The public demonstrates a pronounced anxiety surrounding rising geopolitical tensions, fearing the potential for conflicts to escalate into a World War. Although several comments express a desire for peace and critique current leaders for failing to learn from historical conflicts, there is also a significant portion of the discourse reflecting skepticism about the inevitability of a global war. A minority of opinions remain more optimistic regarding deterrents against large-scale military engagement in light of historical consequences.

World Leaders

U.S. Government

Russia

Ukraine

Iran

Israel

1. It's harder to hide, we have satellites now patrolling the skies, The sort of build up to an attack of WW3 magnitude would be hard to hide. People with mobile phones post vids of military convoy's to the internet. It's now so much harder to hide any sort of build up

2. World war would have to include at least 2 of the 3 largest destructive forces on Earth The Chinese, Russian and US military's and their nuclear forces. They are all very aware of each others abilities. They know the costs involved. A conventional war between two dragging in allies would be a bloodbath on both sides and I'm sure that if the national sovereignty of any was at stake nuclear weapons would be used at least tactically. 

Thirdly. Geography The US is basically impossible to invade without going through Mexico or Canada. China is another hard prospect to invade unless you have a friendly neighbouring country even then a build up will be spotted. The Russian Boarder is more likely but that then definitely pit the two largest nuclear arsenals on earth against each other. Tactical nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons deemed usable in battle, these are "smaller" nukes under 100kt (kilotons). For comparison Hiroshima Bomb was 12kt and most strategic nukes are measured in megetons (mk). And both Russia and the US possess Tactical nuclear weapons.

Why, when and how? You'd need to be psychic or lucky, triggers for war can be manufactured by one side or occur from a random incident, or with a diplomatic misstep or mistake along the way. 

This all makes other forms of war more beneficial, Economic warfare, Digital warfare being the main two, but we still have the proxy wars, where adversaries back different sides in smaller wars rather than go head to head. Head to Head and everyone loses which does make it a last resort of the desperate. 

And no I'm not saying it's impossible, It's very much probable and possibly inevitable, but highly unpredictable , obviously the higher tensions then the higher the risk of a trigger

notatmycompute

“The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist  deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.” —Carl Sagan. Many analysts believe nuclear weapons have played a considerable role in preventing the major powers from going to war against each other for 75 years.

seeker_blue

They are not improbable. Not in the least. Prior to the outbreak of WW1 in 1914, Europe had not seen a continent wide conflagration in almost a century. There were many men at the time who said war was a thing of the past. There were many learned men exclaiming that Europe would never become embroiled in a continent wide war again because such a thing would put all of their then-intertwined economies at risk. In 1914, there were many men who said many such things.

[deleted]

I'd look at India and Pakistan, possibly the Chinese Sea, perhaps a large international crisis in Africa for the most likely future theaters of the next "great" war

Even without nuclear weapons, the US is completely dominating everyone else when it comes to raw military power. Europe might not have the same capabilities now, but just Italy alone has a higher GDP then Russia, and the EU zone has 3x times it's population. Within months, the EU could far outproduce anything Russia could ever hope to throw at them. And they are close allies with the US, who would certainly come to their defense when the dice are falling

China's fleet gets dwarfed by the US, making a Pacific assault on the US hopeless for at least another decade or two to come, and in that scenario Europe would side with the US (possibly against, say, a Russia/China axis, far fetched but not totally unthinkable in the future). Between Europe and China, without Russia on their side, there would be far too much land to cover

And then you add nukes, so anyone desperate enough on the losing side of the war has a nearly guaranteed shot at taking down the other side with them in a nuclear exchange

Feral0_o

WWIII wouldn’t *necessarily* be nuclear. There’s a good chance that neither side would be willing to risk that level of escalation. Keeping the conflict conventional means that the risk of losing isn’t existential in nature. 

There’s also a chance that, if nukes are used, they would only be used in a limited sense. MAD is only credible against existential threats (e.g. if US forces were descending on Moscow with the demand of unconditional surrender). 

