Public salience – i.e. the level of awareness and concern among the general public regarding a particular issue – can have a significant impact on nuclear weapons policy. It can influence the degree of public pressure exerted on policymakers, the level of support for disarmament initiatives and the willingness of states to engage in arms control negotiations. In the context of nuclear weapons policy, public salience can vary greatly depending on factors such as the perceived threat of nuclear war, the credibility of nuclear deterrence and the perceived benefits and costs of maintaining a nuclear weapons capability. Political salience, meanwhile, refers to the degree to which an issue is seen as important by policymakers and political elites. In the context of nuclear weapons policy, political salience can be influenced by a range of factors, including geopolitical tensions, domestic political considerations and the perceived impact of nuclear weapons on national security, as well as the level of public salience. Political salience can determine the prioritization of resources, the allocation of funds for nuclear modernization, and the level of commitment to disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.
In the context of nuclear weapons policy, public salience can vary greatly depending on factors such as the perceived threat of nuclear war, the credibility of nuclear deterrence and the perceived benefits and costs of maintaining a nuclear weapons capability.
The interaction between public and political salience is complex and dynamic. Public opinion can shape political salience by creating pressure for policymakers to respond to popular concerns. Conversely, political salience can influence public opinion by framing the narrative on nuclear weapons policy and shaping the information and arguments presented to the public. As one interviewee noted, in the case of India and Pakistan, the framing of nuclear weapons by governments in public discourse as a necessary component of each state’s national security, can result in a so-called ‘commitment trap’ where government officials lock themselves into certain postures and behaviours that have been communicated to the public. Political framing can also impact on public beliefs. For example, there is evidence that the narrative developed by US secretary of war Henry Stimson following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – that the decision to use to the atomic bombs was one carefully weighed against a land invasion – continues to hold sway today, despite numerous revisionist accounts.
While public engagement is a cornerstone of democratic decision-making processes, it is important to recognize that public sentiment can be influenced by various factors including media coverage, external global affairs, as well as political narratives. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows, a heightened public salience can sometimes lead to a more favourable view of nuclear weapons capability, whereas at other times, it has led to greater demand for arms control and non-proliferation.
The interaction between public and political salience is rooted in a complex range of factors, such as the cultural and historical background, prevailing ideologies, economic and even religious motivations. The influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia’s nuclear weapons policy can be seen through the history of its instrumentalization for national security purposes. For example, the Church gives legitimacy to Russian military investments by holding ceremonies to bless new equipment. Moreover, Russian Orthodox clergymen have played a role in the development of Russia’s nuclear policy since the Soviet collapse in 1991. The influence of religion on nuclear weapons policy has also been observed in the US, as exemplified by an interviewee’s account of a senator changing his stance on ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty based on advice from his church minister. Similarly, various religious organizations (including, among others, the Mennonites, the Quakers and the Southern Baptist Church) have historically played a significant role in US politics in advocating for arms control. The interplay between elite political and public narratives on nuclear weapons is therefore complex. However, greater civic participation on nuclear weapons policy issues may lead to additional solutions on how nuclear weapons risks might be mitigated.
Tools and solutions
The ‘feedback loop’ between public and political influence plays a critical factor in shaping nuclear weapons policy. As both public and politicians can shape each other’s views, the approaches described in this section aim to shift the views of both groups.
Films and media
Through its exceptional reach and effective storytelling, mass media such as television, radio and the internet can be used to influence and mobilize people on nuclear weapons issues.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, a campaign to educate citizens about potential health risks associated with above-ground nuclear testing played a major role in convincing President Kennedy to sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty. The campaign was based on the findings from the Baby Tooth Survey that collected over 320,000 milk teeth from children in St Louis, Missouri and found dangerous levels of strontium-90 – a cancer-causing isotope linked to over 400 atomic tests in the US. In 1964, the Stanley Kubrick comedy film Dr. Strangelove highlighted the risks of military control over nuclear weapons, helping to promote the implementation of coded switches to prevent unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.
In recent decades, the issue of nuclear weapons has receded from both the public consciousness and political discourse. The use of storytelling through mass media has the potential to bring the issue back to the forefront of public consciousness, which in turn could influence political discourse and decision-making. Resources explaining the risks of nuclear weapons can be disseminated widely for free via internet media platforms such as YouTube. An example of this is the film ‘What if we nuke a city?’, produced by the popular channel ‘Kurzgesagt – In a nutshell’ in collaboration with the International Red Cross, which has been viewed more than 26 million times.
Increased transparency of previously classified information
Information related to conflict and the military has traditionally been hidden from public view.
In recent years, however, military and intelligence agencies have taken a different approach and started to share information with the public that previously might have remained secret, with the aim of shifting the narratives around a conflict. This is best exemplified by the UK and US ‘prebunking’ of Russian disinformation, mainly via sharing declassified intelligence findings with media outlets, conducting public intelligence briefings on the war and by sharing classified intelligence between allies. This broader dissemination of information helps to build a common understanding of Russia’s military plans and any disinformation campaigns it might be planning – for example, by detailing Russian plans for ‘false-flag’ attacks and unfounded allegations against Ukraine regarding its supposed use of chemical weapons ahead of their dissemination by Russian channels.,
This approach has challenged assumptions about what does and does not need to be secret, and the role that increased transparency can have in shifting public opinions. Discussion about nuclear weapons policy is often shrouded in secrecy and ambiguity. The stated nuclear policy of many countries with nuclear weapons is purposely ambiguous – for example, keeping undefined what existential threats mean in relation to situations in which nuclear weapons can be used. While ambiguity plays an important role in maintaining deterrence postures, it is difficult to get the level right. Too much ambiguity not only risks an increased chance of misunderstanding between nuclear adversaries, but prevents engagement among the wider population and political actors. Starting a public discussion about these issues could be a helpful step to increasing engagement.
Visceral experiences and real-world impact
Since the end of the Cold War, the issue of nuclear weapons has become rather abstract and distant for many people in Europe and the US. For much of the public and many politicians, nuclear risk is far removed from their everyday reality and appreciation of the grave consequences of a potential escalation is low. To combat the risk of complacency, policymakers, educators and advocates alike need to find ways to make nuclear weapons more visceral and less abstract, and to create experiences that will shift attitudes and salience.
To combat the risk of complacency, policymakers, educators and advocates alike need to find ways to make nuclear weapons more visceral and less abstract, and to create experiences that will shift attitudes and salience.
First-hand experience of the effects that nuclear detonations have had on their environment could be a powerful way to achieve this. A visit to a former test site or to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki memorials, for example, is likely to change a person’s understanding of, and attitude to, nuclear weapons. While these experiences are not scalable, other more accessible ways to create a similar effect do exist.
One such method is through use of virtual reality (VR). An example of a nuclear VR experience is the Nuclear Biscuit, which immerses participants in a nuclear-crisis scenario to analyse how different options and framings affect decision-making in these high-stress situations. Another way without having to rely on VR is by using an online tool like Nukemap, which shows the effects of a nuclear detonation in any city or town of the user’s choice, and can help bring to life the devastating impact of nuclear weapons on a relatable scale.
Public engagement via a visceral experience could increase interest in nuclear weapons issues and create public support for the ratification of some outstanding nuclear treaties, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, if connected to the right call to action. Experiences that make the concept of nuclear weapons less abstract can help ensure that both policymakers and the public are engaged and informed on nuclear risk.
