IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v16y2025i2p235-245.html

American Public Opinion on US Responses to Russia's Nuclear Threats in Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • Kaitlin Peach
  • Andrew Fox
  • Kuhika Gupta
  • Joseph Ripberger
  • Cheyenne Black
  • Tristan Winkle
  • Hank Jenkins‐Smith

Abstract

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, President Vladimir Putin's nuclear threats have reshaped the global nuclear landscape, potentially altering public attitudes toward nuclear deterrence and weapons use. This article examines American preferences for United States responses—nuclear, conventional, or nonmilitary—to three hypothetical scenarios involving Russia's potential use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Drawing on data from the 2022 National Security Survey by the Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, we find that the American public generally favors conventional military responses over nuclear options, even in the face of increased nuclear threats. Qualitative analysis reveals that respondents primarily apply a “logic of consequences,” prioritizing strategic military utility over ethical or normative concerns when considering responses. These findings have significant implications for US nuclear policy and the theoretical discourse on nuclear nonuse.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaitlin Peach & Andrew Fox & Kuhika Gupta & Joseph Ripberger & Cheyenne Black & Tristan Winkle & Hank Jenkins‐Smith, 2025. "American Public Opinion on US Responses to Russia's Nuclear Threats in Ukraine," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 16(2), pages 235-245, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:16:y:2025:i:2:p:235-245
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13490
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13490?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian C. Rathbun & Rachel Stein, 2020. "Greater Goods: Morality and Attitudes toward the Use of Nuclear Weapons," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(5), pages 787-816, May.
    2. Tannenwald, Nina, 1999. "The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 433-468, July.
    3. Michal Smetana & Michal Onderco, 2023. "From Moscow With a Mushroom Cloud? Russian Public Attitudes to the Use of Nuclear Weapons in a Conflict With NATO," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(2-3), pages 183-209, February.
    4. Waltz, Kenneth N., 1990. "Nuclear Myths and Political Realities," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 730-745, September.
    5. Carmen Keller & Vivianne Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2012. "Affective Imagery and Acceptance of Replacing Nuclear Power Plants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 464-477, March.
    6. David M. Allison & Stephen Herzog & Jiyoung Ko, 2022. "Under the Umbrella: Nuclear Crises, Extended Deterrence, and Public Opinion," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(10), pages 1766-1796, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michal Smetana & Marek Vranka & Ondrej Rosendorf, 2023. "The lesser evil? Experimental evidence on the strength of nuclear and chemical weapon “taboosâ€," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(1), pages 3-21, January.
    2. Caleb Pomeroy & Brian C Rathbun, 2024. "Just business? Moral condemnation and virtuous violence in the American and Russian mass publics," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(4), pages 560-575, July.
    3. Kyle Beardsley & Victor Asal, 2009. "Winning with the Bomb," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(2), pages 278-301, April.
    4. Lukas Rudolph & Fabian Haggerty & Paul W. Thurner, 2026. "Examining public support for Ukraine’s defense against autocratic aggression," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Weiqi Zhang, 2018. "Neither friend nor big brother: China’s role in North Korean foreign policy strategy," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, December.
    6. Paul Huth & D. Scott Bennett & Christopher Gelpi, 1992. "System Uncertainty, Risk Propensity, and International Conflict among the Great Powers," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(3), pages 478-517, September.
    7. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    9. Rinscheid, Adrian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2018. "Divesting, Fast and Slow: Affective and Cognitive Drivers of Fading Voter Support for a Nuclear Phase-Out," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 51-61.
    10. Yujin J. Jung, 2024. "Cyber Shadows over Nuclear Peace: Understanding and Mitigating Digital Threats to Global Security," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 11(2), pages 233-253, June.
    11. Eyckmans, Johan & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2010. "Moral concerns on tradable pollution permits in international environmental agreements," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1814-1823, July.
    12. Lisa Langdon Koch, 2024. "Punishment and blame: How core beliefs affect support for the use of force in a nuclear crisis," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(6), pages 649-669, November.
    13. Abdulla, A. & Vaishnav, P. & Sergi, B. & Victor, D.G., 2019. "Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1339-1346.
    14. Carmen Keller & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2012. "The Content and Not Only the Valence of Spontaneous Associations Should Be Analyzed," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 481-482, March.
    15. Mitchell, Ronald B., 2011. "Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1882-1890, September.
    16. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    17. Jobin, Marilou & Siegrist, Michael, 2018. "We choose what we like – Affect as a driver of electricity portfolio choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-747.
    18. Lindvall, Daniel & Sörqvist, Patrik & Lindeberg, Sofie & Barthel, Stephan, 2025. "The polarization of energy preferences – A study on social acceptance of wind and nuclear power in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    19. Čábelková, Inna & Strielkowski, Wadim & Streimikiene, Dalia & Cavallaro, Fausto & Streimikis, Justas, 2021. "The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    20. Geoffrey P.R. Wallace, 2008. "Alliances, Institutional Design, and the Determinants of Military Strategy," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(3), pages 224-243, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:16:y:2025:i:2:p:235-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.