What criteria constitutes a "WORLD WAR"??

Question

I'm just wondering what makes a war end up being World war?

Why is the "war on terror". or the conflict in Iraq not called "World war 3"???
Why was WW1 and 2 called that?

Answer 1

We only have two world wars to use as examples. Many people call the Cold War and War on Terror world wars, but history is very selective and discriminating. So what do the first world wars have in common?

Some have stated it above: superpowers in opposite camps with the majority of the countries on one side or the other. Also the involvement of more than one continent and ocean.

The Cold War falls short because it wasn't hot and the war on terror does not involve super powers in opposite camps....just a localized war among rumps states relegated to the heap of regional conflicts..........

At any given time in history, there are numerous wars and conflicts going on. Currently there are 40+/- conflicts in the world. The only time the WORLD WAR status is attibuted to a war is when the superpowers square off on opposite sides in open declarations of war. We are far from that scenario, altho i agree the spark is there to ignite a larger conflagaration. But for now, just think regional conflicts, proxy wars, brinksmanship and disagreements between rump states.

When the US, Russia and/or China square, then come back and we'll talk WW III. The history books haven't declared the Cold War as WWIII or the current war on terror as WWIV. You'll know when WWIII hits, that burst of EMP will be your first warning....

Answer 2

These wars were worldwide, and involved many millions of people in major countries all over the world. Major powers faced each other and really fought each other. It wasn't a big country versus many small countries, in an attempt to keep the small countries out of the control of other medium-sized countries. That's what's REALLY happening in the so-called "war on terror," with the Middle East being kept out of European countries' control by U.S. occupation.

Actually, a decent argument can be made that what we call the "Cold War" was World War 3.

Just because the U.S., Europe and the USSR never faced the nuclear holocaust that everyone feared at the time, does that mean it wasn't a world war? Do the many millions killed (Korea/China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Ethiopia/Somalia, Cuba) have to be from the U.S. or the USSR for it to qualify?

Actually, I'd say that future historians will record the "war on terror" as "the U.S. empire's last gasp attempt to maintain world dominance." Sort of like the British in India.

If a three-way war between the U.S., the Europeans, and China erupts sometime in the next twenty years, THAT will be "World War 4." And make no mistake - it WILL be nuclear on all three sides - and I wouldn't take any bets on who would win.

Answer 3

The War on terror should be called WW3 because that's basically what it is, its global and far reaching, in pretty much every western country the police and intelligence agencies have to be on alert, countries involved where the enemy have a cell is also far reaching, the reason politicians are not calling it what it is, is because fickle Joe snuffy civilian can not handle the truth or does not want to face it. I mean imagine democrats actually having to admit its not just Iraq and Afghanistan the enemy is in, but by having those two fronts on world war 3 we are preventing them from spreading.

Answer 4

The first two world wars involved many countries actively declaring war on one another and fighting each other, by way of military warfare (as in, their armies fighting each other).

This might surprise you, but we are not at war with either Iraq or Afghanistan, nor any other country currently. We're not even conducting tradtional warfare by any definition; we are in what the military calls a "stablity and support operation" or "military operation other than warfare" in both of those countries. The "War on Terror" is not conventional, and is not a Congressionally-declared war, because there isn't a country to declare war ON right now. (That isn't to say that that couldn't change, however).

This is a global issue, but not a war by conventional definitions. We are hunting down and rooting out terrorist cells, networks, financing, and support where ever we can find them. Other countries are participating to varying degrees, or refusing to cooperate by other varying degrees. It is not a "world war" in any sense of the previous two, but it is a global issue, with many implications if people continue to dismiss its importance or place the blame on those trying to protect them instead of on those trying to kill them.

Answer 5

The number of countries involved.

Answer 6

number of countries involved. so far it's only like 6 in the war on terror....you need like whole contients to fight each other...

Answer 7

WWI involved most of Europe and many other countries. So did WWII and It also was fought pretty much all across the globe.

Answer 8

Please answer my latest question asap!! It is URGENT!!!!