Nuclear warfare is often the focus of a World War III scenario.
World War III,[a] also known as theThird World War, is a hypothetical futureglobal conflict subsequent toWorld War I (1914–1918) andWorld War II (1939–1945). It is widely predicted that such a war would involve all of thegreat powers, like its two predecessors, and the use ofnuclear weapons or otherweapons of mass destruction, thereby surpassing all prior conflicts in scale, devastation, and loss of life.
Regionalproxy wars including theKorean War (1950–1953),Vietnam War (1955–1975), andSoviet–Afghan War (1979–1989), while significant, did not lead to a full-scale global conflict. A global conflict was planned for by military and civil personnel around the world, with scenarios ranging fromconventional warfare to limited or totalnuclear warfare. The certainty of escalation from one stage to the next was extensively debated. For example, theEisenhower administration promulgated a policy ofmassive retaliation with nuclear forces, to a minor conventional attack. After theCuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which brought the US and Soviet Union to the brink of war, the strategic doctrine ofmutually assured destruction, which held that a full-scale nuclear war would annihilate all parties, became widely accepted. At their1985 summit, US and Soviet leaders first jointly stated "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought". Advocates ofdeterrence theory hold that nuclear weapons prevent World War III–likegreat power conflict, while advocates ofnuclear disarmament hold that their risks far outweigh this.[1]
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, speculation about World War III shifted toward emerging threats, includingterrorism andcyberwarfare. Great-power competition was renewed between the United States,China, andRussia, sometimes termed aSecond Cold War. Various conflicts, most significantly theRusso-Ukrainian war (2022–present), theMiddle Eastern crisis (2023–present), and rising tensions over thestatus of Taiwan, have been perceived as flashpoints for a third world war.[2][3][4]
Time magazine was an early adopter, if not originator, of the term "World WarIII". The first usage appears in its 3 November 1941 issue (preceding the Japaneseattack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941) under its "National Affairs" section and entitled "World WarIII?" aboutNazi refugeeHermann Rauschning, who had just arrived in the United States.[5] In its 22 March 1943, issue under its "Foreign News" section,Time reused the same title "World WarIII?" about statements by then–US Vice PresidentHenry A. Wallace: "We shall decide sometime in 1943 or 1944... whether to plant the seeds of World War III."[6][7]Time continued to entitle with or mention in stories the term "World WarIII" for the rest of the decade and onwards: 1944,[8][9] 1945,[10][11] 1946 ("bacterial warfare"),[12] 1947,[13] and 1948.[14]Time persists in using this term, for example, in a 2015 book review entitled "This Is What World War III Will Look Like".[15]
Military plans
Military strategists have usedwar games to prepare for various war scenarios and to determine the most appropriate strategies. War games were utilized for World War I and World War II.[16]
Operation Dropshot was the 1950s United States contingency plan for a possiblenuclear and conventional war with theSoviet Union in the Western European and Asian theaters. Although the scenario made use of nuclear weapons, they were not expected to play a decisive role.
At the time, theUS nuclear arsenal was limited in size, based mostly in the United States, and depended onbombers for delivery. Dropshot included mission profiles that would have used 300nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union's industrial potential in a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
The scenario was devised before the development ofintercontinental ballistic missiles. It was also devised before US PresidentJohn F. Kennedy and hisSecretary of DefenseRobert McNamara changed the US Nuclear War plan from the 'city killing'countervalue strike plan to a "counterforce" plan (targeted more at military forces). Nuclear weapons at this time were not accurate enough to hit a naval base without destroying the city adjacent to it, so the aim of using them was to destroy the enemy's industrial capacity to cripple their war economy.
