Academic Analysis – Page 1061 – MIL Submissions Engine

October 29, 2025

Nuclear-powered missiles: An aerospace engineer explains how they work – and what Russia’s claimed test means for global strategic stability

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Iain Boyd, Director of the Center for National Security Initiatives and Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder

Russia’s earlier tests of the Burevestnik missile include this 2018 launch. Screencapture of Russian Defense Ministry video, CC BY

Russian President Vladimir Putin, dressed in a military uniform, announced on Oct. 26, 2025, that Russia had successfully tested a nuclear-powered missile. If true, such a weapon could provide Russia with a unique military capability that also has broader political implications.

The missile, called Burevestnik, was reportedly successfully tested over the Arctic Ocean after years of development and several earlier initial test flights, one of which resulted in the deaths of five nuclear scientists.

I am an engineer who studies defense systems. Here is how these weapons function, the advantages they present over conventional missile systems, and their potential to disrupt global strategic stability.

Conventionally powered missiles

Missiles have been used by militaries around the world for centuries and come in a broad array of designs that are characterized by their mission, range and velocity. They are used to damage and destroy a wide variety of targets, including ground installations such as bases, command centers and deeply buried infrastructure; ships; aircraft; and potentially spacecraft. These weapons are operated from the ground by the army, from the sea by navy ships, and from the air by fighters and bombers.

Missiles can be tactical, with relatively short ranges of less than 500 miles, or strategic, with long ranges of thousands of miles. Missiles fall into three general categories: ballistic, cruise and hypersonic.

Ballistic missiles are launched on rockets. After the rocket burns out, the missile flies along a predictable arc that takes it out of the atmosphere into space and then back into the atmosphere toward its target.

Cruise missiles have an additional engine that is ignited after the rocket burns out, allowing the missile to fly programmed routes, typically at low altitudes. These engines are powered by a mixture of chemicals or a solid fuel.

Hypersonic missiles fly faster than the speed of sound, but not as fast as intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. They are launched on smaller rockets that keep them within the upper reaches of the atmosphere. A hypersonic glide vehicle is boosted to high altitude and then glides to its target, maneuvering along the way. A hypersonic cruise missile is boosted to hypersonic speed and then uses an air-breathing engine called a scramjet to sustain that speed.

How nuclear-powered missiles work

Nuclear-powered missiles are a type of cruise missile. The designs are typically a form of scramjet. A thermal nuclear system uses fission of nuclear fuel to add energy to an airstream that is then accelerated through a nozzle to generate thrust. In this way, fission of nuclear material replaces chemical combustion of traditional cruise missile engines.

a line drawing diagram with labels — The concept for a nuclear-powered scramjet is simple, even if building one is extremely challenging.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The energy density – the amount of energy released per unit mass of fuel – available from nuclear fission is millions of times larger than that released by chemical propellants. This feature means that a relatively small amount of fissionable propellant can be used to power a missile for much longer periods of time than chemical propellants can.

The United States explored developing a nuclear-powered missile in the 1960s. The effort, Project Pluto, was abandoned due to the rapid progress made at the same time on ICBMs, as well as concerns over environmental contamination associated with nuclear systems.

Advantages of nuclear-powered flight

The key advantage of nuclear-powered missiles is the extra energy, which allows them to fly farther, longer, faster and lower in the atmosphere, while executing a wide array of maneuvers. For these reasons, they pose a significant challenge to the best missile defense systems.

The Russian military claims that the Burevestnik missile flew 8,700 miles at low altitude over a 15-hour period. For comparison, an airline flight from San Francisco to Boston covers 2,700 miles in six hours. While the Burevestnik vehicle is not flying particularly fast for a missile, it is likely maneuverable, which makes it difficult to defend against.

Challenges to using nuclear power

The huge amount of energy released by fission has been the key technical challenge for developing these missiles. The high levels of energy require materials that can withstand temperatures up to several thousand degrees Fahrenheit to prevent the missile from destroying itself.

In terms of safety, nuclear technology has found very limited application in space due to concerns over radiation contamination if something goes wrong, such as a failed launch. The same concerns apply to a nuclear-powered munition.

In addition, such systems may need to remain safe in storage for many years prior to use. An attack by an enemy on a weapons storage facility that contains nuclear-powered weapons could lead to a massive radiation leak.

Early development of a nuclear-powered missile by the United States in the 1950s and ’60s ended after it became clear the idea was strategically and environmentally challenging.

Russia’s Burevestnik and global stability

The new Russian Burevestnik missile has been under development for over 20 years. While few technical details are known, Russian officials claim that it can maneuver to bypass antimissile and air defense systems.

Nuclear weapons were the basis for mutual deterrence between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Both parties understood that a first strike by one side would be matched by an equally destructive counterstrike by the other. The fear of total annihilation maintained a peaceful balance.

Several developments threaten the current balance of power: better missile defense systems such as the U.S.’s planned Golden Dome and advances in highly maneuverable missiles. Missile defense systems have the potential to block a nuclear strike, and low-altitude maneuverable missiles have the potential to arrive without warning.

So, while much of the reaction to Russia’s announcement of its new nuclear-powered missile has focused on the challenges of defending against it, the more important concern may be its potential to completely disrupt global strategic stability.

Iain Boyd receives funding from the U.S. Department of Defense.

– ref. Nuclear-powered missiles: An aerospace engineer explains how they work – and what Russia’s claimed test means for global strategic stability – https://theconversation.com/nuclear-powered-missiles-an-aerospace-engineer-explains-how-they-work-and-what-russias-claimed-test-means-for-global-strategic-stability-268476

October 29, 2025

Fed lowers interest rates as it struggles to assess state of US economy without key government data

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame

Markets were expecting the Fed to cut rates a quarter point.

AP Photo/Seth Wenig

When it comes to setting monetary policy for the world’s largest economy, what data drives decision-making?

