Without the existence of nuclear weapons, would World War III have already happened?

[Real blank]

I feel it would of before nuclear weapons it seemed any two great powers struggled to not got to war.

Maybe not long after ww2 over Germany.

But am interested to hear peoples thoughts.

 

[Cameron]

Almost certainly, IMO. WWII itself may have gone on longer and had a much messier resolution.

 

[Logophile]

Yep I would think so

 

[armycowboy]

Yes, the Cold War was cold only because of the existence of nuclear weapons.

 

[Grand Mal]

I feel it would of before nuclear weapons it seemed any two great powers struggled to not got to war.

Maybe not long after ww2 over Germany.

But am interested to hear peoples thoughts.

I've heard it said that WW3 started in Korea and was truly a world war because it flared up all over the world.
But nukes probably prevented if flaring up in Europe, nukes and the USSR. With the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact on one side and NATO on the other, Europe probably had it's most peaceful period in a long, war-torn history.

 

[Helix]

It's likely.

 

[reinaert]

WW3 started in 2014.

 

[bomberfox]

Dunno for sure as counterfactuals are rather difficult however, the amount of test detonations and the destruction of innocent life that occurred just to test these damn things really touches a nerve.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I've heard it said that WW3 started in Korea and was truly a world war because it flared up all over the world.

Not really, because the only conflict of note during that entire conflict was the final stages of the Chinese Civil War.

The only thing that comes even close is simply that there were almost two dozen nations involved on the side of the UN in the conflict. And the only nation of note that assisted North Korea was the PRC. But none of it was ever more than a short distance from Korea.

There have been many "World Wars", and many of the key features is that they involve massive amounts of resources and manpower, directly involve most of the major nations at the time, and take place over a large number of fronts. As far as WWII, I am actually one of those that considers the "start" to be in 1935 with the Second Abyssinian War. Then as that was going on, the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out. That was two regional conflicts, it was only when Germany and the Soviet Union jumped into Poland and was allied with both of those nations that it finally became a "World War".

 

[Oozlefinch]

Dunno for sure as counterfactuals are rather difficult however, the amount of test detonations and the destruction of innocent life that occurred just to test these damn things really touches a nerve.

And by far, the worst of those were the Soviets. Especially when one considers the two peaceful programs both nations attempted.

For the US, that would be the 27 tests for Operation Plowshare. All of those were small scale explosions, mostly confined to the Nevada Test Range.

The Soviets however conducted 156 such tests as part of the "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy" programs.

The US started with the idea of using nukes for building ports and canals, but quickly abandoned that because of the fallout so instead mostly used it with underground tests using the seismic waves to help detect oil and natural gas. The Soviets on the other hand intended them to be used to build dams and reservoirs, as well as doing things like crushing rock in open pit mines and actually trying to build a canal.

Part of the construction of the Pechora-Kama Canal involved three 15kt nuclear blasts to create a large crater for the canal to pass through. And that was in 1971, almost a decade after the US ended any idea of using it for excavation and was only using the program for underground tests.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I feel it would of before nuclear weapons it seemed any two great powers struggled to not got to war.

If not for nukes, there is no question that a "World War III" would have broken out by now. As well as a WWIV, WWV, and likely a WWVI.

There is something to be said about MAD. It works as an amazing governor to keep conflicts as entirely small scale ones. And even if two nuclear nations provide assistance to each of the sides, they themselves limit the amount of assistance provided to prevent such a conflict from escalating. As well as one side limiting direct involvement to almost nothing. Even in conflicts like in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan one side would send forces, the other would only provide assistance with equipment and money.

Just consider the highest US involvement in Vietnam. That was in 1969, with just over 540k US servicemembers in the country. That may sound like a lot, but the US military at that time was over 3.5 million members strong. So that is less than 1/7 of the actual US strength (and in most years the ratio was closer to 1 in 10 or lower). No conflict the US has been involved in since WWII has involved more than a fraction of the actual US military manpower.