World War III Prediction Thread

[Infected Mushroom]

Simple enough.

This is a thread to predict:

1. Will there be a World War III?
2. ... WHEN?

You can also speculate on what the war will be about and who the belligerents will be but I think that's a little difficult and too specific (so its not required, even though you should give an overall justification/explanation for your predictions).

There are many schools of thoughts on this. Some say there will be no world war coming (war is obsolete, at least war between major powers). Still, others say it is inevitable. I have heard the expression, "the war will come like a thief in the night, you will never see it coming... it will come when you least expect it."

There shall be a poll on this. Let the discussions begin. The two discussion points are above.

Unfortunately, I believe that World War III will erupt in May 2019. Given the increased hostility between the two Chinas, the belligerence of the Trump administration, and increasing tensions in the Middle East with increasing Russian militarisation... its coming. And its going to be MUCH sooner than we're comfortable with.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

I'm not too worried. I doubt that the world powers will openly come to blows at great risk of nuclear destruction. We've seen a return to a sort of Cold War-lite, in which the US squares off with Russia and China.

[Four Truths]

In roughly 470,000 years or so when Krishna incarnates as Sri Kalki and lops the heads off the demons. That will be the Third World War.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

The world being as integrated as it is, will not try doing something that stupid. The current trade war is putting an enormous burden on China and if their economy are to collapse, there will be a serious threat of revolution or somekind - imagine what a WWIII will bring. I think wars are changing, with inter-state wars decreasing and resistances/civil wars increasing.

The only threat that can spark WWIII that I can think of are accidents regarding nukes, or AI conspiracy to end humanity. However, a "limited war" might actually be possible, especially cyberwarfare.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

At this point, I am more concerned about the world's current superpower (the United States of America) collapsing on itself than nuclear war.

[Page]

A great cataclysm is inevitably coming in some form. It might be a world war, economic collapse (due to resource shortages), or a global pandemic, or a combination of any or all of the above, but it's coming. The probability seems pretty damn low that we've already seen the worst humanity can be.

[Shofercia]

There was no World War between 1815 and 1914. If humanity can do it without nukes for a century, humanity can do it with nukes for two centuries or more!

[Kowani]

There was no World War between 1815 and 1914. If humanity can do it without nukes for a century, humanity can do it with nukes for two centuries or more!

I mean, the 7 years war was arguably a World War, so take that however you like...

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I think it started with the War on Terror.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

There was no World War between 1815 and 1914. If humanity can do it without nukes for a century, humanity can do it with nukes for two centuries or more!

I mean, the 7 years war was arguably a World War, so take that however you like...

1756 – 1763

[Frievolk]

Technically speaking, we've had a lot of "third" world wars since 1945. At least 2, to say the least (and one is still ongoing, kinda). Seriously speaking though, a major global military conflict is coming and it is going to happen soon (up to 5 years from now, though it might just be tomorrow too). Whether it will be a catastrophic, world-ending apocalypse is a different matter however. Assuming China and Russia, as well as the US Military Administration, are rational actors, it won't end into a nuclear conflict. Though that won't make it much better either.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Technically speaking, we've had a lot of "third" world wars since 1945. At least 2, to say the least (and one is still ongoing, kinda). Seriously speaking though, a major global military conflict is coming and it is going to happen soon (up to 5 years from now, though it might just be tomorrow too). Whether it will be a catastrophic, world-ending apocalypse is a different matter however. Assuming China and Russia, as well as the US Military Administration, are rational actors, it won't end into a nuclear conflict. Though that won't make it much better either.

I'd be interested in your rationale for predicting such a devastating conflict, specifically evidence and such like.

[Frievolk]

Technically speaking, we've had a lot of "third" world wars since 1945. At least 2, to say the least (and one is still ongoing, kinda). Seriously speaking though, a major global military conflict is coming and it is going to happen soon (up to 5 years from now, though it might just be tomorrow too). Whether it will be a catastrophic, world-ending apocalypse is a different matter however. Assuming China and Russia, as well as the US Military Administration, are rational actors, it won't end into a nuclear conflict. Though that won't make it much better either.

I'd be interested in your rationale for predicting such a devastating conflict, specifically evidence and such like.

The rise of Nationalism (And with it, irredentism and whatnot) all over Europe and the rest of the World, increasing tension between the three Superpowers, an increase in militaryism (also, all over the world). It's sad but we might need to take into account that the sentiments that got us to collectively agree to "let's keep the wars in remote places nobody cares about" (which is the centerpiece of both US and USSR doctrines for military) have almost completely vanished as the last generation to fight in the second world war leaves us. A global conflict is coming. Whether it'll be of an unprecedented level, I am not sure, whether it'll be nuclear -I sure hope not-, but it is almost indubitably on the way.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'd be interested in your rationale for predicting such a devastating conflict, specifically evidence and such like.

