Yes, Russia's Old Strategic Bombers Are All Over the Place Lately Another day, another deterrence patrol. by Peter Suciu

Russia’s aging Tu-95MS strategic bombers have been racking up the miles in recent weeks. Four of the Cold War-era warbirds of the Russian Aerospace Force (Air Force), which are a key element of the air component of Russia’s nuclear triad, performed a planned flight over neutral waters of the Chukchi, Bering and Okhotsk Seas and the northern part of the Pacific Ocean.

The venerable Tu-95MS strategic bombers, seen as the face of the Aerospace Force, have been upgraded to carry the latest X-101 cruise missiles. Those missiles can be retargeted once the bombers are already airborne.

The Tu-95 is a four-engine propeller plane that was developed 60 years ago. As The National Interest has reported, “Soviet planners requested in 1950 a four-engine bomber that could fly five thousand miles to hit targets across the United States while hauling over twelve tons of bombs. The jet engines of the time, however, burned through fuel too quickly. Thus, the design bureau of Andrei Tupolev conceived of an aircraft using four powerful NK-12 turboprop engines with contrarotating propellers.”

Despite the age, the aircraft can still fly great distances and have been making practically regularly flights near American waters.

“Four Tu-95MS strategic missile-carrying bombers of the Russian Aerospace Force’s long-range aviation performed a planned flight in the airspace over the neutral waters of the Chukchi, Bering and Okhotsk Seas, and also the northern part of the Pacific Ocean,” the Russian Defense Ministry told state media on Wednesday.

“The aircraft took off from the airfields in the Chukotka Autonomous Area and the Amur Region,” the ministry added. “The aircraft of Russia’s Aerospace Force perform all flights in strict compliance with the international rules of using the airspace.”

The bombers’ scheduled flight lasted about 11 hours.

The Russian Defense Ministry also reported that at sections of the route the Russian aircraft were escorted by U.S. Air Force F-22 fifth generation fighters.

This was the eighth such incident of Russian bomber formations flying off Alaska’s coast this year, according to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and the second this month.

“For the eighth time this year, Russian military aircraft have penetrated our Canadian or Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zones, and each and every time NORAD forces were ready to meet this challenge,” Air Force Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy, who commands NORAD and U.S. Northern Command said in a statement issued Wednesday. “Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, NORAD constantly monitors the northern approaches to our nations and our operations make it clear that we will conduct homeland defense efforts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”

It was just last week that four Tu-95Ms strategic bombers—possibly the same aircraft—conducted a patrol flight near Alaska. As with this week’s incidence, the Russian bombers were intercepted and escorted by U.S. F-22 fighter jets.

The U.S. and its NATO allies have paid similar visits to Russian waters. Last week the movements of the French guided-missile frigate Aquitaine in the Barents Sea were closely tracked by the Russian Northern Fleet, while last month four U.S. Navy warships from the U.S. 6th Fleet (C6F), along with one Royal Navy vessel, entered the Barents Sea to conduct maritime security operations, assert freedom of navigation and to demonstrate seamless integration among allies. It was the first time U.S. and British warships had operated in the Barents Sea since the Cold War.

China Says It Can Reveal Stealth Jets, But What's The Truth? Chinese scientists say they have solved a fundamental dilemma inherent to radar. by Michael Peck

Here's What You Need To Remember: Wu also said that this development puts China ahead of other nations in developing anti-stealth radar. “As for now, I do not see a meter wave air defense radar from abroad that can match the criteria of the advanced meter wave radar.”

In addition, it also functions as a fire control radar that can guide missiles toward stealthy jets like the F-35.

“Meter wave radar can be deployed on vehicles, on land and warships, creating a dense web that gives hostile stealth aircraft nowhere to hide,” said China’s Global Times.

Chinese scientists say they have solved a fundamental dilemma inherent to radar. High-frequency radars, such as microwave radars, emit a lot of short pulses that are good for guiding weapons to a target. Low-frequency radars, that emit waves that are meters long, are better for searching an area but aren’t precise enough for fire control (here’s a quick primer). That means high- and low-frequency radars tend to be paired for search and fire control.

Stealth aircraft are shaped to avoid detection by high-frequency beams. “Meter wave radars can detect stealth aircraft because modern stealth aircraft are mainly designed to avoid detection by microwave radar, and are less stealthy to meter wave radar,” said Global Times. “However, analysts previously said that because of their low resolution and accuracy, meter wave radars can only send warnings about incoming threats. And even if microwave radars compensate for the shortcomings of the meter wave radars, they are unable to entirely overcome these shortcomings.”

