"Will there ever be another World War?" Topic

Will there ever be another world war in the future on the scope and scale of the two big wars of the 20th Century?

(a) Yes. It will happen again because ________ (state your reason or reasons).
(b) No. It will never happen again because __________ (state your reason or reasons).

Too fraught with politics in today's climate.

My response is, I fear that it will and pray that it will not.

I also will decline to discuss the issue here. When I'm doghoused, I mean for it to be over an issue related to miniature warfare. I can do politics anywhere.

Hard to have a world war when the major powers are armed with nukes.

No, regional conflicts only. Three reasons:
1) Armed forces are smaller than in previous wars and the lead time to build modern aircraft and ships is far longer, so if a carrier and two frigates is sunk in a battle, their replacements aren't coming back for 2-3 years at the minimum.
2) The expenditure rate of modern munitions will reduce most countries to using iron bombs within a month of a war breaking out.
3) No power projection capabilities and transport shortages. Unlike in WW2 where large forces could be moved around the globe, that is no longer possible for any country outside of the U.S.

"Will there ever be another World War?"

"ever" is a very long time. No one can predict the future. The concern for the near future is what if North Korea is capable of hitting the USA with a nuke. Another concern is what if Iran attains nukes. And most troubling what if a terrorist group attains a nuke and the means to use it. A single shot from a radical Serb assassinating an Austrian Duke in Albania set off WWI. A single nuke would be a much bigger catalyst; who knows what reactions it could trigger.

As noted, ever is a long time -but I sure don't see one soon

I do, however, see lots of potential for regional conflicts

Aegiscg47 has a great point that writers of modern combat fiction seem to miss – as an example, the RAF has about 870 aircraft – total – and the Royal Navy has 71 commissioned vessels, of which exactly 20 are major surface combatants while the British Army has 168 Challengers and 138 Scimitars operational (although there are more than 400 Challengers in storage) – so burning through vehicles at WWII rates would mean that after a battle or two conflict would slow down because no one would have anything left to fight with!

The expenditure rate of modern munitions will reduce most countries to using iron bombs within a month of a war breaking out.

Part of the premise for the storyline for Twilight 2000….

It will not happen because MAD is still viable.

It could happen: 2 non-nuclear powers have a go at it, say Columbia and Venezuela. One of: (US, Russia, China) sees an opportunity to gain access to Venezuela's oil, while another of (US, Russia China) sees an opportunity to gain access to Columbia's cocoa farms. Major powers then have a proxy war, but the rest of South America takes offense to them getting involved. Russia/China have long supply chains while the locals have an easier time of it. Europe/Middle East starts supplying munitions/fuel, etc. African nations take sides and start sending troops. The whole thing just becomes a mess.

It doesn't matter how it starts, nations could pile on because people are stupid.

Thank you, Mr. Piepenbrink. If I've EVER seen baiting, THIS is it. I come here for miniatures & such. I can't get away from "so called politics" from the instant I wake up. THIS is, or at least was one of my last refuges. You may say "Then why click on this thread?". Well, for that I can't give you a concise answer. Maybe it's because, in today's World, the current situation is SO clear to me, that I feel the need to know who & why is poking the bear. Maybe it's kinda the "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" maxium…

Its always a possibly, humans have had wars since their beginning.

+1 Rallynow

No … besides MAD … it just costs too much $$$.

DriveThruRPG has a bundle sale of all Twilight2000 books for like $40 USD or so.

Don't jinx it.

We have been in a world war since 1997 when Skynet became self aware. It won't end until 2029 when Reese travels back in time and changes the future.

It's only a matter of time.

The only good thing is that it will be VERY brief.

The battles that come after will have no relation to the war. They will just be clashes between bands of survivors and warlords, over whatever scraps are left.

Dan
PS. Here are some other ideas:
TMP link

Yes of course, the world is an unstable and ever more divided place.

Humans always delude themselves that the current situation will persist forever, remember what it was like pre 2008?

Again, probably no world war as we saw in WWI and WWII. But a lot of smaller conflicts. As we see today in many places like the Mid East, Africa and that money pit known as Afghanistan.

The more "evolved(?)" 1st World Nations, like, e.g. in Western and Eastern Europe. IMO realize, it is to no one's advantage or benefit to spend all that $$$$. with all those other "assets". I.e. "blood & treasure". Modern conventional warfare is not only very expensive in . But is very deadly/lethal to many living things as well as infrastructure. In the long run it's bad for "business" … Dead people and leveled cities can't contribute to … anything. E.g. Will places like Raqqa ever be back to "normal" ? Not anytime soon, IMO …

3d Worlders and/or religious fanatic types, etc., have less to lose, so to speak. And they can run insurgencies/jihads, etc. at a very cheap price. Again, in both blood & treasure. Certainly compared to the cost of a World War. Including most of Western and Eastern Europe plus Asia, i.e. most of the P5 – the US, Russia and China. None of those economies can really afford it, IMO … The sad reality today is. It is bad enough to lose people, but in 1st World nations it is as bad or worse to lose money …

It will happen. Because Humans are fallible and ruled by fear.

Agree with USAF pilot remarks.

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones!"
A. Einstein

The British Army couldn't keep up with small arms ammunition expenditure in Afghanistan. After a month there wouldn't even be iron bombs the west doesn't have the industrial structure any more for massed munitions production.