Is World War III inevitable?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Subject classification: this is a political resource.

As of July 27, 2024, there are many things going on in the world, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israel–Hamas war, which has a significant impact on international relations and tensions in the world, and keeps the world on edge. The China–Taiwan relations, like the 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan and the 2023 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan also contributes to this. Additionally, countries like China, Iran and North Korea potentially pose a threat to the Western world. The question is whether a Third World War is imminent. Can we prevent this war forever, or will it eventually break out? Is a Third World War inevitable?

Sooner or later, World War III will start

Pro

• Pro Ingo Piepers predicted a fifth major system crisis that would start around 2020 and would end in 2036. His analysis, based on historical patterns and mathematical models, identifies recurring cycles leading to major conflicts including the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815), World War I (1914–1918), and World War II (1939–1945). He said that he could be off by 2 years, but it might also be 4 to 6 years.
  • Objection This timescale seems entirely arbitrary.
  • Objection These wars are fought over a multitude of different causes, and there's no clear timeline here.
  • Objection Why could he also be off by four or six years? He never said that.
    • Objection That's correct, but an analysis predicting the future can never be entirely precise. Perhaps he made an error and miscalculated?
      • Objection That's a good point, but I think this only proves to discredit the model. We can't precisely predict the future of conflict, and there's no universal model for it, either.
  • Objection An understanding of the past does not automatically lead to the ability to predict future wars because they do not exhibit linear behavior.
    • Objection This is correct, however we can understand and recognize catalysts for wars that may be repeated in a similar way, e.g. an economic crash. Although you are correct, they do not exhibit linear behaviour.
  • Objection Humans possess the ability to learn from past wars and adapt to unforeseen developments in social behavior.
  • Objection International tensions in the 21st century no longer need to be expressed in the military field.
• Pro Any war that involves major powers in our future would be called World War III, with the passage of time. Even with our extensive peace-making values in modern day, chaos is historically inevitable--every great nation that swore that they would exist forever has fallen. That is how we exist.
  • Objection If just the two or so parties participate in the conflict and the other ones remain fairly neutral, that wouldn't be a world war. This may also be a small possibility, especially further in the future.
  • Objection There could be some robust method or system that sufficiently inhibits or prevents major power to have a major military conflict.

Con

• Con Everyone knows that World War III would mean the end of the world because of nuclear weapons. No one wants another world war. It is in no one's interest.
  • Objection MAD doesn't constitute preventing conflict. It means that many of the possible causes of WWIII would be caused by proxy, be that supplying a nation with weapons to fight another, or just recognising a nation's sovereignty.
  • Objection There are likely leaders from dictatorial regimes who believe they are divine and think: "I am going to die anyway, so what does it matter if everyone else dies too?" And then they might impulsively press the nuclear button, starting a nuclear war.
• Con The West, with the United States of America, is much stronger than other countries, such as China, and other countries are well aware of this. No country wants a war with the United States because they know they will lose.
  • Objection The West is not a country, and if you refer to it as a single body, you should refer to the East as well.
  • Objection Any country with nukes could do at least some damage to the US, and China especially would economically punish the world if it was attacked by the US. It could force other, Asian allied countries to support it for fear of losing trade revenue, such as North Korea. And Russia has enough post-cold war nukes that it can essentially send enough nukes to cause MAD, which isn't really a "win". Although yes, any country fighting the US would experience some kind of loss.
  • Objection There is not sufficient enough data to measure if a country does not want to go to war with the United States.
    • Objection It's true that there's no definitive source, but we can look at propaganda, diplomacy, and common sense as sources of whether a country is at peace with the US and wished to stay that way.
  • Objection The view that there are only two sides of the spectrum, the stronger "West" and the weaker "other countries" is flawed.
  • Objection The view that the West comprises of a singular entity, unable to separate and wholly in-line with ideals of the many is flawed.
• Con The socioeconomic, geopolitical, or generally international/global system could be developed further so as to sufficiently mitigate risks of such a war.
  • Objection There will always be division in the world around us. I feel that the current climate is nowhere near as stable as it could be. There are infinitely many possible risks of war, and any of those could escalate. "Could be" means that something would have to change, but this division will always be there.

See also

• Did the United States need to use atomic weapons to end World War II?