Who would win the third world war?

[Suicidebydeath]

Everyone loses. There is a reason why the superpowers have avoided direct conflict with each other since the last world war.

 

[JealousOfTheElderly]

A small group of elites from various countries banding together to bring their totalitarian utopia upon us.
Big players include Soros, the WEForum, the Clintons, Bill Gates, a bunch of powerful heebs, and other western "leaders". A thorn in their side would be Putin and Xi Jinping. But they want the same. The thirst for power.
The USA as we knew it would be toast. The smarter and more powerful elites would join forces with the listed individuals above to form a new government.
Life would become unpleasant for most of us. You can kiss our freedoms goodbye.
Democrats, Republicans two sides of the same coin. It's a farce, a con, we've been duped.

 

[DarkRange55]

Winner? Or best place to escape nuclear Armageddon? Because I've actually had to research the second one rather extensively in the past.

 

[Edpal247]

WW3 will probably be between the US/the West and the new Axis of China, Russia, and Iran. I think the US will probably win because of its military power and capabilities.

Nah, the China and Russia pretty much match us. We're cooked - and so are they. M.A.D. - it's a crazy game!

 

[DarkRange55]

Nah, the China and Russia pretty much match us. We're cooked - and so are they. M.A.D. - it's a crazy game!

Our weapons are better than Russians and significantly better than the Chinese. Russia's military might is atrophying.
I guess the key thing about Russia's guns is they have some very advanced, very good ones but only a small number of their troops actually have access to them. The majority of them are using much older weapon systems.

The US has also built more pylons in place and our upkeep is much greater.

 

[beardyoldcorpse]

• It is likely that we have hit a point where a true force on force war is extremely unlikely to happen due to things like global economy, increased lethality of every system, our technological advances, nukes, and more. Means it is likely that insurgents and asymmetric forces are our biggest enemy, but we still have to have a military large enough and ready to deal with a conventional force due to military industrial complex the off chance Russia, China, or anyone else goes crazy.
• For WWIII to happen, NATO would have to some how break up along with the UN Security council. And I just don't see that happening. Given that NATO has a monopoly on military power, any conflict would be stopped before escalating to full blown World War. NATO has a monopoly on military power in Western Europe. Only the US has any realistic reach into Asia. Pax is a state of peace that occurs when one power holds an overwhelming military force. Examples of Pax are the Pax Romana (27 BC to 180 AD) or Pax Britannica (1815–1914 AD). When one global military exists, it is easy for people to conduct trade safely, and for people to go about their business as normal. For a good portion of the world, there is no need for the people to worry about protection from foreign invasion or from injury from violent internal conflict. Yes, there are areas in which violence occurs, but nothing compared to what would happen if people were invading left and right. The world is in a state as close to perfect as it is going to get. We are currently in a state of Pax Americana. We aren't seeing another world war for a while.
• There is something called, "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" which was based on the observation that "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's" and Friedman's point is that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. There have been a few minor counter examples since this theory was proposed, but I think the underlying justification and logic still holds.
  • WW3: I'd say it's not only possible, over the span of the next century, it's very likely. Nuclear war before 2100 is a very real possibility because of the oil crisis and the stock market crash that will happen
  • Just before World War 1, the common rhetoric among everyone was that the telegraph, the huge surge in global travel, trade and commerce, and the rise of Enlightenment philosophy had made Western civilization was too interconnected and trade too vital that the world could never be at war on such a massive scale, the Napoleonic Wars could never happen again. Everyone was linked together and it was in the sovereigns best interest to not go to war because they were making too much profit. When World War 1 broke out, and turned out to be much more deadly than the Napoleonic Wars, there were a lot of economists and intellectuals who were shocked. And "they were mistaken back then, but now it really is true" is not much of a counterargument.
  • - After World War 1, there was a great deal of effort put into ensuring that it would never happen again. The League of Nations was founded for that purpose, Germany was disarmed and closely monitored, and there was a belief in places like Great Britain and America that the absolute horror of WWI had made it a "war to end all wars". Of course, the restrictions on Germany backfired, the Nazis used the horror of WWI to fuel more violence by scapegoating the Jewish community, and we had WWII.
  • - If economic interdependence and nukes can fail to prevent war individually, they can be fail to prevent war together as well. The argument that combining interdependence and nuclear weapons will create a uniquely powerful combined incentive for peace is flawed. You're assuming (tacitly or otherwise) that these two major factors feed into each other, when in reality they exist in two separate spheres. It's not like adding nuclear weapons to the mix affects the absolute economic gains and mutual incentives of peace, and it's not like increased economic interdependence actually changes the nature of the security dilemma, which is defined in terms of military capabilities possessed by sovereign actors in an anarchic international system. If nukes don't cure the security dilemma (they don't seem to) and economic interdependence doesn't negate the importance of relative gains and subjective security interests (it doesn't seem to), then there's nothing that really proves that combining them will be able to prevent war better than either one has been able to individually. The point regarding the ambiguous and inter tangled alliance structure that exists today is an interesting one. However, the ambiguity and overlap present in the alliance structure of the international system is not a good thing necessarily. There's a prominent school of neo-realist thought that argues that the bipolarity of the two-bloc cold-war system actually contributed to peace and stability, and that the complex and intertangled European alliance system prior to WWI created conditions permissive for war.
  • - The same power structures and incentives are still in place.
  • People have been proclaiming "The End of War" for centuries, based on the idea that states will act "rationally".
  • My current thinking is that we are in a period comparable to the 1860s in Europe, shortly before the Franco-Prussian War. There is a lot of tension, and the preeminent power (France/USA) is still seen as powerful, but the rising powers (Germany and Italy/China) are putting new pressures on the overall framework of the region. There's a flavor of the 1890s, as well, with its foreign adventurism (The Scramble for Africa didn't start until the 1880s!) and the self-recriminations of the Third Republic of France (because of the failures in the FP War and the Dreyfus Affair), mixed with the greying of that republic and the failure to progress compared to the other European countries in the Second Industrial Revolution. They even had to deal with international terrorism in a form that supported violence (bombings and killing national leaders) and whose advocates could self-radicalize outside of established networks (Anarchists!) If there is a shift in power, like the FP War, it would rebalance things rather than rearrange them. France was at the end of the one of the greatest periods of culture and power that they have lived through, lead by a somewhat competent, somewhat stupid man in Napoleon III. Germany was under the expert control of Bismark, which helped create tensions but also knew how to relieve them as needed; WW1 didn't start until after Bismark left the government. It was the knife's edge of brinksmanship, but they didn't fall off. I think we're looking at something similar, where the rising powers are in a position to make small gains without repercussion, just as Russia was able to invade Crimea and the Donblas region, China (and Vietnam) extend their positions in the South China Sea, the various players in the Middle East make their moves (Iran into Iraq; Saudi Arabia against Qatar), but we don't have the tangle of commitments in unstable regions that we saw prior to WW1, and while the leadership of most of these countries cannot be compared with Bismark, none of them can exactly be compared to Wilhelm II, either.
  • how unstable is the current world order, and is that instability likely to grow or fade?
• This is an interesting question. I would argue that its current level of instability is moderate, but not critical. However, I think it will become critical in due time. The unipolar nature of the balance of power is inherently unstable and forces other powers to balance against. Predictions are generally more foolish the more precise you make them, but we can make some general predictions that can help us gauge future instability.
  1. China has three main avenues to pursue in the next century: stagnation, regress, or progress. Each presents its own challenges to stability in the world order. Stagnation can abate fears abroad but pressurize them at home. Economic strife can arise out of mere stagnation if well-being is tied to growth (which it is, in many cases). But stagnation need not produce stress levels that alter global stability. Japan is a great example of that. Its stagnation was managed as well as one might expect. Regress obviously would exacerbate domestic problems and would likely be a result of domestic problems going unsolved. If the Chinese slump backwards, the gains they have made will be circled by geopolitical vultures. The US would likely toy with the possibility to reasserting itself in the region. States like Japan and others may seek to carve out their own spheres in the region. Progress would further heighten tensions between Beijing and Washington as control over East Asia becomes more intensely an issue that cannot be ignored. All three options present global challenges to stability.
  2. Europe may further unify or it may bid fare-thee-well to its grand experiment. I do not think it is worth while to debate which is more likely, but the status quo is not really sustainable, imo. Further centralization would likely include some degree of military centralization. This could change the dynamic of NATO both within itself and abroad. The unification of Germany was a major destabilizer in 19th Century Europe, and a European unification would likely be sufficiently destabilizing as well. This would put states like Russia and China is a position of peer status with Europe in military terms. European disintegration presents stability concerns as well. If the EU fails and is curtailed or abolished, power politics will almost certainly return to the continent. To what extent that would threaten the European (and by extension, the global) economy is uncertain, but I think we can all appreciate the claim that a stable Europe is in the interest of everyone.
  3. The United States can choose to continue its role in world affairs and seek to limit challengers, or it can take a step back and allow, encourage, or hope another power takes over. American restraint would likely embolden others to take action where they otherwise might not, and it may hasten the onset of a multipolar order, one that is unstable as well. Continuing its current role, the US could affect the timing of other events like EU unification or Chinese forward strategy or Russian aggression. If the US were to continue its roll, current tensions would only heighten. These are just a few scenarios painted in broad brushstrokes. But I think it is fair to say that instability is likely to increase in time. Right now I think we are in the 4-6/10 range of stability.
  4. There are a lot of creeping issues that are slowly transforming our current world beneath our feet. Some of the major issues right now are: the digital and especially the mobile digital revolution, which is making computer power and Internet connectivity available to large rural sections of developing countries; the current lack of clear prosperity granted by the democracy/ capitalist model, especially in the forms championed by the United States; the United States beginning one of its cyclical periods of pulling back from direct involvement in international leadership; the greying of many of the biggest economies in the world (esp Japan/ US/ Europe), which cuts into the available workforce and redirects large chunks of the economy; the encroaching effects of climate change. Many of these are likely to help transform the world we're living in at various points in the next 20 years, but it's hard to say how much they form a present danger. Overall, about 5/10.
  5. I think that the current circumstance is comparable to pre-World War I, when Britain was feeling pressured to contain the growing German industrial economy and was trying to prevent European mainland unification (by doing things like undercover blocking of Germany's railway building).I would say that today, USA is Britain, China is Germany, and the Eurasian landmass is the European mainland. There are more flashpoints and destabilizing points now than there were any time since the end of the Soviet Union
• There are probably others that I am listing above. The prime mover here is how the United States reacts to the breakdown of Pax Americana. There are several reasons why I think the United States will only be able to engage in limited security competition with China/Russia (as opposed to full out war) in the form of covert action and containing (through arming rivals and competing for influence):
  • Obviously the nuclear disincentive
  • The United States would have limited support in creating an image of legitimacy behind any major conflict with large powers (China/Russia). Every conflict since Vietnam has been met with wide resistance, and guiding public opinion now is the hardest it has been due to the internet. I think the world is simply going to become more multipolar in the medium term (10-20 years), but there is still plenty of room for economic growth to discourage major war. Long term (50-100 years), I am very pessimistic about humanity's ability to not drive itself into extinction, as growing population and resource strains will inevitably lead to conflict that could easily lead to a nuclear dark age. I'd give today a 6/10 for instability.
  • I think it would most likely start over a resource grab - either over the range of valuable ores/minerals or fresh water that are starting to become accessible in the arctic circle thanks to permafrost getting yeeted in the course of global warming....or the metric fuckton of crude in veneuzela. Possibly a bunch of African countries due to the growing demand on lithium, cobalt (all the big raw materials for battery tech). A lot of it will probably be proxy wars (i.e funding of local extremist groups from the three largest players: US, RUS, CHN) although for an Arctic circle conflict - thats probably going to be more reliant on large naval resources more than anything else.
  • India and China start by fighting over their Himalayan border. Iran and Pakistan side with China. America and NATO side with India. Russia has a choice. They're allies with both India and China - no telling. I have a hunch they would side with NATO and India since that would possibly be the winning side but again it isn't a certainty. North Korea sides with China. China would probably end up getting blown to bits by nukes and India would face a lot of damage as well.
  • Most likely a small country with strong allies being attacked by a neighbouring country, with hopes to expand and create wealth. It will start a chain reaction, until two major players get involved, one on each side. Probably something like China and the US, in the future when the USA has lost its status as the only superpower. It will become mostly politics, in which the public will obey due to the hopes of getting out of their current poverty/poor quality of life. That said, with technology as advanced as it is now, it's hard to say how it would end. Nukes exist, so the next world war would make a visible dent on the earth. It's pretty scary to think about.
  • I'm not seeing much consideration of apolitical (or not-inherently-political) factors in these answers. I think that's a major error; not to say that things are more dire than they're being made out, because we could well find solutions to these issues, but thinking about geopolitics entirely within the realm of... well, world politics, is a very dangerous gaff lacking in interdisciplinary context. A quick and easy example: we know that irreversible climate change will alter conditions in certain areas such that ways-of-life in those locales will be forced to adapt or suffer. Most likely this will incite violence and instability in those regions, as we see occurring in tandem with rising heat and lowered resource availability even in first-world countries. One could call that a regional issue that might not have tremendous effect on 'world order' in that the major powers, excepting Europe, can largely push those ramifications to the side. However, we have a few other issues that I think demand contention. Late-stage capitalism is a fairly clear example. Capitalism as constructed requires a constant acceleration of growth; we can continue to inflate economies and push that growth into the third world in the form of free trade zones and other imperialist proxies, but eventually we'll either run against hard resource, environmental or political boundaries that will demand a deceleration that the current system is not prepared for. Can we reasonably predict that our societies will handle this problem before it becomes a geopolitical issue? This is already too long for a criticism so I won't go into more detail, but at the least I think we need to be looking at issues like environment, technology, economy (in the abstract), rate-of-growth in general (i.e. exponential growth as applied across all fields), population growth, and distribution of power in addition to simply extrapolating upon current international political tensions.
  • Main world conflicts have and will continue to start in Europe, and the stability and the balance of European powers will be the main factors in avoiding a new World War.
  • War will be fought not on the battlefield but one of intellectual space. Our leaders will converse on behalf of the population to achieve singularity on rising issues.
• Just kidding, we will send the poor (not white) people to die for the needs of the rich.
  • Proxy wars might be the status quo, but direct war seems obsolete to me. I think for a war now to reach a global level, it would have to be largely financially based (and we may be in one now). Management of markets and trade embargoes would lead to internal conflicts within governments that would extend across borders. It's not a war in the traditional sense, but I think it could still be considered a war. I'm doubtful of the utilitarian value of detonating a nuke during a proxy war. I believe in terms of military value there's more useful tactical weapons which also have less fallout..
• - Economic sanctions and cyber warfare. Tariffs and trade sanctions. Look at the headlines and you'd swear we were already at war, wouldn't you? ;-)
  
