Posted on 05/24/2019 7:52:06 AM PDT by robowombat
Bipartisan Majorities Favor Prohibiting President from Using Nuclear Weapons First Without Congressional Approval Eight in Ten Support Nuclear Arms Control with Russia, Disagree with Trump Decision to Withdraw from Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
A new in-depth survey on U.S. nuclear weapons policy finds that 68% of voters (including 59% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats), support Congressional legislation prohibiting the President from using nuclear weapons first without Congressional approval and a declaration of war. An overwhelming 8 in 10, of Republicans as well as Democrats do not support a policy shift in the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review that explicitly declares the U.S. would consider using nuclear weapons first and specifies examples of non-nuclear attacks that would prompt such consideration.
Support for nuclear arms control remains very robust across party lines. More than eight in ten (83%), including Republicans (84%) and Democrats (83%), favor the US continuing to have arms control treaties with Russia. Eight in ten (82%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 89%) favor the United States agreeing to extend the New START Treaty. Overwhelming majorities (87%, Republicans 85%, Democrats 90%) approve of the US continuing to abide by the moratorium on nuclear testing.
The study was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), both in the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. The Center for Public Integrity consulted on the content of the questionnaire. It was fielded January 7 through February 1, 2019 with a national probability-based sample of 2,264 registered voters.
“A large bipartisan majority opposes ideas for making nuclear threats a more usable instrument of policy and favors continuing efforts to constrain and reduce nuclear weapons through arms control treaties,” comments Steven Kull, director of PPC.
To ensure that respondents understood the issues, they were given short briefings on current debates on US nuclear weapons policy issues. They were also asked to evaluate competing arguments before making their recommendations. The content of the policymaking simulation was reviewed by experts with a range of perspectives on nuclear issues to ensure the briefing was accurate and balanced, and the strongest arguments were presented.
Overwhelming majorities of both parties agree that the US must have a retaliatory nuclear capability destructive enough that no country could think that there would be any advantage in attacking the United States with nuclear weapons.
The public is not convinced that having intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is necessary. Six in ten, including a majority of Republicans, favor phasing out the 400 US land-based ICBMs that are aging and are vulnerable to a first strike. However, only one-third favor unilaterally reducing the net number of strategic warheads in the U.S. arsenal to 1050 rather than adding warheads to U.S. submarines and bombers if the Russians still have 1550 warheads (the number allowed under New START).
Respondents were introduced to the debate about whether the US needs to have nuclear forces over and above this minimum retaliatory capability, such as whether it needs more options so that it could always retaliate with nuclear weapons similar to the type the enemy used, in terms of their explosive power, their speed, and how close they are to the area of conflict. A current example of this debate is the question of whether the US should put low-yield nuclear warheads on submarine launched missiles so it can retaliate in kind more quickly to Russian use of a low-yield nuclear weapon than it currently can with low-yield nuclear bombs on planes in Europe.
Although two thirds favor the specific proposal to put low yield warheads on submarines, only 43% endorsed the general principle that Russian capabilities should be matched. A plurality (49%) preferred the principle that having a minimum retaliatory capability is sufficient.
When asked about using nuclear threats to deter non-nuclear attacks, a bipartisan majority of 57% favor continuing to be ambiguous about whether the US would ever use nuclear weapons first. Only 18% supported explicitly declaring that the US would consider using nuclear weapons in response to a wide range of non-nuclear strategic attacks. A slightly larger number (22%) favor explicitly declaring that the US will never use nuclear weapons first.
Respondents were also told about the debate over how to handle U.S. concerns regarding Russian compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty that was underway while the survey was in the field. The Trump administration had announced plans to withdraw in response to Russian developments it sees as Treaty violations, but did not officially start the six-month withdrawal process until February 2. Russia has accused the US of violating the Treaty as well and has proposed steps to address both sides’ concerns. Informed of the controversy, two thirds, including 55% of Republicans and 51% of those who voted for Trump, oppose withdrawing from the INF Treaty and instead favor remaining within the Treaty and redoubling efforts to work with the Russian to address concerns of both sides.
“Americans see arms control as an essential component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce nuclear risks. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the INF treaty is a rare action that goes against what a majority of his base actually wants him to do,” observed Nancy Gallagher, director of CISSM.
The survey was conducted online from January 7 through February 1 with a national probability-based sample of 2,264 registered voters. The sample was provided by Nielsen Scarborough from Nielsen Scarborough’s sample of respondents, who were recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of households. The full sample has a margin of error of +/- 2.0%. Some questions were asked to half-samples, providing a margin of error of +/- 2.9%. The study was conducted with support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Yamamoto Endowment for Policy Research. Download Report: http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Nuclear_Weapons_Report_0519.pdf Download Questionnaire: http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Nuclear_-Weapons_Quesionnaire_0519.pdf
Can you spell “BS?”