In ordinary times, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee, which usually meets eight times a year, have a wealth of information at their disposal, including key statistics such as monthly employment and extensive inflation data.

But with the federal shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025, grinding on, government offices that publish such information are shuttered and data has been curtailed. As a result, Powell and his Fed colleagues might have considered the price of gas or changes in the cost of coffee to arrive at their decision to cut interest rates a quarter point at their latest monetary policy meeting, which ended Oct. 29, 2025.

The Federal Reserve’s mandate is to implement monetary policy that stabilizes prices and promotes full employment, but there is a delicate balance to strike. Not only do Powell and the Fed have to weigh domestic inflation, jobs and spending, but they must also respond to changes in President Donald Trump’s global tariff policy.

As an economist and finance professor at the University of Notre Dame, I know the Fed has a tough job of guiding the economy under even the most ideal circumstances. Now, imagine creating policy partially blindfolded, without access to key economic data.

But, fortunately, the Fed’s not flying blind – it still has a wide range of private, internal and public data to help it read the pulse of the U.S. economy.

Key data is MIA

The Fed is data-dependent, as Powell likes to remind markets. But the cancellation of reports on employment, job openings and turnover, retail sales and gross domestic product, along with a delay in the September consumer price information, will force the central bank to lean harder on private data to nail down the appropriate path for monetary policy.

Torsten Slok, chief economist for the Apollo asset management firm, recently released his set of “alternative data,” capturing information from a wide range of sources. This includes ISM PMI reports, which measure economic activity in the manufacturing and services sectors, and Bloomberg’s robust data on consumer spending habits.

“Generally, the private data, the alternative data that we look at is better used as a supplement for the underlying governmental data, which is the gold standard,” Powell said in mid-October. “It won’t be as effective as the main course as it would have been as a supplement.”

But at this crucial juncture, the Fed has also abruptly lost one important source of private data. Payroll processor ADP had previously shared private sector payroll information with the central bank, which considered it alongside government employment figures. Now, ADP has suspended the relationship, and Powell has reportedly asked the company to quickly reverse its decision.

espresso falls from a coffee machine into a blue cup — With some key data unavailable, the Fed may pay more attention to the price of a cup of coffee to help determine how to set interest rates.
AP Photo/Julio Cortez

Internal research

Fortunately for the Fed, it has its own sources for reliable information.

Even when government agencies are working and producing economic reports, the Federal Reserve utilizes internal research and its nationwide network of contacts to supplement data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Since the Fed is self-funded, the government shutdown didn’t stop it from publishing its Beige Book, which comes out eight times a year and provides insight into how various aspects of the economy are performing.

Its Oct. 15 report found that consumer spending had inched down, with lower- and middle-income households facing “rising prices and elevated economic uncertainty.” Manufacturing was also hit by challenges linked to higher tariffs.

Leading indicators

And though no data is being released on the unemployment rate, historical data shows that consumer sentiment can act as a leading indicator for joblessness in the U.S.

According to the most recent consumer confidence reports, Americans are significantly more worried about their jobs over the next six months, as compared to this time last year, and expect fewer employment opportunities during that period. This suggests the Fed will likely see an uptick in the unemployment rate, once the data resumes publishing.

And if you did notice an increase in the price of your morning coffee, you’re not mistaken – both private and market-based data suggest inflation is a pressing concern, with expectations that price increases will remain at about the 2% target set by the Fed.

It’s clear that there is no risk-free path for policy, and a wrong move by the Fed could stoke inflation or even send the U.S. economy spiraling into a recession.

Uncertain path ahead

At the Fed’s September monetary policy meeting, members voted to cut benchmark interest rates by 25 basis points, while one member advocated for a 50-point cut.

It was the first interest rate cut since December – one that Trump had been loudly demanding to help spur the U.S. economy and lower the cost of government debt. Following the Oct. 29 interest rate cut, markets expect the FOMC to reduce rates by another quarter of a percentage point in December. That would lower rates to a range of 3.5%-3.75%, from 3.75%-4% currently, giving the labor market a much-needed boost.

After that, the near-certainty ends, as it’s anyone’s guess where interest rates will go from there. At quarterly meetings, members of the Federal Open Market Committee give projections of where they think the Fed’s benchmark interest rate will go over the next three years and beyond to provide forward guidance to financial markets and other observers.

The median projection from the September meeting suggests the benchmark rate will end 2026 a little lower than where it began, at 3.4%, and decline to 3.1% by the end of 2027. With inflation accelerating, Fed officials will continue to weigh the weakening labor market against the threat of inflation from tariffs, immigration reform and their own lower interest rates – not to mention the ongoing impact of the government shutdown.

Unfortunately, I believe these risks will be difficult to mitigate with just Fed intervention, even with perfect foresight into the economy, and will need help from government immigration, tax and spending policy to put the economy on the right path.

This article was updated with details of the October FOMC meeting.

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

– ref. Fed lowers interest rates as it struggles to assess state of US economy without key government data – https://theconversation.com/fed-lowers-interest-rates-as-it-struggles-to-assess-state-of-us-economy-without-key-government-data-267204

October 29, 2025

Should young people take creatine?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Hough, Lecturer Sport & Exercise Physiology , University of Westminster

Creatine use is common among young male athletes. Miljan Zivkovic/ Shutterstock

Creatine is one of the most widely used sports supplements across the world. It’s taken by many in the hopes of boosting strength, enhancing athletic performance and promoting muscle growth.

But it isn’t only adults who are using this supplement. A growing number of teenagers and young adults report taking creatine in the hopes of reaping the supplement’s benefits.

Surveys show that as many as 72% of male athletes aged 17-18 report using creatine. Use is typically more common among athletes, especially young men.

While creatine is generally considered to be safe for young people to use, it’s no shortcut to getting fit. It’s better for young people looking to get strong or improve their athletic performance to focus on the fundamentals: exercising, eating properly and prioritising sleep.