  - A hybrid warfare scenario such as cyperattacks, influence OPs, and/ or wagner/little green men is more likely with russia vs nato than outright hostilities. you could box that into state sponsored terrorism IMO...
  
  - WW3 has already begun: Cyber-warfare. Cyber terrorists hack into New York City's power mainframe. The largest city in America suddenly loses access to electricity, clean water, and communication. Or perhaps a remote destabilization of the Three Mile Island reactor? The Chernobyl scenario which would follow would have the same effects. Cyber warfare is well underway and attacks happen every day, thank the Air Force for keeping cyber space safe. But what i meant is that cyber-warfare is probably on its early stages.
• • The majority of Wars throughout the ages have been fought for the following reasons, trade routes, to secure areas of land to further the offensive, natural resources, raw material and the bringing together of a people or to unite and area by building a sense of family, camaraderie or nationality.
  • As George Friedman said: "... [E]very century has a war. The 21st century is not going to be the first century without major warfare." You can read his predictions about a WW3 scenario here: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/40th-anniversary/george-friedman-on-world-war-iii-776748/?no-ist Personally, I think the following scenario is more likely. George Friedman offers a divergent scenario to the one below. One where China fragments and Japan emerges as the Asian hegemon, with its maritime ambitions leading to hostilities with the U.S. George Friedman has the belief that advances in technology will lead to war unlike the previous. One where the scale of casualties and destruction is lower.
  • The smart money in geopolitics is a small conflict between China and the US, China and Russia or China and India, sometime within the next few decades. The Middle East has been relatively well contained, in part through American financial and military largesse.
• The US power advantage is far greater than it currently seems if they get truly serious. And even the US alone, if given sufficient provocation, could pretty much cut off China's oil and end China at little cost to the US provided world opinion was on its side.
• The President has no intention of putting boots on the ground in Syria. There will be some modest amounts of deployments in Iraq, but they will mainly be for training and advisory positions; perhaps some light combat in terms of defending certain posts or cities. If the ISIL (and you should call it ISIL; not IS or ISIS) threat continues to the next President if its a Republican, you can pretty much bet there will be some deployments, the scope of which are still difficult to predict.
• North Korea... never going to happen. You have to understand the politics of that whole region. China has NK on a short leash lately. They don't like it when NK starts making trouble. It impedes economic flow and China's economy is the most important thing to them right now. NK will never act without China's absolute commitment and approval. Just before he died/was killed, Kim Jung Ill made a trip to China. Now, here was a guy not know for his international travel, even to China. Leaded documents suggested that it was because he was asking for approval to launch an attack on South Korea or even funds from China to help do so. What happened? He came home a week later and suddenly "died." More leaks suggest China didn't trust him to stay put so they had him killed. There won't be a conflict in North Korea until US/China relations go completely to dust. I'm not saying that won't happen, but it would take decades of slow decline or some major revelations to make that the case.
• Africa - any deployments in Africa will be short-term and won't be in the context of a full-scale "war." These will be temporary missions meant to free some villages from warlords or track down medium size militias. The reason Africa might be more active in the future is because the jihad movement in the Middle East is spreading more there and that China has invested heavily in Africa. If we are ever to balance China's influence in the region, we will need to start showing local governments in the reason we are willing to help in terms of economic aid as well as defense. Remember, Clausewitz said "War is just the continuation of politics by other means." In Africa, that could not be more true.
• Russia - Listen, nobody on either side wants a conflict between Russia and NATO. Too many world economies would take a hit and there would be no definable end-game. You never start or go into a war unless you have a clear idea it is you want to achieve. The reason Iraq was a disaster? The goal was to set up a functioning democracy. That's an incredibly broad goal with subjective definitions as to what that means. The reason the first Iraq war was a success? The goal was to remove Sadaam from Kuwait. Very easily defined and was to clear to everyone when it happened. What would be the goal with Russia? If it's "to remove Russian forcer from Ukraine" then that could be a possibility. If it's "react Russian advancement" well then, anyone who takes us into that war would need to have his/her head examined. There is the possibility that some of the former USSR countries could follow Ukraines lead and start pushing for closer NATO and Western European ties. If Russia decides to react to them as it did with Ukraine, the possibility exists that NATO could get involved. However, the sanctions levied on Russia since invading Ukraine have been damaging to their economy. Putin is no longer pounding his chest and is trying to put out fires left and right in Moscow. He would have to be desperate or very well funded by the oil billionaires to want to try something that like again.
• The arctic powers are going to be diverting resources to the arctic circle, but I don't really see any open conflicts happening. Everyone has very well agreed and defined borders. There is some disagreement with how much neutral territory is being claimed, but no one is overstepping and claiming seas that are already claimed by someone else.
• Between the US and Russia for example, there is an extremely hard line at the Bering Strait that both sides fully respect. Russia isn't going to do any oil drilling, etc, on the US's side of that line, and the US has no plans to do anything on Russia's side. The greater international community might be in disagreement that either of them should have rights to the arctic waters north of their shores, but the arctic players themselves are respecting their neighbor's already established borders. In a way, it mirrors (and imo will continue to mirror) what has transpired in Antarctica minus the formal treaty. A formal treaty could come later. Export is a main driver for the Chinese economy. And a arctic connection to the Atlantic would be boost for their export. The naval route from Rotterdam to Shanghai can be reduced by 30%. A new port on the Russian east coast connected with the North Sea Route would give north China a competitive advantage. So instead of friction I can foresee a situation where Russia and China cooperate on a arctic Route.
• South America, literally everything I said about Africa applies here. Chinese influence, local militias, everything. Except replace jihad warlords with narco-warlords and it's almost an exact copy. We might be more willing to get involved in any conflicts mainly because it's in our hemisphere, thus the recent diplomatic moves with Cuba. Don't be fooled, that wasn't about helping the Cuban people. That was about trying to pull them out from under China's wing. The Castro have looked at China as their new major benefactor for years now. Restoring diplomatic relations was a move to try and keep that from happening.
• Lastly, there's the Pacific. DoD has made a pivot to focus on the Pacific more recently. Everything from the new uniform being more "jungle ready" to sending top brass to advice Filipino forces; the Pentagon at least sees the island nations on the Pacific rim as the next probable are of involvement. This could mean Islamic extremists groups in South East Asia or it could just be a show of force intended to slow Chinese advancement in the region. The Pacific is hard to judge because of all the moving parts in the region. I would say that if you see Japanese Defense Forces start ramping up, with the approval of the US of course, then the area might become more active. Until then, the Pacific is more about posturing. Deployments yes, combat likely no.
• Korea: The South believes air supremacy will cripple the operations of an obsolete North Korean military, while the North believes that its growing air defense grid and powerful artillery park will more than make up for their aerial fire support disadvantage. Further, the North has resorted to asymmetric tactics, deploying thousands of commandos to South Korea, and having tens of thousands more in reserve to deploy through invasion tunnels and its huge fleet of small landing craft, to disrupt the South when a war begins. The North is also counting on the admittedly backwards US-South Korean strategic plan, OPLAN 5027, which places the best assets of the South just miles from the DMZ, in range of the North's artillery. At present, reconciliation governments are in power in both Pyongyang and Seoul, but this situation won't last forever. When talks start to prove fruitless, Moon Jae In's star in the south might set. Meanwhile, politics in Pyongyang are and always have been "dogs fighting under the carpet", and there's no telling when the faction of O Kuk Ryul might once again gain favor and chart a more militaristic course.
• No one has a crystal ball. That said, the CCP values stability above all other concerns. I do not believe they'll ever instigate a conflict themselves, and that it's unlikely they'd allow an ally to drag them into one. So my prognosis for the next 20 years is essentially a continuation of what we've seen. China will continue to shore up their regional power, but only via carefully calibrated provocations that stop short of sparking real conflict. The US will maintain freedom of navigation and will otherwise back the status quo in Taiwan, NK. China depends on America much more than the other way round. China is still critically reliant on the U.S and its allies, the EU and Japan, as its principal export markets and sources of advanced technologies and know-how. Overall, China's dependence on international markets is very high, with the trade to GDP ratio standing at 53 percent. China imports many vital raw materials, such as oil and iron ore. As most of its commodity imports are shipped by the sea, China would be extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade, which is likely to be mounted by the U.S. in case of a major conflict. Both for economic and strategic reasons, the Chinese government pursues policies to reduce the country's reliance on foreign markets, trying to shift from an export-oriented model to domestic sources of growth. It is also making efforts to secure raw materials in the countries and regions contiguous to China, like Central Asia, Russia or Burma, so as to reduce dependence on sea-born shipments.