To your question though, WWIII seems less probable today for a few reasons: 

1. Nuclear deterrence keeps the great powers from engaging in competition that puts the survival of other great powers at risk. 
2. The United Nations has helped smaller countries air their grievances in a formal way and has helped reduce the likelihood of interstate war in general. 
3. The global economic order that’s been emerging for the past couple centuries has finally gotten to a point where not only is trade unbelievably central to the livelihood of almost every nation, the supply chains have become firmly entrenched. Disruption could spell doom for untold amounts of wealth and persons (even entire nations could collapse of supply chains disintegrate sufficiently). 

Militarism itself has also declined precipitously in the past century. War as a moral good in society is no longer in vogue among the great powers. There are those who think particular wars are worth fighting but the of *war as a virtue* is practically nonexistent. States aren’t operating under the assumption that rivals *want* war anymore, rather that they are trying to get a larger slice of the economic pie. Wars of conquest are not as rewarding as using firms to acquire resources for abstraction or for financial security.

kerouacrimbaud

Why invade a country with people when you can subvert their democracy any way you want with some Facebook posts?

You can install anyone you fancy as their leader and watch them destroy themselves, all without risking a single person from your own country.

TheHucumber

[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Submission Statement Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index)

geopolitics_banbot

Well in WWI, Germany *thought* they could win. They had the strongest land force in Europe and believed that war was still fought in the way of the 1800s(infantry lines, cavalry charges etc). They didn't think the British would intervene, and could simply march on Paris, then swing East and defeat the Russians. However, this failed at the Battle of Marne as both lines were stopped and the war became a slugging fest.

Similar to WWII, Germany came up with Blitzkrieg, the use of tanks supported by mobile infantry to encircle opponents. They were able to use this trick to conquer Poland and later France. However, against the larger Soviet Union, it failed simply due to logistics, resources, poor planning, and the sheer size of the Soviets. The war dragged on and Hitler was caught in a two front war. But the important thing is the Germans thought *they had a chance.*

Now on to the Cold War. The US had nothing to gain from attacking the Soviet Union. The Soviets wanted to spread Communism, but sure wasn't going to fight the US for it. The US had the more technologically superior army and navy and more allies. Unlike the Soviets, the US always thought their nuclear weapons were "useable", and the US would use their nuclear weapons in a tactical and operational role to destroy nuclear forces and military targets leaving cities unharmed, they had the accuracy to do so.

The Soviets attacking NATO would result in total disaster for the Soviets, and the Soviets were not stupid, they knew something like that would happen. Same thing Russia, it knows that NATO is simply too strong for it to handle. The use of nuclear weapons will resort in to mutual destruction, so that is off table as well.

Now what about the future. As long US superpower and allies are not contested, I don't think there will be a world war.

Andyhuang2299

I'll tell you why I don't think a conventional World War could happen this day and age, but more conflict is kind of assured. Imagine a country wants to defeat America, they can't launch an invasion because our navy is too powerful, and our shores are too defensible. We only have allies on our borders, not threats and any near threat in our hemisphere is not conventionally powerful. Short of invading America or nuking us, America will not want to be involved in a world war. And not wanting to involve America is reason enough for any potential global aggressor not to use nukes.

Sure, there are threats for war, but it looks like to me, America will not be involved and almost by definition if the most powerful military is not involved it is not a conventional world war. If America were involved because it got nuclear somewhere I'd say it would last no longer than 4 years, when the replacement president gets elected.

War used to be more about territory because physical control over large territories was more profitable. Now countries and corporations can exert more economic control without a military presence. Rather than destroying factories with bombs, it's more profitable to exert control and get a slice of the pie. A nuclear war destroys value. Business (ideally) creates value.

Since war is just a means of achieving a political or economic end, if Russia invades Europe or the Baltics, I don't see it going nuclear nor being conventional. People realize this day and age you can't conquer a country and rule it from afar as Germany did in WWII, so tanks won't be rolling into Europe any time soon. War used to be more about territory because physical control over large territories was more profitable. Now governments and corporations can exert more political and economic control with a political rather than military presence. If any country wants to resettle a territory it's better to do it politically with hybrid warfare, then you can start to resettle people like Russia is doing in Crimea. It's impossible to outright conquer a country and cleanse it and resettle it, at least everywhere but Africa. Much more likely is smaller wars like Syria that create refugee flows that help spread Russia and Trump's version of nationalism and xenophobia.

There could be small conflicts in limited circumstances for some strategic gain of resources, or physical security, or for regional geopolitical hegemony. For instance battles for strategically important choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, access to deep harbors like Crimea, and access to hydrocarbons, water resources, or for territory to use for renewable energy installations (like hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, solar), fights for food sources, rare earths, and other scarce resources.

If things do heat up over the resources, I think we are going to find nukes are more hazardous than useful, and the US military advantage is less useful than massive manpower, the advantage of aircraft carriers and stealth fails to missiles and radar, and having a strong government is preferable to democracy, yet if things get too heated and bloody the authoritarian advantage becomes a disadvantage.

The most cutthroat competition will be among the international business elite, not the geopolitical super power rivals. Given human nature, it’s easier and more beneficial to find personal power in business rather than politics. This way they get the wealth and power without having to worry about the messy business of running a country and pretending to take care of people.

I don't think conventional world war is possible, and I don't think Nuclear war will happen. I do see the world becoming more dangerous thinks to everyone's lack of respecting international law, abrogation of treaties responsible for keeping the peace and reducing arms, this new-found nationalism, all these trade restrictions harming the global economy and sanctions reducing the stability of the world reserve currency, and of course because Americas failure to follow its values as it tried to spread democracy at gunpoint.

ByronCole77

Conventional war ? NO.

Relevance of nukes ? Only ever useful as deterrence, and that too is ill perceived today.

Why : Victor nations (as well as the subdued) are smart enough to not let any major war occur on their soils anymore. Hence if you have to fight for dominance, you do it in another guy’s yard. Hence proxy wars ? A big yes.

When ? Don’t know, can’t really tell. But if history tells the future, improbable in this century, maybe late in 21st. 

How would it happen ? Don’t know that either. We don’t know where our modern warfare leads us to. It still will be very physical, but the degree of it will be very less, considering where we are now, all the way from swords to just flipping a switch in a room(UAVs-drones). 

Why would we fight ? Well, there certainly will be wars on resources, so we have that. Tropical nations will definitely fight for water &amp; energy, at the same time starve for food, due to absence of water, so that’s a certainty. I don’t know how developed nations will be involved in it. So I have difficulty forming an opinion on that. 

But arctic nations are looking at a good future in that direction, as more and more permafrost melts, giving way to new, large freshwater reservoirs, and freeing up land to do agriculture using the said water, plus arctic ocean becomes the next hot silk route(trade route), so there is that.

Edit : spacing, spelling and grammer mistakes.

BourbonH

There are innumerable ways in which World War III could happen.  I have long believed it will happen in ways we don't really expect.  It will be a cascading series of events that we don't really see coming.  So I tend to no look at the obvious 'hot spots', though these places will still be factors.

georgewalterackerman

The world war of Iran and its 0 allies against the US and Israel, two nuclear powers

27thPresident

Russia can’t even beat Ukraine.

Iran can’t even beat Israel.

China is heavily incentivized to stay peaceful and keep growing their GDP 4-5% a year.

The West keeps dunking on the axis of evil and we love to see it.

Mediocre_Affect6192

WELSH_BOI_99

https://preview.redd.it/nfhh5xqoog8f1.jpeg?width=1066&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=90fdea63c56b9a8ff09226ef94fb1303ceb4b9c6

Embarrassed_Base_389

There is a real chance of escalation into war, but World War is not just an ordinary war. I would say that the Napoleonic wars were the first real world war by a modern definition, but a good way to think of what a World War entails isn't how many countries are fighting, but how many countries have nationalized industry for the war effort and have instituted a draft or some form of conscription.

Worst case scenario is Iran cuts the straits of Hormuz and disrupts oil flows, this actually benefits America because we would become the most reliable oil exporter in this scenario so America sits on its hands. Then you get the rest of the Middle East pivoting to China in order to resolve the issue which leads to a world where China has secured enough allies to be a threat in a World War scenario.

DazzlingAd1922

most likely nothing, iran is left alone, hamas and hezboullah are crippled, yemen is a joke, syria is afk and not an iran ally anymore, the rest of the arab nations believe it or not would rather team up with israel than iran, china has no intrest here, russia is busy getting tea bagged by ukraine, the only dumb enough country i might see do something is north korea cuz i didn't expect them to team up with russia but this time it's still unlikely but i won't be surprised.

Savings-Singer-1202

WW2 started in 39 but there were already regional conflict around the world (Italy-Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, China-Japan) that put all the other country in on alliance or another and then ww2 started when one alliance attack a country protected by the other alliance.



Today WW3 starts only if Russia Invade a nato country (With trump it will probably be EU alone vs Russia) or if China invade Taiwan.

BananaSiffredi

Here’s my guess.  This sparks another brief exchange between Israel and Iran, Iran fires a few munitions at a US base in the Middle East, and it’s all over in like 2 weeks

DisastrousRun8435

https://preview.redd.it/ewwwh5t5tg8f1.png?width=421&amp;format=png&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=4170df8718e02ee377f7a6c18a6663c6eca50b72

there will never be a WW again , no one wants it , proxy wars are the new trick ( not really new they've been the meta since the cold war)

Few-Delay-5123

Less than 1%. Nobody likes Iran. Russia only tacetly supports them because they both hate America but don't count on Russia to send much, if any, military aid. For all their saber rattling Russia doesn't want to get into a hot shooting war at the moment. China may condemn in the strongest terms, but they'll try playing peace maker (while they quietly eye a Taiwan invasion). All in all, it's an inconvenient time for many Iran sympathizers and i don't believe any are going to step up militarily.

Atomic-Tea

No. USA getting into another war. Eurochads stay winning.

sqrtminusena

There was one way to avoid WW3, to give Ukraine everything to stop russia. It did not happen, so we are in WW3 because escalation and use of military force will continue. If anyone thinks after the events of the last 3 years, China wont invade Taiwan soon has to be legaly regarded, and then Nkorea will join. The pandora's box is open.

goldfaust

I can't see any obvious path where Iran becomes the centre of WW3. For war to spread you need to have allies who are willing to join, and Iran doesn't have any true allies. Russia is busy sacrificing it's future generations in Ukraine, China doesn't really care about Iran or Russia, they're just allies of convenience. Every other country in the region is incapable of managing their own internal disputes, nevermind joining with Iran against the US and Israel.

Worst case scenario, the people of Iran begin to seriously oppose Israel and US action, and they begin to rally around the regime. Iran doubles down on nuke development, and the only real option is regime change and you then end up with Iraq 2.0. I don't see any world where that happens though.

Quigley61

No.

Russia won’t get involved, they aren’t the best army in Ukraine, they aren’t even the best army in Russia whenever Ukraine launches cross border operations.

Pakistan can threaten but it won’t join because of India. And because as they know that this IAF isn’t the IAF they are used at dicking around with.

China ain’t going to war over the Middle East.

If Iran goes full scorched earth against gulf countries (if it’s even capable of that, as their big bad boom boom after being raw dogged by Trump last night was a barrage of a whopping 20 missiles at Israel) will get seal clubbed completely by everybody.

This really isn’t anything that can snowball outside of a regional conflict. Other than leftists no one likes Iran, they are hated in the region by everyone pretty much, they’ve lost their proxies and as they don’t control their airspace you can’t even turn Iran into a proxy of China or Russia.

Most likely scenario is that Israel will continue to bomb them for another 2-3 weeks until they capitulate, or until there will be a local uprising forcing them to capitulate.

If no US targets will be hit it’s quite possible that the US strike was a one off, they might do another one if they won’t get the message and actually take their leadership but they’ll probably leave that to Israel also.

ObviouslyTriggered

No.

The most likely scenario is a regional war as neighboring countries see this as an opportunity to expand their territories and annex parts of Iran. 

But no country will fight on Iran's side. They're cooked.

Adorable_Ad_3478

You have to understand that throughout history countries are in constant conflict/dispute with each other but most of the time war doesnt happen. Why? Because the costs of war are high, and its beneficial for both parties to avoid the cost of war and reach a negotiated settlement. 

The times this doesn't happen is when there is both a dispute AND bargaining friction that prevents a deal. 

Iran knows that the us would completely destroy them. It is not in their best interests to be in an all out war. They might strike some military base or something else to show power and save face for their people but there's no value for them to do more.

When you have like a third to a half of even republicans online upset about this strike, what it should tell you is that there is ZERO political will in USA for a war. Nobody in the US wants boots on the ground and actual deployment there. So outside of a military strike on nuclear facilities, they have no good reason to want to fight any more. 

So IMO TLDR, you might see more headlines of tough talk or a strike, but it will die down.

theguy445

Politics_Nutter

If Pakistan decided to assist Iran there is a chance the entire region falls apart

Appropriate-North-84

The worst case scenario is not ww3. It is more bombardment between Iran and Israel. Iran may try to fuck up the straits of Hormuz and Russia will abet them because oil prices will spike.

Israel will empty out because Israelis are dual passport rich middle class fucks that don’t like being bombarded on a daily basis.

Palestinians will continue to die and Hamas might just take the opportunity to do some terrorism. Same goes for Islamists everywhere. Americans should probably gird their loins for some terrorism.

Trade routes through the region may become uninsurable. This plus Trump’s regarded tariffs will plunge the global economy into recession.

If Trump feels enough pain, he may have to escalate to regain stability. In which case expect more operations in Iran and dead American soldiers.

All this for what? Because maybe Iran has enriched uranium.

lickausername

In the Cold War, the US, Soviet Union, and China all had war plans. Years ago, the Poles leaked the Soviet War Plan, called Seven Days to the River Rhine. Based on what we know of the Chinese and American doctrines, the broad strokes of those nations plans were probably similar. The Soviet war plan involved nuking a vast stretch of urban territory in Central Europe, and striking enemy conventional forces with nukes, before penetrating through North Germany to reach the River Rhine. Initially, France and Britain would not be nuked in hopes they could be persuaded to declare neutrality. The US ran a study on Soviet military positioning and its implications on WW3, and concluded that the Soviets would likely follow up with an invasion of Iran, then the rest of the Middle East to cut off the Sino-American oil supply.

The common denominator of everyone’s war plans was that all three great powers believed they could *win a nuclear war*, ie that it wouldn’t be apocalyptic, just very deadly. In this regard they were right. Nuclear winter has been discredited, and radiation from nuclear weapons declines generally by 99% in 48 hours. In short, the danger of nukes is limited to 1) people caught in the blast - a small area generally no more than a couple of miles, 2) people caught in the heat wave, and 3) people who are outside in the area, unprotected, over the next 48 hours. “Radiation clouds”, “nuclear winter” and all other apocalyptic ideas are just myths.

The Soviets were prepared for their frontline units to suffer 70% casualties in the event of WW3, and prepared accordingly. All unit organizations and systems were kept to a bare minimum to ensure that they could function even with the loss of the best experts. 

WW3 would kill tens to hundreds of millions of people. It wouldn’t end civilization as we know it. Military losses in this war would be much greater than those that came before, following a pattern that’s developed since the Napoleonic wars.

"I don't know what weapons World war 3 will be fought with, but World war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

sheepsleepdeep

See the Syrian Civil War, now imagine that with the full power of every conventional military on earth

aptncy

You can't have a ww3. It was called a world war because colonnial empires were involved. Meaning most countries from most continents were involved.
Today colonial empires are broken and you have way more than 2 political sides.
So,whatever triggers a war, it's most probable that 80% of the planet will sit and watch what happens.

Mitsor

It would make the world a much smaller place, it will dessimate the world economy and in this day and age with hyper-sensationalism society it self could collapse in some countries. If Nukes are used then it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say it would put humanity back a few decades.

Mega_whale

Nobody really knows how nuclear weapons truly constrain the ability of a conventional war to spread to WWII levels. It is the great mystery.

Or even how far a nuclear exchange would go--obviously, we are technically capable of ending civilization as we know it. But would it get that far, ever? I don't know. Nobody does.

It has been said that, purely conventionally, WWIII would be a bit of a 'come as you are' war. Again, hard to say for sure, but it has been suggested that the dynamics of modern conventional war are such that it would be decided more quickly than WWII. It would be harder to gear up and mobilize a full war economy to start mass producing sophisticated military equipment that would arrive in time to affect the outcome, as happened in WWII.

That said, America is far too strong for there to be a true WWIII right now. We always have to remember that modern morality abetted by modern technology tends to constrain the great powers in a way that it didn't in the past. But in an existential conflict, those gloves could come off. The US power advantage is far greater than it currently seems if they get truly serious. That is why China's great game is to provoke the US and the West, but never push it too far. One, they never ever want to unite the West. Then they are done. 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.

WilliamWyattD

I don't think a conventional World War could happen this day and age. Imagine a country wants to defeat America, they can't launch an invasion because our navy is too powerful, and our shores are too defensible. We only have allies on our borders, not threats and any near threat in our hemisphere is not conventionally powerful. Short of invading America or nuking us, America will not want to be involved in a world war. And not wanting to involve America is reason enough for any potential global aggressor not to use nukes.

Sure, there are threats for war, but it looks like to me, America will not be involved and almost by definition if the most powerful military is not involved it is not a conventional world war. If America were involved because it got nuclear somewhere I'd say it would last no longer than 4 years, when the replacement president gets elected.

War used to be more about territory because physical control over large territories was more profitable. Now countries and corporations can exert more economic control without a military presence. Rather than destroying factories with bombs, it's more profitable to exert control and get a slice of the pie. A nuclear war destroys value. Business (ideally) creates value. 

Since war is just a means of achieving a political or economic end, if Russia invades Europe or the Baltics, I don't see it going nuclear nor being conventional. People realize this day and age you can't conquer a country and rule it from afar as Germany did in WWII, so tanks won't be rolling into Europe any time soon. War used to be more about territory because physical control over large territories was more profitable. Now governments and corporations can exert more political and economic control with a political rather than military presence. If any country wants to resettle a territory it's better to do it politically with hybrid warfare, then you can start to resettle people like Russia is doing in Crimea. It's impossible to outright conquer a country and cleanse it and resettle it, at least everywhere but Africa. Much more likely is smaller wars like Syria that create refugee flows that help spread Russia and Trump's version of nationalism and xenophobia.

There could be small conflicts in limited circumstances for some strategic gain of resources, or physical security, or for regional geopolitical hegemony. For instance battles for strategically important choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, access to deep harbors like Crimea, and access to hydrocarbons, water resources, or for territory to use for renewable energy installations (like hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, solar), fights for food sources, rare earths, and other scarce resources.

If things do heat up over the resources, I think we are going to find nukes are more hazardous than useful, and the US military advantage is less useful than massive manpower, the advantage of aircraft carriers and stealth fails to missiles and radar, and having a strong government is preferable to democracy, yet if things get too heated and bloody the authoritarian advantage becomes a disadvantage.

The most cutthroat competition will be among the international business elite, not the geopolitical super power rivals. Given human nature, it’s easier and more beneficial to find personal power in business rather than politics. This way they get the wealth and power without having to worry about the messy business of running a country and pretending to take care of people.

I don't think conventional world war is possible, and I don't think Nuclear war will happen. I do see the world becoming more dangerous thinks to everyone's lack of respecting international law, abrogation of treaties responsible for keeping the peace and reducing arms, this new-found nationalism, all these trade restrictions harming the global economy and sanctions reducing the stability of the world reserve currency, and of course because Americas failure to follow its values as it tried to spread democracy at gunpoint.

It would depend on whether we are talking about a nuclear war or a war contained to certain regions. We probably won't see a conventional war between the great powers again. If contained to a certain region and fought through proxies and expeditionary forces the casualties would probably not be too catastrophic (except perhaps for the civilian populace of the battleground).

SlayerofOrcs

It will probably be WW 6 or 7 by now. We allready had WW3 (if the definition of a World War is still that multiple countries are fighting together or against each other).

swestheim

I guess we are about to experience that first hand.

NeganIsHere

Chinese and Indian frontier forces use [sticks and stones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1-Gi_l-024) during border clashes. i think its precisely because both these nuclear countries fear escalation

Jazzlike-Perception7

Can Russians and Americans kill each other in Africa?

Definitely,it happened before!

...

Can GB and France fight over a far away island with minimal casualties?

Also definitely happened before!

...

Can the US try to conquer Russia or China?

No, they'll turn to dust the moment they say the words "We declare war"!

No one is gonna throw down arms without making certain the opponent won't exist anymore!

Nal1999

Kargil was an example of a limited conventional war between 2 nuclear powers, India and Pakistan in 1999

Neat_Teach

We could see a limited confrontation if Taiwan gets invaded by China and the US responds.   
  
I saw a very nice video of a war simulation. Of course this is very speculative since think-tanks don't have all the information to make a fully informed simulation. 

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CcQ4jKn8aE&amp;ab\_channel=TheWallStreetJournal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CcQ4jKn8aE&amp;ab_channel=TheWallStreetJournal)

This might show you a perspective of how a localized war would look like with two great powers.

Venus_Retrograde

War is inherently escalatory in nature, and from what I have heard of the results of the US Army wargaming such things in the Cold War, nukes would eventually fly. That said, in WW2 in Europe it would imply it is potentially possible for it to stay conventional (both sides had chemical weapons but were both unwilling to use them in combat). So, who knows?

SomewhatInept

Between countries with similar conventional capabilities? It’s possible.

Between countries with a huge gap in conventional capabilities? Nah, nuke will fly instantly.

Monterenbas

Absolutely, war is just policy by other means, if it is not the policy of either nation to bring about the end of the world then they can simply fight using conventional weapons and sue for peace when one side is obviously defeated / unable to bring about their policy goals.

erudit0rum

In a 3rd country (i.e. Ukraine), the US has already said that they will respond to a nuclear attack with a conventional response: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus)

Nukes are reserved for protecting the homeland, not escalating conventional conflicts, especially when it involves a 3rd party that's non-nuclear.

woolcoat

&gt;But if we did have total war in Europe, for example, why would European countries let it get to WW2 casualty/attrition levels before the nuclear card came into play?

In WW2 both sides prepared for chemical weapons but none was used, not even by Germany as it faced total defeat.

I don't mean to say that that guarantees no use of nukes in a war in which both sides have nukes; only that there is precedent.

There are also well-researched contemporary novels on a NATO-Soviet WW3 without global nuclear war. Two examples are Hackett's *The Third World War* and the related *Team Yankee* by Coyle, and Clancy's *Red Storm Rising*. There is a nuclear exchange in the former but it is limited; a coup prevents one in the latter, which may be "cheating", but then is that any more so than all the confident predictions of Western sanctions leading to Putin's overthrow any day now in the first year of the Ukraine War?

TMWNN

I could imagine it possibly happening in some 3rd country where both powers have an interest in winning, and are directly sending troops in even, but do not feel existentially threatened if they lose either

EasyMode556

I’d say yes, but it depends on *where* it is being fought. 

If it is in the Russian homeland or genuine NATO territory then you certainly are likely not going to get a limited war. It could be conventional arms though. There have been articles about how the US could use conventional arms against Russia and easily cripple their ability to wage war. 

At this point there is no possibility of a WW2 attrition level in NATO Europe. It’s likely the nuclear card would come in to play if Russia launched a full scale invasion of any NATO territory (esp. England, France, Germany, US) But I don’t think it’d ever get to a point where it’s actually used, as like I said - NATO would easily cripple Russias ability to wage war in a direct conflict. 

NATO would use nukes as a last resort, and it does not seem like it’s possible for it to get to that point. Russia follows the same doctrine; but Russia having nukes could likely prevent any full scale attacks on the Russian homeland.

Sprintzer

It already happened. 

The cold war was the USSR and US fighting limited proxy wars against each other. We thankfully avoided lobbing nukes at each other.

It’s happening right now in Ukraine.

Narf234

War is not a binary peace war dichotomy, there is a spectrum of escalation. And second war is political violence, there are war aims. Each state will try to choose each means by considering which escalation level best archives their war aims. 

Concretely, if country R wants a peninsula C, then they will not nuke C because in that case they can't archive their war aims.

yoshiK

Russia is approaching attrition levels against Ukraine that don't even have nukes without using their own.

Suspicious_Loads

So really what we’re all saying is, yes, a ww1/2 scenario between Russia and the rest of Europe is possible despite nuclear weapons and globalisation?

Bardonnay

There are three instances of nuclear powers fighting each other in a limited conventional war, and two of them involve China. 

thiruttu_nai

It depends on what the goals of the warring parties are. If the theatre of war would be confined to Ukraine from both sides, just to name something, it is probably unlikely that nuclear escalation will occur. However if the war is fought on Russian or NATO territory both parties might l be forced to escaleate to the use of nuclear force if they are driven to far up against the wall and the opposing party doesnt back off.

