Cheap fights, credible threats: The future of armed drones and coercion
Abstract
Drones are considered poor coercion tools: They cannot operate in contested airspace and they offer low-cost fights instead of more credible, costly signals. However, this article finds that technological advances will soon enable drones to function in hostile environments. Moreover, drones offer three unique coercion advantages that theorists did not foresee: sustainability in long duration conflicts, certainty of precision punishment which can change the psychology of adversaries, and changes in the relative costs of war. A unique survey of 259 foreign military officers finds that costly signals are less credible than assumed and that drones demonstrate resolve in new ways.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Because drone strike capability changes the relative costs of war for the attacker and offers more certainty by increasing precision, countries with asymmetric advantages in the ability to use drones for strikes might be able to coerce potential adversaries in ways that have relevance for interstate war.
“Because drone strike capability changes the relative costs of war for the attacker and offers more certainty by increasing precision, countries with asymmetric advantages in the ability to use drones for strikes might be able to coerce potential adversaries in ways that have relevance for interstate war (Zegart 2018).”
From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Zegart 2018
Cites
Separating Fact from Fiction in the Debate over Drone Proliferation
Horowitz, M. C., Kreps, S. E., & Fuhrmann, M. (2016) · International Security · doi:10.1162/isec_a_00257 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics?
Horowitz, M. C. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Milan, F. F., & Bassiri Tabrizi, A. (2020) · Small Wars & Insurgencies · doi:10.1080/09592318.2020.1743488 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zegart, A.
- Affiliations
- Hoover Institution (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zegart, Amy
- Venue
- Journal of Strategic Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-02-28
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-46
- ISSN
- 0140-2390 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-937X
- OpenAlex
- W2792694298
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Strategic Studies (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Carnegie Corporation (G-16-52951)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Military Technology and Strategies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Military Strategy and Technology
- Keywords
- armed drones, coercion, costly signaling, credible threats, precision strike, deterrence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
