Analysis of Findings

A central finding of the wargame is that despite drones’ relatively common capabilities, their expanded use will have significant political and strategic implications. The core difference between drones and traditional aircraft may be a simple one – the absence of a human on board – but it has a profound impact on the way actors choose to behave and interpret the actions of others in crisis and conflict scenarios. Drones’ uninhabited nature provides a wider set of options for military action to more actors across the spectrum of conflict.

The core difference between drones and traditional aircraft may be a simple one – the absence of a human onboard – but it has a profound impact on the way actors choose to behave and interpret the actions of others in crisis and conflict scenarios.

Increased optionality grants states and non-state groups greater flexibility in terms of when and how they choose to engage in conflict, particularly in those interactions that fall short of full-scale war. The uses of drones observed during gameplay highlighted those capabilities unique to uninhabited aircraft that influence operational concepts and reshape strategic decisionmaking in conflict.

First, actors can use drones without risking the life of a pilot. This opens up more potential uses for drones. Actors are more likely to employ them in situations where they are at greater risk of being shot down, which might include situations where previously they would not have taken any action. Actors might even try to provoke others to shoot down their drones to paint their adversary as an aggressor.

Second, drones can replicate the capabilities of traditional, human-inhabited aircraft at a lower cost. This lowers barriers to entry for actors that previously had limited access to airpower and associated power projection and ISR capabilities. Additionally, drones provide states a cheaper, or even expendable, alternative to traditional aircraft that can lower the cost of asserting airpower and expand possible use cases.

Third, drone ownership and use can be deniable. Due to the widespread commercial availability of drones, the use of a commercial off-the-shelf system could conceivably be from anyone, complicating attribution. Furthermore, even if drone ownership is perfectly clear, the actions of a drone can be disavowed. Because there is no pilot onboard, an actor can claim they lost communication with the drone and had no control over the drone at the time of its actions.9

Fourth, because drones are new, actors can define the message of drone use and respond to others’ uses at their own discretion. This flexibility comes from the lack of any internationally accepted normative framework for using or responding to the use of drones. There is no specific intent associated with the use of uninhabited aircraft, nor is there necessarily strong political or public pressure to respond to the shoot-down of a drone because no lives would be lost.

What do these options mean on the battlefield, and what are the larger political and strategic consequences?

The proliferation of drones expands access to airpower, providing higher marginal benefits to weaker actors. Wider access to drones expands the realm of the possible, particularly for weak states or non-state groups. Compared to more established powers, weaker actors experience higher marginal utility from access to drones. Because their military capabilities, specifically airpower, tend to be limited, acquiring drones represents a more significant gain in military capacity.

This gain empowers weaker actors to engage in a new domain, enhancing their abilities to project power and improving their capacity to contest airspace, resulting in a shift in traditional power dynamics. As drones proliferate, it is unlikely established powers will be able to count on uncontested air dominance, especially in irregular warfare settings.10

The use of drones complicates messaging and escalation dynamics. New options for engagement in conflict afforded by drones can complicate the understanding of messaging and traditional escalation dynamics in conflicts. This lack of clarity in action can be because drones allow deniable action, put a new rung on the escalation ladder, or because actors have greater flexibility in how to respond and interpret the use of drones.

Drones offer actors a more gradual escalatory action compared to the use of other military assets; uninhabited aircraft do not demonstrate the same resolve that a fighter aircraft might. Therefore, with drones, actors have the ability to take military action in contentious scenarios with less risk of provoking a significant response. Yet, in expanding the space for action on the spectrum of conflict below full-scale war, drones create increased opportunities for misunderstanding and miscalculation and can even encourage riskier political or strategic choices.

Increased ISR will heighten competition for information dominance within the battlespace and will create more opportunities for the use of information and misinformation.

Widening access to drones creates more opportunities for the use of information and misinformation. As access to drones expands, not only will more actors be able to build up their airpower, but they will be able to implement more robust real-time ISR capabilities. Increased ISR will heighten competition for information dominance within the battlespace and will create more opportunities for the use of information and misinformation.

More actors will have the ability to release photographs or video footage gathered by drones to shape the public narrative surrounding a conflict to their advantage. In conflicts where there are competing interests, these increased information opportunities heighten the risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation instead of improving transparency.

Generally speaking, drones’ optionality fundamentally augments the types of military operations actors can choose to undertake in conflict settings. These new choices allow for increased flexibility and room to engage adversaries, especially in uncertain environments. More importantly, this resulting shift in strategic decisionmaking changes the political implications of military force.