Jump to content

Talk:World War III/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


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 :)


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.


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.


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)

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. -- 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)


Just out of necessity: Operation Dropshot -- 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? -- 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

gingrich says this article describes a current event

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


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.--- 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.-- 22:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Revision - 1st Nuclear Attack Constitutes WWIII

WWII effectively ended with two nuclear level attacks, thus a WWIII would begin with at least 1 nuclear level attack, but may be limited to conventional non-nuclear warfare.

I'm surprised this article fails to mention this very simple fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, how is this a "fact"? Are you saying that a war that includes most of the world but doesn't include nukes, would not be WWIII? The two don't add up! (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is all original research and inappropriate for the project.  Xihr  20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear war is a ridiculous and outdated concept, owing mostly in part to the principals of mutually assured destruction. Saying that World War three will likely be Nuclear in nature should be removed from the top of this article. ( (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Possible combatants

There needs to be an constantly updating point, with the newest and latest data, that can accurately tell the likely combatants with the current political climate. Another point to be added would be the "likely cause" of such an escalation of violence, that is most likely in this political climate and given the current position of each respective country.

I nominate the following countries to be put on the list given the current circumstances and political climate:

Israel, Iran, People's Republic of China, Russian Federation, United States of America, European Union, NATO, CIS, UAE, India, Japan, South Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Congo, South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, Morocco, Libya, Mexico, Brazil and Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 30 October 2008

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see WP:NOT). It's not a place for our current speculations on what might or might not happen. This article about World War III is about speculation that has already been made, and been documented. Having such a constantly updating point would be putting our own speculation in the article, and no matter how well-informed, it doesn't belong. If somebody publishes such speculations in a magazine article or a book, then it might be worth mentioning in the article, but it shouldn't go directly into the article. -- Why Not A Duck 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I see.

German Civil War?

There was something written of a German civil war between 1930 and 1933. While that time was certainly very eventful and not without violence, under no circumstance can we talk about a German civil war. I have changed the sentence.

The same is the case for World War II, as previous serious conflicts in the world were occurring from 1931 to 1939 such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and later China, the Spanish Civil War, civil war in Germany from 1930 until 1933, anschluss (annexation of Austria), and the occupation of Czechoslovakia, but these events are not considered part of World War II, but only a prelude, despite the severe political instability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Very pro-American, anti-Soviet page

Where are the accounts of US wars that could have lead to WWIII?

* Korea and McArthur's idea to use nukes against China. This happened after McArthur 
  entered China following N. Korean army resulting in China's retaliation. McArthur was then replaced.
* Vietnam War or "police action"
* Right after WWII, many in the US wanted to take out Soviet Union before it gained nuclear weapons
* How the missle key was set to all-0 until 1980s. The missle combination was put in place 
  after Cuban missle crises but the combination was set to all zeros. This meant almost anyone could 
  launch the missles.
* Also, there is less "mistakes" in the US listed probably because most of such 
  information is classified. We will not know this for some time.

More blanced article would be something like this: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

This page could use some balance and stop refering to people in either country with negative connotations.

It's an american site edited by american users who were taught in american shcools. Why the hell else do you think it would be biased?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you kidding me? The Internet has HUGE Liberal bias. Wikipedia is not a "neutral point of view" place. More like "liberal point of view." Made by a bunch of early twenty something college students who seek to rewrite history for their own liberal agenda. Some even going so far as to saying the U.S. is a fascist regime, the moon landing never happened, 9/11 never happened, and the Holocaust never happened. The Internet as a whole is VERY BIASED anti-Western, especially against the United States. Saying that this place is biased in America's favor is a joke.
Calling any wiki unbiased is a laughable joke.

History has shown us that truth and goodness tend to have a liberal bias. The advent of science, democracy, and universal equality were all spurred on by the liberals of their times. Conservative forces lose out in the end. My point being, a liberal bias is preferable to a conservative bias. The exclusion of facts would be a conservative bias whereas the inclusion of all available facts would be a liberal one.

Criteria for a World War

Criteria for a "World War" may be worth mentioning, as well as linking the artical back to World war. This whole page is getting rather lengthy and it may be worthwhile to transfer some of the prophecy and artistic definitions to new homes elsewhere. Motorfix 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Motorfix 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead king talking?

