SALON

Tuesday, Mar 19, 2013 6:50 PM UTC

America has stopped worrying, loves the bomb

A new study reveals that more Americans support the use of nuclear warfare than originally thought

By

Topics: Pacific Standard, Nuclear Warfare, Dr. Strangelove, Russia, Syria, China, Chinatown, Nagasaki,

America has stopped worrying, loves the bombScene still from "Dr. Strangelove"
This piece originally appeared on Pacific Standard.

Pacific Standard Nuclear war is unthinkable. At least, that’s what we like to tell ourselves. Given the mass death and devastation from an atomic strike, surely only a desperate despot would even consider such a strike.

Slim Pickens joyfully rides a nuclear bomb onto a Russian target in the classic satire, “Dr. Strangelove.”

Well, think again. A new study finds that, among the American public, the taboo against the use of nukes is far weaker than you might imagine.

“When people are faced with scenarios they consider high-stakes, they end up supporting—or even preferring—actions that initially seem hard to imagine,” said Daryl Press, an associate professor at the Dartmouth College Department of Government.

Give the right set of circumstances, those actions include a nuclear strike—even one that results in huge loss of life. That’s the central finding of a paper that Press co-authored with Scott Sagan and Benjamin Valentino, published in the American Political Science Review.

“We initially set up the study assuming there would be a strong aversion to using nuclear weapons,” he said in an interview. “The design was created to determine how strong an incentive to use (nukes) do we have to create before people reluctantly sign on. How much of a military advantage would the nuclear option have to give above the conventional option before people would say, ‘We have to do this’?

“We found you barely have to put a finger on the scale.”

Press and his colleagues conducted a set of experiments with the help of Internet polling firm YouGov/Polimetrix. For the study, YouGov created five sample groups, of about 150 people each, to represent the American public.

In one experiment, participants read a fake news story about an Islamic terrorist group which had gotten its hands on a small number of stolen Russian nuclear weapons. They were asked whether they would support an American attack to wipe out their base (which was in Syria), and if so, whether they would approve the use of nuclear weapons in that effort.

One group was told that both the nuclear and conventional attacks would have a 90 percent chance of accomplishing their mission. Another was told the nuclear attack had a 90 percent chance of success, while a conventional attack had a 70 percent chance. The third was informed that the nuclear attack had a much better chance of success: 90 percent, compared to 45 percent for the attempt using conventional weapons.

“What we found is that, if we told the respondents that a conventional and a nuclear strike would be equally effective—you’d have the same chance of destroying the target—people preferred the conventional option by roughly 4 to 1,” Press reported.

“But if we provided even a slight advantage to the nuclear option, the numbers flipped. At least half of the American public would support the use of nuclear weapons.”

Specifically, in the second scenario (where nukes provided a relatively slight advantage), 51.4 percent said they were in favor of using them. For the third scenario, where they provided a big advantage, that number went up to 68.6 percent.

The researchers also asked if participants would support a nuclear attack if they only learned about it after it happened (which is, after all, the most likely scenario). Nearly 48 percent said they would even in the first scenario, in which nuclear weapons’ success was comparable to conventional weapons. That number increased to 55.7 and 77.2 percent respectively in the second and third scenarios.

In another experiment, participants were presented with the same scenario. They were told the nuclear attacks was twice as likely to destroy the terrorist lab as an attack using conventional weapons, but that 25,000 Syrian civilians likely would die, compared to 100 dead in the conventional attack.

Thirty-nine percent still preferred the nuclear option, in spite of the enormous loss of life. (Remember, the Syrians are innocent bystanders here.) What’s more, 52 percent said they would approve of the assault when learning of it after the fact.

“That surprised me,” Press said. “I thought the resistance to using nuclear weapons would be much stronger. But in retrospect, perhaps I shouldn’t have been so surprised.”

While this study measures public sentiment rather than that of actual policymakers, he noted, history suggests that “acts that political leaders find inconceivable during peacetime become quite conceivable—and even attractive—in times of crisis.”

“In the years leading up to World War II, the U.S. opposed the practice of bombing civilians,” he noted. “The Roosevelt administration issued some moving speeches about the horrors of the German bombing of London and the Japanese bombing of China. It made the case that those acts were some of the clearest demonstrations that the Axis powers were on the side of evil.

“Then Pearl Harbor happened. In the blink of an eye, the U.S. went from a strong opponent of counter-civilian bombing to the greatest practitioner that ever existed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the final period on the sentence. The U.S. literally burned down 64 of the 66 biggest cities in Japan, using incendiary weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 65 and 66.

“We think of ourselves as being different people, ethically, than our grandparents and great-grandparents who supported the destruction of Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo during World War II,” Press added. “But the data suggests that, when push comes to shove and the stakes are high, we—like those who came before us—are willing to countenance and support even devastating military actions.”

