Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elna Heimdal Nilsson, Professor of Aeronautical Sciences, Department of Aviation and Aeronautical Sciences, Lund University

Military aircraft – from fighter jets to transport planes – are playing a significant role in today’s unstable world. Cumulatively, the operations carried out by these fleets, from combat missions to training flights, consume large amounts of fossil fuel.

Nevertheless, military aviation is rarely included in national climate inventories. In addition to greenhouse gases, aviation also emits other pollutants such as soot and particles, which affect both climate and air quality, and have detrimental effects on human health and ecosystems.

Recently, the UK government announced that it would purchase 12 F-35A fighter aircraft, some of which will be used to reduce a backlog in pilot training. The F-35A is the standard variant of the F-35 fighter jet.

While the decision is primarily motivated by defence and alliance commitments, it also has environmental implications. Expanding training activities will increase the number of flight hours, and consequently, fuel use and emissions. Fighter jets consume large quantities of fuel per flight hour.

The combustion process in aircraft engines releases carbon dioxide (CO₂), but the impact on the climate and environment extends further: emissions of soot particles, nitrogen oxide compounds, water vapour and sulphuric compounds influence atmospheric chemistry and cloud formation.

The persistent contrails and the cirrus clouds they generate are estimated to cause an impact on the climate comparable in magnitude to the warming effect of CO₂ from commercial aviation.

Any assessment of mitigation options must therefore consider both CO₂ and non-CO₂ effects arising from aircraft engine combustion. To mitigate aviation-related climate effects, the civil aviation sector has been promoting the development of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).

When produced from waste oils or residues, hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (Hefa) fuels – which are forms of sustainable aviation fuel – typically achieve 50–70% lower life-cycle CO₂ emissions compared with fossil-based jet fuel. Synthetic aviation fuels known as advanced power-to-liquid (PtL) e-fuels, produced using renewable electricity, could reduce emissions by more than 80%, though they are not yet available at scale.

Wars and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change can increase the likelihood of violent conflict by intensifying resource scarcity and displacement, while conflict itself accelerates environmental damage. This article is part of a series, War on climate, which explores the relationship between climate issues and global conflicts.

In addition to a lower carbon footprint compared to fossil fuels, SAFs have
also been shown to produce fewer soot particles during combustion, reducing the likelihood and severity of contrails and cirrus clouds.

For technical reasons, down to the specific molecular composition SAF compared to fossil based jet fuel, commercial SAFs are currently not certified as standalone fuels. However, they are available for blends of up to 50% along with fossil-based jet fuels.

The quality of the sustainable fuels is very high and there is no technical barrier to their use in military aviation. The question is: to what extent can the climate and environmental impact of military aviation operations be reduced if sustainable aviation fuels are introduced?

Sustainable fuel and the F-35

Let’s take the example of the F-35, which was the aircraft purchased recently by the UK government. Under certain conditions, the F-35 can burn five tonnes of jet fuel in a single sortie lasting an hour. For comparison, a diesel car like the Volvo V70 would, in its whole lifespan, burn an amount of fuel corresponding to just four hours of combat manoeuvring with the F-35.

Technically, the F-35 is already approved to operate on blends of conventional kerosene and certified synthetic fuels. Similar to civil aviation standards, military standards allow for blending ratios of up to 50%, depending on the production pathway.

No modifications to engines or fuel systems are required. F-35 flights that used commercially available fuel with 40% SAF were carried out by the Norwegian Air Force in early 2025.

There are no significant technical barriers to the new F-35A aircraft entering UK service to operate on commercially available SAF blends with up to 50% renewable fuel. Compatibility is not the limiting factor, but, unfortunately, the availability and cost of fuel are.

For military training flights, which may involve large numbers of sorties, SAF can therefore provide significant reductions in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. A 50% blend of Hefa, for instance, could cut average CO₂ emissions per flight by around one third.

Since contrails can account for a large fraction of aviation’s total climate impact, this effect is potentially important. The strategic allocation of SAF to flights that are most likely to generate persistent contrails, like training missions at high altitude in humid conditions, could amplify the climate benefit of limited SAF supplies.

The UK’s acquisition of additional F-35A aircraft will help address a backlog in pilot training, but it will also increase emissions. From both a climate and national security perspective, SAFs represent the most practical near-term mitigation option.

The F-35 is technically compatible with sustainable aviation fuels – and substantial life-cycle emission reductions are achievable this way. Additional benefits may come from reduced contrail formation. However, limitations in global SAF production and their higher costs restrict the extent to which these fuels can currently be deployed.

SAFs will not make military aviation climate neutral, but they could substantially reduce its environmental footprint at a time when both security and sustainability are pressing concerns.

Elna Heimdal Nilsson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Sustainable fuels could reduce the climate impact of military aircraft – https://theconversation.com/sustainable-fuels-could-reduce-the-climate-impact-of-military-aircraft-264792

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jim Hoare, Honorary Research Associate in the Centre of Korean Studies, SOAS, University of London

China invited world leaders to its capital, Beijing, recently to celebrate the 85th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in the second world war. Western leaders were notably absent. But despite the presence of many other leaders, such as Russian president Vladimir Putin, it was the arrival of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un that seemed to attract most international media attention.

This was Kim’s fifth visit to China since he assumed power in 2011 – the last was in 2019 before the COVID pandemic. And it was the first time he had attended a multilateral international meeting.

Kim travelled to Beijing by train – an armoured train at that. Although he does not seem to have the fear of flying his father had, it is not the first time Kim has used a train to travel overseas. In 2019, he went to Hanoi in Vietnam – a much longer journey – to meet US president Donald Trump the same way.

The train allows for a large entourage and provides an opportunity to prepare for meetings. It may also be more secure than the country’s aircraft after some years of no or little use due to the pandemic and the effective sealing off of North Korea from most of the rest of the world.

Aside from the travel preferences of its leadership, here are three things we learned about North Korea from the summit in Beijing.

1. There is no obvious succession plan

Kim was accompanied not by his wife, Ri Sol-ju, who was with him on at least one previous visit to China. Nor did he travel with his sister, Kim Yo Jong, who has been seen by many as a power in her own right. He arrived in Beijing with his daughter, Kim Ju Ae, who is believed to be about 13.

She first appeared in public in 2022, joining the North Korean leader at an inspection of a major intercontinental ballistic missile launch. Kim Ju Ae has been seen with her father, and occasionally her mother, on several subsequent occasions. This has led to speculation that she is being groomed to be Kim’s successor.

However, she made no appearances with her father after arriving in Beijing. This may have been a learning trip rather than an indication that she has been selected to succeed her father.

Before 2022, there was similar speculation about Kim Yo Jong, who was noted for hostile statements on relations with South Korea. While she has not disappeared from the scene, Kim Yo Jong is not shown the same level of deference as her niece.

If Kim is preparing a successor, he is departing from the approach of his grandfather and first North Korean supreme leader, Kim Il-sung, as well as his father, Kim Jong-il. Kim Jong-il did not make public appearances until he was in his 30s. He was not identified as the successor until later.

Only after he suffered a stroke in 2008 did Kim Jong-il select Kim Jong-un, aged 24, as his successor. To select a child – and a female at that – seems fraught with difficulties. Korean society, north and south, still tends to attach a high value to age and experience. And despite formal equality in both countries, there is a strong belief in male superiority.

2. It can rely on strong regional support

More significant than the presence of his daughter was the reception given to Kim Jong-un in Beijing. He was beside the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, and Russia’s Putin in front of the other leaders on the viewing platform for the ceremonial parade. This was the first time that leaders of the three countries had met together since Kim Il-sung, Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushev met in China in 1959.

Kim Jong-un also held summit meetings with Putin and Xi, both of whom had signed up to sanctions on North Korea just a few years ago because of its nuclear programme. All of that now seems forgotten. The meeting with Putin reinforced the rapidly developing relations between the two countries, especially over the war in Ukraine.

Following Putin’s acknowledgement of the role North Korean troops have played in Ukraine, Kim said: “If there is any way we can assist Russia, we will certainly do it as a fraternal duty.” This may open the door for North Korea to send more troops to Ukraine and provide Russia with arms and ammunition.

In return for North Korea’s assistance, Kim has had economic support and, probably, some help in updating his country’s military capacity. Troops sent to support Russia will also have learned lessons about the nature of modern warfare.

The meeting with Xi produced pledges of further economic cooperation. Despite signing up for sanctions over the nuclear issue, China has not stopped providing food and oil to North Korea. This support now seems likely to increase.

Xi said the two countries were “friends with a common destiny”, while the Korean Central News Agency reported that North Korea would invariably support China’s interests.

3. It has been recognised as a nuclear state

Absent from both meetings was any reference to the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. This seems to indicate that both Russia and China accept that North Korea is a nuclear state.

According to a 2025 assessment by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Kim views nuclear weapons as a “guarantor of regime security”. Some experts estimate that North Korea has produced enough fissile material to build up to 90 nuclear warheads.

Russia, China and North Korea can all show benefits from the summit in Beijing. Russia has a promise of continued North Korean support in the Ukraine conflict.