British-Irish cooperation
Ireland started planning for a possible nuclear war in the late 1940s. Co-operation between the United Kingdom and Ireland would be formed in the event of WWIII, where they would share weather data, control aids to navigation, and coordinate the Wartime Broadcasting Service that would occur after a nuclear attack.[19]Operation Sandstone in Ireland was a top-secret British-Irish military operation.[19] The armed forces from both states began a coastal survey of Britain and Ireland cooperating from 1948 to 1955. This was a request from the United States to identify suitable landing grounds for the US in the event of a successful Soviet invasion.[19][20] By 1953, the co-operation agreed upon sharing information on wartime weather and the evacuation of civilian refugees from Britain to Ireland.[19] Ireland's Operation Sandstone ended in 1966.[20]
Exercises Grand Slam and Longstep were naval exercises held in theMediterranean Sea during 1952 to practice dislodging an enemy occupying force and amphibious assault. It involved over 170 warships and 700 aircraft under the overall command of AdmiralRobert B. Carney. The overall exercise commander, Carney summarized the accomplishments of Exercise Grand Slam by stating: "We have demonstrated that the senior commanders of all four powers can successfully take charge of a mixed task force and handle it effectively as a working unit."[citation needed]
The Soviet Union called the exercises "war-like acts" by NATO, with particular reference to the participation ofNorway and Denmark and prepared for its military maneuvers in theSoviet Zone.[24][25]
Exercise Strikeback was a major NATO naval exercise held in 1957, simulating a response to an all-out Soviet attack on NATO. The exercise involved over 200 warships, 650 aircraft, and 75,000 personnel from theUnited States Navy, the United Kingdom'sRoyal Navy, theRoyal Canadian Navy, theFrench Navy, theRoyal Netherlands Navy, and theRoyal Norwegian Navy. As the largest peacetime naval operation up to that time, Exercise Strikeback was characterized by military analystHanson W. Baldwin ofThe New York Times as "constituting the strongest striking fleet assembled since World WarII".[26]
If activated, Operation Reforger would have largely consisted of convoys like this one fromOperation Earnest Will in 1987, although much larger. While troops could easily fly across the Atlantic, the heavy equipment and armor reinforcements would have to come by sea.
Exercise Reforger (return of forces to Germany) was an annual exercise conducted during the Cold War byNATO. While US troops could be easily flown across the Atlantic, the heavy equipment and armor reinforcements would have to come by sea and be delivered toPOMCUS (Pre-positioned Overseas Materiel Configured to Unit Sets) sites.[27] These exercises tested the United States and allied abilities to carry out transcontinental reinforcement.[27] Timely reinforcement was a critical part of the NATO reinforcement exercises. The United States needed to be able to send active-duty army divisions to Europe within ten days as part of a wartime NATO general deployment.[27] In addition to assessing the capabilities of the United States, Reforger also monitored the personnel, facilities, and equipment of the European countries playing a significant role in the reinforcement effort.[27] The exercise was intended to ensure that NATO could quickly deploy forces to West Germany in the event of a conflict with theWarsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO throughout the Cold War in conventional forces, and especially in tanks and armoured vehicles. Therefore, in the event of a Soviet invasion, in order not to resort totactical nuclear strikes, NATO forces defending against aWarsaw Pactarmored spearhead would have to be quickly resupplied and replaced.
Reforger was not merely a show of force. In the event of a conflict, it would be the actual plan to strengthen the NATO presence in Europe.[citation needed] In that instance, it would have been referred to as Operation Reforger. The political goals of Reforger were to promote extended deterrence and foster NATO cohesion.[27] Important components in Reforger included theMilitary Airlift Command, theMilitary Sealift Command, and theCivil Reserve Air Fleet.
A Warsaw Pact invasion would have come via three main paths through West Germany.
Seven Days to the River Rhine was a top-secret military simulation exercise developed in 1979 by the Warsaw Pact. It started with the assumption that NATO would launch a nuclear attack on theVistula river valley in a first-strike scenario, which would result in as many as two million Polish civilian casualties.[28] In response, a Soviet counter-strike would be carried out againstWest Germany,Belgium, theNetherlands andDenmark, with Warsaw Pact forces invading West Germany and aiming to stop at theRiver Rhine by the seventh day. Other USSR plans stopped only upon reaching theFrench border on day nine. Individual Warsaw Pact states were only assigned their subpart of the strategic picture; in this case, the Polish forces were only expected to go as far as Germany. The Seven Days to the Rhine plan envisioned that Poland and Germany would be largely destroyed by nuclear exchanges and that large numbers of troops would die ofradiation sickness. It was estimated that NATO would fire nuclear weapons behind the advancing Soviet lines to cut off their supply lines and thus blunt their advance. While this plan assumed that NATO would use nuclear weapons to push back any Warsaw Pact invasion, it did not include nuclear strikes on France or the United Kingdom. Newspapers speculated when this plan was declassified, that France and the UK were not to be hit to get them to withhold the use of their nuclear weapons.