Creatine is a natural compound stored within muscle. Although a small amount is produced in the kidneys and liver, most (around 95%) is obtained from eating meat and seafood. Creatine plays an important role in providing energy during high-intensity activities, such as sprinting and lifting weights.

Although several forms of creatine are commercially available, creatine monohydrate is the most stable and extensively studied form.

Numerous studies show that creatine supplementation enhances performance in high-intensity exercises requiring strength and power, such as strength training and sprinting. Creatine supplementation may also lead to more muscle growth when combined with resistance training, and faster recovery from exercise.

Emerging research also suggests that creatine’s benefits extend beyond the gym. Studies indicate that creatine may improve aspects of cognitive function – specifically memory and attention.

Creatine also shows promise for older adults in preventing muscle loss and protecting against neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Creatine’s safety

A typical diet that includes meat and seafood provides around 1–2 grams of creatine per day, which keeps the muscles around 60–80% full of creatine.

Taking a daily creatine supplement eventually fills the muscles with creatine. There are two common ways to do this.

The quickest and most commonly studied method involves a one week loading phase. This entails taking 0.3 grams of creatine per kilogram of body weight four times a day. For example, a 75kg person would take a total of 24g of creatine per day.

An alternative approach, which increases muscle creatine levels more gradually, is to take 3g of creatine per day for around 28 days.

Both approaches will fill muscle creatine stores. The first (loading) approach tops up creatine stores faster, which means you’ll see benefits to exercise performance faster. However, the second approach is less likely to cause temporary gastrointestinal discomfort (such as bloating and diarrhoea) which are more common when using the loading approach.

A person dumps a scoop of creatine powder into a cup. — Creatine plays an important role in providing energy during high-intensity activities.
Erhan Inga/ Shutterstock

Regardless of what approach you use, taking 3-5g of creatine daily is necessary to maintain muscle creatine levels.

Numerous studies show that short and long-term creatine supplementation (up to 30g a day for five years) is safe and has no ill effects on health when taken at the recommended dosages.

The most common side-effect of creatine is weight gain as the supplement increases water retention in muscles. This extra water remains only as long as you’re taking creatine.

Creatine and young people

Although creatine is shown to be safe and effective for adults, only a few studies have investigated the effects among children and adolescents.

The available studies show that creatine appears to be safe for young people to use and can provide performance benefits, particularly for athletes. Most studies have only looked at the safety of a creatine dosage between 0.1g and 0.3g per kg of body mass per day. As such, it’s important that any young people who choose to use creatine do not exceed this dosage.

Although creatine appears to be safe for children and adolescents to take, it is possible that, without proper nutrition education and supervision of dosing, they could be at risk of misusing creatine – potentially leading to adverse effects such as stomach cramps.

A study that evaluated young athletes’ understanding of how sports supplements should be used reported that only 11% of the athletes answered questions correctly about creatine use.

Regardless of age, it’s important to recognise that supplements such as creatine are not a shortcut to improving fitness, building muscle or losing body fat. Supplements provide much smaller performance gains compared to what can be achieved through good training and nutrition alone. While sports supplements support training and recovery, significant progress comes from consistent exercise, a balanced diet and adequate sleep.

With a well-designed training programme and healthy eating plan, young people will experience rapid improvements in strength, power and endurance without the need for supplements. Focusing too soon on taking supplements could distract young people from building good training habits and healthy eating patterns.

This is why most sport nutritionists recommend using a food-first approach, which focuses on maximising diet quality before recommending supplements such as creatine.

Paul Hough 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. Should young people take creatine? – https://theconversation.com/should-young-people-take-creatine-267365

October 29, 2025

Prince Andrew’s ‘one peppercorn’ lease exposes how little is known about royal finances

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robert Hazell, Professor of British Politics and Government & Founder of the Constitution Unit, UCL

In announcing that Prince Andrew would no longer use his title or honours, Buckingham Palace hoped to shift the spotlight away from his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the accusations of sexual abuse he has faced (and denied).

The media were encouraged to focus instead on King Charles’s visit to the Vatican, and the royal family’s good works. But this strategy has failed. Revelations about Prince Andrew’s living arrangements and finances have whetted the appetite for more.

One such revelation is his royal residence. Andrew has a 75-year lease from the crown estate on Royal Lodge, a large house in Windsor Great Park. The Times published the lease, revealing that he paid £1 million for it plus a minimum of £7.5 million in refurbishments. In return for this very large upfront cost, Andrew pays an annual rent of “one peppercorn (if demanded)”.

The crown estate is a statutory corporation operating under the Crown Estate Act 1961 (as amended in 2025), which manages a huge property portfolio including Regent Street in London and most of the foreshore around the coast, generating a big income from wind farms.

Its net revenue profit – which in 2023-24 amounted to £1.1 billion – is paid to the Treasury. The government uses 12% of the profits to fund the sovereign grant, which provides financial support for the monarchy.

Since 2019, when he ceased to be a working royal, Prince Andrew no longer receives any public funding from the sovereign grant. Mysteries about his sources of income may be hard for the palace to dispel without being more transparent about the royal finances more generally.

One particular area of interest is the Duchy of Lancaster, which last year provided King Charles with £27 million of his income. The palace website states that this is “a portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the sovereign. Its main purpose is to provide an independent source of income, and is used mainly to pay for official expenditure not met by the Sovereign Grant (primarily to meet expenses incurred by other members of the Royal Family).”

Prior to the sovereign grant, the monarchy was funded through the civil list. This was an annual sum of money voted by parliament, which included the annuities received by other members of the royal family.

Since the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, those annuities are no longer published. The Duchy of Lancaster’s annual report and accounts gives lots of detail about the Duchy’s income, but none about its expenditure.

The Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey MP has called for a select committee inquiry to “properly scrutinise” the crown estate, and Baroness (Margaret) Hodge, former chair of the public accounts committee, has called for greater transparency about the royal finances.

What next for Andrew?

The nine commissioners who manage the crown estate’s holdings are property experts who operate independently of government and the crown. They cannot simply terminate Prince Andrew’s lease, but there is mounting pressure on him to relinquish the lease voluntarily.

When it comes to his remaining titles, both the palace and UK government will be desperate to close the story down and move on. The government took the line that it was all a matter for the king and the palace.

Sir Alan Campbell, leader of the House of Commons, said: “The question of [Andrew’s] titles is primarily a question for His Majesty. I know there has been speculation about legislation, but the palace has been clear it recognises that there are other matters this House needs to be getting on with, and we are guided in this by the palace.”

In practice, the palace will also be guided by the government, which will be keen to avoid legislation if at all possible. Short of legislation, there is little more the palace can do.

The king could issue letters patent declaring that Prince Andrew is no longer His Royal Highness. He could also give an undertaking that Andrew would never be called upon to serve as a counsellor of state, deputising for the monarch in his absence.

If public anger remained unabated, and legislation was deemed unavoidable, a short bill could be prepared to strip Andrew of his peerage titles and remove him as a counsellor of state. It could be passed relatively quickly: the Counsellors of State Act 2022, which added Princess Anne and Prince Edward to the list of potential counsellors of state, went through all its Commons stages in a single day.

The finances are trickier. The Commons public accounts committee may hold a single evidence session just on Andrew’s finances, or launch a wider inquiry.

It may be hard to avoid the latter. Having made public the lease on Royal Lodge, the crown estate may find it difficult to refuse to disclose the leases on other properties occupied by the royal family, or other information about its finances.

If parliament decides to launch a wider inquiry, the payments to other members of the royal family funded by the Duchy of Lancaster would be an obvious place to start.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Robert Hazell 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. Prince Andrew’s ‘one peppercorn’ lease exposes how little is known about royal finances – https://theconversation.com/prince-andrews-one-peppercorn-lease-exposes-how-little-is-known-about-royal-finances-268528

October 29, 2025

Why so many children in the youth justice system have special educational needs

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hope Kent, Administrative Data Research UK Research Fellow, University of Exeter

Walk into any custodial youth justice facility in the UK – from young offender’s institutions to secure training centres and children’s homes – and you’ll be met with an unexpected reality: the majority of children in these settings have special educational needs and disabilities.

In particular, a very high proportion of children in custody have neurodisabilities. These are long-term conditions affecting the brain and nervous system, and range from autism to brain injuries and foetal alcohol spectrum disorders.

These conditions are grouped together because they affect children’s cognition (including memory, attention and concentration, and executive functioning – mental skills necessary for daily life), as well as their emotional regulation, social communication skills and physical development. This is a pattern repeated in youth justice systems across the world.

For example, estimates suggest that 50% to 87% of children in custody globally have a brain injury. However, research from Canada suggests that brain injury affects around 20% of children in the general population. Over 60% of children in custody globally have a speech, language and communication impairment, compared with 1-3% in the general population globally.

Autistic children make up between 2% and 18% of children in custody across Europe and the USA, compared with 0.3 to 1.9% in the general population in Europe and the USA. While there is significant difference between countries, approximately 30% of children in custody globally have ADHD. This compares with 7% in the general population globally.

While just 0.7% of children in the general population have foetal alcohol spectrum disorders, these affect 11% to 21% of children in custody. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorders are a range of cognitive, behavioural and physical conditions which can affect a child as a result of their mother drinking alcohol during pregnancy.

Some children in custody may have very complex needs, with multiple overlapping conditions. Additionally, children may have needs that don’t quite meet diagnostic criteria for any one condition but still have a significant impact on their lives. These children have often had disrupted educational backgrounds, with multiple school moves or periods of absence. This means that they also may not have had their needs identified in school.

Why is this happening?

Of course, having a neurodisability in no way makes children inherently criminal. The majority of children with special educational needs will never come into contact with the youth justice system. So what is it that makes this small group who do more vulnerable?

School exclusion appears to be a really key component in pathways into the justice system for these children. My research with colleagues explored rates of neurodisability and school exclusion in prisoners in Wales. We found that those who scored more highly on a measure of neurodisability were also more likely to have been excluded from school. Those who had been excluded from school were also more likely to have had their first conviction at a younger age.

This finding aligns with Department for Education statistics, which indicate that exclusions are disproportionately affecting children with an identified special educational need. Children with special educational needs represent just around half of all permanent exclusions in England. However, they represent only about 17% of the mainstream school population.

Boy looking sad sat outside alone with school bag — School exclusion plays a role in this pathway.
AlexandrMusuc/Shutterstock

There is plenty of convincing evidence that school exclusion is harmful, and increases the chances of children ending up in the criminal justice system.

Despite this, many accounts report a concerning rise in the use of zero-tolerance behavioural policies in the UK. This could be linked with a rise in the rates of school exclusions reported in the most recent Department for Education statistics.

In 2023-24 there was a 21% increase in the use of fixed-term exclusions (sometimes called suspensions) in England from the previous year. There was also a 16% increase in permanent exclusions.

Combined vulnerabilities

Children who end up in the youth justice system often have multiple other disadvantages layered on top of this systematic exclusion from school. For example, my recent study with colleagues used data from half a million children in the UK. We found that child poverty compounded the likelihood of having contact with the youth justice system for children with neurodisability. This means that it was children who had both disadvantages who were most vulnerable.

This growing body of evidence demonstrates that society is failing these children. When children with neurodisability and complex social disadvantage continue to be punished and excluded, we can’t be surprised when they end up on the fringes of society.

There are ways to remedy the problem of school exclusion. These include more specialist classrooms and units, as well as providing teachers with more options and support for children who aren’t thriving in the mainstream classroom.

