{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020317460317460317, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008253968253968255, 'mean_word_length': 5.2047244094488185, '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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Politics, History and the Ivory Tower-Policy Gap in the Nuclear Proliferation Debate

By definition, a debate requires at least two opposing views, and there are no shortage of debates in Washington on foreign policy and national security affairs. But in a political system where vehement disagreement is the norm, one issue produces a powerful bipartisan consensus among American foreign policy officials: the spread of nuclear weapons is a grave challenge to US national interests and must be halted, if not reversed. While there have been differences in tone and at times substance, every administration and every Presidential candidate since the Cold War ended has agreed that the United States must have a robust nuclear nonproliferation policy. In a city where scores can be found to debate even the most extreme and polarizing national security positions, it would be hard to find a serving or former US national security official in Washington DC who would champion the idea that nuclear proliferation was anything but deeply dangerous, destabilizing, and inimical to American interests. This is one of the factors that make the widespread popularity and scholarly influence of the Sagan–Waltz ‘franchise’ so fascinating. Kenneth Waltz, the author of Man, the State, and War and Theory of International Politics, is the world’s most important living theorist of international relations. Scott Sagan, a Stanford professor and former director of the prestigious Center for International Security and The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 35, No. 4, 573–600, August 2012