Weary of costly on-the-ground military interventions, Western nations have increasingly turned to “Remote Warfare” to address the continued threat of terrorism. Despite the centrality of drone strikes to the practice of Remote Warfare, we still know relatively little about their effectiveness as instruments of coercion. This article offers a conceptual framework for assessing their coercive efficacy in counterterrorism. We argue that remote control drones are fundamentally different from traditional airpower, owing to changes in persistence, lethality, and relative risk. Critically, these technological characteristics produce weaker coercive effects than often assumed. While persistent surveillance combined with lethal, low-risk strikes renders armed drones highly effective at altering the cost–benefit calculations of terrorists, these same technological attributes cause them to be less effective at clear communication, credibility, and assurance—other key factors in coercion success. Overall, drone strikes are poor instruments of coercion in counterterrorism, underscoring some potential limitations of Remote Warfare.

西方国家厌倦了代价高昂的实地军事干预，越来越多地转向“远程战争”来应对恐怖主义的持续威胁。尽管无人机打击在远程战争实践中处于核心地位，但我们对其作为强制手段的有效性仍然知之甚少。本文为评估其在反恐中的强制效力提供了一个概念框架。我们认为，由于持久性、杀伤力和相对风险的变化，遥控无人机与传统空中力量有着根本的不同。至关重要的是，这些技术特征产生的强制效果比通常假设的要弱。虽然持续监视与致命的低风险打击相结合，使武装无人机在改变恐怖分子的成本效益计算方面非常有效，这些相同的技术属性导致他们在清晰的沟通、可信度和保证方面效率较低——这是强制成功的其他关键因素。总体而言，无人机打击在反恐中是一种糟糕的胁迫手段，突显了远程战争的一些潜在局限性。