• - China doesn't have to defeat the entire American military and it's certainly not going to engage in a first strike nuclear attack. With regards to a possible invasion of Taiwan, all China has to do is make it impossible for America to stop them, either by sinking an American carrier fleet or making the likelihood of that happening too risky for them. And that is the single capability the Chinese navy is being bred for at present. The blue water stuff is more for show and long term investment. The only country coming close to this number is... Italy, with a whopping 2 Aircraft carriers. We need way more! I want a god damn floating city out there full of fighter jets.
• The Euphrates: Turkey and Iran have been strange bedfellows these last few years, united by a common desire to see the US leave the Middle East. However, many analysts believe they'll go back to their old habit of fighting over the region, as they had done for five centuries before the arrival of Westerners. This fear is exacerbated by the ongoing deployment of both Iranian forces and (illegally) Turkish forces in Syria. The Assad regime believes the Turkish advance is an invasion. Turkey has bought off Russia with a rapproachement, and it's likely that Russia will go back to its old tactics of divide and conquer, balancing the two Middle Eastern powers against one another, and being perfectly comfortable with a war. The confidence of Iran's forces have been buoyed by years of unbroken success, while on paper Turkey is indisputably the strongest military in the region. It's very possible that in the next years, clashes between Turkish and Syrian troops will lead to direct Turkish military action against the Syrian government.
• The Persian Gulf: The scariest of these conflicts where much of the global oil supply is at risk. Iran believes that swarms of missies and speedboats can overwhelm the targeting computers of the US Navy's missile defense system - Phalanx - while the US believes Phalanx will hold. Before Phalanx, the US's own simulations predicted disaster in this conflict, but that platform has largely evened the odds.
• Taiwan: The rise of the DPP has led to Taiwan's increasing isolation. Meanwhile, China in suppressing Hong Kong and defying its basic law has cast suspicion on peaceful reunification, as many Taiwanese think the country will simply go the route of Hong Kong. Taiwan believes its rapid mobilization, urban territory, and advanced army can hold its own until they get international help, while China has upgraded its navy and missile capabilities and will most likely be able to pull off a blockade. Taiwan used to be one, but not any more after Xi's last meeting with former KMT president. Xi sent a clear message that he doesn't want to talk to President Tsai's government, but he has no intention to invade Taiwan in short term either. As long as Chinese internal politics is stable, Taiwan policy would not likely to change. I don't think Xi will lose power soon.
• South China Sea, the main dispute is between China and Vietnam. Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Taiwan are not interested in joining the SCS disputes. There are reasons neither China nor Vietnam would go to war. Both countries are developing fast and trying to avoid wars. Vietnam holds more islands than China so Vietnam doesn't want to change the status quo. China is heavily investing in Vietnam, which suggests it has no intention to invade Vietnam either. If you read a lot of American news you probably would think Taiwan/SCS are going to war, but they are not going to. US utilizes its propaganda to justify its military presence in east Asia.
• Kurdistan: Abadi and the Iranians temporarily put a lid on the Kurdistan issue this year, but the KRG is still in power and angling for a second chance to declare independence. The next war actually might be started by the Shi'a bloc instead of the Kurds. Iran is in the finishing stages of a 2-year project to secretly unite the Iraqi oil reserves with Iran's national oil companies. Once they're finished, they have a huge financial incentive to make a move on the fields in the Kurdish lowlands. Far from the difficult mountain territories, the Kurdish oil reserves are easily assailable, and Iran has every legal excuse to attack.
• Kashmir isn't going to war. All three countries involved(China/India/Pakistan) are developing very fast, nobody can afford a war. China is throwing billions in Pakistan, so it clearly doesn't want a war there. Pakistan's newly elected president sent a message to India that they are willing to talk. India is having historical growth rate so it doesn't want a war to disrupt it either. Also keep in mind all 3 countries are nuclear powers.
• What makes Iran unique is that it has an unstable internal power struggle. Significant amount of Iranians believe it is their government's fault for the declining economy. If you think about China/India/Vietnam/Pakistan/Taiwan, they are all stable, much different from Iran. There is no plausible reason for US to quit the Iran deal other than it is trying to incite a regime change. (I don't rule out the possibility Trump simply hates everything about Obama.) The Iranian regime is brutal and awful but they're not crazy. And the one thing they want more than anything else is to retain power, that's it. And I think they look at the idea of a direct military conflict with US, and this not to say that their proxies wont strike out at some place around the world at some point, but the regime looked at that and thought nah, we're not gonna do this. They can't afford it. We have the ability to take out their entire energy infrastructure, their missile bases, their key military facilities. It's not in China & Russia's best interest to do anything. They're consistent about acting in their own best interests. They most likely wouldn't do anything. I can't imagine a scenario where Russia would come in. If the Russian military was there we would liaise with them, we're gonna advise them shits coming down because the last thing we want to do is drag them into it by hitting some of their facilities or personnel or whatever. So there would be that level of coordination which there always is no matter who are parties are. There's always some element of coordination. Russia and China are not significant players with this drama going on, and no country really wants to start a world war and potentially nuclear war. The UK, France & Germany all have real strong financial incentives for continuing to do business in Iran as do Russia and China.
• As for Syria, the talk between SAA and SDF could go wrong and result in a new civil war. SDF is backed by US but it has no popular support from local Arabs. SAA is backed by Russia and is clearly winning the war against ISIS and FSA. If US quits Syria, SDF is likely to join SAA. However, if US continues to back SDF, a new civil war would start. Syria also has territorial dispute with Israel. Would a united Syria back down to Israel?
• Qatar was thrown out of the bus of Arabic countries. Saudi Arabia and UAE cut all diplomatic ties with Qatar. The tension between UAE/KSA and Qatar has been rising very fast. If KSA decided to invade Qatar, there's not much anyone else can do. Qatar went China for help, and China told KSA to cool down. However, as the closest ally of US, could China hold KSA back?
• Turkey is an interesting country now. It probably won't go for a war, but it clearly isn't very friendly to its NATO allies.
• Georgia wants to join NATO, but if Russia invaded Georgia there's no way for NATO to defend it. Also I highly doubt NATO countries would even honor the alliance if Georgia were attacked.
• Sahel, Nigeria, etc. as Islamic extremists gain power in Africa
• I would say the odds of American military action in North Africa and the Sahel as something I would not be surprised at all though we may just direct and supply the French. Well at this point more overt action in support of the National Unity Govt against ISIL in Libya is not beyond the pale. And a far more likely state to stabilize around a national govt than Iraq or Syria. Russia has next to no interest in North Africa. Hard to see them taking an active role in Libya. Russia has an interest in keeping their Syrian Naval Base as a foothold in the Med, but the surrounding areas I doubt they really care. Also, depending on the state, it could be in a position to trouble important trade routes as Somalia was doing for a time.
• Fundamentalist coup in Pakistan, loss of control over nukes. Pakistan. If the government collapses, which is likely, the U.S. military has contingency plans to eliminate their nuclear weapons stockpile, which I find very reassuring. the U.S. military has a metric shit ton of contingency plans in place for multiple scenarios. A US contingency plan developed from a series of wargames in the latter part of the bush administration actually predicted an Arab Spring style series of revolts snaking across north africa and built around a scenario where nuclear or biologically armed nations experiencing outright civil war had to be intervened and disarmed. The most dangerous thing however is the constantly growing nuclear armament that Pakistan is producing. I find it hard to believe the Pakistani government wouldn't keep at least some of their stockpile buried under a mountain range. The plan would include special ops teams on the ground to secure stockpiles I'm sure.
• The missiles can't be hacked. They run on a closed network of cables. It's not like you can find the IP address of Oscar 8 at Minot. Launch codes are not kept on networked computers. It's pretty disingenuous to take a maintenance fuckup and call it proof that the missiles are vulnerable. The people can be hacked. Communications and news can be hacked.

