Arctic Militarization: How the United States Developed the Arctic at the Cold War’s Beginning, 1945-1965
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Cold War’s start, the United States conducted a robust Arctic militarization policy for North American defense against the Soviet Union. U.S. officials feared an Arctic invasion or an over-the-North-Pole attack. The Arctic policies created Alaskan statehood, the distant early warning (DEW) line radar stations, Greenland military installations, failed Arctic diplomacy, the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958 (IGY), and Arctic military activities. In 1945, the United States started its Arctic militarization programs as its international relationship with the Soviet Union deteriorated. First, Alaska transitioned from a U.S. territory to a state, which federal money entered Alaska for national defense. Second, the United States wanted a detection system to monitor the Arctic skies for Soviet airplanes flying towards Canadian or U.S. cities for an attack and needed an agreement with the United States and Canada for the construction and operation of the DEW line. Third, the U.S. Armed Forces required military installations in Greenland to counter the Soviet Armed Forces, which a Danish agreement settled the construction and operation of the bases. Fourth, the United States negotiated proposals with the Soviet Union to lower international tensions. With diplomatic failures, the United States kept with its Arctic militarization programs. Fifth, the United States wanted an understanding about the globe and committed to the IGY for Arctic knowledge. Sixth, the U.S. Armed Forces started different Arctic military exercises to deter a possible Soviet Arctic invasion. The U.S. Cold War Arctic policy stopped Soviet aggression against North America.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".