This article presents findings of an original survey experiment on public attitudes toward nuclear use conducted on a representative sample of Russian citizens. We randomly assigned our participants to experimental treatments with vignettes describing a military conflict between Russia and NATO in the Baltics, where Moscow considered a limited nuclear “escalate-to-deescalate” strike to avert defeat. Our findings show that Russians are significantly more averse to nuclear strikes than to the corresponding use of conventional missiles. The participants disapproved similarly of a demonstrative nuclear explosion in an unpopulated area and of nuclear strikes in a more escalated scenario. We also found associations between the moral values of individuals and strike support corresponding to earlier studies in the United States. Finally, our participants reported similar concerns about both nuclear and conventional strikes, with the worry about civilian casualties and the suffering of victims at the top of the list across experimental treatments.
AkhtamzyanIldar. 2006. Attitudes in the Russsian Federation Towards WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. PIR Center Report. Moscow: Human Rights Publishers.
2.
AllisonDavid M.HerzogStephenKoJiyoung. 2022. “Under the Umbrella: Nuclear Crises, Extended Deterrence, and Public Opinion.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221100254
BorrieJohn. 2014. “Humanitarian Reframing of Nuclear Weapons and the Logic of a Ban.” International Affairs90 (3): 625-46.
5.
BowenTylerGoldfienMichaelGrahamMatthew. 2022. “Public Opinion and Nuclear Use: Evidence from Factorial Experiments.” Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1086/720329
6.
CarpenterCharliMontgomeryAlexander H.NylenAlexandria. 2021. “Breaking Bad? How Survey Experiments Prime Americans for War Crimes.” Perspectives on Politics19 (3): 912-24.
7.
CimbalaStephen J.McDermottRoger N.. 2016. “Putin and the Nuclear Dimension to Russian Strategy.” Journal of Slavic Military Studies29 (4): 535-53.
8.
ClementsBenThomsonCatarina P.. 2022. “The ‘Ultimate Insurance’ or an ‘Irrelevance’ for National Security Needs? Partisanship, Foreign Policy Attitudes, and the Gender Gap in British Public Opinion Towards Nuclear Weapons.” European Journal of International Security7 (3): 360-81.
9.
ConsidineLaura. 2019. “Contests of Legitimacy and Value: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Logic of Prohibition.” International Affairs95 (5): 1075-92.
10.
CooperDavid A.2021. Arms Control for the Third Nuclear Age: Between Disarmament and Armageddon. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
11.
DavisPaulGilmoreJ. MichaelFrelingerDavid R.GeistEdwardGilmoreChristopherOberholtzerJennyTarrafDanielle. 2019. Exploring the Role Nuclear Weapons Could Play in Deterring Russian Threats to the Baltic States. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
12.
DeriglazovaLarisaRozhanovskayaNina. 2020. “Building Nuclear Consensus in Contemporary Russia: Factors and Perceptions.” In Nuclear Russia: International and Domestic Agendas, edited by PavlovAndreyDeriglazovaLarisa, 131-62. Tomsk: Tomsk University Press.
13.
DillJaninaSchubigerLivia I.. 2021. “Attitudes Towards the Use of Force: Instrumental Imperatives, Moral Principles and International Law.” American Journal of Political Science65 (3): 612-33.
14.
DillJaninaSaganScott D.ValentinoBenjamin A.. 2022. “Kettles of Hawks: Public Opinion on the Nuclear Taboo and Noncombatant Immunity in the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Israel.” Security Studies31 (2): 1-31.
15.
DogruyolBurakAlperSinanYilmazOnurcan. 2019. “The Five-Factor Model of the Moral Foundations Theory Is Stable across WEIRD and Non-WEIRD Cultures.” Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109547
16.
EgelNaomiHinesR. Lincoln. 2021. “Chinese Views on Nuclear Weapons: Evidence from an Online Survey.” Research and Politics8 (3): 1-8.
17.
EichenbergRichard C.2016. “Gender Difference in American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force, 1982–2013.” International Studies Quarterly60 (1): 138-48.
18.
FinkAnya Loukianova. 2017. “The Evolving Russian Concept of Strategic Deterrence: Risks and Responses.” Arms Control Today47 (6): 14-20.