What about a nuclear strike in retaliation for being attacked by a nuclear bomb?
- this sounds like the rules for engagement fiasco of the Obama Afghanistan war.
Bi-partisan majorities in 1787 said go to hell.
The respondents should have been asked:
“If you are threatened by your neighbor who has a history of violence are you willing to stand there and allow him to fire a first shot at you?”
Federal judges in Hawaii should be the deciding factor...
Taking these polls without providing the public with both sides of the issue is just another propaganda effort, which could have the Chinese and Russians behind it.
It is NEVER a good idea to broadcast Rules of Engagement to your enemy or potential enemy. Virtue signaling does not impress these people, it only tells them how far they can push and get away with it.
This could be an Achilles Heel for President trump in the next election.
The Russians were blatantly violating the INF Treaty for many years. Also, the United States' need to counter a Chinese arms buildup in the Pacific was another reason for their move to withdraw, because China is not a signatory to the treaty.
John R. Bolton said in an interview with Reuters that the INF Treaty was a cold war relic and he wanted to hold strategic talks with Russia about Chinese missile capabilities. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Russia to comply with the treaty at a news conference in Norway saying "The problem is the deployment of new Russian missiles."
The main cause of the treaty’s demise was Russia’s decision to develop and deploy a ground-launched cruise missile, called the 9M729, that can fly to intermediate ranges. In 2014, the Obama administration charged that Russia had violated the INF Treaty by testing the missile. In 2017, U.S. officials charged that Russia had begun deploying the missile.
LOL. Do you think the actions of Iran in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen have anything to do with our actions in the Middle East? The Iranians are the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism. They have killed Americans in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and elsewhere.
This horse left the barn in 1945. It might be a monstrous mistake for lead our enemies to believe that we would never be first to use nuclear weapons. We have already proven otherwise.
It says first use. If it’s in retaliation or in response to another nation launching, it doesn’t sound that crazy. It might stop someone like LeMay who wanted to launch a preventative nuclear war.
In April of 56, without any Presidential approval, he sent three separate missions into Russia. each was a group of 9 B-47s (our main nuclear bomber) on a wide front, penetrating hundreds of miles.
It’s hard to imagine a first strike needing to be so sudden that we cannot declare war.
... AND in addition they want to advertise to the world that we will not strike first. Incredible.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Russia to comply with the treaty at a news conference in Norway saying “The problem is the deployment of new Russian missiles.”
Truth be told, not one American in ten can hold a logical conversation on nuclear missiles.
“The Iranians are the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism. They have killed Americans in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and elsewhere.”
No, that is Saudi Arabia by a longshot. The paid for 9/11 under their “do what you want elsewhere but keep it outta the kingdom”. They built 1200 new mosques in America after 9/11.
The sunnis gave us 9/11, Beslan, Boston, Fort Hood, San Bernadino, the Pulse nightclub, a grandma in Oklahoma city beheaded, London 7/7, the Madrid train bombings, Nice France, the Bataclan theater, Brussels airport, Berlin Christmas markets, about 3 or 4 sidewalk driving attacks in London, the Ariana grande concert bombing in the Uk, nearly daily grenade attacks in Sweden, the New York city sidewalk attacks. Suicide bombing two airliners over Russia on the same day, bombing concerts there. Blowing up an airliner coming out of the Sharm el Sheik red sea resort. Funded the Taliban. Finds the Moslem brotherhood.
And in their spare time the Saudis created and funded ISIS according to wikileaks.
Iran is no picnic...but the Saudis and the sunni cult they foster are about 10 times the threat to world peace that the Iranians are.
Under the ABM treaty, the US protected the IBM launchers.
The USSR protected Moscow.
They didn’t need to protect their launchers, because they’d be empty following a first strike.
The US was protecting our retaliative capability.
Guess who planned to strike first?
As far as the nonsense in this article goes, the President is charged with ensuring the existence of the nation. If he feels it necessary for a first strike and does it against the wishes of Congress, what would Congress do? Vote from the ensuing rubble? Or impeach the man who won the war?
If you have free time, take a look at the report.
Long windy arguments for and certain propositions; then the audience has to decide how convincing the arguments are. However, a close reading of the language shows liberal bias throughout.
2,000 “registered” voters; on-line; solicited via phone and mail! Talk about a meaningless sample!
I guess the President won’t need the “football” anymore. First run to Nancy and Chuck and ask them if the US can retaliate against a nuclear strike.
Smart!
Who thinks these stupid polls mean anything anyways? Hasn’t everyone figured out after 2016 that they don’t poll conservatives fairly?
In some cases, executive action is needed and that is why there is separation of powers and IMHO, this bill is unconstructional. BWDIK?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.