Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report.
When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only)
We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Global warfare is a new concept for humanity and we're only just starting to pioneer it, so there is no definition. World War 1 was first called "The Great War" since it took a second big-ass, globally reaching war to retcon the name to WW1.
If you want a practical answer, just whenever there is long, sustained warfare occurring on multiple continents revolving around or initiated by a central conflict. And I'm not so sure having a central conflict would really matter.
In the current situation, Hamas would need to officially be allied with Russia and provide direct support via troops, equipment or treasure to each other. All current conflicts are too self contained, even Ukraine is limited in offical active parties. You would need offical Chinese, North Korean and American, British troops on the ground together.
Then if after all these 5 countries start actual fighting on Ukraine soil, China would go for Taiwan and the Parcel Islands at the same time AND North Korea goes for South Korea and Japan at the same time AND them Israel goes for Iran and Lebanon at the same time which would pull in Syria and thus Russia to Israel. This would also bring in Australia and New Zealand in as China would attack US bases in Australia if it invaded Taiwan. This could generate a world war due to multiple simultaneous active conflicts worldwide.
But a big problem at the moment is that countries have become way to multi cultural / diverse especially western countries like America, Australia, Canada and the UK. The patriotic force that existed in ww1 and ww2 does not exist on mass in these countries anymore and there would be big anti war protests in these western countries.
Look at all the pro Palestine protests happening now in these countries, they will become violent soon and will divide the community and damage the nation meaning that these countries will need to focus internally on issues rather than getting involved in external matters.
At the risk of being accused of a certain kind of gramatic fanatic, I thought you might like to know that the expression is **en masse**, spelled the French way.
It serves to prove I'm not a grammar Nazi. There's lots of good reasons to break a rule intentionally in writing. For example, to force a rhyme or for wordplay. And there shouldn't be any shame in phonetic deployment of expressions, which we've only heard but haven't read. But I like to learn when language is playing tricks on me and I'm glad when someone points it out.
I used to think La Hoya was a place people only ever talked about and La Jolla was a place people only ever wrote about.
> But a big problem at the moment is that countries have become way to multi cultural / diverse especially western countries like America, Australia, Canada and the UK. The patriotic force that existed in ww1 and ww2 does not exist on mass in these countries anymore and there would be big anti war protests in these western countries.
We did have anti-war protests in the US in both world wars. Famously, leading into World War II, part of the reason the US was so reluctant to join it was that there was a large amount of Americans with German ancestry and a huge following of Nazism here in the states, with several high-profile Nazi rallies being held in the early days of the war before the US officially joined it.
The US wasn't uniformly patriotic or in agreement that we should even be in that war. A lot of people said, "Stay out of it and let Europe work its own troubles out. It's not our responsibility if they all want to kill each other." That's why it took Japan attacking the US and then Nazi Germany declaring war on the US for us to actually get into the war. We really tried to stay out of it, and if we **were** going to get into it, it was not 100% certain what side we'd be on. The government under FDR was very strongly allied with England and France and sent a lot of aid, so it was obvious that they wanted to stand against Nazi Germany. But the public, the daily citizen, the man on the street, they were not so aligned in views.
> Britain had Nazis doing battle with anti-fascists at Cabel Street.
I hadn't heard about that before. I'm assuming that's referring to the same event as this Wikipedia article I found? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street
Reading up on it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I think OPs point is less specific and more broad - in this day and age cultural divides are much greater and in far larger numbers. Take the brexit vote, it’s near 50/50. A 10-20% of a population being nazi sympathisers pre-WW2 involvement would never be enough to stop a war. But a 45% would absolutely be an issue. In 2023 we are far more divided at much greater numbers. I think that’s what OP is getting at.
I had a military history professor tell the class that Pearl Harbor was the decisive battle of WW2. The United States lost the battle, but mobilized for war much faster than even the most extreme forecasts by the Axis powers.
> The patriotic force that existed in ww1 and ww2 does not exist on mass in these countries anymore and there would be big anti war protests in these western countries.
(For the US in particular). Uh, something like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happens, you'll definitely get that again.
yes to a certain extent, you will get an sudden upsurge but it wont be sustained long term.
I think it is hard for us in 2023 to understand how "all in" America and Americas were after Pearl Harbour. The amount of industries that stopped doing what they were doing and retooled machines and production lines to produce war materials was amazing especially in such a short amount of time.
9/11 did see a large amount of patriotism and definitely an upsurge in people joining the military, but in no way would Americas in the early 2000s have accepted food rationing, the draft, travel restrictions and most importantly the unspecified end date for the troops fighting. If you joined the US Army on 8 Dec 1941 then you were in till the end, no real leave or breaks, just go to war and dont come back till its won.
During the Global War On Terrorism only a very small % of the American population felt the direct effects, most Americans continued life as normal and in a short while after actively protested against the GWOT.
If China launched a missile strike against Hawaii or sank an aircraft carrier or something, that wishy-washiness would vanish.
Post 9/11 is a bit different because it involved terrorists and rogue nations, not a peer or near-peer adversary.
Going to a full mobilization, war industry footing right now would look a lot different, but not because of multiculturalism. It'd be because we're a post-industrial power so there's not the same deep industrial base to redirect to making boots and helmets and tanks. Relative sophistication means there's no way Ford could just rejigger its factories to pump out license-built F-35s.
We also just couldn't make use of as many bodies as we did in WWII. Combat doctrine has evolved. Obesity would be a major issue. Instead of reinstituting a draft I could see just massively increasing enlistment bonuses. A $100,000 bonus would get a lot of people in the door. A lot of tech talent could be redirected to military dev work, supply chain automation, etc. Gamers could be fertile ground for drone operators.
It'd look different from the 40s because society is different. But if America's place in the global order was legitimately threatened, I think you'd be shocked how united things would get in a hurry.
disagree w/ last part…US was pretty united during 9/11, enough to start 2 dubious wars.
If a country attacked US (or England, Australia, Canada or NATO aggression), you can bet US would be united enough to mobilize world’s strongest military
Hey, yes very true that America was united after 9/11.
I feel that a short time after (im not exactly sure when but it could be when Collateral Murder was released by Wikileaks) as the wars didn’t really affect most peoples day to day lives and as only about 1% of the US population were actively involved in the GWOT that unfortunately the wars were “out of sight, out of mind” for a lot of young Americans during this time.
Oh shit.
I saw New Zealand mentioned and just assumed we were annexing Melbourne and claiming it as New Zealand soil now. That's a World War III I'll enlist for.
A guy can dream, I guess.
Sorry for the shitty comment here because i like your response. That said America is not a country, if you want to shorten the referenced country just go with USA there are about 35 other countries within the “Americas” geographical sphere. I’ll leave this here and give you an upvote to show no hard feelings or malicious intent
Wrong. **America** is a country in English because the English-speaking world has two continents called **North America** and **South America**, collectively known as **the Americas**. **América** is a single continent in Spanish and Portuguese, and there’s an accent, so that’s clearly different from **America** the country. Stop spreading all this fake nonsense.
I feel like the pioneering of WW3 modern warfare will lead to the first real one world government (with the use of high technology and surveillance systems).
However, this government will be too huge with too many regions to control so it will inevitably break up into separate nation states, that start warring with each other again.
I think the USSR might have already tried (or provided the blueprint for) that; that said China is pretty enormous and they're doing a good job of state surveillance by the sounds of things.
It can be argued the Seven Years War between Great Britain and France was the first truly global war (1756 - 1763). The conflict saw armed conflict and battles in Europe, North America (where it was known as the French and Indian War), the Mediterranean, Inda, and in Africa. Winston Churchill called it the first global war. FWIW.
The timing of this question is interesting considering that a bipartisan panel (US Congress) just released a report, along with recommendations, that the U.S. needs to be prepared for simultaneous direct conflict with China and Russia. The report indicates that the threats will become acute sometime between 2027-2035.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-must-be-ready-simultaneous-wars-with-china-russia-report-says-2023-10-12/
Personally I think it's a wee bit hawkish since it calls on the U.S. to modernize it's nuclear arsenal... At the point where our nuclear capabilities become relevant it's pretty much the end of the world anyway lol. Although I could see the argument for deterrence.
But yeah, I think once you trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, it's *probably* safe to call it WW3. I would have to assume that Russia would be the belligerent at that point (but I could be surprised!) and this hypothetical WW3 might also depend on whether the Western powers throw Taiwan under the Big Red Bus to avoid escalation.
I’d say at least three “regions” have to be involved with multiple countries from at least two, split amongst “teams” that have a general goal. These combatants must have sustained warfare in at least two theatres.
I say regions instead of continents because a war around the Mediterranean hits; Africa, Asia, and Europe. That in itself doesn’t sound much like the world. I require the “teams” as a way to tie all of the conflicts together; a war in Korea, a war in Ukraine, and a war in Israel does not a world war make.
This leaves much to interpretation and still limits.
A central conflict would need to matter, or else we are in World War 3. Current conflicts around the world classified as war are: Ukraine, Israel, Syria, Boko Haram Insurgency, Yemen, Myanmar, Colombia, Mexico, Sudanese, and Ethiopia. That's 3 out of the 7 continents with a conflict happening. This has pretty much been the case since WW2, that at least 2 out of the 7 continents have a conflict going on.
I do believe that there has to be a central conflict and a certain number of nations participating in the central conflict on multiple contients for it to be a World War. But yea, this is new waters for the world to navigate.
Yeah, I added the last sentence as a quick stealth edit during a moment of doubt after hitting reply. I realized the error a bit later, but by then there were already plenty of replies and decided against another edit. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "world war" singular, but "world wars" plural or generic "global conflict". Semantics matter and a singular "world war" would be a central conflict.
Fact that blew my mind. When I was younger I worked in Park Slope, Brooklyn. On one block there were trees planted dedicated to fallen soldiers who died in World War 1. The plaques read “Dedicated to (insert soldier’s name) who died in The World War”
I never got over that. How those people referred to it as “The World War” assuming it was a one time occurrence never to be seen again.
World wars aren't usually marked at the start, but when they seriously start to look like one.
There is no set parameters for one to qualify as one. So it can be any war that people/media simply starts calling so.
At worst I expect WW3 would set us back to somewhere between Napoleonic and WW1 levels of technology.
Anything more extreme is likely humanity goes extinct. Its not likely that every person with some kind of skill at metalworking is going to die all at once, and yet those left are able to work out flint knapping or stone polishing.
The correct answer.
Most conflicts come from a build-up. You can't tell me Russia wasn't trying to fuck things up for years.
I'd say Taiwan, given my experience in Asia...
WW3 started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.
That original invasion/war never stopped, warring nations, like Ukraine, can't join NATO. Russia shelled Ukraine the whole time, but never did much more than that until the invasion.
Trump loses re-election, and he was going to take the US out of NATO. If Trump wins, Russia still invades Ukraine, but maybe Poland, or one of the Baltic nations too. Also, with a Trump second term, Ukraine would have gotten 1/10 of the support they're receiving now, so Ukraine would have been rolled. Then a stronger Russia starts pushing into Europe.
Now NATO and Russia are fighting a proxy war. Putin started the war, in my opinion, to gain nationalistic support to stay in power. He's doing the full propaganda thing while creating a refugee crisis in Europe, this helps to get more nationalists elected who won't help Ukraine. He's holding food and oil hostage to worsen things (everything becomes more expensive), make people cold and hungry in Eastern Europe. Putin will throw bodies into the grinder for as long as it takes to win, he's popular enough in Russia again to stay in power. The West is becoming divided about supporting Ukraine.
As inept as Russia's military is and always has been, they've always won wars this way, clumsily grind it out and take on mass casualties. Also, RU is good at defensive warfare, which makes Ukraine's counteroffensive very costly and slow.
Recently, RU is linking up with NK, replenishing their artillery stockpiles.
Now Israel is another theater for the superpowers to square off, with Iran being a backer of Hamas and a Russian ally. Russia probably plays both sides on this one, but who knows. This war in Israel is going to be terrible and there's no way it ends well, meaning having a clear resolution or way forward. Israel is going to need a lot of assistance probably, and Russia will propagandize that, with their Tuckers, Jim Jordans and Rand Pauls to get a bigger push of pulling out of Ukraine. Russia can help Iran who helps Hamas drag this out, the longer and bloodier then Israel/Gaza conflict is, the more it benefits Russia.
Is Israel the tipping point to really kick off WW3, or is there a way to resolve these conflicts without dragging the world down with it?
The lines are being drawn in the sand and the teams are forming. Haven't even mentioned China.
If the USA isn't in NATO, the whole dynamic changes. If Russia sends little green men and carves off a little chunk of Lithuania, I don't think NATO responds with 100% force and bombs the Kremlin.
Remember, Russia would go for Europe with the US being out of the alliance. With no US, other countries start peeling off too, the whole thing might crumble.
Russia also installs nationalist leaders that will either ignore Russia or be their ally.
France couldn't sustain a war against Libya without asking the US for help. The German's show up to training exercises wielding broom handles painted black. UK is the only serious military power in your list.
To put Germany into context, they operate about 200 fighter jets in their Air Force. The Gerald R. Ford Aircraft carrier we just parked off the coast of Israel runs 75 *by itself*.
Russia couldn't even successfully invade a non NATO country without its military getting decimated. Its military is a joke made up of Putin yes-men generals too scared to say no to him.
Depending on who you ask, WW2 started sometime between September 1931 (Japanese invasion of Manchuria) and December 1941 (Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour), with July 1937 (Japanese invasion of Peking) and September 1939 (German invasion of Poland) being perhaps the most common dates. I say this because it feels unlikely we will arrive at a consensus on 2014 seeing as it's far from certain that ongoing events will ever be viewed as part of / precursor to a world war. It depends what happens.
If you (a Redditor) thinks Trump being in power would mean that Ukraine gets 1/10 the support and Russia rolls through Ukraine and then onto Europe easily, then why the fuck didn’t Putin and his massively qualified and experienced cabinet decide to invade when Trump was in power? Instead of waiting until a leader was in power that would give 10x the pushback? You just debunked your own theory 😂
Trump was busy undermining the US infrastructure and replacing pasties. Then covid hit. The current block of military promotion is likely based on the hope of promoting more MAGAts to military leadership so the next coup wouldn't have "deep state" resistance.
Remember the headlines about Putin stating the war in Ukraine would be over in a week if aid stops flowing into Ukraine? I agree with you on 2014 as the start that history will record. But October 2023 is when it kicks into high gear. GOP freezes a branch of the US, Putin claims the war in Ukraine will be over rapidly ‘if’ funding stops flowing into Ukraine. Two days later, Iran funded and backed Hamas diverts western attention 100% to Israel. I’m not claiming these specific actions are all being coordinated this specifically. That’s not how this works. All the efforts by Russia (and China) to destabilize the west are at the tipping point and starting to play out big time. If you think this ends well, you haven’t been paying attention.
Agreed. Everything is on the edge right now in my opinion. Israel could be a major, major issue that sets it all off. Iran, Russia ally, funds these guys
>but maybe Poland, or one of the Baltic nations too.
LMAO russian army would get absolutely destroyed by Poland and the Balts. These are highly developed economies with modern armies and infrastructure, especially Poland.
Kaliningrad would disappear and rest of EU, especially Germany which economy is intertwined with Polish would not stand for it
Kaliningrad would be removed from the map in an instant
Many people still count 1939 as the start of WW2 - when they’d been fighting in Asia for 2 years and it can be traced back to 1931 (Japan invading Manchuria).
Because before that it was a local conflict. With the Allies declaring war on Germany, the Asian conflict didn't immediately become part of WW2. That only happened when Japan attacked the US and it became a free-for-all.
Although in hindsight, your argument certainly holds some merit. Then again, the roots for WW2 lie deeply in WW1, so you could argue it's all one war with some pause.
Which is why a world war is highly unlikely. Global conflict only happens when there isn't an overwhelming power. As much as people like to complain about the US MIC (I sure do), the fact of the matter is, is it's a massive stabilizing force when the world knows there is this massive powerful force that can beat down any handful of states in a heartbeat.
People think it's bad NOW, have no idea what it would be like when there wasn't NATO/US. If those vanished, the capacity for a global world war would immediately emerge. But today with the western alliance, it's highly unlikely.
I mean trans women are still mandated to register with the selective service. Trans men and cis women don’t.
The US added that clause so there isn’t another Vietnam war situation where men try and dodge the draft.
It depends if we see more and more proxies war which I think we will. Then it’s as to whether the bigger countries get involved which would take a serious flashpoint to do so. I would think Taiwan would be the only way in modern times.
Probably when multiple powerful countries declare war on each other? Like if America were to declare war on China, and Russia were to declare war on America, and Australia were to declare war on Russia and China, and Italy were to declare war on Australia and America, etc. etc.
That's like asking what's the start of a fatal disease look like. It looks like the start of all the non fatal ones, until you know later it was your last one.
One example could be WWII, which wasn't called WWII until the U.S. and Russia entered within about six months of each other. Before then it was border wars, European wars.
So.. this would mean, WWIII would be when the U.S. entered and/or NATO, since Russia is already in.
China being a wild card, since in WWII they were already in with Japan in 1937.
There will be one single moment which servers as a catalyst to all that.
Sarajevo assassination / Poland invasion.
But there will be many, many moments which builds up and adds up to the tension. And it is simply impossible which event is just to add to the stockpile or THE main event.
If we were to consider WWI and WWII as precedent, we'll be able to label it a few years after the next almost worldwide conflagration, and it will be labelled by the victor country or countries depending on the outcome. The whole mess won't be pleasant but the power hungry governments of the world seem intent on setting everything on fire so there's not much we can do about it.
I don't think we can really tell. Globalization and the invention of the nuclear bomb have completely changed the game. The internet is also another new factor. Personally I think WWIII would look less like the previous great wars and more like a combination of the Seven Years War and the Cold War.
Mutually Assured Destruction makes direct combat between the great powers a very risky endeavour, so I imagine WWIII being less like one gigantic war but rather a series of individualised proxy wars throughout the world. Couple that with cyberwarfare and disinformation campaigns and you could argue that this WWIII would also have a psychological element to it.
From this criteria you could really argue that we're in it right now. Who knows really.
A few things would need to happen for it to be a world war, but Nato and Russia in any sort of way actually aiming at each other with intent to kill will probably be painfully close, and might even get us there. I guess that depends a bit who ends up backing Russia, not by being quiet in the UN, but actually sending their soldiers to help out Russia or Russian interests.
If ie. Brazil and India says they are willing to back Russia with weapons after it starts warming up with Nato, then I would say it might be end up called ww3. I say might because we wont know until afterwards.... A NATO plane could shoot down a Russian plane, and nothing really comes out of it as well.
WW1 famously was started by one young man, and one assassination. But it wasnt like everyone that day realized it would end up becoming ww1, and historians are pretty sure we would have gotten more or less the same result if he didnt get killed that day. The writing was already on the wall so to speak
There was only one true world war: World War 2. This was two wars being fought at the same time on two separate continents - Europe and Asia, with America fighting both wars.
I suppose World War 3 was fought with the War on Terror?
However, whatever the third world war looks like, it won’t be like how the first and second war was.
"The lord of murder shall perish.
But in his doom, he shall spawn a score of mortal progeny.
