Follow TopicFollow Contributor Share Feedback

West: As with any prediction about the face of war, Brezinski’s theory lasted four years before it was proven wrong. It’s true that imbalance can lure policymakers into war. These perceived vulnerabilities range from monetary to military materiel to the lack of nuclear arsenals. But wars are as unpredictable as hurricanes. What we do know is that, after periods of coexistence, big wars fought among wealthy nations are hard to foresee.

O’Neill: When Brzezinski talked about a poor nation, he meant the absence of a nuclear capability. Such nations rely on conventional weapons and can use them without fear of ‘mutually assured destruction.’The countries with nuclear arms tend to be the richer states. Brezinski was implying that we can still deploy conventional, non-nuclear weapons, but they have to be on battlegrounds well outside of the nuclear-armed states.

This content is available to both premium Members and those who register for a free Observer account.

If you are a Member or an Observer of Starling Insights, please sign in below to access this article.

 

Members enjoy full access to all articles and related content from past editions of the Compendium as well as Starling's special reports.  Observers can access a limited number of articles and may purchase articles on an ala carte basis.

 

You can click the 'Join' button below to become a Member or to register for free as an Observer.

Join The Discussion

See something that doesn't look quite right?

We strive to provide high quality and accurate content at all times. With that said, we realize that sometimes links break, new information becomes available, or there is something that you feel we may have missed.

If you see something that you think we should be aware of, we would love to hear from you. Feel free to drop us a note below and leave your name and contact info if you'd like to hear back from us.

Thank you for being a key part of the Starling Insights community!