Figure 2. Nuclear Powers and the Six Load-Bearing Functions (Comparative Systems Assessment)
Description
This dataset supports Figure 2, Nuclear Powers and the Six Load-Bearing Functions (Comparative Systems Assessment), developed under the Nuclear Systems Externality Doctrine (2026). The figure provides a comparative systems-assessment matrix of publicly recognized nuclear-armed states and evaluates how each state aligns with six load-bearing functions: monetary and reserve-system anchoring, food and agricultural stabilization, energy and industrial continuity, defense-industrial sustainment, alliance and security-guarantee credibility, and technology/data infrastructure centrality. The purpose of the figure is to clarify that nuclear-armed states may differ not only by arsenal size, military doctrine, or regional influence, but also by their embeddedness within global systems. A “load-bearing nuclear state” is defined as a nuclear-armed state whose collapse or catastrophic disruption would impair multiple systems beyond its own territory. The figure distinguishes between full-spectrum load-bearing states, partial or sectoral load-bearing states, and nuclear states whose systemic role remains primarily regional or limited. The comparative framework is not a ranking of national legitimacy, moral worth, sovereignty, or strategic desirability. It does not assign blame, hostile intent, or vulnerability targeting. Rather, it functions as a public-source systems model for evaluating how nuclear powers interact with global finance, food supply chains, energy markets, defense-industrial systems, alliance structures, and digital infrastructure. The dataset is intended for researchers in strategic studies, international security, systems analysis, political economy, defense policy, nuclear deterrence, critical infrastructure, and global risk assessment. It may support further work on systemic interdependence, deterrence stability, externality propagation, resilience planning, and comparative state-function analysis. Figure 2 should be read alongside Figure 1, which defines the six load-bearing functions structurally. Figure 2 extends that model by applying the six-function framework across nuclear-armed states to identify differences in systemic centrality, substitution difficulty, and cross-domain dependency concentration. Its analytical value lies in showing that all nuclear powers are strategically consequential, but not all nuclear powers perform the same global systems role. This dataset relies on public, non-classified, non-operational indicators and is designed for scholarly evaluation, policy analysis, and systems-level comparison. It does not provide technical guidance, operational pathways, or adversarial targeting information.
Files
Steps to reproduce
Reproduction of Figure 2, Nuclear Powers and the Six Load-Bearing Functions (Comparative Systems Assessment), follows a structured systems-analytical protocol designed for independent verification using open-source data. The analytical universe is defined as all publicly recognized nuclear-armed states. Each state is treated as a node in a system-of-systems framework where the unit of analysis is systemic interdependence rather than military capability or intent. Six fixed functional domains are operationalized: (1) monetary and reserve currency influence, (2) food and agricultural production capacity, (3) energy production and export influence, (4) defense-industrial sustainment capability, (5) alliance and security guarantee structures, and (6) technological and data infrastructure centrality. Data are drawn exclusively from public, verifiable sources. Monetary data derive from IMF and central bank reserve reporting. Food data derive from FAO and USDA statistics. Energy data derive from EIA and IEA datasets. Defense-industrial data derive from SIPRI datasets. Alliance structures are mapped using formal treaties and defense agreements. Technology infrastructure is assessed using OECD, World Bank, and global digital systems indicators. All variables are normalized using a bounded comparative scaling method to ensure cross-domain comparability. Normalization prevents scale dominance by any single domain. Only externally consequential effects are included; domestic-only outputs are excluded unless they demonstrably affect international systems. Each state receives a domain score reflecting relative systemic influence within each function. Scores represent structural position in global dependency networks rather than absolute production levels. A domain is considered load-bearing when disruption produces measurable cross-border systemic effects without rapid substitution. A composite index is then constructed by aggregating scores across all six domains. Load-bearing classification is assigned based on multi-domain convergence, not single-domain dominance. To ensure reproducibility, the model applies an independence condition: any analyst using identical datasets, normalization rules, and thresholds must reproduce equivalent results within acceptable variance. This ensures structural derivation rather than author dependence. Finally, results are mapped onto the six-function framework to generate Figure 2, showing comparative systemic embeddedness across monetary, food, energy, defense, alliance, and technology domains.