U.S. and Russian Publics Strongly Support Steps to Reduce and Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

The University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies (CISSM) and its Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) recently released a new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of American and Russian attitudes toward recent cooperative nuclear risk reduction proposals.

The key findings of the study are:

1. De-alerting Nuclear Weapons

Large majorities of Americans and Russians favor reducing the number of nuclear weapons on high alert. Robust majorities on both sides would even favor a mutual agreement to take all of their weapons off high alert, if the two countries established a verification system. Few Russians or Americans think their country should have a policy of launching nuclear weapons on warning of a potential attack.

2. Deep Cuts in Nuclear Arsenals

Very large majorities endorse the U.S.-Russian SORT agreement to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons in each arsenal to about 2,000 weapons by the end of 2012. Most think such cuts should be made even sooner. Majorities in both countries also favor cutting the arsenals below the 2,000 levels. Americans and Russians would favor lowering U.S. and Russian arsenals to the level of 400 nuclear weapons if all other nuclear powers also promised not to increase the number of weapons in their arsenals.

Both Russians and Americans believe nuclear weapons are of very limited military utility: A majority of both Americans and Russians say that nuclear weapons should be used only in response to a nuclear attack and a large majority of Americans say that the United States should have a policy of never using nuclear weapons first. When Americans are asked how many nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence, the median response is just 500. When asked how many nuclear weapons do you think the U.S. has, the median response is 1000 – much lower than the actual size of the U.S. arsenal (approximately 10,000 total warheads).

3. Eliminating Short-Range Weapons

A large majority of Americans believe the U.S. should agree to eliminate its short-range weapons based in Europe if Russia agrees to eliminate its short-range nuclear weapons based in western Russia. (Russians were not asked this question.)

4. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

Overwhelming majorities of Americans as well as Russians think their country should participate in the treaty banning all nuclear weapons testing. Indeed, a clear majority of Americans assume that the United States already does.

5. Controlling Nuclear Weapons-grade Material

Very large majorities of Russians and Americans say that their countries should put a top priority on cooperating with each other to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. Majorities, especially in the United States, favor an agreement among all nuclear powers to share information about the number of nuclear weapons and the amount of weapons-grade nuclear material they have. Americans, however, lean against highly intrusive bilateral monitoring systems, while Russians lean in favor of them. Americans also lean slightly against providing money and technical assistance to aid Russia in securing its nuclear weapons and materials, while Russians are lukewarm about the idea.

6. Getting Control of the Production of Nuclear Fuel

Americans support various proposals for gaining greater international control over the production of nuclear fuel. A majority favors the idea of discouraging countries from building their own facilities through an agreement that would provide them with fuel in return for a promise not to produce it themselves. A modest majority also favors having a UN affiliate control all facilities that process nuclear material, while guaranteeing countries a supply of fuel for nuclear power plants. (Russians were not asked these questions). Both Russians and Americans who are aware of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) tend to view it positively.

7. Ban on Producing Fissile Material

A majority of Americans and Russians favor having a ban on any further production of fissile material suitable for nuclear weapons.

8. Intrusive and Multilateral Verification

Americans and Russians believe that achieving deep cuts in nuclear arsenals would require verification by an international body. A majority of Americans believe that international inspectors charged with verifying compliance with arms control agreements have too many limits on what they can do. Russians lean toward this belief but are largely unsure.

As explained above, majorities, especially in the United States, favor an agreement among all nuclear powers to share information about the number of nuclear weapons and the amount of weapons-grade nuclear material they each have. Both publics prefer this to a bilateral information exchange and monitoring arrangement.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that when the U.S. and Russia agree to a nuclear arms reduction it should be done through a legally binding and verifiable agreement rather than a general understanding that both sides decide how to implement.

9. Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Large majorities of Russians and Americans favor an agreement among all countries to eliminate all nuclear weapons, assuming that there is a well-established system for verifying compliance. Most approve of this objective, even though they are unaware that their country has already agreed to pursue it under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Indeed, large majorities on both sides feel that the nuclear powers have not been doing a good job of fulfilling this obligation and very large majorities would like their country to do more. Support for eliminating nuclear weapons softens, however, without an international system for verification and an orderly sequence of reductions. Also, trend line data suggest that support for elimination may have declined in light of the current suspicions about Iran’s nuclear program.

Six-Nation Survey on Nuclear Weapons Yields Mixed Results

The Simons Foundation and Angus Reid Strategies recently released a six-nation survey on citizens' views toward nuclear weapons. The good news is that over 70% of the publics in Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, and the U.S. think that nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place. The bad news is that, in spite of this, opinion in these countries differs significantly as to who should possess nuclear weapons, who should develop them, and when they should be used.

Conducted late this summer amidst concerns over nuclear weapon development in Iran and North Korea, issues surrounding the U.S.-India nuclear deal, and the consideration of new nuclear weapons in the U.S., the poll yields some interesting results. Overall, opposition to nuclear weapons was strongest in Germany and Italy and weakest in Israel, with Britain, France, and the U.S. generally falling somewhere in between.