U.S. presidentRonald Reagan and Soviet double agentOleg Gordievsky, who later told the West how close the Able Archer 83 exercise had brought the Soviets to ordering aFirst Strike.
Exercise Able Archer was an annual exercise by theU.S. European Command that practiced command and control procedures, with emphasis on the transition from solely conventional operations to chemical, nuclear, and conventional operations during a time of war.
The realistic nature of the 1983 exercise, coupled withdeteriorating relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and the anticipated arrival of strategicPershing II nuclear missiles in Europe, led some members of theSoviet Politburo and military to believe that Able Archer 83 was aruse of war, obscuring preparations for a genuine nuclear first strike.[29][30][31][32] In response, the Soviets readied their nuclear forces and placed air units inEast Germany andPoland on alert.[33][34]
This "1983 war scare" is considered by many historians to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since theCuban Missile Crisis of 1962.[35] The threat of nuclear war ended with the conclusion of the exercise on 11 November.[36][37]
The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by US PresidentRonald Reagan on 23 March 1983.[38] In the latter part ofhis presidency, numerous factors (which included watching the 1983 movieThe Day After and hearing through a Soviet defector thatAble Archer 83 almost triggered a Russian first strike) had turned Reagan against the concept of winnable nuclear war, and he began to see nuclear weapons as more of a "wild card" than a strategic deterrent. Although he later believed indisarmament treaties slowly blunting the danger of nuclear weaponry by reducing their number and alert status, he also believed a technological solution might allow incoming ICBMs to be shot down, thus making the US invulnerable to a first strike. However, the USSR saw the SDI concept as a major threat, since a unilateral deployment of the system would allow the US to launch a massive first strike on the Soviet Union without any fear of retaliation.
The SDI concept was to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclearballistic missiles. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine ofmutually assured destruction (MAD). The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within theUnited States Department of Defense to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative.
An example of nuclear artillery power test in the US
NATO operational plans for a Third World War have involved NATO allies who do not have their nuclear weapons, using nuclear weapons supplied by the United States as part of a general NATO war plan, under the direction of NATO'sSupreme Allied Commander.
Inpeacetime, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded byUS airmen though previously some artillery and missile systems were guarded by US Army soldiers; the codes required for detonating them are under American control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries' warplanes. The weapons are under custody and control ofUSAF Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases that work together with the host nation forces.[39]
With the initiation of theCold Wararms race in the 1950s, anapocalyptic war between the United States and the Soviet Union became a real possibility. During the Cold War era (1947–1991), several military events have been described as having come close to potentially triggering World WarIII. Even after the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, some incidents afterward have been described as close calls as well.
TheKorean War was a war between two coalitions fighting for control over theKorean Peninsula: a communist coalition includingNorth Korea, the People's Republic of China, and theSoviet Union, and a capitalist coalition includingSouth Korea, the United States and theUnited Nations Command. Many then believed that the conflict was likely to soon escalate into a full-scale war between the three countries, the U.S., the U.S.S.R., and China.CBS News war correspondentBill Downs wrote in 1951, "To my mind, the answer is: Yes, Korea is the beginning of World WarIII. The brilliantlandings at Inchon and the cooperative efforts of theAmerican armed forces with theUnited Nations Allies have won us a victory in Korea. But this is only the first battle in a major international struggle which now is engulfing the Far East and the entire world."[45] Downs afterwards repeated this belief onABC Evening News while reporting on theUSSPueblo incident in 1968.[46] Secretary of StateDean Acheson later acknowledged that theTruman administration was concerned about the escalation of the conflict and that GeneralDouglas MacArthur warned him that a U.S.-led intervention risked a Soviet response.[47]
TheBerlin Crisis of 1961 was a political-military confrontation between the armed forces of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. atCheckpoint Charlie with both several American and Soviet/East German tanks and troops at the stand-off at each other only 100 yards on either side of the checkpoint. The reason behind the confrontation was the occupational status of the German capital city,Berlin, and ofpost–World War II Germany. The Berlin Crisis started when the USSR launched an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of all armed forces from Berlin, including the Western armed forces inWest Berlin. The crisis culminated in the city's de facto partition with theEast German erection of theBerlin Wall. This stand-off ended peacefully on 28 October following a U.S.–Soviet understanding to withdraw tanks and reduce tensions.
