I think you mean Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul.
ETA : just making a point, here. I’m sure Julius wasn’t the actual first guy to have this problem.
Illusion. We gave away tax dollars and forgave debts to countries that had no interest so we could fabricate an illusion of many countries were with us.
They included
Iceland 2 troops
Phillipines 51
Norway 150
New Zealand 61
Tonga 51
Estonia 40
Moldova 24
Bosnia 55
Macedonia 77
Romania 46
It was a confederation of countries that were willing to take Bush’s tax money for the appearance of having many nations on board. Most bailed quickly and some troops never hit shore. It was an American war with significant help from the United Kingdom who maxed out at 46.000 soldiers.
I guess if we count the War of the Spanish Succession as the first world war (i.e., multi-continental war), there have been at least five in modern times (excluding all pre-modern conflicts such as the Crusades, and excluding essentially intra-imperial conflicts such as the American Revolution):
War of the Spanish Succession (1700-1713)
Seven Years’ War (1756-1763; known in British America as the French and Indian War)
French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802) and Napoleonic War (1803-1815) (if we count these as two stages of the same long war)
WWI (1914-1918)
WWII (1939-1945)
I still say the Cold War (1945-1991) should count as the sixth, even if the superpowers fought it mostly by proxies. There was a lot of blood shed, and it all was part of the same long global conflict.
I don’t think the ongoing “Global War on Terror,” however, which is an essentially non-state conflict despite the several active state-war theaters, rates being counted as the seventh world war.
Yet.
Most of the costs were paid for by the Saudis, I had though. I’d also double check the numbers on your chart there, because while you’re right that the majority of the troops were American, Estonia, Macedonia, and Bosnia didn’t exist yet, and a lot of the other countries you listed didn’t participate at all, even nominally.
Are you sure you’re not talking about the recent Iraq War that overthrew Sadaam, instead of the Gulf War, which was about kicking Iraq out of Kuwait?
I don’t see another World War in the imminent offing, but I do see the danger of a war between China and India or between China and Russia going nuclear. And that might draw in the West.
What have those three actually got to fight over?
China and India are heading into dangerous pre-WWI nationalistic stances towards each other as both countries profiles rise in the world. We’re already seeing the beginning of the this competitiveness come about.
As for Russia, central Asian influence and its far eastern territory.
Multi-National Force – Iraq - Wikipedia have at it.
Right. Those are the troops that fought in the coalition during the Iraq War (2003-?). I’m talking about the coalition in the Gulf War (1990-91), that happened after Iraq invaded Kuwait. We’re talking about different coalitions. 
Just so you know, China and India have had border disputes that led to a war in the early 60s.
The current border between Tibet and India is the McMahon line which comes out of a treaty signed between Britain and China in 1914. The Chinese have never officially recognized the McMahon Line, saying that China never agreed to the treaty, so it’s not valid. So, the China claims the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which they refer to as South Tibet.
Here’s an article about the conflict.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/world/asia/04chinaindia.html
India, on the other hand, claims the Chinese owned area Aksai Chin, which they claim is part of Jinnu and Kashmir. China is also, of course, not all that fond of the fact that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan independence groups are in India.
China and Russia signed a treaty in 1991 to solve their border disputes, but China and the Soviet Union had their own border clashes in the late 60s.
I think the only thing we can say about the next world war is that it will either be very unlike the other two, or that its some way off, ie new issues of some sort need to develop whether its political systems, technology, or some kind of major disaster, ie massive disease, global resource shortage, etc.
Because it would by definition either be like to be fairly apocalyptic in nature, or over very quickly, ie one side creams the other in matter of weeks. Other nations cascading in to the mess only really works as a scenario if the US is the last to be involved.
Otara
World War III will be triggered by a small nuclear explosion in a US or European city. I don’t like thinking about that, but there it is.
I’m thinking it’ll start 2250-2300, Earth, lunar & L5 colonies vs Belters and the Jovian Moons. I’m pretty sure Mars will attempt some sort of Switzerland neutrality, but secretly be working with the Outer Colonists, the damn Reds!
Land. Both India and China have burgeoning populations. Those people need to live somewhere.
I’m not aware of either country having a lack of places for people to live (definitely not China) but more a lack of places where you’d want to live if you were at all aspirational (i.e. a modern city with mod cons). I don’t see how India invading China or vice versa would improve that.
Personally I’m with the people who say there won’t be another world war as the political geometry of the world is extremely different now, the lack of obvious blocs being the main part of it. Sure, wars are going to happen, there’s no getting around that - but one that involves directly or indirectly everyone on the planet? No, not unless there is some huge change of trend back towards countries merging together and growing more territorial, but that just doesn’t seem to be happening (if anything it’s in reverse with lots of countries and territories wanting to split up or move into looser federations like the EU).
I’m thinking along the same lines. How could we possibly know?
How can anyone say there will never be another world war? There is no way to accurately predict the global situation in say 100 or 200 years. Politics, socio-economics, and technology are such mercurial forces. Global change has been exponential over the last few hundred years and it would be reasonable to assume it will continue this way long enough to cross into the realm of unpredictability.
But for the sake of argument can we define a world war as a globe-spanning, physical conflict with clearly defined sides and involving 100’s of millions or billions of people? Like the last one?
That wouldn’t be World War III, though; that would be the First Interplanetary War.
Fracking Marsies…maybe President Clark was right to start bombing Mars.
But not Siberia, to be sure. Wouldn’t you far rather stew in Calcutta/Shanghai?
Of course, maybe they’re counting on global warming to turn frigid Siberia into a temperate paradise like . . . Wyoming . . .