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 OpenAlexaff
Valentin Kuznetsov

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussia and America in the 21st CenturySame topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207