Yes, at least a third of Americans are fucking Nazi scum: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on a Stanford survey of Americans on North Korea

I'll put in bold what I am emphasizing from this message from an email I just got:

I’d like to call your attention to an important article we’ve just published from the July/August issue of the subscription magazine: “What do Americans really think about conflict with nuclear North Korea? The answer is both reassuring and disturbing.” The article is free-access for two months.

Written by Stanford University experts Alida Haworth, Scott Sagan, and Benjamin Valentino, this piece reviews the results of a public opinion survey conducted this year that examines American attitudes toward a proposed preemptive war against North Korea.
Some of the findings:
  • Most Americans do not want the United States to launch a preventive war against North Korea.
  • But a large, hawkish minority—about a third of respondents—approves of a US preventive strike across scenarios—even when US use of nuclear weapons could be expected to kill 1 million North Korean civilians.
  • Americans are deeply misinformed about US offensive and defensive military capabilities, including the ability to find and destroy North Korean nuclear weapons without a ground invasion and whether missile defense would be certain to protect against North Korean nuclear missiles.
  • Trump supporters are particularly likely to hold dangerous misperceptions about war with North Korea.
Although it is good news that most Americans do not support preemptive war against North Korea, far too many don’t hesitate to approve, even if nuclear weapons are used in the attack. And far too many Americans are mistakenly convinced that such an attack would not result in harm to US citizens.

Please read this important article and share it widely. As always, we welcome your thoughts; you can reach us at admin@thebulletin.org.

The link to the article, published at Taylor & Francis Online, is here.

And from the study itself:

The first piece of disconcerting news, however, is that a large hawkish minority lurks within the US public; over a third of respondents approve of a US preventive strike across the scenarios and appear insensitive to informational cues that most security experts would expect to reduce such levels of support.

Second, preference for the strike does not significantly decrease when the story says that the United States would use nuclear weapons in its attack; 33 percent preferred a preventive nuclear first-strike. Even more disturbing: There is no significant change in the percentage who would prefer or approve of a US nuclear strike when the number of estimated North Korean fatal- ities increases from 15,000 to 1.1 million, including 1 million civilians. As we have previously found, the US public exhibits only limited aversion to nuclear weapons use and a shocking willingness to support the killing of enemy civilians (Sagan and Valentino 2017).

Perhaps some of the subjects who preferred one of these US strikes with 90 percent chance of success (and hence a 10 percent chance that North Korean retaliatory strikes would hit American and South Korean cities) were influenced by what Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman call the pseudocertainty effect,” whereby highly probable events are seen as certain, washing out accurate measures of risk. Some of the absolute language used in explanations by attack supporters – “to stop them from a launch on us,” “to keep them from hi[t]ing us,” and to rid their weapons so they cant launch an attack on us” – are indicative of this misperception of risk (Tversky and Kahneman 1986).

It is also alarming that the difference between levels of preference” and approval,” as shown in Figure 2, suggests that the American public is significantly swayed by a rally round the flag” effect: During times of international crisis, support for the president increases. Across all conditions, approval for the US strike is notably (although not always significantly, inpage6image245022272page6image245022528 a statistical sense) higher than preference, meaning a number of respondents discount their personal preferences in favor of the presidents. For example, whileonly” 33 percent of the US public prefer a US preven- tive nuclear strike that would kill 15,000 North Koreans, 50 percent approve.

[...]

To better understand the hawkish minority of the US public, we examined a number of key demographic traits and belief systems. Across all scenarios, Republicans expressed greater preference for the use of military force than Democrats. This trend becomes even more stark when we tease out those who support President Trump specifically. A majority of Trump supporters prefer the US strike in every scenario, except when confidence in the effectiveness of the US conventional strike is 50 percent. Still, it is important to note that preference for the strike even in this scenario remains at 44 percent among Trump supporters, compared to only 8 percent among non-Trump supporters (see Figure 3).

Another key belief driving preferences for the US military strike is opinion on the death penalty. Across all conditions, those who favor the death penalty for convicted murderers are more supportive of the US strike than are those who oppose it. Such a belief may reflect the retributive nature of some respondents, which existing research has found to increase willingness to support the use of torture and war (Liberman 2013; Liberman and Skitka 2017). The most disturbing finding in the poll appears in the US nuclear strike scenarios. When the number of expected North Korean fatalities increased from 15,000 to 1.1 million, preference for using nuclear weapons among respondents who favor the death penalty increased from 38 percent to 49 percent (although this is not a statistically significant change). One respondent who supported the death penalty and the US nuclear strike in this scenario explained, Its our best chance of eliminating the North Koreans.” Another simply stated, to end North Korea.” By contrast, preference for the nuclear strike among those who oppose the death penalty fell from 26 percent to 7 percent across the same two scenarios.

They. Are. Fucking. Nazis.

Yeah, definitely don't confront Uncle Racist at the July 4th party. I mean, why should you care if your children live or die, and in what political or ecological environment, right? How is that choosing happiness in a mindful way?

This'll build those ungrateful wretches some character:



Now they'll know how hard it was to grow up white and in the upper-middle-class in the Northeast during the 1980s. 

Meanwhile, the psychopath in the White House just threatened Iran with, essentially, Nazi-eliminationist nuclear war if they hit "anything American," I guess at any point into the future. He just backed himself up against a wall. Twenty-five minutes ago as of this typing I'm doing here.