Americans are ready for a different approach to nuclear weapons

By Dr. Lawrence Wittner

January 17, 2020

Although today’s public protests against nuclear weapons can’t compare to the major antinuclear upheavals of past decades, there are clear indications that most Americans reject the Trump administration’s nuclear weapons policies.

Originally posted on History News Network on December 22, 2019 here

Since entering office in 2017, the Trump administration has withdrawn the United States from the nuclear agreement with Iranscrapped the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia, and apparently abandoned plans to renew the New START Treaty with Russia. After an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations agreed on a landmark UN Treaty on the Prohibitions of Nuclear Weapons in July 2017, the Trump administration quickly announced that it would never sign the treaty.  The only nuclear arms control measure that the Trump administration has pursued―an agreement by North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program―appears to have collapsed, at least in part because the Trump administration badly mishandled the negotiations.

Moreover, the Trump administration has not only failed to follow the nuclear arms control and disarmament policies of its Democratic and Republican predecessors, but has plunged into a renewed nuclear arms race with other nations by championing a $1.7 trillion program to refurbish the entire U.S. nuclear weapons complex.  Perhaps most alarming, it has again and again publicly threatened to initiate a nuclear war.

These policies are quite out of line with U.S. public opinion.

Polling Americans in July 2018 about Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear agreement, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 66 percent of respondents preferred remaining within it.  In February 2019, when the Chicago Council surveyed Americans about U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty, 54 percent opposed the action.  Moreover, when Americans were presented with arguments for and against withdrawal, opposition to withdrawal rose to 66 percent. 

The Center for International & Security Studies at the University of Maryland also reported overwhelming public support for nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements.  Polling Americans in early 2019, the Center found that two-thirds of respondents (including a majority of Republicans) favored remaining within the INF Treaty, while eight out of ten respondents wanted the U.S. government to extend the New START Treaty. Indeed, more than eight out of ten U.S. respondents backed new nuclear arms control treaties with Russia―findings similar to those of the Chicago Council, which reported that 87 percent of American respondents to a poll in early 2019 wanted the United States and Russia to secure a further nuclear arms limitation agreement.

But just how much arms control and disarmament do Americans want?  It might come as a shock to the many pundits in the mass media who have never mentioned the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but roughly half the U.S. population supports nuclear abolition along the lines of the treaty.  According to a YouGov opinion survey done in late September 2019, 49 percent of American respondents thought the United States should work with other nations to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world. Only 32 percent disagreed, while 19 percent said they didn’t know.

When it comes to actual use of nuclear weapons, Americans are even clearer in their preferences.  A YouGov/Huffington Post poll in August 2016 found that 67 percent of American respondents thought the U.S. government should never initiate a nuclear attack.  In mid-2019, Zogby Analytics surveys of American respondents in key primary states also discovered very high levels of opposition to first use of nuclear weapons.

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump’s angry, impulsive behavior, coupled with his threats to launch nuclear attacks upon other nations, has left many Americans uneasy.  This might help to explain why 68 percent of Americans surveyed in early 2019 by the Center for International & Security Studies backed congressional legislation requiring that a president, before ordering a nuclear attack upon another nation, consult with congress and secure a congressional declaration of war upon that nation.  As the U.S. congress has not passed a declaration of war since 1941, this opinion, too, provides a substantial challenge to current U.S. nuclear policy.

There are other indications, as well, that the American public wants a new approach.  In July 2019, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, at its 87th annual meeting, unanimously passed a resolution calling on all U.S. presidential candidates “to pledge U.S. global leadership in preventing nuclear war, returning to diplomacy, and negotiating the elimination of nuclear weapons.”  Calling for negotiations to replace the INF Treaty and to extend or replace the New START Treaty, the resolution demanded that candidates support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and renounce the option of first use of nuclear weapons.

Yet another sign of public discontent is the emerging Back from the Brink campaign, supported by numerous peace, environmental, religious, health, and other organizations.  Endorsed by dozens of cities and towns across the country, it has also received the official backing of the state legislatures of California and Oregon, as well as of the New Jersey State Assembly and the Maine State Senate.  The campaign calls on the U.S. government to “lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war” by: “renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first”; “ending the sole, unchecked authority of any U.S. president to launch a nuclear attack”; “taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert”; “cancelling the plan to replace its entire nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons”; and “actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.”

Looked at from the standpoint of most Americans and, indeed, survival in the nuclear age, this departure from the dangerous direction of U.S. nuclear policy makes a lot of sense.  Looked at from the standpoint of candidates seeking election to national office, it would also make good politics.

If you appreciated this…

[paypal-donation]


Dr. Lawrence Wittner is a prominent American historian who has combined intellectual life with activism for peace and social justice. He is a professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.