Wu Jianqi, a senior scientist at the state-owned China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, told Chinese media that his team has solved this dilemma. “Wu solved the issue by designing the world's first practical meter wave sparse array synthetic impulse and aperture radar,” according to Global Times. “Wu said that his radar has multiple transmitting and receiving antennas tens of meters high, scattered in a range of tens to hundreds of meters. They can continuously cover the sky as the radar receives echoes from all directions.”

Wei Dongxu, a Chinese military analyst, told Global Times that “this significantly enhances the radar's ability to track an aerial target, pinpointing the stealth aircraft's exact coordinates by synthesizing parameters and data gathered by the radar under the support of advanced algorithms. Since the radar can now see stealth aircraft clearly and track them continuously and accurately, it could become capable of guiding long-range anti-aircraft missiles and landing precision strikes on them."

Wu also said that this development puts China ahead of other nations in developing anti-stealth radar. “As for now, I do not see a meter wave air defense radar from abroad that can match the criteria of the advanced meter wave radar.”

But is this true?

The vulnerability of stealth aircraft to low-frequency beams has not escaped the notice of military researchers around the world.  Russia has also claimed – more than once – to have developed stealth-detecting radar. Naturally, the U.S. is also working on advanced sensors that will do the same.

While the physics of the Chinese claims seem plausible, it is important to remember that the effectiveness of a military sensor depends on a variety of factors. How easily can the Chinese meter-wave radar be spoofed or jammed? How vulnerable are these radar complexes – comprising multiple antennae – to being destroyed by missiles?

In the end, the problem with evaluating anti-stealth is the same as evaluating stealth: we really won’t know how well any of this work until it is used in combat. The F-35 has been used in minor conflicts like Syria, operating against second-string or non-existent air defenses. But stealth – or anti-stealth – will only be proven in a conflict between powers that possess advanced aircraft, radars and anti-aircraft missiles. That means America, Russia and China.

Why John Bolton Is Seeking Regime Change Against Donald Trump In unleashing the Justice Department on Bolton, Donald Trump has done him a huge favor. Bolton’s book is now a best seller. by Curt Mills

WASHINGTON—National security adviser was the position President Donald Trump could never quite fill correctly. Conventional wisdom prior to this week held that his most calamitous selection was Michael Flynn—the former general who served in his post less than a month and later suffered federal prosecution. If not him, it was H.R. McMaster, whom Trump soured on almost immediately and who nearly careened America into war with North Korea. 

But it appears the third time was the unlucky charm. Recent revelations from John R. Bolton—after an apparently still-delayed book launch—could be the torpedo that helps to sink the flailing Trump presidency. Trump’s third national security advisor was apparently told by the president’s second chief of staff, the ex-Marine general John F. Kelly: “You can’t imagine how desperate I am to get out of here. ... This is a bad place to work, as you will find out.” 

Bolton says he found out.

And so—after either resigning, or, in Trump’s telling, being unceremoniously sacked last fall—Bolton is living out his best ninth life. A legal logjam, a global pandemic and rolling national crises delayed the release of Bolton’s book at least a season but now even the Justice Department can’t forestall the inevitable: advance copies are making their way to newsrooms across the USA. Indeed, Trump’s desire to punish Bolton by unleashing the Justice Department has inadvertently aided him. Bolton’s profile has never been higher—and his book is at the top of the Amazon bestseller list. Bolton should be thanking Trump for all the free publicity.

Democrats are fuming that Bolton should have appeared before Congress to testify during the impeachment hearings. House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff thus complained, “Bolton may be an author, but he’s no patriot.” But Bolton’s book may actually pack more of a punch now that Trump has already been so badly weakened. The cold, hard truth is that for the White House, the results are dismaying. As Rudolph Giuliani (the president’s personal attorney) once remarked, if he is a “hand grenade” on the administration’s future—as Bolton once famously said of the New York mayor and his dealings in Ukraine—then Bolton himself is an “atomic bomb.”

 

The problems he presents for Trump are numerous. For one thing, Bolton cannot be presented plausibly as a member of the deep state. He is a hardcore conservative who has been battling in the trenches for the GOP for decades. In 2000 he played a key role in ensuring that Florida ended up in George W. Bush’s column during the disputes over election ballots.

Another problem is the specificity of Bolton’s main charges. According to Bolton, President Trump is “stunningly uninformed,” all but directly sought the help of Chinese leader Xi Jinping in his re-election (before Wednesday, Trump’s China hawkishness was perhaps the most salient rationale for his re-election), did not know the United Kingdom was a nuclear power and was once confused over whether Finland was part of Russia.

Of course, Bolton butters his own bread. He’s trying to take advantage of a national depression for his own (emphatically fringe) foreign policy prerogatives. On Afghanistan, Trump supposedly said: “This was done by a stupid named George W. Bush.” And on America’s protracted deployments, in general, in the Middle East, Africa and Europe, the president is recorded as saying: “I want to get out of everything.” These are surely sentiments closer to the hearts of the voters who elected Trump than the unmitigated hawkishness of Bolton. Anyway, why should Trump have followed Bolton’s nutty advice to go to war with Iran? Whatever his deficiencies, Trump made the right call.

On Venezuela, Bolton was horrified that Trump quickly lost patience with the true faith in Washington: regime change. After recognizing opposition figure Juan Guaido as the country’s president, Bolton says Trump privately complained that the mid-thirties pol was just a “kid” while his opponent—strongman Nicolas Maduro—looked “tough.” Here too Trump’s intuitions are closer to common sense than those of polished Beltway mandarins. Maduro’s now survived six years of oil crashes, hyperinflation and intermittent American efforts to help oust him. Add in the pandemic, and Maduro has proven himself nothing if not pretty “tough” politically. Once again, Trump appears to have had it right. 

Still, the wind may be in Bolton’s sails. The Lincoln Project, a congerie of NeverTrump Republicans, aired a hard-hitting ad on Thursday that alleged Trump “choked like a dog,” in dealing with Xi Jinping. At the same time, Joe Biden—the presumptive Democratic nominee for president—launched a fresh ad blitz in battlegrounds Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and others. In his message, Biden said: “I’ll promise you this: I won’t traffic in fear and division. I won’t fan the flames of hate. … I will do my job and I will take responsibility.”

And Trump? He tweeted that Bolton is “a dope” and “a sick puppy.”

How Quarantine Bubbles Limit Coronavirus Risk – and Fight Loneliness When done carefully, quarantine bubbles can limit the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 while allowing people to have much needed social interactions with their friends and family. by Melissa Hawkins

After three months of lockdowns, many people in the U.S. and around the world are turning to quarantine bubbles, pandemic pods or quaranteams in an effort to balance the risks of the pandemic with the emotional and social needs of life.

I am an epidemiologist and a mother of four, three of whom are teenagers in the throes of their risk-taking years. As the country grapples with how to navigate new risks in the world, my kids and I are doing the same.

When done carefully, the research shows that quarantine bubbles can effectively limit the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 while allowing people to have much needed social interactions with their friends and family.

Reduce risk if you can’t eliminate it

A quaranteam is a small group of people who form their own social circle to quarantine together – and a perfect example of a harm reduction strategy.

Harm reduction is a pragmatic public health concept that explicitly acknowledges that all risk cannot be eliminated, so it encourages the reduction of risk. Harm reduction approaches also take into consideration the intersection of biological, psychological and social factors that influence both health and behavior.

For example, abstinence-only education doesn’t work all that well. Safe-sex education, on the other hand, seeks to limit risk, not eliminate it, and is better at reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection.

Quarantine bubbles are a way to limit the risk of getting or transmitting SARS-CoV-2 while expanding social interaction.

Mental health matters too

Staying indoors, avoiding all contact with friends or family and having food and groceries delivered would be the best way to limit your risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. But the risks of the pandemic extend beyond the harm from infection. Health encompasses mental as well as physical well-being.

The negative mental health impacts of the pandemic are already starting to become evident. A recent survey of U.S. adults found that 13.6% reported symptoms of serious psychological distress, up from 3.9% in 2018. A quarter of people 18 to 29 years old reported serious psychological distress, the highest levels of all ages groups. Many people are experiencing anxiety and depression due to the pandemic or were already living with these challenges. Loneliness certainly doesn’t help.

Loneliness and social isolation increase the risk for depression and anxiety and can also lead to increases in the risk for serious physical diseases like coronary heart disease, stroke and premature death.

Quaranteams, therefore, are not simply a convenient idea because they let people see their friends and family. Isolation poses serious health risks – both physically and mentally – that social bubbles can help alleviate while improving social well-being and quality of life.

Social network theory shows that quaranteams work

Social relationships enhance well-being and mental health but they also act as a vehicle for infection transmission. As people around the world emerge from lockdowns, this is the conundrum: How do we increase social interaction while limiting the risk of spread?

A recent study used social network theory – how information spreads among groups of people – and infectious disease models to see if quaranteams would work in this pandemic.

To do that, the researchers built computer models of social interactions to measure how the virus spread. They built a model of typical behavior, of typical behavior but with only half the number of interactions and of three different social distancing approaches that also had half the number of interactions as normal.

The first social distancing scenario grouped people by characteristics – people would only see people of a similar age, for example. The second scenario grouped people by local communities and limited inter-community interaction. The last scenario limited interactions to small social groups of mixed characteristics from various locations – i.e. quarantine bubbles. These bubbles could have people of all ages and from various neighborhoods, but those people would only interact with each other.

All of the social distancing measures reduced the severity of the pandemic and were also better than simply reducing interactions at random, but the quaranteam approach was the most effective at flattening the curve. Compared to no social distancing, quarantine bubbles would delay the peak of infections by 37%, decrease the height of the peak by 60% and result in 30% fewer infected individuals overall.

Other countries are starting to incorporate quaranteams in their prevention guidelines now that infection rates are low and contact tracing programs are in place. England is the latest country to announce quaranteam guidance with their support bubble policy.

New Zealand implemented a quarantine bubble strategy in early May and it seems to have worked. Additionally, a recent survey of 2,500 adults in England and New Zealand found a high degree of support for the policies and high degree of motivation to comply.

How to build a quarantine bubble

To make an effective quaranteam, here’s what you need to do.

First, everyone must agree to follow the rules and be honest and open about their actions. Individual behavior can put the whole team at risk and the foundation of a quaranteam is trust. Teams should also talk in advance about what to do if someone breaks the rules or is exposed to an infected person. If someone starts to show symptoms, everyone should agree to self-isolate for 14 days.

Second, everyone must decide how much risk is acceptable and establish rules that reflect this decision. For example, some people might feel OK about having a close family member visit but others may not. Our family has agreed that we only visit with friends outside, not inside, and that everyone must wear masks at all times.

Finally, people need to actually follow the rules, comply with physical distancing outside of the quaranteam and be forthcoming if they think they may have been exposed.

Additionally, communication should be ongoing and dynamic. The realities of the pandemic are changing at a rapid pace and what may be OK one day might be too risky for some the next.

The risks of joining a quaranteam

Any increase in social contact is inherently more risky right now. There are two important ideas in particular that a person should consider when thinking about how much risk they’re willing to take.

The first is asymptomatic spread. Current data suggests that at any given time, anywhere between 20% and 45% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic and able to transmit the virus to others. The best way to know if someone is infected or not is to get tested, so some people might consider requiring testing before agreeing to join a quaranteam.

The second thing to consider is that consequences of getting sick are not the same for everyone. If you or someone you live with has another health condition – like asthma, diabetes, a heart condition or a compromised immune system – the assessment of risk and reward from a quaranteam should change. The consequences of a high-risk person developing COVID-19 are much more serious.

One of the greatest difficulties facing both scientists and the public alike is the uncertainty about this virus and what lies ahead. But some things are known. If individuals are informed and sincere in their quaranteam efforts and follow the regular guidance of social distancing, mask wearing and enthusiastic hand-washing, quaranteams can offer a robust and structured middle ground approach to manage risk while experiencing the joy and benefits of friends and family. These are things we could all benefit from these days, and for now, quaranteams may be the best step forward as we emerge from this pandemic together.

Russia Has a New Way to Make Its Air Force Even More Powerful (Not Stealth) But a helmet. by Peter Suciu

The Russian Aerospace Force (Air Force) will soon receive deliveries of an advanced but more importantly domestically-produced helmet-mounted target acquisition and display system for its MiG aircraft beginning next year. This is a major step as the previous versions of the helmets were produced in neighboring Ukraine, a situation that almost seems ironic given the recent history between the two nations.

However, even as relations between the Ukraine and Russia remain tenuous there is no denying that the countries’ shared history has only made things very complicated when it comes to military hardware. The military-industrial complexes have been integrated—a relic of the Soviet Union, as Moscow planners deliberately located key manufacturing in various Soviet republics to increase national unity.

As a result, some advanced equipment crucial to Russia has been produced in Ukraine, but since 2014 when the cooperation between the two countries in the military-technical sphere was suspended, Moscow has been seeking to domestically produce what it was previously importing.

