Protesters take part in a protest against the Trident nuclear missile system in London, February 27, 2016. REUTERS/Paul Hackett
Last month the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), a United Kingdom group founded in 1958, held its largest rally since 1983. The climate in the UK today is similar to that in 1983 in two ways. The first is Jeremy Corbyn—the Labour Party’s leader—is advocating disarmament. In 1983, the Labour Party made unilateral disarmament an official policy goal. The second similarity is that today (and in 1983) the UK is coming out of a recession which has meant enduring austerity measures since 2010. Budget cuts likely make it undesirable to spend large sums of money on maintaining weapons characterized by their lack of use. Despite, however, support for disarmament from Corbyn and the CND, disarmament remains unpopular amongst the general public.
The UK’s history of flirting with disarmament is a prime example of the disarmament community’s inability to move the public. Typically domestic debates around what countries should do with their aging nuclear arsenals has been discussed mainly in foreign policy elite circles. International debates on nuclear disarmament similarly take place in the diplomatic and academic communities. With few exceptions, such as the CND rally, neither the domestic or international debate has permeated the general public.
Just one month prior to the CND rally Ipsos Mori conducted a poll in the UK in which 58 percent of respondents opposed getting rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons. Additionally, 70 percent of respondents opposed unilateral disarmament. While the turnout to a pro-disarmament rally is encouraging for anti-nuclear activists, it just isn’t enough.
Support for disarmament in the UK seems to exist primarily amongst a handful of prominent political figures and academics. It is also clearly influenced by a broader movement, focused on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, made up primarily of statesmen and academics. Corbyn focused much of his address at the CND protest on what he learned from a panel of experts at the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in 2014 regarding the global effects of the use of nuclear weapons, namely “the immediate environmental effect, the immediate destruction, the immediate problems of the fall out; the slightly later ecological disaster that follows, the economic impact that follows, the food supply impact that follows from one nuclear explosion in one place in one spot on our globe.”
The humanitarian consequences movement, while significant in how it has changed rhetoric on disarmament at an elite level, has failed to attract public interest. This is unfortunate because disarmament is not as simple as stopping a policy, it has security and economic implications that politicians could leverage to spark public outcry against it. Similarly, public opinion could be utilized to combat these concerns, if a majority of the public were to support disarmament regardless of these or other concerns.
The first such concern is security: some may argue that to disarm unilaterally would jeopardize national security. This is rooted in the belief that nuclear weapons prevent conventional attacks from states who fear nuclear retaliation. Another is financial: though disarmament would certainly save money in the long term, as nuclear arsenals require the replacing and updating of parts over time to ensure their effectiveness, disarmament would cost a significant amount of money in the short term. It would also require the utmost care to ensure that fissile materials are removed safely from nuclear warheads.
And yet relative to some of the other nuclear weapons possessors, the UK would probably have a much easier time disarming unilaterally. The UK’s perceived security risks as a result of unilateral disarmament are less severe than other nuclear weapons possessors and it might even find a place under the US nuclear umbrella with states such as Japan and South Korea. Additionally, with a relatively small estimated stockpile of less than 250 nuclear warheads, the financial costs of disarmament are relatively low.
Perhaps disarmament advocates in the UK should broaden arguments against Trident beyond economic incentives or seek out advocates from other political parties. As it is, disarmament has enough supporters to make their rallies news, but not enough to pose strong public opposition to modernizing Trident.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights critical shifts in American public thinking on US foreign policy through public opinion surveys and research conducted under the Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy.
The annual Chicago Council Survey, first conducted in 1974, is a valuable resource for policymakers, academics, media, and the general public. The Council also surveys American leaders in government, business, academia, think tanks, and religious organizations biennially to compare trends in their thinking with overall trends. And collaborating with partner organizations, the survey team periodically conducts parallel surveys of public opinion in other regions of the world to compare with US public opinion.
The Running Numbers blog features regular commentary and analysis from the Council’s public opinion and US foreign policy research team, including a series of flash polls of a select group of foreign policy experts to assess their opinions on critical foreign policy topics driving the news.
Is the US public turning on President Donald Trump like it turned on former President Richard Nixon? Running Numbers is digging out its archived polls to look back at Nixon’s approval ratings compared to those of Trump to see whether US public opinion is following a similar path.
South Korean President Moon Jae-In is in Washinton later this week for his first meeting with Donald Trump. North Korea tops the agenda, but there are several other issues that will be closely watched.
On the heels of the shocking General Election outcome, the UK-EU Brexit negotiations have begun. But the road ahead for these talks is far from smooth: recent polling indicates that the public is increasingly split on what exactly would qualify as an acceptable deal.
Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl has passed away at the age of 87.
As the results of the United Kingdom’s snap election filtered in last Friday, most headlines echoed shock: Theresa May and her Conservative Party had lost the large majority in Parliament that seemed almost guaranteed just a few weeks ago. What drove this shocking shift? Did anyone see it coming?
President Trump recently announced that he plans on pulling the United States out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, a decision that is out of step with the views of the public. According to a number of surveys conducted over the past year, a majority of Americans support US participation in the agreement.
Are Americans as divided along geographic lines when it comes to key foreign policy matters as their voting patterns suggest?
With the election of Moon Jae-In to the presidency of South Korea, there are concerns that the US-Korea alliance hangs in the balance. Those fears are overblown. While there are rough waters ahead, much of that will emanate from the Trump administration's handling of cost-sharing negotiations in the near future.
The Blob isn't just science fiction. When it comes to US foreign policy, its reach is far and wide with wide swaths of agreement between foreign policy elite and the general public. A new report from the Council and the Texas National Security Network explains.
Despite partisan differences on taking a side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on the status of US-Israel bilateral relations, overall trends from Chicago Council Survey data indicate that the relationship between the United States and Israel will continue to be viewed warmly by the American public.
In the spirit of Throw Back Thursday, Running Numbers is digging out its archived polls to look back at America’s foreign policy feelings of old. This week, we’re looking at Council data on Americans' perceptions of the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons in the late 90s and early 00s.
In the spirit of Throw Back Thursday, Running Numbers is digging out its archived polls to look back at America’s foreign policy feelings of old. This week, we’re looking at the first time the Council asked Americans about their perceptions of various threats to the US and its interests.
The polling community took a lot heat following the failure of forecasters and data journalists to predict Trump's triumph in the 2016 election. But polls measure so much more than voting intentions says Council senior fellow Dina Smeltz.
There is perhaps no more important bilateral relationship in the world today than the one between the United States and China—the world’s two most important players in terms of economics and security. Where do the Chinese and American publics stand on key issues in the relationship, and what policies do they want to see their respective nations pursue worldwide?
Although President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to dump the Paris Agreement on climate change, calling it a “bad deal,” the 2016 Chicago Council Survey finds strong bipartisan support for US participation.