There have been plenty of wars fought in the age of nuclear weapons that, strangely enough, have not resulted in the use of nuclear weapons. There’s a few of them going on right now, in fact!
In context of being a hypothetical world war, I do believe the current major powers, some of which have nukes, need to be involved. By definition, the answer to your question would have to be someone on this list.
I don’t see how the current geopolitical climate results in any of those coming into direct conflict rather than just continuing to wage thinly veiled proxy wars. The only WW3 scenario I can imagine right now looks more like an intensification of the current situation.
I do not see any world wars happening anytime soon either, given a somewhat rational (read non-suicidal) leadership of key nations. The original comment you responded to said that none would survive a nuclear total war, to which you replied that there have been wars fought in the nuclear age. This is true, even to the point of proxy wars between nuclear powers. However, they are not world wars, for which I think the original comment’s argument holds true. In effect the idea is that a world war would almost by definition have some nuclear power on either side.
No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here.
It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I’m not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of “World War” is remarkably narrow and I feel I’ve been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that.
There have been plenty of wars fought in the age of nuclear weapons that, strangely enough, have not resulted in the use of nuclear weapons. There’s a few of them going on right now, in fact!
Not directly between nuclear powers though.
Which nuclear powers do you foresee entering into direct conflict in a theoretical WW3 scenario based on current conditions?
In context of being a hypothetical world war, I do believe the current major powers, some of which have nukes, need to be involved. By definition, the answer to your question would have to be someone on this list.
I don’t see how the current geopolitical climate results in any of those coming into direct conflict rather than just continuing to wage thinly veiled proxy wars. The only WW3 scenario I can imagine right now looks more like an intensification of the current situation.
I do not see any world wars happening anytime soon either, given a somewhat rational (read non-suicidal) leadership of key nations. The original comment you responded to said that none would survive a nuclear total war, to which you replied that there have been wars fought in the nuclear age. This is true, even to the point of proxy wars between nuclear powers. However, they are not world wars, for which I think the original comment’s argument holds true. In effect the idea is that a world war would almost by definition have some nuclear power on either side.
If a world war can only exist between nuclear powers then does the first one (and most of the second) not count?
No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here.
It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I’m not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of “World War” is remarkably narrow and I feel I’ve been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that.
deleted by creator