Drones and Support for the Use of Force
Open accessAbstract
Drones and Support for the Use of Force utilizes experimental research to analyze the effects of combat drones on Americans' support for the use of force. The authors develop expectations drawn from social science theory and then assess these conjectures using a series of survey experiments. Their findings—that drones have had important but nuanced effects on support for the use of force—have implications for democratic control of military action and civil-military relations, and provide insight into how the development and proliferation of current and future military technologies influence the domestic politics of foreign policy.
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?
Drone strikes tend to be popular with the American public due to fear of casualties, with support crossing party lines between Democrats and Republicans.
“Drone strikes tend to be popular with the American public due to fear of casualties, with support crossing party lines between Democrats and Republicans (Walsh & Schulzke 2018).”
From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Walsh & Schulzke 2018
Soft support for drone strikes likely exists because drones are perceived as a way to strike at adversaries without putting US troops at risk.
“Soft support for drone strikes likely exists because drones are perceived as a way to strike at adversaries without putting US troops at risk (Kreps 2014, Walsh & Schulzke 2018).”
From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Walsh & Schulzke 2018
Cites
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008 · see citing works
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
- Authors
- Walsh, J., & Schulzke, M.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
- Venue
- University of Michigan Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Michigan Press
- Published
- 2018
- OpenAlex
- W4214705842
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 4.61
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- University of Michigan Press eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- BiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Directory of Open access Books (OAPEN Foundation) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › War, Ethics, and Justification
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Defense, Military, and Policy Studies
- Keywords
- unmanned combat aerial vehicles, drone warfare, public support for war, use of military force, military casualties, civilian casualties, civil-military relations, foreign policy, American public opinion
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
