Home / Debates / Peace, Security, and Human Rights / Is World War III inevitable?

Is World War III inevitable?

Today there are many pending wars in the world but none of them seems to be a threat of a new World war or do they?Wars on the Middle East,violent demonstrations in Greece and China,terrorist attacks in Pakistan and India,the crisis between Russia and Georgia,Iran and South Koreas` development of nuclear weaponry,are they a true warning,will they have an even more horrific outcome than they already do?Is this new,great war going to be a nuclear one and will it lead to Earths` destruction?Has the human state of mind improved have we buried ghosts of the past and learned from out mistakes, or is the only resolution to the situation today a new war after which our world won`t exist?

All the Yes points:

  1. Perceived power disparities decide on war outbreak
  2. Large defence pacts result in world wars
  3. It’s all about resources
  4. imperfect information

All the No points:

  1. There are too many pacts against such a war.
  2. That’s one good thing about Globalisation

Perceived power disparities decide on war outbreak

Yes because…

A world war is created when large political powers fight for control of resources, territory or influence. The fighting state is triggered by lack of willingness to compromise, and the willingness to compromise is a function of the relative power of the adversaries.

The “cold war” did not deteriorate into a real war because the US and the USSR felt matched in power, but several small wars-by-proxy were waged when one side felt achievement through force is possible: in Afghanistan, for example, the Soviets invaded expecting low opposition, resulting in the US funding of the Mujahadin/Taliban. A war in Europe between NATO and the USSR didn’t break because it was deemed un-win-able.

The second and first world wars were a result of one block expecting an easy win. The commanders of the Imperial German army in WW 1 expected to be in Paris within few weeks.

In today’s world, the strengthening of new blocks along with their armies, such as the Chinese army, the resurgent Russian army, and so forth, is accompanied with a dwindling and overstretched US army, with reduced NATO support and no European army whatsoever. It is therefore to be expected that the rising blocks will consider military success to be more likely, resulting in applying military power on other powers.

You’re assuming that the world is ready to work together and utilize our resources. I wish that were true, but only a blind man could see that in today society! There is so much terrorism and disagreement among countries. Arguments between dictatorship, democracy, communism, and even if the country leaders got along, would the civilians of each group accept it, or would their be revolutions? We are not ready to “join hands, share ideas and work together”. As much as we all know it’d be the ideal state for the world, we’re not there, which means your theory as to why it won’t happen also is not there. So it doesnt exist. We’re still at a large threat for WWIII

No because…

None of these blocs are united, Countries have enough problems of their own. War is not the answer(as history has shown and I think/hope our leaders have learned). Now, is the time to join hands, share ideas and work together against the global depletion of resources.

Capitalism has to go,it has led to too much mistrust, theft and unnecessary competition. We need a global system that helps every one cooperate and help other ‘no strings attached’. And I hope it’s not too optimistic to say ‘I think, we’re getting there’.

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenichi_Ohmae]] Ohmae is a hyper Globalist who believes in a world/globe without borders. Most owners of T.N.Cs (Trans-national-Corporations) feel that way. So, perhaps capitalism can be be used to unite the world under the umbrella of consumerism.

Large defence pacts result in world wars

Yes because…

Mutual defence pacts may deter one country from attacking the other, but if large blocks of pacts are facing each-other, the result is the opposite: the deterrence is non-existent due to the equality in block sizes, while any hostility between two members of different blocks will pull the other members in, by the pull of their mutual defence obligation.

WW II started in this way exactly: the invasion of Germany into Poland triggered the mutual defence pact of Poland, Britain and France, which entered the war and forced Germany’s allys (Italy and Japan) to also declare war. In WW I pacts also played a role in the deterioration to a world war.

No because…

It’s all about resources

Yes because…

We are now living in a world of abundant resources, but oil is reaching the peak of production, and so are other resources. Here lies the reason why WW3 is not only possible, but inevitable: throughout history, when any nation had to deal with severe reduction in available resources, the choice between reducing living standards to taking the resources by force was always decided toward the second option – war.

No because…

Or we could work on methods to propagate and set-up mass clean energy and developing agriculture and farmland in lieu of using the same energy/effort/money/resources in locking heads and reducing the population count.

