Through the vehicle of the “War on Terror,” the United States has engaged in a global project of precaritization in the name of national security. Shifting the risks inherent to the US imperial project from the American center to the global periphery by privileging US rights to safety over global human rights, the “War on Terror” becomes the dehumanizing, justificatory discourse in which securitization—or the transferring and thus off-loading of risk—takes place. While the claim that the “War on Terror” is an effort to proactively secure American interests is well-tread intellectual territory, what remains underdetermined in this conversation is the relationship between the technology of the drone and, bearing in mind Randy Martin’s Empire of Indifference, the “financial logic of risk management” constitutive of American preemptive warfare (Martin, An Empire of Indifference: American War and the Financial Logic of Risk Management, Duke University Press, 2007). Reading the earlier formations of preemptive warfare through the lens of both economic theories of risk, this chapter makes three primary claims: (1) That through the logic of preemption, the United States intervenes into the uncertainty of the future, names these imagined dangers, and intervenes through assassination-by-drone. (2) The technology of the drone is the means par excellence facilitating a strategy I am naming “imperial arbitrage,” one that creates a “zero-risk” scenario for the imperial center where no American bodies can be harmed, US capital expenditures a relatively minimal; and political optics are largely controllable. (3) That the result of the logic of preemptive securitization through the means of the drone, or the “Hellfire Hedge,” is a presumed, normative expansion of strikes ad infinitum as blowback only stabilizes when exponential expansion of interventions is presumed.