WWIII: Who, How, What, Where, When and Why? In Your Opinion...

[Occam's Razor]

In your opinion, what are the chances of a third world war happening in your lifetime?

If you think it's possible, how do you foresee it starting?

Who might the major players be?

 

[Goshin]

I'd say 40% odds in the next four decades.

Odds are good it will start in either the Mideast, or possibly over Taiwan. Major players will likely include China, possibly Russia, and multiple Mideast nations. Europe will probably try their hardest to sit this one out; hard to blame them given how bad the last one was for them.

India and Pakistan are another possibility, with both of them possessing nukes and allies.

BTW are you speaking in terms of a large-scale nuclear exchange only, or more generally of a conventional or maybe-nuke war involving a large number of nations spread out over multiple continents, a-la WW2? I took it in the more general second sense...

 

[Occam's Razor]

I'd say 40% odds in the next four decades.

Odds are good it will start in either the Mideast, or possibly over Taiwan. Major players will likely include China, possibly Russia, and multiple Mideast nations. Europe will probably try their hardest to sit this one out; hard to blame them given how bad the last one was for them.

India and Pakistan are another possibility, with both of them possessing nukes and allies.

BTW are you speaking in terms of a large-scale nuclear exchange only, or more generally of a conventional or maybe-nuke war involving a large number of nations spread out over multiple continents, a-la WW2? I took it in the more general second sense...

I'm speaking in general... that is,it could be either but it's really up to the person responding... in your opinion etc...

Thanks for the reply...

 

[rathi]

Every single major power has nuclear weapons. That alone makes total war between them completely idiotic. The only half-way sane possibility would be a naval conflict. Fighting for control of the seas actually has some benefits, and could result in two powerful nations getting into a major conflict without obliterating each other. The real factor is the chance of having morons in charge of powerful nations. It is doubtful than any rational analysis would make full-scale war a good idea, but idiocy is the leading cause of violence.

 

[somebodyelse]

I'd say the Korean Peninsula or Iran and Israel would be a spark for a Third World War.

 

[MaggieD]

In your opinion, what are the chances of a third world war happening in your lifetime?

If you think it's possible, how do you foresee it starting?

Who might the major players be?

Nope. Sure don't. Skirmishes, but certainly not a world war that includes the United States.

There's no power on earth more powerful than the U.S. military. No country is going against us full out. Won't happen. No one can invade the United States -- but doesn't mean we can't lose millions on our own soil...unfortunately...

 

[Renae]

In your opinion, what are the chances of a third world war happening in your lifetime?

If you think it's possible, how do you foresee it starting?

Who might the major players be?

The Middle East collapses into Theocratic Rule, directed from Iran, resulting in a nuclear strike by Israel that leaves oil a scarce commodity and from there... the global fight for oil.

 

[cpwill]

In your opinion, what are the chances of a third world war happening in your lifetime?

If you think it's possible, how do you foresee it starting?

Who might the major players be?

already happened. we called it the "Cold" one. i'd say we're entering into our 4th now.

 

[Occam's Razor]

already happened. we called it the "Cold" one. i'd say we're entering into our 4th now.

Slitting hairs... though not sure why...

Let me rephrase it for you...

The next World War... Who, how, what, where, when and why?

 

[cpwill]

WWIV is already on.

 

[Fub]

Choice 1. China attacks Taiwan then the US comes in
2. North and South Korea
3. Pakistan and India

 

[1029066]

Nah haha none of those scenarios are probable and even if they were it would certainly not be the cause of WWIII.

I say there won't be a WWIII, if anything a social, political, and economic revolution which will most likely come sooner than you think. ^_^

 

[ARealConservative]

the next one will be a resource war. some vital commodity will be in extremely short supply, and nations will fight to control those resources.

so in that regard, I don't see a lot of alliances forming for long.

 

[Jetboogieman]

If there is to be a WW3, it'll take place one year after nuclear weapons become obsolete and ineffective (probably by the use of advanced satelite laser systems and missile shields).

 

[1029066]

the next one will be a resource war. some vital commodity will be in extremely short supply, and nations will fight to control those resources.

so in that regard, I don't see a lot of alliances forming for long.

Yeah you have a point, like oil. If nobody finds some good marketable, efficient alternative energy. Or all the minor countries that will still rely on oil for longer than others and all.

 

[bus]

A major western power will divert from oil (solar microwaves or something) the middle east will starve and invade.

 

[ARealConservative]

A major western power will divert from oil (solar microwaves or something) the middle east will starve and invade.

wait...the middle east is going to starve because mankind found a cheaper source of energy?

 

[bus]

What else do they have other than oil?

 

[ARealConservative]

What else do they have other than oil?

"they" have scientists, carpenters, inventors, laborers, and on, and on. "they" are people, and like most people, can do better then merely squeeking by while existing on one single natural resource.