"During a press conference soon after the start of the 1991 Gulf War, King Hussein of Jordan and King Olav V of Norway directly referred to the conflict between the United States and its coalition of allies against Iraq as "the Third World War" but there was no indication of any other world leaders accepting the definition." King Olav V of Norway died on January 17th, 1991, the day the Gulf war started. I can't believe no-one has noticed this very bad-taste joke. Removed!

13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Devanatha

  • I've it partially back -- the King Olav addition was vandalism; I was the one who put in Hussein - the other was added later by another party and I only just noticed this a year later. 23skidoo 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suez Crisis missing something?

Under historical close calls, Suez Crisis, mention is made of the Soviet threat of intervention on the side of the Egyptians and subsequent persuasion by Lester Pearson as reasons the conflict was resolved. John Lewis Gaddis, author of many books on the Cold War, has cited back channel efforts by President Eisenhower as a reason the crisis did not escalate. Should this be added? - Missiletest - 17:26, September 13, 2006

Changed (December 27, 2006) some references to Canada (Canadian) and changed "Secretary of State" to "Minister"

I changed "Minister" back to "Secretary of State". The position was not called "Minister" until 1993. TomTheHand 13:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Close calls: Cuban Missile Crisis

Perhaps the entry on the Cuban Missile Crisis should reference Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov, as well?? -- Steved424 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

according to "inviting disaster" by james chiles, p300 (paperback edition), during the cuban missile crisis, the USAF was so hurried in deploying some of the minuteman 1 ICBMs that they were installed without many of the interlocks/safety checks that would normally have prevented accidental launch. "According to Scot Sagan research, crew kept necessary electronics for launch close to hand, instead of in a separate guarded vault, as publicly stated." Which sounds like its own near-miss waiting to happen.

People's Republic of China vs. Kingdom of Tibet

I am not saying that this is a must on this page but it would be a good addition. If you search the web there are many countries 'For Tibet' and countries 'For China' for various reasons. The leaders to "Free Tibet:" and anti-Chinese acts that may lead to the next world war are Kingdom of Japan, Republic of France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Check out this link for refrence to a World War that could and probably would include freeing Tibet from Chinese opression ≤www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD6yWsxlglo≥ and there are links to parts two and three. (I apologise that my source rambles on a bit). {[User:Free the kingdom of tibet]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WW3 in fiction

Should there be a section for this?

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert's "Road to World War Three"

Should "The Road to World War Three" on the Colbert Report be mentioned in this article Kc4 19:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is now WWIII, the War is with Eurasia

Or, perhaps World War III will start once WWII stops. -- Wriggleybum 04:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean, once WWII stops? - Redmess 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty and removed the link to this site:

Both Biblical prophecy and the Illuminati plan state that Israel is the key. [...] We are in the last stages of the preparation to so globalize the world that the Masonic New Age Christ (Antichrist) can appear to receive all the political and economic power of the world's rulers. This is the Illuminati plan and Biblical prophecy (Revelation 17:12-17).

I think we can agree that any article involving the Illuminati, the rapture and the Masonic New Age Christ (MaNAC?) is pretty much rubbish. Then again, maybe I'm just an agent of the Illuminati, trying to hide the truth from the rest of you. --Agitpop 22:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

World War III started in 2001

I no this is just vandalism but I don't know how to remove it-- 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Are u aware that more people have died just in the Battle of Normandy than the ENTIRE War on Terror. This is not World War III. Everyone will know it when it finally happens because when it does we all will die.

- Id like to say that depending on how you look at it, and your belief and what you've read on a certain website then WW3 could have started in 2001. Its saying that all the current news events are building up to (what we'd expect from) WW3 which have been a result of 9 11.

Lmao the US tolerance of death has skyrocketed down. WWIII will kill over 1 billion people. The end is inevitable. 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Middle East

What about the isreal/palestinian conflict?this could easily escalate to a world war by isreal and the west (america, canada and the commonwealth) vs palestine, iran (and all those islamic middle eastern countries) and china. I wouldn't know about russia though. 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict has been going on for thousands of years.
The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict has not been going on for thousands of years, contrary to popular belief. It is a recent occurance. There were conflicts over the Holy Land, but the modern conflict only happened after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Before that, Jews were well-treated in Muslim Lands. They were never happy under Christians who persectuted them, but prospered under Muslim rule. Muslims (like myself) feel betrayed because of this. (talk), 2009-08-22T14:46:54
Please don't edit other people's existing comments, add them below instead, like this. FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

US/USSR Centric

The world does not revolve around two superpowers. Historically large conflicts can be started by small events. Yes the flash points listed are important and do deserve to be there but there are lots of other ones requiring listing. There are many other global conflicts such as the long cold war between Turkey and Greece or India and Pakistan that could have lead to global conflict. AlanD 10:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. World War I for example was started by the assassination of a single man. The one between Pakistan and India almost erupted into a World War all on it's own.

