How precision weapons are failing to protect civilians in modern wars

The use of precision weapons in modern conflicts often fails to protect civilians, according to recent analysis. Experts argue that in both autocratic and eroding democratic systems, such weapons can instead enable targeted harm. This trend is evident in several recent wars and military campaigns. Marius Bales and Max Mutschler highlight a disturbing pattern in autocratic regimes. Precision weapons in these systems are not used to minimise civilian casualties but to apply societal pressure. Azerbaijan’s deployment of loitering munitions and drone strikes in Nagorno-Karabakh, for example, deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure.

Russia’s campaign against Ukraine’s power grid further illustrates this approach. Precision strikes were employed as a political weapon rather than a means of sparing civilian lives. Similarly, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates strategically used precision weapons to hit civilian sites in Yemen, with only international pressure curbing the scale of the harm.

Even in democracies, the erosion of norms can change how precision weapons are used. Israel’s war in Gaza demonstrates that democratic states may also deploy such weapons in ways that result in staggering civilian death tolls. When institutions that hold governments accountable weaken, precision weapons can deepen civilian suffering rather than prevent it. The analysis shows that precision weapons do not guarantee civilian protection. Their role shifts when political systems fail to enforce accountability. The result is more targeted, but not reduced, civilian harm in conflicts worldwide.