Public opinion between rearmament and crisis of the nuclear taboo

TL;DR

This paper explores how public opinion on nuclear weapons is shifting amidst increasing insecurity, highlighting differences between rational and emotional attitudes and emphasizing the need to consider both in policy discourse.

Contribution

It introduces a nuanced analysis of public attitudes towards nuclear weapons, differentiating rational and emotional perspectives, and underscores their importance in understanding nuclear normative shifts.

Findings

81% of Italians see nuclear weapons as always wrong to use

Distinction between deontologists and consequentialists among opponents

Emotional responses differ from rational opinions in surveys

Abstract

This article examines the changing relationship between the public and nuclear weapons in a context of increasing international insecurity. It discusses the erosion of the nuclear taboo, understood as a normative aversion to nuclear use. Standard surveys capture abstract and rational opinions, while experimental surveys place respondents in simulated strategic scenarios designed to evoke more emotional responses. The divergence between their results is explained by the fact that they measure two different objects: rational opinions and emotional attitudes. A nationally representative survey conducted in Italy in 2025 shows that 81 percent of respondents consider nuclear weapons fundamentally different from conventional weapons and always wrong to use. Among opponents, a distinction is drawn between deontologists and consequentialists. The article concludes by highlighting the importance of integrating affective and cognitive dimensions in the study of public opinion, as a contribution to countering the normalization of nuclear weapons in political discourse.