La dissuasion nucléaire et les rapports sino-japonais - l'interaction entre une puissance nucléaire et une puissance non nucléaire en Asie de l'Est (Note)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the end of 1950s, the Japanese nuclear policy has consisted in keeping the legal option open for the development of the "defensive" nuclear weapons and maintaining a nuclear potential. The motivation of this" open nuclear option" of Japan would be mainly the development of the nuclear force of China. The us retreat of all the ground-launched and submarine-launched tactical nuclear weapons in 1991 implied the end of the age of dependence on tactical nuclear weapons for "war-fighting" in Asia. The conventional deterrence would already be sufficient for maintaining the stability of the East Asia. The mission of the extended nuclear deterrence of the United States could be reduced to Us vital role for countering only the nuclear attack of other country, not for any conventional attack. The controversies about the "antimissile defense" have influenced the security relationship between China and Japan. The important strategic significance of the antimissile defense for Beijing would be that a strategy of the first strike against China would be easier to consider. A theater missile defense in Japan would be less challenging for China and would be useful against the threat of missiles from North Korea. Nonetheless, a strategic missile defense could have a destabilizing impact on Sino-Japanese security relations. The Japanese nuclear policy would be a hind of "recessive deterrence" which operates by the potential and the possibility of developing nuclear weapons. The nuclear crisis in Korea provides a chance to observe the working dynamic of this deterrence. Owing to the worry about the nuclear proliferation of Japan, Tokyo finds it appropriate to ask Beijing to prevent the nuclear development of the North Korea and to maintain the credibility of the extended deterrence of the United States.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".