How do you think World War 3 will start: Well if world war 3 is a nuclear war then I don't really think it matters because all of us are gonna die probably anyway. How do I think world war 3 would start? The Pakistanis and the Indians are always at each other's throats but I don't know how that could turn into a world war because I'm not sure how size would play out in that. But Russia has weight to throw around. They seem to have forgotten that since the beginning of the '90's. It just seems to have dawned on them one day, oh yeah we have the second largest nuclear stockpile on the planet and are by extension the second most powerful country on the planet. Are they gonna start throwing their weight around more? We'll see. That could be a problem. Are they gonna try to reclaim some of their former Soviet republics? I don't know but thats something to lookout for. Are the Chinese ever gonna make any real moves on Taiwan? That would be something to lookout for. This one's a little bit more farfetched but there has been an increase in sympathetic towards fascism again especially in places in Italy and some places in Eastern Europe. Could a totalitarian upswell occur in the European Union? Maybe. That's something to lookout for but thats a little bit more farfetched. But you want ideas so I'm giving them to you. With any of the current players right now it would probably be something that started between us and China that's my personal opinion. Or something got fucked up and there was a mistake and everyone thought that somebody launched something. They really didn't or something like that and we end up nuking each other all on accident but the chances of that happening are very low.

Which future world is more likely, a world that is completely controlled by fascistic governments or a world where humanity has completely destroyed itself with nuclear weapons or in some other way?

Why does it have to be a fascist government? Is a world where we've fucked ourselves up considerably possible? Yes. And it remains very possible as long as things like religion have not been taken care of. But I've said this before, I'm not necessarily against the concept of a one world government. Who says it has to be fascist?

Bit carried away there !!
Nothing much the average person can do about……the power is in the hands of a few and they're welcome to their nuclear bunkers. I don't plan to b3 around to see it if it happens….but certainly wouldn't want to survive in a post nuclear Armageddon world.

 

[DarkRange55]

Bit carried away there !!
Nothing much the average person can do about……the power is in the hands of a few and they're welcome to their nuclear bunkers. I don't plan to b3 around to see it if it happens….but certainly wouldn't want to survive in a post nuclear Armageddon world.

It's not in their interests so no, it wont happen. The defining threats of the first half of the 21st century are terrorism and rouge nation-states.

Also, I'm sure you've been reading a bunch of reports online about wealthy people buying doomsday bunkers but I've had to research that extensively and the government actually realized during the Carter administration that a lot of these forces would just concentrate their fire at specific locations so going airborne (AWAY from it) or under the ocean is probably your best bet…

 

[mursonii]

America, obviously.

 

[sserafim]

Some people in this forum said there is already world war 3 happening in Ukraine. Personally I doubt that. It is a proxy war, no world war. Otherwise Vietnam or Korea war would have also been a world war.

Probably noone would win. Due to the fact the superpowers have nukes. When one superpower is about to lose they will use nukes. There are some scenarios I have read: there are some strategies to nuke first and to destroy the enemies opportunity to retaliate. It would be a huge gamble.

I rather think world war 3 will likely happen unintentionally. I doubt one superpower will say: okay lets start WW3.
The leaders also will know yeah we will probably die because of it.
The time when we were closest was during the Cuba missle crisis. Like a technological error almost led to starting the nukes. The more nukes there are the more likely it is that such an accident will happen. And in the future more and more weapons will be used by AI.

Maybe maggots will be the winner and other vermits which can survive under the worst circumstances. There will probably be no human that could be called winner.

I think that just like how the Ukraine War is a proxy war between the US and Russia, "Israel's war on Hamas" is a proxy war between the US and Iran. I think we're already in a cold war, which could be classified as WW3, but I'm not sure

 

[Edpal247]

No drones, no nukes, no soldiers. Pure manipulation of currencies and hacking power-stations. Driving the countries to such devastation they wouldn't be able to recover. Previously the losers of wars recover to countries with great economy, see Germany and Japan. They built their countries from within.


