WWIII when will it happen? Who will be involved?

[Deleted]

Multiple small wars happening all over the globe indefinately.

You know, kind of like what has been happening lately.

I don't hold out hope that there will be a time when there is no war, there will always be a conflict somewhere, maybe not large scale, but war will remain part of humanity for a looooong time to come. I don't think there will be anything of the magnitude of ww1/ ww2 though.

[Deleted]

World War 1 = Fought with guns and chemical weapons
World War 2 = Fought with guns and nuclear weapons
World War 3 = Fought with Nuclear weapons IN SPACE.
World War 4 = Fought with wooden sticks.

Fixed that for ya

[MOEEEE]

Fixed that for ya

Thanks! But yeah, what i wrote i think is whats gonna happen.

[steveyboy]

Every war these days have the world involved in some way or another. Iraq for example had a few nations joining in

[paralleluniverse]

The only plausible place for a large war to break out is in the Middle East. If it happens, it'll probably involve Israel.

[ringpriest]

Arguably, WWIII has already started, just like WWII had already started with events like the Japanese invasion of China (1931), the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935), the proxy-fighting during the Spanish Civil War (1937-1939), and the Soviet-Japanese War (1938). I suspect the Second Iraq War, the Afghan War, the Libyan War, the Syrian Civil War, and the Northern Mali Conflict will be seen as similar precursors and/or early stages of WWIII. The actual war will be Fourth Generation Warfare, not field-battles or the exchange of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Although it's quite possible that a limited number of nuclear weapons weapons will be used in terror or tactical roles if the war continues for years.

WWIII will pit the United States and its allies against the countries of the "Gap" or the "Arc of Instability" that ranges from West Africa through the Middle-East and then down through South-East Asia. Whether or not these countries have a formal alliance is basically irrelevant. The United States opponents (or victims, depending on which narrative you prefer) will be actively supported by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and although its members, particularly China and Russia, will try to avoid being directly drawn in they may engage in limited offensive operations of their own to secure resources or border regions. The U.S. will likely be aided in certain theaters by elements of the E.U. and probably by India. (Once Pakistan's nigh-inevitable fall into the "enemy" camp happens, formal alliance with India is virtually certain to follow.)

Prominent U.S. allies will include Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and at least on paper, Israel and the Sunni Arab monarchies. (At least until the latter are overthrown.) Opponents will be mostly Muslim, and the potential area for conflict is huge - exactly which countries will be on which side isn't terribly clear at this point. For example, a Saudi Arabia that revolts against the House of Saud would almost certainly be on the enemies list, whereas as a pro-U.S. Indonesian government that continues debt payments and resource extraction would likely stay neutral or pro-American. The war may even reach into South America, especially if the U.S. decides to militarily tackle the anti-U.S. socialist regimes there.

The most likely scenario for an even worse escalation would be conflict between U.S. allies (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines) and China over control of the South China Sea, although for various reasons I don't see that as particularly likely. Tensions, yes. International legal disputes, yes. Even rare naval skirmishes, sure. But open naval warfare isn't something any side wants to see there. (It could still happen, but is far less likely than the U.S. vs. the mostly Muslim Arc of Instability above.)

I have no idea on the precise dates, but I would guess that if the WWIII scenario I pictured is going to happen at all, it'll happen within the next 15-20 years. Beyond that, the U.S. will likely be too broke to afford it, while many of the potential opponents will be too rich, too globally-connected, and too-powerful to make them even remotely realistic targets. Plus, given another generation, war fighting is going to experience yet another quantum shift as we move beyond drones, communications, and smart bombs into technologies that we can barely grasp right now.

(The above presumes we aren't counting the Cold War as WWIII, in which case it's about WWIV. )

[Mihalik]

Fixed that for ya

Horribly unlikely to see the use of Nuclear weapons in space.