A US NavyHSS-1 Seabat helicopter hovers over Soviet submarineB-59, forced to the surface by US Naval forces in the Caribbean near Cuba. B-59 had a nuclear torpedo on board, and three officer keys were required to use it. Only one dissent prevented the submarine from attacking the US fleet nearby, a spark that could have led to a Third World War (28–29 October 1962).
TheCuban Missile Crisis, a confrontation on the stationing of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba in response to the failedBay of Pigs Invasion, is considered as having been the closest to a nuclear exchange, which could have precipitated a third World War.[48] The crisis peaked on 27 October, with three separate major incidents occurring on the same day:
The most critical incident occurred when a Soviet submarine nearly launched anuclear-tipped torpedo in response to having been targeted by American navaldepth charges in international waters, with the Soviet nuclear launch response only having been prevented bySoviet Navy executive officerVasily Arkhipov.
The near interception of another U-2 that had strayed into Soviet airspace overSiberia, which airspace violation nearly caused the Soviets to believe that this might be the vanguard of a US aerial bombardment.
Despite what many believe to be the closest the world has come to a nuclear conflict, throughout the entire standoff, theDoomsday Clock, which is run by theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists to estimate how close the end of the world, or doomsday, is, with midnight being the apocalypse, stayed at a relatively stable seven minutes to midnight. This has been explained as being due to the brevity of the crisis since the clock monitored more long-term factors such as the leadership of countries, conflicts, wars, and political upheavals, as well as societies' reactions to said factors.
TheBulletin of the Atomic Scientists now credits the political developments resulting from the Cuban Missile Crisis with having enhanced global stability. TheBulletin posits that future crises and occasions that might otherwise escalate, were rendered more stable due to two major factors:
AWashington to Moscow hotline resulted from the communication trouble between theWhite House and theKremlin during the crisis. This gave the leaders of the two largest nuclear powers the ability to contact each other in real-time, vital when seconds could potentially prevent a nuclear exchange.
The second factor was caused in part due to the worldwide reaction to how close the US and USSR had come to the brink of World WarIII during the standoff. As the public began to more closely monitor topics involving nuclear weapons, and therefore to rally support for the cause of non-proliferation, the1963 test ban treaty was signed. To date this treaty has been signed by 126 total nations, with the most notable exceptions beingFrance andChina. Both of these countries were still in the relative beginning stages of their nuclear programs at the time of the original treaty signing, and both sought nuclear capabilities independent of their allies. This Test Ban Treaty prevented the testing of nuclear ordnance that detonated in theatmosphere, limitingnuclear weapons testing to below ground and underwater, decreasingfallout and effects on the environment, and subsequently caused the Doomsday Clock to decrease by five minutes, to arrive at a total of twelve minutes to midnight.[49] Up until this point, over 1000 nuclear bombs had been detonated, and concerns over both long and short term effects to the planet became increasingly more worrisome to scientists.
Sino-Soviet border conflicts: 2 March – 11 September 1969
The conflict resulted in a ceasefire, with a return to the status quo. Critics point out that the Chinese attack on Zhenbao was to deter any potential future Soviet invasions; that by killing some Soviets, China demonstrated that it could not be 'bullied'; and that Mao wanted to teach them 'a bitter lesson'.
