Talk:World War III Article/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bias???

I believe that the following Excerpt:

In Domain, the 3rd book in The Rats series created by James Herbert, there is a nuclear war and London is destroyed, and very few survive underground in bunkers, sewers, and subways. After the war, man-eating rats attack the survivors. The prime minister and royal family are killed in their bunker. In the end, it says that the Middle East was on the brink of war and acting like if they were putting the world on ransom, and China started the war (this book was made only in 1984).

is biased as indicating the author believes that this will happen or is happening. I am still under the impression that the majority of the public believes neither World War III or World War IV have taken place yet. Crisco 1492 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Put the einstein quote in place of the nuke box. It would be so much cooler and symbolise the potential destructiveness of WW3.

The reference to World War III being the Cold War and World War IV (or three) being the GWOT needs cleaning up. While I am familiar with the usage and think it should be kept, that phrasing always struck me as... well, silly. Somebody needs to do a little research (first usage, dispersion, biggest users of the term) and put it in context. It's mainly a neocon thing as far as I can tell with little traction in the mainstream. Context would make it less jarring and it probably deserves its own subhead further down instead of in the header.

I recently read The City of Ember and The People of Sparks...so I expanded their entries with soem clarification. I'm not so sure about it though, as it isn't balanced with the other books.

Also, Ericd, I have heard of that guy who refused to fire. All I can say is that, in New Scientist magazine they had a soundbites quote "A guy named Arkhipov saved the world." I will look for that issue, and if I can find it I'll post who said it. Sir Elderberry 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't help but noticed that Planet of the Apes is missing in the artistic treatments, but I've been hesitant about putting it in, after all it is a spoiler per se. As is this comment btw :)

LNc

Who has info about the fact tahn during the Cuban missile crisis a Russian submarine captain refused to use his nuclears torpedos while the US bombed him with anti-submarine grenades ? It seems he was thte main who avoided WW III Ericd 13:54 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Here is a source : http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/seaservices/7_40/local_news/19689-1.html Ericd

The scenarios in World War III all have a "humans did it" presumption.

The scenarios here, by contrast, all have a "runaway technology" presumption.

The two ideas are quite different. Either of them could claim to be "the real world war three".

I favor using the WWIII and World War III titles for the article that refers specifically to human confrontation between nations, e.g. Cold War etc.. That makes sense as the roman numeral "III" was used throughout this literature.

I favor using the titles WW3, World War Three, Gigadeath war, and Gigadeath War to refer instead to this concept, under primary title Gigadeath War, since it's about deaths of billions, one way or another. This generalizes de Garis' concept of a war between Terran and Cosmist which also assumes that the primary conflict is about or via technology, not about ideology.

Comments?

Didn't see this before merge (proposed on wikipedia:duplicate articles... but I think a single article would make more sense... Martin
A single article would be MUCH too long (see Human extinction, Talk:End of civilization), the original poster is correct, the "runaway technology" sections belong in general eschatology - probably proposed article "End of the world (science)". The "runaway technology" scenario listing in at least three places, most complete is Human extinction. This article should concentrate on precisely what it is about (Gigadeath war - which doesn't necessarily mean the end of civilization or human extinction). Wragge 11:55, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

It's false that at the east side of the Iron Curtain there were no WW3-related literature. I'm not sure about Soviets, but there were many Polish post-apocalyptic (WW3-related) stories. There were also polish movies dealing with the world after WW3, e.g. Seksmisja or O-bi O-ba Koniec Cywilizacji (O-bi O-ba The End of Civilization). The former is a great comedy, but the latter is very serious. I have also seen several Soviet post-apocalyptic movies, but I don't remember title of any.

Grzes

Is there anyone interested in making the page post-World War III scenarios or is it to be considered to be a fantastic or imaginary scenario. Or article like this are not allowed in Wikipedia. I would like to know some people views on it. Roscoe x 08:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Original use of the term "WWIII" ?

