Will the Drone Always Get Through? Offensive Myths and Defensive Realities

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Security Studies Pub Date : 2022-10-20 DOI:10.1080/09636412.2022.2153734
A. Calcara, A. Gilli, Mauro Gilli, Ivan Zaccagnini
{"title":"Will the Drone Always Get Through? Offensive Myths and Defensive Realities","authors":"A. Calcara, A. Gilli, Mauro Gilli, Ivan Zaccagnini","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2022.2153734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Do emerging and disruptive technologies yield an offensive advantage? This is a question of central theoretical and substantive relevance. For the most part, however, the literature on this topic has not investigated empirically whether such technologies make attacking easier than defending, but it has largely assumed that they do. At the same time, work on the offense–defense balance has primarily focused on land conflicts, thus offering little understanding of the effect of technological change in other domains, such as the air and sea. In this article we address these gaps by investigating whether current- and next-generation drones shift the offense–defense balance toward the offense or toward offense dominance, as many assume—that is, whether drone technology can or will defeat current- and next-generation air defense systems. To answer these questions, we have explored the literature in radar engineering, electromagnetism, signal processing, and air defense operation. Our analysis challenges the existing consensus about the present and raises questions about the future. Our findings also demonstrate how important it is for the field of security studies to embrace greater interdisciplinarity in order to explore pressing policy and theoretical questions.","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"31 1","pages":"791 - 825"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2022.2153734","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Do emerging and disruptive technologies yield an offensive advantage? This is a question of central theoretical and substantive relevance. For the most part, however, the literature on this topic has not investigated empirically whether such technologies make attacking easier than defending, but it has largely assumed that they do. At the same time, work on the offense–defense balance has primarily focused on land conflicts, thus offering little understanding of the effect of technological change in other domains, such as the air and sea. In this article we address these gaps by investigating whether current- and next-generation drones shift the offense–defense balance toward the offense or toward offense dominance, as many assume—that is, whether drone technology can or will defeat current- and next-generation air defense systems. To answer these questions, we have explored the literature in radar engineering, electromagnetism, signal processing, and air defense operation. Our analysis challenges the existing consensus about the present and raises questions about the future. Our findings also demonstrate how important it is for the field of security studies to embrace greater interdisciplinarity in order to explore pressing policy and theoretical questions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无人机总是能通过吗?进攻神话与防御现实
新兴和颠覆性技术是否会产生进攻性优势?这是一个具有核心理论和实质意义的问题。然而,在大多数情况下,关于这个主题的文献并没有实证地调查这些技术是否使攻击比防御更容易,但它在很大程度上假设它们是这样做的。与此同时,攻防平衡的工作主要集中在陆地冲突上,因此对技术变革在其他领域(如空中和海上)的影响知之甚少。在本文中,我们通过调查当前和下一代无人机是否将攻防平衡转向进攻或进攻主导来解决这些差距,正如许多人所假设的那样,也就是说,无人机技术是否能够或将击败当前和下一代防空系统。为了回答这些问题,我们探索了雷达工程、电磁学、信号处理和防空作战方面的文献。我们的分析挑战了关于现在的现有共识,并提出了关于未来的问题。我们的研究结果还表明,为了探索紧迫的政策和理论问题,安全研究领域拥抱更多的跨学科性是多么重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Security Studies
Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.
期刊最新文献
Buying Survival: Why Do Leaders Hire Mercenaries? The Market for Foreign Bases Is multi-method research more convincing than single-method research? An analysis of International Relations journal articles, 1980–2018 International Security and Black Politics: A Biographical Note Toward an Institutional Critique How Central is Race to International Relations?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1