The rise of Nationalism (And with it, irredentism and whatnot) all over Europe and the rest of the World, increasing tension between the three Superpowers, an increase in militaryism (also, all over the world). It's sad but we might need to take into account that the sentiments that got us to collectively agree to "let's keep the wars in remote places nobody cares about" (which is the centerpiece of both US and USSR doctrines for military) have almost completely vanished as the last generation to fight in the second world war leaves us. A global conflict is coming. Whether it'll be of an unprecedented level, I am not sure, whether it'll be nuclear -I sure hope not-, but it is almost indubitably on the way.

I know for a fact that the US is currently in an increasingly growing political crisis, so I guess we'll have to see.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

The rise of Nationalism (And with it, irredentism and whatnot) all over Europe and the rest of the World, increasing tension between the three Superpowers, an increase in militaryism (also, all over the world). It's sad but we might need to take into account that the sentiments that got us to collectively agree to "let's keep the wars in remote places nobody cares about" (which is the centerpiece of both US and USSR doctrines for military) have almost completely vanished as the last generation to fight in the second world war leaves us. A global conflict is coming. Whether it'll be of an unprecedented level, I am not sure, whether it'll be nuclear -I sure hope not-, but it is almost indubitably on the way.

Saying something doesn't make it so, and from what you've said I remain unconvinced. The geopolitical situation is nowhere near the dangerously high tensions within Cold War engagements like the Berlin Blockade, Cuba and the Invasion of Afghanistan. The response to Russia's intervention in Donbass shows this particularly well, considering that it was very tame and controlled. If war does increase, then it'll occur through proxy conflicts not outright war between Russia and NATO.

[New Totzka]

The big difference between now and the circumstances in the 1910s and 1930s is that since the proliferation of nuclear weapons no major power wants to have a war, therefore, despite tensions between the US, China and Russia, their governments will try to deescalate any crisis that could lead to the WWIII. For a world war to start a nation's government must be convinced in its ability to win the conflict and remain in power and until a nation gains or believes it has gained a significant advantage in warfare that's not going to happen.

[-Ocelot-]

Never because of proxy wars, corporate interests and nuclear weapons. The concept of a world war belongs in the previous millennium.

[New haven america]

Never because of proxy wars, corporate interests and nuclear weapons. The concept of a world war belongs in the previous millennium.

Then what am I supposed to do with my nuclear apocolypse fantasy?

[The New California Republic]

Having been around in the 80s, it puts the stuff nowadays into perspective.

[-Ocelot-]

Never because of proxy wars, corporate interests and nuclear weapons. The concept of a world war belongs in the previous millennium.

Then what am I supposed to do with my nuclear apocolypse fantasy?

Play it on PC. With mods.

[Page]

Never because of proxy wars, corporate interests and nuclear weapons. The concept of a world war belongs in the previous millennium.

While war can greatly harm economies and trade, I think it's naive to think that world war would never be a corporate interest. Especially considering that some corporations manufacture weapons or other equipment the government would require. Or imagine how much a private prison corporation would love to get a contract to run a thousand POW camps. Plus, there are lots of lucrative opportunities to rebuild in the countries that eventually lose.

[The Blaatschapen]

Never because of proxy wars, corporate interests and nuclear weapons. The concept of a world war belongs in the previous millennium.

Then what am I supposed to do with my nuclear apocolypse fantasy?

Polish the miniature missiles you have



....


and act it out on a table with a big map of the world

[The Archregimancy]

Fun facts...

In both WWI and WWII, the British Red Cross and the [UK] Order of Saint John formed a 'Joint War Committee' to coordinate their civilian and military support services at home and abroad. The last functions of the committee were finally fully brought to a close in the 1990s. However, to this day there's a designated staff member at the British Red Cross whose secondary role, just in case, is to restart the Joint War Committee should WWIII break out.

Also, the museum and archive collections store in the basement of the British Red Cross's UK office in central London would make a brilliant last-ditch fallout shelter, not least because of its collection of conflict-related survival rations.

So I don't know about the rest of you, but some of us are prepared.

[The New California Republic]

there's a designated staff member at the British Red Cross whose secondary role, just in case, is to restart the Joint War Committee should WWIII break out.

I'd have two, to ensure CoRC (Continuity of Red Cross ).

[Infected Mushroom]

Hypothetically, how should one prepare for World War III?

I imagine having a private nuclear bunker built in a likely neutral country would be useful?

Maybe have one of those hideouts like in the Cloverfield bunker?