The Ukraine War and nuclear sharing in NATO
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Russian nuclear sabre-rattling following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine has reinvigorated debates over NATO deterrence. One of its key components—nuclear sharing—has been in place since September 1954, but support for it within the alliance has varied over time. Indeed, although Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey host American gravity bombs on their territory, there were fears during the 2010s that some of them would follow Canada, Greece and the United Kingdom's example and withdraw from the scheme. By examining why and how NATO's nuclear-sharing arrangements have changed since inception, we argue that they consistently serve deterrence, signalling, alliance cohesion and burden-sharing goals, which make them hard to dismantle. However, we also demonstrate, through our survey of post-Cold War policies, official statements and public debates, that there is more room in a low threat environment for political contestation within host states. Accordingly, nuclear sharing requires a high threat environment to escape domestic opposition, which effectively returned in 2022, cementing the nuclear status quo.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it