General Question

wsxwh111's avatar

Sensitive question, do you think there would be world war ③ in the near future?

Asked by wsxwh111 (2464points) October 27th, 2015

If so, why, and which countries would lead the two different groups? If not, do you think it’ll happen in the far future?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

41 Answers

wsxwh111's avatar

General question, please. Thank you.

Mimishu1995's avatar

Not in the near future, but may not be very long. Probably the biggest sides are the US and China. The war would be fought mostly on the sea, and the sea would be the main reason (or an excuse) for the war.

Just a speculation. I would like to be proven wrong though.

Seek's avatar

The US has forces in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Korea, and all over the world. If WWIII happens, America started it, and it will end when our planet is a nuclear wasteland.

elbanditoroso's avatar

We already had #3 – starting in roughly 1990, made worse in 2001, and continuing to today.

You would better off with asking about WW4.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

It will only be considered World War 3 when Americans actually feel the effects of war. Ya know, since we’re the only country that matters….

Ask people living in the middle east about world war 3 and they will say it is already happening.

Like Bill Hicks said, we go around arming the world, and then complain about how its a dangerous place.

Bill1939's avatar

I think that we are already in WWIII. While unlike WWII, the countries that oppose the West (especially America) is a loose coalition. For example, IS and Iran, or Russia and Syria is similar to the West’s coalition with USSR during WWII. In addition, the battle is less geographic control than it is economic control.

Like Germany’s battle against Spain prior to WWII, actions in the East provides the opportunity for all sides to test their weaponry. However, the importance of hardware is not as significant as software in this shadow world war. The America is far behind Russia and China in hacking development and is more vulnerable since its infrastructure is more computer controlled and interconnected.

cazzie's avatar

Perhaps it will be fought on American soil so they can feel first hand what it is like instead from the comfort of their armchairs watching it on the 6 o’clock news.

jca's avatar

My prediction is US vs. Russia or US vs. China. Other countries will join sides. Hopefully it will never happen.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Near future? How near? And obvious technical advances require a new definition of “world war”

Pandora's avatar

I have no idea but I certainly hope not. I think both China and Russia and U. S. would stop short of using any nuclear arms. It certainly wouldn’t be beneficial for any country to go that way. We are all armed to the teeth, so we would just assure our own destruction.
If we do, then I think our battles will be more technical.
But honestly, I think China wants its money back and they already have our jobs, so they won’t care to engage. I mean, why fight someone you already have by the nutsack.

Putin is stupid but I think he will still try to step around gingerly. I don’t think he will want to engage the US in an expensive, long drawn out war. We probably are still financially better off and he is already spread him self out too thin. Plus there is a big Chinese stamp placed on the US. So Putin won’t want to risk pissing off the largest populated country in the world that is sitting under them. At least a sane man wouldn’t; however, there is some question about his sanity. I think Russians need to grow a pair and give Putin the Bootend.

ragingloli's avatar

Putin is far from stupid. He is (ex)KGB

stanleybmanly's avatar

Putin has a far greater grasp on reality than our own politicians. Unlike us, it was FORCED upon him simply because he’s a product of Russia where reality is grim and deadly, and no one survives either denying or ignoring it.

wsxwh111's avatar

Like in 10 or 15 years. When I was asking about this I meant actually warfield-war. The war that involves soldiers and weapons.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t think so. The days of massed armies confronting one another on huge fronts is behind us for obvious reasons. It’s simply too easy nowadays to destroy massed concentrations of troops or materiel.

wsxwh111's avatar

Omg… Then it will be in forms of, like, missile fight or nuclear wars but they are still weapons and the men that are using them are still soldiers and of course that counts, too. I didn’t mean some sort of economic wars but all kinds of actual wars are included

flutherother's avatar

It is possible but unlikely. We have all too much to lose at the moment.

wsxwh111's avatar

@SquirrelEStuff When Americans feel it it’s really happening, I agree, maybe for middle east people they were in war from long time ago, true, America is the only country that matters, that’s just cocky.

