Extent of Public Support For CND Policies
As CND did not have a national membership until 1966, the strength of public support in its early days can be estimated only from the numbers of those attending demonstrations or expressing approval in opinion polls. Between 1955 and 1962, between 19% to 33% of people in Britain expressed disapproval of the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Public support for unilateralism in September 1982 was 31%, falling to 21% in January 1983, but it is hard to say whether this decline was a result of the contemporary propaganda campaign against CND or not. Support for CND fell after the end of the Cold war. It had not succeeded in converting the British public to unilateralism and even after the collapse of the Soviet Union British nuclear weapons still have majority support. "Unilateral disarmament has always been opposed by a majority of the British public, with the level of support for unilateralism remaining steady at around one in four of the population."
In 2005, MORI conducted an opinion poll which asked about attitudes to Trident and the use of nuclear weapons. When asked whether the UK should replace Trident, without being told of the cost, 44% of respondents said "Yes" and 46% said "No". When asked the same question and told of the cost, 33% said "Yes" and 54% said "No".
When asked "Would you approve or disapprove of the UK using nuclear weapons against a country we are at war with?"
- 9% would approve if that country does not have nuclear weapons, and 84% would disapprove.
- 16% would approve if that country has nuclear weapons but has never used them, and 72% would disapprove,
- 53% would approve if that country uses nuclear weapons against the UK, and 37% would disapprove.
CND's policy of opposing American nuclear bases is said to be in tune with public opinion.
Read more about this topic: Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament
Famous quotes containing the words extent of, extent, public, support and/or policies:
“It is strange to contemplate how little sympathy or encouragement the great mass of people have with one who differs from them in tastes, to the extent of desiring an education, while they are content with little or none.”
—Caroline Nichols Churchill (1833–?)
“If the worker and his boss enjoy the same television program and visit the same resort places, if the typist is as attractively made up as the daughter of her employer, if the Negro owns a Cadillac, if they all read the same newspaper, then this assimilation indicates not the disappearance of classes, but the extent to which the needs and satisfactions that serve the preservation of the Establishment are shared by the underlying population.”
—Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979)
“Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the labor interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
—Administration in the State of Neva, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)
“She isn’t harassed. She’s busy, and it’s glamorous to be busy. Indeed, the image of the on- the-go working mother is very like the glamorous image of the busy top executive. The scarcity of the working mother’s time seems like the scarcity of the top executive’s time.... The analogy between the busy working mother and the busy top executive obscures the wage gap between them at work, and their different amounts of backstage support at home.”
—Arlie Hochschild (20th century)
“Give a scientist a problem and he will probably provide a solution; historians and sociologists, by contrast, can offer only opinions. Ask a dozen chemists the composition of an organic compound such as methane, and within a short time all twelve will have come up with the same solution of CH4. Ask, however, a dozen economists or sociologists to provide policies to reduce unemployment or the level of crime and twelve widely differing opinions are likely to be offered.”
—Derek Gjertsen, British scientist, author. Science and Philosophy: Past and Present, ch. 3, Penguin (1989)