The Electroautomatics Experimental Design Bureau started the process of developing a domestic version of the helmet-mounted target acquisition and display systems for aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Force's tactical aviation back in 2016 to replace Ukrainian versions.

“As for the planes developed by the Mikoyan firm [MiG aircraft], the devices that we demonstrated from the viewpoint of substituting the imported Ukrainian systems with our versions on Sukhoi planes, which was done, precisely the same work is underway for replacing the items on the aircraft developed by the Mikoyan firm,” Electroautomatics First Deputy CEO Anatoly Shukalov told Russian state media on Tuesday.

“In principle, next year [we will begin the deliveries to the troops] and nothing impedes this process,” Shukalov added. “The system itself is autonomous and has undergone trials. Only the mathematical software has to be finalized for interaction with the aircraft’s systems.”

The domestically produced helmet-mounted displays will replace the imported Ukrainian Sura version. The target acquisition and display system is currently used on the Su-27SM3, Su-30SM and Su-35S aircraft.

While reports haven’t stated its costs, it is likely far less than the advanced helmet used in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which cost upwards of $400,000 each! 

The F-35’s advanced helmet-mounted display was developed as a joint venture between Collins Aerospace in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and by Elbit Systems of America in Fort Worth, Texas. It serves as the pilot's primary display system replacing the traditional heads-up display (HUD). Lockheed Martin described the helmet in detail: “The F-35’s Helmet Mounted Display Systems provide pilots with unprecedented situational awareness. All the information pilots need to complete their missions—airspeed, heading, altitude, targeting information and warnings—is projected on the helmet’s visor, rather than on a traditional Heads-up Display.”

A Ukrainian Defence Industry pamphlet offers similar praise of its SURA helmet system: “The SURA helmet-mounted target designation system is intended for quick aiming of guided weapon and viewing systems at visual targets by pilot’s head turn without aircraft course change. The upgraded version of the SURA HMTDS—the SURA-I is intended for aiming and flight information displaying in the pilot’s field-of-view. The new and serial helmet-mounted units are identical by form, weight and dimensions, attaching-mechanical and electrical parameters.” 

The Russian Electroautomatics Experimental Design Bureau hasn’t provided any details on the capabilities of its domestically-produced helmeted-mounted target acquisition and display but it is likely the features would be similar to the SURA HMTDS.  

Is Saudi Arabia Making the President and Congress “Real Enemies”? "Any way you could avoid Congress and neutralize its power was considered some sort of success.” by Matthew Petti

Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration of treating Congress as “the real enemy” as they slammed arms sales to Saudi Arabia in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is under fire for ousting State Department watchdog Steve Linick, who says senior officials tried to “bully” him for investigating a U.S. arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

Pompeo had reportedly pushed President Donald Trump to declare a state of emergency last year in order to sell weapons without approval from Congress.

“The administration made it clear…that Congress was the real enemy,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D–Calif.) said during a hearing on Wednesday. “Any way you could avoid Congress and neutralize its power was considered some sort of success.”

The hearing was called to discuss the merits of U.S. arms sales to Arab monarchies, but Democrats made it clear that they also had a problem with the process.

Rep. Ted Deutch (D–Fla.) opened the hearing by claiming that the Trump administration “undermined congressional oversight” by “forcing through” the arms sales.

Pompeo told Congress in May 2019 that “an emergency exists, which requires the immediate sale of the defense articles and defense services” to several Middle Eastern kingdoms.

Members of Congress had objected to U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

But the emergency declaration, rubber-stamped by Trump, allowed the administration to move forward with an $8.1 billion deal without approval from Congress.

Former Pentagon official Andrew Exum testified on Wednesday that such a move was never “part of the discussion” when he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy in 2015 and 2016.

“When I was serving on two occasions in the Department of Defense during the Obama administration, I think we actually had a pretty good working relationship with the U.S. Congress” on arms sales, he said. “The conversation was very robust. Hard questions were asked, but ultimately we were able to arrive at good outcomes.”

President Barack Obama oversaw over $110 billion worth of U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi-led campaign in Yemen began in 2015. The Obama administration cut off the sale of cluster bombs and precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia over a year later.

Precision-guided munitions were part of the arms deal pushed through by Trump and Pompeo last year.

Republicans defend the weapons sales to Saudi Arabia as a necessity for countering “unprecedented threats from the Iranian regime,” as Rep. Joe Wilson (R–S.C.) said during Wednesday’s hearing.

“This region of the world has always been pivotal in world history, and I believe it’s more important today,” said Wilson, the highest-ranking Republican on the committee. “We have real partners and friends .....