TheYom Kippur War, also known as the Ramadan War, or October War, began with a surprise invasion ofIsraeli-occupied territories by a coalition of Arab states, aided by the Soviet Union. Israel successfully counterattacked with the aid of the US. Tensions grew between the two superpowers: American and Soviet naval forces came close to firing upon each other in theMediterranean Sea. AdmiralDaniel J. Murphy of theUS Sixth Fleet reckoned the chances of the Soviet squadron attempting a first strike against his fleet at 40 percent. The Pentagon moved Defcon status from 4to3.[50] The superpowers had been pushed to the brink of war, but tensions eased with the ceasefire brought in underUNSC 339.[51][52]
NORAD computer error: 9 November 1979
The United States made emergency retaliation preparations afterNORAD systems indicated that a full-scale Soviet attack had been launched.[53] No attempt was made to use theMoscow–Washington hotline to clarify the situation with the USSR and it was not until early-warning radar systems confirmed no such launch had taken place that NORAD realized that a computer system test had caused the display errors. A senator inside the NORAD facility at the time described an atmosphere of absolute panic. AGAO investigation led to the construction of an off-site test facility to prevent similar mistakes.[54]
DuringAble Archer 83, a ten-dayNATO exercise simulating a period ofconflict escalation that culminated in aDEFCON 1 nuclear strike, some members of theSovietPolitburo andarmed forces treated the events as aruse of war concealing a genuine first strike. In response, the military prepared for a coordinated counter-attack by readying nuclear forces and placing air units stationed in theWarsaw Pact states ofEast Germany andPoland under high alert. However, the state of Soviet preparation for retaliation ceased upon completion of the Able Archer exercises.[29]
TheNorwegian rocket incident was the first World WarIII close call to occur after the Cold War had ended. This incident occurred when Russia'sOlenegorskearly warning station accidentally mistook the radar signature from aBlack Brant XIIresearch rocket (being jointly launched by Norwegian and US scientists fromAndøya Rocket Range), as appearing to be the radar signature of the launch of aTridentSLBM missile. In response, Russian PresidentBoris Yeltsin was summoned and theChegetnuclear briefcase was activated for the first and only time. However, the high command was soon able to determine that the rocket was not entering Russian airspace, and promptly aborted plans for combat readiness and retaliation. It was retrospectively determined that, while the rocket scientists had informed thirty states including Russia about the test launch, the information had not reached Russian radar technicians.[57][58]
On 12 June 1999, the day following the end of theKosovo War, some 250 Russian peacekeepers occupied thePristina International Airport ahead of the arrival ofNATO troops and were to secure the arrival of reinforcements by air. American NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe GeneralWesley Clark ordered the use of force against the Russians.[59]Mike Jackson, aBritish Army general who contacted the Russians during the incident, refused to enforce Clark's orders, famously telling him "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you".[60] CaptainJames Blunt, the lead officer at the front of the NATO column in the direct armed stand-off against the Russians, received the "Destroy!" orders from Clark over the radio, but he followed Jackson's orders to encircle the airfield instead and later said in an interview that even without Jackson's intervention he would have refused to follow Clark's order.[61]
On 24 November 2015, at the border between Turkey and Syria, theTurkish Air Force shot down a RussianSukhoi attack aircraft. The Turks claimed that the aircraft violated Turkishairspace, a claim denied by the Russians; the plane was in the region as part of theRussian military intervention in the Syrian civil war, in which Turkey supported opposing forces. The incident was the first destruction of aRussian orSoviet Air Forces warplane by aNATO member state since theattack on the Sui-ho Dam during the Korean War in 1953.[62][63] The incident led to numerous media and individuals commenting that it could have sparked and escalated into a world war.[64][65][66]
On 13 June 2025, Israel's military launched a series of missile strikes against Iran targeting its nuclear and military infrastructure. This marked a major escalation in theMiddle Eastern crisis and in what had been a decades-longproxy conflict between Iran and Israel. The strikes, which included the assassination of top Iranian military figures and attacks on critical nuclear facilities likeNatanz andIsfahan, came shortly after theIAEA declared Iran non-compliant with nuclear obligations,[67] and U.S. negotiations with Iran collapsed.
