Large language models (LLMs) increasingly operate in multi-agent and safety-critical settings, raising open questions about how their vulnerabilities scale when models interact adversarially. This study examines whether larger models can systematically jailbreak smaller ones - eliciting harmful or restricted behavior despite alignment safeguards. Using standardized adversarial tasks from JailbreakBench, we simulate over 6,000 multi-turn attacker-target exchanges across major LLM families and scales (0.6B-120B parameters), measuring both harm score and refusal behavior as indicators of adversarial potency and alignment integrity. Each interaction is evaluated through aggregated harm and refusal scores assigned by three independent LLM judges, providing a consistent, model-based measure of adversarial outcomes. Aggregating results across prompts, we find a strong and statistically significant correlation between mean harm and the logarithm of the attacker-to-target size ratio (Pearson r = 0.51, p < 0.001; Spearman rho = 0.52, p < 0.001), indicating that relative model size correlates with the likelihood and severity of harmful completions. Mean harm score variance is higher across attackers (0.18) than across targets (0.10), suggesting that attacker-side behavioral diversity contributes more to adversarial outcomes than target susceptibility. Attacker refusal frequency is strongly and negatively correlated with harm (rho = -0.93, p < 0.001), showing that attacker-side alignment mitigates harmful responses. These findings reveal that size asymmetry influences robustness and provide exploratory evidence for adversarial scaling patterns, motivating more controlled investigations into inter-model alignment and safety.