Realistic_Lead8421

LouQuacious

It is possible, but it quickly can escalate to undesirable level and then nukes can fly. Nobody wants to gamble on that.

Major_Wayland

My conclusion about this sadly most people either don't care or don't  understand the power of nuclear weapons and their ability to cause human extinction.

HarbingerofKaos

Not “between great powers”, but India and China managed to have a limited conventional war. 

It’s definitely more likely than it once was. The presence of the US was a major preventer, but the US has seemingly completely given up on power projection so every power (from small to great) is getting ready to try something.

PhilosophusFuturum

The thing to understand is that nuclear weapons are not an 'I Win' button, they are at best 'We Both Lose'. People resorting to them in wargames is one thing, but when you know everything you hold dear, including the very nation you're launching the nukes to protect, is going to be destroyed if you give the command that will surely give you pause. I wouldn't be foolish enough to say that nukes could never be employed, but I don't think it's the forgone conclusion alot of people think it is.

ABoldPrediction

Stunning-North3007

Real question is could WW3 go through without a single nuke being detonated.

scorpionPLB

Israel wouldn't become WW3. Worst case Iran and US go to war while China eat some popcorn.

Literally none of these are WW3. They are just wars between great powers. People really need to stop thinking that dozing off in history class gives them a good frame of reference for geopolitical issues. Not every great power war is WW3

None of these. It will be India/Pakistan or India/China

grain_delay

Imo only #1 has the potential.  And I don't know how much you can count China and no other countries of note vs the US and a whole bunch of other countries as world war 3.

Ajfennewald

1&amp;2 I believe not, the only condition I see where either of US, Russia or China launch is if their homeland faces an existential threat. Not a 100% guarantee but highly unlikely.   
No. 3 would be a pretty one sided affair from Israel in terms of nukes but could go nuclear.  
The most likely one is India and Pakistan, still limited but 200-ish warheads, enough to screw up the global climate if cities get hit.  
NK also unlikely, but Kim is the only person in the world that could unleash hell on his own personal accord.

_BaldyLocks_

It's never as simple as one thing. It's many things, building up over time in multiple locations. The history books may look back and say that has already started. There are spotfires everywhere. The only question is what would get America directly involved.

mrgmc2new

The foundation of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States is the "One China" policy, which means, in the eyes of the People's Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan is a part of China. If the United States were to formally declare that it no longer supports the "One China" policy, China and the United States would immediately sever diplomatic ties.

Outrageous_Camp2917

If we get into any conflict with China, that plus Ukraine and Gaza could technically count as a world war because China, Russia, and Iran are somewhat affiliated.

scolfin

You have 1 backwards. RoC was established in 1911. It's the PRC that was declared in 1949.

plushie-apocalypse

3 reasons for any war. Fear, greed and delusion.

The news of Hamas beheading babies is fake. Israel just made it up. 

But what real is that Israel killed more than 10 000 palestinians with a significant number of them being women and children. And also displacing 2 million people. Bombing hospitals, schools, residential buildings and what not. 

I condemn every innocent life that has been lost on both sides.

Israel vs middle east

Taiwan vs China 

China /North Korea Vs South  

China taking South China sea 

Russia vs any of their neighbours 

India Vs Pakistan

EmptyPlankton7744

'Brutally killing hostages, parading corpses, beheaded babies' do you have any solid proofs to back your statement? In past few days, hamas have released many hostages and all of them have thanked them for taking care of them. About the 'beheading babies' Israel themselves backed out from there statement coz there was NO proof of babies being beheaded. And lastly about rockets launch, their rockets can just only destroy the plaster of a building, nothing compared to the amount of HUGE bombs are being dropped in gaza for carpet bombing, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. Most of them are kids who didn't even reach 10 years old yet.

Bonsai_Tree489

Union Minister Nitin Gadkari has expressed concerns that the current geopolitical conflicts, particularly the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Iran wars, could lead to a global conflict or World War at any moment. He highlighted the vanishing values of coordination and harmony among nations due to authoritarianism from superpowers.

Geopolitical Conflicts and World War Threats

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want