Medal of Honor: Digital Dilemma

With Medal of Honor set for release in less than two months, the most recent edition of the game is becoming more and more controversial -- and for good reason.

The game is set in the ongoing war in Afghanistan. More shockingly, the game's multi-player mode allows players to assume the role of the Taliban and fight NATO troops.

It's a provocative and challenging element of the game, and has naturally elicited some strong reactions from political leaders in countries currently involved in the war.

"The men and women of the Canadian Forces, our allies, aid workers, and innocent Afghans are being shot at, and sometimes killed, by the Taliban," fumed Defence Minister Peter MacKay. "This is reality. I find it wrong to have anyone, children in particular, playing the role of the Taliban. I'm sure most Canadians are uncomfortable and angry about this."

Britain's Minsiter of Defence, Liam Fox, took an even stronger stand; he wants the game banned, or at least boycotted.

"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands," Fox spat. "I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game.

"I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product," he concluded.

A certain level of disgust with Medal of Honor may well be warranted.

Call of Duty: Worlds at War has already taken the nearly-unprecedented step of allowing players to play as Nazi Germany during its multi-player mode. It goes without saying, however, that it's no longer the 1940s, and that Canada is no longer at war with Nazi Germany.

(Thanks to Canada and its World War II allies, Nazi Germany no longer exists.)

In an electronic medium that has already allowed players to play as the most evil regime of the 20th century, it was only a matter of time before they had the opportunity to fill the shoes of the some of the runners-up.

Banning or boycotting Medal of Honour isn't really the answer.

For one thing, if the game presents an honest depiction of the Taliban and its tactics, the game could remind those who play it of exactly what is currently being fought in Afghanistan: theocratic tyranny at its most savage.

A suitably honest depiction of the Taliban will make it difficult for even today's tuned-out generation of video gamers to turn a blind eye to their true nature.

It's worth repeating that in the storyline mode of gameplay, the Taliban will remain the villain. Left-wing peacenik fantasies don't translate very profitably into combat-oriented video games.

Playing as the Taliban in multi-player mode wouldn't symbolize any sympathy for the Taliban or its goals. And for the prospect of turning video gamers on to the resolute evil of the Taliban, it's well worth the perversity.

Who Will Pay for Britain's Nuclear Deterrent?

British Tories in accounting quarrel over nuclear subs

With the Cold War now over for more than twenty years, some would expect that the debate over nuclear submaries would be question whether such weapons are needed at all.

In Britain, however, under their Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, this is not the question. Rather, the question regarding the Trident II submarine -- the model of nuclear sub being developed to replace Britain's fleet of Trident Submaries -- is how they will be budgeted.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has declared that they will be budgeted for out of the Ministry of Defence's existing budget. Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for Defence, wants a budget exemption for the Trident II, and wants the project to be funded from another part of the budget.

In a move that has created friction with Osborne, Fox has made discussion of the matter quite public.

"Ultimately, all our defence capabilities have to be paid for," Fox announced. "Which bits are paid, over what timescale, is part of the discussions we are having and I'm not going to entertain them in public. I have enough time entertaining them in private."

"The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget," Osborne later responded. "All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence."

The Ministry of Defence is alreay responding to their budgetary pressures in a manner that may leave some Britons feeling uncomfortable. The British armed services will sed up to 16,000 personell. The air force is expected to be particularly hard hit by reductions.

Britain's fleet of helicopters -- crucial at a time when Britain remains engaged in the war in Afghanistan -- may be cut by up to 20%.

Fox likely would not have to make as many hard decisions if he receives his sought-after budget exemption for the Trident II.

Despite the push to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, some may argue that the Trident II is not necessary at all. In a perfect world, they would not be mistaken.

But the world is not perfect, and they are mistaken. With Iran seemingly continuing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and with North Korea threatening nuclear responses to joint US/South Korean naval exercises, the end of the Cold War has not yet resulted in an alleviation of nuclear tensions.

Then there is the matter of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal.

Right now, the global situation regarding nuclear weapons is as tense as it has been in 20 years. There seems to be little reason to expect that the situation will reverse itself anytime soon.

Accordingly, the British Conservatives need to stop fighting over how the Trident II will be paid for, and need to get on with securing Britain's nuclear deterrent for a coming time when it may be desperately needed once again.