Du haut de l'Olympe : perspectives américaines sur l'arme nucléaire allemande
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few issues have created more tensions and uneasiness in international affairs than the idea of a nuclear armed Germany. The militarist and expansionist tradition of Germany has induced in its neighbors an underlying fear of a possible revival of her past hehavior. The apparition of nuclear weapons in the international System after 1945, and the subsequent accession of Great Britain and France to the status of nuclear powers, has added a further dimension to the German problem. During the Cold War, the issue of German nuclear weapons was rarely discussed favorably, particularly in Europe. The case was different in the United States where Germany's role in the nuclear strategy of NATO was approached with a detachment seldom found in British or Trench political literature. The demise of the East-West confrontation and the unification of Germany have encouraged many American scholars, often associated with the neorealist school, to push for the end of Germany's singularisation in the nuclear field. For them, a nuclear armed Germany, if not inevitable, could well become a source of military stability in the region. Although most of them base their arguments on the merits of selective nuclear proliferation, they adopt similarly an olympian perspective towards Germany which is markedly different from what is found in European literature. Their position of course does not reflect Washington's official view on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This paper tries to circumscribe their line of thought and argues that it closely parallels, to a certain degree, the broader American attitude towards Germany seen as an equal and reliable ally in the evolving European security context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".