“Be the change you want to see in the world.”[[Gandhi]]

“Yes, we can!”[[President Obama campaign slogan]]

imperfect information

Yes because…

It is often a lack of information (or else too much information that cant be processed) that causes wars. If one nation is ignorant of another nation there is much more likely to be diplomatic misunderstandings, a power may misjudge its or its opponents strength, the intention of other leaders etc. Any of these things can cause events to spin out of the control of leaders and lead towards conflict. As even relatively minor events such the assassination of Franz Joseph can change the situation rapidly, or be taken up by a nationalistic public it is relatively easy to get into a war that was not intended by either side due to lack of information. As we can never ensure prefect knowledge there is always the possibility that there will be another world war. The cold war was relatively stable after the Cuban missile crisis because there was a phone line between the two leaders and there were only two nations that could spark off a global war meaning that both sides had good knowledge of who they were dealing with, both in terms of the opposing country, and its leaders. With the world moving in a more multipolar direction this is no longer possible. As the question asks is a third world war inevitable and does not set a time limit I would have to say yes, at some point there will be a information or communication breakdown that will cause a war that will become a third world war… no saying how long before this happens though.

No because…

There are too many pacts against such a war.

No because…

Despite the fact that there are many civil wars, and terrorism, there are too many pacts and many of that such, so there is no chance that a major international comflict can happen. Possible continental uprisings and wars might happen, however this will not become any larger than the two majors international wars that happened last century.

Yes because…

There is no pact between the blocks that matter and that could possibly start a world war. Europe is at odds with Russia over resources and the political fate of the states between the EU and Russia. The US is at odds with Iran, North Korea, and possibly China. There are more examples of oposing blocks without any pacts.

Pacts like this were created to try and stop war 100 years ago and look where we ended up. WW1

That’s one good thing about Globalisation

No because…

I believe that as the World continues to become a smaller place, the risk of a third World war becomes less and less likely. In the first two World wars, travel was rare at best and it was easy to see the enemy not as equal people, but as an evil other. As people begin to travel more and more and make friends all around the World, it will become harder and harder for governments to justify an attack on another country to them. There’s still a long way to go – I believe that even in Afghanistan today, people of the West see Afghan people as ‘others’ and don’t really credit them with humanity. As more and more people start to move around the World and socialise with people from other nations, religions and cultures, we will begin to see a more peaceful World
Muslims don’t see Europeans as others, Turkey(a Muslim country) is in Europe , there are many Eastern European Muslim Countries, Spain is filled with Moorish descendants. And there are Muslim immigrants from all over world in Every single European Country.

Post 9/11, the face of a bearded man in traditional clothing, with aquiline features and olive skin has been converted by the media,into a symbol of hate/Violence, that even Muslims fear/loathe.

Yes because…

All globalization has done is to shift the view of the “other” into larger bodies. Instead of an Englishman seeing a German is the “other”, we now have a Muslim seeing a European as the “other”, and vice versa. The reason for that is that people always feel closer to people they have meaningful contact with, not to people they once saw on a trip.

Besides, the people’s support for war is mostly an issue in the democratic world. Of the large political blocks today, we have China, Russia, the Muslim world and large parts of Africa who are ruled by people who could care less about the will of the people – but would have to be dead in order to achieve that. Additionally, the people in most of these blocks are much poorer than in the West, therefore travel less and even interact less through the Internet. So even if the West won’t be starting the war, it may still happen.

Notify of
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Josh E.
7 years ago

As much as it pains me to say it, in todays world, if we are to focus solemnly on the negatives, we have filth, greed and corruption, to name three and it has been embraced as something good and normal. The bubble needs to bust somewhere and it may come sooner than later. It was once noted, that wars are good because it brings down the rich folks and evens them out with everyone else, maybe so, however there are many dangers to wars. On the positive, it cuts down population, creates jobs, we start all over again and we all start at the same level. On the negatives, it kills many people and not just by guns and weapons, but by lack of food and other necessities we need to help us live through it and survive. I pray we don’t have one, as it will indeed be a deadly one especially with the types of weapons around and also the kind of people and their fragile mental state, that have access to them. Maybe this fear is a wake up call to those whom think they can do what they want, when they want and at anyone else’s expense. Sometimes, I truly wonder if where we are today, was all set up to unfold as it has done so from decades ago. A beautiful world, with everything in our midst, yet this is what it has come to. Very sad indeed.

