Remote Warfare and the Retooling of American Primacy

Biegon, Rubrick; Watts, Tom

doi:10.1080/14650045.2020.1850442

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the last years of Barack Obama's presidency, the focus of US defence planning has shifted away from counterterrorism toward strategic competition with the "revisionist" states of China and Russia (The White House, 2017, p. 25;2022, p. 8). This has not only altered post-9/11 practices of "remote" military intervention (Biegon & Watts, 2022;Watts & Biegon, 2021), but the overarching direction of US foreign policy. As encapsulated in the 2022 National Security Strategy, there is bi-partisan agreement that "[t] echnology is central to today's geopolitical competition and to the future of our national security, economy and democracy" (The White House, 2022, p. 32).…”

Section: Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospects for the global governance of autonomous weapons: comparing Chinese, Russian, and US practices

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kallenborn, 2021). The CEO of the system's manufacturer STM maintains that the use of autonomy in the Kargu-2 is primarily restricted to navigation, and that "[u]nless an operator pushes the button, it is not possible for the drone to select a target and attack" (Tavsan, 2021). Despite this ambiguity, the incident has been widely portrayed as the first battlefield use of autonomous weapon systems (AWS), often colloquially called "killer robots" (see Mizokami, 2021;Stanley, 2021;Vincent, 2021).AWS are defined as "any weapons that select and apply force to targets without human intervention" (ICRC, 2022). 1 Militaries throughout the world have demonstrated 1 In this article we generally refer to autonomous weapon systems (AWS). AWS are not a specific category of weapon. Rather, we understand AWS as being any type of weapon system which utilizes machine autonomy to select and apply force without immediate human control or intervention. While some autonomous weapons integrate AI elements into their critical functions, they may not all necessarily be based on AI technologies. We will only employ the term lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) when specifically citing the discussion at the UN CCW, as this is the official term which states parties have used as part of this debate. The term "killer robots" is also commonly

show abstract

Section: Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospects for the global governance of autonomous weapons: comparing Chinese, Russian, and US practices

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is in part, we argue, because of the RMA that the GWOT appeared sustainable, if not necessarily 'winnable'. By helping reduce the political costs of military intervention to below the threshold of sustained public opposition (Biegon and Watts 2022;Watts and Biegon 2021), changes associated with the RMA helped to deter serious reflection about the limits of American military power, even after the setbacks of the nation-building campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. As with the wider evolution of US counterterrorism policy after 9/11, neoconservatism's contribution to the RMA must be qualified.…”

Section: The Revolution In Military Affairs and The Militarisation Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the neoconservative legacy in American counterterrorism policy: from George W. Bush to forever war

Biegon

Watts

2023

Int Polit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than two decades after the 9/11 attacks, the militarised approach to counterterrorism initiated by the George W. Bush Administration remains firmly in place. Growing frustration with these actions has prompted debates on ‘forever war’. This article traces the origins of ‘forever war’ to the interplay of neoconservatism and conservative nationalism in the George W. Bush Administration, which aimed at preserving American primacy through the cultivation of overwhelming military power. The Administration’s support for the revolution in military affairs contributed to the development of a more remote counterterrorism approach, which helps explain the continuities in US counterterrorism policies across the latter Bush administration as well as the Obama and Trump presidencies. By helping embed a ‘common sense’ understanding that further 9/11-style attacks could only be prevented by enduring and aggressive military action against transnational terrorist organisations, neoconservatism shaped the evolution of American counterterrorism policy. The specific influence of neoconservatism must be qualified and contextualised, however, because the strategic commitment to primacy had wider support within the Bush Administration.

show abstract

“…Rubrick Biegon and Tom F.A. Watts for example analyze how remote warfare allows the US to flexibly and sustainably project power and thus maintain its primacy (Biegon and Watts, 2020); an American approach to remote warfare characterized by 'delegation, dangerproofing, and darkness' that Thomas Waldman terms 'vicarious warfare' (Waldman, 2018(Waldman, , 2021. This predominant focus on the US has distorted conclusions regarding the role of international law and legal norms in remote warfare through drones.…”

Section: The Paradigmatic Case Of Drone Warfare: the United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

International law is dead, long live international law: the state practice of drone strikes

Theussen

2021

Int Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New means and methods of war such as remote warfare by dronesthe focus of this special issuechallenge international law, as there no longer exists agreement between states regarding the rules regulating the use of force. The existing legal norms are interpreted in widely diverging manners and seemingly put aside if not in the interest of the state in question. Yet, this article argues that, taking a closer look at the state practice of drone strikes beyond the paradigmatic case of the United States of America, the demise of international legal norms regulating the use of force seems overstated. Instead, the analysis reveals that the international laws addressing the use of force and means and methods of warfare are not as dead as the general discourse asserts, and can still serve to regulate state action.

show abstract

Remote Warfare and the Retooling of American Primacy

Abstract: The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Cited by 16 publications

References 54 publications

Prospects for the global governance of autonomous weapons: comparing Chinese, Russian, and US practices

Prospects for the global governance of autonomous weapons: comparing Chinese, Russian, and US practices

Beyond the neoconservative legacy in American counterterrorism policy: from George W. Bush to forever war

International law is dead, long live international law: the state practice of drone strikes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About