Investigating the aspiration and feasibility of a Turkish shift to nuclear weapons Is Erdogan’s narrative something to fear?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate why Türkiye might be interested in acquiring nuclear weapons and pursuing armament, and understand whether its nuclear aspirations are truly feasible. In line with existing theoretical nuclear armament models, particularly through realist and idealist views, this paper will determine whether nuclear proliferation in Türkiye can be expected. Considering that in recent years the Middle East region has had points of tension in relation to nuclear developments, it is essential to consider the ways in which international norms, Türkiye’s domestic context, and the role of political figures have impacted Ankara’s nuclear energy policy and demands for nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). By providing a detailed critique, and by taking into account the significance of the re-election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the 2023 Presidential elections, this article will provide a nuanced understanding to Türkiye’s foreign and domestic policies, whilst providing a new perspective to armament theories.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".