Iran retaliated with a barrage of missiles and drones, striking Israeli cities and military targets. The conflict had drawn limited involvement from the U.S., though Trump toyed with the idea of joining the conflict against Iran, saying "I may do it, I may not do it," and "Nobody knows what I'm going to do." This followed earlier comments byIranian defense ministerAziz Nasirzadeh on 10 June warnied that if negotiations with the U.S. collapsed and conflict erupted, Iran would target American bases in the region. He stated that all U.S. bases in nearby countries were within reach.[68] Trump had also repeatedly threatened Iran with military action if no deal was reached.[68] U.S. defense secretaryPete Hegseth announced that the U.S. military was getting ready in case the talks fail.[69] On 22 June, Trump announced that the US hadbombed three Iranian nuclear facilities.[70] On 23 June 2025, Iranlaunched missiles targetinga U.S. base in Qatar and military facilities in Iraq, according to officials. In response, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait closed their airspace. Qatar reported intercepting a rocket attack, with no casualties reported.[71]
The war follows escalating regional tensions after theOctober 7 attacks and the ensuingGaza war, with Israel increasingly targeting Iranian proxies such asHezbollah andHamas. Previoustit-for-tat strikes in 2024 foreshadowed this broader confrontation. Some suggested that the war is a precursor to a third world war,[72] with Putin echoing this sentiment on 20 June.[73] A ceasefire has been in place since 24 June.[74]
Current potential flashpoints
Russian invasion of Ukraine: 24 February 2022 – present
On 24 February 2022, Russia's presidentVladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion ofUkraine, marking a major escalation of theRusso-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014. The Russian invasion started the largest war in Europe since World War II.[75] Various experts, analysts, and others have described the invasion as heightening the risk of a third world war,[76][77][78][79] while others have suggested the contrary.[80][81][82]
Because of the invasion, at least fifty countries have provided some kind ofmilitary aid to Ukraine, including allmember states of NATO.[83][84] The Russian government has threatened retaliation against countries supplying military aid to Ukraine, and said it meant NATO was waging a "proxy war" against Russia.[85] Senior Russian politicians—including president Putin, foreign ministerSergey Lavrov, andUnited Russia party leaderDmitry Medvedev—have made statements widely seen asnuclear blackmail. They have implied that Russia may use nuclear weapons if certain"red lines" are crossed, such as helping Ukraine to strike back at mainland Russia.[86][87][88] Officials from the United States and NATO, including US presidentJoe Biden and NATO secretary generalJens Stoltenberg, have stressed the need to prevent the conflict escalating into a third world war, while also affirming that NATO members will defend each other.[89][90][91][92] The US warned Russia's government that the country would suffer "catastrophic" consequences if it used nuclear weapons against Ukraine.[93][94] FormerCIA Director,David Petraeus, said NATO would likely respond by destroying all Russian forces in Ukraine.[95] Several incidents have risked a direct conflict between Russia and NATO, such asRussian breaches of NATO airspace anda missile explosion in Poland.[96][97][98] In early 2023, Putin suspended Russia's participation inNew START, the last remaining nuclear treaty between Russia and the US,[99] and announced plans to install Russian tactical nuclear weapons inBelarus.[100]
Russian threats have been described as a way to intimidate Western countries, to deter them from helping Ukraine.[101] Fearing escalation, NATO countries held back from sending advanced weapons to Ukraine, and forbade Ukraine to fire NATO weapons into Russia.[102] Since July 2024, they have allowed Ukraine to use NATO weapons to strike military targets in Russia, but only near the border in self-defense.[103] Russia's government has not followed through on its threats against NATO and has not used nuclear weapons, despite most of its "red lines" being crossed.[104]
Iran andNorth Korea have provided weapons and ammunition to Russia during the invasion, including ballistic missiles.[105] In 2024, Russia and North Korea signed adefense pact, and that November, Russia further escalated the conflict by deploying 10,000 North Korean troops on its border to fight Ukraine.[106] In November 2024, Putin said that the war "has acquired elements of a global character", adding that Russia was entitled to strike military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against mainland Russia.[107]
In February 2025, U.S. PresidentDonald Trump, his Vice PresidentJD Vance, and Ukrainian PresidentVolodymyr Zelenskyymet to discuss signing an agreement for U.S. access to Ukrainian oil, gas, andrare-earth minerals. During the meeting, an argument erupted, with President Trump at one point chiding Zelenskyy for not being grateful enough for U.S. military and political support for Ukraine during the war, telling him he was "gambling with World War Three."[108] The agreements were not signed, and Trump later said that Zelenskyy "is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations."[109]
