Has WWIII already been fought?

[New Axiom]

world war

noun

a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. The name is commonly given to the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, although only the second of these was truly global.

-The definition of a World War from Google.

We all know there have been two technical world wars, one and two. Both had a huge group of nations fighting another huge group of nations. Both had large numbers of casualties, and involved large armies face punching each other with huge amounts of troops, artillery, and in the second one, airplanes and ships. But was WWIII already fought in the Middle East?

Iraq, 1990. Third largest army in the world with tough as hell soldiers that have had been fighting for at least a decade, supported by relatively new Soviet and American equipment provided to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.
In '91, the US and a fairly large number of other nations invaded Iraq and by March 1, the Iraq republican guard was a candy coated shell of its old self. I am clearly describing Operation Desert Storm, and although there was not very many (Coalition) casualties, or very many massive land battles or any other characteristic of the previous world wars, the whole concept of an alliance against one nation seems strongly familiar to the last stages of WWII.

If ODS wasn't world wars enough, what about the War on Terror? This war was fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of Africa(I think), Iran, and Syria. That covers the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, if parts of the WoT were fought there.

Were either of the aforementioned campaigns, or another war unnamed here in this OP, enough to constitute a world war?

[Ancistrus]

I say thee nay....ODS & WOT both a few major players followed by a ton of coattail riders

[Gig em Aggies]

No because those wars only had a select few countries involved in it.

Syria= Civil War
Iran= nothing
Afghanistan= start of the war on terror/after 2011 mass pull out it became small scale insurgency
Lybia= Civil war
Iraq= invasion/civil war
Yemen= Civil War

All these conflicts except Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are just regional instabilities caused by the Arab Spring.

[Thermodolia]

Some say that the Cold War is/was WW3

[Ancient Hermetic Orders]

Given the broad definition of what a world war actually is, I'd say no, it has not, and the Cold War at best was a very tense proxy war, yes, fought globally, but they were regional conflicts at most.

[Imperial States America]

Some say that the Cold War is/was WW3

Not true it's called the Cold War because all that happened between the soviet bloc and NATO was mainly a technology race sure we're their proxy wars yes Examples: the soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Vietnam War. A world war is defined as a "Hot War" which means the two main parties actually fight each other directly. A "Cold War" is one where the two main parties do not fight directly but in directly through proxy wars and campaigns anywhere in the world.

[Wallenburg]

No. The "War on Terror" has had a very, very limited battlefield, has not substantially affected life at home for the attacking nations (in comparison to the effects of the world wars), and often has not even involved war against nations, but rather terrorist organizations.

[Pope Joan]

It is argued that the US is waging war by proxy on many fronts, using sanctions and third parties to promote its goal of global hegemony. This is world war in a new form.

[Imperial States America]

It is argued that the US is waging war by proxy on many fronts, using sanctions and third parties to promote its goal of global hegemony. This is world war in a new form.

You wish Joan

[Anollasia]

If so, then that must mean the next World War will be fought with sticks and stones.

[Praeotoria]

It is argued that the US is waging war by proxy on many fronts, using sanctions and third parties to promote its goal of global hegemony. This is world war in a new form.

I agree with Joan. I believe that American Foreign Policies have been changing from the default. It's only a matter of time before the world board this train on, if you catch my drift.

[Napkiraly]

I'd argue that in order for it to be a world war, it has to be an industrial total war on an essentially global scale.

[Napkiraly]

Also, the First World War was global just not the same extent as the Second World War was.

[New Axiom]

I'd argue that in order for it to be a world war, it has to be an industrial total war on an essentially global scale.

I don't think we'll ever see another "industrial total war" again. We won WWII becuase we could produce more beans, bullets and bandaids than the bad guys could, and although I believe this is still a valid usable tactic, it's not in practice anymore. If we began to mass produce the F-22 today the economy would implode before Halloween. Modern warfare involves building very few but very expensive stuff that is designed to destroy one target very effectivly, examples being the F-22 in air combat or the M1 Abrams in tank combat.

What I'm getting at is that I do not believe that with your definition of a world war, there will never be one again.

[Lydenburg]

It is argued that the US is waging war by proxy on many fronts, using sanctions and third parties to promote its goal of global hegemony. This is world war in a new form.

I agree with Joan. I believe that American Foreign Policies have been changing from the default. It's only a matter of time before the world board this train on, if you catch my drift.

You can't control proxies. They aren't puppets. You can only guide them gently in a direction they already want to go.

Ergo, it's not a real war being fought on behalf of the US and nothing else.

[Cetacea]

Yes going by the standard of WWI and WWII I would count the War on Terror as WWIII

but lets face it WWI was not a World Wide conflict and the labelling of it as such is straight hyperbole. It was the last battle of Imperialism and only got tagged 'World' because by that time the USA was a recognized Empire too.

The thing is though that there will never be another Industrial World War in the manner of WW2 at least until the big nations start expanding onto the Moon or something.

The War on Terror is where the new battleground is fought, via foreign policy, cyberspace and remote attacks on 'impact' targets.
Legal and communication landscapes have been reshaped and global resources redirected to meet that war effort

[Forsher]

world war

noun

a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. The name is commonly given to the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, although only the second of these was truly global.

-The definition of a World War from Google.

A terrible definition in terms of your point and whoever wrote it is clearly an idiot: "only the second of these was truly global"... I mean, on what grounds? More states were involved? It's not like WWI was fought in many areas of Africa and saw conflict in the Pacific...

No. The "War on Terror" has had a very, very limited battlefield, has not substantially affected life at home for the attacking nations (in comparison to the effects of the world wars), and often has not even involved war against nations, but rather terrorist organizations.

The OP's definition doesn't require total war. I am not sure that it should be involved either because it sort of collapses the two ideas into one.

I am tempted to think that the term World War is inherently defined in WWI and WWII. That is, WWIII will either never exist/is the Cold War (i.e. must be viewable as a continuation of the conflict began in WWI*) or will be seen as the multi-theatre clash of alliances of nations (the terrorist organisation thing above is persuasive in this sense). However, I think describing the War on Terror was WWIII is a perfectly apt description as it reflects a different type of conflict paradigm for a conflict which involves many parties but with two identifiable sides (even if, in practice, this is not true).

but lets face it WWI was not a World Wide conflict and the labelling of it as such is straight hyperbole.

Yeah, but no.

We have combatants from Europe, ex-Europe (i.e. the US), European colonies (with their own intricacies to their involvement) and Asia (at a minimum, Japan). We have theatres all over the globe (in, to my knowledge, pretty much the same places... sub China and Southern Africa). And we have long-term changes in the patterns of imperialism (but rather than heightened decolonial processes you have new colonial masters).

*I correct this. You could maybe develop something out of Korea which we might describe as a world war in some other way, in which case we would ultimately be able to track this back to WWI fairly trivially (whether or not you think doing so is correct is actually beside the "viewable" point).

[The Serbian Empire]

I'd argue that in order for it to be a world war, it has to be an industrial total war on an essentially global scale.

Given that most countries of the developed world have significantly less industry, there will never be another World War.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I believe so yes. Either going by the definition of a war on multiple continents, or just by sheer casuliaties, there have been wars on a similer scale to both world wars.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would say you can make a real case (and I'm pretty sure its been made before) that the Cold War was WWIII, and the War on Terror and its various related conflicts are WWIV.

However, WWIII is generally used to denote a large conventional/nuclear military conflict between major powers, in the vein of the first and second world wars. In that sense, obviously, it has never occurred.

[New Axiom]

I would say you can make a real case (and I'm pretty sure its been made before) that the Cold War was WWIII, and the War on Terror and its various related conflicts are WWIV.

However, WWIII is generally used to denote a large conventional/nuclear military conflict between major powers, in the vein of the first and second world wars. In that sense, obviously, it has never occurred.

You could argue the Cold War was WWIII in the sense you described, but rather being fought via proxy, examples being Vietnam, the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and Korea.

[Minivanistan]

Some say that the Cold War is/was WW3

Nah, the Cold War just went into cyberspace.
The web went up as the wall went down, and the beligerants began to take advantage of new fertile tactical ground.

The above ground action that results from the temper tantrum thrown by the guy who finally gets his finances collapsed, internal politics compromised, and/or international diplomacy hijacked will be the precursor of a possible domino effect into a world war.
Sort of a digital Archduke Ferdinand, followed by tactically obsolete treaty activation that gets the world into more trouble than necessary.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would say you can make a real case (and I'm pretty sure its been made before) that the Cold War was WWIII, and the War on Terror and its various related conflicts are WWIV.

However, WWIII is generally used to denote a large conventional/nuclear military conflict between major powers, in the vein of the first and second world wars. In that sense, obviously, it has never occurred.

You could argue the Cold War was WWIII in the sense you described, but rather being fought via proxy, examples being Vietnam, the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and Korea.

Not really, precisely because the major powers never really came into direct conflict with one another on a large scale (well, unless you count China fighting in the Korean War, and I don't know if China back then counted as a major power).

[Internationalist Bastard]

You could argue the Cold War was WWIII in the sense you described, but rather being fought via proxy, examples being Vietnam, the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and Korea.

Not really, precisely because the major powers never really came into direct conflict with one another on a large scale (well, unless you count China fighting in the Korean War, and I don't know if China back then counted as a major power).

I mean, they got on the SC permantly by then so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Background_and_creation

[Minivanistan]

Not really, precisely because the major powers never really came into direct conflict with one another on a large scale (well, unless you count China fighting in the Korean War, and I don't know if China back then counted as a major power).

There is the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict which was not a major action, but the Zhenbao Island incident nearly brought China and Russia into full scale war.
Probably would not escalate into world war, but would have been interesting.