As a mushroom cloud bloomed over the New Mexico desert in 1945, American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer famously recalled a line from the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” The explosion, caused by the first test of an atomic bomb, demonstrated the devastating power of nuclear technology—and set in motion a debate over whether it would ultimately cause more benefit or harm.
Where do Americans stand on nuclear weapons today? A recent report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Carnegie Corporation of New York finds the public is conflicted. While there is belief in nuclear weapons as an effective tool for deterring aggression, less than half say these weapons make the country more secure.
The United States expedited the development of a nuclear weapon in 1942 after learning that Nazi Germany was working on one of its own. The deterrence theory—that America's ability to strike back with nuclear force would prevent an enemy attack—was the prevailing notion. Although various debates linger about what kept the peace during the Cold War, nuclear weapons have been actively deployed in conflict only twice, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet, they've never been detonated against the United States, a fact that fewer than half of Americans credit mainly to Washington's nuclear retaliatory potential.
The Public's Divided View on Safety
Despite the high confidence in deterrence as a prevention method, maintaining a nuclear arsenal does not necessarily make Americans feel safer. Just under half believe that the US nuclear arsenal enhances security (47%). Moreover, a significant minority (24%) think these weapons have no impact on national security, 19% are uncertain, and 9% argue that nuclear weapons make the US less safe.
Interestingly, there is a political divide: Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe that nuclear weapons make the US safer (60% vs. 44%). This difference might stem from stronger Republican beliefs in military superiority as an effective foreign policy tool. Age also plays a role, with older Americans (55%) more likely to trust the nuclear arsenal than younger citizens (38%).
A Global Consensus on Nonproliferation
Despite internal divisions, there is strong agreement on limiting proliferation abroad. According to a 2022 survey by the Chicago Council, 95% of respondents favor the US taking either a leading (56%) or supporting (39%) role in preventing nuclear weapon spread.
Deterrence vs. Disarmament
Many Americans cite deterrence for their sense of safety, but a 2020 survey indicates a preference for a nuclear-free world, with 66% of respondents believing no country should possess nuclear weapons. Whether this view has shifted following recent geopolitical events, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, remains an intriguing topic for future surveys.
The Morality and Practicality of Nuclear Weapons
Almost everyone passionately against nuclear weapons finds them immoral due to their capacity for indiscriminate destruction. These activists argue that nuclear weapons’ horrific impact on civilians is reason enough for disarmament. Yet, 78 years since the first use of nuclear weapons, they still persist.
Why? Many believe that nuclear weapons are crucial for national security, sufficient to set aside moral qualms. Proponents argue that these weapons provide a deterrent effect that conventional arms cannot match. The notion persists that even if nuclear weapons were banned, some countries would clandestinely maintain arsenals, making global disarmament not only challenging but impractical.
Recent arguments by sources like The New York Times and Gen. David Petraeus highlight that nuclear weapons might lack military usefulness, particularly in battlefield scenarios. Historically, military commanders have avoided using nuclear weapons, not necessarily for moral reasons, but due to practical considerations. When President George H. W. Bush removed many tactical nukes from Europe in 1991, there was little military opposition, indicating an implicit understanding of their limited utility.
The stark reality is, using nuclear weapons against an enemy’s homeland incurs devastating retaliation if the adversary has similar capabilities. Absent such an arsenal, it amounts to genocide rather than war. Moreover, opponents argue that relying on human decision-making in nuclear deterrence is flawed, given human fallibility. Over the long term, this falls short of ensuring safety and is inherently risky.
Alternative Policies: No-First-Use and De-alerting
Nuclear weapons are intended mainly for deterrence. Currently, US policy allows the first strike with nuclear weapons in a conflict, risking a scenario where non-nuclear conflicts could escalate into full-blown nuclear wars. Adopting a