Maybe they would rather have people think its aliens then realize that they may be maneuvering us into having a nuclear war or some shit. I just have so little faith in the government and you're not supposed to say this but I just don't trust that the US military can do all that the shit that it says it can. I recognize they're probably on paper better than anything than anybody else's shit certainly the naval and air assets. But I don't know, I just don't just assume that just because the shit is better that we're gonna win. Because we're being positioned and everything in a way to just think that we can out win a war with China. Like we probably could win a war with China but its gonna be really costly. We could win a conventional war with China if nukes were not allowed like if you changed that setting in the game. So they could kill a lot of people, they've upped their ICBM's, they've done a lot of shit. I do not trust the government when they say that they're able to stop these ballistic missiles or enough of them. Maybe they'll stop 80% of them and 20% of a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons is a lot. And also if you believe The numbers for what they've given to the Ukrainians they've given them a large number of our stuff. Its very bizarre.

My thesis around China is unchanged. There's maximum fear and pessimism in China. I think most beliefs are wrong. I think China is going through some troubles. But I don't think the Chinese government is going to intentionally destroy their economy. They cracked down on their tech giants because Jack Ma opened his mouth. Its not America where you can just criticize people. They stay powerful by having a strong economy which results in a strong military and a bunch of other benefits around the globe. They're our geopolitical enemy and you're going to hear a lot of propaganda in the US. During the Great Recession, the US stock market fell +56%. Nobody seems to talk about this anymore. Back then people were saying US stocks are over. The same stuff about China. Maybe the Chinese government will intervene and prop up their property sector. We did the same thing and had a golden age for US stocks. We cut interest rates to zero, cut taxes for corporations in 2017. Its a not so great population pyramid in their demography. They're aging and not having as many kids. The estimated working population right now is almost 3 times the United States. Even by 2050 they're working population is gonna be twice the size of the US.

China is the second largest economy in the world, its an emerging superpower and the United States is threatened by China. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a kerfuffle. Their economy, at least historically, has been growing faster than the United States and its entirely possible that it could continue to do so into the future. 1.4 billion people. The Soviet Union competed with the United States with a fraction of the population and a fraction of the economy. China is even in proximity to a huge part of the global population. They basically dominate Asia. Obviously the United States has its little alliances with Japan and Australia counter balancing the Chinese in that respect. But they're a big player in Asia. The most populace region and country in the world.
I mean China doesn't need to invade the United States. They just wanna control their region and they want access to Europe and Africa. I mean basically we kind of have them like pinned in on the water because you have the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan (possibly Vietnam) are all our allies so its like a ring around China. So we could really interrupt their sea lanes. And they get a lot of their oil obviously from the middle east and they have to ship it and there's a lot of narrow straights we could cut off. But once they develop that belt and road initiative they're like connected to Europe and Africa through pipelines and roads and stuff. I mean China doesn't have to spend as much as the US. They can't invade us. They should be able to control their area around China to free up their sea lanes. They don't need to conquer the United States to defeat us.

China is a rising power. It's unclear whether it'll actually become a superpower in the short or medium term, or whether it'll stagnate like Japan did in the 1990s. Regardless, China is a nuclear weapons state, a P5 member, it's experiencing a booming economy (though slowing as of late), and has a massive labor force and incredible natural resources.

Today, Russia is one of the few debt-free nations in the world, is consolidating its influence over the CIS and other former Soviet republics, and has a world-class military with little power projection but still orders of magnitude more than what it had twenty years ago. Military wise- America and Russia. Only 2 countries that will send troops to foreign battles on their own (no coalitions). France has been doing this for decades. (They also have the third largest nuclear arsenal.) Economically- America and China. European Union would be here if they were more united in their foreign policy. Nowadays, our world is becoming increasingly multipolar. With the example of Russia, they have a niche of military and cybersecurity in which they project their power, and this is generally the most visible to the public, compared to a country like Germany that asserts its power through political means and by financial dominance of the EU. Russia is a declining power. Like Britain after the world wars, Russia is settling down from superpower status to great power, or perhaps even middle power status. A large, nuclear backed military, sizable economy, access to vast resources, and an incredibly large expanse of land all help Russia hold on to great power status.

When will US no longer be superpower, if ever? I know that as long as the United States maintain its vast nuclear stockpile it will forever remain a superpower. Even if it fell out economically, no country that has the capability of ending life on the planet will be easily ignored. I also know that the United States has the recipe to maintain superpower status for at least the next 100 years. How long do you think the Dollar will stay strong (relatively to other fiat currencies) and how long do you think US passports will still be extremely valuable?
The US have all the ingredients to remain the dominant superpower for centuries to come, but they also have all the ingredients for civil war. But do you believe it will retain its sole global hegemony status and eventually overcome China long-term?

Own the seas you own the world - The British and Spanish knew that.
Before the 19th century it was Britian and France and before those two there was Spain. Spain was the first superpower, they were shortly joined by the Dutch, who used trade to influence everyone for a time. No superpowers before Spain becuase there was no global trade or transit. Portugal while a great power, was quickly supplanted by Spain when they fell into a personal union, uniting the crowns of Iberia. Beginning their long decline. Portugal wasn't really a superpower.
It has been recognized for close to 400 years that the ability to sail from point to point safely underpins the global economy.
The ability to "beggar thy neighbor" by obstructing free travel on the seas would be an enormous and often-used tactic when nations struggled for dominance. The value of doing so would in most cases vastly outweigh the short-term consequences.
Recognizing this the major world powers have acted since the 1700s to police the sea lanes and keep them free not only of pirates and other criminals but also to form such a massive deterrent that no smaller states would take the risk of trying to create problems either.
The US Navy became the dominant force in this effort after WWII, following a 50 year transition from the combined forces of the British and the French. A substantial amount of the money the US pours into its military can be attributed to the US Navy being the undisputed guarantor of the freedom of the sea lanes.
Only a handful of nations now have "blue water" force projection capabilities - the ability to operate far from home waters. The US, the UK, France, Russia, Japan, India and China - and the Asian powers either keep their navy close to home waters (India & Japan) or are just now starting to develop a true blue-water capability (China).
Look into the Barbary pirates of the Med sea...if my memory is correct the infant US was the only seafaring country that refused to pay the "protection" and fought to protect their ships. During Jefferson administration.
The US was one of the first to use its navy to protect and secure its merchant fleets. By doing so it was the start of protecting the seaway trading. Look at the Marine Corp hymn. "The halls of Motezuma to the shores of Tripoli"

Haha I've read that long ago the Chinese tapped into Australia's undersea fiber optic cables but they know this so they've been intentionally feeding them false information. I think a lot of countries would sever those cables further damaging the internet.

That was a dissertation! Wow.

 

[DarkRange55]

The reason we call them the First World War and the Second World War is because that's what people at the time called them and it's what they've been called for going on a hundred years now. Obviously they weren't the first war that took place across 2+ continents or to involve two powers on 2+ modern defined continents but that's not the point: That's what people called them, it's what they've been called for decades, that's what they're called -- first by the German Ernst Haeckel in September 1914 and again by Charles à Court Repington in 1920. There is no international organization or cabal of historians 'naming' things -- it's just we call it what people call it and things stick. That's the true reason, honestly.

