[Qynvtlur]

Exactly right. Today not even Russia could hope to support a world war effort.

Agreed. And with that, there really won't be a WWIII in any semblance of I or II.

[ordercigsnick]

Agreed. And with that, there really won't be a WWIII in any semblance of I or II.

Well, never say never. Unlikely now, but not impossible in the future.

[Doctor-CTAC]

How do you see WW3 starting over/in Israel?

Personally they have been fighting there since 1948 and it has never escalated outside the region so I don’t see it escalating to WW3 anytime in the future.

Because I can see it escalating into an all out war between Israel and her neighbors. We'd have to step in and then the rest of the world would get sucked in. I see a possibility of nukes being used there as well.

[deermealec]

Well, never say never. Unlikely now, but not impossible in the future.

Well, of course. "Never" is a really long time..

[MarlboroCig]

I can easily see a WWIII scenario. All it would take is a large scale economic crisis. I'm talking a really big one. Much larger than the small peanuts that's happened recently. As long as the people with power are relatively comfortable they probably won't risk it for questionable gain. As soon as the people with power become desperate...look out.

[Imiweevierm]

Just as silly as WW1 starting over the assassination of an Archduke who was so disliked that most of his family did not go to his funeral?

Wars often start over silly things and then escalate because neither side wants to look weak and back down.

How do you see it starting, assuming that you think that it will happen?

Won't happen. MAD still exists. It has kept the nuclear peace for over 60 years now and will continue to do so. If anyone was reallly insane enough to commit planetary suicide they'd have done it by now

[KellyMP]

Won't happen. MAD still exists. It has kept the nuclear peace for over 60 years now and will continue to do so. If anyone was reallly insane enough to commit planetary suicide they'd have done it by now

Peace, what peace? Over 100 million people have been killed by war since the end of WW2.

[largonioulurI]

nuclear peace

[caseferter]

I answered "Iraq/Iran" but really mean the greater Muslim world.

If the current political climate were to yield a world war, which I doubt, I believe the escalation would be as follows.

Islamic extremists achieve significant recruitment, possibly accomplishing an attack on the level of 2001 in the US or one of our allies.

We and allies respond by operating in Islamic nations without consent of the relevant governments.

Those Islamic nations enter the fray.

The world politic divides into those concerned with terrorism against those concerned with the sovereignty of the relevant Islamic nations.

Everybody dies.

[occalmnab]

I answered "Iraq/Iran" but really mean the greater Muslim world.

If the current political climate were to yield a world war, which I doubt, I believe the escalation would be as follows.

Islamic extremists achieve significant recruitment, possibly accomplishing an attack on the level of 2001 in the US or one of our allies.

We and allies respond by operating in Islamic nations without consent of the relevant governments.

Those Islamic nations enter the fray.

The world politic divides into those concerned with terrorism against those concerned with the sovereignty of the relevant Islamic nations.

Everybody dies.

That is retarded & already happening + only brown people die...
It's a world war when "civilized" nations play war with real toys... tanks, ships, airplanes...
what you describe is a short history of the middle east... that's buisness as usual I am afraid... what a horrible world we life in.

[Vobomei]

That is retarded & already happening + only brown people die...
It's a world war when "civilized" nations play war with real toys... tanks, ships, airplanes...
what you describe is a short history of the middle east... that's buisness as usual I am afraid... what a horrible world we life in.

I guess I left out the part where those powers in the rest of the world who have taken sides on the subject join in.

On the subject of only brown people dying, are you saying it can only be a world war if Germany loses? A trend doesn't constitute a rule.

[L6RLnyfl]

I guess I left out the part where those powers in the rest of the world who have taken sides on the subject join in.

On the subject of only brown people dying, are you saying it can only be a world war if Germany loses? A trend doesn't constitute a rule.

Yeah I figured that, but the sentiment that the world would start a global conflict about something as ridiculess as terrorism and the fade of a minor nation is unrealistic. Huge conflicts always require a bigger strategic goal and well prepared sides...

Well, World War never worked without us
If the cold war gone hot it would have been a dilema though, as we stood on both sides There you also got the reason why it didn't happen.

[SHUSIATULSE]

It started on 9/11. That war is still in its opening stages, with regime altering battles (not always instigated by us) in assorted places like North Africa, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Pakistan, and perhaps even the back alleys of Europe to come. But those dots are too difficult to connect for some.

I don't think a war started by North Korean will result in a superpower confrontation anymore. China isn't ready for a world war and unlike 20th century tyrants are patient. More likely the Chinese will intervene on our behalf, turn North Korea inside out, and replace the leadership with someone they can keep on a much tighter leash, gaining much fan fair from the diplomatic types but resulting in no real change, and setting up the inevitable...

It will start somewhere in the Pacific, probably not even over Korea or Taiwan directly, though both, along with Japan, will suffer dearly in order to spread our forces out. Economic forces will eventually force China to compete militarily for resources and exclusive markets in Southeast Asia, particularly in the Philippines and Indonesian, but perhaps as far as Africa and Central/South America, for their cheap lead lined crap when robotic manufacturing technology takes hold in the US and Europe. You simply can't keep an urban population that large occupied and subservient without that menial labor. They are either cheap labor, soldiers, or cheap labor for the soldiers.

So they will simply flood the Western Pacific with ships until they can say trade only with us or we will make a mess of that nice port of yours. At which point the US Navy should still be able to cut right through them, but they will respond against Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and being the instigator this time they can spark all sorts of brush fires elsewhere. Brush fires that make backing Iran in the Security Council look tepid by comparison. The naval battles are likely to be very one sided our way once we get our bearings, though I would expect heavy causalities initially from ambush and sneak attacks. The problem will be that thanks to well defended mainland based air wings and missile batteries, buried deep in the mountains and shielded by hundreds of millions of rabid civilians, they don't need to be close to disrupt shipping across the entire Western Pacific and Eastern Indian Oceans.

The dreaded land war in Asia will be required to shut them down, not to mention have any chance of substantive change in China. After picking apart enough of their strategic missiles, and pushing them back up the Korean peninsula, we will have to turn the tables and split their forces enough for a march on Beijing, involving several amphibious landings down the coasts near Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Shanghai. Russia, whose Siberian resources are most threatened by Chinese hegemony, will side with us, opening an overland route. The UK will help, but not have much influance. Continental Europe, specifically Old (Socialist) Europe fearing the Russian-American Alliance, and urban populations across the US on the other hand, finds the whole thing terribly bothersome, particularly the thought of a China rebuilt in the American image.

China's illustrious leaders of course will not go down without a fight. An ICBM exchange is no longer possible thanks to ABM defenses, but the West Coast and other American bases and allies could very well take a shellacking from a simple nuclear torpedo if the Chinese can sneak enough subs through. We would have boots on their shores, so a retaliatory strike would be counterproductive. I would expect the EU, minus Britain, would see this as their last chance to be relevant and to knock us down a peg, and secretly "join the party" on the East Coast, seeking influence among traitorous politicians in the aftermath to provide "peacekeeping services". Latin American players could smell blood in the water and cause trouble to the south. The inevitable rally by the National Guard resistance and responds will pull the rest of the world in.

The heartland and our vast network of inland waterways ensure our ability to shrug off damage to our coasts and proceed largely unmolested once we get our own house in order.

[foodselfdourileka]

China will be a world power in ever sense within a few years. There is no way to know how aggressive it will be. The balance of power in Asia will obviously be completely transformed by the presence of a huge (in every sense) power in their midst.

There are probably about 400 million men available for military service in China. The potential of such a military is unimaginable.

The US will move rapidly away from involvement in the world outside of trade and economic ties. The gap will be filled by China and India in Asia, and Islamic nations in the middle east and eventually in Europe. They are the dynamic powers of the new century.

Nevertheless, I believe India and Pakistan are the most likely foes to start another world war. They have enormous populations and a long lasting, deeply rooted enmity. Above all, they are nuclear powers.

A full scale war would easily explode beyond a regional issue like Kashmir. And other nations will have to take sides.

Islamic nations would obviously rush to defend Pakistan.

China has a very volatile relationship with India, and might side with either nation.

Europe would have to take sides at some point and would certainly not offend the Islamic world.

However, Russia and India are very close allies - at least right now.

Australia is rapidly becoming an economic colony of China and is moving quickly away from the US, so it will probably have to take sides with whatever nation China supports.

Brazil is turning into a major power. How would it respond? The nations of Africa are enjoying large investments from China. They would likely side with China - except in those nations with large Muslim populations.

The US might take either side. If India is chosen, the break with Europe and the Muslim nations of the world will be complete and permanent. If Pakistan is chosen, that will mean Russia will once again be an enemy.

If it escalates to nuclear war, it may be over in India and Pakistan very quickly, but how would the rest of the world respond? Would the war continue elsewhere? Would Iran respond with its own bomb? And then Israel?

Would Japan side with China? It is extremely unlikely considering the history of relations between those nations. Yet would any nation dare stand up to China?

It is a horrifying scenario but any such scenario must take into consideration the new balance of power.

[Glamyclitlemi]

One thing to keep in mind, though - there are more Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan...
Population of Muslims around the world

[Uhmavano]

Yeah I figured that, but the sentiment that the world would start a global conflict about something as ridiculess as terrorism and the fade of a minor nation is unrealistic. Huge conflicts always require a bigger strategic goal and well prepared sides...

My thought isn't that it would kick off over conflicts in any one nation, but rather the whole of the Islamic world. America and it's allies in the updated world arena could only topple so many nations in the effort against Islamic terrorism before others stepped in. There would come a point where too many governments owed their existence to the US and others would put an end to it.

[Lymnempomma]

One thing to keep in mind, though - there are more Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan...
Population of Muslims around the world

Very true - it really is a tinderbox in so many ways.

[mobbemeatiedy]

China will be in no position to become a world power in the near future due to the massive internal problems she is going to be going through. These fall into at least three categories:

1) Modernization problems -- China's current government, essentially a barely-updated version of the old Imperial Court with a powerful bureaucracy and harsh autocratic rule, is appropriate for an agrarian society of peasants. But China is in transition from an agrarian to an industrial economy and has a growing educated middle class. In the 1990s, the democracy movement in China was confined to university students, but in the future the educated Chinese, who are the ones likely to demand democratization, will constitute a larger and larger percentage of the population. Before long, it will become something that can't be crushed with tanks. At the same time, China faces a working-class revolt similar to what struck the U.S. over the late 19th and early 20th century.

2) Environmental/resource problems -- peak oil is problematical for everyone, but for China, whose economy is both developing and huge, it's especially acute. Where is China to find the energy resources needed to continue modernizing her economy? This question has answers, but finding and implementing an answer and also dealing with the environmental and public-health challenges of modernizing such an immense economy will not be easy.

3) Demographic problems -- the world faces a difficult transition as global birth rates seem to be falling instinctively in response to overpopulation. That's very good news, of course; far preferable to have that happen than face either Malthusian horror or draconian solutions! But for China the difficulties are far worse than for other countries because of draconian solutions already applied, i.e. the One Child policy. China's Millennial generation is unusually small compared to older generations and, even worse, lopsidedly male (because of traditional preferences for male children and reluctance to have one's only permitted child be female). That's going to make the aging of the Chinese population especially acute and create an internal demographic problem that is potentially crisis-level.

Far from being poised as the next world hegemon, China will be doing well to avoid internal collapse and civil war.

As far as World War III is concerned, I don't believe it's a possibility -- certainly not a significant probability -- because all of the world's great powers are armed with nuclear weapons. This makes war unacceptable as the "final resort" in international relations among great powers. No matter what sparks arise or what tensions exist, great powers will in this age always pull back from that brink, not daring to go to war for fear of nuclear annihilation. There may conceivably be a small-scale nuclear exchange between two minor nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan or (down the road) Israel and Iran, but any such war will merely serve to underscore the horror of such weapons and make war of great powers even more unthinkable.

The change that this brings to the very nature of the sovereign nation-state is profound. A nation-state exists ultimately for the purpose of waging war. It has other functions, as governments always do, but it is defined in its borders and authority by its ability to make war. That's been the case ever since the nation-state first came into existence. The importance of a change in a fact of global politics this profound can hardly be overstated. What we are seeing is the beginning of the end of the nation-state as a fully sovereign entity.

We are come to a place in the map marked "here be dragons." This territory is uncharted.

[GillTeepbew]

China will be in no position to become a world power in the near future due to the massive internal problems she is going to be going through. These fall into at least three categories:

1) Modernization problems -- China's current government, essentially a barely-updated version of the old Imperial Court with a powerful bureaucracy and harsh autocratic rule, is appropriate for an agrarian society of peasants. But China is in transition from an agrarian to an industrial economy and has a growing educated middle class. In the 1990s, the democracy movement in China was confined to university students, but in the future the educated Chinese, who are the ones likely to demand democratization, will constitute a larger and larger percentage of the population. Before long, it will become something that can't be crushed with tanks. At the same time, China faces a working-class revolt similar to what struck the U.S. over the late 19th and early 20th century.