In addition, more can be done to remove the layers of disadvantage that these children experience. More generous family welfare policies might help to lift children out of disadvantage and support them to have a better start in life.

Action like this could divert children away from the youth justice system long before they ever have contact with the police.

Hope Kent currently receives funding from ADR-UK, and has previously recieved funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. She is affiliated with the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum.

– ref. Why so many children in the youth justice system have special educational needs – https://theconversation.com/why-so-many-children-in-the-youth-justice-system-have-special-educational-needs-264144

October 29, 2025

US leaders view China as a ‘pacing threat’ − has Washington enough stamina to last the race?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Latham, Professor of Political Science, Macalester College

U.S. muscle or Chinese strategy — which one will prevail? Fred Lee/Getty Images

When Donald Trump meets with Xi Jinping on Oct. 30, 2025, he won’t just be chatting with any run-of-the-mill leader of a rival nation. Rather, he will be sitting down the with the chief representative of the United States’ “pacing threat.”

In the Pentagon’s lexicon, China has increasingly been presented as a “pacing challenge” or “pacing threat” − that is, a great-power rival against which a nation measures its strength, shapes its strategy and directs its resources across every domain of national power.

The phrase and concept has risen in military and academic circles since the turn of the 21st century. Its use in Washington to describe China dates to at least 2020, when Trump’s then–Secretary of Defense Mark Esper used it in a speech in Honolulu.

But what does it mean? For a country to be seen as a pacing threat, it must be a rising yet already near-peer whose capabilities and ambitions directly challenge the dominant country’s global position. A pacing threat doesn’t merely aspire to catch up; it sets the tempo of competition.

Esper’s successor in the Biden administration, Lloyd J. Austin III, continued to call China a “pacing threat,” explaining: “It means that China is the only country that can pose a systemic challenge to the United States in the sense of challenging us economically, technologically, politically and militarily.”

Use of “pacing threat/challenge” has grown since 2009 (Ngram)

The significance goes beyond rhetoric. By defining China in these terms, Washington reorients its entire defense establishment around a new strategic benchmark. The U.S.’s defense planning, industrial policy and global posture now revolve around a single question − how to keep up with and, if necessary, outpace Beijing.

When the United States government signals to its military leaders and industrial partners that a specific country is a “pacing threat,” it is giving them a yardstick by which to judge every dollar spent, every sailor or pilot assigned and every hour of training and preparation.

Pacing threats, increasing risks

The risk of focusing so intently on one foe is, of course, that there is more than one potential adversary out there. And the concept of a pacing challenge shouldn’t imply that China is Washington’s only competitor or potential enemy.

Other rivals remain in the mix, including Russia, Iran, North Korea and a range of smaller militant groups, that could cause major problems for Washington with or without China’s involvement.

The danger for the U.S. is that in designating China its only pacing threat, it could leave blind spots elsewhere. And the objective for a U.S. leader is not simply to be ready for a potential war with China but to be ready for the next crisis wherever it may emerge.

This goal is complicated by a second risk: the urge to plan for the future at the expense of the present. It is one thing for the U.S. Navy to build a fleet and the Air Force to design a missile for 2035 to ensure that it “outpaces” Chinese innovation. But it is another to have the capability to deter or address, if necessary, a crisis or conflict in 2025.

Developing a long-term force to match or surpass China is an important objective to U.S. political and military leaders, but not at the expense of current capabilities.

If the United States is intent on remaining the world’s predominant economic, diplomatic and military force, then it must focus on both – but that is easier said than done.

Is China already ahead?

There are some who believe that America’s pacing threat has already outpaced its rival.

The United States already lags behind China in the scale and output of its defense-industrial base – particularly in the quantity of ships, missiles and other military hardware it can produce and field at speed.

China is building warships at a rate unseen in the U.S. for decades. And it has an industrial ecosystem that can deliver on new programs and scale up in a crisis.

By contrast, American factories face labor shortages, a lack of modern shipyards and glacial acquisition timelines.

If the U.S. is intent on fielding better military assets in the future, it needs them to upscale at a speed that can deter China. In other words, America’s deterrence to any pacing threat needs to start at the factory gate.

A contest of speed, not size

Facing China as a pacing threat will start with an honest U.S. accounting of the type of competition in which it is engaged. This is not merely a rivalry of fleets or firepower but a contest of tempo − who can innovate faster, build smarter and field more flexibly to shape a world in motion.

A large ship is seen in front of a city landscape. — The aircraft carrier Liaoning sets out for sea trial at Dalian shipyard in China on Feb. 29, 2024.
VCG/VCG via Getty Images

If the U.S. is to outpace China, it will likely need to reconnect its economic and industrial base to its defense posture and regenerate the productive capacity that made America the world’s arsenal.

But that task is far harder for democracies, where political cycles, fiscal constraints and public skepticism about militarization often slow the mobilization of national power.

Complicating the matter is the fact that the next great arsenal will be defined not just in steel but in data, design and decision. Here, too, China at present appears to be gaining an upper hand. A September report by the Washington-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation assessed that China was now “dramatically outperforming the United States in the vast majority of critical technological fields.”

The U.S. will not stay ahead of its pacing threat by meeting China ship for ship or system for system. The real edge is in responsiveness − the ability to outthink, outproduce and outmaneuver its competitor.

This article is part of a series explaining foreign policy terms commonly used but rarely explained.

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

– ref. US leaders view China as a ‘pacing threat’ − has Washington enough stamina to last the race? – https://theconversation.com/us-leaders-view-china-as-a-pacing-threat-has-washington-enough-stamina-to-last-the-race-268425

October 29, 2025

Netflix’s A House of Dynamite sounds the nuclear alarm, but how worried should we be?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Lacy, Senior Lecturer, School of Global Affairs, Lancaster University

As a teenager in the 1980s, I was shown a BBC drama in school called Threads that depicted the impact of a nuclear strike on a city in northern England. Threads is a brutal vision of a terrifying reality that I imagine haunted many people in the years before the end of the cold war.