Could the anti globalization movement and subsequent riots (seattle,prague,genoa,miami, zapatistas, washington DC, gleneagles etc) be classed as a world war. It is a global movement and many see it as a [class war] or battle against the ruling, capitalist elite. What are your thoughts on this classifying as a world war? 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's nothing like a world war. See World War I and World War II. TomTheHand 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging World War IV into World War III

A seperate page for World War IV, or World War V or any subsequent theorectical world conflicts produced by incrementing World War III by any amount doesn't seem to be justified. I suggets we merge the article with this one, under a subheading of "Beyond World War III" or similar. Artw 02:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No man. We've already passed WWIII (Clash of the Superpowers, Cold War, Russo-American World War) WWIV is going on and will blow into a complete global proportion soon. WWV is believed, by Christians in Britain at least, to be the final one. That will be the war that destroys the world. --Bane II 10:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It would not be justified if you made it out of the assumption that if a World War 2 happened, a world war 3, 4, 5, etc would happen in the future. But because a significant group of people are referring to things as WW4, with the beleif that WW3 has happened, its notable. No such significant group holds the beleif that WW5 is going on at this point. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree - World War 3 and World War 4 are both hypothetical conflicts that may or may not happen. Unless we've radically changed the definition of the word war, which experience in Iraq proves we haven't, the "Cold War" was a diplomatic and propaganda rivalry, not a bona-fide war. FireWeed 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Combine w/WW4

World War IV, by definition, is a war that could occur after a WW3. They are two (hypothetical) wars (even if we are in one of them). That's like combining the next two deadly hurricanes into one article. This makes no sense. Just because some people consider the Cold War, WW3, I don't care. The major powers USSR and USA didn't go to WAR WAR. So it wasnt a WORLD WAR. It was like Europe's competition for colonial power in the 1800s and 1900s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC).


Deleting 90% of the content of this page is NOT vandalism. None of this info is sourced - the point of the article is how these examples might relate to "World War III." Thus we need sources in which each of these incidents is referred to as a "potential WWIII." Currently the page just presents the existence of the India/Pakistan conflict, or the existence of the Yom Kippur War, as self-evidently relating to World War III. This is WP:Original Research and should be either sourced or deleted. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Too long

This article is way too long, so I have added the template. Every example of a large war in fiction does not need to be in this article. A lot of this needs to be cut out, especially anything with red links. Reywas92Talk 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came to this page looking for examples of WW3 in books, movies, etc. So please don't get rid of that information (although it might indeed be a good idea to move into subtopics, etc.). - Horizon Star 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying to delete everything, but per WP:NOT, this has was too many examples, and some are only large, fictonal, future wars, and not necessarily a WWIII. Reywas92Talk 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a popular topic of Christian Zionists, such as John Hagee. I'm pretty sure I remember hearing John Hagee say, "World War Three has begun." This should be included in some way. --Kalmia 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article says all that needs to be said about fringe opinions that World War III has already occurred or is in progress. TomTheHand 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone, the bible code hasn't been proved wrong. In fact, its impossible to prove it wrong be cause it couldn't have by any means happened by chance. You should change that. Plus maybe stick in a link so people know what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:49, 19 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Got a verifiable reference for that? --Iknowyourider (t c) 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Former CIA Director James Woolsey

The Cold War was WW3. Is this guy retarted. Stick to the facts mate. 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your statement makes no sense. An opinion of WWIII from a guy who is head of the CIA is clearly verifiable and important, as long as it is kept in context. -- abfackeln (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kid Who Became President

In Dan Gutman's novel The Kid Who Became President, protagonist President Judson Moon plays a video game called World War IV aginst the crazed dictator of Cantatania, Supreme Ruler Trujilo. The storyline is based on the world after a so called World War III. Will someone please find a way to fit this into teh article and add it?

