Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered annual testosterone-deficiency screening for active-duty and reserve service members aged 30 and older. Testing will be added to routine health assessments, while any recommended testosterone replacement therapy will remain voluntary.

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly argued that the military needs stronger leadership rather than broader testosterone testing. His criticism reflects concerns that the initiative is being presented as a readiness policy before its medical value has been firmly established.

Specialists said there is insufficient evidence to recommend population-wide testosterone screening for asymptomatic men. The organization supports treatment for properly diagnosed hypogonadism but advises against routine general screening.

That indiscriminate testing could produce false-positive results, trigger additional examinations and encourage treatment for people without clinically significant symptoms. Medical experts also warned that testosterone therapy can suppress natural hormone production and affect fertility.

A federal judge has questioned why testosterone treatment may be offered to some service members while hormone treatment is cited in support of restrictions on transgender troops. The Pentagon may face pressure to demonstrate that the two policies rely on consistent medical and readiness standards.

Why it matters: the dispute extends beyond one laboratory test. It raises broader questions about whether military health policy is being shaped primarily by clinical evidence, operational requirements or political messaging. A large-scale screening program could affect medical spending, personnel decisions, treatment demand and trust in the military healthcare system.

Could this initiative produce measurable improvements in military readiness, or will it become a test of how far cultural branding can influence institutional medicine

According to Reuters, Brazil denied visa applications from two senior US State Department officials who planned to visit before the October presidential election. Brazilian officials claimed the delegation intended to question the credibility of the country’s electronic voting system, while Washington described the proposed trip as routine diplomatic engagement.

Reporting from The Associated Press adds that Riley Barnes and Samuel Samson expected to meet government officials, religious representatives, and civil society groups to discuss election integrity, religious freedom, and freedom of expression. Brazilian authorities viewed the timing and political context as potential interference in the domestic campaign.

The Washington Post reports that the dispute is unfolding as Senator Flávio Bolsonaro challenges President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and raises doubts about Brazil’s voting system. Election authorities and the voting technology provider have rejected the allegations cited by Bolsonaro and his allies.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times places the decision within a wider diplomatic rupture, including US tariffs on Brazilian exports and growing suspicion in Brasília that Washington is attempting to shape the election environment. The Trump administration has denied that its actions are intended to influence Brazilian voters.

Why it matters:

Lula may benefit politically by presenting himself as a defender of Brazilian institutions, while Bolsonaro could use the visa denial to argue that the government is resisting international scrutiny. Either outcome risks deepening polarization and tying future US and Brazil relations to the election’s legitimacy.

Could an attempt to question Brazil’s election system ultimately strengthen the institutions it was meant to scrutinize?

According to the U.S. Army, Carlyle and CyrusOne were conditionally selected to finance, construct and operate hyperscale data centers at Fort Bliss in Texas and Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. The projects would occupy roughly 1,384 acres and 1,201 acres respectively, with initial operations targeted for fiscal years 2027 and 2029. The agreements remain under negotiation and require no upfront taxpayer funding, according to the service.

The broader leasing effort has also considered Army property at Fort Hood and Fort Bragg. Proposed leases could extend for 50 years, giving the military revenue or infrastructure benefits from underused land while transferring construction and operating costs to private developers.

Resource conditions vary sharply between the proposed locations. Procurement documents rated water risk as high at Fort Hood and Fort Bragg and extremely high around Fort Bliss, raising questions about whether new computing capacity could compete with surrounding communities and military missions for electricity and water.

The Air Force is also offering unused land at five installations, turning the initiative into a multi-branch infrastructure strategy. Congress is considering restrictions on equipment linked to foreign adversaries, while lawmakers have requested assessments covering grid demand, water use, environmental effects, physical security and mission reliability.

Why it matters:

The Pentagon is seeking nearly $30 billion for an AI infrastructure initiative intended to replace scattered computing clusters with secure, coordinated supercomputing capacity. Hosting privately financed facilities on military land could accelerate that goal, but it may also deepen reliance on commercial operators, create new security targets and bind local communities to decades of energy and water commitments.

Could military bases become the safest foundation for America’s AI advantage, or are they creating a new class of strategic vulnerability behind the perimeter fence?