19.
FinkAnya LoukianovaOlikerOlga. 2020. “Russia’s Nuclear Weapons in a Multipolar World: Guarantors of Sovereignty, Great Power Status & More.” Daedalus149 (2): 37-55.
20.
FryeTimothy. 2019. “Economic Sanctions and Public Opinion: Survey Experiments From Russia.” Comparative Political Studies52 (7): 967-94.
21.
FutterAndrewZalaBenjamin. 2021. “Strategic Non-Nuclear Weapons and the Onset of a Third Nuclear Age.” European Journal of International Security6 (3): 257-77.
22.
GrahamJesseHaidtJonathanKolevaSenaMotylMattIyerRaviWojcikSean P.DittoPeter H.. 2013. “Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology47 (1): 55-130.
23.
GrahamJesseHaidtJonathanNosekBrian A.. 2009. “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology96 (5): 1029-46.
24.
GrahamJesseNosekBrian A.HaidtJonathanIyerRaviKolevaSpassenaDittoPeter H.. 2011. “Mapping the Moral Domain.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology101 (2): 366-85.
25.
GudkovLev. 2019. Russian Public Opinion and the Confrontation with the West. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
26.
Hafner-BurtonEmilie M.Alex HughesD.VictorDavid G.. 2013. “The Cognitive Revolution and the Political Psychology of Elite Decision Making.” Perspectives on Politics11 (2): 368-86.
HaworthAlida R.SaganScott D.ValentinoBenjamin A.. 2019. “What Do Americans Really Think about Conflict with Nuclear North Korea ? The Answer Is Both Reassuring and Disturbing.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists75 (4): 179-186.
29.
HollowayDavid. 2016. “The Soviet Union and the Creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency.” Cold War History16 (2): 177-93.
30.
HorschigDoreen. 2022. “Israeli Public Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons: Lessons from Terror Management Theory.” Journal of Global Security Studies7 (2): 1-18.
31.
JervisRobert. 1984. The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
KertzerJoshua D.PowersKathleen E.,RathbunBrian C.IyerRavi. 2014. “Moral Support: How Moral Values Shape Foreign Policy Attitudes.” Journal of Politics76 (3): 825-40.
34.
KertzerJoshua D.2022. “Re-Assessing Elite-Public Gaps in Political Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science66 (3): 539-553.
35.
KochLisa LangdonWellsMatthew. 2020. “Still Taboo? Citizens’ Attitudes toward the Use of Nuclear Weapons.” Journal of Global Security Studies6 (3): 1-18.
36.
KolesnikovAndrei. 2016. Do Russians Want War?Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center.
37.
KristensenHans M.KordaMatt. 2022. “Russian Nuclear Weapons, 2022.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists78 (2): 98-121.
LudvikJ.Jan.2019. “Closing the Window of Vulnerability: Nuclear Proliferation and Conventional Retaliation.” Security Studies28 (1): 87-115.
42.
LuikJüriJermalaviciusTomas. 2017. “A Plausible Scenario of Nuclear War in Europe, and How to Deter It: A Perspective from Estonia.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists73 (4): 233-39.
43.
MontgomeryAlexanderCarpenterCharli. 2020. “The Stopping Power of Norms: Saturation Bombing, Civilian Immunity, and U.S. Attitudes toward the Laws of War.” International Security45 (2): 140-169.
44.
MuellerJohn E.2012. Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
MüllerHaraldWunderlichCarmen. 2020. “Nuclear Disarmament without the Nuclear-Weapon States: The Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty.” Daedalus149 (2): 171-89.
OndercoMichalSmetanaMichal. 2021. “German Views on US Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Public and Elite Perspectives.” European Security30 (4): 630-648.
48.
PaulT. V.2009. The Tradition of Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
49.
PotterWilliam C.BidgoodSarah, eds. 2018. Once and Future Partners: The United States, Russia and Nuclear Non-Proliferation. London: Routledge.
50.
PressDaryl G.SaganScott D.ValentinoBenjamin A.. 2013. “Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons.” American Political Science Review107 (1): 188-206.
51.
