British public divided on merits of drone strikes
a scenario that a terrorist attack against the United Kingdom was imminent and could be stopped by a drone missile strike against a known terrorist in Yemen, overall support remained notably less sensitive to casualty numbers. In this context support for a drone missile strike dropped from 74 percent to 64 percent among respondents overall when the scenario was a casualty-rate of 2-3 innocent civilians instead of none, and dropped further to 60 percent when it included a casualty-rate of 10-15 innocent civilians. In each case, however, overall support retained a strong majority.
On the broader question of whether drone missile strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia are helping or hindering Western security, the British public is divided. 32 percent of respondents said drone strikes had made the West safer overall by making it easier to target known terrorists; 31 percent said the West was less safe and turning public opinion against us in countries where drones are used; 37 percent selected neither of these options or did not know.
Nevertheless, a 57 percent majority agreed overall that drones help to reduce casualties “by removing the need to send people on the ground.” A significant plurality (47 percent) also agreed that drones help to reduce casualties “because of their accuracy compared with other weapons.”
Dr. Joel Faulkner Rogers, academic director of YouGov, whose research is published in Hitting the Target?, said: “As public debate now seemingly plays catch-up with a decade of evolving policy on drones, public opinion on the subject has been variously portrayed and oversimplified on a scale between nonchalantly for and hysterically against.”
“The British public are clearly divided on whether the current use of drones is ultimately doing more harm or good to Western security. But there’s also a distinction between attitudes to the weapon and the way it’s used, which go beyond binary moral judgments about ‘drones-good’ or ‘drones bad’. The findings show notable public concern that drones could make foreign intervention too easy. But a majority of Brits also support the policy, at least in principle, of targeted drone strikes against known terrorists, with many who support a view that drones can help to reduce, as well as cause, casualties if military action is required.”
Professor Sir Michael Aaronson, director of cii, commented: “This research demonstrates that the British public has a reassuringly sophisticated understanding of the benefits and dangers of the precision strike capabilities that drones provide. They are not soft on counter-terrorism, but they are uneasy about the wider foreign policy implications of the power these capabilities give Western governments.”
“This report is an important contribution to the debate about drones, where there is often more heat than light. It is important that the public is properly informed about the issues if governments are to harness the power of technology in a socially responsible way.”
— Read more in Michael Aaronson and Adrian Johnson, eds., Hitting the Target? How New Capabilities are Shaping International Intervention (RUSI, Whitehall Report 2-13, February 2013)
