03/23/2026
A new article in the Journal of Peace Research sheds light on how the U.S. public judges different weapons of war.
In "Too Brutal for War: Comparing Rationales for Weapon Taboos," CNS Professor of the Practice Stephen Herzog, David Allison, and Lauren Sukin survey a national sample of Americans. They part ways with past research that focuses on one weapon system at a time or a small set of comparisons. Instead, their survey design enables them to look at how six different weapon types, expected civilian casualties, and operational effectiveness shape public attitudes toward military strikes.
The authors show that projected harm to civilian populations has the strongest effect on public support, and effectiveness is very important as well. But members of the public also have strong beliefs about different weapon categories. This creates a clear preference hierarchy: cyber operations are most preferred, then conventional, cluster, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Regardless of their other characteristics, strikes with "more taboo" weapons are likely to face stiffer public resistance.
These conclusions matter for the field's understanding of weapon taboos and the politics of military action and arms control.
Read the open-access article: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopres/xjag001