wsxwh111's avatar

@flutherother I totally agree, I hate wars

cazzie's avatar

I grew up in Midwest Wisconsin, born 1968. I moved to Norway in 2001 and had to take a language course with a group of people from around the world. If they had taken stones and thrown them at me, I wouldn’t have blamed them. Viet Nam. Afghanistan. Iraq. The young man from Afghanistan was unforgettable. He never knew peace. He was younger than me. He measured his life by where things were settled enough between moving and war to when he could go to a proper school. The young man from Lebanon was interesting to talk to as well. It has left an impression more American’s should feel and take into their soul. Currently, I work with a woman from Viet Nam and she is infinitely interesting. Her family history has been shocked about by the French Colonialism and the American involvement in the war.

stanleybmanly's avatar

A lot has changed since the Second World War. On the one hand, there are no lunatics heading up any of the major powers, and they are compelled to be much more delicate about rattling sabers at one another. China like a little kid with a shiny new gun is eager to strut its military stuff. Obama is in the process now of humiliating them for all that bluster by parking a U S fleet in the South China sea. The message couldn’t be more clear. “Mind your manners punk .” I’m still top dog.” Loss of face at this magnitude is exactly the sort of lesson the Chinese will remember for a LONG time. And you can bet that the next time they decide to flex their muscle in our face, they’ll be well prepared. @cazzie We’d be a lot better off if every American could talk to the residents of the places we have stomped with our big boots.

LostInParadise's avatar

There has not been a conflict between major powers since the end of the Korean War. That is the longest such period in quite some time, going back centuries. According to Steven Pinker’s statistics in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, regional conflicts have also been declining.

The world is much too tightly intertwined. We may not care much for China, but we do a lot of trade with them. Everyone here is hoping that the Chinese economy will continue to grow, because the rest of the world’s economies are tied into it. The old tribal mindset is gradually disappearing. The phrase global village is truly applicable. The only danger will come from running out of resources combined with global warming. If there is to be another world war, that would be the cause.

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One's avatar

Doesn’t seem to be many people who actually served in here. If there were, the answers would reflect on some of the good the military has done in those countries. Don’t just watch the news kids…

Judi's avatar

With Putin and Netinyahou out there anything is possible.
I want to know how you got that circle around the three.

Seek's avatar


If someone showed up at my house, handed me a box of chocolates, and then set my bed on fire, I wouldn’t thank them.

wsxwh111's avatar

@Judi Lol it’s a typewriting app

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One's avatar

@Seek Nor would I. Is there some relevance here? Clearly you watch the news.

wsxwh111's avatar

@stanleybmanly I agree. I think we are still in a “getting to know each other” phase. Internet isn’t that magic yet when it comes to country-to-country-communication and people can be of very less of knowledge or actual information about people from other countries. So there’s frictions sometimes. Maybe when we pass this phase and the relationship is settled and more stable then it’s better

Seek's avatar

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One – I don’t even have TV service. I haven’t watched “the news” since 2009.

What I’m saying is, when you invade a country under false pretenses, cause significant social unrest, doing a couple of nice things at the same time doesn’t exactly make up for it.

Or you could have read the metaphor for context and understood that on your own. Whatevs.

cazzie's avatar

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One I live in a country closely tied to the people who need to be taken in as refugees. We are now expecting several tens of thousands of Syrians. There were assholes who blew up these people’s homes and places of works, and hospitals and schools. Why? Because they were military men trying to make a point. We aren’t missing the point that we have never served so how could we know….. Those days are gone. There is no black and white, bad and good, evil vs perfect intentions anymore. War is more complicated, more politicized and twisted than it has ever been before. But the results are the same. Death. Destruction. Refugees. Orphans. Those are the facts. It is only the questions that deepen. The why and who are the questions that run deep. I expect to be playing host to a few new families here. They will be traumatized. They won’t want to be here. They and their children will be marginalised by the culture here, but they will be expected to get on with it and be grateful.