For younger generations who have so far experienced a world with pandemic lockdowns, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and international tensions that make a third world war no longer feel like a fictional scenario, geopolitical fear and anxiety is again hard to escape. And now we have a film showing us how a nuclear war could begin.

From three different perspectives, Kathryn Bigelow’s new Netflix thriller, A House of Dynamite, shows us how officials in the US might respond if it looked like a nuclear strike was imminent. Each perspective reveals a different element in the horror and complexity of the situation, as officials work to determine who is responsible and how to manage the attack.

Central to this complexity is the sense of what Prussian general and philosopher of warfare Carl von Clausewitz described as the “fog of war”. This term was devised to describe the uncertainty and chaos of the battlefield in 19th-century wars, but it is applicable to the traumatic situation policymakers find themselves thrown into in A House of Dynamite.

The fundamental problem for all of the officials in the film is that they lack certainty on the origin of the attack. Was the missile launched by Russia, China or North Korea – or could it be Russia manufacturing uncertainty so the US thinks it was North Korea? The question then moves on to whether North Korea even has the military or technical capability to launch such an attack.

With a strike on Chicago looking increasingly certain, officials soon begin to grapple with how the US should respond. The president is shown the “nuclear football”, which allows him to authorise a retaliatory nuclear strike. And his aide takes him through a menu of responses, with each labelled “rare”, “medium” or “well done”.

The president, played by Idris Elba, is shocked by the absurdity of the strategic language and concepts – as much of the audience will be too. The film shows the personal horror that is felt by people having to take decisions that make the scenarios and simulations they trained for real.

Some officials suggest waiting to see what happens before responding. As a security council staff member remarks, there’s always a chance the warhead could malfunction upon impact. Others say the strike might be a test to see how the US responds – and thus a precursor to something far worse. The dilemma facing US leadership, the security council staffer says, is “surrender or suicide”.

The official trailer for A House of Dynamite.

The film’s opening credits imply that a nuclear strike on the US is not a far-fetched scenario, telling us that the era when world leaders wanted a planet with less nuclear weapons “is now over”. But how far are we from this terrifying situation becoming a reality?

One of the most controversial issues in the film is why North Korea, Russia or China would take a course of action that would result in retaliation so severe that it could leave their territories as apocalyptic wastelands. China and Russia, in particular, appear far more comfortable in today’s complex world of overlapping alliances and economic entanglement than many western countries.

The North Korea expert in the film, Ana Park, explains that Pyongyang possibly could afford to risk launching a strike on the US because of its defensive systems. But the belief of a regime that it could survive retaliatory responses from the US and its allies is almost certainly wishful thinking – no matter how sophisticated those defences are.

It’s also not clear whether any leader, regardless of the type of regime, would actually be able to embark on this course of action. Military generals, for example, might intervene. And perhaps most importantly, current assessments suggest that North Korea does not have the capabilities to launch an attack resembling the one portrayed in the film anyway.

Command and control

Another element in the film is the focus on how an attack on the US would involve disrupting the “command and control” structures of the state. US officials raise concerns that its communication and surveillance systems may have been sabotaged by hackers and AI tools, leaving them in a situation where they lack crucial intelligence about the attack and are unable to trust the information they are receiving.

In this sense, A House of Dynamite gives a convincing insight into the mix of tactics that could be used in a complex global crisis in the 21st century. Sabotaging the tools used to make communication faster, and “situational awareness” more detailed and granular, is likely to be a major method for sowing uncertainty and confusion in the years ahead.

In this age of hybrid warfare – which involves methods to disrupt and sabotage an opponent’s activities without engaging in open hostilities – part of the problem is uncertainty about who is doing what. This has been evidenced in the drone disruption and cyber-attacks we have seen across Europe in 2025.

Another issue is unease over what might be possible in future, when the rapid pace of technological change is constantly introducing new forms of sabotage, disruption and destruction.

A House of Dynamite gives an insight into the uncertainty of security and defence in times of hybrid war. But the more immediate strategic dilemma policymakers face in the film – how to respond to a nuclear attack – is probably not an imminent geopolitical reality.

Mark Lacy 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. Netflix’s A House of Dynamite sounds the nuclear alarm, but how worried should we be? – https://theconversation.com/netflixs-a-house-of-dynamite-sounds-the-nuclear-alarm-but-how-worried-should-we-be-268448

October 29, 2025

A Different Class of social commentary: Pulp’s era-defining album turns 30

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

In the summer of 1995, an exceptional heat wave swept the country. The Usual Suspects delighted cinema-goers, and the British press engineered the so-called “battle of Britpop”.

Music fans were urged to choose between the simultaneous single releases from “rough no-nonsense northerners” Oasis and “university-educated, hipster southerners” Blur. Beyond the media circus surrounding these (to my mind) underwhelming songs, however, a third major force in Britpop was emerging in the form of Sheffield’s Pulp.

Formed way back in 1978 by spindly, thrift-store clad frontman Jarvis Cocker, Pulp had hitherto been mouldering on the fringes of the mainstream, releasing under-appreciated records on a succession of indie labels. But that was soon to change, and in dramatic fashion.

If there was a single turning point in Pulp’s history, it came in June 1995, courtesy of Stone Roses guitarist John Squire’s broken collarbone. Stone Roses had been booked to headline Glastonbury that year, but following the injury, Pulp grasped the invitation to replace them. Despite having only ten days to prepare, they went on to pull off one of the most memorable Glastonbury sets of all time.

Pulp were already riding high on the success of recent single Common People, which reached number two in the British charts. The Glastonbury success, along with next single Sorted for E’s and Wizz, also reaching the number two, completed Pulp’s transition from indie underdogs to commercial big-hitters. Nobody was surprised, then, when, in the first week of release, Different Class, their fifth studio album, went straight to the top of the UK album charts.

Pulp playing Common People at Glastonbury 1995.

Providing much needed relief from the boisterous machismo that was emanating from Britpop’s bro-tastic bands like Blur, Supergrass and Oasis, Different Class offered something utterly idiosyncratic and yet eminently accessible.

Above the catchy melodies and danceable rhythms was Cocker’s vocal, which ranged from the conspiratorial whisper of I Spy to the desperate high wail of Bar Italia. And his lyrics blurred the lines between gritty kitchen sink drama and flights of dreamy adolescent fancy.

In her book Revolution Rock (2011), writer Amy Britton observes that sex is probably the most frequently recurring lyrical theme of the album. But Cocker’s depiction of sex was miles away from the romantic gloss that music often gives this subject.

Indeed, in the world of Different Class, romance is swept to the side by infidelity, marital woe, boredom, frustration and seedy desperation. But then Cocker throws us a left turn with Something Changed, an ode to the spontaneity of love and romance so achingly beautiful, poignant and optimistic that many have chosen it as the song they walk down the aisle to at their weddings.

All the tracks have stood the test of time, but Common People still stands out. A masterclass of social commentary set to an infectiously catchy melody, the song tells the story of a female student from a wealthy background who decides to engage in “class tourism”. She uses Cocker as her guide to experience the novelty of living as a “common” person.

As the song’s tempo and intensity increase over the course of the song, Cocker’s vocal delivery also changes. It builds from amused incredulity in the first verse to a crescendo of anger and outrage in the last. By the time he tells his fellow student that she “will never understand / how it feels to live your life / with no meaning or control”, he’s raging against a system which has disempowered him for so long.

Something Changed by Pulp.

It’s a stunning, unforgettable piece of work which, like at Glastonbury 30 years ago, still elicits the most rapturous reaction from the audience.

Perhaps because of its intrinsically British lyrics, Different Class didn’t resonate the same way overseas. Despite going platinum four times in the UK, it barely troubled the charts in the US, Japan and much of Europe. And, if other countries weren’t sure how to take the lyrics, they certainly didn’t know what to make of Cocker, who, in his homeland had become the most unlikely sex symbol since Dudley Moore.

In 2019, Rolling Stone gave one of the clearest examples of the international bemusement at both Different Class and Cocker via their 100 Best Albums of the ‘90s list. Ranking the album at a lowly 85th place, the bizarre review dismisses the music as “fruity chamber rock” and describes Cocker as a “Brit-pop strumpet with a heart of glass” who “minced” and “shook what Mama gave him”.

Whatever the rest of the world may think, to my mind Different Class is one of the greatest artistic statements ever to emerge from these shores, articulated by an eccentric national treasure and wrapped in the ear-pleasing sheen of a band at the very top of their game. A different class it truly is.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Glenn Fosbraey 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. A Different Class of social commentary: Pulp’s era-defining album turns 30 – https://theconversation.com/a-different-class-of-social-commentary-pulps-era-defining-album-turns-30-268059

October 29, 2025

The five most terrifying songs ever recorded

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

As plastic skeletons enter the shops, pumpkin spice flavourings spread through coffee houses like Japanese knot-weed and jumpers are dug out of drawers, music fans’ playlists also begin to shift, with “spooky sounds” replacing “sunshine mixes”. And, just as Christmas means endless repeats of Mistletoe & Wine and Fairytale of New York, the arrival of autumn means Thriller and the Monster Mash.

But while such songs might be described as “spoopy” (internet slang describing cute, comical, or silly versions of typically spooky subject matter), they’re not exactly unsettling. So, this Halloween, if you want to put the “k” back in “spooky”, these are the tracks for you.

Listen if you dare …

1. Rubber Ring by The Smiths (1987)

The majority of Rubber Ring isn’t in the least bit spooky. But towards the outro, a female voice appears under Morrissey’s vocal, repeating the line: “You are sleeping, you do not want to believe.”

Rubber Ring by The Smiths.

The sample was taken from the flexi-disc accompaniment to the book Breakthrough: An Amazing Experiment in Electronic Communication with the Dead (1971) by Latvian psychologist Konstantin Raudive. The book put forward a theory that deceased communicators appear to send messages and images via computers, radios, televisions and other electronic devices.

The voice we hear is a real-time English translation of the alleged ghost voice of Raudive’s mentor Gephardt Frye, speaking in Swedish and German. And it makes me shiver every time I hear it.

2. Come to Daddy by Aphex Twin (1997)

Even if we exclude the infamously terrifying music video, Come to Daddy warrants its place in this list.

With nerve-shredding instrumentation, jump-scare screams and lyrics which alternate between threatening to “eat your soul” and inviting us to “come to Daddy (or Mummy)”, this song is the aural equivalent of watching a horror film between your fingers.

The terrifying video for Come to Daddy by Aphex Twin.

If we do include the video, which involves severely twisted creatures emerging from a TV set to terrorise grannies on a housing estate, it’d be tough to argue against it being the most disturbing of them all.

Proceed with caution: this is nightmare fuel.

3. A Psychopath by Lisa Germano (1994)

Inspired by Lisa Germano’s own experience of being stalked, A Psychopath subjects the listener to a feeling of violation. It captures the sense of someone entering your sacred space without being invited, and without you having the ability to do anything about it.

A Psychopath by Lisa Germano.

Complete with a real 911 call from a Houston rape crisis centre, the song even spooked Germano herself. She was so disturbed by her own creation that she had to leave her apartment and sleep at a friend’s the night it was mixed.

There is a disturbing, delicate beauty to the song’s production and performance. And this juxtaposition with the subject matter of the lyrics creates something truly unsettling.

4. Strange Fruit by Billie Holiday (1939)

Sometimes, the truth is more unsettling than anything we could make up. That’s definitely the case with Strange Fruit.