The 'more logical' reason, what we can use to justify this position retrospectively, and perhaps the most common modern justification, is that those wars were European wars which just extended to their colonies which happened to be overseas. They weren't 'global' conflicts in that respect they were localized conflicts with localized goals which just had extended fighting -- every single war you listed fits that bill. Outside of the Mughal Empire in the 7 Years' War they're all European powers. The First World War was the first truly global war which hit every single continent. Japan and China and East Pacific colonies, India, Australia, South, East, North, and West Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the North Sea, Brazil, Central America, North America. Every single corner of the Earth, all from independent or quasi-independent dominions (Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand) operated as independent military entities and as independent government actors. That had never been done before, ever.
Yes we have the 7 Years' War but it was what, a few European colonies which saw next to no fighting in Africa, some small conflicts in coastal India, and Russia who were fighting just about entirely in Europe anyways? Everywhere you extend outside of 'Europe' are European powers and European armies fighting other Europeans with the small exception of in North America where Indians admittedly played a larger role. It was still, ultimately, a war between Prussia/Great Britain/Central German States/Portugal vs France/Austria/Russia/Spain/Saxony/Mughal Empire...with the latter being the non-European entity obviously.
Other common cited examples are like the 80 Years' War (which bled into the 30 Years' War...but the Eighty Years' War was a war concerning Dutch independence. Some people jumped in and out and it was involved in for instance the 30 Years' War and some fighting took place outside of the Netherlands but the fact is it was a war between the United Provinces & Friends vs Spain & Friends for Dutch independence. That was the goal. It was a war between England, United Provinces, France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Spain -- that's not a 'world war'.
All other examples follow the same pattern: Nine Years' War was basically a religious war and expansionism from Louis w.r.t. Europe that had some light fighting in North American colonies. Spanish Succession War was literally just fighting over the Spanish crown, and the Austrian succession war similarly. These are European conflicts between European powers for European goals and when they do extend globally in some fashion it's so extremely limited it hardly deserves the denoting of 'world war'.
Think of it like this: You wouldn't call the Gulf War World War 3 even though it was the U.S. & Friends (America & Europe) vs Iraq (Asia), would you? It had global participants, significant casualties, etc. It's the same thing here honestly: None of these commonly listed wars linked involved the popular participation of everyone everywhere even though they, at times, involved some powers from not-Europe and fighting in not-Europe. A 'world war' is not just who is fighting or where but scale and affect. No one was unaffected by WW1 or WW2. Yes it was started in Europe but its participants not only went beyond Europe those directly and largely affected were as well. 1.5 million Indians would volunteer to fight, America drafted nearly 3 million people, 40% of the Australian male population would enlist, fighting would occur off the coast of Brazil and just about all of Central and South America would come on the side of the Allies as independent, sovereign states. China would send tens of thousands of men to contribute to trench building and also providing supplies while Japan seized numerous German colonies in the Pacific in blatant expansionism. Africa was a theater of independent, quasi-independent, and European fighting forces that raged throughout the war.
Numerous, global belligerents had numerous goals (America expanding trade power in the post-war world, basically any laundry list of European reasons, Ottomans pushing into the Caucasus' of Central Asia and firming their grip on Egypt in Africa, Germans expanding colonial gains by creating a continuous German state across about all of South Africa, Japan taking control of European pacific holdings and trying to force China into basically a protectorate, Australia/Canada/New Zealand/South Africa all developing national identities and using the war as justification for true independence, dozens of Middle Eastern tribes tearing the Ottoman Empire apart for independence, Slavs fighting for independence and unification from the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians trying to enforce such, etc.
This type of global participation was unprecedented and you will never find a war like it: Belgium, Romania, the United States, Australia, India, South Africa, the Ottomans, Mideastern Tribes vying for independence, Hejaz, Japan, Cuba, Costa Rico, Siam. 65,000,000 combatants would participate in the war and 37,000,000 people would die. It was not a European war between European powers for European goals it was a global war between global powers for global goals with significant global fighting between non-negligible sovereign global peoples -- the African, Middle Eastern, and Asian theaters alone justify this point imo without even touching America or Europe!

I can go into much more depth about the African Theater and why it was like no other theater in Africa before it along with quashing some misconceptions. I'll quote the particular parts I want though:
The point is is that this was a war which changed everything and affected everyone like never before. South Africans, Indians, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Portugese, French, Indo-Chinese, Brazilians -- they were all directly affected by this war and by the fighting of it as quasi-independent actors. They all sent thousands and at times millions away to go fight.
It wasn't just "some European war" it was a European war that bled into North Africa and the Middle East in terms of heavy fighting. It was "some European war" that prompted United States and Japanese intervention. It was "some European war" which brought millions of Indians and Australians and Canadians and South Africans to willingly go fight and by 1918 they were not fighting as Brits they were fighting as Indians, Australians, South Africans, and Canadians -- something totally unique from, say, colonial forces clashing in the Napoleonic Wars. Japan and China's relationship would mature throughout this conflict and can be directly linked to the Sino-Japanese Wars of the future as Japan tried to posture upon China. Pacific Islanders, as said below, along with French and British colonials throughout Asia, India, and Africa all alike would find their national identities and their justification for separation through this war. The entire modern Middle East would be born from this war throughout the partitioning and rebellion in the Ottoman Empire. The United States would leave its isolationist bubble as the #1 industrial power and become part of the worlds congregation of "Great Powers".
That's really what separates it from every other global conflict before it (though the 7 Years' War and Napoleonic Wars are the only ones which can really be shoehorned into that category) -- it was not the Brits fighting in Southwest Africa they were Boers, Rhodesians, and Zulu's. It was Indians going to fight for Britain, not Brits. You see where I'm going with this? Nonetheless even if we go beyond this providing material support alone constitutes direct involvement and impact. That's really the point. Only a select few people in the world were totally escaped from the realities of this war whether it was direct fighting or economical unlike in these previous conflicts which were, essentially, European wars fought for European goals between European powers.

Point of clarification: Calling WWI the "First World War" wasn't common at all until 1939, when WWII broke out. Prior to that it was only "the Great War". Haickel and Repington were in an extremely small minority when they referred to it as the "First World War", simply because at the time, people generally were thinking that there wouldn't be another war like this.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term "world war" only entered English just a few years before the First World War (most likely from the German term Weltkrieg). It was defined as a war involving important or major nations.
So basically the First World War/World War One was the first war after the definition entered English to meet the definition.

I think that just like how the Ukraine War is a proxy war between the US and Russia, "Israel's war on Hamas" is a proxy war between the US and Iran. I think we're already in a cold war, which could be classified as WW3, but I'm not sure

 

[noname223]

The reason we call them the First World War and the Second World War is because that's what people at the time called them and it's what they've been called for going on a hundred years now. Obviously they weren't the first war that took place across 2+ continents or to involve two powers on 2+ modern defined continents but that's not the point: That's what people called them, it's what they've been called for decades, that's what they're called -- first by the German Ernst Haeckel in September 1914 and again by Charles à Court Repington in 1920. There is no international organization or cabal of historians 'naming' things -- it's just we call it what people call it and things stick. That's the true reason, honestly.

The 'more logical' reason, what we can use to justify this position retrospectively, and perhaps the most common modern justification, is that those wars were European wars which just extended to their colonies which happened to be overseas. They weren't 'global' conflicts in that respect they were localized conflicts with localized goals which just had extended fighting -- every single war you listed fits that bill. Outside of the Mughal Empire in the 7 Years' War they're all European powers. The First World War was the first truly global war which hit every single continent. Japan and China and East Pacific colonies, India, Australia, South, East, North, and West Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the North Sea, Brazil, Central America, North America. Every single corner of the Earth, all from independent or quasi-independent dominions (Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand) operated as independent military entities and as independent government actors. That had never been done before, ever.
Yes we have the 7 Years' War but it was what, a few European colonies which saw next to no fighting in Africa, some small conflicts in coastal India, and Russia who were fighting just about entirely in Europe anyways? Everywhere you extend outside of 'Europe' are European powers and European armies fighting other Europeans with the small exception of in North America where Indians admittedly played a larger role. It was still, ultimately, a war between Prussia/Great Britain/Central German States/Portugal vs France/Austria/Russia/Spain/Saxony/Mughal Empire...with the latter being the non-European entity obviously.
Other common cited examples are like the 80 Years' War (which bled into the 30 Years' War...but the Eighty Years' War was a war concerning Dutch independence. Some people jumped in and out and it was involved in for instance the 30 Years' War and some fighting took place outside of the Netherlands but the fact is it was a war between the United Provinces & Friends vs Spain & Friends for Dutch independence. That was the goal. It was a war between England, United Provinces, France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Spain -- that's not a 'world war'.
All other examples follow the same pattern: Nine Years' War was basically a religious war and expansionism from Louis w.r.t. Europe that had some light fighting in North American colonies. Spanish Succession War was literally just fighting over the Spanish crown, and the Austrian succession war similarly. These are European conflicts between European powers for European goals and when they do extend globally in some fashion it's so extremely limited it hardly deserves the denoting of 'world war'.
Think of it like this: You wouldn't call the Gulf War World War 3 even though it was the U.S. & Friends (America & Europe) vs Iraq (Asia), would you? It had global participants, significant casualties, etc. It's the same thing here honestly: None of these commonly listed wars linked involved the popular participation of everyone everywhere even though they, at times, involved some powers from not-Europe and fighting in not-Europe. A 'world war' is not just who is fighting or where but scale and affect. No one was unaffected by WW1 or WW2. Yes it was started in Europe but its participants not only went beyond Europe those directly and largely affected were as well. 1.5 million Indians would volunteer to fight, America drafted nearly 3 million people, 40% of the Australian male population would enlist, fighting would occur off the coast of Brazil and just about all of Central and South America would come on the side of the Allies as independent, sovereign states. China would send tens of thousands of men to contribute to trench building and also providing supplies while Japan seized numerous German colonies in the Pacific in blatant expansionism. Africa was a theater of independent, quasi-independent, and European fighting forces that raged throughout the war.
Numerous, global belligerents had numerous goals (America expanding trade power in the post-war world, basically any laundry list of European reasons, Ottomans pushing into the Caucasus' of Central Asia and firming their grip on Egypt in Africa, Germans expanding colonial gains by creating a continuous German state across about all of South Africa, Japan taking control of European pacific holdings and trying to force China into basically a protectorate, Australia/Canada/New Zealand/South Africa all developing national identities and using the war as justification for true independence, dozens of Middle Eastern tribes tearing the Ottoman Empire apart for independence, Slavs fighting for independence and unification from the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians trying to enforce such, etc.
This type of global participation was unprecedented and you will never find a war like it: Belgium, Romania, the United States, Australia, India, South Africa, the Ottomans, Mideastern Tribes vying for independence, Hejaz, Japan, Cuba, Costa Rico, Siam. 65,000,000 combatants would participate in the war and 37,000,000 people would die. It was not a European war between European powers for European goals it was a global war between global powers for global goals with significant global fighting between non-negligible sovereign global peoples -- the African, Middle Eastern, and Asian theaters alone justify this point imo without even touching America or Europe!

