Drone strikes represent a significant evolution in warfare, offering strategic advantages and raising serious ethical and moral concerns. Since 9/11, drones have enabled the United States and its allies to engage enemies in remote or hostile environments where deploying ground forces would be perilous. But a growing reliance on drones to kill terrorist and militant targets has also created new dangers. For example, a wily adversary could cause vast destruction on American soil using drones for far less than it would cost to deploy troops. Furthermore, the lack of transparency surrounding the use of drones in conflict can encourage a cavalier approach to warfare, bypassing the traditional checks and balances that come with deploying military personnel.
Our findings show that Americans and French citizens have strong attitudes about which patterns of drone strikes they perceive as most legitimate. Respondents register a stronger perception of legitimacy when a strike is used strategically during engagement with an enemy to achieve broader military and political objectives. They also register a stronger perception of legitimacy when the strike is conducted with multilateral constraint and does not result in a civilian casualty.
We also find that both Americans and French citizens are highly sensitive to civilian casualties in drone strikes, but they differ in their perceptions of the severity of those consequences. Americans are particularly concerned that drones may violate international law by disregarding the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants. By contrast, French citizens are more concerned that drone strikes violate the principle of proportionality by disproportionately targeting innocent civilians.