China, meanwhile, has reinforced its traditionally close relationship with North Korea. And Kim has not only been treated as a major world leader, but has gained additional practical support from his two big neighbours.

In such circumstances, it seems unlikely that he will be very receptive to overtures from Trump or to make any concessions over the nuclear issue.

Jim Hoare does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What we learned about North Korea at the summit in Beijing – https://theconversation.com/what-we-learned-about-north-korea-at-the-summit-in-beijing-264718

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah A. Walker, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, Durham University

You’ve probably seen the word “narcissist” thrown around online in headlines, on dating apps or in therapy-themed TikToks. But the label that people often unthinkingly slap on toxic bosses or reality TV villains hides a much more complicated psychological picture.

Psychologists have studied narcissism for many years, but over time, our understanding has evolved. One of the biggest changes is that today, narcissism is no longer seen as just grandiosity, arrogance or egotism.

Early scientific descriptions of narcissism focused on dominance, ambition and self-importance, all of which are traits associated with traditional masculine stereotypes. That meant narcissistic tendencies in women were often misread or overlooked. When those traits show up as emotional sensitivity, insecurity or relational manipulation, they sometimes still are misdiagnosed as anxiety, mood disorders or borderline personality disorder traits.

The most extreme and persistent forms of narcissism can sometimes be diagnosed as narcissistic personality disorder. This condition was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, in 1980. But most people with narcissistic tendencies won’t meet the threshold for a diagnosis.

So what does the research actually say?

Narcissism in general is now understood as a complex set of personality characteristics that can show up in different ways.

Psychologists had long suspected that there might be different kinds of narcissism, but it wasn’t until 1991 – when researcher Paul Wink and his colleagues presented a model including grandiose and vulnerable subtypes – that they were more formally recognised. Although there are other models, this remains one of the more popular approaches to understanding narcissistic tendencies in the wider population.

A 2021 review by US psychologist Joshua Miller and his colleagues pulled together decades of research to offer one of the most authoritative summaries of how psychologists now understand narcissism. It explains that narcissism has a common foundation, which includes things such as self-importance and entitlement. It then branches into different forms of narcissism, such as grandiosity, antagonism and vulnerability.

Researchers now often use the terms grandiose and vulnerable to describe two major forms of narcissism. One person with narcissistic traits may be bold with high levels of grandiose traits, confidence and emotional resilience. Another might be defensive, anxious and hypersensitive to criticism. Both show signs of narcissistic self-focus, but they end up looking quite different in how they experience and express emotion.

In a 2022 research paper I wrote with colleagues, we carried out the first meta-analysis examining how narcissistic traits relate to the ability to control one’s emotions. The results showed that vulnerable narcissism is consistently associated with greater emotional difficulty, which means these people might find it harder to keep their emotions in check.

In particular, people with high scores on vulnerable narcissism scales are more likely to rely on suppression. Suppression is a strategy that people use to hide or inhibit their emotional expressions, and has been linked to poorer wellbeing. On the surface, suppression might sound like self-control.

In some situations, it can be. For example, keeping a lid on your emotions when your boss is yelling at you. But trying to mute emotional expression without addressing the underlying emotions increases stress when it becomes our default strategy. It can worsen mental and physical health over time.

In contrast, grandiose narcissism wasn’t linked with emotion regulation difficulties. In fact, several of the studies included in our analysis suggest that people with higher levels of grandiose traits may not experience as much emotional distress in the first place. This challenges the popular idea among researchers that people who exhibit narcissistic tendencies are also experiencing emotional instability.

Emotional intelligence and self-perception

The differences between forms of narcissism show up in emotional intelligence research as well. In a 2021 systematic review on narcissism and emotional intelligence, my colleagues and I found that people with grandiose traits often said they were good at understanding and managing emotions. For instance, how well they think they can handle anger or recognise other’s emotions.

But when their skills were tested using emotion tasks (such as recognising facial expressions or identifying the best way to respond to an emotional situation), their performance didn’t always match up with how skilled they said they were. This is consistent with a 2018 study which also found that people with grandiose tendencies rated themselves as emotionally skilled but performed worse on skill-based emotional intelligence tasks compared to other participants.

In contrast, people with vulnerable narcissistic traits tend to rate themselves lower in emotional intelligence, and seem to genuinely struggle more with managing emotions in everyday life.

So what should we make of all this?

It’s time to move beyond the pop-psych trend of labelling difficult people as narcissists. Narcissism isn’t about taking too many selfies. And no, the partner who ghosted you or the colleague who dominates meetings isn’t necessarily high in narcissistic traits either – no matter how much we might like to complain about them over coffee.

These kinds of casual diagnoses aren’t just unhelpful, they’re often wrong.