Hello. World War III is an interesting article. I wonder how long it was after the end of WWII that the term "WWIII" started getting kicked around. It could even have been before 1945, since "WWII" was used before the end of the war if I'm not mistaken. -- I remember reading back issues of "Popular Science" from the late 40's as a kid (in the 70's) and the threat of nuclear annihilation was already a theme in popular culture. I'd like to see this article trace the history of the term "WWIII" itself but unfortunately I don't know enough to add something on that topic. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 00:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Robert F. Welch is said to have referred to John Birch as "the first casualty of World War III". I don't know if it's true, wish I had time to look it up... Ellsworth 23:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Overlong media section

Discuss: many of the examples in the film, television, literature etc sections do not actually deal with a Third World War. Specifically, 'Colossus: The Forbin Project', 'Dr Strangelove' and 'Blast from the Past' belong more in a page about the Cold War; whilst 'The Matrix' and 'The Terminator' involve an apocalypse, but not a 'war' as such. The entry for 'The City of Ember' needs work, but I am not familiar with the book; it links to a page which also needs work, a lot of work. - Ashley Pomeroy 14:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Failed Featured article nomination

I just wandered past and noticed that most of the objections from the failed featured article nomination (see [1]) haven't really been addressed. If you want to work on this article with a view to eventually renominate it, here's the discussion:

  • Object. This is a tremendously important concept in recent history, politics, and military technology, which is fast fading from common knowledge. (I recently went to a party where a 22 year old refused to believe that all us thirty somethings had once believed the world was in imminent danger of nuclear annihilation!)
    1. A featured article on World War III needs to give adequate coverage to the political, historical and technical/theoretical aspects. Aspects it should cover the SALT treaties, the START treaties, the ABM treaties, the peace movement, domestic fallout shelters in various countries, "Drop, Duck, and cover", the impact (if any) of SDI, actual capabilities, the nuclear winter controversy, and much, much more. As it stands, this article is completely dominated by references to popular culture, including even apocalyptic science fiction scenarios which are unrelated to World War III per se.
    2. Two of the "near miss" scenarios are somewhat exaggerated in comparison to their supporting references, and one isn't in the free references at all. It is also undesirable to use subscriber-only references. On the other hand, the Cuban missile crisis gets just one sentence.
    3. Some sections show the "editing by committee" problem, e.g. the bit on US highways as expedient runways first says there is no evidence for it, then states it as fact. Securiger 02:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's 50% list. →Raul654 05:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (this has nothing to do with my VfD of a similar entry a while ago). Too many lists! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many lists, needs to be fleshed out more. Good work so far :) Zerbey 16:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a great deal of thought, not only excellent writing, and references to 10x as many thinktanks/orgs, national bodies, philosophers, politicians, authors...

-- Securiger 14:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

World War IV

Both this page and World War IV claim that III/IV is the War on Terror. Should the two pages be combined into a "Future World Wars" page? Orange Goblin 11:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is a huge cultural and political history, dating back decades, on the concept of World War III, and only for the last couple of years "some people have used the term World War III to describe the War on Terror" (my emphasis). It has been used to mean other things but overwhelmingly refers to a hypothetical global nuclear war which never happened. This is a huge topic which, one hopes, will eventually expand this article into the hub of a series of long and detailed articles as discussed above. In contrast, World War IV is a relatively little known phrase that has only been used for a couple of years, and when used at all, refers exclusively to what is better known as the "War on Terrorism". -- Securiger 14:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

If WWIII was the cold war (now presumed over), and WWIV is the current "war on terror" then the only unambiguous name for a hypothetical gigadeath future war (using a roman numeral) would be WWV, and the post-WWV war in Einstein's famous quote should actually be:

"I know not with what weapons World War V will be fought, but World War VI will be fought with sticks and stones."

If the war is fought mostly in cyberspace it will probably be WWWWI. Wragge 14:32, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Referring to the Cold War as WWIII is not a widely accepted usage; in fact it is modern revisionism that was just plain wrong back when the terms were in common use. Back then, when the Cold War was going on and we imminently expected WWIII, was when both of those terms were coined, with quite distinct meanings. And in case I didn't make it clear, I think that while the War on Terrorism might be global in extent, it is not so in scale, so calling it "World War IV" is completely unreasonable (in a real world war, there were more men killed on the first day of one battle than in the entire War on Terrorism so far); however the term has been used in public discourse so it is appropriate to have an article on it, and that article should be NPOV, but merging it with this one gives it far more support than is reasonable. Securiger 16:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to agree with Securiger through a little reductio ad absurdum, but it appears he may have taken my remarks as a call for a merger. To be more straightforward: I agree with Securiger: there should be no merger. In fact, this article needs to be split up. The usage of the hyperbolic terms "war on terror" and "WWIV" to should have their own article describing the reasons that it is not legally a war (for insurance purposes) even in a country where the executive vilifies anyone questioning the term "war on terror". That information doesn't belong here, and probably neither does a list of films tangentially connected to potential future wars. This article should cover one thing: the fear and likelihood of a global war of anhilation which was expected to be fought between the global superpowers when there were more than one of them. All other uses of the term should have separate articles.Wragge 23:42, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for my confusion there. -- Securiger 14:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
No problem, Securiger, it was my fault really. Wragge 14:48, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Having said all that, it is obviously a bit naive to think that the most significant measure of a war (or any other event) is how many lives are actually lost in it. Compared to diseases of various kinds war has never been a very significant killer of humanity (in terms of percentages of lives lost). If the measure of "noteworthyness" was lethality then every single article in Wikipedia would be dedicated to famine, pestilence, and the mostquito. We can't simply say that it is not "reasonable" to equate WWIII (the real thing) with the "war on terror" or with WWI because of the death count; the reasons are more to do with the abuse of language (in my opinion). Wragge 23:50, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that a war's notability is affected by death toll, but that the question of whether or not it is a world war may be. -- Securiger 14:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly; you abuse language when you define anything you like as a "war" - The "war on drugs", "war on terror", "war on illiteracy" are simple hyperbole intended to convey seriousness and commitment, whilst doing the opposite, and simultaneously cheapening the significance of the word.

Wragge 14:48, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

What happens if one looks at the cold war as the The First(?) World Cold War, then looked at the war on terrorism as the Third World Hot War?

Shouldn't a world war be a total war like WWI and WWII. The war on terror did not massively spent all the oil, steel, etc supplies of the US. They're called world wars because they happened on different places. On WWI, japan attacked german possesions in Asia, the british colony of south africa invaded german southwest africa, numerous battles in western and eastern europe, and the middle east. World war II involved conflicts in the pacific, Africa, middle east, and Europe. Those two wars involved all of the supplies of the participant contries. An example is how germany, the UK, and France were in a bankrupt state. Some other wars, such as the seven year war were in many parts of the world, such as europe, india, and north america. To make it simple, a world war has many fronts, requires the use of all the supplies of a participant, and alot of carnage. (well that is from my point of view)

Computer games list

The list mentions Command & Conquer (actually Tiberian Dawn), Red Alert, and RA2. I'd vote to remove the references, mainly because all the canonical C&C games are set in the same universe (Tiberian Dawn is the sequel to Red Alert, RA2 isn't canonical).

The war in Red Alert wasn't "World War II", but was refered to as "The Great Red War", of course, it could be named as the Second World War, but the canon refers to it as the Great Red War. The canon is available here.

freeways usage

As a German I can tell you that plans for the freeways ("autobahn") were not made by the Nazis. Furthermore these plans were made before to create a system of crossing free high speed streets and not in preparation of a coming war. After taking over the power the Nazis found the plans and started building up this system intensly though the first autobahn in a City opened in 1921 (AVUS Berlin) and the first one between cities in Germany was already opened in 1932, one year before Nazis took over power.

During the cold war the autobahn-network was increased for a better infrastructure for the economic and for the people (we Germans love driving fast, so on big parts of this network there are no speed limits :-)). As far as I know this system was included into NATO planning if Nato would have been attacked in Germany. The autobahn 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are running from north to south. These could have been used to quickly change troops location at frontier. And the autobahn 2, 4 and 8 could have been used to bring troops and, more important, material from the economic centres to the frontier as they run from the Rhein-Ruhr-Area, Frankfurt-Area, Stuttgart and Munich from west to east.

But as I stated the system was build to connect the urban areas.

--- But many "Autobahns" even today have installations for using them as emergency runways. In Lower-Saxony I know about 3 of them in the area around Cloppenburg, which are about 3 kilometres long , have no bridges and easy removeable crash barrier. I know, that they should have been used for the Airbase that i located nearly in case of a damage... ---

So if you don't mind I will change the article in a few days. Discussion is welcome.