Nuclear explosions or any kind of explosion in space is completly useless compared to their use in atmosphere. The reason why explosives are so effective is that they create shockwaves trough the air, exponentially increasing their destructive power.

In space there is nothing to create a shockwave. The explosive energy in space would simply flow in the direction that offers the least resistance. In other words, towards the vacuum. Plus, nukes are big and they are difficult to deliver in space, where you have an easier time intercepting them.

The most likely weapon you would see used in space warfare are Kinetic Impactors. Plain old simple bullets. Most likely cannons and machine guns, firing low caliber, high velocity rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz#Defense_measures

The Russians tested the use of cannons in space already.

But you are unlikely to see Battleship sized cannons on ships, because in space firing them would be a nightmare. They would act as propulsion, so you couldn't really fly straight or aim while firing. Plus the vibrations they would send trough the gun and the ship could break the ship or gun apart.

Again if you want to kill people on the ground from space, you would still use the same thing.

You don't need to fire big complicated nukes. Just aim a high density metal penetrator at something, fire it at an angle that prevents it from burning up during descent and enjoy the show. Descending from space at stupid speeds they could wreck anything, causing huge booms. But again you cant make the round too big, otherwise atmospheric friction would burn it up before it can hit anything.

Space warfare would be very different then in movies.

The whole deal is a mathematical game of orbits, velocity and angles. You don't need very big guns, you all you really need is to hit things with a solid slug.

[Deleted]

Horribly unlikely to see the use of Nuclear weapons in space.

Nuclear explosions or any kind of explosion in space is completly useless compared to their use in atmosphere. The reason why explosives are so effective is that they create shockwaves trough the air, exponentially increasing their destructive power.

In space there is nothing to create a shockwave. The explosive energy in space would simply flow in the direction that offers the least resistance. In other words, towards the vacuum. Plus, nukes are big and they are difficult to deliver in space, where you have an easier time intercepting them.

The most likely weapon you would see used in space warfare are Kinetic Impactors. Plain old simple bullets. Most likely cannons and machine guns, firing low caliber, high velocity rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz#Defense_measures

The Russians tested the use of cannons in space already.

But you are unlikely to see Battleship sized cannons on ships, because in space firing them would be a nightmare. They would act as propulsion, so you couldn't really fly straight or aim while firing. Plus the vibrations they would send trough the gun and the ship could break the ship or gun apart.

Again if you want to kill people on the ground from space, you would still use the same thing.

You don't need to fire big complicated nukes. Just aim a high density metal penetrator at something, fire it at an angle that prevents it from burning up during descent and enjoy the show. Descending from space at stupid speeds they could wreck anything, causing huge booms. But again you cant make the round too big, otherwise atmospheric friction would burn it up before it can hit anything.

Space warfare would be very different then in movies.

The whole deal is a mathematical game of orbits, velocity and angles. You don't need very big guns, you all you really need is to hit things with a solid slug.

I think he was joking.

[Mihalik]

Anyways any sort of conventional future World War scenario is silly.

Thanks to globalization, international trade and resource distribution, combined with our dependance on the flow of commerce, any type of major distruption would cause a collapse of the markets, and immediate resource shortages of every type. Anything from technology to food stuff.

One of the issues is that there is no real incentive to fight a World War, and no real opponent to fight against.

There is nothing to gain. If one looks at the flow of resource, economic growth and stability, peace and economic competition and trade gives everyone more, then conquest or redrawing of spheres of influece.

The closest thing to a World War that we will see is something like the "War on Terror". Essentially established nations and power structures fighting distruptive agents, spread globally across many regions and across borders. They might spurr or occasionally provoke these assymetric wars, to accomplish this or that type of political goal or to expand spheres of influence for economic or political reasons, but there wont be a conventional confrontation.

