Drone strikes are a significant development in the evolution of modern warfare, and raise a number of important ethical and legal concerns. The aims of this blog are to explore these issues, and to encourage the international community to engage in meaningful debate on the legality, morality, and effectiveness of drone strikes.
Pro: Pro 1: Drone strikes make us safer by targeting terrorists while protecting civilians and their families. Pro 2: They disrupt the operational capabilities of non-state organized armed groups by eliminating their leadership.
Con: Pro 3: Drones can be used in conjunction with traditional military operations to limit the number of casualties in areas of conflict. Pro 4: Drone strikes are a cheaper alternative to conventional war and less likely to cause long-term mental health problems for pilots.
Con 4: Drone strikes can create more enemies by terrifying communities and fueling anti-Western sentiment. They can also be used to target individuals based on their identity, which can lead to innocent civilian deaths. Pro 5: A well-designed drone program can be a powerful tool in the fight against terrorism.
Our research has found that French and American citizens perceive different patterns of drone warfare as more or less legitimate. Americans are more likely to think that strikes that use multilateral constraint and do not kill a civilian are most legitimate, while French respondents tend to prioritize the importance of political legitimacy in their evaluations of drone attacks. This finding suggests that the debate over drone strikes may be shifting away from U.S. and French counterterrorism operations, to broader questions about the global governance of drone warfare in intrastate conflicts and border disputes.