Recent Articles

“En dag som berättigar till fest”, utropade den London-baserade al-Quds al-Arabi efter FN:s eldupphörresolution, “eftersom detta är första gången som Israel accepterar ett FN-beslut från en position som besegrad och inte som segrare”. Att ett arabisk-israeliskt krig för en gångs skull slutat med arabisk seger, är en helt dominerade åsikt i arabiska medier. Al-Quds al-Arabi tillåter sig att drömma om att det israeliska nederlaget skall leda till massflykt från Israel. Men i nästa andetag påminner tidningen om att Israel aldrig brukar genomföra sina internationella åtaganden och varnar för att förlorarna, liksom tidigare, kan hämnas genom att provocera fram inbördeskrig i Libanon. Med tanke på de otaliga massmediala vittnesmålen om det libanesiska folkets eniga motståndskraft förefaller risken för inre stridigheter i det sargade landet just nu liten. Men visst kan man urskilja nyansskillnader i libanesiska tidningar. Vänsterorganet al-Safir uppfattar FN-resolutionen som en komplott i syfte att rädda Israel från ännu större...
Greenland – the world’s largest island, a continent of its own with only 57.000 inhabitants. I visited it for the first time in May 2005. I flew across the inland ice to Nuuk, the tiny capital with some 14.000 inhabitants. I was overwhelmed by the pride and kindness of everyone I met as well as by the unique natural beauty. Unfortunately, due to weather conditions during my ten-day stay I could get nowhere else but Nuuk. Fortunately, however, among those I met was Gitte Arvegaard, a Danish lawyer and negotiator employed by the local government, Greenland Home Rule. She turned out to be an enthusiastic photographer with a lot of pictures taken during various trips around Greenland. So this Greeland series is the result of our cooperative effort. We both hope you enjoy it and are stimulated to visit Greenland – about which you may read more here. Finally, if you want to...
 Jan Oberg’s storyof how he met Sir Paul Liverpool – where else to meet Paul McCartney? Paul’s old class mate and TFF Associate, Jonathan Power introduced me to Paul McCartney in Liverpool at an informal reception. It was held at what used to be their school, now the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts and we were there to celebrate that Jonathan had written Amnesty International’s 40th Anniversary book. This happy event for “righting wrongs and writing songs” gave me an opportunity to meet Paul and tell him about TFF and get straight to the matter: would he consider making a donation in support of our work for peace? While I was probably the only one with such a wish that day, I was certainly not the only one who wanted to shake hands and talk with him. In the last minutes before Paul was to leave, Jonathan brought us together and we got about three...

TFF on Substack

Discover more from TFF Transnational Foundation & Jan Oberg.