Add it as a source, reference, see also, or external link. Pyrospirit Shiny! 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

the book is aboutXelas211 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)(funny) alternate history

Historical close calls

Hey guys, I must say that some of our inclusion criteria seems to be quite loose on these. Simply because someone uttered the words "World War III" for a given circumstance does not mean it was a "close call". I have a problem with four in particular:

  1. For example, Yeltsin mentioned that a war might happen if NATO put its troops in Yugoslavia during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; and in fact, NATO did just that, but no war came close to happening. It was just (failed) rhetoric designed to try to get the West to knock it off.
  2. The Berlin Blockade was never close to creating a third world war (the overall situation was tense, but the blockade did little to create more tensions of the cold war).
  3. Both of the mentions of a Sino-Russian war. A World war, by necessity, involves fighting a war all over the world. But this would have been a war simply between two powers next to each other; it never would have left the locality of their borders. This is like saying that the Franco-Prussian War was a world war simply because it involved two superpowers. But not even the Napoleanic Wars reached this term.
  4. The India-Pakistan thing. No one else would have gotten involved in that fight- it would have been (another) Pakistani-Indian war, but certainly not a world war (even if nuclear weapons were involved).

As such, I've been bold and removed these - minor skermishes, especially the Yugoslavia business, have no need to be here: just because people call something world war III or threaten it does not make it so, any more than Newt Gingrich calling the middle-eastern conflicts as WWIII make it so: [2]. The Evil Spartan 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A "close call" means that it nearly happened, but didn't. As to the "minor skermish" thing, tens of thousands of people died in the Sino-Soviet war of 1969, mostly Chinese, and there were thousands of casualties in Kargil war in 1999. Brezhnev called Nixon on the hotline in the middle of the crisis to inform him that he was going to nuke Beijing. Nixon said that he would not stand for that and would retaliate. If Brezhnev did it anyway...WWIII. The war on terror qualifies as a world war as it has taken place all over the world. Also, the India/Pakistan thing of 2001/02, was very much part of the WOT, as it was mostly Jihadis vs. Dhimmis, and was Al-qaeda inspired, if not involved. The Pakistani ISI INVENTED the Taliban after all, and they were all in bed together.Ericl 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The Evil Spartan (above), and have also boldly removed the item regarding the Pristina airport incident (which, regardless of the WWIII comment by a subordinate officer, was never in a million years even remotely likely to turn into a shooting war between the US and Russia) and the Kursk explosion (ditto). There's just no good reason to include these at all. --BenRussell (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with BenRussell for removing the Pristina airport incident. What sources do you have to claim it was never in a million years even remotely likely to turn into a shooting war? Yeltsin had previously stated: "I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war."[3] The Russians had plans to fly in thousands of troops, and because of this Wesley_Clark ordered British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport, and Clark planned to order British tanks and armoured cars to block the runways to prevent any Russian transport planes from landing. [4] Subsequently countries neighbouring Yugoslavia were asked not to allow Russian aircraft to overfly their territory, indicating this was indeed considered a problem by NATO. Clark has been and is still critised for his decisions regarding this incident.[5] [6] And no legal action has been taken or punishment been given to Mike_Jackson, which would have made perfect sense for disobeying a direct order, if the situation was indeed never in a million years even remotely likely to turn into a shooting war. It seems to me the only person that doesn't think this was a potentially volatile situation is Wesley Clark himself [7] who was told he would be relieved of his command and sent into early retirement not even a month after the incident took place.Wesley_Clark#Retirement —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Need for this page?

is this page really needed. its a hypotetical event, that hasnt happend. this is liikke me making a page about myself and saying im future king of the world.

No, it's not really like that at all, because you've never almost become king of the world, there's never been a period where the whole world was expecting or fearing that you would become king of the world, and nobody's ever made a movie or written a book about you being king of the world. TomTheHand 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Assassin's Mace

A mention of this book has been repeatedly added to this article. I don't see any evidence of notability for the book, and have reverted the edit. Iknowyourider (t c) 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

King Hussein comment

The King Hussein comment is legitimate as it was made during a press conference in response to the start of the first Gulf War. I had added this to the article more than a year ago, but it was deleted because a vandal had added nonsense to the paragraph and it appears no one bothered to check this out before deleting it. 23skidoo 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bush Administration's War on Terror?