On June 25, Russian-Chechen GeneralApti Alaudinov, head of theAkhmat special forces, stated that World War III is already underway and the fact that nuclear strikes have not been carried out does not mean that it has not begun.[110][111]
On September 9, nineteen military drones entered Polish airspace after being launched from the territories of Russia and Belarus.[112] Eight of them were shot down by the Polish Air Force, and NATOQuick Reaction Alert aircraftscrambled.[113] Prime MinisterDonald Tusk stated that a large military conflict was closer than at any time since WWII.[114]
Largenuclear weapons stockpile with global range (dark blue), smaller stockpile with global range (medium blue), smaller stockpile with regional range (light blue)
As Soviet-American relations grew tense in the post–World WarII period, the fear that the tension could escalate into World WarIII was ever-present. AGallup poll in December 1950 found that more than half of Americans considered World WarIII to have already started.[115]
Still, the majority of historians would seem to hold that World WarIII would necessarily have to be a worldwide "war in which large forces from many countries fought"[118] and a war that "involves most of the principal nations of the world".[119] The Cold War received its name from the lack of action taken from both sides. The lack of action was out of fear that a nuclear war would possibly destroy humanity.[120] In his bookSecret Weapons of the Cold War, Bill Yenne concludes that the militarysuperpower standoff from the 1940s through to 1991 was not World WarIII.[121]
The "war on terror" that began with theSeptember 11 attacks has been claimed by some to be World War III[122] or sometimes World War IV[116][123] (assuming the Cold War was World War III). Others have disparaged such claims as "distortingAmerican history". While there is general agreement amongst historians regarding the definitions and extent of the first two world wars, namely due to the unmistakable global scale of aggression and self-destruction of these two wars, a few have claimed that a "World War" might now no longer require such worldwide and large-scale aggression and carnage. Still, such claims of a new "lower threshold of aggression", that might now be sufficient to qualify a war as a "World War" have not gained such widespread acceptance and support as the definitions of the first two world wars have received amongst historians.[124]
In hisState of the Union Address on 12 January 2016, US PresidentBarack Obama warned that news reports granting ISIL the supposed ability to foment a third World War might be excessive and irresponsible, stating that "as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World WarIII just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence."[127]
Multiple small wars as a "third war"
In multiple recorded interviews under somewhat casual circumstances, comparing the conflagrations of World WarI andII to the ongoing lower-intensity wars of the 21st century,Pope Francis has said, "The world is at war because it has lost the peace", and "perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal".[128][129]
Hypothetical scenarios
In 1949, after the unleashing of nuclear weaponry at the end of World War II, physicistAlbert Einstein suggested that any outcome of a possible World War III would be so catastrophic uponhuman civilization so as to revert mankind to theStone Age. When asked by journalist Alfred Werner what types of weapons Einstein believed World WarIII might be fought with, Einstein warned, "I know not with what weapons World WarIII will be fought, but World WarIV will be fought with sticks and stones".[130][131]
As for theextermination of the human race as aconsequence of atomic war,Leslie A. White challenged Einstein, "this too may be admitted as possibility, and all we can say is that if it is to come, it will come. Extravagant expressions of horror will not alter the course of events."[132]Crane Brinton also doubted the psychological pacification of Einstein: "Teachers, preachers, educators, even politicians are telling the growing generation that there must be no war and, therefore, there will be no war. I have doubts as to whether this is wise teaching..." In spite of the atomic bomb, there will be another general war and humanity will survive it, according to Brinton.[133]James Burnham of theOffice of Strategic Services (the precursor to theCIA), also believed in survival: The uniqueness of the atomic weapons is commonly found in that they can totally annihilate human life, including through climatic and geological chain reaction, but such is not the case. The great principles of military strategy stand unaltered. An atomic war will look different from older wars but it will be decided by the same combination of resources, morale and strategy.[134]