Most Popular

“En dag som berättigar till fest”, utropade den London-baserade al-Quds al-Arabi efter FN:s eldupphörresolution, “eftersom detta är första gången som Israel accepterar ett FN-beslut från en position som besegrad och inte som segrare”. Att ett arabisk-israeliskt krig för en gångs skull slutat med arabisk seger, är en helt dominerade åsikt i arabiska medier. Al-Quds al-Arabi tillåter sig att drömma om att det israeliska nederlaget skall leda till massflykt från Israel. Men i nästa andetag påminner tidningen om att Israel aldrig brukar genomföra sina internationella åtaganden och varnar för att förlorarna, liksom tidigare, kan hämnas genom att provocera fram inbördeskrig i Libanon. Med tanke på de otaliga massmediala vittnesmålen om det libanesiska folkets eniga motståndskraft förefaller risken för inre stridigheter i det sargade landet just nu liten. Men visst kan man urskilja nyansskillnader i libanesiska tidningar. Vänsterorganet al-Safir uppfattar FN-resolutionen som en komplott i syfte att rädda Israel från ännu större...
Greenland – the world’s largest island, a continent of its own with only 57.000 inhabitants. I visited it for the first time in May 2005. I flew across the inland ice to Nuuk, the tiny capital with some 14.000 inhabitants. I was overwhelmed by the pride and kindness of everyone I met as well as by the unique natural beauty. Unfortunately, due to weather conditions during my ten-day stay I could get nowhere else but Nuuk. Fortunately, however, among those I met was Gitte Arvegaard, a Danish lawyer and negotiator employed by the local government, Greenland Home Rule. She turned out to be an enthusiastic photographer with a lot of pictures taken during various trips around Greenland. So this Greeland series is the result of our cooperative effort. We both hope you enjoy it and are stimulated to visit Greenland – about which you may read more here. Finally, if you want to...
 Jan Oberg’s storyof how he met Sir Paul Liverpool – where else to meet Paul McCartney? Paul’s old class mate and TFF Associate, Jonathan Power introduced me to Paul McCartney in Liverpool at an informal reception. It was held at what used to be their school, now the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts and we were there to celebrate that Jonathan had written Amnesty International’s 40th Anniversary book. This happy event for “righting wrongs and writing songs” gave me an opportunity to meet Paul and tell him about TFF and get straight to the matter: would he consider making a donation in support of our work for peace? While I was probably the only one with such a wish that day, I was certainly not the only one who wanted to shake hands and talk with him. In the last minutes before Paul was to leave, Jonathan brought us together and we got about three...
Read More
Imagen-thumbnail-The-Transnational-1
“En dag som berättigar till fest”, utropade den London-baserade al-Quds al-Arabi efter FN:s eldupphörresolution, “eftersom detta är första gången som Israel accepterar ett FN-beslut från en position som besegrad och inte som segrare”. Att ett arabisk-israeliskt krig för en gångs skull slutat med arabisk seger, är en helt dominerade åsikt i arabiska medier. Al-Quds al-Arabi tillåter sig att drömma om att det israeliska nederlaget skall leda till massflykt från Israel. Men i nästa andetag påminner tidningen om att Israel aldrig brukar genomföra sina internationella åtaganden och varnar för att förlorarna, liksom tidigare, kan hämnas genom att provocera fram inbördeskrig i Libanon. Med tanke på de otaliga massmediala vittnesmålen om det libanesiska folkets eniga motståndskraft förefaller risken för inre stridigheter i det sargade landet just nu liten. Men visst kan man urskilja nyansskillnader i libanesiska tidningar. Vänsterorganet al-Safir uppfattar FN-resolutionen som en komplott i syfte att rädda Israel från ännu större...
Greenland – the world’s largest island, a continent of its own with only 57.000 inhabitants. I visited it for the first time in May 2005. I flew across the inland ice to Nuuk, the tiny capital with some 14.000 inhabitants. I was overwhelmed by the pride and kindness of everyone I met as well as by the unique natural beauty. Unfortunately, due to weather conditions during my ten-day stay I could get nowhere else but Nuuk. Fortunately, however, among those I met was Gitte Arvegaard, a Danish lawyer and negotiator employed by the local government, Greenland Home Rule. She turned out to be an enthusiastic photographer with a lot of pictures taken during various trips around Greenland. So this Greeland series is the result of our cooperative effort. We both hope you enjoy it and are stimulated to visit Greenland – about which you may read more here. Finally, if you want to...
p_mccartney_poem
 Jan Oberg’s storyof how he met Sir Paul Liverpool – where else to meet Paul McCartney? Paul’s old class mate and TFF Associate, Jonathan Power introduced me to Paul McCartney in Liverpool at an informal reception. It was held at what used to be their school, now the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts and we were there to celebrate that Jonathan had written Amnesty International’s 40th Anniversary book. This happy event for “righting wrongs and writing songs” gave me an opportunity to meet Paul and tell him about TFF and get straight to the matter: would he consider making a donation in support of our work for peace? While I was probably the only one with such a wish that day, I was certainly not the only one who wanted to shake hands and talk with him. In the last minutes before Paul was to leave, Jonathan brought us together and we got about three...
Logo-Transnational
1942James Paul McCartney is born in Liverpool on June 18th. 1956Paul writes his first song, I Lost My Little Girl. 1957Paul meets John Lennon at St. Peter’s Church Fete, Woolton, Liverpool. He joins his first group, The Quarrymen and performs in his first gig at The New Clubmoor Hall, Liverpool, on October 18th. 1960Formation of The Beatles, who play residencies in Hamburg and at The Cavern in Liverpool. 1961First Beatles recordings issued in Germany, as the backing group for Tony Sheridan. 1962The first Beatles Parlophone recording, Love Me Do, reaches number 17 in the British charts. 1963The birth of Beatlemania. Please Please Me gives the group their first British Number 1. She Loves You cements their success. Please Please Me and With The Beatles albums released. 1964First triumphant American tour. The Beatles perform at the Royal Command Performance and release their first film, A Hard Day’s Night. Their single I...
Logo-Transnational
  Back to the series “Bujumbura, Burundi”
By JONATHAN POWER August 16, 2000 LONDON – Remember the summer of ’98? In the sweltering, torpid heat of a Roman august, charged with exhaust fumes, the international community gave its overwhelming approval to the establishment of an International Criminal Court that will enable those accused of “crimes against humanity” to be tried and, if convicted, sentenced. Only seven nations opposed or abstained from the motion, including Israel, China, India and the U.S.A. where the Pentagon had successfully waged bureaucratic guerrilla war to undermine the initially sympathetic stance of President Bill Clinton. Two years on we can now see what an epochal event that was. In a the stroke of 120 pens it changed the climate on political thuggery. After numerous half-starts and false starts ever since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials that convicted the war criminals of the Second World War, the world at last had agreed en masse a common...