Oh its certainly possible, even probable, but it isnt guaranteed for example the Cold War. There was fighting but nothing direct between the two powers. This was mainly due to neither side accepting the outcome of a nuclear exchange, and we still see this today.
I agree with what you say here, but my argument is what defines a “stick” nowadays.
These same weapons, the advancement of such, is exactly why conventional fighting is so difficult between the great powers. The threat of a nuclear exchange is what keeps the 101st from stepping out of Poland and into Ukraine. The escalation risk is just to real, so new fronts must be opened up. I dont know if these new fronts, economic, cyber, the advancement of AI and drones, maybe robotics, propaganda etc, must lead to kinetic war. I would argue it doesnt have to. I think its possible to have a ww3 where even the Marines are sidelined.
Imperialism vs communism for example. I’d consider that a global civil war. The 1848 revolutions, the cold war, etc.
Or the war between the right (who support traditionalism, social hierarchies, etc) and the left (who support egalitarianism and more equitable social systems). Much of the mideast and west are undergoing strife due to these battles.
Or the battle between authoritarianism and pro-democracy movements.
Those are global civil wars spanning across cultures and nations
There would almost certainly be opposing nuclear powers, and this nuclear armageddon is the likely result. I can’t imagine a scenario where one side lacks a nuclear armed power given that the strongest non-nuclear powers include the likes of Turkey, Germany, Australia, Brazil, and South Korea**.
What alternate scenarios are there for a nuclear power to lose a conventional war on its own territory without using nukes? They can accept defeat while refusing to use nukes. The top brass could order the use of nukes but with the guys who actually push the red button refuse to do so. There could be an internal revolution in the losing country(ies) with the new government surrendering without using nukes. Some kind of advanced cyber attack could be used to disable the nukes of the losing side.
All those scenarios sound far fetched to me. So yeah, we would most likely be looking at nuclear annihilation.
**. I left off Israel and Iran due to the uncertain status of whether or not they have nukes.
It probably would have been difficult if not impossible for the former Soviet republics to maintain functional nuclear arsenals. Nukes don’t just sit on the shelf forever.
I would argue that due to the previous administration’s actions, the United States has lost the majority of it’s “soft power,” (non-military methods of influence) while other ‘polar contenders’ have made meaningul inroads on expanding theirs (e.g. Chinese & Russian economic/diplomatic investment into Africa and South America, alongside the former’s development into asymmetrical warfare). That re-balancing of the “soft power” scales tends to make it less unipolar than it used to be, which makes me agree with you. I think just how far ahead the US is in the ‘unipolar lead’ compared to other contenders, or even regional superpowers warrants some hefty discussion.
Putting two quotes together for one answer, I would submit that yes, a World War would have to go kinetic for any meaningful resolution. You’re right that Clausewitz defined war as an extension of politics, and I would submit that ‘contests’ short of bullets being flung allow adversaries’ political structures/regimes to adapt and change as necessary to stay in power. The only true way (so far) to change a political situation is by lethal force. You can apply all the economic/informational/diplomatic leverage you want, but those alone can’t guarantee a political change (I’m looking at you, North Korea). Effective change comes to those with a monopoly on the use of force, whether it be from an outside power, or revolution from within.
That was kinda longwinded. . . that’s what I get for disjointed replies. I started the draft two days ago, and sat on it, accidentally hitting ‘Reply’ before finishing my thoughts.
Tripler
Then there was coffee at work today. Lots of coffee…
True enough, the economic cost of maintaining a nuclear arsenal is extremely high (and often overlooked), and the political cost in the pressure that would be brought on former Soviet republics for refusing to sing the NPT would have been enormous. Nevertheless, as North Korea has shown, it’s possible to be an economic basket case and have nukes if the will is there. I’m certainly not arguing that a Ukraine that refused to give up its nukes in 1994 would have been a good thing or actually preferable to the way things are now, but there is a bitter irony that Ukraine at one time became the world’s 3rd greatest nuclear power overnight when it inherited about a third of the former Soviet arsenal and gave it up on the promise that Russia wouldn’t do exactly what it is did in 2014 and is again doing now. The same sort of irony that the 9 Tu-160 strategic bombers it had inherited but couldn’t really afford to maintain and sold to Russia in 1999 are now being used to launch cruise missiles at them.
In hindsight, they should have demanded security assurances from other parties at part of giving up the nukes. IOW, allow other parties to participate in their behalf.
Hopefully mutually assured destruction (MAD) will continue to prevent all-out nuclear war in our post-WWII world. I don’t believe even Kim Jong-un is insane enough to go head-to-head against any nation with second-strike capability. It would be suicide. IMHO, a hypothetical WWIII would be self-limited to asymmetrical conventional warfare, guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and border skirmishes, just on a larger scale.
I saw it maybe four years ago. If I remember correctly it was made by some company in 2016 as a psychological test. It mentioned PM Theresa May and President Obama.
The original video was longer and showed the news anchors, better invasion maps, evacuations, surrender of eastern European nations, etc. I remember the Warsaw correspondent was disconnected by a nuclear bomb. Every time I see President Zelensky speak from his bunker, with the white wall, I think of that scene.
The big risk to MAD was always that a dictoatormmight think, “But what if the destruction isn’t mutual?” Dictators and strong men tend to see Democracies as weak in peacetime. WWII happened in part because Hitler looked at the isolationist and peace movements in the U.S. and decided America had no will to fight. He was wrong.
The risk is that Putin may back himself into a corner where it’s use nukes or lose big, and under that pressure he’ll rationalize to himself that the west will never cause global nuclear war over a nuke dropped on Kiev or something. Or that the west is weak enough that if he hits a couple of major cities we’ll all beg for mercy rather than fight back. Dictators in a bubble of yes-men can do crazy, irrational things.