I can go into much more depth about the African Theater and why it was like no other theater in Africa before it along with quashing some misconceptions. I'll quote the particular parts I want though:
The point is is that this was a war which changed everything and affected everyone like never before. South Africans, Indians, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Portugese, French, Indo-Chinese, Brazilians -- they were all directly affected by this war and by the fighting of it as quasi-independent actors. They all sent thousands and at times millions away to go fight.
It wasn't just "some European war" it was a European war that bled into North Africa and the Middle East in terms of heavy fighting. It was "some European war" that prompted United States and Japanese intervention. It was "some European war" which brought millions of Indians and Australians and Canadians and South Africans to willingly go fight and by 1918 they were not fighting as Brits they were fighting as Indians, Australians, South Africans, and Canadians -- something totally unique from, say, colonial forces clashing in the Napoleonic Wars. Japan and China's relationship would mature throughout this conflict and can be directly linked to the Sino-Japanese Wars of the future as Japan tried to posture upon China. Pacific Islanders, as said below, along with French and British colonials throughout Asia, India, and Africa all alike would find their national identities and their justification for separation through this war. The entire modern Middle East would be born from this war throughout the partitioning and rebellion in the Ottoman Empire. The United States would leave its isolationist bubble as the #1 industrial power and become part of the worlds congregation of "Great Powers".
That's really what separates it from every other global conflict before it (though the 7 Years' War and Napoleonic Wars are the only ones which can really be shoehorned into that category) -- it was not the Brits fighting in Southwest Africa they were Boers, Rhodesians, and Zulu's. It was Indians going to fight for Britain, not Brits. You see where I'm going with this? Nonetheless even if we go beyond this providing material support alone constitutes direct involvement and impact. That's really the point. Only a select few people in the world were totally escaped from the realities of this war whether it was direct fighting or economical unlike in these previous conflicts which were, essentially, European wars fought for European goals between European powers.

Point of clarification: Calling WWI the "First World War" wasn't common at all until 1939, when WWII broke out. Prior to that it was only "the Great War". Haickel and Repington were in an extremely small minority when they referred to it as the "First World War", simply because at the time, people generally were thinking that there wouldn't be another war like this.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term "world war" only entered English just a few years before the First World War (most likely from the German term Weltkrieg). It was defined as a war involving important or major nations.
So basically the First World War/World War One was the first war after the definition entered English to meet the definition.

This text is really hard to read if you are on SaSu dark mode like me.

 

[DarkRange55]

This text is really hard to read if you are on SaSu dark mode like me.

It wont let me edit it at this point so I'll just copypasta it in a better formatting. How's this?

The reason we call them the First World War and the Second World War is because that's what people at the time called them and it's what they've been called for going on a hundred years now. Obviously they weren't the first war that took place across 2+ continents or to involve two powers on 2+ modern defined continents but that's not the point: That's what people called them, it's what they've been called for decades, that's what they're called -- first by the German Ernst Haeckel in September 1914 and again by Charles à Court Repington in 1920. There is no international organization or cabal of historians 'naming' things -- it's just we call it what people call it and things stick. That's the true reason, honestly.

The 'more logical' reason, what we can use to justify this position retrospectively, and perhaps the most common modern justification, is that those wars were European wars which just extended to their colonies which happened to be overseas. They weren't 'global' conflicts in that respect they were localized conflicts with localized goals which just had extended fighting -- every single war you listed fits that bill. Outside of the Mughal Empire in the 7 Years' War they're all European powers. The First World War was the first truly global war which hit every single continent. Japan and China and East Pacific colonies, India, Australia, South, East, North, and West Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the North Sea, Brazil, Central America, North America. Every single corner of the Earth, all from independent or quasi-independent dominions (Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand) operated as independent military entities and as independent government actors. That had never been done before, ever.
Yes we have the 7 Years' War but it was what, a few European colonies which saw next to no fighting in Africa, some small conflicts in coastal India, and Russia who were fighting just about entirely in Europe anyways? Everywhere you extend outside of 'Europe' are European powers and European armies fighting other Europeans with the small exception of in North America where Indians admittedly played a larger role. It was still, ultimately, a war between Prussia/Great Britain/Central German States/Portugal vs France/Austria/Russia/Spain/Saxony/Mughal Empire...with the latter being the non-European entity obviously.
Other common cited examples are like the 80 Years' War (which bled into the 30 Years' War...but the Eighty Years' War was a war concerning Dutch independence. Some people jumped in and out and it was involved in for instance the 30 Years' War and some fighting took place outside of the Netherlands but the fact is it was a war between the United Provinces & Friends vs Spain & Friends for Dutch independence. That was the goal. It was a war between England, United Provinces, France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Spain -- that's not a 'world war'.
All other examples follow the same pattern: Nine Years' War was basically a religious war and expansionism from Louis w.r.t. Europe that had some light fighting in North American colonies. Spanish Succession War was literally just fighting over the Spanish crown, and the Austrian succession war similarly. These are European conflicts between European powers for European goals and when they do extend globally in some fashion it's so extremely limited it hardly deserves the denoting of 'world war'.
Think of it like this: You wouldn't call the Gulf War World War 3 even though it was the U.S. & Friends (America & Europe) vs Iraq (Asia), would you? It had global participants, significant casualties, etc. It's the same thing here honestly: None of these commonly listed wars linked involved the popular participation of everyone everywhere even though they, at times, involved some powers from not-Europe and fighting in not-Europe. A 'world war' is not just who is fighting or where but scale and affect. No one was unaffected by WW1 or WW2. Yes it was started in Europe but its participants not only went beyond Europe those directly and largely affected were as well. 1.5 million Indians would volunteer to fight, America drafted nearly 3 million people, 40% of the Australian male population would enlist, fighting would occur off the coast of Brazil and just about all of Central and South America would come on the side of the Allies as independent, sovereign states. China would send tens of thousands of men to contribute to trench building and also providing supplies while Japan seized numerous German colonies in the Pacific in blatant expansionism. Africa was a theater of independent, quasi-independent, and European fighting forces that raged throughout the war.
Numerous, global belligerents had numerous goals (America expanding trade power in the post-war world, basically any laundry list of European reasons, Ottomans pushing into the Caucasus' of Central Asia and firming their grip on Egypt in Africa, Germans expanding colonial gains by creating a continuous German state across about all of South Africa, Japan taking control of European pacific holdings and trying to force China into basically a protectorate, Australia/Canada/New Zealand/South Africa all developing national identities and using the war as justification for true independence, dozens of Middle Eastern tribes tearing the Ottoman Empire apart for independence, Slavs fighting for independence and unification from the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians trying to enforce such, etc.
This type of global participation was unprecedented and you will never find a war like it: Belgium, Romania, the United States, Australia, India, South Africa, the Ottomans, Mideastern Tribes vying for independence, Hejaz, Japan, Cuba, Costa Rico, Siam. 65,000,000 combatants would participate in the war and 37,000,000 people would die. It was not a European war between European powers for European goals it was a global war between global powers for global goals with significant global fighting between non-negligible sovereign global peoples -- the African, Middle Eastern, and Asian theaters alone justify this point imo without even touching America or Europe!

