World War III (three)

Bonus points for also correctly guessing the month.

Who has the Infinity Gauntlet?

on www

Somewhere in the South China Sea in June 2025

While WW3 is not inevitable, it's worth remembering that some of the safeguards that were in place throughout the cold war are no longer there, making it arguably more likely now than it was then.

I suspect if it does happen, it will either be in the Middle East between a US backed Sunni Muslim proxy, and a Russian backed Shia Muslim proxy, over oil and strategic regional advantage, OR it will be in a former Soviet state, on the back of some western funded uprising to oust some Moscow friendly regime that was elected to power on the back of national discontent. If that state happens to be a NATO member (Latvia for example) then the outcome could be catastrophic.

Nature vs Humanity. Everywhere .

To quote Albert Einstein: "I don't know what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but I know what weapons WW4 will be fought with: Sticks and Stones".

Sean Trane wrote: Blacksword wrote: While WW3 is not inevitable, it's worth remembering that some of the safeguards that were in place throughout the cold war are no longer there, making it arguably more likely now than it was then. I suspect if it does happen, it will either be in the Middle East between a US backed Sunni Muslim proxy, and a Russian backed Shia Muslim proxy, over oil and strategic regional advantage, OR it will be in a former Soviet state, on the back of some western funded uprising to oust some Moscow friendly regime that was elected to power on the back of national discontent. If that state happens to be a NATO member (Latvia for example) then the outcome could be catastrophic.   Sensible words, Andy   I actually never believed that WW3 would be an East-West thing , even at the worst times of the cold war.   I always suspected that it would be either a North-South issue (immigration) or more precisely a christian-muslim thing, and it remains definitely a probability, today. But the spark could be even only between muslim realms (shia-suni, as you say), but also resource-driven (and that includes water as a prime resource, probably more than petrol - see below on that)...   But indeed it could be about Antarctica, which is really the key piece in the survival of the planet... If the Chinese (for ex) move in without the consent of others (UN for ex), how do you get them out of there, without starting a WW??     But another problem is the Chinese ambitions in its direct proximity, like Chaser is implying, whether over the Spratley Islands and/or Taiwan.     =========   One example in the middle-east could be that Turkey is building dams in their own pierce of Kurdistan (which is to be the water fortress in the whole area, like the Golan is for Israel)over the Euphrates and Tigris rivers and totally drying up Syria and Iraq. This would of course create maxi-tensions and get most outsiders to root for a bigger and independent Kurdistan that spreads over the four countries concerned (Turkey, Syria, Iraq & Iran).   One of the things that the arsehole Erdogan did to become really popular over the last decade is build enormous infrastructure towards its eastern front, creating roads for the locals (houra) but more specifically to move troops  and materials (kay) in there should there be a need in controlling things in a very tough terrain.

Yeah, Turkey is a concern. It's a NATO member that doesn't see eye to eye with the west in a number of areas, and also has a fractious relationship with Russia.

Going back to the cold war, Turkey was one of the barganing chips which resolved the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy struck a 'behind the scenes' deal with Kruschev not to place tactical nuclear weapons on Turkish soil (IIRC) Additionally, after the collapse of the USSR, Bush snr, promised Gorbachev that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO up to Russian borders. NATO broke their promise and now a number of former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states are NATO members. It's no wonder Russia is a little jumpy, and has responded with increased military spending on its strategic nuclear arsenal. This is where the cold war safe guards are gone. Neither side really buys into the MAD doctrine, which effectively made fighting a nuclear war intentionaly, arguably impossible. Now, both sides believe they could potentially win such a war with their superior nuclear techology, which means an intentional conflict is more likely, and an accidental conflict probably less likely. Either way, it's a dangerous situation.