Will there ever be a world war III ?

Question

will it stay conventional
will it be nuclear
some intelligent answers please

Answer 1

Okay... let's think about this. List what countries we are at war with--right now?

If you said Iraq and/or Afghanistan--you're WRONG.

We are NOT at war with Iraq OR Afghanistan. The governments and militaries of both countries are allies of ours; we're training and supplying them. We're not at war with Iran, either. We're not on friendly terms with them, but we're not at war with them. We're not at war with Russia... or China... or Pakistan... or Paraguay... funny, I can't think of any countries we've currently declared war on. No countries have declared war on us, either. Given the history of the first two world wars... that doesn't really seem like calling what's going on right now as a "world war" a very wise thing to do, does it? We're hunting down terrorist networks, and pressuring the governments who support them. This is a war on terrorism, not a country or countries. There is nothing nuclear about it, unless you count the instability Iran is perpetrating by pursuing nuclear power. There's very little conventional about it, either. In fact there are very, very few similarities between this war and any other war we've ever been in, period. Anyone who knows their history and has the sense to know better than to spew nonsensical political rhetoric would tell you that.

As to whether there will ever BE a WWIII... that's entirely possible. But we're not in one right now. Having been in this war myself, I think I'm qualified to say that.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, WWIII will be global suicide, therefore in answer to your question, as long as there's rational superpowers who believe in MAD, there will be no WW3. By definition, the next world war wil be nuclear, how could it not. In a nuclear war there will be no winner. In a nuclear world, the only true enemy is war itself.

The next World War will involve a nuclear exchange, how could it not if both sides believe no price for victory will be too high. In the first 30 minutes, nearly a billion people will have been vaporised, mostly in the US, Russia, Europe, China and Japan. Another 1.5 billion will die shortly thereafter from radiation poisoning. The northern hemisphere will be plunged into prolonged agony and barbarity.

Eventually the nuclear winter will spread to the southern hemisphere and all plant life will die. You ask what country would be victorious, you are asking when will we commit global suicide. My answer is it won't happen soon because the larger superpowers are more rational than the rump states in the middle east.

While we hear talk of a nuclear-Iran or a confrontation with NorKor, little is said about the 2 bulls in the glass shop. The arsenals of Russia and the US are enough to destroy a million Hiroshimas. But there are fewer than 3000 cities on the Earth with populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Our biggest threat is from an accidental launch by the Russians.

At the point of global suicide, it doesn't matter who is on what side.... In a nuclear age like i said before, the only true enemy is war itself.

Answer 3

There already was a World War III--the Cold War. It was strategic and implicitly nuclear, but did not involve nuclear weapons' overt deployment.

The question is whether there will be a World War IV. At present, the world is at war through an ensemble of localized and globalized "Low Intensity Conflicts" (in military planners' parlance) as well as insurgency and counterinsurgency warfare, such as in Iraq, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. A near-future World War IV would necessarily have to involve the world's major nuclear-armed military/political powers--the USA, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and the European Union. Some possible flashpoints of such a World War IV: Jammu and Kashmir tensions, provoking an interaction of conventional and potentially nuclear forces between Pakistan and India; Straights of Taiwan pressures bringing China into conflict with the United States; the simmering Indian-Chinese political conflict heating up; the growing frictions between the USA and Russia getting violent.

Answer 4

World War III actually started in 1991, when Iraq was first invaded by international forces. This war now is really World War IV. I think the naming of these wars was a calm one on behalf of US. It looks better on history books. The US government takes all precautions because they are so smart. Leaving politics and Bush behind... In my opinion, future wars will stay as is. No nuclear wars in sight. Modern wars will be more isolated as to attacking sights, groups, important figures, not countries as a whole. Weapons used will be planes, suicide attacks with bombs, spies.
Wars in the future will not be started by governments but by groups. And wars will be internal.

Answer 5

There will be. I believe it may have started already, but this was is not on a big enough scale to be considered a "Great War." If it escalates further, then there may be a World War, but at this point there is no world war.