The song originated after New York high school teacher Abel Meeropol saw a “gruesome photograph taken in the 1930s of two Black men hanged from tree branches by their necks, surrounded by white men in fancy clothes” and felt compelled to react.

Strange Fruit by Billie Holiday.

Initially writing his response as a poem, Meeropol soon decided to rework the words into lyrics, add music and create the song we all know today.

The song was designed to instil horror and disgust in the listener in an attempt to change the complacency toward the abuse of Black people. Holiday’s stunningly emotive vocal brings an anguish to the lyrics that makes it a truly unforgettable, haunting listening experience.

5. Angel of Death by Slayer (1986)

In thrash metal tradition, the vocal for Angel of Death is a largely unintelligible roar. It’s set against a super-fast (and super-impressive) backing of 16th note guitar riffs and double bass drumming. It’s hard not to find yourself, if not headbanging, at least nodding along to the infectious sound of the thing.

Angel of Death by Slayer.

But look up the lyrics and you’ll realise you’ve been enjoying a song with disturbing lyrics. Angel of Death graphically describes the human experiments carried out at Auschwitz under the command of Nazi physician Josef Mengele.

If that creeping unease was the intention of songwriter Jeff Hanneman, then it’s very much job done. But I suspects it was probably just a case of delivering what’s expected in a genre whose fans not only adore but require an abrasive and bloodthirsty mix of music and lyrics.

Have any unnerving songs made a lasting impression on you? Let us know in the comments below.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

– ref. The five most terrifying songs ever recorded – https://theconversation.com/the-five-most-terrifying-songs-ever-recorded-266854

October 29, 2025

From antibiotics to antimalarials: how repurposed drugs might keep cancer from returning

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ahmed Elbediwy, Senior Lecturer in Cancer Biology & Clinical Biochemistry, Kingston University

Many cancer survivors live with the worry that their cancer might come back. This “recurrence” occurs when cancer cells hide somewhere in the body – like in the bone marrow – and start growing again, sometimes years later. Scientists have been trying to understand how to stop these cells from reactivating and causing cancer to spread.

Now, researchers are finding promising results by testing old malaria drugs as a way to prevent breast cancer from returning. This approach is called “drug repurposing”: taking medicines that already exist (even ones no longer on the market) and testing whether they can treat different diseases.

Recent studies have identified two important ways these drugs might work to treat cancer. First, they target a process called autophagy: how cells clean up and recycle their own waste. In tumours, this recycling process can help cancer cells survive when they’re under stress, which means they can come back after treatment.

Second, the drugs affect genes that control cell growth. These genes, including one called mTOR, can help cancer develop from just a few damaged cells.

Together, these processes help hidden cancer cells stay viable and avoid being found by the immune system by adapting to a hostile environment. Scientists found that anti-malarial drugs – chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine – reduced the number of hidden cancer cells in both lab dishes and people.

When mice were given chloroquine, they had fewer of these hidden cancer cells and lived longer than untreated mice. These promising results encouraged scientists to start small human trials with hydroxychloroquine, a safer version of chloroquine.

Hydroxychloroquine is a safer form of the anti-malarial drug chloroquine.
baranq/Shutterstock

The early human results look promising. In a small trial on 53 patients with minimal residual disease after standard breast cancer treatment, 92% of those who took hydroxychloroquine alone remained cancer-free after three years, compared to 93% using the targeted breast cancer therapy everolimus. A combination of both drugs showed 100% of patients remaining cancer-free at three years, with only two relapses occurring by the seven-year mark.

But there are some important limits to this study. It was a small, early trial and only included patients without active cancer. The results need confirmation in much larger, randomised controlled trials – the gold standard for testing drugs in humans – before these treatments can be considered standard care. There are still questions about the right doses, potential long-term side-effects, and which patients would benefit most.

Other drugs being explored

Several other drug classes have also shown promise in cancer research, though most are still in early testing stages.

Anti-inflammatory agents have been investigated based on the theory that they might possess anti-cancer activity, given that inflammation is a hallmark of cancer. Celecoxib, an anti-inflammatory used for arthritis, has shown some promise in blocking certain enzymes involved in tumour cell growth, though it’s still being investigated.

Antibiotics, including doxycycline – commonly used to treat bacterial pneumonia and sexually transmitted infections – have been found in lab studies to slow cancer cell growth by affecting how cancer cells use energy.

Some types of antibiotics are being investigated for use a a cancer treatment.
Sue Thatcher/Shutterstock

Antipsychotics have also shown anti-cancer effects in early research. Thioridazine, when combined with cancer therapy in lab studies, can destroy cancer stem cells – those cells that encourage cancer to return.

Blood pressure drugs have been found to make cancer cells more responsive to chemotherapy in some studies.

And, sildenafil (better known by its brand name Viagra) is being investigated for its potential in helping slow down or prevent the growth of stomach cancer, though the research is in early stages.

Drug repurposing has real advantages. Because these drugs already have prove safety records, they could potentially be used in clinics faster and at lower cost. But the journey from promising lab results to actual treatments is long and uncertain.

Many drugs that show encouraging results in lab or animal studies fail to work when tested in humans. Even when early human trials show promise, larger studies may reveal limitations, unexpected side-effects, or that benefits only apply to specific patient subgroups.

Research continues, with scientists testing repurposed drugs at every stage of cancer care. While drug repurposing is a valuable approach that could open up new treatment options and provide a more sustainable way to develop medicines, it’s crucial to keep expectations realistic.

Every new idea still needs careful testing, and patients should always talk to their doctors before trying any unproven treatments.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. From antibiotics to antimalarials: how repurposed drugs might keep cancer from returning – https://theconversation.com/from-antibiotics-to-antimalarials-how-repurposed-drugs-might-keep-cancer-from-returning-266517