On Their Country's Non-Proliferation Goals
When answering the question, "What should be the goal of your country's national government when it comes to nuclear weapons?" respondents in all countries agree on the whole that the world needs to have less nuclear weapons. However, they disagree strongly as to the degree of change needed. A plurality of respondents in Britain (50.9%), Italy (68.5%), Germany (80.7%), and the U.S. (48.7%) voted for "eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide," while a relative majority in France (44.6%) and Israel (45.8%) voted only to reduce stockpiles.

While stockpiles perhaps should be reduced worldwide, respondents don't necessarily want this to happen in their own countries. Almost forty percent of respondents in Britain, France, and the US selected, "Nuclear weapons place [my country] in a unique position, so it is not in our interest to participate in treaties that would reduce or eliminate our nuclear arsenal." Over 70% of Israeli respondents argue the same.

On the Justified Use of Nuclear Weapons
A greater number of respondents maintain that the use of either their country or NATO (in the cases of Italy and Germany) would be justified in their use of nuclear weapons than the first question (on the goals to reduce or eliminate nukes) might lead you to believe. Less than half of respondents in Britain, France, Israel, and the U.S., believe that "it would never be justified." 45.5% of respondents in Britain, 52.1% in France, 45.1% in the U.S., and a whopping 71.6% in Israel believe that the use of nuclear weapons by their country would be justified either in the context of an actual war or as a deterrent against a possible attack. Germans (76.9%) and Italians (76.9%) responded overwhelmingly that the use of nuclear weapons would never be justified.

On the Survey Itself
While it does provide more comprehensive results per country, one weakness of the Simon Foundation's poll is the limited scope of its "global" nature. For data from additional countries, see Nukes of Hazard's previous post on the Pew Research Center's data collected earlier this year. Even within its limited scope, however, this new poll succeeds in surveying a variety of countries—from those that possess nuclear weapons (Britain, France, and the U.S), to one that under a policy of "strategic ambiguity" has refused to discuss its program (Israel), to participants of NATO's nuclear sharing concept who do not produce their own weapons (Germany and Italy).

And on one final note, on all but two questions, the United States placed embarrassingly high on the percentage of people who were "unsure" of nuclear policies when compared to the other countries surveyed. Regarding a question on individuals' views toward the NPT and nuclear sharing, the survey's analysis finds Americans "particularly unaware." In a world where the United States possesses the influence and potential leadership capacity that it does, this seems especially frightening. If you're reading this, you're likely not in that group--let's work on making these issues a topic of discussion.

World Worries About Nuclear Weapons

While a recent 47-nation survey conducted by the Pew Research Center is garnering a lot of attention for highlighting growing environmental concerns and international opposition to maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq, less attention is being focused on the results demonstrating global concern over nuclear nonproliferation. The poll asked respondents to rank five choices, including the spread of nuclear weapons, as being the greatest (or second greatest) danger in the world today. In a separate series of questions they also asked respondents if they were concerned over Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Here is what they found. (Click on the images for a full view.)

Spread of Nuclear Weapons

While losing ground to surging environmental concerns, fear over the spread of nuclear weapons remains high around the world. People in Japan are most concerned over the spread of nuclear weapons, while nuclear proliferation is a growing concern in the Middle East, with Israel, Lebanon, and Turkey all in the top four. In nearly every Middle Eastern country surveyed, the spread of nuclear weapons or religious and ethnic hatred are either the first or second most frequently mentioned threat facing the world. The proportion who name nuclear proliferation as a top global danger has increased in Jordan (by 21 percentage points), Turkey (11 points), and Lebanon (8 points) in the past five years.

Countries most worried about nuclear proliferation are more likely to turn to the United States and, to a lesser degree, the United Nations, to deal with the issue. The Japanese worry the most about the spread of nuclear weapons, and nearly half of the Japanese who view this as a major threat say the U.S. should take responsibility for dealing with the problem, while significantly less say the U.N. This is characteristic of responses by concerned publics in many other nations, though the Lebanese and Jordanians who worry about nuclear proliferation say the U.N., and not the U.S., should take responsibility for dealing with the problem.

Iran Acquiring Nuclear Weapons

There also is broad opposition to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Citizens all around the world voice substantial concern about the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Majorities in 32 of the 37 countries that were asked about Iran’s nuclear program oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Opposition is very strong in North America, Latin America, and Europe, as well as in Japan, South Korea, and Israel, and there is also considerable resistance to Iran’s weapons program in some predominantly Muslim countries in Asia and the Middle East. In fact, Palestinians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis are the only publics that favor Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Nearly six-in-ten in the Palestinian territories and Pakistan and more than half in Bangladesh say they would favor Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Publics across the world, including those in Iran’s backyard, are concerned that a nuclear-armed Iran would represent a threat to their countries. While Israelis are among the most worried, majorities or pluralities in all North American, Latin American, and European countries also see Iran’s nuclear weapons program as a potential threat. Among the publics of predominantly Muslim countries in Asia and the Middle East, the Kuwaitis, the Lebanese, and the Turks are the most concerned about Iran’s nuclear program. Only in Pakistan and the Palestinian territories do majorities say Iran’s nuclear weapons would not be much of threat.