. I'd probably start over and make a better sentient being! Who doesn't make dinosaurs again? Those were awesome!

    Verse 6 of Genesis 3 interests me some. The Tree of Knowledge gave Adam and Eve knowledge of what good and evil were but how it is described makes it a little more interesting, although not significant to theology. Who wouldn't want to eat from a tree that, "was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise"? Why make the Tree of Knowledge something attractive in every way, God? How about make the tree ugly, bear no fruit, and have huge poisonous thorns on it? I guarantee naked Adam and Eve would stay away from it or do what any right-minded Texan does to unwanted trees, such as the mesquite in places. That is, chop it down and burn it. But of course God created the tree on purpose and knew Adam and Eve would eat from it.

    So why is it Man's fault for original sin? Yes, Adam and Eve disobeyed God's only command but...they actually didn't know it was bad to do so. Remember, Adam and Eve had not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge for a time when they knew of God's command and since the tree was the only thing to give them the ability to know good and evil they did not know disobeying God would be inherently evil. Only when they ate from the tree did they know what they had done. So God condemned Man forever (until Jesus) even though they did not know their fault until after the fact. How is God loving if He did that? It makes no sense.

    Let us take in all of this information, logic, and (semi-)understanding, and think about what it all means. For me it is near too difficult to do. Too much of the story of Creation and the Fall of Man doesn't make sense. God created everything, including Man and the Tree of Knowledge, commanded Adam (and Eve I guess because she said she knew about it) to not eat of the tree, but knew they would eat from it and that it would give them freedom. If God created the Tree of Knowledge on purpose, gave us freedom to choose, and then He punishes those that do not choose Him, that means He punishes some for using His gift, eternally. How is that loving? The freedom then is not a gift and God is not loving. God then condemned Man. Is that an acceptable counter argument? This is why these stories HAVE to be taken as symbolism instead of literal truth. It makes sense for an ancient religion to have this sort story that introduces God as the creator of everything, even Man, and then explains why Man is flawed and why to be better. It also legitimized the Jews as a people because they had their Jehovah.

    I can accept some Christian beliefs philosophically but when it comes to specifics of Creation and original sin things do not sit well with me. Not that I think religion or God need to explain everything, but when one of a religion's most integral concepts makes little sense to me, it makes it that much harder for me to accept it as a truth when it comes to spirituality. I hope all of this has made y'all think a lot. Remember, I don't hate Christianity or religion and I'm not attacking it. I apologize if I come off that way. I'm simply trying to figure out my beliefs by analyzing others.

    Thanks for reading!

    Note: I wish to reach out to everyone who posts in the EMM sub-forum. I'm getting tired of the contentious attitudes towards religious believers or religious beliefs in general. It seems that in every single topic that discusses God (or Allah or whoever/whatever) eventually has members asking for existence of God, saying there is no God, or pretty much proclaiming believers as dumb because of their beliefs. Just stop. It gets the discussion nowhere and makes you look biased and a jerk. Yeah, yeah, we understand you're an atheist. We get it. That doesn't mean you have to barge into every God topic and spew your atheist-gasm everywhere. Why don't you, you know, ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION. No one goes into the Athenaeum and says evolution isn't real because it doesn't talk about it in the Bible. Why go into the EMM and say God doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence. There is a topic for that already that is over 200 pages long: Existence of God. Keep your anti-religious dick-waving in there. I'm not impressed anywhere else. Sure, some other threads in the EMM bring about similar discussions, but if you're only reason for involving yourself in the EMM is to bash the religious and religious views then you should learn to satisfy yourself in other ways.

    Double Note: If you haven't seen HBO's miniseries Generation Kill, AMC's Mad Men, or FX's Louie then you're an idiot. And you’re fired –Ed]


    Atlaas
    Last edition Atlaas gave us an analysis of the place of religion in modern society. This edition he is continuing to look at a phenomenon which affects us all: that of globalisation and its impact on the world.

