WWIII

[Smitty-48]

Right now, my limited knowledge estimates China oversteps in SCS, wars with local states and brings in US. Only becomes WWIII if Russia or Middle East does something major at the same time.

Like Britain in WWI, it becomes a world war the moment the United States enters the theatre war, it's the global hegemon entering a theatre war, which makes a war a world war, because the global hegemon has its assets deployed worldwide, so the war is then going to be fought worldwide as a result, America is a seapower, thus the war is fought on the high seas, but that's not limited to the China Seas, China would attack you worldwide, at the maritime choke points and approaches to, Panama to the Suez, Djibouti to Panama, and in the Arctic as well, all the while both combatants fighting for the high ground in space above.

The arm of decision at this juncture, is going to be the nuclear submarine and associated tactical and strategic weapons, which opens up the whole world, as being within the operating radius.

So then we're already in WWIII?

Not a theatre war, until the 17th parallel is breached in either direction en masse and in force and/or the Chinese and Japanese start sinking each other's ships. Even a cross straight invasion of Taiwan would not necessarily incite a theatre war, Formosa is expendable, the Senkaku's however, that would probably do it.

[ssu]

So, I am going back and moving some old threads/topics of mine over here so here is one that I think deserves it's own thread:

I know that this is more about predicting the future, than predicting an alternative historical line but one has to ask:

What does your version of WWIII would look like? Meaning, what would start your predictions for a WWIII, what the sides will be, and how would it end/lead up too?

A huge misunderstanding between the belligerents on the will of the other to use for. That will trigger WWIII.

It might be that Russia (or China) is put into position of a cornered rat... and thought to "act rationally and submit".

Or it might be that NATO looks totally teethless and on the verge of dissolvement... an some Russia goes a bit too far.

World War III happens when totally reckless politicians basically only looking at their domestic political agenda make such moves that put the other side into a such corner that there is no way out for them other to use weapons. There has to be a massive and fundamental misunderstanding of the willingness of either both sides or one side to truly use force when it's deterrence seems to otherwise be not credible.

Likely WWIII would happen in secretive way with first the combattant sides using proxies, then simply fighting a non-declared war, which then expands to such level, that one side has to react. Or admits that the sides are in de facto war. Then one side thinks that it will simply cow the other side into submission by making a nuclear test or at worst, using tactical nukes. And then the other side responds as not anticipated...

[nickle7]

World War III happens when totally reckless politicians basically only looking at their domestic political agenda make such moves that put the other side into a such corner that there is no way out for them other to use weapons. There has to be a massive and fundamental misunderstanding of the willingness of either both sides or one side to truly use force when it's deterrence seems to otherwise be not credible.

I'm fairly certain I agree with you here but it's this being said. Do you see any possibility of the U.S. Being the main instigator?

[Smitty-48]

Less likely that the United States would be the active instigator than it is that the United States, as the de facto global hegemon, would simply be dragged into a theatre war by default. The American global commercial trading empire is present in almost all theatres worldwide, thus wherever one descends into a shooting war, the United States would be in the crossfire. Regardless of America's intent, the belligerents would have to assess the threat of America putting its weight on the scales, based on America's inhrent capabilities and potential, and position themselves accordingly to counter the Americans, not just in theatre, but worldwide, and thus lies the path to a global confrontation, when America is forced to respond to manouvres against American forces therein.

[TheOneX]

I don't think you will see a WWIII until you see at least 3 major powers going to war. In other words, if the USA, China, and Russia are not all involved it most likely will not turn into WWIII.

[Smitty-48]

I don't think you will see a WWIII until you see at least 3 major powers going to war. In other words, if the USA, China, and Russia are not all involved it most likely will not turn into WWIII.

Only America can make it World War Three, as neither Russia nor China is the global hegemon, a war between Russia and China is an Eurasian theatre war, couldn't be a world war, unless and until the hegemon entered the fray, that is the defining characteristic of a world war, from the Wars of Spanish Succession to the Wars of British Succession, the hegemon in play, is the catalyst.

World wars are a product of Westphalian modernity, and global hegenomy in its wake, Spain was the first of the global hegemons, the Wars of Spanish Succession the first of the world wars, the next time a world war comes around, it will be through American hegemonic succession by default.

