Survey shows nuclear taboo remains strong among Americans

The use of nuclear weapons is a red line that most Americans never again want to see crossed, according to a new survey from the Human Security Lab at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Eighty-three percent of Americans surveyed—both among the general population and military-trained personnel (active-duty and veterans)—say it should never be legally permissible to launch another nuclear strike against a civilian populated area.

Additionally, more than half of respondents in both the military-trained sample (55%) and general population (56%) prefer far stricter conditions for any nuclear launch than what is currently allowed under U.S. policy. Of those, approximately one-third said they preferred additional oversight authority besides just the president.

The survey of 1,500 Americans asked respondents their opinions on the lawfulness of nuclear strikes, their view of when, if ever, nuclear weapons should be used, and whether the nuclear chain of command should evolve to include clearer limits or safeguards. Many questions also allowed participants to elaborate on their responses.

The data was collected as part of a new interdisciplinary research project by Human Security Lab Director Charli Carpenter, professor of political science at UMass Amherst; Eleonora Mattiacci, associate professor of political science at Amherst College; and a team of undergraduate researchers.

“The Nobel Prize Committee recently expressed deep concern about whether the nuclear taboo is getting stronger or weaker when they honored the role of Japanese nuclear bomb survivors in promoting a world where these weapons would never again be used,” Carpenter says. “We’re working to understand how those laws shape norms and attitudes and if they’re getting stronger or weaker.”

When asked about the most important reasons never to use nuclear weapons, the most frequent responses from the general population and military-trained Americans were environmental catastrophe and indiscriminate effects on civilians. Equal numbers of both groups feared nuclear strikes would cause unnecessary suffering to troops, even if used away from civilians, or would violate international treaties.

The survey found military-trained Americans were more likely than the general population to cite the risk of nuclear retaliation against Americans, and the risk of undermining the nuclear non-use norm. By contrast, the general public was more concerned than the military sample with mass starvation and the effects of fire and radiation.

The Human Security Lab team will be analyzing both the closed- and open-ended answers to construct a more detailed picture of how the U.S. public views nuclear use and legality. Some experiments in the data might allow the team to determine how messaging about international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions or Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, could impact some respondents’ answers.

While much data analysis and visualization remain, Carpenter asserts the initial findings already challenge recent claims that the nuclear taboo is eroding in the face of increased nuclear saber-rattling.

“We still need to analyze the data fully,” she says, “but so far, if anything, this new era of nuclear threats seems to be strengthening the public desire—including among active-duty military and veterans—for stronger nuclear norms and safeguards.”