Talk:World War III/Archive 2

General suggestion
When I saw that there was a wiki-link to this page, I was very excited. However, that excitement soon faded to disappointment once I saw the actual page. I was hoping for a synopsis of hypothetical WWIII scenarios and conspiracy theories. While I realize simply posting an opinion such as this on a talk page doesn't get things moving, I figured I might as well throw it out there. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By consensus, that's not what the page is about. If you're so inclined, you could try starting another article on the subject you're interested in ... though it sounds like it would be a problem of original research and/or synthesis.  Xihr  01:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. (In particular, item 3: "an article on 'Weapons to be used in World War III' is not [appropriate].") However if you think there is scope for an appropriate article, I suggest creating a rough outline/draft of that article - including references - as a subpage of your user page, then as others for feedback about whether it is appropriate. Depending on your level of knowledge/experience, Your first article might help. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't WW3 start on 9/11?
World Wars don't have to always associate with nuclear exchanges, right? Given that the initial attacks started across the world from where we fight now, that's enough of a worldwide war on terror, right? We are fighting around the world against terrorism, so why doesn't anyone else believe that World War 3 already started on September 11, 2001? --70.179.174.101 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article?
 * On the July 10 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson interviewed Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and said "some are calling the global war on terror something else, something more like World War III."
 * --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT) articles here do not exhaustively cover all of the subjects relating to their title. Each article is about its own subject, and does not discuss other subjects in depth, even where they sometimes have the same name. This article defines itself as covering a third world war so terrible that 'the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones'. The global war on terror has its own article, and hyperbolic Fox News claims linking this subject and that one hardly warrant a 'not to be confused with' note. --Wragge (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
 * To take this to its extreme: even if there is an official "third world war" - a shooting war between Asia & Europe, say, which does not result in the total devastation envisaged in the late '40s, then this article still wouldn't cover the real "third world war" (except maybe in passing) - because it covers a particular subject (what people from 1945 to 1989 thought of under the name 'WWIII'). --Wragge (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

New items listed under close calls
Have these been described in reliable sources as close calls? I think we need that before we add them, and we should avoid WP:RECENTISM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Many "reliable" and "well-known" sources in America will not speak about if for varying reasons, there for finding a reliable source in English or not blocked is tricky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.127.84 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * alas, per WP:RS we must find reliable sources, Dbrodbeck (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:BRD. Please find sources for these. Wikipedia is not the news, and we need to find sources that list these as close calls. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an "ongoing crisis" involving Russian nuclear threats, "as serious as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis"... and no-one has noticed? Something seems a bit implausible, here. Removing this until someone explicitly (and seriously) describes it as an event that came close to provoking war is definitely the correct move. Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You CAN'T find any "reliable" sources of it, because the only "reliable" sources won't talk about it! It's being covered up! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Well, if there are no reliable sources, we have nothing to add to the article. Assertions about a cover up are moot.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent close calls
Suggest that the inclusion of the Israeli bombing of a Syrian compound in 2007? http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/222736/we-came-so-close-to-world-war-three-that-day.thtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.151.162 (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pristina
I removed the Pristina incident from the close call list. Honestly I have no idea why anyone would consider including it in the first place, as it is anything but a close encounter with WW3. Pavuvu (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? British troops directly engaging Russian troops in combat would have triggered a diplomatic crisis? Regardless, I don't think either of us is in a better position to make predictions than the guy who was actually giving orders on the ground that day.  Serendi pod ous  17:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. British troops engaged in a single skirmish with Russian forces would not by far have triggered WW3. Seriously, a single engagement would typically not even trigger an ordinary war, so exactly why is the Pristina incident included? Is it just because someone mentioned WW3 when it happened? Provide some source that makes it more credible to say that it could have triggered a world war, otherwise it doesn't really fit in. There is quite simply nothing in the BBC source provided that even remotely indicates that the incident had the potential to cause a world war, or even a normal war for that matter. Pavuvu (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You never addressed the second part of my comment.  Serendi pod ous  23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An off-hand remark made during what the news report calls a "heated exchange" is hardly sufficient as an assesment of consequences. If general Clark is on record describing it as a close call after the Kosovo war, then maybe.09:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, I did not adress the second part of your comment. I didn't find it very relevant, as the criteria for what goes in the article isn't determined by either one of our predictions, or those of anyone on the ground when it occured. Sources are what is supposed to dictate what goes into an article, and there is no source that actually says that a British attack against the Russian troops would even come close to triggering WW3. Pavuvu (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the incident again after this discussion.Sjö (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons
I think there should be a note that lots of people think World War III will start probably some time this year because many other countrys are getting nuclear weapons and this could possibly lead to a terrorist bomb, like 9/11 II.