2) Environmental/resource problems -- peak oil is problematical for everyone, but for China, whose economy is both developing and huge, it's especially acute. Where is China to find the energy resources needed to continue modernizing her economy? This question has answers, but finding and implementing an answer and also dealing with the environmental and public-health challenges of modernizing such an immense economy will not be easy.

3) Demographic problems -- the world faces a difficult transition as global birth rates seem to be falling instinctively in response to overpopulation. That's very good news, of course; far preferable to have that happen than face either Malthusian horror or draconian solutions! But for China the difficulties are far worse than for other countries because of draconian solutions already applied, i.e. the One Child policy. China's Millennial generation is unusually small compared to older generations and, even worse, lopsidedly male (because of traditional preferences for male children and reluctance to have one's only permitted child be female). That's going to make the aging of the Chinese population especially acute and create an internal demographic problem that is potentially crisis-level.

Far from being poised as the next world hegemon, China will be doing well to avoid internal collapse and civil war.

As far as World War III is concerned, I don't believe it's a possibility -- certainly not a significant probability -- because all of the world's great powers are armed with nuclear weapons. This makes war unacceptable as the "final resort" in international relations among great powers. No matter what sparks arise or what tensions exist, great powers will in this age always pull back from that brink, not daring to go to war for fear of nuclear annihilation. There may conceivably be a small-scale nuclear exchange between two minor nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan or (down the road) Israel and Iran, but any such war will merely serve to underscore the horror of such weapons and make war of great powers even more unthinkable.

The change that this brings to the very nature of the sovereign nation-state is profound. A nation-state exists ultimately for the purpose of waging war. It has other functions, as governments always do, but it is defined in its borders and authority by its ability to make war. That's been the case ever since the nation-state first came into existence. The importance of a change in a fact of global politics this profound can hardly be overstated. What we are seeing is the beginning of the end of the nation-state as a fully sovereign entity.

We are come to a place in the map marked "here be dragons." This territory is uncharted.

Excellent post. You make many fair points and give food for thought.

The one primary difference I have with you is that instability and internal turmoil make it more likely that a nation will become aggressive. That is - stability and security do not always go together with the development of a powerful military and with a willingness to use it.

The aging of China's population is an interesting issue, but one that is not a pressing problem in the next few decades. Eventually it will become one. The energy question is far more serious as a near-term problem.

As for the idea that a regional nuclear war will stop at the borders of the (destroyed) nations that started it, that is a question I hope we never know the answer to - but I do think alliances will still operate and emotions and ancient grievances will prevail over sanity in at least some governments. But hopefully it will not be the world wide spread of war I predict in the post above.

In this case I would much prefer to be wrong.

[Mynameishappy]

India v. Pakistan will not happen so long as Afghanistan is a trouble spot, and we need Pakistan to behave itself. The question is how long Pakistan can hold together internally. If/when it collapses, we will claim their nukes, and break them down strategically, so that India, as to only force prepped for the task, in exchange for Kashmir, can pour in with minimal bloodshed to the disputed and rural areas to preserve our supply lines. But without a central government it wouldn't be much of a fight.

Islamic nations would obviously rush to defend Pakistan.

Why would you say that?

If anything, friendly Muslim states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey will side with us to the cities and maintain order. Iran might try to take advantage, but that would guarantee Saudi, Turkey and Gulf State involvement on multiple fronts without any clear objectives.

Europe would have to take sides at some point and would certainly not offend the Islamic world.

Europe will swing back nationalist long before they are that deep enough in Islams pocket. They haven't really had their 9/11 yet that wasn't attached to Iraq. Wait till Germany or France gets it.

Australia is rapidly becoming an economic colony of China and is moving quickly away from the US, so it will probably have to take sides with whatever nation China supports.

Why would you say that?

Brazil is turning into a major power. How would it respond? The nations of Africa are enjoying large investments from China. They would likely side with China - except in those nations with large Muslim populations.

Brazil has neither a dog in this fight nor means to influence it. They will side with whomever can protect their interest. Us. Mr. Chavez may be a different matter.