According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journalNature Food in August 2022, a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, releasing over 150 Tg of stratospheric soot, could indirectly kill more than five billion people bystarvation during anuclear winter. More than two billion people could die of starvation from a smaller-scale (5–47 Tg) nuclear war between India and Pakistan.[137][138] In the event of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, 99% of the population in the belligerent countries, as well as Europe and China, would die.[139]
Some scenarios involve risks due to upcoming changes from the known status quo. In the 1980s theStrategic Defense Initiative made an effort at nullifying the USSR's nuclear arsenal; some analysts believe the initiative was "destabilizing".[140][141] In his bookDestined for War,Graham Allison views the global rivalry between the established power, the US, and the rising power, China, as an example of theThucydides Trap. Allison states that historically, "12 of 16 past cases where a rising power has confronted a ruling power" have led to fighting.[142] In 2020 and 2023, theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced its Doomsday Clock, citing among other factors a predicted destabilizing effect from upcominghypersonic weapons.[143]
Emerging technologies, such asartificial intelligence, could hypothetically generate risk in the decades ahead. A 2018RAND Corporation report has argued that AI and associated information technology "will have a large effect on nuclear-security issues in the next quarter century". A hypothetical future AI could provide a destabilizing ability to track "second-launch" launchers. Incorporating AI into decision support systems used to decide whether to launch, could also generate new risks, including the risk of anadversarial exploitation of such an AI's algorithms by a third party to trigger a launch recommendation.[144][145] A perception that some sort of emerging technology would lead to "world domination" might also be destabilizing, for example by leading to fear of a pre-emptive strike.[146]
Cyberwarfare is the exploitation of technology by a nation-state or international organization to attack and destroy the opposing nation's information networks and computers. The damage can be caused by computer viruses ordenial-of-service attacks (DoS).Cyberattacks are becoming increasingly common, threatening cybersecurity and making it a global priority.[147][148] There has been a proliferation of state-sponsored attacks. The trends of these attacks suggest the potential of a cyber World War III.[148] The world's leading militaries are developing cyber strategies, including ways to alter the enemy's command and control systems, early warning systems, logistics, and transportation.[148] The2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has sparked concerns about a large-scale cyberattack, with Russia having previously launched cyberattacks to compromise organizations across Ukraine. Nearly 40 discrete attacks were launched by Russia which permanently destroyed files in hundreds of systems across dozens of organizations, with 40% aimed at critical infrastructure sectors in Ukraine.[149] Russia's use of cyberwarfare has turned the war into a large-scale "hybrid" war in Ukraine.[149]
^Caffrey, Matthew B. (2019).On wargaming: how wargames have shaped history and how they may shape the future. Naval War College. Press, Naval War College. Center for Naval Warfare Studies. Newport, Rhode Island: Naval War College Press.ISBN978-1-935352-65-5.OCLC1083699795.
^Downs, Bill (March 1951). "World War III in Asia?".See Magazine.
^Downs, Bill (25 January 1968)."The USS Pueblo incident".ABC Evening News. ABC.Archived from the original on 15 June 2014. Retrieved8 November 2013.
^Carson, Austin (31 December 2018),Secret Wars: Covert Conflict in International Politics, Princeton University Press, p. 152,doi:10.1515/9780691184241-006,ISBN978-0-691-18424-1, retrieved 16 February 2022.
^Shane, Scott."Cold War's Riskiest Moment". Baltimore Sun, 31 August 2003 (article reprinted as The Nuclear War That Almost Happened in 1983). Archived fromthe original on 19 August 2006.
^"Putin's threat rekindles Cold War fears of nuclear war".PBS.Archived from the original on 27 February 2022. Retrieved27 February 2022.As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today's Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. ... Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.
^Obama, Barak (13 January 2016)."2016 State of the Union Address".The White House. government of the United States of America.Archived from the original on 9 February 2016. Retrieved9 February 2016.
^Rosenbaum, Ron (2011).How the end begins: the road to a nuclear World War III (1st Simon & Schuster hardcover ed.). Simon & Schuster.ISBN978-1-4391-9007-4.
^Geist, Edward and Andrew J. Lohn, How Might Artificial Intelligence Affect the Risk of Nuclear War?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2018.[2]Archived 22 March 2020 at theWayback Machine.
Pamidi, G.G. (2012).Possibility of a Nuclear War in Asia: An Indian Perspective. New Delhi, India: United Service Institution of India – Vij Books India.ISBN978-93-81411-51-3.
%2c_USS_William_H._Standley_(CG-32)_and_USS_Guadalcanal_(LPH-7)_escort_tanker_Gas_King_in_the_Persian_Gullf_on_21_October_1987_(6432283).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
