CBS Poll: 25% Back Preemptive U.S. Nuke Strike

Newsmax ^ | June 22, 2002 | Carl Limbacher

[Conservative Chicagoan]

NewsMax.com

 

Saturday, June 22, 2002 12:05 p.m. EDT

CBS Poll: 25% Back Preemptive U.S. Nuke Strike

A surprisingly high percentage of Americans surveyed this week said they would support a preemptive nuclear strike on countries that harbor terrorists if President Bush decides it is justified to stop another attack on the United States, a CBS News poll released late Friday found.

While still a mere fraction of the population, a full 25 percent of respondents told CBS pollsters that the U.S. would be "justified in using a nuclear weapon first against another country" if that country is planning another terrorist attack against America.

And nearly three-quarters of those surveyed, 73 percent, said they "trust Bush to make the right decisions about the use of nuclear weapons," a CBSNews.com report on the poll said.

However, 65 percent said the U.S. would "not ever be justified in using a nuclear weapon first against another country."

Support for a non-nuclear first strike is much higher, with 83 percent saying the U.S. would be justified in doing so to stop another attack. Only 9 percent opposed a non-nuclear first strike.

When pollsters asked specifically about Iraq, a full 70 percent said they support a non-nuclear preemptive attack to remove Saddam Hussein from power, with only 20 percent opposed. CBS pollsters did not ask about a nuclear first strike against Iraq specifically.

The CBS News survey randomly interviewed 892 adults between June 18-20, 2002. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Bush Administration
War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
Revealed: The Terrorists Living Among Us

[Alberta's Child]

The fact that this question was even asked is an indication of just how dumb Americans really are. Most people can't even understand the complex nature of a terrorist organization that operates outside of clearly-defined national jurisdictions. As a result, "experts" in the U.S. often end up adopting the most idiotic, disconnected lines of thinking just to frame issues in a way that a voter with a double-digit IQ can understand.

"We must attack Afghanistan because of what those Saudi terrorists did to the U.S."

"We must attack Iraq from our bases in Sauidi Arabia because Iraq obviously supported those Saudi terrorists."

[stumpy]

I recommend bezerkely to be the first city.

[4TheFlag]

I say "ef" them, "Lets Roll".

[evolved_rage]

Lets ask about using Daisy cutters by the hundreds. Remove the radiation threat, and I think more Amercians will agree.

[Bon mots]

That's why we have a nuclear deterrent. If we're afraid to use it, and the enemy knows we won't use it, then it's not a deterrent.

Let's give it a chance...

[BlueLancer]

"And once we lose a city or two, 95% of that 65% will be wondering why we didn't nuke first."

And will be criticizing the administration for not doing so, even though these very same people opposed it.

[seeker41]

Where is this poll, I need to vote "YES"!

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

CBS Poll: 25% Back Preemptive U.S. Nuke Strike

i am hoping that this poll is wrong (it is cbs) but if it is not americans had better get over their fear of the term nuclear. if we had a conventional bomb which could do the same thing as a tactical nuke lets say in tora bora americans would have been wholeheartedly behind it. well we dont just think how the different the world would be today if we had nuked tora bora

[M. T. Cicero II]

Nukes on 20 cities, there would be no one left for the message.

[meadsjn]

many Americans don't realize what needs to be done to defeat the terrorists.

Nuking a few of them "over there" won't do anything about the couple of million of them already scattered across the United States, or the thousands currently being recruited in our cities and prisons. Unbridled immigration is the cancer which will kill this country, and neither party has the intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade.

It may take several more (and larger) disasters for even decent Americans to recognize that Islam is incompatible with freedom; the leftists will die before they concede that truth.

[The_Media_never_lie]

What if the barbarians have about 50 of these nuclear devices in our 50 largest cities and try to blackmail the country? Maybe it couldn't happen now, but in the future it's all too possible. Should we just wait until our enemies are so technically endowed, or should we be "premptive"?

Do we have the will to do what it will take, or, will we continue to listen to the red diaper babies, liberals and other 5th columnists in our midst? What do you think?

[SSN558]

If the terrorists can make a dirty bomb, the U.S. can make literally millions of dirty bombs. We got tanks of liquid Sodium from cold war breeder reactors, just chock full of radio-nucloids. Why bury the stuff at Yucca mountain when you can iridate half a continent with the stuff.

[ladyinred]

This poll is a little confusing to me, the numbers just don't make a lot of sense, but I am certainly for a first strike, although it would freak me out.
The US has had the opposite policy for far too long in my opinion.

[July 4th]

Nuking Iraqi hordes in the desert is a lot more humane than what we did to them in the Gulf War. We just bulldozed over their trenches and buried them alive. Count me in the 25%.

[TLBSHOW]

oh deep_anarchist rat!

I know it feels bad being in the tiny percent that don't have a clue, so let the adults take care of things for you democrats that are not worthy of taking care of America's National or domestic security.

73 percent, said they "trust Bush to make the right decisions about the use of nuclear weapons,"








well then run along to hide in your rat hole

[Conservative Chicagoan]

Of course. I mean look at how many people vote for Democrats and Democrats love Muslims far more than Americans.