I can go into much more depth about the African Theater and why it was like no other theater in Africa before it along with quashing some misconceptions. I'll quote the particular parts I want though:
The point is is that this was a war which changed everything and affected everyone like never before. South Africans, Indians, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Portugese, French, Indo-Chinese, Brazilians -- they were all directly affected by this war and by the fighting of it as quasi-independent actors. They all sent thousands and at times millions away to go fight.
It wasn't just "some European war" it was a European war that bled into North Africa and the Middle East in terms of heavy fighting. It was "some European war" that prompted United States and Japanese intervention. It was "some European war" which brought millions of Indians and Australians and Canadians and South Africans to willingly go fight and by 1918 they were not fighting as Brits they were fighting as Indians, Australians, South Africans, and Canadians -- something totally unique from, say, colonial forces clashing in the Napoleonic Wars. Japan and China's relationship would mature throughout this conflict and can be directly linked to the Sino-Japanese Wars of the future as Japan tried to posture upon China. Pacific Islanders, as said below, along with French and British colonials throughout Asia, India, and Africa all alike would find their national identities and their justification for separation through this war. The entire modern Middle East would be born from this war throughout the partitioning and rebellion in the Ottoman Empire. The United States would leave its isolationist bubble as the #1 industrial power and become part of the worlds congregation of "Great Powers".
That's really what separates it from every other global conflict before it (though the 7 Years' War and Napoleonic Wars are the only ones which can really be shoehorned into that category) -- it was not the Brits fighting in Southwest Africa they were Boers, Rhodesians, and Zulu's. It was Indians going to fight for Britain, not Brits. You see where I'm going with this? Nonetheless even if we go beyond this providing material support alone constitutes direct involvement and impact. That's really the point. Only a select few people in the world were totally escaped from the realities of this war whether it was direct fighting or economical unlike in these previous conflicts which were, essentially, European wars fought for European goals between European powers.

Point of clarification: Calling WWI the "First World War" wasn't common at all until 1939, when WWII broke out. Prior to that it was only "the Great War". Haickel and Repington were in an extremely small minority when they referred to it as the "First World War", simply because at the time, people generally were thinking that there wouldn't be another war like this.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term "world war" only entered English just a few years before the First World War (most likely from the German term Weltkrieg). It was defined as a war involving important or major nations.
So basically the First World War/World War One was the first war after the definition entered English to meet the definition

 

[noname223]

It wont let me edit it at this point so I'll just copypasta it in a better formatting. How's this?

The reason we call them the First World War and the Second World War is because that's what people at the time called them and it's what they've been called for going on a hundred years now. Obviously they weren't the first war that took place across 2+ continents or to involve two powers on 2+ modern defined continents but that's not the point: That's what people called them, it's what they've been called for decades, that's what they're called -- first by the German Ernst Haeckel in September 1914 and again by Charles à Court Repington in 1920. There is no international organization or cabal of historians 'naming' things -- it's just we call it what people call it and things stick. That's the true reason, honestly.

The 'more logical' reason, what we can use to justify this position retrospectively, and perhaps the most common modern justification, is that those wars were European wars which just extended to their colonies which happened to be overseas. They weren't 'global' conflicts in that respect they were localized conflicts with localized goals which just had extended fighting -- every single war you listed fits that bill. Outside of the Mughal Empire in the 7 Years' War they're all European powers. The First World War was the first truly global war which hit every single continent. Japan and China and East Pacific colonies, India, Australia, South, East, North, and West Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the North Sea, Brazil, Central America, North America. Every single corner of the Earth, all from independent or quasi-independent dominions (Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand) operated as independent military entities and as independent government actors. That had never been done before, ever.
Yes we have the 7 Years' War but it was what, a few European colonies which saw next to no fighting in Africa, some small conflicts in coastal India, and Russia who were fighting just about entirely in Europe anyways? Everywhere you extend outside of 'Europe' are European powers and European armies fighting other Europeans with the small exception of in North America where Indians admittedly played a larger role. It was still, ultimately, a war between Prussia/Great Britain/Central German States/Portugal vs France/Austria/Russia/Spain/Saxony/Mughal Empire...with the latter being the non-European entity obviously.
Other common cited examples are like the 80 Years' War (which bled into the 30 Years' War...but the Eighty Years' War was a war concerning Dutch independence. Some people jumped in and out and it was involved in for instance the 30 Years' War and some fighting took place outside of the Netherlands but the fact is it was a war between the United Provinces & Friends vs Spain & Friends for Dutch independence. That was the goal. It was a war between England, United Provinces, France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Spain -- that's not a 'world war'.
All other examples follow the same pattern: Nine Years' War was basically a religious war and expansionism from Louis w.r.t. Europe that had some light fighting in North American colonies. Spanish Succession War was literally just fighting over the Spanish crown, and the Austrian succession war similarly. These are European conflicts between European powers for European goals and when they do extend globally in some fashion it's so extremely limited it hardly deserves the denoting of 'world war'.
Think of it like this: You wouldn't call the Gulf War World War 3 even though it was the U.S. & Friends (America & Europe) vs Iraq (Asia), would you? It had global participants, significant casualties, etc. It's the same thing here honestly: None of these commonly listed wars linked involved the popular participation of everyone everywhere even though they, at times, involved some powers from not-Europe and fighting in not-Europe. A 'world war' is not just who is fighting or where but scale and affect. No one was unaffected by WW1 or WW2. Yes it was started in Europe but its participants not only went beyond Europe those directly and largely affected were as well. 1.5 million Indians would volunteer to fight, America drafted nearly 3 million people, 40% of the Australian male population would enlist, fighting would occur off the coast of Brazil and just about all of Central and South America would come on the side of the Allies as independent, sovereign states. China would send tens of thousands of men to contribute to trench building and also providing supplies while Japan seized numerous German colonies in the Pacific in blatant expansionism. Africa was a theater of independent, quasi-independent, and European fighting forces that raged throughout the war.
Numerous, global belligerents had numerous goals (America expanding trade power in the post-war world, basically any laundry list of European reasons, Ottomans pushing into the Caucasus' of Central Asia and firming their grip on Egypt in Africa, Germans expanding colonial gains by creating a continuous German state across about all of South Africa, Japan taking control of European pacific holdings and trying to force China into basically a protectorate, Australia/Canada/New Zealand/South Africa all developing national identities and using the war as justification for true independence, dozens of Middle Eastern tribes tearing the Ottoman Empire apart for independence, Slavs fighting for independence and unification from the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians trying to enforce such, etc.
This type of global participation was unprecedented and you will never find a war like it: Belgium, Romania, the United States, Australia, India, South Africa, the Ottomans, Mideastern Tribes vying for independence, Hejaz, Japan, Cuba, Costa Rico, Siam. 65,000,000 combatants would participate in the war and 37,000,000 people would die. It was not a European war between European powers for European goals it was a global war between global powers for global goals with significant global fighting between non-negligible sovereign global peoples -- the African, Middle Eastern, and Asian theaters alone justify this point imo without even touching America or Europe!

I can go into much more depth about the African Theater and why it was like no other theater in Africa before it along with quashing some misconceptions. I'll quote the particular parts I want though:
The point is is that this was a war which changed everything and affected everyone like never before. South Africans, Indians, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Egyptians, Moroccans, Portugese, French, Indo-Chinese, Brazilians -- they were all directly affected by this war and by the fighting of it as quasi-independent actors. They all sent thousands and at times millions away to go fight.
It wasn't just "some European war" it was a European war that bled into North Africa and the Middle East in terms of heavy fighting. It was "some European war" that prompted United States and Japanese intervention. It was "some European war" which brought millions of Indians and Australians and Canadians and South Africans to willingly go fight and by 1918 they were not fighting as Brits they were fighting as Indians, Australians, South Africans, and Canadians -- something totally unique from, say, colonial forces clashing in the Napoleonic Wars. Japan and China's relationship would mature throughout this conflict and can be directly linked to the Sino-Japanese Wars of the future as Japan tried to posture upon China. Pacific Islanders, as said below, along with French and British colonials throughout Asia, India, and Africa all alike would find their national identities and their justification for separation through this war. The entire modern Middle East would be born from this war throughout the partitioning and rebellion in the Ottoman Empire. The United States would leave its isolationist bubble as the #1 industrial power and become part of the worlds congregation of "Great Powers".
That's really what separates it from every other global conflict before it (though the 7 Years' War and Napoleonic Wars are the only ones which can really be shoehorned into that category) -- it was not the Brits fighting in Southwest Africa they were Boers, Rhodesians, and Zulu's. It was Indians going to fight for Britain, not Brits. You see where I'm going with this? Nonetheless even if we go beyond this providing material support alone constitutes direct involvement and impact. That's really the point. Only a select few people in the world were totally escaped from the realities of this war whether it was direct fighting or economical unlike in these previous conflicts which were, essentially, European wars fought for European goals between European powers.

Point of clarification: Calling WWI the "First World War" wasn't common at all until 1939, when WWII broke out. Prior to that it was only "the Great War". Haickel and Repington were in an extremely small minority when they referred to it as the "First World War", simply because at the time, people generally were thinking that there wouldn't be another war like this.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term "world war" only entered English just a few years before the First World War (most likely from the German term Weltkrieg). It was defined as a war involving important or major nations.
So basically the First World War/World War One was the first war after the definition entered English to meet the definition

The issue isn't the formatting. The problem is the black color of the font/writing.

 

[cosmic-freedom]

Humans will never learn.Good will always suffer at the hands of evil.This has been the way of the "world" forever.There are more psychopaths,sociopaths and narcissists that we think.More common that we assume.Empathy is rarer than we think.There are more of them than the empaths.