    Globalisation and the new social order
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    China and Globalization

    A few weeks ago, China was officially announced as the second biggest economy in the world surpassing Japan, its old rival. It’s widely acknowledged today that China will become the next superpower and is seriously considered as the only rival to the US. This can easily be foreseen projecting the GDP growth rate of the two states over half a century: Goldman Sachs predicts China will overtake America by 2027 and could double the US’s GDP by the middle of the 21st century. I remember in 1992, just after communism collapsed, my father reading a widely popular book at the time of which title was approximately: “The clues to understand the next economical warfare to come between the US, Europe and Japan”. No one then - when China was ranked less than 10th, behind Italy and Spain - would have predicted that the economical struggle would rather take place between the 3 old giants US/Europe/Japan and the new emergent “outsiders” the BRIC -Brazil, Russia, India, China- the latter being obviously the biggest contender. China and the BRIC in general, largely benefited during the last decade from the influx of investment and technology from the West under the globalisation phenomena.
    Globalisation has been largely instigated by the West. Western leaders encouraged the third world countries to open their borders to western products, culture and values. They argued the old communist and protectionist policies were not working, only free market and free trade could create and guarantee sustainable growth. Instead globalisation has mainly benefited East Asia. The big Western and Japanese multinational corporations, in the heat of the fierce competition for market shares, and freed from any moral or patriotic obligation by tenants of capitalism triumph, engaged in an euphoric race to lower their costs by outsourcing their production apparatus to China and India. The endless masses of poor and exploitable workers of China, together with India’s IT brains, offered them the Eldorado of low costs.

    Geo-political impacts

    I remember in the beginning of this decade, how the CEOs promised to relieve us from “dirty polluting” machines and manufactories. “Only poorly qualified jobs will go” they said, to name them: blue-collars. Some months or years later, we heard about some big firms firing thousand of managers, engineers, etc. It was obvious that the machines running in China have to be supervised by people who by some white-collars taking the jobs of their counterparts in Europe or the US. And here begins a real threat, loss of technological supremacy.
    Technology and science were the weapons and tools that permitted Europe to become predominant and conquer the world in the few past centuries, and still for the US today a huge endeavour in terms of military, economy and culture. But this position is challenged by the desire of the emergent power to acquire this technology – like Japan did in the 70s and 80s after a crushing defeat in WWII. Not only our national firms are helping them displacing our industries and training engineers and managers abroad, but besides it becomes natural if we hear news of countries like China and Russia asking for “technology transfer” when signing deals with these Western companies. Take example of Boeing and Airbus conceding big technological transfers to China to build its own aircraft industry. Only to compete against them - and possibly overtake them - in few years! It’s a very narrow vision, driven by thirst for immediate profits and greed from CEOs and shareholders.
    Another hidden weakness created by globalisation is the increasing reliance on foreign resources. It is no secret the western economy is already heavily dependent on the natural resources of the third world countries, especially Africa and the Middle East. It has to cope yet with another dependency on East-Asian resources, the “human” resource. It is particularly worrying if we consider the fact that this workforce, employed to build our machines and devices, is ruled by strong authoritarian regimes. The West during most of the 20th century has kept the African and the Oil producing states under its hegemony thanks to a powerful military-industrial complex. No doubt that will never be the case of neither China nor India.

    Social impacts

    While it seems the trend is unlikely to stop or slow in the next years, we can ask ourselves what implication we can notice in our society? The obvious and widely exposed fact about relocation is the loss of jobs and salaries decrease -under the pressure of competition between workers worldwide. This is not only sad for people who are left on the road, but also triggers a negative macro-economical circle: waning of internal demand pushing firms to seek new consumers abroad, loosening furthermore the ties with their “home countries”.
    The social order of industrial age was characterized by a strong and complex network and dependencies between the different groups and classes: workers are the core social group supervised and defended by strong labour unions. The educated workforce (engineers, technicians, researchers etc) representing the middle class, are the holders of knowledge, technical and practical know-how. Often they identify with large corporations which defend their interests. Finally, the richest class – capital holders - act as investors having the responsibility of wisely engaging the nation’s wealth to sustain a beneficial growth cycle. This established order is being reshaped differently by the new financial capitalism. One which is highly mobile, only concerned by very short term benefits and have no sense of rights or wrongs.
    The disappearance of the workers and impoverishment of the middle class is undermining the old social order: people don’t identify anymore with old institutions that were prominent in the 20th century. The unions, corporations and even political parties are no more capable of gathering and uniting citizens under a specific message or doctrine. They are clearly losing support and appeal; simply out fashioned. The society being atomised in a crowd of isolated and selfish individuals who lost the sense of living in a community or even a family. What our society is experiencing is the triumph of individualism and selfishness due to the erection of capitalism/consumerism as sole model, and the downfall of solidarity as a value. Competition between individuals is now the only rule.


    That’s all from The Helios for this edition. As always, I have my entired team of excellent writers to thank for putting the time aside to come up, once more, with a publication of the highest quality. Speaking of quality, now would be an excellent time to pay a visit to one of the other TWC publications, which can be done by clicking on either of the images below.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  2. #2
    Heinz Guderian's Avatar *takes off trousers
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    16,504

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Thank you for this. The airlift of Stalingrad would have been more do-able if the Luftwaffe had not lost half its fleet of Ju-52s after landing in fields which were occupied by a Dutch brigade in the Netherlands in 1940. Pretty silly thing to do.




  3. #3

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Its... Beautiful... Next month I shall return

  4. #4
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Good job everyone, as always. Sometimes I'll got back and read older articles. It's crazy how long the Helios has been going on. Crazy!

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  5. #5
    Katsumoto's Avatar Quae est infernum es
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,783

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Really enjoyed the sitcom analysis again. Although I still think 'Friends' is a great show, even with the soap-style stories and relationships.
    "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
    - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

  6. #6
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Starting to question whether this is actually better than a poke in the eye, especially after Katsumoto came in here.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  7. #7
    ♔Goodguy1066♔'s Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kokhav Ya'ir, Israel / Jewhannesburg
    Posts
    9,043

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Incredible issue, as always! Keep up the good work all, the articles here are much more interesting and well-written that any article I've read in a newspaper or magazine...
    A member of the Most Ancient, Puissant and Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers
    Secret Sig Content Box!

    Both male and female walruses have tusks and have been observed using these overgrown teeth to help pull themselves out of the water.

    The mustached and long-tusked walrus is most often found near the Arctic Circle, lying on the ice with hundreds of companions. These marine mammals are extremely sociable, prone to loudly bellowing and snorting at one another, but are aggressive during mating season. With wrinkled brown and pink hides, walruses are distinguished by their long white tusks, grizzly whiskers, flat flipper, and bodies full of blubber.
    Walruses use their iconic long tusks for a variety of reasons, each of which makes their lives in the Arctic a bit easier. They use them to haul their enormous bodies out of frigid waters, thus their "tooth-walking" label, and to break breathing holes into ice from below. Their tusks, which are found on both males and females, can extend to about three feet (one meter), and are, in fact, large canine teeth, which grow throughout their lives. Male walruses, or bulls, also employ their tusks aggressively to maintain territory and, during mating season, to protect their harems of females, or cows.
    The walrus' other characteristic features are equally useful. As their favorite meals, particularly shellfish, are found near the dark ocean floor, walruses use their extremely sensitive whiskers, called mustacial vibrissae, as detection devices. Their blubbery bodies allow them to live comfortably in the Arctic region—walruses are capable of slowing their heartbeats in order to withstand the polar temperatures of the surrounding waters.
    The two subspecies of walrus are divided geographically. Atlantic walruses inhabit coastal areas from northeastern Canada to Greenland, while Pacific walruses inhabit the northern seas off Russia and Alaska, migrating seasonally from their southern range in the Bering Sea—where they are found on the pack ice in winter—to the Chukchi Sea. Female Pacific walruses give birth to calves during the spring migration north.
    Only Native Americans are currently allowed to hunt walruses, as the species' survival was threatened by past overhunting. Their tusks, oil, skin, and meat were so sought after in the 18th and 19th centuries that the walrus was hunted to extinction in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and around Sable Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia.

  8. #8
    Katsumoto's Avatar Quae est infernum es
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,783

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Quote Originally Posted by Jom View Post
    Starting to question whether this is actually better than a poke in the eye, especially after Katsumoto came in here.
    I don't like what you be implying, mister.
    "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
    - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

  9. #9

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Fully agree with the article about our Armed Forces the black prince - It just feels that we are losing our place in the world and putting aside all our historical heritage, and have been doing so for a while. Lets hope that something is done about this and the slump does not continue to accelerate. Bravery can not be a substitute for equipment and, more importantly, funding in general.
    According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10 (its true )
    My specs:
    CPU - Intel i5 4670k @3.8 GHz | GPU - MSI GEFORCE GTX 770 LIGHTNING 2GB GDDR5 | RAM - 8GB DDR3 1600MHZ | MOBO - Z87 | HDD - 1TB | SSD - SAMSUNG 840 PRO SERIES 256GB SOLID STATE HARD DRIVE 2.5" | PSU - 750W | CASE - COOLERMASTER ENFORCER | MONITOR - 24" IIYAMA



  10. #10
    karamazovmm's Avatar スマトラ警備隊
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    9,639

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    I read the whole thing.