Brion Bell
4 years ago
Reply to  Josh E.

Filth, greed, and corruption are NOT accepted by the masses. You have this belief because you are consuming the hyper-emotional, mainstream-media narrative. Nearly 99% of content depicts less than 1% of the sentiment of the true masses. This has been a fact of ‘news’ for many decades at this point, because negative, emotionally-charged news make great profits for networks and stockholders of their controlling corporations.
Spoken like a true believer in the false narrative that would in fact, *adore* being the (greatest part of the) catalyst that *starts* the war! See how they scramble to the site where any negative news happens, then they enhance it for your emotional reaction. Note in recent hurricane storm coverage, they had to stage the ‘on-location’ weather reporter in such a way as to look as if he was struggling against the wind, but then revealing themselves as a person was accidentally caught in frame, casually walking their dog along the sidewalk.
The Deep State has changed your minds into believing that full-on socialism is the answer.
Don’t believe it.

7 years ago

Conventional war or even nuclear war may not be possible on a large scale simply because its too expensive. Rather look for nations to use a combination of the following:

-Cyber attacks: undermine infrastructure and economies.

-Tailored Virus: Target specific ethic groups and either eliminate them outright or make them sterile.

-Terror / False-flag: What better way to incite people to kill each other off, other then to create an enviornment of fear.

Brion Bell
4 years ago
Reply to  1Smug_Bastard

‘Too expensive?’ Really? As if that reasoning would stop a nuclear attack from Iran, China, or even North Korea! Fitting a missile into a silo, and pushing the button costs nowhere near as much money or time as it does to mount a years-long campaign of cyber or bio attacks, (even though we are experiencing a taste of the later while we discuss). An effective and decisive nuclear attack on New York city and Los Angeles would pretty much finish the U.S..

7 years ago

Now in 2016 we see that the situation is going towards WWIII. Europe, the origin of WWI and WWII is going to be the origin of WWIII. Look at what EZB is doing, the low interest policy is deowning people, the money they saved for the future is lost. For that banks and bankrupt countries are being saved, GB left the EU. People have no work and money and refugees are being fed for free in Germany, see what Im trying to say? The roots of war is unhappy people with no perspective, thats whats happening now, slowly building up unhappiness. Then someone kindles the flame and if time and place are rigth we ge a mighty fire. Who proffits, noone but after everything is destroyed we can rebuild. Maybe its the cycle of creation and destruction, I dont like that but as long as people dont understand the point its going to happen again and again. Who are the loosers, those who called for war, those who went to fight. Who are the winners, those who sell the weapons and make the rules, those who send you to fight, those who rule behing the curtains.
That is why it is so important to understand how the system works, see what happened after WWI and WWII.
We have to understand that our system demanding constant growth is not going to work for everyone. Why are we told growth is so important, because there for shure are people behind the curtain who profit from this!
No not me, not you but hose who term themselves rulers and leaders. Understand that you as cityzen are nothing but a small wheel trained to obey the systems rules to make it work for those who live behind the curtain.
Start thinking for yourself, who wants a war and what would it bring!? For whom would it bring something?!
Observe the world politcal situation listen to the people talk, open your eyes and mind!
Never mind what newspapers say or politicians see for yourself.
Yes WWIII is possible but only if we the people want it, only if we are stupid enought to fal for the demagogy of those who think us stupid and easy to rule, see why was Hitler so successfull? Because the people cheered him on. So where does the real power stay, remember Franz Jägerstätter if we all behave like this there is no more war! But that meens we think for ourselves and make our own descisions!


Mission impossible
10 years ago

If world war 3 does break out (with the way it’s going with the oil supply and Russia it’s likely),as we have nuclear weapons once one country uses one…there’s no stopping the next, our world won’t be able to take the impact causing us to destroy our own planet. How very clever. Please argue but we will have this on ourselves

Stephen Yuan
10 years ago

What about nuclear weapons as a deterrent of war? My friend argues that large scale wars will be less likely due to many countries having nuclear war. Basically we will have another Cold War at most?

Verified by MonsterInsights