ucme's avatar

Not any time soon, more than likely in the longer term though.
Every epic disaster needs a trilogy.

cazzie's avatar

My father served in World War 2. The country I currently live under was occupied by the enemy in WW2. We are well aware of what war looked like. It doesn’t look like that anymore. To begin with, people are less hesitant to call it a war. Europe is experiencing its largest mass displacement of people since World War 2, but people won’t call it a World War, so no one sees it as the desperate situation it is. Yet, the USA, Russia and China are all involved as is the EU. Last time these countries were involved we fucking called it a World War. Now, these countries are able to cause a level of destruction of the same, but somehow distance themselves. Sweden makes the bombs that are dropped by the US and end up having to take refugees from the land they helped destroy. Oh, lovely poetic justice. Norway built the guidance systems, so they don’t get off scott free. They just leave Russia and the US to take the planes and drop the bombs. Don’t talk to Europe about a fucking world war. We know what they fucking look like.

wsxwh111's avatar

Would you mind to explain more details:)? In this case, should there be any significant/particular signs before a big war? @ucme

ucme's avatar

Man has far too many grievances & way too much ego to avoid warfare, been proven since time began.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Invading my part of the country is not practically possible. Not with leaving anything intact or without using chemical weapons anyway. War is winding down and I think we will see less and less of it. It’s not a practical means for countries to get what they want anymore. That is until humans get strapped for resources. Then we’ll have it all over.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And then there’s the growing evidence that corporations are well on their way to displacing or undermining world governments. We should always keep in mind that there’s a great deal of money to be made from perpetual warfare. War is hell, but it’s profitable.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The United Corporations of Globalization. It’s world government. A new take on Bob Marley’s “One World”

Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One's avatar

There will always be war. Don’t fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Our troops are doing the best they can with what they’ve got. Enjoy your 1st world country living as they (US, German, British, Swedish, etc Military) attempt to help reconstruct a 3rd.

redacted because everything else I have to say isn’t nice

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
John F. Kennedy

stanleybmanly's avatar

And we all know what public service did for him.

BlackSwanEffect's avatar

I don’t think we will ever see a World War 3. At least not under current definitions.

The World Wars are called such because practically the whole world was involved in Total War. Every involved country geared its entire effort towards the war, and massed troops faced off all over the world. This is not possible in the modern world for a number of reasons.

1. Nuclear weapons. If any of the nine nuclear capable countries are too hard pressed in a conventional war, they will escalate to a nuclear war. While the threat of nuclear weapons is now a necessary part of the global power balance, no country would be stupid enough to back a nuclear power into that corner.

2. Economics. Modern weapons are expensive. If a country does not have a strong economic foundation, it cannot afford to wage war. If a country does not have good trading partners, it does not have a strong economic foundation. Very few countries can afford to wage Total War anymore, and even those that can wouldn’t last long before their people started to starve.

3. Civilians. In both the World Wars, civilians pitched in, and made ammunition, radios, and anything else required for the war effort. But modern weapons require greater expertise. You can’t take an average civilian and teach them how to assemble a laser guided bomb in a week. Therefore a country must keep the majority of its civilians in civilian roles, which reduces their capacity for war further.

4. The changing nature of conflict. It is possible, in our modern integrated world, to sufficiently weaken a country without warfare. One needs only look to Venezuela and North Korea to realise this. Both countries are politically and economically isolated enough that they couldn’t sustain a major war for more than a few months. Neither have been brought to this point by war. Stuxnet also showed the efficacy of cyber attacks in decreasing a country’s capacity for war. If a consensus forms that a country should be weakened, it can be done without war. Not to the point of capitulation, but at least to the point of deescalation.

At the same time, we’ll never have world peace™. We will continue to have proxy wars and regional conflicts. We will continue to have escalations and chest beating. But I don’t believe the homeland of a major power will ever be threatened again.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther