Menus Subscribe Search
Mushroom Cloud

(ILLUSTRATION: SHUTTERSTOCK)

How We Learned to Set Aside Our Moral Qualms and Love the Bomb

• March 18, 2013 • 4:00 AM

(ILLUSTRATION: SHUTTERSTOCK)

On the tenth anniversary of America’s optional war, how ready would Americans be to nuke another country?

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

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.

Tom Jacobs
Staff writer Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for The Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. His work has also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Ventura County Star.

More From Tom Jacobs

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

August 27 • 6:00 AM

Speaking Eyebrow: Your Face Is Saying More Than You Think

How we gesture—or how we involuntarily move our hands, face, and eyes while speaking—takes on different “accents” depending on our cultural background.


August 27 • 4:00 AM

The Politics of Anti-NIMBYism and Addressing Housing Affordability

Respected expert economists like Paul Krugman and Edward Glaeser are confusing readers with their poor grasp of demography.


August 26 • 4:00 PM

Marching in Sync May Increase Aggression

Another danger of militarizing the police: Marching in lock step doesn’t just intimidate opponents. It impacts the mindset of the marchers.


August 26 • 3:03 PM

The Best Reporting on the Federal Push to Militarize Local Police With Riot Gear, Armored Vehicles, and Assault Rifles

A few facts you might have missed about the flow of military equipment and tactics to local law enforcement.


August 26 • 2:00 PM

How the Other 23 Percent Live

Almost one-fourth of all children in the United States are now living in poverty, an increase of three million kids since 2005.


August 26 • 12:00 PM

Why Sports Need Randomness

Noah Davis talks to David Sally, one of the authors of The Numbers Game: Why Everything You Know About Soccer Is Wrong, about how uncertainty affects and enhances the games we watch.


August 26 • 10:00 AM

Honor: The Cause of—and Solution to—All of Society’s Problems

Recent research on honor culture, associated with the American South and characterized by the need to retaliate against any perceived improper conduct, goes way beyond conventional situations involving disputes and aggression.



August 26 • 8:00 AM

The Transformative Effects of Bearing Witness

How witnessing inmate executions affects those who watch, and how having an audience present can also affect capital punishment process and policy.



August 26 • 7:15 AM

Being a Couch Potato: Not So Bad After All?

For those who feel guilty about watching TV, a new study provides redemption.


August 26 • 6:00 AM

Redesigning Birth Control in the Developing World

How single-use injectable contraceptives could change family planning in Africa.


August 26 • 4:15 AM

How Gay Men Feel About Aging

Coming to terms with growing old can be difficult in the gay community. But middle-aged men are inventing new strategies to cope.


August 25 • 4:00 PM

What to Look for In Dueling Autopsies of Michael Brown

The postmortem by Michael Baden is only the beginning as teams of specialists study the body of an 18-year-old African American killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri.


August 25 • 2:00 PM

Thoughts That Can’t Be Thought and Ideas That Can’t Be Formed: The Promise of Smart Drugs

Are we asking the right questions about smart drugs? Marek Kohn looks at what they can do for us—and what they can’t.


August 25 • 12:00 PM

Does Randomness Actually Exist?

Our human minds are incapable of truly answering that question.


August 25 • 10:31 AM

Cesareans Are Still Best for Feet-First Babies

A new study confirms that surgery is the safest way to deliver a breech fetus.


August 25 • 10:00 AM

What Can Hurricanes Teach Us About Socioeconomic Mobility?

Hurricane Katrina wrought havoc on New Orleans but, nine years later, is there a silver lining to be found?


August 25 • 8:00 AM

How Low Voter Turnout Helps Public Employees

To a surprising degree, as voter turnout goes down, public employee compensation goes up.


August 25 • 6:00 AM

Beyoncé Isn’t an Anti-Feminist Terrorist

A new book called Staging the Blues shows she’s embracing a tradition of multi-dimensional stardom, rather than one racist trope.


August 25 • 4:00 AM

A Tale of Two Abortion Wars

While pro-life activists fight to rescue IVF embryos from the freezer, pregnant women in their third trimester with catastrophic fetal anomalies have nowhere to turn.


August 22 • 4:00 PM

The Invention of the Illegal Immigrant

It’s only fairly recently that we started to use the term that’s so popular right now.



August 22 • 2:00 PM

What Can U.S. Health Care Learn From the Ebola Outbreak?

A conversation with Jeanine Thomas, patient advocate, active member of ProPublica’s Patient Harm Facebook Community, and founder and president of the MRSA Survivors Network.


August 22 • 1:22 PM

Two Executions and the Unity of Mourning

The recent deaths of Michael Brown and James Foley, while worlds apart, are both emblematic of the necessity for all of us to fight to uphold the sanctity of human dignity and its enduring story.


Follow us


Subscribe Now

Being a Couch Potato: Not So Bad After All?

For those who feel guilty about watching TV, a new study provides redemption.

How Gay Men Feel About Aging

Coming to terms with growing old can be difficult in the gay community. But middle-aged men are inventing new strategies to cope.

Cesareans Are Still Best for Feet-First Babies

A new study confirms that surgery is the safest way to deliver a breech fetus.

The Impossibility of the Night Shift

Many night workers get “shift-work sleep disorder.” And no one knows how to treat it.

How the Brains of Risk-Taking Teens Work

There's heightened functional connectivity between the brain's emotion regulator and reason center, according to a recent neuroscience paper.

The Big One

One in two full-time American fast-food workers' families are enrolled in public assistance programs, at a cost of $7 billion per year. July/August 2014 fast-food-big-one

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.