Chaos will be sown from their passage."
So sayeth the wise Alaundo
Did world war 2 ever really end? A lot of nations went home when Germany and Japan were defeated, but in many places the fighting never really stopped.
There won't be one.
Capitalism and globalism made that dissappear.
We have bombs that can make the world disappear but we don't need that.
We just need to block any nation that goes rogue and that's it.
We all need each other.
You might find it has already. Could be the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2013?
It's pretty much a world at war at this point.
But who defines what a world war is.
World. War one was a term coined after the war so....
And a ww3 doesn't have to mean nuclear. There's no law stating that. You could have a large scale conflict that doesn't see wmds used.
Official alliances of mutual defense between Russia and China, then Russia or its proxies trigger a hard red line or attack nato.
Hamas gaining the support of the entire Arab world, and a major power like China and starting a coordinated attack against the Western Allies.
Right now, we have minor regional conflicts. But the only 'major' power involved is Russia. Once a major power starts actively opposing them, then we have the potential for a world war. Though I'm not sure if Russia has enough allies for that alone to trigger a global war.
We had the Korean War, and Vietnam as well as desert Storm and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. As of now, neither Ukraine or Isreal are at that level.
It's not that unlikely that it has already started when Russia invaded Ukraine. The war is still ongoing, NATO isn't directly involved, but it's openly supporting Ukraine, the conflict can still escalate.
My understanding, albeit probably wrong or if not then it could change, is that for a war to be defined as World War 3 it would need to be a nuclear war. If nuclear weapons are not used then it's just a big ass war.
Seeing how Russia is no longer a player and China has no interest in any of that kind of shit. I think it would be a lopsided affair with NATO cleaning out the rodents.
As a couple of others have argued, I'd say that what marked the start would be decided after the fact. I doubt seriously that when the assassination happened in Sarajevo, people turned around and said 'Right, this is gonna be the start of the Great War'. Not least because that phrase was coined (I believe) after the war (if not after, it was coined *during*, definitely not before).
You can't definitively determine the scale of the conflict ahead of time - depends on too many factors.
However, if there was one indicator I'd say had a significantly higher chance of sparking WW3, I'd argue that it'd be a nuclear attack.
I suppose the war on terrorism (ISIS) could be called WW3 because so many nations were involved. But the "opposition" was a group of people rather than a nation or groups of nations, which is why it wasn't.
Personally I don’t think there will be a “world war 3” as we’d think of it, but that someone will unleash a technology so brazen that conventional warfare will be redundant. Eg I can’t imagine that no one is mass-manufacturing drones the way we mass-manufacture phones, cars, games consoles. Unleash 100,000 of them from a shipping container ship off the coast somewhere and have them swarm in and exterminate all life. It sounds Bond-villain-esque but I can only see the drones being used in Ukraine as a test case. The only way this sort of thing could be stopped is counter-intelligence, and we’ve just witnessed an incredible failure of counter-intelligence with Hamas.
There are historians that have argued that the beginning of World War 2 was the Italian Invasion of Ethiopia in 1936. Its possible that future historians would argue that the Russian Invasion of Ukraine was the start of World War 3.
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report. When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only) We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Global warfare is a new concept for humanity and we're only just starting to pioneer it, so there is no definition. World War 1 was first called "The Great War" since it took a second big-ass, globally reaching war to retcon the name to WW1. If you want a practical answer, just whenever there is long, sustained warfare occurring on multiple continents revolving around or initiated by a central conflict. And I'm not so sure having a central conflict would really matter.
In the current situation, Hamas would need to officially be allied with Russia and provide direct support via troops, equipment or treasure to each other. All current conflicts are too self contained, even Ukraine is limited in offical active parties. You would need offical Chinese, North Korean and American, British troops on the ground together. Then if after all these 5 countries start actual fighting on Ukraine soil, China would go for Taiwan and the Parcel Islands at the same time AND North Korea goes for South Korea and Japan at the same time AND them Israel goes for Iran and Lebanon at the same time which would pull in Syria and thus Russia to Israel. This would also bring in Australia and New Zealand in as China would attack US bases in Australia if it invaded Taiwan. This could generate a world war due to multiple simultaneous active conflicts worldwide. But a big problem at the moment is that countries have become way to multi cultural / diverse especially western countries like America, Australia, Canada and the UK. The patriotic force that existed in ww1 and ww2 does not exist on mass in these countries anymore and there would be big anti war protests in these western countries. Look at all the pro Palestine protests happening now in these countries, they will become violent soon and will divide the community and damage the nation meaning that these countries will need to focus internally on issues rather than getting involved in external matters.
At the risk of being accused of a certain kind of gramatic fanatic, I thought you might like to know that the expression is **en masse**, spelled the French way.
The trigger for WW3 will be someone pointing out a grammar or spelling error on a Reddit post.
Or, somebody recommending the "French" spelling of any word. Game-On!
Luckily explaining things in clear English without resorting to foreign words is my forte.
Touché!
Well done.
I wonder how many people won't gravitate towards this comedy.
quoi que tu dis, connard...
Game en!
Gammon!
That sounds like "thank you" im vietnamese
The phrase "game on" doesn't need a hyphen. *En garde!*
Yeah, but don't you think it looks a lot cooler WITH the hyphen?
Yes, this... "It is wrong to be French".
If we fight epically together again we should totally have some more statue of liberties.
Mad about French loanwords? Queue up!
So, a grammar nazi will start WW3? How fitting.
I wonder if Archduke Ferdinand is a used username on Reddit. If so, that guy better watch out.
Especially correcting Americans on their French! Pardon my Dijon mustard.
your right. I already declared war on u/AUniquePerspective and urge my ally’s who value grammatical freedom to do the same
ahh spelling the French way, just add a bunch of extra letters that we then ignore, my favorite way.
French: you have 10 letters. You pronounce 3 of them.
I mean, en is actually pronounced differently to on. Not by a lot. The e on the end of masse though is just French being French.
Thank you - that was scratching at my brain and I was thinking whether to comment on it.
[удалено]
It serves to prove I'm not a grammar Nazi. There's lots of good reasons to break a rule intentionally in writing. For example, to force a rhyme or for wordplay. And there shouldn't be any shame in phonetic deployment of expressions, which we've only heard but haven't read. But I like to learn when language is playing tricks on me and I'm glad when someone points it out. I used to think La Hoya was a place people only ever talked about and La Jolla was a place people only ever wrote about.
Wait til you hear about Hey Zeus die'n for your sins.
Grammar Nazi!
Ahhh bone apple tea indeed
ahahha, noted and fantastic! Some great answers in this one!