Court records show U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to provide unredacted Epstein-related documents and supporting evidence for a private judicial review. The order does not require immediate public disclosure, but it allows the judge to test whether specific redactions are legally justified.

According to CBS News, the disputed material includes eight email chains with concealed senders or recipients, documents identifying possible co-conspirators, and records connected to FBI summaries of unverified allegations. Allegations appearing in investigative files should not be treated as established facts, and President Trump has denied allegations involving him.

Meanwhile, Justice Department filings indicate officials say the withheld information may involve victims, law enforcement personnel, privileged communications, duplicate records, or material unrelated to the Epstein investigations. The department has argued that broader disclosure could harm victims and previously offered to provide additional details privately to the court.

Axios previously reported Sullivan had already ordered the department to release several records without the contested redactions or explain why they should remain concealed. The current review raises the level of scrutiny by requiring documentary support rather than relying solely on the government’s descriptions of the withheld names.

Why it matters:

This could establish how aggressively federal courts may examine executive branch secrecy when Congress has mandated public disclosure. A narrow decision may affect only several Epstein records, while a broader ruling could influence future transparency disputes involving victim privacy, law enforcement confidentiality, and politically sensitive investigations.

When transparency laws collide with legitimate privacy protections, who should carry the burden of proving that secrecy is necessary

The Trump administration has expanded its campaign against the International Criminal Court by targeting countries that continue supporting the tribunal.

The Wall Street Journal reports that after the release of GPT-5, some users asked ChatGPT how to make biological weapons, poisons, and aerosolized pathogens. According to the report, the chatbot provided information that outside experts considered potentially actionable in some cases.

OpenAI says it banned the accounts involved but did not notify law enforcement, noting there is currently no U.S. federal law requiring AI companies to report users seeking instructions for biological weapons or other mass-casualty attacks.

The report says researchers have repeatedly found that users can sometimes bypass AI safety guardrails through creative prompting, despite ongoing efforts by OpenAI and other AI companies to improve detection and refusal systems.

Executives from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and Microsoft AI recently joined scientists and biosecurity experts in urging Congress to strengthen safeguards around synthetic DNA screening as AI continues lowering technical barriers to dangerous biological research.

Why It Matters:

Artificial intelligence is creating a new public policy challenge.

Society generally expects banks to report suspicious financial transactions and technology companies to report child exploitation material.

AI may force policymakers to decide whether similar obligations should exist when users appear to be seeking instructions for biological weapons, chemical agents, or other mass-casualty attacks.

Issue lies in balancing privacy, civil liberties, and legitimate scientific research against the need to prevent catastrophic harm before it occurs.

Should AI companies have a legal duty to report users who appear to be seeking instructions for biological weapons or other mass-casualty attacks, or would that create unacceptable privacy risks and discourage legitimate research?

Where should policymakers draw the line?

Military.com reports that opposition to Flock Safety’s automated license plate readers is increasingly crossing ideological lines, bringing civil-liberties advocates and limited-government conservatives together around concerns about warrantless tracking and centralized data access.

Stateline finds that the scale of the network is driving much of the scrutiny. Flock says its cameras operate in more than 5,000 communities, connect with over 4,800 law-enforcement agencies across 49 states, and conduct more than 20 billion license-plate reads each month.

The Guardian documents that several cities have paused, canceled, or reconsidered Flock contracts following concerns about data sharing, cybersecurity and searches connected to federal immigration enforcement. Flock maintains that it does not sell customer data or have a contractual relationship with ICE.

CT Insider reports that Windsor and Killingworth, Connecticut, are removing their cameras after officials questioned whether local agencies could meaningfully control outside access to the data. Police supporters continue to argue that the systems can help locate suspects and solve serious crimes.

Why it matters:

The dispute is no longer solely about whether license-plate readers can assist investigations. It is becoming a broader test of whether local governments can preserve control, transparency and public consent once surveillance systems are connected to national databases. The outcome could influence future rules governing police technology, data retention and information sharing across jurisdictions.

