MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005230091 · doi:10.18254/s207054760008175-9

Current State of the Russian and US Nuclear Weapons Policies

2019· article· en· W3005230091 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRussia and America in the 21st Century · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArms controlOffensiveNuclear weaponMissile defenseTreatyNuclear energy policyMissileNuclear strategyPolitical scienceAdversaryNuclear warfareStrategic Defense InitiativeContext (archaeology)State (computer science)Deterrence theoryLawInternational tradeComputer securityEngineeringOperations researchBusinessNuclear powerHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is devoted to the analysis of interaction of the nuclear policy of Russia and the United States in the context of a crisis in bilateral relations, the collapse of the arms control system and the undermining of global strategic stability. First, the authors examine the current state of US-Russian relations in the sphere of arms control. As a result of the US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the dim prospects of extending the New START, the authors conclude that the arms control and strategic stability system that was being put together over the course of four decades is in a deep crisis. Second, the authors examine the U.S. nuclear policy and Washington’s efforts to build up and modernize its nuclear capabilities. The 2018 Nuclear Policy Review points to the United States moving away from the principle of no first use of nuclear weapons, lowering the threshold for nuclear weapons use and the desire to maintain options to end conflicts at any stage on terms favorable to the U.S. without a significant risk of starting a general nuclear war. In addition, the authors describe plans of the U.S. military to modernize the nuclear triad. When analyzing the 2019 Missile Defense Review, it is noted that the U.S. desire to ensure its absolute invulnerability to any missile threats, “left of launch” measures to provide missile defense before missile are launched by the enemy, and the integration of defensive and offensive capabilities of missile defense systems confirm the fears of Russia and other countries regarding maintaining their capabilities to conduct a nuclear retaliatory strike. Then the Russian nuclear doctrine is analyzed. The authors reject Western accusations that Russia has the concept of “escalate to de-escalate”, describe the conditions for Russia’s first nuclear use and the specifics of the “retaliatory counterstrike” concept, and also cite Russia's main concerns regarding threats from the US nuclear doctrine and nuclear modernization. We are also talking about the development of new nuclear weapons systems, such as hypersonic weapons, unmanned vehicles and cruise missiles. In conclusion, it is said that the U.S. doesn’t intend to try to maintain strategic stability any longer, Washington’s nuclear strategy has features that are dangerous to international security, which he blames Russia and that Russian fears regarding US nuclear policy are all but legitimate.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it