{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027340513670256836, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3578947368421055, '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}}
Rejoinder to Russett

Bruce Russett has made another significant contribution to the public debate about the ethics of deterrence in his present response to "Bishops and Scholars: the Peace Pastoral Under Siege." His gracious agreement with me on the objective of the pastoral letter (namely, to assist citizens, especially Catholics, in coming to a conscientious decision concerning their cooperation in American nuclear deterrent policy) is welcome. Russett and I disagree, however, on the content of the bishops' counsel to those seeking to take such conscientious decisions. If I understand him aright, he insists that the bishops, after anguishing over the question, have been unable to decide definitively. As he remarks above: "They deliberately left ambiguous the (answer to the) question of whether there are any conceivable morally justifiable conditions under which they (nuclear weapons) may be used." Since I have argued that (beginning with the second draft of the Pastoral and through the definitive version) they have condemned all militarily meaningful use of the arsenal (all war-fighting with nuclear weapons), he charges that I misrepresented the precise position adopted by the bishops.