Drone strikes are a key tool in the arsenal of state and non-state actors battling terrorism and other transnational threats. Scholars and policymakers are deeply divided about whether drone attacks work and are a useful strategy for defeating terrorist groups, but the evidence suggests that targeted killing can erode the quality of an enemy’s leadership, dissuade its operatives from acting on behalf of their cause, and push them into safe havens in other countries.
Drones are capable of carrying a variety of weapons, including guided bombs and missiles. They can operate together in a “drone swarm” or attack independently as unmanned autonomous aircraft (UAA). Some drones are equipped with military AI that allows them to perform the tasks of piloting and targeting while operating without human intervention.
The use of drones is rapidly expanding. Governments that once limited drone deployment to counterterrorism missions are now using them in a broad range of domestic and international conflicts. Non-state actors are also adopting them at an unprecedented rate. This has created a new challenge for global governance of drone warfare, as governments struggle to balance the needs of their own populations with their strategic interests in an increasingly contested space.
We surveyed people in the United States and France to examine how the purpose of drone strikes influences perceptions of legitimacy. Our analysis shows that respondents’ attitudes about the legitimacy of drone warfare vary according to how a strike is used and what kind of constraints are placed on it. For example, Americans are more likely to think that a strike is legitimate if it is carried out by their country and if there is a low chance of civilian casualties.