CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126Military Technology and StrategiesInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

Separating Fact from Fiction in the Debate over Drone Proliferation

Horowitz, Michael C., Kreps, Sarah E., Fuhrmann, Matthew·2016·International Security
DOI 10.1162/isec_a_00257
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

What are the consequences of drone proliferation for international security? Despite extensive discussions in the policy world concerning drone strikes for counterterrorism purposes, myths about the capabilities and implications of current-generation drones often outstrip reality. Understanding the impact of drones requires separating fact from fiction by examining their effects in six different contexts—counterterrorism, interstate conflict, crisis onset and deterrence, coercive diplomacy, domestic control and repression, and use by nonstate actors for the purposes of terrorism. Although current-generation drones introduce some unique capabilities into conflicts, they are unlikely to produce the dire consequences that some analysts fear. In particular, drone proliferation carries potentially significant consequences for counterterrorism operations and domestic control in authoritarian regimes. Drones could also enhance monitoring in disputed territories, potentially leading to greater stability. Given their technical limitations, however, current-generation drones are unlikely to have a large impact on interstate warfare. Assessing the consequences of drone proliferation has important implications for a range of policy issues, including the management of regional disputes, the regulation of drone exports, and defense against potential terrorist attacks on the homeland.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/isec_a_00257

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • What limited evidence exists about the shootdown of drones, including along the Syria-Turkey border, in the Kashmir region, and between the United States and Iran, suggests that countries will not react by escalating.

    “In fact, what limited evidence exists about the shootdown of drones, including along the Syria-Turkey border, in the Kashmir region, and between the United States and Iran, suggests that countries will not react by escalating (Horowitz et al. 2016).”

    From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Horowitz et al. 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Horowitz, M. C., Kreps, S. E., & Fuhrmann, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
ORCID
Venue
International Security
Publisher
MIT Press - Journals
Published
2016-10
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
7-42
ISSN
  • 0162-2889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4804
DOI
10.1162/isec_a_00257
OpenAlex
W2556801039
Cited by
113
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1
FWCI
14.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Security (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Military Technology and Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Keywords
drone proliferation, unmanned aerial vehicles, counterterrorism, drone strikes, deterrence, coercive diplomacy, authoritarian repression, non-state actors, terrorism, interstate conflict, regional conflict, homeland security

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