If there is a world war, it is likely that it will turn nuclear if one of the superpowers is backed into a corner.

Answer 6

I guess it kind of depends on what you mean World War III.

If you mean conventional armed conflict between countries that includes all the major powers. I doubt it

I think wars in the future will be fought similar to what's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some third-world country wants to be counted with the big boys and thinks by taking them on, he'll prove himself. Then there are the power-hungry, ignorant leaders (like the president of Iran) who think they can convince the world to agree with them by killing everybody off.

In a conventional war the sides lined up on either side of a piece of disputed real estate and shot a each other until one side was dead, or figured the price for the real estate was too high.

In the current type of war, the enemy is not an army. The enemy is just a bunch of street thugs that are dumb enough to follow a leader because of his charisma or out of fear. This enemy doesn't care about rules of war. He only cares about winning... and the ends justify the means. He targets non-combatants because hey are safe targets, and because it instills terror. He says he wants to die for his cause, but is actually afraid to do so. And terror is the only way the minority can control the majority.

These actions are hardly "world" wars. They are not global in scope... well, at least not from our perspective. We're fighting terrorism in Iraq. Other countries wait until it happens to them and then try to fight terrorism in their own country... once it's already there.


A global conflict will likely pit most of the world against China or Russia... unlikely both.

If it's Russia, they have the capability of fielding a sizable army just about anywhere they want. Depending on which side China aligned themselves, that side would win. If China opted to sit it out, it would depend on where the war was fought. I think in most theaters, I think Russia might have the edge. I'm not sure. It would depend on the Russian people. If they were behind the war, most certainly. The American people generally can't seem to be able to get behind anything.

If it's China, at present they seem to lack that capability. That would mean we'd have to attack them... or some country would... or they'd start taking over countries like Germany did. There is no way we could beat them in a conventional war.

If you mean nuclear war... that would be my choice. It would obliterate mankind.... not a human being on the face of the planet.

I'm lucky. I live near a prime target.. three, actually... right in between a major Air Force Base, a large city, and a missile site. I'm going to be vaporized in an instant. Oh, I might last a microsecond longer indoors, but when I hear the missiles heading skyward, I'm going outside.

Most military personnel and their families will share my fate. They too, for the most part, live near prime targets.

We won't have to come out from hiding after my store of food and water runs out to a world with nothing to eat or drink that hasn't been irradiated to the point it's fatal... to have my insides cooked. We'll not have to inhale smoke from wood that's from irradiated trees, houses, furniture and microwave my lungs from the inside out, in an effort to survive the nuclear winter.

There are people out there who deserve better fates... and those pretty much exclude those who wildly raise their hands and shout, "ME!! ME!!!" But because of the apparent majority, they'll all go.

But, whether we get into a world war again, or not, I don't think it'll make much difference. We're killing our planet slowly. In a few years (decades, perhaps centuries), mankind will have over-populated, over-developed, over-polluted the planet to the point that there's not enough room to live, not enough food to eat, not enough air to breathe.

And we humans think we're the only intelligent life in the universe. Intelligent? Humans? Isn't that something of an oxymoron?

Answer 7

Saying no to this and not looking back at mans past 1000 years of war fair is dumb chances are yes and when we dont know weither it be the middle east or the asian nations. I do know that America will be there and kick some butt

Answer 8

World War III is already over, we won. It was called the Cold War by some. Now we are in World War IV or the war against Islamic Imperialism.

Answer 9

I'd say it is kind of going on. Many states at war right now.


What are the odds of a nuclear attack? Ask yourself how many have been used as a weapon? Now statistics will teach us that there probably won't be a bomb dropped anytime soon.

Answer 10

It'll start by either Iran or China using nukes against Israel or Taiwan, respectively. We step in and more nukes fly. The U.S. will need NATO support to win along with Russia, South Korea, and Japan. I write military fiction books and have dealt with this scenario in my first book.