World War 3 probability

According to many people these days, these are turbulent times we live in. It seems not a day passes by that I won't read a disturbing article that tries to explain how so many things around the world could go wrong leading to a devastating world conflict. For instance everything that goes on with Iran and its neighbors as well as the involvement of the US, Great Britain, Russia and China:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1159848/World-War-3-Israel-Iran-military-strikes-US-nuclear-attack

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1159224/iran-news-world-war-3-strait-hormuz-saudi-arabia-houthi-rebel-us-donald-trump-spt

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1156728/world-war-3-warning-iran-us-britain-donald-trump-korean-war-spt

In addition the everlasting conflict between Russia and the US especially with the recent breach of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty which could lead to a new Cold War between the two big ones:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1160623/world-war-3-russia-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-nuclear-weapons-treaty-spt

Honestly there are so many articles about all these events going on that I can't post them all. There have been many minor wars over the years but overall I believe this is the biggest span of time the world has seen without a major conflict in modern history. I believe it is due to people understanding that nobody wants another World War (especially a nuclear one), however I can't say I don't find all these news concerning. There are many educated and opiniated people on this forum so what's your take on the probability of a third World War happening in the future?

As I mentioned before I don't expect that any sensible person would want such an outcome to befall us since I remember reading somewhere about someone ironically saying that "I don't know when World War 3 will happen but I am pretty sure that if it happens World War 4 will be fought with bows and arrows", trying to make light of what such a  disaster would bring. Therefore please don't  bait  or flame, just discuss.

I think that the conflicts of the last decades were pretty major, both the afghan and the iraqi wars had above a million civilian casualties (AFAIK), and the end of the world mood has been there for at least the last four decades, probably longer. But I don't think that any big player actively wants to start ww3, because a general fear of the looming war and disaster works much better for all the fledgling commufascistic dictators out there than actual war would.

For younger people under the age of about 35 the world can seem volatile at the moment.
But for those who remember the Cold War where nuclear armagaddon was a daily risk, it's not quite as severe.
It's true the past 2 decades has seen many areas of conflict and wars, but they are still regional and have shown no signs of escalating outside the borders
(Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, South Ossetia, Crimea, Ukraine etc.). North Korea can seemingly do whatever they want, since Un and Trump have pinky sweared some kind of truce.

The current Iran conflict also seems regional and America/Trump doesn't seem interested in escalating it beyond a water dispute.
Their attempt at nuclear capability is at the moment the biggest  thread to stability, not just in the region, but internationally.
It'll be interestig to follow. No European countries are likely to follow America in a war against Iran, but it's not certain that is a real deterrrent.

Many Arab countries bark at Israel, but they know a regular war would be certain defeat. So it's all rhetorics and diplomacy.

It’s funny how we’ve adapted to nuclear weapons in generations after the Cold War. It seems like our species’ annihilation is more or less still on the table as long as we have the weapons, but we’re more used to it now, and it’s no longer a salient threat.

That's because younger people know that patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

It's also important to keep in mind that the news business has become very lucrative, and people are always trying to cash in on fear. They can put WW3 in the headline, discuss a conflict that doesn't effect anyone outside the region, then end the article with "could this be the beginning of WW3? We'll have to wait and see" and people will go bananas to buy the paper/watch the vid/etc because they want to be able to say "I was there, I remember when it all kicked off".

Also, no one wants to be remembered as "the guy who started WW3", so while I'm sure there are some nutbags out there who would love nothing more than to get their country involved in a big war, they realize we've reached a point in history where going to war (without a decent reason) is looked down on by most of society, so they toe the line.

30-50 years till WW3 in my opinion, 100 on the outside. It won't be as long as previous world wars, but it will be intense, with casualties reaching perhaps up to a billion of people, mostly civilians.

The trigger will, ironically, be energy revolution-either through development of economically viable nuclear fusion, or refinement of existing renewable and nuclear fusion and nuclear waste reuse technologies. Either way, the price of oil will plummet. And with it, economy of many islamic countries, leading to rise of extremism on the scale unheard of since 1930's Germany. Tensions will rise, and in that mess, an extremist organization with connections inside Pakistani or Iranian government will gain access to a nuclear weapon and use it on closest target-India or Israel. Naturally, this will, within hours, escalate to full blown nuclear exchange which will most likely end up involving every islamic country with access to nuclear weaponry at that time, and many that don't. A full blown conventional war will follow for few months, followed by asymmetrical conflict that might last years as the islamic countries, which will not be able to stand against other nations, will be pacified.

Concurrently with this, violence will erupt in most Western countries. Dominantly islamic ghettos and neighborhoods will be target of violence from general population, even pogroms. China and Russia will use the conflict to expand, as no western country will oppose their attacks on islamic countries-Russia will most likely strike at former Soviet countries around Causacus, perhaps even carving itself a piece of Turkey and Iran, while China will take a chunk out of Indonesia and perhaps install some puppet governments in some subsaharan African countries.

Not a nice prospect...but unfortunately, the way things are going, I see this as most likely scenario.

Nah, seems a bit too specific.

Nah, WW3 will happen somewhere between 30-40 AD, or maybe around 70 AD.

And who is the D in Anno Domini?

I thought the android users would rise up and lynch iphone users and causing escalating phone operating system wars.  We've fought over other values like religion and politics.  Why not fight over a new cause?

IOS users don't want that kind of heat. The Droids would certainly get them.

On another note can somebody explain to me why everybody believes that if one country that has nuclear weapons is stupid enough to use them at some point in time, that would result to everybody starting pressing theis buttons? So if hypothetically Israel decided to nuke one of their rivals, does that automatically mean that every other country which has nuclear weapons would start using them as well?

No. Using nuclear weapons in an attack would certainly mean a large scale war was approaching,
and the country being attacked would retaliate with a similar respons - using nuclear weapons if they have them.
It doesn't have to mean other countries necessarily joining - or WW3.

For example if Pakistan and India were to declare war and use their nuclear weapons, it's not certain others would join.
I can imagine both China, the West and most Arab countries would put immediate pressure on them to stop.
No one has an interest in such a war.

The idea might stem from the Cold War with Mutually Assured Destruction, but those alliances have changed.

Kharille said:

I thought the android users would rise up and lynch iphone users and causing escalating phone operating system wars.  We've fought over other values like religion and politics.  Why not fight over a new cause?

Click to expand...

It would still be the same old "divide at impera" ****.

Adorno said:

No. Using nuclear weapons in an attack would certainly mean a large scale war was approaching,
and the country being attacked would retaliate with a similar respons - using nuclear weapons if they have them.
It doesn't have to mean other countries necessarily joining - or WW3.

For example if Pakistan and India were to declare war and use their nuclear weapons, it's not certain others would join.
I can imagine both China, the West and most Arab countries would put immediate pressure on them to stop.
No one has an interest in such a war.

The idea might stem from the Cold War with Mutually Assured Destruction, but those alliances have changed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the idea definitely comes from the old Cold War idea with two nations with enough firepower to wipe each other off the map (US and USSR). Basically, once one launched their nukes, the other, in a "last act of defiance", would slap the big red button just to say "well now you're ****ed too". And with the networks of alliances and such in place, you couldn't just target one country, it would have to be all the countries in the alliance network, otherwise, even if you survived, your target's allies would attack. So basically it would be every one trying to have the last word in an argument where everyone in the argument is dead in the end.

As Adorno said, though, the alliance networks, tensions, and even thoughts on the use of nuclear weapons have changed since then, so it's not so much of a guarantee that it would happen anymore.

Roccoflipside said:

Adorno said:

No. Using nuclear weapons in an attack would certainly mean a large scale war was approaching,
and the country being attacked would retaliate with a similar respons - using nuclear weapons if they have them.
It doesn't have to mean other countries necessarily joining - or WW3.

For example if Pakistan and India were to declare war and use their nuclear weapons, it's not certain others would join.
I can imagine both China, the West and most Arab countries would put immediate pressure on them to stop.
No one has an interest in such a war.

The idea might stem from the Cold War with Mutually Assured Destruction, but those alliances have changed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the idea definitely comes from the old Cold War idea with two nations with enough firepower to wipe each other off the map (US and USSR). Basically, once one launched their nukes, the other, in a "last act of defiance", would slap the big red button just to say "well now you're **** too". And with the networks of alliances and such in place, you couldn't just target one country, it would have to be all the countries in the alliance network, otherwise, even if you survived, your target's allies would attack. So basically it would be every one trying to have the last word in an argument where everyone in the argument is dead in the end.

As Adorno said, though, the alliance networks, tensions, and even thoughts on the use of nuclear weapons have changed since then, so it's not so much of a guarantee that it would happen anymore.

Click to expand...

There are still countries that would respond with nukes first and talk to ashes later. North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran when they manage to get their own nukes...

The greatest nuclear threat is IMO the possibility of a nuke from impoverished country finding its way into terrorist hands. Pakistan is obviously the biggest threat here. A terrorist detonating such nuke in Kashmir or elsewhere along Indian border would most likely spark immediate nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, with millions of dead. Similar thing with Israel....AFAIK their plan in case of nuclear attack is to indiscriminately nuke all Arabic countries.

There are certainly still flashpoints, and you're absolutely right about the tensions and volatility in the M.E., but, however devastating these instances would be, they still aren't in the same scale as NATO/Warsaw Pact tensions during the Cold War. Assuming one of those situations did happen, it is unlikely it would devolve into everyone firing all their nukes at whomever the way it would likely have gone during the height of the Cold War, which was more or less the original question.

Sarin said:

North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran when they manage to get their own nukes...

Click to expand...

Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, and as of this year North Kora should also have a nuclear arsenal.
Their actual capabilities are of course very different and require a proper military infrastructure (rockets/planes to carry them).

tHE ProBALitY 0F wORLd wAr THreE IS 3oo tIMes Mo0R LIkely noW THat JOe BIden iS A suRe WiN.

Sarin said:

30-50 years till WW3 in my opinion. . . The trigger will, ironically, be energy revolution

Click to expand...

You seem to put too much stock in your imagination.