Public sentiment is deeply concerned regarding the potential for global conflict, with a majority expressing anxiety about rising geopolitical tensions, economic instability, and the capacity for history to repeat itself. Many commenters reflect a sense of hopelessness and frustration with political leadership, highlighting ongoing conflicts worldwide while also acknowledging a belief that major powers are unlikely to engage directly due to international economic interdependence and the deterrence of mutually assured destruction. Overall, while there are voices of cautious optimism, the dominant tone remains negative, underscored by fears of conflict and societal instability.

Governments

International Organizations

Global Corporations

Military Leaders

What’s to say it’s not already happening?  We have multiple wars going on right now with US and Russian proxies fighting each other or Wagner themselves (basically Russia’s “plausible deniability” army) on the ground.  Sudan’s army is backed by Ukraine and RSF is backed by Russia and the UAE.  Then we have Syria, with the US going through proxies to overthrow Assad to get rid of Russia’s naval base in Tartus but when that didn’t happen they switched to using the SDF to deny the eastern part of the country to them.  Ukraine vs Russia can be seen as a partial proxy war between NATO and Russia and now DPR Korea is joining the fight.

The west providing weapons to strike Russian infrastructure can be seen as a provocation but Russia just strikes Ukraine back.  I think the biggest reason Russia hasn’t declared war on NATO is that they know they can’t win it.  They wouldn’t use nukes I believe, even if they were losing on their territory.  I don’t think either side would be the one to pull the trigger first.  Even in the Cold War there was that incident where some meteors or interference in Soviet radar made it look like a massive ICBM attack taking place and the Russian guy with his hand on the button refused to press it.  

Yushaalmuhajir

[deleted]

And who would have been engaged in that war? What are the sides? The world wars were named as such because most of the people in the world were affected/involved. 

I think the big thing you are missing is that the move towards democracies and greater levels of international trade are big drivers to preserving peace. In addition, technology has made the world far more interconnected which also reduces probability of war.

Hannibal_Barca_

Why not instead of extrapolating forward from ww2, extrapolate backwards from ww1. If world wars are such an inevitable things, why wasn’t there anything like that in the 1890s, 70s, 50s etc? The theoretical capability to fight one goes back at least as far as the early 1700s. Yet between then and ww1, a span of 200 years, the only war close to that was the Napoleonic wars.

Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho

There's plenty of armed conflict in the world. Nukes are a deterrent against themselves but that doesn't mean there can't be fighting and conflict without using them, as you've pointed out.  


 What's the scenario you want to discuss? 


What events in the world do you think would have been the catalyst for this war? 


ETA I think global trade and relationships is a larger deterrent due to countries interests residing overseas. 


For example, Chinese interests own a lot of London property. Why would they bomb their own land? Their own property? 


Same goes for tourism/dual citizens. You have massive levels of integration and sharing of culture, which makes it very difficult to dehumanise an enemy. 

Dry_Bumblebee1111

Wars start because

* One side is stronger
* They have something they want
* They don't think they're going to lose

Let's consider the nuclear powers and take away those nuclear weapons to see what happens

**Russia**

Well they want quite a few things but are they really strong enough to overwhelm the First World? Seems questionable. Especially not with China being annoying at the rear. They had an opportunity immediately after WW2 but that's super dicey. 

**America** 

For all that we like to meme about the Americans looking for oil and getting involved in pointless wars, they ain't all that really. They might prop up a dictator or two but are otherwise pretty hands off. 

**Literally every other nuclear power**

Either irrelevant, already aligned to the big two above or there are very pragmatic reasons that avoid war on a global conflict(China's main concern has been pretty much economic matters since the Communists took control).


TLDR Anyone strong enough to fight doesn't want a war and anyone who wants a war ain't that strong.

kazosk

We are nearing the end of armed conflict except in very specific circumstances, like when there is a bona fide threat.  

You’re watching the last hurrah.  Already done.

DeusLuxMeaEst999

I agree with you to some extent, but I was curious on the actual numbers.

One way to empirically test this hypothesis would be to look at the relative number of war deaths compared to the total global population.

After all, if the total number of war deaths is constant since nukes came into the picture, then we arguably have been in WW3, or something like it, the whole time. You can split hairs about whether a bunch of smaller wars loosely connected through larger wars like the cold war, the war on terror, and so on count as a "global war" - but if the number of deaths is the same, idk, seems like its all the same thing to me.

You could split World War 2 the same way. Was it one war, or a group of wars - one between the Germans and the Russians, a war between the US and Japan, and 15 or so other smaller wars, etc. 

I'd argue that at the end of the day the total # of war deaths is a good proxy for whether nukes have reduced war deaths.

Anyways - I always thought war deaths were dramatically down - but this chart is interesting. [https://www3.nd.edu/\~dhoward1/Rates%20of%20Death%20in%20War.pdf](https://www3.nd.edu/~dhoward1/Rates%20of%20Death%20in%20War.pdf)

**In summary:**

* **Total deaths (civilian plus military) from war are pretty much constant.** We're down from WW2, which was an all-time high...but we're right about where humans were at various other points in history.
* **Deaths of military personnel are down.** But I mean, is that because of nukes? If it was, wouldn't civilian deaths be down just as much? The lower number of military deaths (and consequently higher rate of civilian deaths) probably has a lot to do with the rise of guerilla warfare, tech developments, terrorism, etc. Put another way - a lot of those military deaths in the Catholic vs. Protestant wars should probably be labeled civilian, but...we don't look at it that way...for...some reason.

**So my takeaway is that perhaps nuclear weapons just changed the nature of war, but didn't reduce it.**

**Maybe nukes just mean more smaller wars and less bigger wars.** Part of this is just a definitional thing. Because the implication of the US and Russia fighting a war in Vietnam is WW3, we all agree to call it "The war in Vietnam" not "US vs. Russia." But the # of people dying - that's not changing.

ImaginaryDisplay3

I dunno, I feel like a World War needs to be massive and involve most of the major world powers.

With this in mind a world war doesn't seem likely because even if say Russia doesn't have to fear existential fear destruction, NATO is an overwhelmingly powerful military alliance and no-one is going to look at it and go "Yeah, I should pick a fight".

Toverhead

What makes people think that ww3 would be fought with guns and bombs and soldiers of the armies of the nation states involved in the conflict? Or that it would start with a single "final straw" of violence that leads the nations to publically declare war on each other, or that it would end with a ceasefire that is agreed by both sides OR foisted on the loser by the victor? 

WW1 was at first thought to be fought like all the wars of recent history before. Cavalry charges and open field battles. Technology meant that instead it was trench warfare and chemical attacks, a slow war of attrition.

WW2 was thought at first to be fought like WW1: trench warfare and rock solid defences. The maginot line and blitzkrieg showed that to be false. Again, technological advances meant that war was unlike anything that came before. 

Why should we think WW3 will basically be WW2 again but with better guns and weapons? Technology has advanced again, and America doesn't need to send soldiers into Europe to fight Fascism or socialism or imperialism or whatever else. 

I think that if anything WW3 already happened: it was the cold war with proxy battles between smaller nations allied with one side or the other of the larger ideological conflict of "liberal democracy and capitalism" vs "authoritarian communism". The economic might of the US and Europe and the Soviet Union, all tangled up with proxy conflicts and economic incentives and trade barriers and tariffs used to try and suffocate their enemy while supporting their allies. If so, then it ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Or it won't end until NK and China officially admit that their economic systems are inferior to the West's (unlikely given that China is the second wealthiest country on earth by GDP) 

Which would mean that we are now in WW4: an information and economic war between the nation states that have ideological differences. China's manufacturing might has caused great economic harm to other countries. Russia and Iran continue to engage in disinformation campaigns to get their enemies countries to tear themselves apart from within. I'm not naive enough to honestly believe that the US, UK, EU etc aren't also engaging in covert disinformation campaigns of our own. 

Who says nukes need to be involved as anything more than a threat, a doomsday device or dead mans switch? That's such 20th century thinking

wilbo-waggins

nukes arent the reason why we cant have an actual "world war" where everyone simply agrees to not use nukes.

as in, even if youre losing, if you surrender you live, and if you use nukes you die.

ProDavid_

&gt;&gt;Without the threat of mutual destruction WW3 would have already happened 

It’s a double edged sword though. Yes, nukes make overt military action between suitably armed powers unlikely. 

HOWEVER- every nation with a nuke drastically escalates the odds of starting WWIII by total mistake, which is a much more likely scenario. Say a Pakistani nuclear alert system malfunctions and they launch a “retaliatory” nuclear attack against India. Of course India sees it as a provocation and launches at what they perceive as a first strike. Within 48 hours humanity’s over, and all because of a computer error.

That nearly happened in the 1980s, were it not for a sharp Soviet colonel named Stanislav Petrov. May his name be remembered.

TaskForceCausality

Let's imagine a world where nuclear weapons just aren't possible to build. We'd still have mostly the same situation immediately post WWII. What happens then?

I'm trying to come up with how such a WWIII would start, what it would be fought over, what the goals would be. I'm not seeing it. The Russian-aligned side and US-aligned side still don't like each other, but invasion and occupation of either one by the other just isn't practical. Russia and America are both too big for it. WWII happened the way it did because the Axis powers went on the offensive, but were kind of small actually, too small to actually conquer the world, and small enough for the big superpowers to actually fully occupy for a while. So how and where do the two sides fight in our counterfactual WWIII?

Maybe they could do a WWI like thing, fielding huge armies across vast fronts that smash into each other repeatedly at enormous casualty counts, but never actually take any territory, until someone has taken so many casualties that they have to give up. It's hard to see that. All technology developments since then have made war more mobile, not less. And more able to use air power to strike far into enemy territory, even if they can't do anything as destructive as nuclear bombs.

Maybe the Red Army would infact decide to march to the Atlantic. Well, they could try. Maybe if things go very well for them, they could conquer some more territory. But then they have to control it. I guess it could happen, but I don't see it escalating to something we could call WWIII. Wouldn't they be just as concerned that the so-called Warsaw Pact might not actually hold together for an offensive war and they would only provoke NATO to counter-invade and take Eastern Europe back into their sphere.

Maybe Russians and Americans aren't so afraid to directly fight each other in places like Korean and Vietnam. Maybe, but wouldn't it just make those particular wars go slightly differently but still not escalate into a WWIII?

So yeah, I wanted to agree with you at first, but I just can't picture a non-nuclear WWIII that feels plausible. Can you?

CountingMyDick

World war 3 already started as far as history will be concerned. It's being fought via proxies, async warfareand propaganda.

China and Russia have spent decades softening the American sphere of influence and are at a crossroads currently in their plan. The continually weakening state of our institutions and increased mistrust in the government is a big key to starting civil unrest/division. 

Personally I think history will say WW3 started with the taking of Crimea or potentially even the Syrian civil war/Arab spring. These events directly led to Europe's current immigration issues(Arab spring) and massive shift in Russian expansionism.

I'm no scholar, but I firmly believe that the reason there was no Third World War is the same reason there will never be one: capital is more important than land.

China, Russia, the US, the EU... Regardless of which ideological stance they might hold, they rely on all the other for economic factors. In 2024, a country does not go to war not for god, for territory or even for resources. They go to war because it is profitable to do so. 

Right now, an all-consuming global conflict would be unprofitable. Trade routes would collapse. Multinational comps like Amazon and Tencent would drop tens of percent in profit due to the infrastructural disruptions. These companies represent huge parts of the US/Chinese economies.

Russia might derive some value though, from obtaining the southern coast of Ukraine on the black sea. It would give them better access to the Med, and by extension, the Atlantic. It would allow them to move a great number of goods from the Black Sea into their core, and beyond, to the Pacific coast via transnational highway projects: an earth-spanning logistical plan that would BYPASS America entirely. 
In other words, it could be insanely lucrative in the long run: talking 30+ years, but giving Russia a means to actually catch up with the American economy. 

Sorry, I know this was mostly rambling, but I don't think nukes were as important to stopping war in the 20th century than the rise of the international economy.

RedeemerGospel

I agree with some of your post. Nuclear weapons has changed how wars are fought.

How do we know WW3 is not happening right now? Both world wars used the latest tech and saw rapid development of new tech to try and get the upper hand. WW1 was machine guns and tanks. WW2 was fully mechanized militaries, radar, early computers and atomic weapons. WW3 might be social media manipulation, disinformation, cyberwarfare, and economic warfare to destabilize countries and destroy them from within.

We don’t fight over borders or resources like in wars past. Now the fight is for control over the global status quo which more cunning actors know is not through direct military clashes anymore. WW3 will be a war of influence which the US and China are engaged in right now with Europe backing the US and Russia/North Korea/Iran backing China

ReaperThugX

I think you should add one addendum here, and that is that it helps to prevent armed conflict *between global powerhouses who actually have nukes*. The world is full of armed conflict, but it’s often between groups who simply don’t have nukes, or don’t have the geopolitical power to use one without being immediately crushed. 

It’s certainly halted a lot of outright physical/violent aggression between the US and Russia, but only on the surface. It also ignores our proxy wars. Our conflict just changed into a different one that is perhaps even more insidious and dangerous.

Fit_Read_5632

Off the top of my head, I can think of three nations who posses nuclear weapons currently fighting wars outside their borders, the two largest of which spent half a century fighting proxy wars against each other. Maybe nuclear weapons have prevented these wars from escalating to the point that nuclear weapons are used, but the argument that these arsenals have prevented WWIII is an entirely semantic one. Depending on how we're defining "world war", you could argue we fought WWIII sixty years ago, and are currently fighting #5 or 6.

Modern globalism and the interconnected nature of economies and treaties mean that every conflict is essentially a world war.

Regardless of how you want to define "world war" mutually beneficial trade does far more to prevent two nations from going to war than nukes. Nukes don't keep Germany from invading Poland, the existence of the EU does through trade agreements.

EclipseNine

It's happening now. It's been happening since 1943. 

Sorry_Crab8039

There is no evidence of a world war in the making since the end of the Cold War.  A World War is more than two nations and is specifically talking about armed conflict that involves multiple  nations' allies and enemies.  We are close now to a Chinese Russian alliance. However, many expect that these two nations are not prepared for conflict with the West and are not prepared to even support each other.

Holiman

no one is changing your view bro 😭😭. This is so obvious. Nuclear war heads primarily serve as  deterrents rather than tools for active combat. It's all based on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the idea that if two nuclear-armed countries go to war, both would destroy each other completely, making it pointless to start a conflict.

iCUDeadNoww

Not to be rude but no shit. Not sure about your generation but it seemed like it was common knowledge growing up or I assumed so as to me it’s common sense. That’s why I thought we felt safe from that in general. The second that button was hit we all turn into vapor. 

Now, it’s a bit scarier because we have those who have that ability with not much left to lose. 😳

Sugarlessmama

One could say we have already started ww3, "The Assassination of Franz duke Ferdinan" or "Germany's invasion of Poland" of this one just hasn't happened yet. You may argue that that was the beginning but there was tensions and proxy wars for years before those events acted as the straw that broke the camel's back.

Maleficent-Toe1374

Yes, a war between the Warsaw pact and NATO seems prettty likely without nukes since both sides would want to 'liberate' the other as they did with Germany

How do you know WW3 is not already happening?  You don’t get a start date on these kinds of things. People just eventually realize that it’s happening again. It won’t be called WW3 until it’s over. 

BassMaster_516

i don't think there's much chance of ww3 NOT happening, and with the current stockpiles of nuclear weapons it is likely to become nuclear and therefore destructive beyond all possible reckoning

Lol. We certainly might be delaying a world war by a few decades. But it will happen. And when it does it will destroy a significant amount of the planet. Absoultely not worth it.

Fridgeroo1

When the URSS was in its peak, yes.

Right now?, no.

There is no nation/alliance that can rival NATO; for example, Russia would be screwed right now.

YucatronVen

True ... but we have never had today's collection of misguided deranged testosterone-driven morons running the nuclear capable countries.

ataraxy2024

"Without the biggest reason to not have a world war, the third world war would have already happened. Change my view"

OrderofIron

I think when it's all said and done, we will look back and say that WW3 already started.

Sorry, have to agree.. and add the absolute beast of a standing army the US maintains

YouLearnedNothing

Fireguy9641

This is commonly known...  CMV: Water is wet.

poweroverwhelmingg

Snapshot of _Are we heading for another world war – or has it already started?_ :

An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/may/10/are-we-heading-for-another-world-war-or-has-it-already-started?CMP=share_btn_url)  or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/may/10/are-we-heading-for-another-world-war-or-has-it-already-started?CMP=share_btn_url)         


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

In the west we like to think of WW2 as something that started when German tanks rolled across the Polish border in 1939 but the Japanese had been fighting in China for 3 years by that point and there were other flashpoints (such as the Italian conquest of Ethiopia) which would have a full resolution only during the second world war.

I don't think we are in a world war, nor that one is anywhere near inevitable, but it's worth remembering that with hindsight we may see things start sooner than we think at the time.

Velociraptor_1906

I think we have to put our faith in global commerce. Not as a system to solve the many problems in society, it won’t, but as a bulwark, and a kind of centrifugal regulator, against World War III. 

There is (hopefully) too much vested interest in international finance and global commerce to allow any local conflict to escalate worldwide. 

It’s a very different world, money wise, from 1939 or 1914. 

(Hopefully)

SleepyTester

Probably not, the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction is just as applicable now as it was during far more tense times in the Cold War. And as Russias initial fumbled push into Ukraine showed, even the armies of the great powers of the world don't actually have the logistics networks, munitions stockpiles  or arms industry, for a sustained conventional war. And to top it all off, we're swiftly aging societies, nations with an average age over 40 don't have the demographics to support long term high attrition war.


Cold War 2 might be very much on the table though. 

Fred_Blogs

I think we are heading for one. But it's totally avoidable.

Ultimately, regardless of what people say, there is an axis of unwilling allies. As another commenter said, yes Iran, Russia &amp; China all have competing interests and at times butt heads with each other in certain conflicts &amp; regions. But they're all united in 1 global goal in overturning US hegemony in their respective home regions. And to that end, they're wholly united in pushing the US out of global affairs. What we need to remember, US intervention is the ultimate safeguard against imperialist regimes seeking to expand either territory, or spheres of influence. Yes, economic reliance and interconnected supply chains help. But war is expensive anyway, countries can always insulate themselves from economic shock.

Russia obviously is the clearest example of this. They've launched easily a decade+ campaign of slow destabilising efforts and pushing boundaries. Eventually, foreign policy failures over a weak response to Crimea, refusal to enforce Obama's 'red line' and the withdrawal from Afghanistan had reinforced the Putin vision that the west is weak, divided, and unwilling to engage in a prolonged campaign. This all culminated in his 2022 invasion of Ukraine, where he made the observation that the US wouldn't deploy troops to defend Ukraine, and made the quite accurate guess that NATO would be divided in its initial response and wouldn't respond quickly enough. Even today, NATO is slow to respond to Ukrainian demands.

The great powers are rearming quite fast. Whilst they're certainly not on the verge of a major global war like WW2. We could see a series of regional conflicts break out in short order. China x Taiwan is the big one the world is looking for. We are still a fair few years away. If China was smart, they wouldn't invade Taiwan until 2028 to coincide with the US presidential election. Even if Russia ended the war today, most reasonable estimate I've heard is it'd take 5 years of rearmament before they're ready to invade another European country.

The common narrative is that this is our 1938 world. We're in our Munich Conference era isn't entirely true. The ever-terrifying 'World War 3' is a quickly increasing risk. And intelligence &amp; security officials are right to say we're in a pre-war world. But I wouldn't say war is so imminent that we're a year or 2 away. We've still got a fair few years to go and more importantly, US Presidential election or 2.

Mediocre_Painting263

As Billy Joel once sang, we didn't start the fire - it was always burning, since the world's been turning.

There have always been major conflicts going on in various parts of the world. We're just paying more attention now because one of these is in the heart of Europe.

1-randomonium

Its already started. 

Einstein said " I don't know what weapons world war 3 will be fought with but world war 4 will be focus sticks and stones"

Now we know.
We have been in a hybrid/ information war with Russia for many years. The heritage Foundation has required an intention to dismantle the EU, So Europe is now on the receiving end of hybrid warfarefrom groups inside the US.
Trump just started a trade/economic war and refuse to rule out use of force to acquire Greenland &amp; Panama.
Russia and Ukraine are in a physical war and aggression is spreading. This could result in broader conflict.

Might the USA have a civil war? Well Trump 2028🤦🏾

Notbadconsidering

Started with operation Desert storm years ago... now is time all people to see it....

Euphoric-List7619

A world war has definitely not started, unless you are so caught up in Reganist American propagandists that have now joined Biden’s camp that think that Russia, Iran and China are all part of an “Axis of resistance” and all support each others gains equally. 

The reality is they are far from Allie’s, Iran is actively fighting against Russia in Libya, China still condemned Russias invasion of Ukraine and asserts Crimea is Ukraine whilst also being a fairly big investor in Ukraine pre war and Iran and Russia could not care less about Chinas actions in the South China Sea. “Ummm but asckually Mussolini was against Anschluss yet they still joined the same side” yes but they were fighting the same enemies both of which they fell out with and were domestic threats, China has no reason to care about Ukraine and neither does Iran.

LegitimateCompote377

Well in the last year, Israel and the US and the UK have attacked, Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank), Iran, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, so that already sounds like we've started a world war right there.

ForeignExpression

At what point do we officially refer to these current conflicts as World War 3?

I do pity Guardian readers. People seem so able to see how on the right publications like the Daily Mail or Fox News scare their viewers into coming back for more. 

What kind of irresponsible headline is this? Aren’t you afraid, WWIII has already started! 

No wonder people on the left are so afraid of climate change, or think the system is so broken, that they won’t have kids. It’s just blatant fear mongering. People come back for this schlock in the same way boomers read the Daily Mail to enjoy feeling afraid about immigrants. 

Edit: very amusing to me this has upset so many people and why king five hours there was a ceasefire LOL what a disappointment of a world war this was. 

DM_me_goth_tiddies

If you’re talking about total international conflict opposing say, the Western world to Russia/China/etc… it’s very unlikely. Nuclear annihilation is too much of a risk to engage any kind of direct warfare between major nuclear powers.

Could the nukes be triggered after a significant event and bring about the end of the world? Well yes, that’s a possibility, but considering how many times we got close and were always smart enough not to do it, I’m optimistic. 

Problems with a nuclear arsenal is that you need to refrain from using it any time you have the opportunity, nuclear armageddon only needs one exception to happen. But well, we can’t do much about that if it happens can we?

Active_Bath_2443

jruuhzhal

So take this as you will. This comes from someone who was in the army for 22 years retired 2020 and still works with people of the GO level. 

1. Russia is DONE. They are economically ruined at this point, demographically spent and they burned all their stockpiles of modern weapons. To be a functional force that could face a western army 10 years of rebuilding minimum. 

2. China, they are pissed off because all the Russian stuff they copied they now see is not worth it after 30 year old western equipment in Ukraine can easily defeat it. Next they have been finding massive corruption which caused a purge of key officers and an unknown amount of damage, cuz water in a missile does damage so we have no idea how internally damaged the force is.

Taiwan (the most.likely target) has modern equipment and has been preparing for 70 years. Also Russia failed to attack across a flat plain China has to cross a very large body of water. Which is a massive logistical challenge even if there were no boats, drones and subs trying to sink the boats.

Also China needs to fix three weaknesses before they attack.

A. Food - China is the largest food importer in the world. So if they start a war where do they get food from?

B. Fuel - China is the largest fuel importer in the world. Even at the current rate of electrification it will take between 5-15 years to eliminate this issue. 

C. Trade - China's economy is based on importing raw material or semi finished goods and exporting them to Europe and the US. Assuming a war with the west how do they keep the masses employed? Mass unemployment never ends well in China and Xi is not a fool. 

3. Iran - at best is a local threat. Who cares?

4. India/Pakistan. This is actually a flash point that may have gone off in the past but due to the weather and economic factors is really not an issue right now, but that could change. 

Europe - besides Russia is effectively one country for military purposes so not threats there. 

South America - nothing happening 

Africa - nothing happening

Australia - too small a population to do anything. 

US - dealing with rebuilding after the last war and is a bit isolationist at this point

So for major wars there are only 2 countries in a position to do anything outside the US and one (India) is not interested and two China is not ready for a war.

So at least for the next few years I just don't see it.

truemore45

War with who? 

Russia managed to trade half it's military and almost all of its boats for territory in a second world country the size of Maine.

China doesn't have a blue water navy and is plagued with corruption. There's been significant shake ups in leadership after it was found that rocket fuel had been swapped for sea water. They're also surrounded by competent allies in the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

Both know the moment the US steps in the war is over and aren't dumb enough to try. Maybe China invades Taiwan but because the Navy is so flimsy the weather has to be optimal to stage an attack.

Who else? The collective adversarial nations of the Middle East couldn't even take Israel. Brazil and India seem pretty chill for the time being. The general nations of Africa are too tied up in their own border disputes and fending off warlords to pose any kind of threat. 

Did I miss anybody? War sucks and nobody wants to fight a war they don't think they can win.

Joatoat

No, the players in the existing wars are weak. Iran is funding all the turmoil in the Middles East. Cut off their funding by restricting their oil sales and they are done. Russia's economy is the size of Italy's.  It wouldn't take much to end them.

StedeBonnet1

From a pragmatic decision, It doesnt make sense.  The power of NATO, the US and its allies is far greater than China, Russia and whoever else might decide to join.  Russia now realizes just how big this gap is and I bet Xi sees it as well.  Of course all of this is assuming everyone acts rationally...

Sure-Emphasis2621

A look into the previous century ( and everything before that, honestly) indicates that we live in a peaceful heaven on Earth

CompetitiveLake3358

You need to define “major war” I suppose. If you mean global nuclear war, it’s a possibility but extremely extremely improbable. Any other hot war that isn’t nuclear would be unlikely to be major enough that nato allies would require a draft. What we are seeing geopolitically is the fact that the super powers of China Russia and the US are all vying for global influence and power, and the world simply isn’t big enough for more than one super power. So there will be conflicts, some will cause supply chain disruptions, some will impact global economies….but at the end of day, unless any of those three powers are willing to go nuclear, it’s unlikely to see a major war that disrupts the typical global citizens life. Nuclear countries need to be very clear on what their “red lines” are.

squailtaint

Take nukes out of the equation - it would throw the entire planet into an incredibly deep rooted depression. Incredibly unlikely because of those consequences.

Ok-Instruction830

Honestly yes, but not like the days of the first 2 world wars.

China will eventually move on Taiwan, and the US will defend it. Russia is losing to Ukraine. Israel and Hamas are throwing hands. Russia and the US are still in North Africa fighting ISIS/ISIL, UK has sworn to support Ukraine against Russia and is considering troop support, Germany is building up their military after seeing how bad Russia is doing against Ukraine, Iraq is still fighting ISIS, Turkey is massacring Kurds in Syria. Azerbaijan and Armenia are considering a round 2 after their unsatisfactory ending to the conflict several years ago, Canada just declared China's foreign interference a problem, Iran is continuing to fund war efforts in Gaza and Yemen, Venezuela is now going through dictator election fraud causing a schism in the state, China and India have been heating at their borders, and nobody wants to kill US citizen right now more than other US citizens.

There's a lot to be concerned about, and in the grand scheme, we are technically locked in a world war right now if not on the cusp of it. But the modern definition of a world war would involve just a mass series of proxy wars. NATO, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea probably won't *directly* go to war with each other, but will support their respective parties in the conflict with equipment, mercenaries, and training like what's been done in Gaza, Ukraine, and Armenia. It's cheaper and better for PR to send guns than it is to send men carrying guns.

And with the UK and US leading the tech in ICBM countermeasures, China having rockets made from Chinesium, and Russia using most of their nuclear delivery devices for their non-nuclear warheads in Ukraine (because they ran out of functioning normal missiles probably), nuclear annihilation is likely 99% off the table.

Things will get better - they always do. Less people will die in wars, wars will be over quicker, and nukes are likely to never used conventionally ever again

Kil0sierra975

I think when this question comes up, it’s from a real place and driven by anxieties. It’s fair to ask. Let me try to alleviate some of the anxiety while also acknowledging this is a fair question.
I have a masters degree in public policy where I based my studies in history, and international conflict. Those are my only credentials on this subject, so there are real experts with much more experience than me. I’ve worked with the army war college before, and there are some brilliant people who ask this question every day. 
The answer is probably not. But also, there’s war every day, it’s just modern warfare taking place on a cyber scale. 
I’m sure what you’re asking about is total war, impacting the daily lives of ordinary people. Something like we see in Ukraine but on a larger scope. And again, the answer is probably not. War has become and will continue to be too expensive. The cost of life is different now than it was in 1941. The mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons is too heavy a price to pay. So while politics are looking rough, any even somewhat rational actor would take this into account. 
The “probably” in my answer comes from the general unknown. Past wars have, throughout history, been sparked from an event that was unforeseen. So, sure, an event like that could happen. But even then, international diplomacy is stronger than say the 1910s when the Great War kicked off. 
I think so long as international dialogue continues, our own human development continues, and we keep trying to avoid war, we will be very successful in doing that.

BigOlineguy

A hot war with nuclear weapons? almost zero. Ironically, many people fear this because of the cold propaganda war that's been ragimg for years. 

The people in charge dont want to live in bunkers under a nuclear wastelamd and risk getting eaten by mad max style warlords.  But keeping us afraid, distracted, and divided works great for politicians.  Using nuclear aeapons is bad for business. Buildimg them ( and all weapons) is big busines

We are not getting nuked, but we are getting bombarded with doomer propaganda. The continued existence of doomer  cults, despite  all the exicting progress we have  made  suggests its working.  

Thanks to medicine, our life spans are increasing. 95%? Of the world's 200+ countries are at peace. Crime is  down covid is waning, and the economy has  started to correct. Yet  doomer media only preaches division and spreads depression 24/7  Gaza Prices climate immigration crime blah blah blah. The second part of the psyop involves insidious influencers telling us that everyday people become YouTube gazillionaires selling content part-time. Obviously, real life is less appealing once that fantasy seed has been planted 

there has also  been enormous progress on human rights that a subset of angry doomer zealots are fighting hard  to reverse. The only way that loud ugly minority "wins" is if enough  if sane majority  succumbs to doomerism and mopes instead of votes, which is what happened in 2016. The crazies are voting ate you?

noatun6

residentofmoon

No, if anything isolationism is rising worldwide.

Banestar66

People are historically extremely bad at evaluating the actual risk of catastrophic events.

Crazy_Employ8617

No. But there are dozens of wars raging across the world right now (Africa, SE Asia) that most media isn't paying attention to.

FIRE_frei

If you are thinking in terms of boots on the ground invasions of other countries on a scale like we saw in WWI and WWII, then the answer is no. 

In a war against countries those countries basically shut off all mechanisms between each other. No trading or anything. And countries are all way too dependent on each other for that to happen. Countries like China make too many good for the rest of the world and are too dependent on the money those being to eliminate that. 

Something that is more likely is seeing what we are currently seeing. A war of information on a global scale.  Russia and China have shown how much unrest can be sown in countries just by pumping misinformation. Tactics like this will only continue all across the world and WWIII will basically be a virtual one that tries to awaken countries from the inside. 

How to combat this is difficult. The big milestones have already been past. Countries like China, Russia, North Korea have given state control to their Internet and highly regulate what can be done. Countries like America and many European countries have tried to maintain the "free" democratization of the Internet and not put enough safeguards. These countries can try to pass more regulations that force companies to have better security protocols and try to reduce this but these companies have massive lobbying arms and cash to burn. It's an uphill battle for sure.

GhostMug

We have a lot of issues going on, but I don't we're headed towards a world war in the near future.

A lot of the geo-political events we're going through would actually discourage a world war.

China's housing market is toasted at the moment, and that made up a significant percentage of China's economy. It's also facing a downturn with it's manufacturing sector due to a lot of things going on. Between those two things it's not really in an economic position to wage a large scale war.

Russia is in the same boat. Due to the geo-political events surrounding the Ukrainian War a large percentage of our countries decided to transition to renewables. Thing is oil and gas exports make up a significant percentage of Russia's revenue. As our nations continue to shift towards renewables, Russia will find itself in a place where it's increasingly broke unless it shifts it's economy towards something else. There are other things affecting it's economy as well. Between all of those things, it can't really get into an additional conflict.

The US is in a similar-ish boat. The US has the cash to get involved into a large scale conflict, but it's dealing with existential domestic issues. Support for getting into such a conflict is also practically nonexistent with the US population. They don't want to see no money spent for that when people are dealing with issues with high living costs and the like. So between having to fix all of that, it's can't really get into an additional conflict.

The UK is in a similar-ish boat. The Tories suffered a huge defeat due to the economic issues happening in the country. Good luck trying to get the UK people to support a war instead of dealing with those issues.

This keeps going for awhile, but you get the idea.

There is also the issue with MAD.

Witty-Exit-5176

Extremely unlikely. But to make it stay that way, wherever you live, make sure not to elect people with huge egos who demonstrate little understanding of foreign policy. They have been popping up all over the place over the last ten(ish) years.

protomanEXE1995

In short? No. MAD means a true world war is impossible now. Even if some tin pot dictator would try to order the use of WMDs (like Saddam did in Desert Storm) we know ground commanders are unlikely to actually do it. We will likely continue to see proxy conflicts which will keep hurting the unfree world.

Gallalad

It’s seriously unlikely. If the history of humanity can teach us something though, it’s that conflict is the natural part of life and power balancing. Wars come and go and people move on.

clockiebox

The world war has been an ongoing event since 1939; it never ended in reality.

But if you are asking about a full on nuclear war, I doubt it and it doesn’t matter much, we’d probably die not knowing about it.

BudgetSad7599

drebelx

&gt; it feels like every day we're getting closer to a major war

Based on what observations? What previous experience?

Also, there are wars going on.  Do you have a reason to believe Nations on the sidelines are just looking to jump in?

 There will not be a world war because nobody else wants to cause a national nuclear suicide.   Even Trump wants to be remembered as great not as the guy who got US cities turned to ashes.   I hope. 
  This is why when every cold war crisis happened; there was mutual backing off.

Nope. It’s just news media, social media doomers, bot farms trying to get clicks or influence narratives, elections and economics. Enjoy your life.

gottagrablunch

Also countries are way more exposed to attacks. Cyber attacks which weren’t really even possible decades ago could now cripple industries and most countries can get hit by 1. Just depends on how quick they are to act/fix and what backups they have in place. 
Most countries public infrastructure can get hit and it may not be realized until it’s to late, very easy to pollute a drinking supply because water is treated with chemicals that have controllers that limit how much a given chemical is put in. These can be and have been targeted.
Also missile tech has been profilerated to the point that backwards NK has the capability to hit the US with a nuke.

It’s such a lose lose to get into a major war it isn’t worth it unless you know a major preemptive strike will basically defeat the enemy.

Static ware fare like Ukraine-Russia is the worst because you get little gains at high costs and it drains the economy to keep the military going that long. But it’s also a deterrent for future wars because you know a war will become static and nobody wins while you drain your resources. 
After WW1 everyone wanted to avoid war, even most German generals because they knew it would turn into a stalemate and lose through attrition. They got lucky in a lot of ways and were able to pincer the Allies and win quickly, but if the Allies had their shit together more then they could have stopped that initial German offensive and prob won in a few years through attrition…. Again.

wiserhairybag

KingOfAzmerloth

The usa  is currently in 15 “shadow wars”.

NoConsideration6320

I don't think we'd have a world war in the traditional sense. War is too fast and nuclear weapons are too destructive.

shadowromantic

Far-Position7115

OscarHI04

KaiSaya117

Not in a traditional sense like WWII. The current world war going on is proxy war. Bigger nation states going after each other through small states or non state actors. 

No large country is going to risk going head to head against the US with the exception of maybe the CCP miscalculating the US response to an attack on Taiwan. 

….but based on the recent election in Taiwan though, the CCPs strategy will be to take of the island through elections. They were actually decently close to winning the last one. Single digit %. Once they install a leader, they will use legal and political measure to reunify.

It seems like a conventional conflict is pending b/c everyone is arming up. Defense spending happens as a result of a real impending threat OR the perception of a threat. 

Very few predicted Russia would miscalculate so poorly on the Ukraine invasion, but the world let Putin take Crimea with paying any cost. So he got greedy, and is now paying very high cost for what will be minimal benefit in the end. NATO countries fear the US won’t protect them Carter Blanche due to Donald Trump…so they spending big now. Japan and SK are spending big b/c Xi has stated he will take Taiwan back by any means necessary and they know that comes with more regional risk. The US has also told JPN they needed to do more to protect themselves.

enemy884real

Unless North Korea actually tries something and China + Russia don't abandon them on the spot, probably not.

Russia is getting its ass handed to it in Ukraine, and every nuclear red line they have issued has been broken and no nukes have been used.