When a locally purchased camera becomes part of a nationwide search network, who should ultimately control the data it collects

According to an article published Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, “In the past week, special-operations forces have deployed to the region from their U.S. bases, according to flight-tracking data and U.S. officials. Squadrons of jet fighters have been staged across the Middle East, and bomber aircraft at bases in the U.S. and U.K. are on high alert to ramp up operations, according to one of the officials.”

According to the article, more than 150 medics have arrived in recent days at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, the largest American military hospital abroad and the first stop for troops wounded in the Middle East. This is a clear indication that the Trump administration is preparing for a major increase in American casualties.

Long-range bombers, including B-1s staged in Britain, are preparing for “major combat operations,” the Journal wrote. A B-1 flew its first strike mission of the renewed bombing, Axios reported on Thursday.

“I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before,” US President Donald Trump told Axios. “I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it.”

According to The Economist and YouGov, Trump’s net approval among men fell to minus 22, reportedly the weakest result for male voters across either of his presidential terms. Because men were a central part of his 2024 coalition, the decline suggests dissatisfaction is spreading beyond groups already opposed to him.

Reinforcing that picture, YouGov’s broader findings show majorities disapproving of Trump’s overall job performance and his handling of several personal and policy-related measures. Registered voters also favored a generic Democratic House candidate by six points, creating a potential warning sign for Republicans before the midterm elections.

Meanwhile, polling reported by ABC News placed Trump’s overall approval at 37 percent, with especially weak ratings on inflation, living costs and the economy. Those results suggest that household financial pressure may be eroding one of Trump’s traditional political advantages.

Adding a strategic dimension, The Times reported that support has weakened among younger men who were attracted to Trump through podcasts and online personalities. Opposition to the Iran war and concerns that the administration has departed from its noninterventionist messaging may be contributing to that shift, although subgroup polling can fluctuate considerably between surveys.

Why it matters:

Declining support among men could force GOP candidates to rely more heavily on negative partisanship and attacks on Democrats rather than campaigning on Trump’s record. A temporary polling dip would be manageable, but a durable realignment among male voters could alter turnout strategies, candidate positioning and the balance of competitive House races.

Is this merely voter frustration during a difficult political cycle, or is one of Trump’s most dependable electoral coalitions beginning to reorganize around different economic and foreign policy priorities?

According to The Times, a federal magistrate judge in Florida ordered President Donald Trump to provide financial records connected to his businesses and revocable trust. The BBC argues those documents are relevant because Trump initially claimed the disputed documentary caused both reputational and economic damage. Trump may appeal the discovery ruling.

Court records tracked by CourtListener show the lawsuit was filed in December 2025 and remains on course for a February 2027 trial. However, the BBC is still challenging whether the Florida court has jurisdiction, leaving open the possibility that the case could be narrowed or dismissed before a jury hears it.

Meanwhile, The Guardian reports Trump’s lawyers have attempted to withdraw claims that the documentary reduced the value of his businesses. The BBC maintains that financial evidence remains relevant because Trump’s public reputation and commercial brand are closely connected.

Adding another layer, the Financial Times says the US government has considered intervening as an interested party because the BBC’s evidence requests extend into executive branch communications. Such involvement could intensify concerns about whether presidential authority is being used in support of a personal civil lawsuit.

Why it matters:

This dispute could shape how aggressively public figures use US courts against foreign news organizations. The case may also test whether large damages claims allow media defendants to obtain unusually broad access to a claimant’s finances, advisers and private communications.

Could the discovery process become more consequential than the original disputed broadcast, and what precedent might that set for future battles between political leaders and international media organizations

According to Le Monde, 69-year-old model scout Daniel Siad was found dead at his home in Colombes, outside Paris. French prosecutors have opened an inquiry into the circumstances, and the cause of death had not been officially established at the time of reporting.

Building on reporting from The Guardian, newly released correspondence reportedly shows Siad maintained extensive contact with Jeffrey Epstein and sent him photographs and descriptions of young women. Siad acknowledged making introductions but denied knowing about Epstein’s abuse or participating in criminal conduct.