Narcissism is a complex psychological pattern that can show up in different ways and can reflect a deeper struggle with things such as self-esteem, emotion regulation and social connection. Understanding this doesn’t excuse people’s bad behaviour – not at all. But it does help us look past the stereotypes to get a clearer picture of what narcissistic traits look like in everyday life.

Sarah A. Walker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What we’ve learned about narcissism over the past 30 years – https://theconversation.com/what-weve-learned-about-narcissism-over-the-past-30-years-258505

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andy Levy, Reader in Psychology, Edge Hill University

When TV personality Danielle Lloyd was diagnosed with melanoma earlier this year, she faced not only the anxiety of cancer treatment but also a disturbing reality: influencers spreading dangerous misinformation about sun protection.

After having a suspicious mole removed and awaiting results from a second biopsy, the 41-year-old has become an outspoken critic of social media personalities who lie to their followers about sunscreen products.

Cancer misinformation can have serious consequences, such as leading people to delay or even avoid life-saving treatments, and eroding trust in medical professionals.

Misinformation spreads easily because it taps into people’s emotions and reasoning about health. When faced with a cancer diagnosis, fear, confusion and a desire for control can drive people to seek remedies that offer hope – even if that hope comes from sources that don’t use credible evidence.

Misinformation often offers simple, comforting answers, while real medicine is complex, uncertain and sometimes difficult to accept. Fake cancer claims can feel convincing because they seem to eliminate the uncertainty about whether treatment will work, or if the cancer will return.

Social media platforms can amplify false cancer messages, making them appear more credible or popular than they actually are. This is compounded by the role of influencers and unqualified practitioners, who often profit from promoting pseudoscience.

Message framing plays a significant role in the spread of cancer misinformation. Studies show that we respond more to messages focused on what we might lose rather than what we could gain. This happens because of loss aversion – our psychological tendency to fear losses more than we value equivalent gains.

Cancer messages that highlight potential losses – such as health, comfort or life itself – feel more urgent, personal and motivating than those focusing on potential gains, like improved survival or better quality of life.

Cancer misinformation that emphasises scary losses can be especially persuasive because it taps directly into people’s fears. False claims warning about dangerous side-effects of treatments, hidden risks or conspiracies suggesting doctors want to harm patients strike a deep emotional chord. This makes people more likely to believe and share these messages, even when untrue.

For instance, misinformation claiming that chemotherapy doesn’t cure cancer – and instead causes it to spread and shortens your life – can trigger fear and resistance to treatment.

In contrast, truthful messages stating that chemotherapy can have side-effects, but it greatly increases your chance of survival, may seem less frightening and, sometimes, less compelling because they focus on potential gains rather than losses.

Cancer is an emotionally charged and high-stakes diagnosis. Loss-framed misinformation spreads quickly and can influence decisions that can put people at risk. Even when presented with correct medical information, the emotional weight of loss-informed cancer misinformation can override rational thought.

The psychological principle that bad is stronger than good (also called “negativity bias”) explains why cancer misinformation that triggers fear or anxiety often sticks more than hopeful, fact-based messages. Negative information simply has a bigger impact on how we think and feel in times of uncertainty.

Prebunking

One effective way to help people avoid falling victim to cancer misinformation is through prebunking. This approach involves teaching people how to spot and resist false or misleading messages before they take hold.

In particular, it focuses on exposing the tactics people use to deceive or scare others, so they’re easier to recognise and dismiss when encountered.

The tactics people can learn to look out for – and prebunk – include fear-mongering, where messages exaggerate risks to induce anxiety, or promises of miraculous cures lacking scientific evidence and misleading statistics that distort facts to support false claims.

Read more:
Can a game stop vaccine misinformation? This one just might

By being aware of these common techniques, people with cancer can become more vigilant and sceptical when they encounter suspicious information online, on social media, or through word of mouth.

Research suggests that when people understand the strategies behind misinformation, they are less likely to accept false claims at face value. This increased awareness empowers them to pause, question and seek reliable advice before making important decisions about their health.

In the end, prebunking can help people with cancer stay protected against misinformation. It allows them to navigate through the emotionally charged cancer claims out there and make smarter, safer choices.

Scientist Carl Sagan said it best: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s a straightforward idea, but a powerful one — especially when it comes to pushing back against cancer misinformation.

Sagan’s quote is a reminder to slow down, think critically and ask for solid evidence — especially when cancer information sounds unbelievable, too perfect, or just plain alarming.

Andy Levy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How cancer misinformation exploits the way we think – https://theconversation.com/how-cancer-misinformation-exploits-the-way-we-think-260236