How close do you think we are to the 3rd World War?

We have been actively engaged in WWIII since the end of WWII. However, the battlefield has been the geopolitical conference room rather than the traditional open field.

I think it may be nearer than we think. We are involved in an intense cold war on many fronts. Just a matter of snapping and saying FUCK IT ALL.

About a decade away. I don’t base this on riots or any other problems, I say a decade just because us humans seem to have a nice big war every 50–70 years or so.

There is no sign of a 3rd World War at the moment. There are plenty of wars springing up in unlikely places but they are local wars, devastating for those who suffer them, but local. In the further future as China gains in power and influence, who knows, but let us all hope not.

What would the third world war look like? The US is bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan with the help of some European countries. The problem with too many people these days, is that unless the media tells them something is happening, they talk like certain things don’t exist.
We never like to put ourselves in others shoes. If any of the countries that we are bombing, bombed us, we would be at war with them. We are bombing six countries simultaneously, yet are told we are only in two wars. How does that work?
America is too narcissistic. World War 3 in our eyes will only begin after something happens here. We could care less what we are doing across that world that might incite a world war.

Ditto to what @YoBob said. Subcommandante Marcos of the Zapatistas explains it well. World War 3 was the Cold War, which was fought both economically and through proxies. World War 4 is neoliberal predatory capitalism.

@SquirrelEStuff whoa. Wish I could give you a million GA. Agreed, good sir/madam.

It won’t be much of a world war without China, Russia, and the US slugging it out in one form or another. Now that would be a war.

I don’t think there will be another World War for quite awhile. Forty or Fifty years at least.

I don’t think there will be a third world war; if it happens it won’t resemble the other two.

Both world wars were wars of attrition. You “won” by killing as many of the other guy’s soldiers as possible. WW2 expanded this concept to the civilian population in charge of manufacturing arms for the soldiers (hence why we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki… though doesn’t explain our firebombing of Dresden.) You know you win a World War because the other side’s sovereign government has given up.

We have not fought a war like this since 1945. We have fought assymetrical wars against guerillas and rebel groups. We have not used our maximum capacity of force to win these wars; in fact most methods of warfare have become less deadly (despite massive civilian deaths, far less civilians were killed in VIetnam than in World War 2; far less civilians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan than in Vietnam). Most of the conflict and aggression in today’s world is not coming from sovereign governments; it’s coming from rebel groups and non-national ideologies (like al-Qaeda).

I’m not sure how a full-scale “World War” would even start. We didn’t start one with Russia, precisely because the costs would be way more than the benefits for either side. I don’t see how this equation could change with any government wanting to initiate the war. Certainly if someone lobs a nuke at anyone, the war isn’t going to last long.

…

I also think people who claim we’ve already fought/are fighting World War 3, or whatever, are understating how completely destructive both the actual World Wars were. Both wars completely destroyed much of Europe and killed tens of millions of people. No, we have not been fighting a conflict like that with Russia or between capitalists and proletariat proxies.

@Qingu The constant warfare going on in Congo alone, which is primarily the sort Marcos refers to as the Fourth World War in that it involves destroying local indigenous communities to facilitate resource extraction, has claimed more lives than WW II did in the European theater (and perhaps overall). I think you’re understating how deadly these conflicts are in “developing” countries. Extend that out to all of Africa, not to mention the similar conflicts seen currently and in the past 30 years in South America, Central America, and Southeast Asia.

@incendiary_dan, when were developing countries not in conflict? Warfare has always been a constant of humanity; nevertheless local conflicts are different from World Wars of attrition.

@Qingu And industry driven wars spurred on by industrial superpowers at the detriment of local peoples are different from simple local conflicts.

Your comments wreak of abject ignorance of the circumstances of both humanity historically and developing nations today.

I’m not denying the moral dimensions of what you are saying, just the scale.

@Qingu And in that regard I’ve already shown your assertion false. They scale is far more severe.

How is it more severe? None of the conflicts are global.

And “capitalists” are neither a sovereign government or a monolithic group with monolithic interests (or monolithic control over militaries). I agree that capitalism, as an economic system, has directly led to conflicts in the developing world that would not otherwise exist, but I don’t think these conflicts resemble “World Wars.” If we’re going to use that term, I would prefer to understand it in a specific, nuanced way, rather than a catch-all for any conflict that touches upon Marxist class warfare.

Have there been two already?

World War I

World War II

I don’t really know, but shit that be going down lately sure does seem a great red carpet for catastrophe, one of global proportions. :/

Not going to happen anytime soon. I mean, since when did the second sequel in a trilogy “pay off”? Lethal Weapon 3…...yeah right!

@Qingu Maybe read the link I posted? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

The conflicts are connected and yes, worldwide. One could say that the different theaters of WW II were seperate but connected ones. They spanned a smaller area than is now spanned by these connected conflicts for resources. That the lives claimed and communities destroyed are more severe in qualitative terms could be argued, but not the quantitative terms. The number of major corporations is not much bigger than the number of nation states involved in World War II, and most have national government backing.

If your main objection is that a World War must be perpetrated by nation states, then fine. I don’t think it’s a useful standard, because entities exhibiting massive control and military force can wage war whether or not they’re nations or corporations, and in particular because there’s usually extreme collaboration between the two. In Strangely Like War, George Draffan and Derrick Jensen clearly articulate the manner in which police and military are used to protect and facilitate the resource extraction committed by corporations, whether it’s legal or not. That was just in the logging industry, and we see examples of it in more extreme cases, like Peruvian natives being machinegunned when they opposed the installation of megadams that would destroy their homes. Killed by governments to serve corporations.

The fascists sought direct and obvious authoritarian control over large swaths of the world. These new powers seek to control the world through its resources. That they’re decentralized is no matter.

If there is to be another major worldwide war between nation states, it will be over oil. Iraq, Libya, etc. will simply be precursors, much like the Spanish Civil War was a precursor to World War II. With more and more of the economy being based around oil, and major oil reserves like those found in Saudi Arabia showing marked decline, nations will become more desperate to control them. Perhaps resources like China’s rare earth metals will be points of contention, as well.

I think there are many other important elements that contribute to warfare than resources like oil. It certainly doesn’t explain what the hell we’re doing in Afghanistan, for example.

I also think your theory fails to explain who these corporations are. I’m not only drawing a distinction between wars waged by nation-states and corporations. I don’t think “corporations” are monolithic. They have varied interests and they compete against each other, often viciously. Yes, wealthy people tend to have a sort of class solidarity, but this is distinct from the actions of a well-organized nation state.

@Qingu Their being monolithic or not is irrelevent, and also not something I mentioned either way. The Axis and Allied powers were not monolithic either, for example. Even single governments have opposing factions. It doesn’t change the fundamental nature of war being waged, just the character.

Your answers continue to be deflectionary. Please argue actual core points.

Who has declared war against who in this scenario, @incendiary_dan?

I think there is a lot of heat between Iran and America these days!!