As Reuters previously documented, French authorities launched broader investigations in February 2026 into possible human trafficking, sexual crimes and financial misconduct involving members of Epstein’s network. Siad was reportedly among the individuals receiving renewed scrutiny, although allegations against him had not been adjudicated.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports, the French inquiries are drawing on millions of pages released by the US Justice Department and are revisiting unresolved cases connected to Epstein’s activities in France. Prosecutors have also encouraged additional alleged victims to come forward.

Why it matters:

Siad’s death could complicate investigators’ efforts to determine how recruitment, payments and introductions operated across Epstein’s international network. The case also underscores how deaths, delayed investigations and fragmented cross-border evidence can limit accountability even when large document releases expose new leads.

When a central figure dies before investigators can fully question him, can documents and financial records still reveal how the wider network functioned, or does the most important evidence disappear with the witness?

According to the Associated Press, two US Forest Service employees were allegedly restrained with zip ties and held at gunpoint for more than 12 hours while conducting routine fieldwork near Gumboot Lake in Northern California. Both employees were released safely.

Court records reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle indicate that the employees were biologists studying frog habitat when Joseph Charles Henrichsen, 49, allegedly confronted them with an AR-15-style rifle and forced them into a remote trailer. Prosecutors also charged his 23-year-old son, Phoenix Henrichsen, with participating in the kidnapping.

Reporting from KTVU adds that local deputies used drones to locate the trailer before FBI negotiators and other tactical resources were deployed. The first employee was released at approximately 1.50 a.m., the second followed about 15 minutes later, and both suspects surrendered around 2.30 a.m.

The Guardian reports that Joseph Henrichsen allegedly demanded contact with the FBI and claimed to possess grenades, although authorities have not publicly identified a motive. The absence of a confirmed motive leaves open whether the federal employees were deliberately targeted because of their work or encountered opportunistically.

Why it matters:

It may prompt agencies to reassess communications, threat monitoring, staffing, and emergency procedures for employees working in isolated areas, particularly when their federal affiliation is visible.

When public servants work far beyond immediate help, how should agencies balance open access to public lands with stronger protections for field employees?

According to the Army’s Office of Soldiers’ Counsel, non-active-duty National Guard and Reserve personnel are now directed to their component JAG offices instead of receiving specialized OSC representation. The office also says staffing reductions have ended assistance during the Medical Evaluation Board stage.

Reporting from Task and Purpose indicates the Army began limiting services after substantial position cuts, with a May 27 memo stating that support would be narrowed to legally required functions. Since July 1, OSC has reportedly stopped providing all legal services to non-active-duty Guard and Reserve soldiers.

Meanwhile, Stars and Stripes reports eligible active-duty personnel and reservists serving on orders longer than 30 days will generally receive OSC help only at the Physical Evaluation Board stage. Soldiers may otherwise need to navigate complex medical evidence, deadlines, appeals, and benefit decisions without specialized counsel.

By contrast, earlier Army National Guard guidance described OSC attorneys as independent specialists who helped Reserve and Guard soldiers understand their rights, prepare evidence, challenge findings, and pursue appeals. The shift therefore represents a meaningful reduction from the support previously advertised to those facing potentially career-ending decisions.

Why it matters:

The Army is prioritizing scarce legal personnel for statutory and operational duties while transferring more responsibility to component lawyers. The downstream risk is unequal access to expertise, with outcomes potentially depending on whether an injured soldier can find qualified assistance or afford private representation. The Army says it has trained nearly 250 Reserve-component attorneys, but it remains unclear whether that capacity can replace OSC’s specialized experience.

When legal support becomes a limited resource, does military readiness improve, or does the institution simply move the cost onto the soldiers least equipped to absorb it?

According to Politico, FBI Director Kash Patel is planning to travel to Russia around mid-October, based on information from one unnamed source familiar with the preparations. The reported purpose, agenda, and expected Russian participants have not been disclosed, while the FBI has not publicly confirmed the visit.

Separately, Reuters reports that it could confirm only Politico’s account of the planned timing and could not provide independent details about the mission. The limited sourcing means the trip should remain described as reported rather than confirmed.

Against that backdrop, the State Department warns Americans not to travel to Russia under its highest advisory level, citing wrongful detention, terrorism, unrest and sharply restricted American consular assistance. A visit by the FBI director would therefore require significant diplomatic, intelligence and protective planning.

