{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012629161882893225, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002296211251435132, 'mean_word_length': 5.273381294964029, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Foreign Policy Decision Making Analysis: Crisis as a Variable

One of the dominant themes in analyses of decision making in the foreign policy process is to distinguish between crisis and non-crisis decisions and to suggest that crisis is an independent variable.' A comparative analysis of three decisions affecting nuclear weapons reveals that such a distinction may be useful only after certain categories suggested by James Rosenau2 and Samuel Huntington3 have been employed. Thus, crisis as an independent or controlling variable is seriously questioned. Although authors have used a variety of labels it seems evident that there may be two broadly different processes followed by foreign policy decisions. Huntington has labeled these an executive and a legislative process (not to be confused with the two branches of government) and has described them as follows: