Russia’s use of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile on Thursday is the latest escalation in the Ukraine war.

It also marks a decisive, and potentially dangerous moment in Moscow’s conflict with the West.

The use of what Vladimir Putin said was a ballistic missile with multiple warheads in offensive combat is a clear departure from decades of the Cold War doctrine of deterrence.

Ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, known as “multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles,” or MIRVs, have never been used to strike an enemy, experts say.

“To my knowledge, yes, it’s the first time MIRV has been used in combat,” Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said.

Ballistic missiles have been the underpinning of deterrence, offering what is known as “mutual assured destruction,” or MAD, in the nuclear age.

The thinking is, if even a few missiles survive a nuclear first strike, there will be enough firepower left in the opponent’s arsenal to wipe out several major cities of the aggressor, therefore ensuring neither side is unable to escape the consequences of nuclear actions.

In that vein, ballistic missiles were designed to stand sentinel over a future where nuclear arms would never again be fired in anger.

But analysts, including Kristensen, argue that MIRVed missiles may invite, rather than deter, a first strike.

The highly destructive capacity of MIRVs means that they are both potential first-strike weapons and first-strike targets, Kristensen and colleague Matt Korda at the Federation of American Scientists wrote in a study published in March.

That’s because, it’s easier to destroy multiple warheads before they are launched, than try to shoot them down as they are dropping at hypersonic speed on their targets.

And according to a recent posting from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US-based nonprofit science advocacy organization, this creates a “use them or lose them” type scenario — an incentive to strike first in a time of crisis. “Otherwise, a first strike attack that destroyed a country’s MIRVed missiles would disproportionately damage that country’s ability to retaliate,” said the posting.

Videos of Thursday’s Russian strike showed the multiple warheads falling at different angles on the target, and each warhead would need to be defeated with an anti-missile rocket, a daunting prospect even for the best air defense systems.

And while the warheads dropped on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro on Thursday were not nuclear, their use in conventional combat operations is certain to raise new uncertainty in a world already on edge.

Importantly, Russia alerted the United States to the use of the missile fired Thursday beforehand. But even with that advanced warning, any further launches by Putin’s regime will now inevitably ratchet up fears across Europe, with many asking the question: Has deterrence just died?

The world MIRVs

It is not only Russia and the United States that have MIRV technology. China has it on its intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, and the United Kingdom and France, along with Russia and the US, have long had MIRV technology on their submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

And there are new players in the MIRV game, too. Pakistan reportedly tested a missile with multiple warheads in 2017, and earlier this year India said it had successfully tested a MIRVed ICBM.

Analysts worry about land-based MIRVs more than those on subs. That’s because subs are stealthy and hard to detect. Land-based missiles, especially those in stationary silos, are more easily found and therefore are more tempting targets.

In their March report, Kristensen and Korda wrote about the perils of the expanding MIRV club, calling it “a sign of a larger worrisome trend in worldwide nuclear arsenals” and an “emerging nuclear arms race.”

India proclaimed MIRV success during a test the same month was just one warning sign, they wrote.

“It follows China’s deployment of MIRVs on some of its DF-5 ICBMs, Pakistan’s apparent pursuit of MIRVs for its Ababeel medium-range missile, North Korea may also be pursuing MIRV technology, and the United Kingdom has decided to increase its nuclear stockpile to enable it to deploy more warheads on its submarine-launched missiles,” Kristensen and Korda wrote.

They argue that more MIRV warheads in a range of county’s arsenals “would dramatically reduce crisis stability by incentivizing leaders to launch their nuclear weapons quickly in a crisis.”

“A world in which nearly all nuclear-armed countries deploy significant MIRV capability looks far more dangerous than our current geostrategic environment,” they said.

Iran announced Friday it was activating new advanced centrifuges – which enrich uranium for the country’s nuclear program – after the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog criticized the country for not cooperating with the agency.

Iran will activate “a noticeable number of new and advanced centrifuges of different types,” state news agency IRNA reported, citing a joint statement from Iran’s foreign ministry and its Atomic Energy Organization.

“The steps are being taken to protect the country’s interests and further develop the peaceful nuclear energy,” in line with national needs and within Iran’s rights, the statement said according to IRNA.

Injecting gas into centrifuges is part of the process to enrich uranium, which could ultimately be used to develop a nuclear weapon, though Iran has repeatedly denied it has any ambitions of building a bomb.

The move was in response to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose board passed a resolution Thursday ordering Iran to urgently improve its cooperation with the agency, according to Reuters. The IAEA and Iran have long tussled over various issues, including traces of uranium found at locations that have not been declared nuclear sites.

On Thursday, the IAEA board also asked the agency to compile an assessment of whether Iran had possible undeclared nuclear material, and of its cooperation with the organization.

Iran decried the resolution, claiming in the joint statement that it was politically motivated, IRNA reported. The statement added that Iran would continue its technical and safeguards cooperation with the IAEA as previously agreed.

In a statement Thursday, Iran’s foreign ministry claimed the resolution was made “under pressure and insistence from three European countries and the US,” and warned it could trigger “an appropriate response from Iran.”

Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. But IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi has previously warned that Tehran has enough uranium enriched to near-weapons-grade levels to make “several” nuclear bombs if it chose to do so.

He has acknowledged the UN agency cannot guarantee that none of Iran’s centrifuges may have been peeled away for clandestine enrichment.

Israel Defense Minister Gideon Sa’ar also praised the IAEA’s resolution, writing on X that “Iran’s nuclear race must be stopped.” The resolution “is a significant part of the diplomatic effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Sa’ar wrote.

