Drone strikes are a key tool for fighting terrorists, providing military forces with the ability to kill terrorists without risking the lives of soldiers. They also allow for the use of force in places where it would be difficult, politically or logistically, to send conventional troops. However, the use of drones raises questions about their legitimacy and impact on international relations.
The question of whether drones are morally better, worse or the same than using ground troops in a conflict is one that will linger for years to come. Despite their disadvantages, drone strikes are a necessary defense against unscrupulous opponents in an asymmetric war that will never be won with clear-cut victories.
We find that citizens in general have strong attitudes about which types of strikes are morally legitimate. Specifically, Americans and French citizens who see their country deploying tactical drones with multilateral constraint (group two in our experimental design) tend to perceive those strikes as the most morally legitimate. They are also more likely to view a strike conducted by their country as less responsible for civilian casualties than those carried out in groups three and four.
Strikes that are conducted by a single nation without any other constraints (group four) tend to be perceived as less morally legitimate, but not by a significant margin. This result is likely driven by respondents’ confusion over what types of moral norms apply to the specific situation at hand. Across all four experimental groups, people confused the most between the principle of proportionality and the principle of not violating international law.
About the Author
