{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020607375271149676, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5928571428571425, '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}}
Nuclear Zero and Ballistic-Missile Defence

A key issue with regard to achieving deep cuts in nuclear arms is the role of defences, in particular ballistic-missile defences. Defences are often viewed as obstructions to deep cuts, because strategic stability may be compromised when offensive nuclear forces are reduced to the point where the defence can absorb an opponent's retaliatory strike, thereby undermining the opponent's deterrent. But ballistic-missile defence in a world without ballistic missiles and, ultimately, without nuclear weapons has benefits. The transition from an offence-dominant strategic balance to one dominated by defences can be managed without significantly disrupting strategic stability. Ballistic-missile defence will, in fact, be essential for stabilising a world without ballistic missiles just as defences in general help stabilise a world where nuclear weapons are eliminated entirely.