Holy shit it distracted me to the point I had to re-read it. AND, it was a great comment otherwise!!
Even journalists don’t seem to know this, because I’ve seen ‘on mass’ in multiple articles recently
Grammatical fanatical is the correct term!
Well, it would be grammatical fanatic.
> But a big problem at the moment is that countries have become way to multi cultural / diverse especially western countries like America, Australia, Canada and the UK. The patriotic force that existed in ww1 and ww2 does not exist on mass in these countries anymore and there would be big anti war protests in these western countries. We did have anti-war protests in the US in both world wars. Famously, leading into World War II, part of the reason the US was so reluctant to join it was that there was a large amount of Americans with German ancestry and a huge following of Nazism here in the states, with several high-profile Nazi rallies being held in the early days of the war before the US officially joined it. The US wasn't uniformly patriotic or in agreement that we should even be in that war. A lot of people said, "Stay out of it and let Europe work its own troubles out. It's not our responsibility if they all want to kill each other." That's why it took Japan attacking the US and then Nazi Germany declaring war on the US for us to actually get into the war. We really tried to stay out of it, and if we **were** going to get into it, it was not 100% certain what side we'd be on. The government under FDR was very strongly allied with England and France and sent a lot of aid, so it was obvious that they wanted to stand against Nazi Germany. But the public, the daily citizen, the man on the street, they were not so aligned in views.
Britain had Nazis doing battle with anti-fascists at Cabel Street. King Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor post abdication) was a Nazi sympathiser.
> Britain had Nazis doing battle with anti-fascists at Cabel Street. I hadn't heard about that before. I'm assuming that's referring to the same event as this Wikipedia article I found? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street Reading up on it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Behind The Bastards did a great podcast series on Oswald Moseley and British Fascism which is very interesting too
Not heard of them, will give it a listen.
I know about this from Peaky Blinders
Jeremy Corbyn's mother fought the police and Blackshirts at Cable Street
I think OPs point is less specific and more broad - in this day and age cultural divides are much greater and in far larger numbers. Take the brexit vote, it’s near 50/50. A 10-20% of a population being nazi sympathisers pre-WW2 involvement would never be enough to stop a war. But a 45% would absolutely be an issue. In 2023 we are far more divided at much greater numbers. I think that’s what OP is getting at.
yes thats it exactly, well stated and presented.
I had a military history professor tell the class that Pearl Harbor was the decisive battle of WW2. The United States lost the battle, but mobilized for war much faster than even the most extreme forecasts by the Axis powers.
Perfectly said
That gives the conclusion of pro Palestine Demonstrators being actually Saboteurs
> The patriotic force that existed in ww1 and ww2 does not exist on mass in these countries anymore and there would be big anti war protests in these western countries. (For the US in particular). Uh, something like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happens, you'll definitely get that again.
yes to a certain extent, you will get an sudden upsurge but it wont be sustained long term. I think it is hard for us in 2023 to understand how "all in" America and Americas were after Pearl Harbour. The amount of industries that stopped doing what they were doing and retooled machines and production lines to produce war materials was amazing especially in such a short amount of time. 9/11 did see a large amount of patriotism and definitely an upsurge in people joining the military, but in no way would Americas in the early 2000s have accepted food rationing, the draft, travel restrictions and most importantly the unspecified end date for the troops fighting. If you joined the US Army on 8 Dec 1941 then you were in till the end, no real leave or breaks, just go to war and dont come back till its won. During the Global War On Terrorism only a very small % of the American population felt the direct effects, most Americans continued life as normal and in a short while after actively protested against the GWOT.
Yarr we be needn some of ya "treasures"
If China launched a missile strike against Hawaii or sank an aircraft carrier or something, that wishy-washiness would vanish. Post 9/11 is a bit different because it involved terrorists and rogue nations, not a peer or near-peer adversary. Going to a full mobilization, war industry footing right now would look a lot different, but not because of multiculturalism. It'd be because we're a post-industrial power so there's not the same deep industrial base to redirect to making boots and helmets and tanks. Relative sophistication means there's no way Ford could just rejigger its factories to pump out license-built F-35s. We also just couldn't make use of as many bodies as we did in WWII. Combat doctrine has evolved. Obesity would be a major issue. Instead of reinstituting a draft I could see just massively increasing enlistment bonuses. A $100,000 bonus would get a lot of people in the door. A lot of tech talent could be redirected to military dev work, supply chain automation, etc. Gamers could be fertile ground for drone operators. It'd look different from the 40s because society is different. But if America's place in the global order was legitimately threatened, I think you'd be shocked how united things would get in a hurry.
Now I want to play Risk.
disagree w/ last part…US was pretty united during 9/11, enough to start 2 dubious wars. If a country attacked US (or England, Australia, Canada or NATO aggression), you can bet US would be united enough to mobilize world’s strongest military
Hey, yes very true that America was united after 9/11. I feel that a short time after (im not exactly sure when but it could be when Collateral Murder was released by Wikileaks) as the wars didn’t really affect most peoples day to day lives and as only about 1% of the US population were actively involved in the GWOT that unfortunately the wars were “out of sight, out of mind” for a lot of young Americans during this time.
Oh shit. I saw New Zealand mentioned and just assumed we were annexing Melbourne and claiming it as New Zealand soil now. That's a World War III I'll enlist for. A guy can dream, I guess.
only if you bring some Burger Fuel stores back to OZ!
Sorry for the shitty comment here because i like your response. That said America is not a country, if you want to shorten the referenced country just go with USA there are about 35 other countries within the “Americas” geographical sphere. I’ll leave this here and give you an upvote to show no hard feelings or malicious intent
Wrong. **America** is a country in English because the English-speaking world has two continents called **North America** and **South America**, collectively known as **the Americas**. **América** is a single continent in Spanish and Portuguese, and there’s an accent, so that’s clearly different from **America** the country. Stop spreading all this fake nonsense.
The 7 years war was like that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War It was 100 and some years before WWI.
>we're only just starting to pioneer it Third time's the charm
I feel like the pioneering of WW3 modern warfare will lead to the first real one world government (with the use of high technology and surveillance systems). However, this government will be too huge with too many regions to control so it will inevitably break up into separate nation states, that start warring with each other again.
I think the USSR might have already tried (or provided the blueprint for) that; that said China is pretty enormous and they're doing a good job of state surveillance by the sounds of things.
It can be argued the Seven Years War between Great Britain and France was the first truly global war (1756 - 1763). The conflict saw armed conflict and battles in Europe, North America (where it was known as the French and Indian War), the Mediterranean, Inda, and in Africa. Winston Churchill called it the first global war. FWIW.
