1932

Abstract

We live in a digital world. This fact has significant consequences for warfare. Two technologies in particular, cyber and drones, feature in military and intelligence operations and in scholarship. In addition, a new vein of scholarship is examining how advances in artificial intelligence have the potential to shape the future of warfare. While scholars disagree about the consequences of these technologies for international politics, they tend to agree that their consequences are mediated by the ability of military organizations, whether state or nonstate actors, to use them effectively in relevant military scenarios and in the pursuit of political ends. Studying newer military technologies, with less empirical evidence than is available for technologies that have been around for decades, also generates methodological challenges for research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725
2020-05-11
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/23/1/annurev-polisci-050718-032725.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Altmann J, Sauer F. 2017. Autonomous weapon systems and strategic stability. Survival 59:117–42
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arquilla J, Ronfeldt D. 1993. Cyberwar is coming. ! Comp. Strategy 12:141–65
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biddle SD. 2004. Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyle MJ. 2013. The costs and consequences of drone warfare. Int. Aff. 89:1–29
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Byman D. 2013. Why drones work. Foreign Aff 92:32–43
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cronin AK. 2013. Why drones fail. Foreign Aff 92:44–54
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cummings ML. 2017. Artificial intelligence and the future of warfare Res. Pap Chatham House, Royal Inst. Int Aff., London, UK: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-01-26-artificial-intelligence-future-warfare-cummings.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dolman EC. 2002. Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age Portland, OR: Frank Cass
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dombrowski P, Demchak CC. 2014. Cyber war, cybered conflict, and the maritime domain. Naval War Coll. Rev. 67:70–96
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Drezner DW. 2019. Technological change and international relations. Int. Relat. 33:286–303
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Early BR. 2014. Exploring the final frontier: an empirical analysis of global civil space proliferation. Int. Stud. Q. 58:55–67
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fair CC, Kaltenthaler K, Miller WJ 2014. Pakistani opposition to American drone strikes. Political Sci. Q. 129:1–33
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fearon JD. 2018. Cooperation, conflict, and the costs of anarchy. Int. Organ. 72:523–59
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Finnemore M, Hollis DB. 2016. Constructing norms for global cybersecurity. Am. J. Int. Law 110:425–79
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fuhrmann M, Horowitz MC. 2017. Droning on: explaining the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles. Int. Organ. 71:397–418
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Garfinkel B, Dafoe A. 2019. How does the offense–defense balance scale. ? J. Strategic Stud. 42:736–63
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gartzke E, Jo D-J. 2007. Determinants of nuclear weapons proliferation: a quantitative model. J. Confl. Resolut. 51:167–94
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gartzke E, Lindsay JR. 2015. Weaving tangled webs: offense, defense, and deception in cyberspace. Secur. Stud. 24:316–48
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gartzke E, Lindsay JR. 2019. Cross-Domain Deterrence: Strategy in an Era of Complexity New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gettinger D. 2019. The drone databook Cent. Stud. Drone, Bard College Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: https://dronecenter.bard.edu/projects/drone-proliferation/databook/
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gilli A, Gilli M. 2016. The diffusion of drone warfare? Industrial, organizational and infrastructural constraints: military innovations and the ecosystem challenge. Secur. Stud. 25:50–84
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gilli A, Gilli M. 2019. Why China has not caught up yet: military-technological superiority and the limits of imitation, reverse engineering, and cyber espionage. Int. Secur. 43:141–89
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Horowitz MC. 2010. The Diffusion of Military Power: Causes and Consequences for International Politics Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Horowitz MC. 2016. Public opinion and the politics of the killer robots debate. Res. Politics 3:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Horowitz MC. 2018. Artificial intelligence, international competition, and the balance of power. Texas Natl. Secur. Rev. 1:37–57
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Horowitz MC, Kreps SE, Fuhrmann M 2016. Separating fact from fiction in the debate over drone proliferation. Int. Secur. 41:7–42
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Horowitz MC, Kreps SE, Fuhrmann M 2019. Yes, Iran shot down a U.S. drone. Here's why you (still) don't need to worry. Washington Post/Monkey Cage Blog June 20. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/20/yes-iran-shot-down-us-drone-heres-why-you-still-dont-need-worry/
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hua J, Bapna S. 2013. The economic impact of cyber terrorism. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 22:175–86
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jensen BM, Whyte C, Cuomo S 2019. Algorithms at war: the promise, peril, and limits of artificial intelligence. Int. Stud. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz025
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jervis R. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnston PB. 2012. Does decapitation work? Assessing the effectiveness of leadership targeting in counterinsurgency campaigns. Int. Secur. 36:47–79
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnston PB, Sarbahi AK. 2016. The impact of U.S. drone strikes on terrorism in Pakistan. Int. Stud. Q. 62:203–19
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jordan J. 2009. When heads roll: assessing the effectiveness of leadership decapitation. Secur. Stud. 18:719–55