PriceRichardSikkinkKathryn. 2021. International Norms, Moral Psychology, and Neuroscience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RathbunBrian C.SteinRachel. 2020. “Greater Goods: Morality and Attitudes Toward the Use of Nuclear Weapons.” Journal of Conflict Resolution64 (5): 787-816.
54.
RiveraSharon WerningZimmermanWilliam. 2019. “Introduction: New Directions in Survey Research on Russian Elites.” Post-Soviet Affairs35 (5-6): 359-64.
55.
RosendorfOndrejSmetanaMichalVrankaMarek. 2021. “Disarming Arguments: Public Opinion and Nuclear Abolition.” Survival63 (6): 183-200.
56.
SaganScott. 2004. “Realist Perspectives on Ethical Norms and Weapons of Mass Destruction.” In Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Religious and Secular Perspectives, edited by HashmiSohail H.LeeSteven P., 73-95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SaganScott D.ValentinoBenjamin A.. 2017. “Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran: What Americans Really Think about Using Nuclear Weapons and Killing Noncombatants.” International Security42 (1): 41-79.
58.
SauerFrank. 2015. Atomic Anxiety: Deterrence, Taboo and the Non-Use of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
SherrillClifton W.2018. “The Myth of the Nuclear Taboo.” Asian International Studies Review18 (1): 1-21.
61.
SirotkinaElenaZavadskayaMargarita. 2020. “When the Party’s Over: Political Blame Attribution under an Electoral Authoritarian Regime.” Post-Soviet Affairs36 (1): 37-60.
62.
SmetanaMichal. 2018. “A Nuclear Posture Review for the Third Nuclear Age.” The Washington Quarterly41 (3): 137-57.
63.
SmetanaMichalOndercoMichal. 2022. “Elite-Public Gaps in Attitudes to Nuclear Weapons: New Evidence from a Survey of German Citizens and Parliamentarians.” International Studies Quarterly66 (2): 1-10.
64.
SmetanaMichalVrankaMarek. 2021. “How Moral Foundations Shape Public Approval of Nuclear, Chemical, and Conventional Strikes: New Evidence from Experimental Surveys.” International Interactions47 (2): 374-390.
65.
SmetanaMichalWunderlichCarmen. 2021. “Forum: Nonuse of Nuclear Weapons in World Politics: Toward the Third Generation of ‘Nuclear Taboo’ Research.” International Studies Review23 (3) 1072-1099.
66.
SnegovayaMaria. 2020. “Guns to Butter: Sociotropic Concerns and Foreign Policy Preferences in Russia.” Post-Soviet Affairs36 (3): 268-79.
SokovNikolai. 2016. “Russian perspective on nuclear disarmament and the post-nuclear world”Global Nuclear Disarmament: Strategic, Political, and Regional Perspectives. edited by Nik Hynek and Michal Smetana, 202-24. Oxon: Routledge.
SukinLauren. 2020. “Experimental Evidence on Determinants of Support for Nuclear Use in Response to Threats of Nuclear Retaliation.” Peace and Conflict26 (3): 336-39.
71.
TannenwaldNina. 2007. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72.
TertraisBruno. 2018. “Russia’s Nuclear Policy: Worrying for the Wrong Reasons.” Survival60 (2): 33-44.
73.
Ven BruusgaardKristin. 2021. “Russian Nuclear Strategy and Conventional Inferiority.” Journal of Strategic Studies44 (1): 3-35.
74.
WagnerAnna. 2021. “Public Opinion on Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control in Russia.” In On the Horizon: A Collection of Papers from the Next Generation, edited by YounisReja, 161-73. Washington, D.C.: Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
75.
WalkerWilliam. 2010. “The Absence of a Taboo on the Possession of Nuclear Weapons.” Review of International Studies36 (4): 865-76.
76.
WaltzKenneth N.1981. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better: Introduction.” The Adelphi Papers21 (171): 1.
77.
WilsonAndrew. 2005. Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Postcommunist World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
78.
ZimmermanWilliam. 2002. The Russian People and Foreign Policy: Russian Elite and Mass Perspectives, 1993-2000. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
79.
ZyskKatarzyna. 2018. “Escalation and Nuclear Weapons in Russia’s Military Strategy.” RUSI Journal163 (2): 4-15.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