    Now I have to make a stupid comment.

    Empty.

    the issue is good guys, g'job!
    Last edited by karamazovmm; September 18, 2010 at 04:48 PM.

    The very ugly forgive, but beauty is essential - Vinicius de Moraes

  11. #11
    Oldgamer's Avatar My President ...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Illinois, and I DID obtain my concealed carry permit! I'm packin'!
    Posts
    7,520

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    I just wanted to congratulate everyone on the fine work being done on this publication. I used to contribute to it, but I've never ceased "lurking". Whenever the Helios appears, I read it. I appreciate the work that everyone does, here.

  12. #12
    Solid Snake's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    México
    Posts
    2,527

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Ahh football.
    Do check my AAR "The Proud Blood of Germania"
    Formerly known as JerichoOnlyFan.
    And my other AAR: "The Black Serpent"




  13. #13

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Quote Originally Posted by a tw player View Post
    Fully agree with the article about our Armed Forces the black prince - It just feels that we are losing our place in the world and putting aside all our historical heritage, and have been doing so for a while. Lets hope that something is done about this and the slump does not continue to accelerate. Bravery can not be a substitute for equipment and, more importantly, funding in general.

    I could not agree more.

    There's a couple of threads in the mudpit about the ongoing strategic defence and security review if you'd like to join in.

    If you'd also like to write to George Osboune and tell him not to screw over the military, that would also be appreciated!

  14. #14
    Oldgamer's Avatar My President ...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Illinois, and I DID obtain my concealed carry permit! I'm packin'!
    Posts
    7,520

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    @Black Prince

    I was interested to read your piece, and the feedback on it. I just wanted to ask you a question. It is generally agreed in the United States that the DEMs will lose large, this year, and that President Obama's administration will end in January, 2013. However, consider the possibility that it won't. In that case, he ... and members of his administration ... have consistently desired to bring the US Defense budget down to about $250 billion (US) by 2016, and leave only enough nukes to defend the US homeland.

    This being the case, how much will is there, in the United Kingdom, to take on the absolute defense of the Kingdom? If this scenario I presented, above, takes place, the UK will be ... basically ... on its own, from the standpoint of defense (for the first time since the end of WWII). Do your leaders understand that this may, indeed, happen? What potential enemies are there for you? How will Britain defend herself against these threats?

  15. #15

    Default Re: Helios 53 - Better than a poke in the eye

    Yes, if nothing else, the Falklands reminded us that our interests and the US's cannot and will not always align. The defence Sec and his team are determined to have a sovereign national defence policy that can defend Britain against perceived threats. The FCO and Foreign Sec also recognise this. There is certainly the political will for Britain to take on absolute defence.

    The trouble with our review is that it seems to be Treasury led. The Treasury don't care either way, and don't really care what the MoD does with the money once its allocated. As far as the Treasury is concerned they want to pare down the defence budget and don't give much if any consideration to the consequences of that. Its a 5 way Whitehall Turf War right now, with the MoD, Treasury and all 3 services arguing for what they want. The review will soon be passed up to the National Security Council and its at that point I very much hope that Fox will get Cameron to side with him and not Osbourne and go for a threat/defence led security strategy rather than a budget led approach. If Cameron sides with Osbourne we could be in real trouble.

    Is there the political will to say damn the budget, we need this kit, now lets work out how to pay for it?

    I don't think so.

    In terms of threats, I'll link you to an article on 4 potential threat scenarios and our response to them. Of course, all planning is done with diplomacy in mind. Regardless of capability, operations such as Afganistan and Iraq are unlikely to happen without some form of coalition. A lot of British defence planning is done in the context of NATO military commitments and European military commitments. We already recognising that an Obama led administration is moving away from British and the SpecRel and our European military co-operation, which has always been strong, is on the up. This decade saw effective European military deployments under a unified European command for the first time, and that is set to continue. While I don't buy into setting up a European military, european forces are well trained together and can operate as european units readily enough. In terms of sea power for example, the combined forces of the Norwegian, Danish, German, Spanish, British and Dutch navies can field an impressive variety of task forces with state of the art modern sea power.

    I personally would like to see more done in relation to the Five Powers Defence Agreement (UK, Aus, NZ, Malay, Sing) as the rising powers and many potential threats arise in that part of the world. I don't know if anything is on the cards in relation to this though.

    Four Future Scenarios

    The article is buy Tom Harding, the Daily Telegraph's defence correspondent, formerly of the Parachute Regiment

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •