Will any of the current conflicts lead to WW3?

I believe everything is slowly culminating into a big frenzy. The tension right have people on edge. One single mistake by one country and its over.

 

I don't think there are any significant issues that could throw us into 3rd world war. Maybe all of this terrorist stuff could become an issue later on if it gets out of hand, but it seems like we are getting control over the issues. I think that if anything was going to send us into another world war it would have been 9/11, but it didn't so, I think we're good.

 

My nightmare scenario is a coalesence of China's greater assertiveness in the South China Sea and past the second island chain in the Pacific being more forcibly used to contain or suppress Japan, whilst asserting regional power status towards the sea lanes of communication towards the Indian Ocean and the oil supply routes from the Gulf, as Russia seeks to reassert its power status in the Middle East by reacquiring client states in the region by shoring up their regimes with military force. Miscalculation an ever present risk.

 

First: Can the world economy withstand a third world war?
Second: Are national alliances still tight enough to bring the whole world along?

I think it's a no for both, but...umm, I can't say "better safe than sorry" because I doubt that there would be a way to be safe in a world war.

 

The present mess that is Syria could mushroom into something more serious. Assad's dying regime now has regular Russian and Iranian forces fighting the insurgency. I've read there may be some Chinese involvement as well. The Turks also reported shot down a Russian fighter that violated their airspace. And I'd imagine the Jordanians and Israelis are starting to get a little nervous considering the whole thing is on their doorstep.

 

Can the world economy stand a world war? No, so a war cannot happen. Exactly the view in the spring of 1914.

 

While there are plenty of conflicts or potential conflicts in the world right now, only a few might lead to large scale warfare.

The war in Syria is a proxy war between the NATO/US, Israel, Russia, Iran, etc. It will not directly lead to large scale war on a global scale, but it might cause accidents as both Russian and NATO jets are operating in the same area.

Ukraine conflict won't go big as long as NATO do not directly send in troops.

South China Sea island disputes will not turn into a real conflict as long as the US navy do not get involved and push China further. While there are five countries claiming the same area, none is willing to start a firefight over it right now.

East China Sea island disputes might cause a conflict between China and Japan if Japan is given the wrong impression that the US military will back it up in any situation. Otherwise, neither side will make a direct move toward a war.

I just really hope all sides in all conflict or potential conflict have cool heads. Although some people might get benefit from wars, none will last if the war goes nuclear on a global scale... in that situation everyone will lose.

 

I agree. ISIL is "contained." By that I mean there are enough forces engaged against it to limit its spread. To utterly defeat ISIL there would have to be a coordinated ground offensive on a large scale...and I don't think the players arrayed against it plan to go to that extreme. For them containment is enough.

As far as a WW3 scenario, I highly doubt it. As global population increases, as resources dwindle, we'll see a rise in small wars or localized wars, an increase in terrorism--the poor man's atomic bomb--and various asymmetric conflicts here and there. But the so-called Superpowers, Russia, the US, the PRC, have too much to lose in an all-out global conflict. The Chinese are practical and neither the Russians nor the Americans are insane enough to wage total war.

Even India and Pakistan and North Korea understand that the launching of nuclear weapons means their own annilhilation along with their enemies. In that case nobdy wins.

I do see, however, terrorists perhaps eventually getting a "suitcase nuke", a device powerful enough to destroy part of a major city. But again, even a terrorist nuke detonation would be a localized event.

 

I agree. ISIL is "contained." By that I mean there are enough forces engaged against it to limit its spread. To utterly defeat ISIL there would have to be a coordinated ground offensive on a large scale...and I don't think the players arrayed against it plan to go to that extreme. For them containment is enough.

As far as a WW3 scenario, I highly doubt it. As global population increases, as resources dwindle, we'll see a rise in small wars or localized wars, an increase in terrorism--the poor man's atomic bomb--and various asymmetric conflicts here and there. But the so-called Superpowers, Russia, the US, the PRC, have too much to lose in an all-out global conflict. The Chinese are practical and neither the Russians nor the Americans are insane enough to wage total war.

Even India and Pakistan and North Korea understand that the launching of nuclear weapons means their own annilhilation along with their enemies. In that case nobdy wins.

I do see, however, terrorists perhaps eventually getting a "suitcase nuke", a device powerful enough to destroy part of a major city. But again, even a terrorist nuke detonation would be a localized event.

 

Oh, NO!!!! BLACK FRIDAY is coming! We're all doomed.

 

The Turkish forces blowing a Russian bomber out of the air is more than a little concerning. The bad blood between the Russians and the Turks goes back a long time indeed. And, of course, Turkey is part of the NATO alliance.

 

It is only fair to say that it is highly improbable that these conflicts do not cause a global war. The planet is in flames right now. It is almost like the war has already started. Russians are just searching for a good enough reason to attack. The plane that Turkey took down is very close to a good reason so i wouldn't be surprised if somebody declare a war to somebody else. After that the rest will take sides and alliances will be created, they already exist but OK, and we all know what will happen next. So good luck.

 

I don't the see WW111 happening anytime soon.There has been a lot of posturing. However, a lot of it is just power brokering. The arms trade is much more lucrative now than ever before. Therefore. The more the tension increases, the greater the demand for sophisticated weapons, because more nations begin to fear the possibility of invasion. Also, The proliferation of nuclear weapons, even though a worrying development, seems to limits the possibility of all out war, because, knowing that opposing side both possess these devastating, they are more willing to try to come to an amicable solution.

 

You said:
> knowing that opposing side both possess these devastating, they are more
> willing to try to come to an amicable solution.
--------------
I used to feel this way, too... like who'd hit us with nukes (or whatever) because we'd get them right back... how foolish would that be?!

But then I remember Kim Jong-un... I'm not sure that seeing the consequences would be part of his reasoning. I don't think it would matter to him. Of course *he* would personally be far away when the retaliation hits. Sometimes making a hit (case in point, bin Laden/9-11) and seeing the damage inflicted is all that matters to those dictators / terrorists.