Matching Items (1,056)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

157076-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
ABSTRACT

Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards

ABSTRACT

Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.

Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.

By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.

To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
ContributorsDavis, Christopher Todd (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Kubiak, Jeffrey (Committee member) / Wright, Thorin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
133361-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Nuclear weapons possess enormous potential to inflict damage on our world. The majority of countries in the world denounce the proliferation of these weapons, but a minority of countries have a desire to proliferate. This essay analyzes the impact of regime type and alliance strength to a nuclear state on

Nuclear weapons possess enormous potential to inflict damage on our world. The majority of countries in the world denounce the proliferation of these weapons, but a minority of countries have a desire to proliferate. This essay analyzes the impact of regime type and alliance strength to a nuclear state on protégé proliferation decisions. Prior research focuses on single factors in proliferation decisions and fails to take in to account the multi-faceted factors that influence the international system that states operate in. The analysis finds that regime type gives an indication about a state’s likelihood to proliferate, but does not explain proliferation choices comprehensively. Alliance strength plays a large role in a state’s security calculations and must be analyzed in conjunction to regime type to understand proliferation decisions.
ContributorsHsu, Kai Nalu (Author) / Wright, Thorin (Thesis director) / Thies, Cameron (Committee member) / W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
136552-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Conflict in Israel is ongoing and permeates through international borders by stimulating discussion worldwide. Whether or not diplomatic relations have been successful, counterterrorism policies have developed and been adopted by other countries like the United States. The targeting and elimination of militant terrorist figures is one of the policies that

Conflict in Israel is ongoing and permeates through international borders by stimulating discussion worldwide. Whether or not diplomatic relations have been successful, counterterrorism policies have developed and been adopted by other countries like the United States. The targeting and elimination of militant terrorist figures is one of the policies that have stirred much controversy. The effectiveness of it, however, continues to be in question. This research paper aims to take a rounded approach to analyze the efficacy of targeted killings for national security. I employ a three-dimensional method by measuring the influence of targeted killings on violence, public opinion, and economy. Statistical analysis is conducted through Paired-Sample T-tests with data derived from the period of the al-Aqsa Intifada. There is suggestive evidence that targeted killings have a significant negative effect on Palestinian violence.
ContributorsUpart, Yonit (Author) / Manekin, Devorah (Thesis director) / Wright, Thorin (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Department of Marketing (Contributor)
Created2015-05