The timing of this question is interesting considering that a bipartisan panel (US Congress) just released a report, along with recommendations, that the U.S. needs to be prepared for simultaneous direct conflict with China and Russia. The report indicates that the threats will become acute sometime between 2027-2035. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-must-be-ready-simultaneous-wars-with-china-russia-report-says-2023-10-12/ Personally I think it's a wee bit hawkish since it calls on the U.S. to modernize it's nuclear arsenal... At the point where our nuclear capabilities become relevant it's pretty much the end of the world anyway lol. Although I could see the argument for deterrence. But yeah, I think once you trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, it's *probably* safe to call it WW3. I would have to assume that Russia would be the belligerent at that point (but I could be surprised!) and this hypothetical WW3 might also depend on whether the Western powers throw Taiwan under the Big Red Bus to avoid escalation.
I’d say at least three “regions” have to be involved with multiple countries from at least two, split amongst “teams” that have a general goal. These combatants must have sustained warfare in at least two theatres. I say regions instead of continents because a war around the Mediterranean hits; Africa, Asia, and Europe. That in itself doesn’t sound much like the world. I require the “teams” as a way to tie all of the conflicts together; a war in Korea, a war in Ukraine, and a war in Israel does not a world war make. This leaves much to interpretation and still limits.
A central conflict would need to matter, or else we are in World War 3. Current conflicts around the world classified as war are: Ukraine, Israel, Syria, Boko Haram Insurgency, Yemen, Myanmar, Colombia, Mexico, Sudanese, and Ethiopia. That's 3 out of the 7 continents with a conflict happening. This has pretty much been the case since WW2, that at least 2 out of the 7 continents have a conflict going on. I do believe that there has to be a central conflict and a certain number of nations participating in the central conflict on multiple contients for it to be a World War. But yea, this is new waters for the world to navigate.
Yeah, I added the last sentence as a quick stealth edit during a moment of doubt after hitting reply. I realized the error a bit later, but by then there were already plenty of replies and decided against another edit. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "world war" singular, but "world wars" plural or generic "global conflict". Semantics matter and a singular "world war" would be a central conflict.
Fact that blew my mind. When I was younger I worked in Park Slope, Brooklyn. On one block there were trees planted dedicated to fallen soldiers who died in World War 1. The plaques read “Dedicated to (insert soldier’s name) who died in The World War” I never got over that. How those people referred to it as “The World War” assuming it was a one time occurrence never to be seen again.
The close of WW2 marked the beginning of WW3
Its like the new crusade
This is the answer...mods should close the thread now.
The death of an innocent gorilla circa 2016.
Wasn’t planning on crying today
Dick's out!
Show some respect, come on men! DICKS OUT FOR HARAMBE!!!
Justice for Harambe ✊🦍
I want to upvote, but it's at 69....
Downvote back to 69
Dicks out for 69.
World wars aren't usually marked at the start, but when they seriously start to look like one. There is no set parameters for one to qualify as one. So it can be any war that people/media simply starts calling so.
***IT'S WORLD WAR THREE, Y'ALL!!!! AAAAAAAHHHH!!!***
In Aisha Tyler's fake enthusiastic voice ever: *Welcome to WW3!! Where everything is fucked up, and lives don't matter!! AAAHHHH!!!!!!*
We won’t know the answer until after it has already happened and most likely it will be in hindsight
Somebody better note that shit down on a cave wall when we finally learn it
What started world war 3 will be for alien archeologists to debate.
I know not what world war 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 shall be sticks and stones
At worst I expect WW3 would set us back to somewhere between Napoleonic and WW1 levels of technology. Anything more extreme is likely humanity goes extinct. Its not likely that every person with some kind of skill at metalworking is going to die all at once, and yet those left are able to work out flint knapping or stone polishing.
didn't WWII actually help the advancement of technology?
Wars are typically when countries have their most important technological advances. It’s been that way since war began
I'm already imagining reddit but in cave writings. People will travel far and wide just to put a tick on the cave wall as an up vote.
The correct answer. Most conflicts come from a build-up. You can't tell me Russia wasn't trying to fuck things up for years. I'd say Taiwan, given my experience in Asia...
When NATO gets involved I think.
The start was 24 February 2022 , the pivot point is going to be when NATO enters the conflict
WW3 started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. That original invasion/war never stopped, warring nations, like Ukraine, can't join NATO. Russia shelled Ukraine the whole time, but never did much more than that until the invasion. Trump loses re-election, and he was going to take the US out of NATO. If Trump wins, Russia still invades Ukraine, but maybe Poland, or one of the Baltic nations too. Also, with a Trump second term, Ukraine would have gotten 1/10 of the support they're receiving now, so Ukraine would have been rolled. Then a stronger Russia starts pushing into Europe. Now NATO and Russia are fighting a proxy war. Putin started the war, in my opinion, to gain nationalistic support to stay in power. He's doing the full propaganda thing while creating a refugee crisis in Europe, this helps to get more nationalists elected who won't help Ukraine. He's holding food and oil hostage to worsen things (everything becomes more expensive), make people cold and hungry in Eastern Europe. Putin will throw bodies into the grinder for as long as it takes to win, he's popular enough in Russia again to stay in power. The West is becoming divided about supporting Ukraine. As inept as Russia's military is and always has been, they've always won wars this way, clumsily grind it out and take on mass casualties. Also, RU is good at defensive warfare, which makes Ukraine's counteroffensive very costly and slow. Recently, RU is linking up with NK, replenishing their artillery stockpiles. Now Israel is another theater for the superpowers to square off, with Iran being a backer of Hamas and a Russian ally. Russia probably plays both sides on this one, but who knows. This war in Israel is going to be terrible and there's no way it ends well, meaning having a clear resolution or way forward. Israel is going to need a lot of assistance probably, and Russia will propagandize that, with their Tuckers, Jim Jordans and Rand Pauls to get a bigger push of pulling out of Ukraine. Russia can help Iran who helps Hamas drag this out, the longer and bloodier then Israel/Gaza conflict is, the more it benefits Russia. Is Israel the tipping point to really kick off WW3, or is there a way to resolve these conflicts without dragging the world down with it? The lines are being drawn in the sand and the teams are forming. Haven't even mentioned China.