Under the terms of the nuclear deal struck in 2015, Iran was limited to operating around 5,000 older-model centrifuges, and the nation was allowed to use advance centrifuges for research purposes only.

But Tehran gradually scaled back its commitments to the nuclear deal after then-President Donald Trump withdrew from the pact in 2018 and reimposed economic sanctions on Iran, which crippled its economy. By 2019, Iran was launching new centrifuges in a major break from the deal.

Earlier this year, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Iran’s breakout time – the amount of time needed to produce enough weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon – “is now probably one or two weeks,” the shortest breakout time that US officials have ever referenced.

Cambridge Dictionary has put it out to the universe, naming “manifest” as its word of the year for 2024.

Popularized by celebrities such as singer Dua Lipa, “manifest” refers to the practice of using “methods such as visualization and affirmation to help you imagine achieving something you want, in the belief that doing so will make it more likely to happen,” the British dictionary publisher said in an announcement Wednesday.

Lipa has spoken about how she thinks manifestation has played a part in her success, helping to bring about key moments in her career, such as playing at the Glastonbury Festival this year.

“If you set an intention and you think about it every single day of your life, and for me, Glastonbury for example, when I first started making music I dreamed about the day that I would get asked to headline Glastonbury,” she said in an interview in April.

“And I’ve probably thought about it every single session that I’m in the studio, because when I write a song I think I go ‘oh what’s this going to sound like at Glastonbury?’” Lipa said.

“That in a way is setting that idea, that intention in the back of my mind,” she added. “I think it’s powerful.”

US Olympic gymnast Simone Biles has also mentioned her use of manifestation after her mother started encouraging her to write down her goals.

“You have to write it down, you have to speak it into existence, you have to see it daily and then it usually happens,” she said in an interview in October.

Taken from Latin and French, in English the word “manifest” originally meant “easily noticed or obvious” before it started to be used as a verb meaning “to show something clearly.”

In the early 20th century it started to be used to mean “to make something happen by internalizing it, intentionally or unintentionally,” according to Cambridge Dictionary.

This year marked manifesting’s move into the wider public consciousness, it said.

“In 2024, the word manifest jumped from being mainly used in the self-help community and on social media to being mentioned widely across mainstream media,” it wrote.

“The use of this sense of manifest has gained in popularity with the increasing number of ‘manifesting influencers’ promoting this scientifically unproven practice on social media—so much so that it was added to the Cambridge Dictionary in May of 2023.”

The dictionary said the word has been looked up nearly 130,000 times on its website, becoming one of its most viewed entries.

Wendalyn Nichols, Cambridge Dictionary’s publishing manager, said the word of the year pick is based on “user data, zeitgeist and language.”

“Manifest won this year because it increased notably in lookups, its use widened greatly across all types of media, and it shows how the meanings of a word can change over time,” said Nichols.

Other words on the 2024 shortlist include “brat,” inspired by the title of singer Charli XCX’s 2024 album; “ecotarian,” which references the trend towards environmentally conscious living; and “resilience,” reflecting strength and adaptability.

Earlier this month, Collins Dictionary named “brat” its word of the year, defining it as someone “characterized by a confident, independent, and hedonistic attitude.”

Investigators are trying to crack the mystery of how two undersea internet cables in the Baltic Sea were cut within hours of each other, with European officials saying they believe the disruption was an act of sabotage and US officials suggesting it was likely an accident.

The two cables – the BCS East-West connecting Lithuanian and Sweden and the C-Lion1 linking Finland with Germany – were suddenly disrupted on Sunday and Monday.

European leaders were quick to voice their suspicions. Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said that “nobody believes that these cables were accidentally severed.”

The foreign ministers of Finland and Germany said in a joint statement that they were “deeply concerned” about the incident and raised the possibility that it was part of a “hybrid warfare,” specifically mentioning Russia in their statement.

Their assessment was not plucked out of thin air. Russia has been accused of waging a hybrid war against Europe after a string of suspicious incidents, arson attacks, explosions and other acts of sabotage across multiple European countries were traced back to Moscow.

And the disruption to the cables came just weeks after the US warned that Moscow was likely to target critical undersea infrastructure. This followed months of suspicious movements of Russian vessels in European waters and the significant beefing up of a dedicated Russian secretive marine unit tasked with surveying the seabed.

The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected the “laughable” suggestions that it was involved, saying it was “absurd to keep blaming Russia for anything without any grounds.”

Still, law enforcement agencies in both Sweden and Finland indicated they believe the damage deliberate.

The Swedish Prosecuting Administration said Tuesday it launched a preliminary investigation into a suspected sabotage. Then on Wednesday, the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation announced it was opening a criminal investigation into the suspected crimes of aggravated criminal mischief and aggravated interference with communications.

One vessel in particuar has sparked the interest of authorities and online sleuths.

The Chinese-flagged ship Yi Peng 3 was spotted in the area around the times the two cables were cut. The bulk carrier was sailing from the Russian port of Ust-Luga, where it docked for several days.

On Wednesday, the Danish Armed Forces said they were present in the area near Yi Peng 3, but did not say whether they pursued the vessel.

Asked about the vessel during a press briefing on Wednesday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said he was “not aware of the situation.”

He said China “has always fully fulfilled its flag state obligations and requires Chinese ships to strictly abide by relevant laws and regulations.”

“We also attach great importance to protecting the safety of undersea infrastructure and work with the international community to actively promote the construction and protection of submarine cables and other global information infrastructure,” he said.