For some, the mere idea of deterrence conjures up stark images of the bipolar world that existed before the Soviet Union splintered apart, an unwelcome vestige of the superpower rivalry that dominated most of the latter half of the twentieth century. Now that the Cold War is over, some analysts have concluded that deterrence, and all its attendant concepts, are no longer relevant. Regional and ethnic conflicts seem sure to dominate the new millennium, so the argument goes, and therefore deterrence theory can be safely relegated to the dustbin of history, or sent to a home for outdated or decrepit theories. Notwithstanding the recent accession of India and Pakistan to the nuclear club, the interstate war between NATO and Serbia, and the all-but-inevitable proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, other theories and other concepts are required to explain conflict and cooperation, and to guide policy, in the postmodern era.

Admittedly, the world is different from what it was during the heyday of the Cold War, and the international system will undoubtedly continue to change in the twenty-first century. But this does not mean that deterrence is dead, either as an objective, as a policy, or as a theory.