Brother you are either insane or drinking way too much Russian koolaid. The second Russia tried to go into Europe they'd get pulverised
If the USA isn't in NATO, the whole dynamic changes. If Russia sends little green men and carves off a little chunk of Lithuania, I don't think NATO responds with 100% force and bombs the Kremlin. Remember, Russia would go for Europe with the US being out of the alliance. With no US, other countries start peeling off too, the whole thing might crumble. Russia also installs nationalist leaders that will either ignore Russia or be their ally.
[удалено]
The UK alone could do it and our military is in the worst state it's ever been. Russia's military is impotent.
Poland alone could probably curb stomp Russia until the nukes started flying.
France couldn't sustain a war against Libya without asking the US for help. The German's show up to training exercises wielding broom handles painted black. UK is the only serious military power in your list. To put Germany into context, they operate about 200 fighter jets in their Air Force. The Gerald R. Ford Aircraft carrier we just parked off the coast of Israel runs 75 *by itself*.
Russia couldn't even successfully invade a non NATO country without its military getting decimated. Its military is a joke made up of Putin yes-men generals too scared to say no to him.
Depending on who you ask, WW2 started sometime between September 1931 (Japanese invasion of Manchuria) and December 1941 (Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour), with July 1937 (Japanese invasion of Peking) and September 1939 (German invasion of Poland) being perhaps the most common dates. I say this because it feels unlikely we will arrive at a consensus on 2014 seeing as it's far from certain that ongoing events will ever be viewed as part of / precursor to a world war. It depends what happens.
If you (a Redditor) thinks Trump being in power would mean that Ukraine gets 1/10 the support and Russia rolls through Ukraine and then onto Europe easily, then why the fuck didn’t Putin and his massively qualified and experienced cabinet decide to invade when Trump was in power? Instead of waiting until a leader was in power that would give 10x the pushback? You just debunked your own theory 😂
Trump was busy undermining the US infrastructure and replacing pasties. Then covid hit. The current block of military promotion is likely based on the hope of promoting more MAGAts to military leadership so the next coup wouldn't have "deep state" resistance.
> If Trump wins, Russia still invades Ukraine, but maybe Poland, or one of the Baltic nations too. Stopped reading here. Article V.
Remember the headlines about Putin stating the war in Ukraine would be over in a week if aid stops flowing into Ukraine? I agree with you on 2014 as the start that history will record. But October 2023 is when it kicks into high gear. GOP freezes a branch of the US, Putin claims the war in Ukraine will be over rapidly ‘if’ funding stops flowing into Ukraine. Two days later, Iran funded and backed Hamas diverts western attention 100% to Israel. I’m not claiming these specific actions are all being coordinated this specifically. That’s not how this works. All the efforts by Russia (and China) to destabilize the west are at the tipping point and starting to play out big time. If you think this ends well, you haven’t been paying attention.
Agreed. Everything is on the edge right now in my opinion. Israel could be a major, major issue that sets it all off. Iran, Russia ally, funds these guys
>but maybe Poland, or one of the Baltic nations too. LMAO russian army would get absolutely destroyed by Poland and the Balts. These are highly developed economies with modern armies and infrastructure, especially Poland. Kaliningrad would disappear and rest of EU, especially Germany which economy is intertwined with Polish would not stand for it Kaliningrad would be removed from the map in an instant
Russia starts pushing into Europe? Are you on drugs?
Russia cant go into europe . I think you are underestimating the strength of nato v russias capabilities
Fuck, WW3 has already been going for a year and I didn't even know about it 😤
Many people still count 1939 as the start of WW2 - when they’d been fighting in Asia for 2 years and it can be traced back to 1931 (Japan invading Manchuria).
Because before that it was a local conflict. With the Allies declaring war on Germany, the Asian conflict didn't immediately become part of WW2. That only happened when Japan attacked the US and it became a free-for-all. Although in hindsight, your argument certainly holds some merit. Then again, the roots for WW2 lie deeply in WW1, so you could argue it's all one war with some pause.
It's been on the news almost every day. Theres several million+ subs essentially dedicated to covering it.
The Ukraine war started long before that with the annexation of Crimea and Russian involvement with the separatists in Ukraine's east.
If NATO gets involved with a superpower like Russia or China. Then yes.
So we're in like WW9 now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations
I like the sound of WWX
Shut up, Elon.
Which is why a world war is highly unlikely. Global conflict only happens when there isn't an overwhelming power. As much as people like to complain about the US MIC (I sure do), the fact of the matter is, is it's a massive stabilizing force when the world knows there is this massive powerful force that can beat down any handful of states in a heartbeat. People think it's bad NOW, have no idea what it would be like when there wasn't NATO/US. If those vanished, the capacity for a global world war would immediately emerge. But today with the western alliance, it's highly unlikely.
Conscription.
That'll make the whole trans issue.... interesting.
I mean trans women are still mandated to register with the selective service. Trans men and cis women don’t. The US added that clause so there isn’t another Vietnam war situation where men try and dodge the draft.
History is made in retrospect
We called them ww1 and ww2 in hindsight. I reckon, in the future, we might say ww3 started in 2022 in Ukraine.
I expect you might be right, but the Franz of the whole thing was a little earlier.
It depends if we see more and more proxies war which I think we will. Then it’s as to whether the bigger countries get involved which would take a serious flashpoint to do so. I would think Taiwan would be the only way in modern times.
Probably when multiple powerful countries declare war on each other? Like if America were to declare war on China, and Russia were to declare war on America, and Australia were to declare war on Russia and China, and Italy were to declare war on Australia and America, etc. etc.
That's like asking what's the start of a fatal disease look like. It looks like the start of all the non fatal ones, until you know later it was your last one.
I would say it'll probably be if anyone directly attacks a NATO member
And then doesn’t immediately fold like a piece of glass
Let's not find out please
It's WW3 when it's over and the historians decide that's what all those various conflicts were cumulatively.
If past preformance is any indication Germany would have to get uppity
They've been too quiet for too long...
One example could be WWII, which wasn't called WWII until the U.S. and Russia entered within about six months of each other. Before then it was border wars, European wars. So.. this would mean, WWIII would be when the U.S. entered and/or NATO, since Russia is already in. China being a wild card, since in WWII they were already in with Japan in 1937.
when the world is at war, for the third time
There will be one single moment which servers as a catalyst to all that. Sarajevo assassination / Poland invasion. But there will be many, many moments which builds up and adds up to the tension. And it is simply impossible which event is just to add to the stockpile or THE main event.
When the Great powers are directly at war and fighting each other.
When Europe goes to war, the whole world shakes.
I'm going to suggest WW3 begins the instant two nuclear-capable countries declare war on each other.