If you look at the level of economic, military or intelligence cooperation betwen major power blocks you would be shocked. The EU, US, China, Russia are always on the same page when it comes to protecting global economic interests. Conflict occures when it comes to shifting spheres of political influence. China is trying to expand its Asian economic area of influence, to be able to resist European and American economic interventionism. Which still occures, despite China's rising influence. China is often sanctioned for their buisness practices. (Which are often sleazy.) Russia needs to maintain a grid of economic partners to maintain its resource industry and to have an area where it can export goods other then natural resources. But Russia's biggest trading partner by far is still the European Union, both in exports and imports.

Whatever games Russia plays it is usually to maintain this or that economic interest. Which is why are they are so vested in the Syrian affair. Russia is involved in Syria because, Syria falls into its traditional area of influence, plus the West is relativly uninterested to commit. If for exemple Nato would really really want to get involved the Russians after some harsh words would back out of the issue, as they had with Yugoslavia back in the 90's. But there is no point for the West to get further involved in Syria just to piss off the Russians.

Syria is not in Europe. So out it is out of sight and out of mind really.

[Jackmoves]

Someone took the time to make a bad copy & paste job of the Russian navy shooting up a (empty) somali boat. lol

[MMKing]

Of all the unlikely events, even fewer where a large portion of the world would be involved. I see China vs India as the closest thing we will ever experience to a world war 3. It's unlikely that many other countries would join in, but counting population, i don't see any other scenario.

[Powerogue]

Eventually maybe US VS China over dwindling resources, escalating until it's every man for themselves throwing nukes at each other. I doubt even a war that massive will eliminate humanity, but it'll definitely destroy society.

[Hughes]

Number of nukes mean jack shit nowadays as long as you have a few. 200 or 200,000, does it make a difference? Anyway, Russia has more of them.

They do. But, here's the question; Do they know where they all are?

[Tokru]

It's irrelevant who will be involved or when it will start. Certain is only that Israel will have something to do with its start.

[Mihalik]

It's irrelevant who will be involved or when it will start. Certain is only that Israel will have something to do with its start.

You are on of them folks who still blame the Jews for WW1 and WW2?

I cringe to have to be the one defending Israel, but it would be time for people to stop beating a dead horse on this topic.

[Deleted]

You are on of them folks who still blame the Jews for WW1 and WW2?

That's... a pretty big and irrelevant assumption. Israel is known for having quite the attitude, it has nothing to do with them being Jews.

[Sivick]

Honestly US VS NK

not exactly WWIII.....

[Mihalik]

That's... a pretty big and irrelevant assumption. Israel is known for having quite the attitude, it has nothing to do with them being Jews.

I think it does.

Without doubt Israel really has certain issues. (Essentially the whole Palestine situation could have been realistically settled decades ago, if Israel would have been willing to make the first step, halting and evacuating all settlements and would have accepted Palestine statehood, without mindgame preconditions.)

But when it comes to their regional foreign policy of bomb any potential threat, hide behind the Americans after, it is a consequence of their past experiences with their friendly populist/religious fanatic dictatorship neighbours.

It is a self perpetuating cycle that can hardly be blamed on Israel alone.

Assumptions that Israel would somehow want to cause a major international conflict for whatever reason is far fetched.

In my personal experience most people who constantly blame Israel for this or that or what not, usually also have a personal issue with Jews as it is.

[Sivick]

The most likely flashpoint here would be the civil war in syria. I'm not saying this is at all likely, but here's how it could happen:

Turkey and Israel join the fight on the side of the rebels. This causes iran and lebannon to join assad. This destabilzes iraq into a second civil war and the United states gets involved on the rebel side, which draws in russia. Nato will join with the US and turkey as will saudi arabia and its allies. NK then might take the opportunity to declare war on America, and SK and japan, on the side of the russians, and that would bring a reluctant china into the war, though which side they would take is unknown.

now all this is VERY unlikely, but that's how world wars start. small conflicts escalate quickly.

[MOEEEE]

For those who says US vs NK.... The US would blow NK to sinner bits if they wanted too.