* October 24, 1973 — As the Yom Kippur War was winding down, a Soviet threat to intervene on Egypt's behalf caused the United States to go to DEFCON 3. If the Soviets intervened, the Americans would as well. The Soviets then backed down from their threat and Egypt withdrew its request for assistance.

--- But many "Autobahns" even today have installations for using them aa emergency runways

Historical close-encounters

Article :

"October 24, 1973 — As the Yom Kippur War was winding down, a Soviet threat to intervene on Egypt's behalf caused the United States to go to DEFCON 3. If the Soviets intervened, the Americans would as well. The Soviets then backed down from their threat and Egypt withdrew its request for assistance."

Well not so close encounter IMO... Most people had noticed that Sadat had fired all USSR advisors before launching his invasion. And DEFCON 3 is a very mild "increased force readiness" we were very far from world war... Ericd 21:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


Taken from the Epilogue of Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy. (Random House. ISBN 03945700650) regarding the 1991 Gulf War:

"There was another element involved in those first hours, not known to the public but detected by an American satellite making its ninety-six-minute orbit around the earth. The satellite saw that Shamir had responded to the Scud barrage by ordering mobile missile launchers armed with nuclear weapons moved into the open and deployed facing Iraq, ready to launch on command. American intelligence picked up other signs indicating that Israel had gone on a full-scale nuclear alert that would remain in effect for weeks. No one in the Bush administration knew just what Israel would do if a Scud armed with nerve gas struck a crowded apartment building, killing thousands. All George Bush could offer Shamir, besides money and more batteries of Patriot missiles, was American assurance that the Iraqi Scud launcher sites would be made a priority target of the air war."

Another close call, perhaps? ComaDivine 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

2005 US Department of anti-semitism Established??

huh?? Never heard of that before... (in Timeline section)

It is the Act that Bush signed into law, similar to USA PATRIOT Act except it restricts everyone from thinking anything the conservative jews might believe to be Anti-Semitic

Google "Department of Global Anti-Semitism" or "Global Anti-Semitism Review Act" for more info

Post-apocolyptic Examples

Several of the items on the Film and Television list are more properly "post-apocolyptic" than "WWW3" examples. The two genres are NOT the same. CFLeon 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Close Calls

I believe that the Cuban Missile Crisis should be added to the list of close calls.

Highway runways

"Certain sources also state that the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was specifically designed to contain several sections which were flat and straight, to be used as emergency runways for nuclear bombers. However, the United States Department of Transportation strongly denies that such a purpose exists in the Interstate highway system. Nonetheless, several other nations, such as Finland and Taiwan have done so. The original freeways (autobahn), as produced by Germany, were built this way for planned World War II military use."

I'm quite sure countries such as Finland did not plan to use highways as emergency runways for nuclear bombers as Finland has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. However, some Finnish highways can be used as emergency runways for civilian or military aircrafts. But I'm sure they are used to that purpose in other countries too than Finland or Taiwan?

paragraph removed

The term World War III is used in certain spheres of influence in the USA to describe the Cold War of the 20th century; under this naming system the current War on Terror may be referred to as the beginning of World War IV. Others have used the term World War III to describe the War on Terror itself.

There has been zero mainstream usage of the term "World War III" to refer to the Cold War. They are clearly distinct from each other. If someone insists on re-adding this to the article then there must be a citation. Tempshill 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

World War 3

If the cold war is ww3, and the war on terror is ww4, then naturally, ww5 needs to be something idiotic involving a very few countries. Such as the "War on Drugs". That'd work.

Warshaw Pact vs. NATO in 1947

The article claims of a document/doctrine that NATO countries created in 1947 to counter the Warshaw Pact countries.

There hasn't been A WARSHAW PACT for ANOTHER 8 YEARS!!!

This article is anything but accurate.

Merge suggestion

I realize this article is already rather long, but I have suggested mergine World War III (Star Trek) with it because I think, if anything, we should spin off a separate article about fictional accounts of the war. For the purposes of the way the article is now, I think a subsection about the Star Trek version (with less detail than is currently on the Trek page) would suffice. The analysis and such of the Trek version would be better suited for an all-encompassing article about fictional accounts and how they are so often a sign of the times in which they're produced. --Vedek Dukat Talk 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the things you say, I do not agree with the merge proposal. The Star Trek section is big enough to support a separate article for its purposes, even though a summary would be sufficient for a discussion of WWIII as a recurring fictional subject (which is a subject that needs some more examination here). --Rindis 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merge -- Petri Krohn 13:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I oppose merging this article with the Star Trek article. --24.19.33.171 03:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"WWIII" After the Cold War

The opening paragraphs of this article seem to suggest that WWWIII was a non-event because it is merely an outdated term used during the Cold War. The term is still widely used today to describe any sort of future global conflict involving nukes, and the article should explain in the opener that the term simply describes a hypothetical event which could happen at any time in the future. I was just going to go ahead and add a sentence or two to the end of the second paragraph, but I figured that I should get some consensus before changing a page that was once frontpage-nominated in a way that would slightly change the provided definition of the term. Rodeosmurf 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wanted

Just out of necessity: Operation Dropshot --195.210.220.31 12:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Future tag?

Why was a future tag added to this page? WWIII certainly is a 'future' event, but it's of such a hypothetical nature that is seems completely inappropriate to label the page with the phrase "This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future events." Besides, the article throughoughly explains early on that this is a war only in concept, what that concept entails, and where the concept came from. It's not like an upcoming film where we can only guess as to many of the details, it's an entirely theoretical concept and it doesn't need the future tag on top of that.Rodeosmurf 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this tag down. It's farcical here. mgekelly 08:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Books on WWIII

Perhaps a division could be made between "fictional" books and "factual/predictive" books - the terms being self-evident in the context. Are there any post-Cold War books on the subject?

A note could be added to Failed history on this topic. Jackiespeel 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Should be moved...

I don't know why, but this page should be moved to World War III (hypotesis).

If you don't know why, then why should it be moved? Skinnyweed 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ill balance towards 'trivia'

'Artistic treatments' takes up two-thirds of the article. It's simply a massive list of miscellany. Skinnyweed 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

World War III??

Tensions between India and Pakistan are growing. There might even be a war! North Korea in the far east seems to be a threat that Japan and South Korea would want to take care. Let's not forget about the situation with Persia (Iran) and the United States. There is still an insurgency problem in Iraq. Oh and I almost forgot, THERE IS ALREADY WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND LEBANON! Terrorist groups like Hezballah seem to make things even worse.

Are we headed toward WW3? Zachorious 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say we are... only time will tell. anyways, wikipedia isn't nosterdamus, we relay on facts. do you have any reliable source to call it WW3? --65.96.79.16 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

gingrich says this article describes a current event

crazy, huh? --andrew 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Prophecies

There are many prophecies outlying today's current events which are as follows. One of many sources like Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine state a new state of Israel would lead to a World War III. Israel is also depicted as a jewish state whom has destroyed its previous planet, is now being punished, and will destroy this planet. Other signs included in its text are Japan being the first civilization to end at the apocalypse. With the ignorant concepts of a second holocaust cast upon millions of Chinese and experiments of the North Koreans launching Warheads over Japanese waters it is no suprise that such concepts are created. To me a media venture, to them very real.---69.255.16.162 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should this artical be marked as a current event?

To contain info on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? Some believe this will escalate to World War III.

Are you an iraqi? ACS (Wikipedian) 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it should not. You need to get a sense of perspective. Start here: World War II. That should give you a good idea of what a World War is. Go on to, say, here: Operation Grapes of Wrath. That should give you a good idea of what's going on now. TomTheHand 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There are many similarities between the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and the World Wars. Is it WWIII yet? No, but it has very strong potential. Lebanon, Iran, Syria, North Korea, PS, China, Russia, etc.. against Israel, USA, UK, Poland, Germany, Spain, Japan, Eygpt? Surely, there these would be current likely contenders...
Not even close. If this was to brew up into a world war, it's at about the occupation of Czechoslovakia stage right now. It's a regional dispute that could turn into another Arab-Israeli War. Certainly, your list of contenders is way off base and full of countries that aren't even marginally involved, and likely to stay that way. --Rindis 23:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope this turns into WWIII!

Tsk tsk tsk... Some of you don't recognize how bad World Wars are... If this turns into a World War, (which I believe it's currently international, but not world-wide) it would generally be North America/Europe vs. the Middle East... Sadly it could be shades of the Crusades again... (except one would be for religious reasons, the other for security/defense reasons.) --KCMODevin


No. This event is theroretical at best, fiction at least. Fiction is not a current event. Jason Palpatine 04:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Should events turn sour and it escalate, it could become a WWIII-type event; particularly if Israel were to invade Syria or Iran, or if one of those sent their forces into Israel. However, We may all hope that such an event will not happen, the UN will send a peacekeeping force soon, Israel will back down and Hezbollah will be contained. The Jade Knight 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If Israel were to invade Syria, it would be yet another Arab-Israeli War; many have been fought since the formation of Israel and none erupted into a world war, even when the United States and the Soviet Union were supporting opposite sides. If Israel were to invade Iran, I'd be very interested to find out how the heck they got there. Today, another Arab-Israeli war would be even less likely to erupt into a world war. Who would fight whom? You may, perhaps, be unfamiliar with the scale of a world war and what it means. TomTheHand 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly familiar with the first two World Wars. I can just see the potential for escalation here that could potentially lead to a US "rescue" of Israel that could further escalate… not that I think it likely to escalate to a WWIII point. I'm just saying that it's possible. Further complicating the conflict, Iran has now sent some troops into Lebanon. The Jade Knight 05:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems very strange to me that everyone has such a strict opinion of what a world war is and yet no one can explain what the criteria are. How many countries need to be involved? How many people need to die? Do we need more media buy-in? Political? Why are people opposed to calling this a current hypothetical event? Even if this is at the "occupation of Czechslovakia" stage, is that not considered part of WWII? It seems that we are almost trying to enforce that nothing can be WWIII if it doesn't have nukes and destroy the world. I think we need to leave a little more room and be realistic -- no power can achieve their objectives with that solution (generally) so it is far more likely that WWIII will not involve nukes until it gets out of control. Anyway, what is the criteria; all you guys that keep saying it's not the beginnings of WWIII right now, what would it take before it is? -- abfackeln 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to World War III (hypothetical)

It is clear that the war against islamic facism (war on terror) is being branded WWIII in the media and in other places as well. When people mention WWIII now they mean the WOT and not a hypothetical war. I think this page needs to be moved to World War III (hypothetical) and War on Terrorism take it's place. Jwissick(t)(c) 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the case; when people mention WWIII they still generally mean a worldwide war among major powers. Some people do use WWIII to refer to the War on Terrorism, but they are not in the majority and they are doing so to push an agenda. The War on Terrorism is plainly not on the scale of a World War and describing it as such is hyperbole. TomTheHand 13:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. When the media mentions WWIII they mean the current conflicts. Perhaps the majority still mean the hypothetical, but the tide is turning toward calling the current wars WWIII Jwissick(t)(c) 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Frankly the news media is a poor source of history, and is instead pretty focused on creating as much drama as possible this week. When they say WWIII they're generally saying it in reference to claims by Bush or Gingrich. It's ridiculous to call the current conflicts a world war. TomTheHand 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Cold War template

As the article itself says, World War III "is a term used to describe a hypothetical future conflict on the scale of World War II or larger". Since the Cold War indeed happened, and is now over, it obviously can't be a "hypothetical future conflict". Furthermore, as it didn't reach "the scale of World War II or larger", it can't even be said it was World War III. Therefore, I will remove the Cold War template. Esaborio 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cold War template is not on the article because it was World War III, but rather because World War III was a very important Cold War topic. There was constant fear that the Cold War would turn "hot" and become World War III; it is difficult to discuss the Cold War without discussing this. The Cold War is the largest single topic of this article. Therefore, I will replace the Cold War template and ask that you stop removing it. Your reasons for doing so show a misunderstanding of both the topic of World War III and the reasons why the template is there. TomTheHand 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And I ask you to keep adding it. Your reasons for doing so show a misunderstanding of what the article is about, as I demonstrated above. You are limiting the content of the article to one of its sections. A relevant one, of course, but not the only one nor the most important. Esaborio 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding the Cold War template in no way limits the content of the article. It is, indeed, the most important topic related to World War III, but in spite of this, other, less common usages of the term receive coverage on the page. I'm unsure of how you demonstrated that I misunderstand the article. World War III does not necessarily have to refer to hypothetical future conflicts; it can refer to hypothetical past ones as well, such as a scenario in which the Korean War or Cuban Missile Crisis escalate. There is therefore no contradiction in stating that WWIII is a topic related to the Cold War which merits a Cold War template. TomTheHand 18:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the events you listed were World War III. As it officially has never happened, it is a "hypothetical future conflict". Esaborio 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is simply a hypothetical conflict; it can be a hypothetical past conflict just as easily as a hypothetical future one. Of course none of the events I listed were World War III. That's what hypothetical means: it didn't happen, but it could have. TomTheHand 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But it didn't. Esaborio 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right. That's why it's hypothetical. TomTheHand 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And that is why it is a future event, because it hasn't happened yet. Esaborio 17:52, 3 August 2006

It's apparent that you don't understand what hypothetical means. Please quit adding "future" to the article. TomTheHand 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, YOU don't uderstand what this is all about. Esaborio 18:00, 3 August 2006

Haha, I got hit with a "NO U!!1". Listen, hypothetical means that it's based on a hypothesis that may not be true. For example, "the Cuban missile crisis escalates into World War III" is a hypothetical scenario. It did not happen; that's implied in "hypothetical." It's also in the past, which means that the term "World War III" can describe a hypothetical PAST scenario just as well as a hypothetical FUTURE one. TomTheHand 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well stated, good example. --Rindis 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with TomTheHand about a possible "past" event being World War III, I think we should remove "future" becuase it could be a CURRENT event. That being said, I suggest we remove the Cold War template. SPECTRE 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that a past event was World War III. I said that had things gone differently, World War III could have occurred; I don't see how you can disagree with this. Hypothetically, one of the historical close calls could have erupted into full nuclear war, which would have resulted in World War III in the past. TomTheHand 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But it didn't occur, thus, it is a current or future event, and the Cold War template is irrelevant. Otherwise, we should also include the Arab-Israeli Conflict template because of the Gulf War, and the War on Terrorism template, because it could turn into World War III (some even say it already has). SPECTRE 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It didn't occur, but could have; that's what hypothetical means. World War III was a constant fear during the Cold War. It's a critically important topic when discussing the Cold War, and the Cold War is the largest single subject in this article. I've been over this before. Your argument hinges on not understanding what "hypothetical" means: WWIII didn't happen, therefore it has nothing to do with the Cold War. That's silly; WWIII and the Cold War are important and related topics. TomTheHand 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is World War 3 survivable by Mr Unseen

If or should WW3 begin, is it survivable. For example: in the Nostrodamus documentary The Man who saw Tomorrow stated that Nostudamus predicted after WW3 would be a Millenium of peace. I now this is only a statement not any factual stuff but is this possible. Pls respond


Well this can be debatable but Wikipedia isn't a place to predict, but i'd like to explain the millenium of peace deal... This is a belief that some modern Christians have. It originally began well before the first Council of Nicea. The belief was called Chiliaism (or Millennialism). It states that the 1,000 years of peace in the Bible after the 7 years under the AntiChrist is literal and not symbolic. In 431, the Council of Ephesus formally declared Chiliaism to be a heresy in Christianity. (as the "doctrine" states it won't be 1000 years of peace, but forever)

I believe this is probably where that prediction comes from. Of course, i'm not saying he's Christian, but some "seers" have adopted some things from various religions in their predictions. --KCMODevin 9:38 August 6 2006

August 22

Glenn Beck has pushed on his show (Wednesday 9) for a potential start of WW3 with a strike from Iran on Israel, particularly on Jerusalem. His basis is an article by Bernard Lewis and a shared view by schollars that the 22nd is significant date due to Muhammad's travel to heaven with the sky over Jerusalem being illuminated. Also, it's believed that the coming of the next Massiah will only occur after a 'period of persecution' and 'lights are seen over Baghdad' Beck also believes this because the president of Iran has named the 22nd as the date Iran will answer to the nuclear issues. --Pdurland 04:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TomTheHand 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I thought it would be interesting to include a more in depth explaination of why Beck believes the current conflicts are part of a larger world war scenario in the article. I guess it does fall in that lovely grey area as it was said on his show, but it does make it look like Wikipedia is trying to be a crystal ball.--67.8.221.182 22:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)