Yes, You Can Support Black Lives Matter And Still Hold Racist Views What if at some deeper level, there is some independent system which is more susceptible to racial bias? by Geoff Beattie

The touch paper has been lit. Black Lives Matter have taken to the streets. The revolution has started – statues have been pulled down and TV programmes have been removed from streaming services. Apologies are also coming in thick and fast – a tearful Keith Lemon actor, a “sincerely sorry” Ant and Dec. Many white people are now joining the cause, stating their views on social media and beyond.

But racism is about action in everyday life, not just words or hashtags at a time of uprising. We can be careful about what we say – language is conscious and controllable. But it is perfectly possible to hold deep-seated racist views, sometimes subconsciously, and simultaneously announce you are definitely not racist.

Some ten years ago, I started looking into the vexed question of the under-representation of people from BAME backgrounds in academic and senior posts in universities. Universities were publically wringing their hands about this issue. It was emotionally charged with accusations of racial prejudice on the one hand, and the idea that racism is all in the past, with people just trying to get advantage by crying prejudice, on the other.

But what if most of us, at a conscious level, are no longer prone to open racial prejudice? What if at some deeper level, there is some independent system which is more susceptible to racial bias? This was the question we explored using the now well-known implicit association test.

The basis for identifying bias in such tests is how quickly people associate white or black faces and names with concepts like “good” or “bad”. Research has shown that white people are quicker at associating white faces or names with the concept “good” than they are for black faces or names.

We tried to improve on the well-known Harvard test, where all the faces are unfriendly, by making all faces nice and smiley. Surely, there would be no implicit racial bias here. Not so. We found a medium to strong implicit pro-white bias in white participants. This was regardless of what attitudes to race they reported that they had.

We also studied the shortlisting process for academic jobs experimentally. We presented participants with the CVs of four job candidates – two white, two BAME – for various positions with identical (but rotated) CVs. We also used a remote eye tracker to see what part of the CV they looked at on a computer screen.

We found that white experimental participants were ten times more likely to shortlist two white candidates for a lectureship post than two BAME candidates with exactly the same CV. We also found that white participants spent more time looking at good information on the CVs of white candidates and bad information on the CVs of BAME candidates.

Combating implicit bias

In other words, our “rational” decisions about the suitability of candidates are based on biased pattern of fixation. This is the reality of prejudice in action, working away below the level of consciousness. The practical implications are clear. We should never use “first thoughts” or “gut instincts” as a basis for shortlisting, and never conduct any shortlisting meetings under strict time pressure. The more time pressure, the more powerful the effects of these implicit processes will be.

A helpful tool may be “implementation intentions” – which are conscious plans to override unconscious instincts. This may be in the form of reminders such as: “If I see the application of a candidate from a BAME background then, if I am white, I should be careful to scrutinise the best sections of the application once again before I make my final decision.” It sounds clunky and unnatural, but it can work, blocking the effects of parts of the brain that want to jump to an immediate conclusion.

Recent task force recommendations have spelt out other ways of combating implicit bias – including committing to a culture shift, introducing bias literacy, encouraging mentoring and empowering individuals to recognise and overcome their own implicit biases.

But the implicit association test itself is not without its critics. A new study argues that we should focus not on the test, but on the actual psychological mechanisms that can lead to implicit bias in actual discriminatory behaviour. For example, with multiple sources of information, there may be biased weighting of certain information over others, such as emphasis on experience versus education in assessing job applications, where this weighting may vary depending on the race of the candidate. We must also tackle biased interpretation – such as the perception of an object as a weapon when in the hands of a member of a particular racial group.

My colleagues and I have also argued that the implicit association test is not even genuinely implicit, because it hinges on explicit categorisation by race. Participants have to explicitly assign the facial images they see into the categories “black” or “white”, “bad or good” etc.

For this reason, we have just developed a new race implicit association test probing multiple attributes at once. Participants are asked to categorise images of black and white male and female individuals on the basis of either race (as before) or gender (also associating it with good or bad). This means that we can look at people’s racial biases when they believe they are sorting faces by gender. Again, reaction times are used to measure the associative connections.

We have found that there is still a race bias even in these tests, but the effect is reduced in size. This new test may have important diagnostic potential for the future.

We need a revolution in action – not just in rhetoric. New critical thinking about implicit processes could be powerful tools for identifying the hidden barriers to equality of opportunity. Maybe even the quiet harbinger of the real revolution is still to come.