Suchergebnisse

Objectives, concepts, and theories -- Trends in nuclear security assessments -- Trends in policy and spending preferences -- Terrorism -- Opinion stability at the individual level -- Mass belief structures -- Making sense of public beliefs and preferences about security policy -- Appendix 1: Research methodology -- Appendix 2: Questions, distributions, and means.

Employing data from two dozen national surveys of the American people conducted between 1993 and 2011, we analyze trends in mass views on key dimensions of nuclear security. We specifically address four questions. (a) How are the risks of nuclear conflict and further nuclear proliferation assessed? (b) How does the public view the relevance and value of US nuclear weapons? (c) What future directions are preferred for the US nuclear weapons stockpile? (d) How are public views about retaining US nuclear weapons structured? Our data show that nuclear conflict with Iran and North Korea and the risks of nuclear weapons or materials being acquired by transnational terrorist groups are seen as the greatest nuclear threats. Most Americans continue to value the efficacy of nuclear deterrence, consider nuclear abolition to be desirable but not yet feasible, and support modest mutual reductions in nuclear weapons. Employing causal modeling, we find that mass beliefs about the importance of retaining US nuclear weapons are hierarchically structured in coherent ways, and therefore are likely to be both resilient and relevant to policy debates on nuclear security.

Our research examines the implications of political beliefs for the relationship between preferences for freedom and security. We briefly situate the relationship in historical context and relate it to today's struggle with terrorism. Then we examine the influence of political beliefs on normative preferences for how liberty and security should be related and for perceptions of how they currently are being balanced. Using original data from a national Internet survey of more than 3,000 respondents, we examine causal relationships among core, domain, and policy context beliefs for preferences about balancing freedom and security.

AbstractWe test traditional assumptions about the volatility of mass opinion in times of national crises using data about views of terrorism from national surveys of the United States general public in 1995 and 1997, findings from a national survey immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), and panel data from a follow‐up survey in 2002. We compare public assessments of the threat of terrorism, willingness to restrict speech to prevent terrorism, support for employing conventional military force against countries that support terrorism, and levels of certainty about culpability required prior to using military force. Results show stable and measured public views prior to 9/11, immediately following the events of that date, and in the subsequent year. Our findings support democratic and modernist theories of public capacities while challenging long‐standing traditional precepts about widespread volatility of mass public opinion.

We test traditional assumptions about the volatility of mass opinion in times of national crises using data about views of terrorism from national surveys of the United States general public in 1995 & 1997, findings from a national survey immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), & panel data from a follow-up survey in 2002. We compare public assessments of the threat of terrorism, willingness to restrict speech to prevent terrorism, support for employing conventional military force against countries that support terrorism, & levels of certainty about culpability required prior to using military force. Results show stable & measured public views prior to 9/11, immediately following the events of that date, & in the subsequent year. Our findings support democratic & modernist theories of public capacities while challenging long-standing traditional precepts about widespread volatility of mass public opinion. Tables, Figures, Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.

Dating back to Harry S. Truman, a number of presidents and prominent political leaders have tried, in some way or another, to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in U.S. foreign policy. Throughout the years, such attempts have prompted countless international debates and spawned a cottage industry of security research related to the eventual elimination of nuclear arms. However, aside from the occasional foray, this research paradigm generally overlooks the domestic political obstacles that policy makers should expect to encounter if national security policy continues down the path toward nuclear zero. In pursuit of this goal, this article empirically examines public attitudes concerning the continued pursuit of nuclear abolition. In doing so, we highlight the beliefs and perceptions that inform public preferences concerning the importance assigned to retaining nuclear weapons today.Desde la época de Harry S. Truman, muchos presidentes y líderes políticos han intentado, de una u otra forma, reducir la dependencia de la política exterior de los Estados Unidos en armas nucleares. A través de los años estos intentos han provocado sinnúmero de debates internacionales y generado una pequeña industria dedicada a la investigación de una posible eliminación de armas nucleares. Sin embargo, este enfoque investigativo generalmente pasa por alto los obstáculos políticos domésticos que los legisladores deberían esperar si la política de seguridad nacional continúa por el camino de la abolición nuclear. En búsqueda de este objetivo, este artículo examina empíricamente las actitudes públicas respecto a la contínua búsqueda de una abolición nuclear. Al mismo tiempo, destacamos las creencias y percepciones que informan las preferencias públicas atribuidas a la importancia de preservar armas nucleares en la actualidad.

Scholars have used cultural theory (CT) to explain risk perceptions and opinion formation across an impressive array of public issues, ranging from environmental, regulatory, and energy policy to public health and economics. Although disparate, all these issues concern domestic policies. This article breaks with this trend by exploring the extent to which CT can help scholars better understand public beliefs about national security. Of critical importance in debates about national security are perceptions of individual versus collective threat and the appropriate role of authoritative institutions in protecting society from these threats. Because CT provides a framework that explicitly addresses these dimensions, national security issues provide an illuminating canvas for evaluating the theory's explanatory utility.