 

[Onion Eater]

Every single major power has nuclear weapons. That alone makes total war between them completely idiotic. The only half-way sane possibility would be a naval conflict. Fighting for control of the seas actually has some benefits, and could result in two powerful nations getting into a major conflict without obliterating each other.

The conflict that I see as most likely resulting in the use of nuclear weapons would be if we blockaded the Strait of Malacca, trying to starve the Chinese of oil. Blockading that strait is easy. We could just sit in the hills with missile launchers and pick off any ship trying to run the blockade. Driving us out with conventional forces would be very difficult. But nuking us would work. Since Indonesia is valuable only for tactical reasons and has little wealth or resources of its own, it makes more sense from the Chinese point of view to nuke them than to try to seize and hold all those islands.

This raises the question, if the Chinese abstain from nuking our homeland, would we nuke theirs? Or would we restrict the fighting to southeast Asia?

 

[deltabtry]

Conducting world war is far to expensive today and will be more so in the future, what we will see are regional conflicts through out the world.

China and Taiwan, China and the Philippines over the Sprately islands the next biggest untapped oil fields.

Iran and Israel, or Israel and the entire arab states in the immediate region, this has been brewing for some time and with the waning support from the west this will become very likely. Although as a result this conflict will drag the west into it because of it's lack of support.

India and Pakistan, will do their usual exchange from time to time.

North Korea will make a move but will be stamped down by China because the Chinese is liking the money making business, power in the region and around the world and North Korea threatens that status.

Now these are just a few but non the less news makers if it happens. Conflicts around the world go on all the time but, without interest from the west these conflicts will draw little or no attention.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

I think the idea of nuclear war is so offensive in itself (I forget the term) to most leaders, decision-makers, people and voters that war may happen without a single one being launched.

 

[deltabtry]

I think the idea of nuclear war is so offensive in itself (I forget the term) to most leaders, decision-makers, people and voters that war may happen without a single one being launched.

Ithink most countries possess these weapons today to do more chest thumping, saber rattling than anything else, what we do have to worry about are those who are stateless and have some fanatical purpose that they must achieve at all cost.

 

[rathi]

The conflict that I see as most likely resulting in the use of nuclear weapons would be if we blockaded the Strait of Malacca, trying to starve the Chinese of oil. Blockading that strait is easy. We could just sit in the hills with missile launchers and pick off any ship trying to run the blockade. Driving us out with conventional forces would be very difficult. But nuking us would work. Since Indonesia is valuable only for tactical reasons and has little wealth or resources of its own, it makes more sense from the Chinese point of view to nuke them than to try to seize and hold all those islands.

This raises the question, if the Chinese abstain from nuking our homeland, would we nuke theirs? Or would we restrict the fighting to southeast Asia?

1) Why is the U.S. blockade China in the first place? It would destroy both countries economies for no benefit.
2) Why would any of the nearby nations allow the U.S. to put weapons on their soil to attack the Chinese? They'd be economically ruined at the very least and probably be conventionally attacked.
3) Why escalate into the use of nuclear weapons? There is no possible benefit to shooting the first nuclear weapon. Simply accepting the blockade is far less destructive.

 

[Red_Dave]

The Middle East collapses into Theocratic Rule, directed from Iran, resulting in a nuclear strike by Israel that leaves oil a scarce commodity and from there... the global fight for oil.

*sigh*

rank
↓ Country
↓ Total Barrels↓ Thousands
of bbl/day↓ Percent of
Imports↓
1 Canada 678,087,402 1,858 25.61%
2 Mexico 405,271,049 1,110 15.31%
3 Nigeria 331,260,821 908 12.51%
4 Venezuela 273,652,441 750 10.34%
5 Saudi Arabia 143,341,089 393 5.41%
6 Angola 141,392,759 387 5.34%
7 Colombia 114,273,115 313 4.32%
8 Algeria 77,885,015 213 2.94%
9 Ecuador 73,087,513 200 2.76%
10 Brazil 67,814,452 186 2.56%
11 Iraq 58,910,935 161 2.23%
12 Other 282,301,057 773 10.66%

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_oil_politics Oil dependance on the Middle East is overstated, if not an outright lie.

Back to the subject at hand I think a world war, at least in the classical sence is unlikely, at least in terms of interstate warfare which is increasingly becoming a thing of the past and being replaced by wars between states and other entities. Due to the presence of mutally assured destruction it makes more sence to fight covertly (the father of Alexander the great argued that if an army couldnt take a city then a donkey laden with gold could)The closest we,re likely to see is a global counter insurgency campaign, for instance if the "War On Terror" spreads as a result of the U.S and its allies stepping up its game in Yemen, Afganistan etc. Or the collapse of South American governments due to the "war on drugs" (which is increasingly being waged by armies in this region anyhow. Anyone interested in this kind of stuff should read this

Amazon.com: The Transformation of War: The Most Radical Reinterpretation of Armed Conflict Since Clausewitz (9780029331552): Martin Van Creveld: Books

and this

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/02/the-coming-anarchy/4670/