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Jordan J. 2014. Attacking the leader, missing the mark: why terrorist groups survive decapitation strikes. Int. Secur. 38:7–38
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Junio TJ. 2013. How probable is cyber war? Bringing IR theory back in to the cyber conflict debate. J. Strateg. Stud. 36:125–33
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kello L. 2013. The meaning of the cyber revolution: perils to theory and statecraft. Int. Secur. 38:7–40
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kilcullen D, Exum A. 2009. Death from above, outrage down below. New York Times May 16. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Koblentz GD. 2011. Living Weapons: Biological Warfare and International Security Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kostyuk N, Zhukov YM. 2019. Invisible digital front: Can cyber attacks shape battlefield events. ? J. Confl. Resolut. 63:317–47
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kreps SE. 2014. Flying under the radar: a study of public attitudes towards unmanned aerial vehicles. Res. Politics 1:1–7 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168014536533
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kreps SE, Wallace GP. 2016. International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes. J. Peace Res. 53:830–44
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kroenig M. 2018. The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy: Why Strategic Superiority Matters New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Libicki MC. 2009. Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar Washington, DC: RAND Corp.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Liff AP. 2012. Cyberwar: a new ‘absolute weapon’? The proliferation of cyberwarfare capabilities and interstate war. J. Strateg. Stud. 35:401–28
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lin H. 2012. Escalation dynamics and conflict termination in cyberspace. Strateg. Stud. Q. 6:46–70
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lindsay JR. 2013. Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare. Secur. Stud. 22:365–404
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lindsay JR. 2015. The impact of China on cybersecurity: fiction and friction. Int. Secur. 39:7–47
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mir A. 2018. What explains counterterrorism effectiveness? Evidence from the US drone war in Pakistan. Int. Secur. 43:45–83
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Mir A, Moore D. 2019. Drones, surveillance, and violence: theory and evidence from a US drone program. Int. Stud. Q. 63:846–62
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Nye JS Jr 2017. Deterrence and dissuasion in cyberspace. Int. Secur. 41:44–71
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Panetta LE. 2012. Remarks by Secretary Panetta on cybersecurity to the Business Executives for National Security, New York City. Oct 11: https://archive.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5136
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Poznansky M, Perkoski E. 2018. Rethinking secrecy in cyberspace: the politics of voluntary attribution. J. Glob. Secur. Stud. 3:402–16
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Rid T. 2012. Cyber war will not take place. J. Strateg. Stud. 35:5–32
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Rid T. 2013. Cyber War Will Not Take Place New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Schelling TC. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schmitt MN. 2011. Cyber operations and the jud ad bellum revisited. Villanova Law Rev 56:569–606
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Schneider J. 2019a. The capability/vulnerability paradox and military revolutions: implications for computing, cyber, and the onset of war. J. Strateg. Stud. 42:841–63
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Schneider J. 2019b. Cyber and crisis escalation: insights from wargaming Work. Pap., Mario Einaudi Cent. Int. Stud., Cornell Univ https://pacs.einaudi.cornell.edu/sites/pacs/files/Schneider.Cyber%20and%20Crisis%20Escalation%20Insights%20from%20Wargaming%20Schneider%20for%20Cornell.10-12-17.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sechser TS, Fuhrmann M. 2017. Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sechser TS, Narang N, Talmadge C 2019. Emerging technologies and strategic stability in peacetime, crisis, and war. J. Strateg. Stud. 42:727–35
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Shah A. 2018. Do U.S. drone strikes cause blowback? Evidence from Pakistan and beyond. Int. Secur. 42:47–84
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Singh S, Way CR. 2004. The correlates of nuclear proliferation—a quantitative test. J. Confl. Resolut. 48:859–85
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Slayton R. 2017. What is the cyber offense-defense balance? Conceptions, causes, and assessment. Int. Secur. 41:72–109
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Smith M, Walsh JI. 2013. Do drone strikes degrade Al Qaeda? Evidence from propaganda output. Terrorism Political Violence 25:311–27
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Spindel J. 2018. Beyond military power: the symbolic politics of conventional weapons transfers PhD Diss., Dep. Political Sci., Univ Minn:.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Talmadge C. 2019. Emerging technology and intra-war escalation risks: evidence from the Cold War, implications for today. J. Strateg. Stud. 42:864–87
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Valeriano B, Jensen BM, Maness RC 2018. Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Valeriano B, Maness RC. 2015. Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Volpe TA. 2019. Dual-use distinguishability: how 3D-printing shapes the security dilemma for nuclear programs. J. Strateg. Stud. 42:814–40
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Walsh JI, Schulzke M. 2018. Drones and Support for the Use of Force Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Williams H. 2019. Asymmetric arms control and strategic stability: scenarios for limiting hypersonic glide vehicles. J. Strateg. Stud. 42:789–813
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Zegart A. 2018. Cheap fights, credible threats: the future of armed drones and coercion. J. Strateg. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2018.1439747
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error