Conflict in the present era is likely to occur between states possessing radically asymmetric weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities, as suggested by the Persian Gulf War and the 1994 war scare on the Korean peninsula. Yet the discussion of the consequences of WMD proliferation for international conflict has been overshadowed by our experience with the superpowers' essentially symmetric nuclear relationship of the late Cold War. This study highlights the importance of studying conflict dyads that more closely approximate contemporary proliferation situations. Seeking to understand the consequences of proliferation, five separate asymmetric nuclear rivalries are systematically compared. The conclusions cast serious doubt on the widely held doctrine in political science of “proliferation optimism.” Rather, the evidence supports the contention of the so-called “proliferation pessimists,” that small WMD arsenals do not deter and are destabilizing. Indeed, the evidence presented here suggests that states possessing nascent WMD capabilities have cause to fear. The study hypothesizes that instability may be an intrinsic feature of asymmetric WMD interaction.
展开▼