Consider how U.S. attitudes toward torture changed after the 9/11 attacks. “If you and I had said in the year 2000, ‘Aren’t there circumstances in which America might want to torture its enemies?’, we would have been shouted down,” he said. “But in the weeks and months after 9/11, when people were afraid, it became a valid and acceptable view to hold.”

Press argues that if the public is of two minds regarding nuclear arms, it may reflect of the confused rhetoric of the policy elite. He notes there is a disconnect between how our political leaders talk about such weapons, and the assurances that we continue to give our allies around the world.

“Our two messages about nuclear weapons are: (1) These are terrible weapons, relics of another era, and we’re doing everything we can to get rid of them. (2) Don’t worry, South Korea: We have your back. If anyone threatens you with nuclear weapons, you can rely upon the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

“There’s a fundamental contradiction between those two positions,” Press said—something the South Koreans have already noted. Some in that nation are arguing it should develop its own nuclear weapons, just in case the Americans prove unreliable.

Choosing whether or not to use nuclear weapons, on the Korean Peninsula or anywhere else, would weigh heavily on any president. But this research suggests that, when faced with such a horrible decision, he (or she) needn’t feel constrained by moral queasiness on the part of the public.

If Americans believe they face a real and imminent threat, a nuclear strike by our forces is very much on the table.

More Tom Jacobs.

Next Article

Related Stories

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

The week in 10 pics

close X
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 11
  • This photo. President Barack Obama has a laugh during the unveiling of the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Tx., Thursday. Former first lady Barbara Bush, who candidly admitted this week we've had enough Bushes in the White House, is unamused.
    Reuters/Jason Reed

  • Rescue workers converge Wednesday in Savar, Bangladesh, where the collapse of a garment building killed more than 300. Factory owners had ignored police orders to vacate the work site the day before.
    AP/A.M. Ahad

  • Police gather Wednesday at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to honor campus officer Sean Collier, who was allegedly killed in a shootout with the Boston Marathon bombing suspects last week.
    AP/Elise Amendola

  • Police tape closes the site of a car bomb that targeted the French embassy in Libya Tuesday. The explosion wounded two French guards and caused extensive damage to Tripoli's upscale al-Andalus neighborhood.
    AP/Abdul Majeed Forjani

  • Protestors rage outside the residence of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Sunday following the rape of a 5-year-old girl in New Delhi. The girl was allegedly kidnapped and tortured before being abandoned in a locked room for two days.
    AP/Manish Swarup

  • Clarksville, Mo., residents sit in a life boat Monday after a Mississippi River flooding, the 13th worst on record.
    AP/Jeff Roberson

  • Workers pause Wednesday for a memorial service at the site of the West, Tx., fertilizer plant explosion, which killed 14 people and left a crater more than 90 feet wide.
    AP/The San Antonio Express-News, Tom Reel

  • Aerial footage of the devastation following a 7.0 magnitude earthquake in China's Sichuan province last Saturday. At least 180 people were killed and as many as 11,000 injured in the quake.
    AP/Liu Yinghua

  • On Wednesday, Hazmat-suited federal authorities search a martial arts studio in Tupelo, Miss., once operated by Everett Dutschke, the newest lead in the increasingly twisty ricin case. Last week, President Barack Obama, Sen. Roger Wicker, R.-Miss., and a Mississippi judge were each sent letters laced with the deadly poison.
    AP/Rogelio V. Solis

  • The lighting of Freedom Hall at the George W. Bush Presidential Center Thursday is celebrated with (what else but) red, white and blue fireworks.
    AP/David J. Phillip

  • Recent Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 11

Related Videos

Comments

 6 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>

Pacific Standard is a bimonthly print and daily online magazine that highlights the best thinking in the social sciences, technology, health, and policy, and grounds those ideas in real stories—entertaining, accessible, urgent. We are of the West, but not strictly about the West.

follow salon

Most Read

Popular on Reddit

links from salon.com

vote
Would we give up burgers to stop climate change? New study suggests if we reduce our intake of animal products by 25%, we can halt climate change
724 points725 points | 322 comments
vote
Facebook has been used to find ex-lovers, childhood BFFs or the one who got away. He used it to find the guy who, without his consent, made him his drug mule.
249 points250 points | 23 comments
vote
“This could be a career ender for Michele Bachmann”
151 points152 points | 65 comments
vote
Poll: 3 in 10 voters say “armed revolution might be necessary” - 29% say they believe they'll have to act "in order to protect our liberties" in the next few years
45 points46 points | 16 comments
vote
"New evidence reveals big banks still illegally foreclosing on thousands of homes – and weak settlement allows it."
27 points28 points | comment

From Around the Web

Presented by Scribol
listener_new_rect The Listener: "The Shelter Cycle": Raised in a cult

Recommendations