I'm not much of a Bush supporter, but I have to ask is it proper to call the War on Terrorism as Bush administration's War on Terrorism in Wikipedia? I have to ask what do we call War on Terrorism once we get a new president? McCain/Obama/Clinton's War on Terrorism? I don't recall any wars being preceded by the administration/presidency that was present at the time (i.e: Nixon's Vietnam War? Bush's Persian Gulf War? The 2nd Continental Congress' Revolutionary War?)--BirdKr (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article needs help

I'd like to suggest the structure is changed to include

Intro and a longer and clearer definition

--Discussion of the two ways of thinking about it-- (replace the "difficulty in identifying" section)

a. "globalist POV" that the 3rd WW was a global conflict and need not have been a combat between major protagonists, or even in Europe
b. "localist POV" that minor proxy conflicts elsewhere did not really qualify for the term since the conflict was not fought between major protagonists in Europe or between USA and USSR, i.e. it was not really "World" encompasing

--the Cold War-- trying to support the "globalist POV"

--avoiding "hot" war-- trying to support the "localist POV"

--War on Terror-- threat of terror is global, therefore its a World War that followed Second WW, but begun in the 70s! Unlike the 1st, 2nd and Cold wars which were predominantly about economics, the motivation in WOT is not about economics


--mrg3105 (comms) ♠08:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not the place for your original research. Xihr (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein quote: "Rocks"

He actually said:

I do not know how the third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!


I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. (or some other rephrasing). Rocks, not sticks and stones. See the Albert Einstein article. Uthanc (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Then by all means, fix it, and include a citation. Xihr (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I already did - actually I introduced the "New quotable Einstein" citation to this page while correcting what was then a "sticks and stones" version to the one from the Einstein page (where the citation comes from). It bugged me that "sticks and stones" made it back in, with the old citation wrongly used to support it. Uthanc (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I move that we remove this quote entirely. There is obviously confusion as to what he really said -- there are already two cited references on this page with differing versions of the quote! (New Quotable and Waging Peace.) Furthermore, this quote doesn't really have anything substantial to do with World War III except that it was spoken by someone famous. If we do decide to keep it, can we decide on a citation that doesn't contradict itself? -- abfackeln (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, nevermind. Xihr already removed one of the two sources so it doesn't contradict itself anymore. I don't actually own the book that is now the only source, so I will have to trust that it is correct. -- abfackeln (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write the original reference, but the way I read it, it wasn't a contradiction, it was a clarification. Think of it as, "Here's the reference for the right way, but sometimes it's written this way, which is wrong." However, it was phrased in such a way that it was extremely confusing and I certainly sympathize with those who have been thrown for a loop by it -- it was far more confusing than it needed to be. Removing the (unnecessary) clarification and adding a comment about the exact phrasing seemed like the right thing to do, as there have been sporadic reversions over this quote.  Xihr  05:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

COD is a credible source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to be helpful, you're going to have to use complete sentences. And not use ambiguous acronyms. Thx. -- abfackeln (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase, Saying, and Quotation, p. 484, attributes this quotation to Lord Mountbatten in Macleans' on 17 November 1975 as "If the The Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows." (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia vs. Georgia

This one should not be listed until events dictate that it should. To list it as an historical close call violates WP:CRYSTAL. 23skidoo (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this issue is extremely minor compared to the other "close calls". And yes, while the event is going on, there isn't proper historical perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines needed for "Historical close calls"

We really need to establish a standard for what actually constitutes a "historical close call", here are some suggestions:

  • It has to be above and beyond the normal foreign policy speech or diplomatic dispute that happens on a day to day basis. While I understand that sometimes a big crisis can come from a seemingly unimportant statement or dispute, there are so many that we need to limit which ones are important enough and which ones need to be ignored when concerning this article. Also I don't think that just because it happens between the United States and Russia classifies it as something important enough to be a potential starter for WWIII. Our history shows us that even minor nations can cause major wars (see World War I).
  • Whatever the dispute might be it needs to be resolved before it can be considered a "historical close call". This just makes sense logically. Something that needs to be historical needs to be over or be in the past, which something that is happening right now is not. Also how can something that has not been resolved be a "close call"? Potentially it can explode into WWIII (no matter how implausible that may be) which would mean it is no longer a close call because it actually was the cause. On the same note creating a section on "future close calls" is a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL for being nothing more than speculation.
  • Finally we need sources to back it up. We need some reputable person or organization to say "Wow, that was a close call." Simply to use our own judgment on whether to call something a close call violates WP:OR.

Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the criteria are pretty clear. We mention it as an example of a close call if a reliable, verifiable source of noteworthiness relevant to the event has claimed that it was a close call, or words to that effect. And yes, it has to be something historical -- i.e., not ongoing.  Xihr  06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
So would you agree then that the "Polish Missile Crisis" can't be an historical close call because it is still ongoing? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's borderline on its own merits, regardless of whether it's ongoing. One general making a belligerent remark doesn't strike me as noteworthy in the long run, which is really what the section of the article is about.  Xihr  08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point, it seems he is saying that Poland would be a target if there is a nuclear war, but the agreement with the US itself is not enough to start one. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I added citation needed to each bullet point in the section. Maybe it is redundant because the section is already tagged but my plan is to remove every instance that is not backed up by a "reliable, verifiable source of noteworthiness relevant to the event has claimed that it was a close call, or words to that effect". Sjö (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Error on determining

Section states "The English term "World War" has only seen widespread use during one conflict — World War II. A German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel wrote this shortly after the start of the war:" however the following statement is dated 1914. Hence "the" war obviously refers to the first, rather than the implied second, however does the first statement still state the second war or is that too meant to be first?- J.Logan`t: 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Two incidents in November 9, 1979

A few months before the November 9, 1979 incident there was another one. A computer malfunction that played down the "Wrong tape" event of November 9. [8] -- (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to see how this comes anywhere close to qualifying as a reliable source. P.S. Two incidents "in November 9, 1979"?  Xihr  09:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

November 1979 incident?

The scenario here sounds identical to the one in the movie "War Games". And there are no sources or citations for this entry. Suggesting removal until it is verified. -- (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

See the previous section. Someone keeps adding it against consensus.  Xihr  10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Prelude to World War III

Check out what a guy out of Canada, Marcus Cyganiak says here in these two articles:

1) http://marcuscyganiak.blogspot.com/2008/11/world-leaders-receive-threats.html 2) http://marcuscyganiak.blogspot.com/2008/12/larger-war-on-horizon.html

We could be in the prelude to WWIII right now. Canamerican (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, we're always on the brink of WWIII. Everything is its lead up. Much like the rapture, which is always going to happen.
And please, PLEASE turn this talk page into a promo for some random guy's blog! "It will change your world — and he's out of Canada"! FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Please read WP:CRYSTAL and tell me why this page should not be put up for WP:XFD? Thanks (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The page isn't predicting WWIII, only dealing with the history that has gone with the term. The same applies to the 51st state article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This page should not be put up for deletion because tens of millions of people will instantly recognize WWIII as a cultural phenomenon, a serious threat at a specific point in world history which was (and still is) the inspiration for many books, movies, and even songs.
It's true that 95% of the comments on this talk page sound like paranoid attempts to rewrite future history or promote websites. ("Check out what some random guy out of Canada says...") Still, it would seem like censorship of sorts if one person decided to completely obliterate a page on such an iconic non-event.
Sure, there'll always be some paranoid high schooler who sees an Arab and a Jew get into a fist fight and rewrites it to tell everyone "IT'S BATTLE # 856 in WORLD WAR III OMG 4 REALZ RED REV 18:12". That's no reason there should be no page explaining WWIII. Don't delete Mad_Max_Beyond_Thunderdome, and don't delete World_War_III. FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ 04:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

george W Bush

"In a 2006 interview, US President George W. Bush labeled the ongoing War on Terror as "World War III"."

This is just a political slogan and it has no place here. Any objections if I remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxasmirl (talkcontribs) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Please share your concerns with my edits so that we may reach consensus. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the edit comments on my reversions and the discussions on this very talk page. What you are trying to add is clearly original research and/or news reporting, both of which are utterly inappropriate. And don't throw around crass accusations of vandalism, particularly when the editor you're accusing of vandalism explained his actions in terms of Wikipedia policy.  Xihr  05:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
As I pointed out on your talk page, there have been no discussions of this incident on this talk page. And as I also pointed out on your talk page, it is a former US ambassador comparing the current situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis, not me, so it is not OR. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Searching the Internet, I found this very interesting prophecy:

I believe that the "City of God" aswell as "big city" could refer to Jerusalem, as it hold it's status as a religious city in all three Abrahamic religions in addition to being both the capital and largest city in the country of Isreal. And also, as we all know, there's an ongoing war there. And in fact, many leaders does, in on way of it's defintion, succumbing brom the war, including Barack Obama, the President of the United States, also the most powerful man in the world, and according to many, a great leader of the country. I don't see why they wouldn't attack the capital, and due to it's religious status, just that could lead to a third world war. A thunder? A nuclear bomb or the xecond coming of Jesus Christ or another Messiah, starting Armageddon? Heck, idk... Von Mario (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this comes off on rude, but just because this talk page is full pointless, incohenrent nonsense doesn't mean it should be.

FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and that "prophecy" has nothing to do with Nostradamus at all. It's a hoax written by a Canadian student: [9] (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lines, Vines and Trying Times

I removed a recently added link to the article for the album, Lines, Vines and Trying Times. The album contains a song titled "World War III", but that's not relevant enough to be one of several "see also" links for the page. Maybe it belongs on World War III in popular culture instead? FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo airport

This section links to a supposed standoff at an airport in Kosovo between NATO and Russian troops; the link, however, just goes to the page for the airport itself, which has no mention of the standoff. Anyone with any knowledge want to start that page?Hamiltondaniel (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


This is my World War 3 Simulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamika2000 (talk) 2009-09-26T09:44:13

Hello Adamika2000. The article associated with this talk page is meant to be about a hypothetical World War Three, and notable references to it. One individual's YouTube video is probably not noteworthy enough to be included. Unless you have citations to show the place of your video in current or 20th century culture or media? Thanks! FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

One thing. Korean War.. Truman and McDouglas' argument over the usage of atomic devices on China, or overflowing past the North Korean border, and fighting China. Truman stated that he did not want World War III. I do believe it is worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotation Cites - Text Too Small?

The cites next to the quotes are really small. This made it hard to select them.(I'm only 1024 x 768 resolution) I ended up acccidentally going to the Albert Einstein page. I have added a little spac between them (Yes, I know this is against the 'manual of style but' they ARE hard to read & select) Can they be made larger or is this size fixed? -- (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible combatants in WWIII

Many popular sources in media, etc. depict WWIII (or a war on the scale of a WWIII) to be fought between the US/NATO and Russia, or the US/NATO and China. Perhaps a paragraph on the combatants in WWIII should be added considering there seems to be much belief that it will involve the US, Russia, or China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It will more likely be with US/Israel and Middle East with Russia/China teaming up against anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

sino-soviet split

the text that was in WW3 article today, 13 April 2007

.................. In addition to the above there are two other points during the Cold War that could have resulted in world war. These, however, are not generally listed as they do not relate to the United States-Soviet Union rivalry, but rather the events following the Sino-Soviet Split of 1960. The ideological split between Maoist communists (represented primarily by China) and Stalinist communists (represented primarily by the Soviet Union) divided the entire communist movement worldwide — which controlled governments or significant rebel factions on most continents. Thus a war between China and the Soviet Union may well have resulted in world war, while not necessarily involving the U.S. and the capitalist west. The two points the communist powers almost entered into all-out war over were: ..................

Come on, try checking this: Sino-Soviet split

At that time, the Soviet Union under Khrushchev was going through a process of DE-Stalinisation, and that IS one of

I don't know who wrote this, but try checking the facts next time or writing nothing. This is really a big thing.

References to current talk radio hosts

Removed. Hardly appropriate in an encyclopedia setting.

POV in article

This article focuses far too much attention on the times where nuclear war could have occured. Yes the Cold War could be seen as a potential World War III, but it fails to give enough information on "close calls" after the Cold War, and aside from nuclear threats. For instance, the global war on terror has been repeatedly mentioned as a potential third World War or already a de facto World War III for a number of reasons. The reaction to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has affected large areas of the world ranging over large distances. Second, a major close call, which DID NOT involve a nuclear threat was in 2006, when a conflict of alliances almost erupted following Israel's invasion of Lebanon almost brought about a Middle Eastern conflict to add to the global war on terror and the Iraq war (bear in mind that world wars can be dominating one region of the world, such as WWI was dominated by the European theatre). In 2006, Iran pledged to back Syria if Israeli action involved attacks on Syria, or if Syria decided to wage war on Israel for Israel's attempt to purge Lebanon of Hezbollah, which was supported by Syria and Iran. If such a conflict erupted, it was believed that Iran would have taken action against U.S. forces in Iraq, causing the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq to be at war with Iran. The 2006 conflict in Lebanon was a close call to World War III and should be put down in the close call list. User:R-41

I removed:

"April 5, 2063 is supposedly about ten years after WW3 and when the light barrier is broken by the first warp capable starship, the Phoenix."