Spain to France, France to Britain, Britain to America, America to...

[TheOneX]

I don't think you will see a WWIII until you see at least 3 major powers going to war. In other words, if the USA, China, and Russia are not all involved it most likely will not turn into WWIII.

Only America can make it World War Three, as neither Russia nor China is the global hegemon, a war between Russia and China is an Eurasian theatre war, couldn't be a world war, unless and until the hegemon entered the fray, that is the defining characteristic of a world war, from the Wars of Spanish Succession to the Wars of British Succession, the hegemon in play, is the catalyst.

World wars are a product of Westphalian modernity, and global hegenomy in its wake, Spain was the first of the global hegemons, the Wars of Spanish Succession the first of the world wars, the next time a world war comes around, it will be through American hegemonic succession by default.

Think you are using a different definition of world war than the rest of us. It has more to do with the size and scale of the war, not if a country has hegemony. We don't call the 7 Years War a world war even though there was fighting all around the world. World War is not a literal term. WW1 and WW2 are called world wars not just because they were fought all around the world, but because they involved majority or all of the major powers in the world at the time. The death and destruction was on a scale unparalleled by any previous war.

Right now I consider there to be 3 1/2 major powers, the US, China, and Russia, with the half being Europe. Europe is a half because it isn't a unified political/military entity, while still having a lot of weight to throw around as a group.

[Smitty-48]

Think you are using a different definition of world war than the rest of us.

Your definition is wrong, mine is correct, The Seven Years War was the first world war of French hegemonic succession. Death and destruction is neither here nor there, on the aggregate, prolonged internal conflicts actually incite the highest levels of attrition; more people killed in the Taiping Rebellion than in the Second World War, more people would be killed in a theatre war on the Indian Subcontinent with nuclear weapons, than all the world wars combined, and yet India v. Pakistan does not a world war make.

[TheOneX]

Think you are using a different definition of world war than the rest of us.

Your definition is wrong, mine is correct, The Seven Years War was the first world war of French hegemonic succession. Death and destruction is neither here nor there, on the aggregate, prolonged internal conflicts actually incite the highest levels of attrition; more people killed in the Taiping Rebellion than in the Second World War, more people would be killed in a theatre war on the Indian Subcontinent with nuclear weapons, than all the world wars combined, and yet India v. Pakistan does not a world war make.

Your definition is right if we were simply talking about wars that happen across the whole globe, but that topic is referencing World War III which is a proper noun that relates to World War I and World War II which are specific events. It isn't a reference to just any war that takes place all over the world. It is in reference to the qualities you see in WWI and WWII, which were drastically different wars from the 7 Years War.


Yes, Pakistan vs India would not qualify for WW3. It wouldn't meet the definition I am using, not sure why you think that would apply.

[Smitty-48]

Think you are using a different definition of world war than the rest of us.

Your definition is wrong, mine is correct, The Seven Years War was the first world war of French hegemonic succession. Death and destruction is neither here nor there, on the aggregate, prolonged internal conflicts actually incite the highest levels of attrition; more people killed in the Taiping Rebellion than in the Second World War, more people would be killed in a theatre war on the Indian Subcontinent with nuclear weapons, than all the world wars combined, and yet India v. Pakistan does not a world war make.

Your definition is right if we were simply talking about wars that happen across the whole globe, but that topic is referencing World War III which is a proper noun that relates to World War I and World War II which are specific events. It isn't a reference to just any war that takes place all over the world. It is in reference to the qualities you see in WWI and WWII, which were drastically different wars from the 7 Years War.

You're still wrong and I'm still right, it's a proper noun only as referring to a "hypothetical war of greater magnitude than World War Two", each world war has been of greater magnitude in succession, the only thing that actually binds them, is that they are wars of hegemonic succession, and there would be no World War Three without the United States, as there would have been no Great War without Britain, including as pertains to the proper noun, because without the global hegemon, it's not a world war.

Yes, Pakistan vs India would not qualify for WW3. It wouldn't meet the definition I am using, not sure why you think that would apply.

Again, your "proper noun" definition; a hypothetical war of greater magnitude than World War Two, and yet not a world war, rendering the terms of your definition incorrect by being essentially meaningless.