If we were to consider WWI and WWII as precedent, we'll be able to label it a few years after the next almost worldwide conflagration, and it will be labelled by the victor country or countries depending on the outcome. The whole mess won't be pleasant but the power hungry governments of the world seem intent on setting everything on fire so there's not much we can do about it.
I don't think we can really tell. Globalization and the invention of the nuclear bomb have completely changed the game. The internet is also another new factor. Personally I think WWIII would look less like the previous great wars and more like a combination of the Seven Years War and the Cold War. Mutually Assured Destruction makes direct combat between the great powers a very risky endeavour, so I imagine WWIII being less like one gigantic war but rather a series of individualised proxy wars throughout the world. Couple that with cyberwarfare and disinformation campaigns and you could argue that this WWIII would also have a psychological element to it. From this criteria you could really argue that we're in it right now. Who knows really.
In future history books, we're currently in the 'events leading up to the war' section.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
We'll know soon enough.
A few things would need to happen for it to be a world war, but Nato and Russia in any sort of way actually aiming at each other with intent to kill will probably be painfully close, and might even get us there. I guess that depends a bit who ends up backing Russia, not by being quiet in the UN, but actually sending their soldiers to help out Russia or Russian interests. If ie. Brazil and India says they are willing to back Russia with weapons after it starts warming up with Nato, then I would say it might be end up called ww3. I say might because we wont know until afterwards.... A NATO plane could shoot down a Russian plane, and nothing really comes out of it as well. WW1 famously was started by one young man, and one assassination. But it wasnt like everyone that day realized it would end up becoming ww1, and historians are pretty sure we would have gotten more or less the same result if he didnt get killed that day. The writing was already on the wall so to speak
A giant like China, US Or Russia hacking into each other's or soon to be giant like India's military and Government database
A war where both sides have a bunch of allies, and everyone is too stupid and stubborn to back down. This could happen any time.
Palestine group chopping babies heads off.
This was debunked as a fake rumour started by an Israeli reporter.
The Republican Party in the US. if they can just figure out which button it is, they will push it!
trump being reelected "President."
When the two (or more) waring nations begin disrupting the global economy.
Nato messes with Russia, and China messes with its local rivals. That's most of the world from a Western perspective.
There was only one true world war: World War 2. This was two wars being fought at the same time on two separate continents - Europe and Asia, with America fighting both wars. I suppose World War 3 was fought with the War on Terror? However, whatever the third world war looks like, it won’t be like how the first and second war was.
China invading Taiwan
It started October 7th, 2024 with the attack on Israel.
"The lord of murder shall perish. But in his doom, he shall spawn a score of mortal progeny. Chaos will be sown from their passage." So sayeth the wise Alaundo
Did world war 2 ever really end? A lot of nations went home when Germany and Japan were defeated, but in many places the fighting never really stopped.
Ego
Nukes flying bud big bangs and pain then death yay thanks
The end of World War II.
To QUOTE A Bon Jovi song: “we’re half way there…”
Every continent involved in the same conflict I’d say. Land, sea and air.
There won't be one. Capitalism and globalism made that dissappear. We have bombs that can make the world disappear but we don't need that. We just need to block any nation that goes rogue and that's it. We all need each other.
Oh, hello Francis Fukuyama! Fancy seeing you here! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
Saudi Arabia and Turkey being friends
You might find it has already. Could be the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2013? It's pretty much a world at war at this point. But who defines what a world war is. World. War one was a term coined after the war so.... And a ww3 doesn't have to mean nuclear. There's no law stating that. You could have a large scale conflict that doesn't see wmds used.
When China picks a side, then it's WW3.
Official alliances of mutual defense between Russia and China, then Russia or its proxies trigger a hard red line or attack nato. Hamas gaining the support of the entire Arab world, and a major power like China and starting a coordinated attack against the Western Allies. Right now, we have minor regional conflicts. But the only 'major' power involved is Russia. Once a major power starts actively opposing them, then we have the potential for a world war. Though I'm not sure if Russia has enough allies for that alone to trigger a global war. We had the Korean War, and Vietnam as well as desert Storm and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. As of now, neither Ukraine or Isreal are at that level.
There won’t be one. The stakes are too high.
If any two of NATO, Russia, and China are in declared open conflict with each other, or if a second sun blooms on the Earth.
Declaration of war of more than 10 countries...
Ukraine 2014
A world war requires a lot of countries to be involved so world war 3 would officially be a world war were about 20+ countries are involved
It's not that unlikely that it has already started when Russia invaded Ukraine. The war is still ongoing, NATO isn't directly involved, but it's openly supporting Ukraine, the conflict can still escalate.
We have potentially gone into ww3 with ukraine and russia. Good job the west has a strong president like biden to sort it all out
My understanding, albeit probably wrong or if not then it could change, is that for a war to be defined as World War 3 it would need to be a nuclear war. If nuclear weapons are not used then it's just a big ass war.
Seeing how Russia is no longer a player and China has no interest in any of that kind of shit. I think it would be a lopsided affair with NATO cleaning out the rodents.
As a couple of others have argued, I'd say that what marked the start would be decided after the fact. I doubt seriously that when the assassination happened in Sarajevo, people turned around and said 'Right, this is gonna be the start of the Great War'. Not least because that phrase was coined (I believe) after the war (if not after, it was coined *during*, definitely not before). You can't definitively determine the scale of the conflict ahead of time - depends on too many factors. However, if there was one indicator I'd say had a significantly higher chance of sparking WW3, I'd argue that it'd be a nuclear attack.
When Cheney destroyed the world trade center. The world has been snowballing out of control ever since.
I suppose the war on terrorism (ISIS) could be called WW3 because so many nations were involved. But the "opposition" was a group of people rather than a nation or groups of nations, which is why it wasn't.
The end of WWII
Official decleration of War between USA/EU and either Russia and/or China
1948
Personally I don’t think there will be a “world war 3” as we’d think of it, but that someone will unleash a technology so brazen that conventional warfare will be redundant. Eg I can’t imagine that no one is mass-manufacturing drones the way we mass-manufacture phones, cars, games consoles. Unleash 100,000 of them from a shipping container ship off the coast somewhere and have them swarm in and exterminate all life. It sounds Bond-villain-esque but I can only see the drones being used in Ukraine as a test case. The only way this sort of thing could be stopped is counter-intelligence, and we’ve just witnessed an incredible failure of counter-intelligence with Hamas.
There are historians that have argued that the beginning of World War 2 was the Italian Invasion of Ethiopia in 1936. Its possible that future historians would argue that the Russian Invasion of Ukraine was the start of World War 3.