Because it dose not pertain to World War III. This isn't a Star Trek article.--Champion1701 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Greatest threats

Unfortunately, the page protection has left the page stuck in the bad state. In "Greatest threats," the problem is with this entry:

CIA original operative, Miles Copeland, wrote in 1989 that in the future, World War Three will kick off when "Soviet Russia" dupes the United States and Israel into waging a self-destructive war with the Muslim/Arab world[5].

I think it's very clear this is utterly non-notable and inappropriate for the article. Not only is the phrase "CIA original operative" suspicious (what is that even supposed to mean?), but this predicted is clearly dated and obviously really poor (it was made in 1989, just two years before the dissolution of the Soviet Union -- so obviously the prediction of the threat was impressively wrong).

I think the example above it (the "standoff" in Kosovo) is also marginal, since it's hardly considered historically to be a close call or a "greatest threat" of imminent war. It's just an offhanded comment by one particular general. (For example, it didn't even make much news in the States, to my knowledge.) However, I think it's clear the Copeland assertion is completely valueless and inappropriate for inclusion.

Not to mention the other point of contention which is that extremely devastating is rather redundantly redundant.  Xihr  19:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No reply from the edit-warring party. What a shock.  Xihr  20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible weapons

If World war 3 happenned in the future, why would they still use Nuclear weapons? If they used Matter-antimatter weapons, it would harness a thousands joules of more power as all the matter would be lost and converted into energy inistead of just a small fraction of power. Bladepker80 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL That's just speculation, and wikipedia is not for that. "Weapons to be used in World War III" is specifically given as an example of what to not include, on that page. :-) Try finding some reliable sources that support your statement, and if you can find some then it could be okay to put it in the article. HarmoniousMembrane (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

McNamara quote.

According to the article on Vasili, it was some archivist in 2002 that made the "saved the world" quote. I don't see what source is supposed to support either interpretation, so I have left it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Hey, it's just me or Albert Einstein's quotation just been cut shorter? (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Einsten quote is totally innacurate and should be removed or replaced with the correct quotation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenom720 (talkcontribs) 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Could of" vs. "Could have"

>> Former British solider turned singer-songwriter James Blunt revealed in 2010 he refused an order from General Clark to seize the airport from Russians. A decision which Blunt, like General Jackson, believed could of triggered of World War 3, hence his refusal to seize the airport from the Russians.<< There is no such thing as could of ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}.  Xihr  23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's my opinion that this incident is really quite marginal, and isn't appropriate as the list of greatest threats of World War III; it's just a general making reference to it, something which has surely happen many, many times throughout the Cold War. Certainly the length of the reference seems like inappropriate emphasis compared to, say, the section on the Cuban Missile Crisis. I suggest it be deleted, or at least pared down.  Xihr  23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with the 'could of' vs 'could have' statement and suggesting, 'triggered off' rather than, 'triggered of'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fropilog (talkcontribs) 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue isn't just the bad copy editing, it's the irrelevance of the topic to the article.  Xihr  07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I think this is a notable event, as it is, to my knowledge, the closest NATO and Russian forces have come to actually facing each other on the battlefield. Serendipodous 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

cold war as wwiii

Could someone please add that Michael Moore (maybe some others too) call the Cold War WWIII because of conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Also that some call the "War on Terror" (Iraq War, Afghanistan War) World War II. - (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Crisis in the Korean Penninsula?

There has been a TON of talk, The most in decades, about the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and the subsequent drills on December the 20th leading to World War III. Shall we go ahead and add this?  Sub!  04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Only if you can find a source that explicitly states that the recent events are an eminent threat to World War III. Still a minor event if you ask me. Marcus Qwertyus 05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The first line of this following paragraph is page vandalism. 'Adventure time' is a kids cartoon of which 'finn' is a main character.

Suez Crisis—Soviet threat (1956)

During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin sent a note to British Prime Minister Anthony Eden warning that "if this war is not stopped it carries the danger of turning into a third world war."[2] (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ {{Citation | editor-first = Michel | editor-last = de Nostradame | title = Vaticinia Nostradami | publisher = Unknown | year = 1555 | id = Unknown
  2. ^ "The Nuclear Seduction". escholarship. Retrieved 2010-01-16.