{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01327433628318584, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035398230088495575, 'mean_word_length': 5.389830508474576, '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}}
Space and Strategy: A Conceptual versus Policy Analysis

Despite increasing demand in the United States for the adoption of an overarching strategy for space, such calls often underestimate the difficulties of crafting an effective strategy. The conceptual demands of true strategy and the practical need for a political consensus to implement such ideas are often ill-suited to one another within a policy context. The case of nuclear strategy during the Cold War highlights the often unintended problems that can arise between theory and practice. In space, these challenges today are compounded by the growing number of space actors and the increasing risks posed by orbital debris, which make useful strategizing at the national level alone difficult. While the Obama Administration's 2010 space policy moves closer to identifying some of the causal relationships in space critical to the formulation of an effective strategy, the best advice for policymakers may simply be to “think more strategically” about space, including developing new means of dealing with emerging conditions of international interdependence in orbit.