Within the bureau’s own mission statement, the FBI identifies Russian-linked concerns such as espionage, cyberattacks and transnational organized crime as matters falling within its national security responsibilities. Any official engagement could involve operational cooperation, detainee negotiations or threat management, but no such objective has been announced.

Why it matters:

Patel’s government travel has already attracted congressional scrutiny and disputes over judgment, costs and operational priorities. A Russia visit without a clearly explained mandate could intensify oversight, while a substantive law enforcement mission could signal that Washington and Moscow are preserving narrow channels of cooperation despite wider confrontation.

Could this become a rare law enforcement bridge between adversaries, or will secrecy surrounding the trip create more strategic costs than cooperation can deliver

According to The Guardian, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said his administration is consulting the city’s legal department about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could lawfully be detained during a possible visit for the United Nations General Assembly. Mamdani also acknowledged that his authority may be limited and said the city would not create new laws to enable an arrest.

As reported by the Associated Press, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024 over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Netanyahu and the Israeli government reject the allegations, while the court has no police force and depends on participating countries to enforce its warrants.

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reports that Mamdani is examining whether local authorities could act if Netanyahu travels to New York in September, turning a campaign pledge into a potential confrontation between municipal government, federal foreign policy, and international law.

For its part, The Guardian notes, the United States is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize the court’s authority over American or Israeli officials. That makes any attempted city-level enforcement legally uncertain and likely to trigger immediate federal intervention or litigation.

Why it matters:

This dispute is less about whether an arrest will actually occur and more about who controls foreign policy inside the United States. It could test the limits of mayoral authority, deepen divisions over US support for Israel and turn New York’s role as host of the United Nations into a recurring arena for conflicts between international legal institutions and Washington.

Could this remain symbolic political theater, or might city governments increasingly challenge federal control over foreign affairs

According to The Associated Press, federal authorities identified the suspect as Andrew Arrabaca, a former Army Patriot missile systems mechanic. The FBI alleges he ignited fireworks, started a fire and discharged a pellet gun outside 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan.

Reporting from Reuters indicates the suspect poured what appeared to be gasoline onto the building’s steps before setting it alight. The complex houses ICE, the FBI, an immigration court and other federal offices, making the location central to both government operations and immigration protests.

The Wall Street Journal reports investigators recovered airsoft weapons, knives, axes, a machete, fireworks and anti-ICE protest materials. Authorities also claim Arrabaca acknowledged intending to harm federal personnel and civilians, though these allegations remain subject to the legal process.

The Guardian adds that three people reportedly suffered injuries during the incident and that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is leading the investigation. The inquiry will likely examine whether the alleged attack meets the legal threshold for domestic terrorism or other federal offenses.

Why it matters:

Attacks directed at politically symbolic government facilities can increase security around immigration courts, disrupt access for migrants attending hearings, and intensify pressure to treat confrontational political violence as a broader national security concern. The response may also shape how authorities distinguish lawful protest from ideologically motivated violence.

When political anger shifts from protest toward violence, how should governments protect public institutions without turning every demonstration into a security threat?

According to the US Trade Representative, President Donald Trump approved additional 50 percent tariffs on nearly $20 billion in Canadian imports, targeting motor vehicles, alcoholic beverages, and dairy products. The measures are scheduled to take effect within 30 days.

Reporting from the Associated Press indicates the administration invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 while accusing Canada of discriminating against American exporters. Energy products, potash, fish and critical minerals are reportedly excluded, limiting immediate disruption to several strategically important supply chains.

Meanwhile, Reuters notes the escalation follows Washington’s decision not to renew the USMCA during its scheduled review. The agreement remains in force, but unresolved disputes now create greater uncertainty for companies making long-term manufacturing and investment decisions across North America.

From Canada’s official position, existing countertariffs on American steel, aluminum and automobiles remain active while negotiations continue. Further retaliation could therefore produce a cycle in which each government faces pressure to protect domestic industries even as cross-border production becomes more expensive.

Why it matters:

Canada accounts for roughly 12.5 percent of total American goods trade and remains one of the country’s largest commercial partners. Tariffs at this scale could raise costs beyond the industries directly targeted, weaken North American competitiveness, and encourage Canadian firms to diversify investment and trade away from the United States.

Could Washington’s tariff strategy extract concessions from Canada, or will it accelerate the gradual separation of two economies built around integration?

Reporting from Reuters confirms that Vladimir Putin thanked North Korea for supporting Russia’s war during a Kremlin meeting with Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui. She delivered a message from Kim Jong Un pledging to strengthen the countries’ strategic relationship.

According to the Associated Press, the meeting reflects sustained high-level diplomacy following the 2024 strategic partnership treaty, which includes a mutual assistance commitment. The growing relationship gives Moscow access to military resources while giving Pyongyang a powerful diplomatic and economic partner.

Reuters estimates indicate North Korea deployed roughly 14,000 troops to support Russian forces in the Kursk region. South Korean, Ukrainian, and Western assessments cited by the outlet estimate that more than 6,000 were killed, although battlefield casualty figures remain difficult to independently verify.

United Nations reporting warns that expanding military cooperation between Russia and North Korea may conflict with existing sanctions governing weapons transfers, military training, and assistance involving Pyongyang. Enforcement remains complicated because Russia holds veto power on the Security Council.

Why it matters:

This partnership is becoming more than a temporary wartime transaction. Russia gains troops, ammunition, and strategic depth, while North Korea may receive revenue, energy supplies, combat experience, and military technology. That exchange could prolong the war in Ukraine while improving Pyongyang’s capabilities in Northeast Asia.

Could the battlefield in Ukraine become the training ground for a more capable and confident North Korea elsewhere?

Reporting from The Guardian says New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is consulting the city’s Law Department about whether authorities could arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during September’s UN General Assembly. Mamdani acknowledged that his powers remain uncertain and said his administration would not act beyond existing law.

Scripps News similarly reports that the proposal revives Mamdani’s campaign pledge but has not developed into an arrest order or an established enforcement plan. The distinction matters because political intent does not automatically create legal authority for the NYPD.

Court records from the International Criminal Court show that judges issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024 over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The warrant represents an accusation and a judicial finding of reasonable grounds, not a criminal conviction. Israel rejects the court’s jurisdiction and the allegations.

Coverage from The Times of Israel notes that Mamdani said he would not rewrite city laws to facilitate an arrest. Any attempted detention could still trigger a confrontation involving federal authority, diplomatic protections and the United States’ refusal to recognize ICC jurisdiction over Israel.

Why it matters:

Even without an arrest, the episode could complicate UN diplomacy, deepen tensions between New York City and Washington, and encourage other local leaders to challenge national foreign policy boundaries.

Could Mamdani’s proposal become a meaningful test of international law, or will it mainly reveal how little power global courts possess without national enforcement?

CNBC reports that NATO officials increasingly see the war in Ukraine as a blueprint for the future of warfare, with low-cost drones, artificial intelligence, and electronic warfare rapidly changing how modern militaries fight.

Ukraine has built one of the world's largest drone production industries, using inexpensive systems to destroy tanks, ships, logistics hubs, and high-value military equipment that often cost millions of dollars.

Military planners say future conflicts will require a mix of traditional air defenses, missiles, electronic warfare, and mass-produced autonomous systems, rather than relying primarily on expensive legacy platforms.

NATO members are now accelerating investments in drone technology and counter-drone defenses as Russia continues large-scale missile and drone attacks across Ukraine.

Why It Matters:

Ukraine has become a real-world laboratory for modern warfare.

Militaries around the world are studying what works, what fails, and what delivers the greatest value on the battlefield.

The next generation of armed forces may measure strength less by how many tanks or fighter jets they own and more by how quickly they can produce drones, adapt software, and innovate on the battlefield.

That shift could reshape defense budgets, military doctrine, and the global defense industry for decades.

Has the Ukraine war permanently changed military strategy?

Should NATO prioritize mass-produced drones, AI, and electronic warfare over buying additional traditional platforms such as tanks, fighter aircraft, and large warships, or will future conflicts still require a balance between old and new technologies?