(talk) 14:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if 'lots of people think' this it does not matter. There are no references, we use sources, not what people think.   Please see WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

consensus by reliable sources involving experts in the field ?
Would it be possible to add a section of "probable belligerents" based on current world affairs by leading experts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to German Wikipedia
In the German Wikipedia, the article only describes the situation during the Cold War. Should the link persist anyway? Bleistift2 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The German article is mainly about the situation during the Cold War but there is a short Abweichende Begriffsverwendung (Other uses of the term) section which mentions e.g. the War on Terror and a Der Dritte Weltkrieg in den Künsten (World War III in fiction) section. Anyway, the German article is about WWIII so I see no reason to delete the interwiki to de: Wikipedia. Hopefully someone will expand the German article.Sjö (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Causes
Maybe you should add what many expect will cause World War III?

North Korea vs. South Korea is perhaps the most expected cause to World War III. If North Korea attacks South Korea definite countries that will be involved are China, the US, and most likely Russia, since they are so strong and so close (but it is not certain as to what side they'd join). Other countries that'd be drawn in would most likely be Canada, the UK, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, France, etc.

Pakistan vs. India is another acceptable cause for WWIII. It would most likely bring in countries listed above as well.

Israel vs. Iran is the third and final acceptable cause (that I know of) for WWIII. It would definitely bring in the US and other allies such as the UK or France and probably many Middle Eastern countries, as most of them do have disputes with Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.190.156 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You need references to add such stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What about when it happens?
Seriously, it's only a matter of time. Will the current info be moved to a separate article titled "Original speculation about WW III"? That seems pretty awkward. Note, I'm assuming that civilization survives the nuclear war long enough for this to be an issue. Silenceisgod (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

How many countries need to be involved? 5? 10? There are more than 100 countries in the world, so 5 countries nuking each other would hardly be worthy of calling a "world" war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.89.2 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Berlin Blockade?
Should the Berlin Blockade in 1948/9 be mentioned in the list of Historic Close Calls? 188.221.129.72 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Event will never happen
i suggest that this article is deleated as it is an event which has not yet happend --Fastcatz (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not sufficient criteria for deletion. Many things on Wikipedia have not yet happened. Some, like fairy tales, will never happen.  Serendi pod ous  13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Having read many Wiki articles, it appears many things in this "encyclopedia" are fantasy or just plain wrong (they don't even make good fantasy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.9 (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with @Fastcatz on the irrelevancy of this page. The comparison with Fairy Tales is not relevant here. Fairy Tales are fictional works by definition. Fiction books are discussed regarding their literary value. But the point of this present article is mere speculation about a non-fictional event. If this page is relevant, so are pages on World War Four, Five, Six Seven, etc. Even "Historical close calls" are irrelevant. Should we have a page on "Close calls" to wining the Fifa World Cup?Desmore13 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

World War III already happened, in the 19th Century?/ discussion of what actually is a "World War"?
Would there be scope to talk about the argument that the first World War was in fact before the First World War/ Great War 1914-18. There were prior conflicts that were global in scale.

For example the Seven Years War had North American and Indian Theatres as well as a European one. Indeed there is an argument that it was more of a single "World War" than World War II, since in the latter war, the Pacific and European parts of the war were for the most part separate conflicts, whereas in the Seven Years War the main belligerents (Britain and France) were fighting each other on different continents, there were no German Troops fighting in Burma, or Japanese troops at Arnhem.

