Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
Then back to the topic:

The use of drone in irregular war, from my personal point of view, could be seen as an attempt by the US to establish a similar power dominance in the field of non conventional wars as the A bomb gave them in the field of conventional war.
There are a lot of similarities between the theories of power and impact of A Bomb in diplomacy developed by theoricians as Raymond Aron in the 60 and the rhetoric used to justify the use of drones based on the military/power advantage they give to the US. All based on the need of homeland security and right to self defense. (Fuch reaction is one of them. Even if I do agree at some point with him. Just as Mike “upset” response. )

My only objection to the unlimited/no boundaries battle field is that, as with A bomb, it forced violent actors to develop alternative ways of war. The equilibrium of terror established through A bomb pushed States and non state actors to develop irregular warfare and terrorism.
If drones can establish this kind of overwhelming power for a handful of nations (US being the leader), then NSVA will develop other ways of war or use of force.
In that perspective, drones forces us to consider Jus ad bellum and not only Jus in Bello. Otherwise, crimes of aggression will become the norm. (And I know that US did not sign Rome Treaty).
Very good analysis IMO....sooner or later a cheap and effective counter-measure will be found. That is why I say Droning somebody is a Tactic at best (very effective but a tactic none the less) it is not a Strategy,