Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/10116
Browse
86 results
Search Results
Item Americans on Nuclear Weapons(2019-05) Kull, Steven; Gallagher, Nancy; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Read, EmmalyUS-Russian Arms Control Treaties: More than eight in ten favor the US continuing to have arms control treaties with Russia, with support among Republicans comparable to that of Democrats. Extending New START: Eight in ten favor the United States agreeing to extend the New START Treaty. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Two thirds, including a majority of Republicans, oppose withdrawing from the INF Treaty and favor instead staying within the Treaty and redoubling efforts to work with the Russians to address concerns of both sides. Nuclear Weapons Testing: Overwhelming majorities from both parties approve of the US continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, effectively abiding by the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In the event the US develops a technological innovation that might make it possible to build a new type of nuclear weapon that could destroy more of an adversary’s nuclear weapons, a majority still said they would oppose breaking the moratorium, though a bare majority of Republicans favored it. US NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES: Minimum Retaliatory Capability: Eight in ten or more from both parties support the US having a retaliatory nuclear capability destructive enough that no country could think that there would be any advantage in attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. Low Yield Warheads and the Need for Matching Nuclear Options Respondents were presented a rationale for developing nuclear capabilities over and above the minimum retaliatory capability based on the need to threaten to match any type of nuclear capability an adversary might use. When presented a specific example of the current debate over whether the US should put low-yield nuclear warheads on missiles on submarines to match corresponding Russian capabilities, a bipartisan majority of two-thirds supported adding a low-yield option to nuclear missiles on submarines. Yet, when asked about the general principle, a plurality endorsed the view that a minimum retaliatory capability is adequate, over the view that the US must have the capability to retaliate against a major attack using only a type of weapon similar to the type the adversary used. Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Knowing that the United States currently has strategic weapons on submarines, bombers, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, six in ten, including a majority of Republicans, favor phasing out the ICBM force. However, only one-third favor unilaterally reducing the net number of strategic warheads in the U.S. arsenal instead of putting more warheads on submarines and bombers to keep the same total as the Russians. FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: US Declaratory Policy on First Use: Only one in five endorsed the United States explicitly declaring that it would consider using nuclear weapons first and stating what kinds of non-nuclear attacks would prompt the United States to consider doing so. Just slightly more than one in five favored explicitly declaring that the United States will never use nuclear weapons first. A majority favored continuing the current policy of being ambiguous about whether and under what conditions the United States would consider using nuclear weapons first. Presented a list of possible types of attack, less than one in six favored declaring that the United States would consider using nuclear weapons in response to any of them. Limiting Presidential First Use: Two thirds, including six in ten Republicans, support Congressional legislation requiring that to use nuclear weapons first, the President would first have to consult Congress and it would have to issue a declaration of war on the country to be attacked with nuclear weapons.Item Americans on the Middle East: A Study of American Public Opinion(2012-10) Telhami, Shibley; Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis (aka Fehsenfeld), Evan; Subias, StefanIn mid-September 2012, attacks on US diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt—countries going through revolutionary processes that began with the Arab Spring—shocked Americans in the midst of a closely fought presidential campaign. The very different governments of Libya and Egypt, both new and untested, had to formulate responses to the attacks, which immediately fed in to the American political process. These are the results of a poll conducted by the University of Maryland’s Anwar Sadat Chair and the Program on International Policy Attitudes to learn what have been the American public’s first impressions of these events, and how attitudes on other issues in the region may have changed.Item As Hu Jin Tao, Obama Prepare to Meet, World Public Gives China, US Low Marks on Climate Change(2009-11-11) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)With President Barack Obama on his way to meet his Chinese counterpart in Beijing for talks on global climate change and a range of other issues, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that publics in more than half of 20 nations disapprove of the way China and the United States are dealing with global warming.Item Global Views of USA Improve(2008-04-01) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)After years of becoming progressively more negative, public views of the United States have begun to improve, according to a BBC World Service Poll across 34 countries.Item Can Obama Restore the US Image in the Middle East?(2008-12-22) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)Sitting in a focus group, a young Jordanian bewailed America's relationship with his region: "Since 1948, we have tried peace, but everything turned out to be a lie. Looking to the future, we don't see anything except more wars, problems and efforts to control our leadership." While in recent years, views of the United States have been quite negative around the world, they have been particularly virulent in the Middle East. Majorities in some countries have even expressed support for attacks on US troops and for key aspects of al Qaeda's anti-US agenda, including driving the United States out of the region.Item World Publics Think China Will Catch Up With the US—and That’s Okay(2007-05-25) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)Majorities around the world believe that China will catch up with the United States economically. It’s a prospect that leaves most of those polled—even Americans—unperturbed.Item America's Image in the World(2007-03-04) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)Testimony of Dr. Steven Kull Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) Editor, WorldPublicOpinion.org March 6, 2007 – 10:00 AM Before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and OversightItem U.S. and Venezuela Lead World in National Pride(2006-08-31) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)Presidents Bush and Chávez may represent opposite poles of the hemispheric political spectrum but the people of the United States and Venezuela have something in common: both are brimming with national pride.Item Chinese Become Sharply Negative About U.S., Americans Mildly Negative About China: Both More Negative Than World Average(2006-04-17) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)Over the last year the Chinese view of the US has gone from being slightly negative to sharply negative. Americans’ views of China have also worsened a bit, but only a modest majority have a negative view. Both publics have more negative views of each other’s government than the world average.Item Americans and Russians Agree U.S. is No. 1, But Disagree on the Up and Comers(2006-12-10) Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)The United States is unquestionably the world’s dominant nation, Russians and Americans agree. But while Russians put themselves among today’s top three powers—and believe they will play a larger role in the future—Americans see China as their chief rival for global influence.