Moving on a little later, the American War of Independence could be seen as a World War, American ships for example did attack British ships in European Waters, and of course it was also part of a wider conflict involving France and Spain as well as Great Britain.

I suppose the Napoleonic Wars again had theatres outside Europe in the Americas.

Even the Crimean War had World War potential. I am not knowledgable enough about it enough to know if there was fighting there, but hte fact that two of the belligerants, the UK and Russia actually shared a land border on the North American continent at the time is significant. Either there was fighting in which case it was at least technically a World War, or there was not in which case it's still significant that two belligerants in war had a common border!

By this logic World War III were in fact the Napoleonic Wars, and the 1914-18 war was in fact World War V!

Similarly there is then a reasonable discussion about when did what we commonly call World War I and World War II become genuine World Wars? I guess World War I was a World War from day one pretty much, (New Zealand invaded Samoa early on, plus there's fighting in the African theatre straight away. World War II probably becomes a World War in 1941, when the USA, Japan and the USSR join the conflict. Still the whole thing is arguable, for example there was a North American beligerant from Day 1- that's the point really- there must be some academic work considering these questions somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.115.102.94 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We would need sources for this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * World War II was coined by Time Magazine in 1939. Russia joined in World War II that year as well on the side of the Nazis. One of the reasons it did was the fact that it was fighting a major war with Japan in Mongolia (Nomonhan) and didn't want to fight a two front war.Ericl (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding reference replacement
This edit was a reversion of the switch from a partisan source to a neutral one that references the show directly. What is the issue? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit comment it was "not an update" and it "replaced good, linked, ref with other, unclear ref impossible to find". The Media Matters ref referenced both the Leeden and Kudlow statements, and the one you added referenced neither because it was impossible to find any proof of Kudlow's statement using the information you provided. Sjö (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Miles Copeland
The editor who added Copeland's views has been reverted a couple of times. I would like it if we could discuss why Copeland's views are notable enough to include. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2013
Can you allow me to edit some things at this article? I will not do anything bad. Simply I am aware of world situation. You can edit it again if you think otherwise.

46.35.140.198 (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
 * You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
 * You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Syria
I suggest the section is removed as an example of recentism and lack of reliable sources supporting the text. The "some prominent figures" that have expressed concern about a world war is the deputy foreign minister of Syria who said "The Syrian government will not change position even if there is World War III". That one person involved in a civil war uses hyperbole as a propaganda tool in the war should not be taken to show that it's an opinion important enough to be mentioned in the article.

The section contains several references, but as far as I can see only the one I mentioned above mentions any fear of WWIII. One is an article about how Pope Francis is critical of slot machines as if that has anything to do with this! If and when uninvolved, prominent statesmen or historians consider this a "close call" the section can be restored, but I doubt it will happen. Sjö (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Let's wait, there is no rush.  The material ought to be removed.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also the Italian Foreign Affairs Minister Emma Bonino said that an attack in Syria could causes a World War. And the Vatican said that there is the risk of an enlargement of the conflict into a World War. If the Pope isn't a "prominent figure", I don't know who else could it be. Anyway this is my opinion, what do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Could cause" =/= "close call". EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And the Pope hasn't mentioned WWIII, AFAIK. If a US official says something we don't attribute it to Obama, and it works the same with the Vatican. In my opinion we are very far from WP:DUE. Sjö (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, now is "could cause", but if the US will attack Syria it will maybe become a "close call"...let's wait and hope in the peace. -- Nick.mon (talk)09:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Putin is being nominated for the Nobel peace prize under the basis he averted world war 3 by negotiating with Syria === — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.145.154 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WWIII vs 'Apocalyptic war' concepts
WWIII and 'Apocalyptic war' are not the same. The list of examples seems to confuse them. A distinction must be clearly drawn, may be even the missing article written. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoever wants to add an extra trigger, must provide a reference which explicitly mentions WWIII. Otherwise iot would be original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, one may want to find good references which say that US-SU war would be a global war. After that it will be OK to add refs to US-SU war triggers. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War
Here are 4 sources that state the Yom Kippur War was a "potential trigger" for a larger US vs. USSR conflict.

