October 6, 2026
Lauren Sukin, Luis Rodriguez, Stephen Herzog
The following describes an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
In the summer of 2023, as Russia threatened nuclear strikes against Ukraine, we conducted the most comprehensive academic survey of global attitudes toward nuclear weapons ever undertaken. Across 24 countries on six continents—from nuclear powers like France, the United Kingdom, and the United States to non-nuclear-armed states like Brazil, Nigeria, and Poland—we asked more than 27,000 people what they thought of the bomb.
Our research challenges decades of assumptions about nuclear politics. Contrary to conventional wisdom that views possessing and abolishing nuclear weapons as irreconcilable, our data reveal something far more complex: Many people around the world embrace both views simultaneously. They support maintaining nuclear arsenals for deterrence, but they also desire their complete elimination. They endorse the taboo against using nuclear weapons, but they also approve of nuclear strikes under certain circumstances.
These apparent inconsistencies are not reflective of some small, confused minority. Instead, the majority of individuals we surveyed have at least some views on nuclear weapons that seem contradictory. Understanding what drives this paradox and how it plays out is essential for formulating policy to navigate an increasingly complex and dangerous nuclear landscape.
Our scholarship shows that public opinion about deterrence and disarmament is more flexible than many policymakers may think. Publics may be open to solutions that pursue multiple objectives at once, including squaring short-term security interests with long-term disarmament aspirations. As a result, public opinion may be less constraining than previously imagined, with the public’s preferences instead creating space for creative diplomacy on arms control and risk reduction.
Continue reading at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