China is not ready to throw hands with the US + Pacific allies due to many strategic difficulties, and it's unclear if they ever will be ready before 2030. I get the impression Emperor Xi is too busy trying to stamp out dissent to look outside his borders beyond theatrics.

DarknessEnlightened

If a major-powered country became fascist in nature, aka like Germany did in the 1930's, that would likely be the spark. 

But if most people can keep their heads screwed on straight and keep democracy going, nothing will happen.

skoltroll

War isn't the problem, climate change and AI are much more concerning. There is nothing we can do to stop climate change, and AI is going to seriously mess up global economy.

markomiki

LoveAndLight1994

We’re in a world war right now. The war in Ukraine has had battles in Africa and Middle East.

Having said that, the genuine adults in power want to contain this as much as possible and snuff it out wherever they can.

OhHappyOne449

&gt;**I don’t think we’re actually on the verge of global war. I think we’re more connected, more saturated with real-time (often click-baity) updates, and more exposed to international tensions than any generation before us. That changes how we experience conflict, even when the fundamentals haven’t shifted toward global escalation.**

Doesn't the fact that how we experience conflict has changed, together with the real-time exposure to international tensions, suggest that we *are* closer towards global escalation? 

If there was a diplomatic event before, the government would be quickly informed, no doubt, but the populace would not. That would open the possibility of image management and deescalation on the sides of both governments, before any public outcry had a chance to build. 

Now, however, it's possible for the populace to know *before* the government knows, and definitely before any deescalation can be attempted. I think that this notably increases the chance of global escalation, especially in countries where the leaders maintain popularity through a narrative of strength. Putin, for example, *cannot* back down once something has become public, whereas he *might* be able to if it's only the governments involved who know.

Rhundan

Tbh I think it's more that with the world so connected and us so informed, it's easier to picture the world slipping into WW3.

In Ukraine, the worry would be Russia's territorial ambitions spilling over into NATO countries, or a preemptive strike against us it they feel we're getting too involved.

With Iran, it's the prospect of Iran using its defence treaties with Russia to drag them into direct conflict with the US backed Israelis (and ever since the raid on Iran's nuclear sites, direct conflict with US forces).

The potential of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan has always been that US forces sent to protect Taiwan will again be in conflict with a country that has defence treaties with Russia *and* can presumably hold its own with the states too.

But, that's simply why it *feels* that way. It feels that way because there is indeed a vaguely credible pathway in all these conflicts that could indeed lead to direct clashes between global superpowers, indeed another world war.

In reality, none of these conflicts are likely to spiral into world wars. Or so I hope. NATO is a credible deterrence to Russia, especially should the recent funding increases make a huge difference. Russia have already indicated they have no intention of aiding Iran directly with their conflict. And China haven't invaded Taiwan yet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there *is* a pathway to WW3 should very specific things happen. The likelihood of those happening is much lower than a lot of doomers would have people believe, but it isn't zero.

KingKringeson

If you believe that we are not on track for conflict between China and the US then I think you are downplaying the situation. You are correct that our perception of things is more instantaneous than ever. But the unprecedented disregard for international law, both from our adversaries and our allies, portends to a world order not based on any legal framework but rather strength of arms. 

&gt;Tensions with China are mostly playing out in economic and technological arenas, not through military build-up in Europe

And wars have been fought over economic interests. Hell the US has been fighting in the middle east for decades over access to oil because of its strategic and economic value. 

I am not saying WW3 is going to happen tomorrow, but we are and have been on a track heading towards it since we set the foundations of our current world after the destruction of the second world war. Capitalism will always trend towards conflict to control markets and resources, not even considering the economic benefits to be reaped by defense companies in the untouched western world.

appealouterhaven

At least when it comes to the Middle East, remember that there have been Arab-Israeli wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1972 - none of which led to a 'world war' despite a far-less stable international environment courtesy of the USSR. 

Nothing related to Israel is going to result in a 'world war' because none of the world's major powers other than the US care to intervene, and a regional war with a superpower on \*one side\* and no allies on the other doesn't escalate out of the region.

Dave_A480

I feel that we need to define ‘world war’ before we start because the first two were more a handful of declining European empires in decline fighting a European upstart power, with the US poking its nose in from over across the pond. 

We even loosely brought back the allies and axis meme. We’re looking at NATO coming to terms with the fact that it may be in decline as well, grasping at what victories it can across the world, what more do we need for it to be a world war?

One-Bad-4395

Fear is human nature. Traditional and social media amplifies fear. But we also have much more information available to use than we did even 20 years ago in the Iraq war..

There were a lot of "omg ww3" posts recently (in my opinion some of them were more connected to anti-Trump and anti-Israel hysteria than anything else), but a surprising number of Redditors seemed to be very aware that Israel-Iran did not have a true potential for escalation, for many reasons.

So, I \*don't\* think the interconnectedness of the world is what makes us more fearful. It may be the opposite - because we have access to more facts and perspectives. A great example is the rapid decline of homophobia in the social media age.

But yeah, I hate when people use the threat of WW3 for essentially emotional meme value.

LowRevolution6175

Two words explain why every conflict feels like the start of World War III that have nothing to do with how connected the world is: nuclear weapons. Even a regional conflict that doesn't draw other powers in can end up involving the whole world if both parties have nukes, as is/was the case with Israel and Iran, if they're brought to the point of using them.

MorganWick

Union Minister Nitin Gadkari has warned that the world is at risk of entering another World War due to ongoing conflicts.

Risk of Global Conflict and Potential World War

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want