1) On October 19, two weeks into the war, Semenov wrote: “Over the last few days the situation has become so complicated that it seemed we were on the verge of becoming engaged in war.”


 * As tensions mounted, Adm. Murphy reckoned the chances of the Soviet squadron attempting a first strike against his fleet at 40 percent.


 * http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/the-little-known-us-soviet-confrontation-during-yom-kippur-wa

2) Sadat, having realized that his call for Soviet intervention had pushed the superpowers to the brink of war,


 * The normally phlegmatic Gromyko was profoundly disturbed by this development — he had a bad feeling that things would soon get out of control.


 * http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/07/erol-araf-incalculable-consequences/

3) During the crisis, however, tensions between the superpowers nearly escalated into nuclear war.


 * http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01489-X.html

4) The war that nearly was


 * they had come so close to the edge.


 * http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/The-war-that-nearly-was

Defcon 3 was reached only one other time during the Cold War - at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

What's the problem? lol Jimjilin (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If there's no objection I'll add the Yom Kippur War to the list of potential triggers for WW III.Jimjilin (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see the previous section. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the history there were quite a few brushes between US and SU militaries, flexing muscles (inlcudeing Vietname, North Korea, Africa). Do we want to list all of them here? There should be definite opinion that someone's finger was on Red Button. It the casse of Yom Kippur the sources say that the level was switched from DEFCON 4 to DEFCON 3 - a far cry from the Red Button. Staszek Lem (talk)


 * The article mentions 2 incidents where the US military did not reach Defcon 3. The article already mentions the Korean War.  If you can identify a dangerous incident of the Vietnam War maybe we should include that too.


 * I have provided evidence that we were on the verge of a larger US-USSR conflict at the time of the Yom Kippur War. That should be enough.


 * Why do you think the other incidents pushed us closer to the red button?Jimjilin (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 5) Moshe Dayan urged Golda Meir to prepare to launch a nuclear strike during the 1973 Yom Kippur War,


 * http://www.jta.org/2013/10/06/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/report-dayan-asked-golda-meir-to-weigh-nuclear-strike-in-73#ixzz2q2jhki1m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs)


 * If there are no further objections I'll just add the small change I made earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs)
 * There are objections (see Staszek Lem). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically, see section " WWIII vs 'Apocalyptic war' concepts". More specifically, you don't need World War to destroy the world. And, what is most important, according to wikipedia rules, you need a reference from a reliable source (not just from a sensation-mongering journalist) which says "this could have started WWIII". Other wise it is original research, not allowed in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

more close ww3 cases
hi,

why so few close ww3 cases? in earlier versions were about 10 cases and it were 10 or more...

KIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeIsPower (talk • contribs) 05:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Article should be deleted
Recently the article on PSSD which is highly important so that people who suffer from the disease start to understand what happened to them after quitting an antidepressant SSRI, was deleted.

Now I came across with this article that makes a joke of history, even the official versions. Other people has expressed the same but Wikipedia insist in being part of the problem by desinforming and creating facts as it pleases the authors.

You should be ashamed of such imposture.--Justana (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)--Justana (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There is no joking in this article.  It's about historical occasions that WWIII was almost reached and the use of a third world war in media. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with the real third world word that is already unfolding and puts in the past the concept of WW3. Should we name what is happening now and is about to have more serious consequences WW4? So we will have the fourth world war because the third one was hijacked by some authors as something that "almost" happened. According to this logic maybe it would be the eleven world war. Towards WW11. This are some links that deals with the real stuff: The Globalization of War: The “Military Roadmap” to World War III: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-globalization-of-war-the-military-roadmap-to-world-war-iii/28254 And Prof. book: "Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War" by Prof Michel Chossudovsky ISBN: 978-0-973714-5-3 “The WWIII scenario is unthinkable. This war would extend from the Mediterranean to the Chinese border. It could possibly include Russia and China,” Michel Chossudovsky concluded. “We could find ourselves at a very critical crossroads.” --Justana (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Globalresearch.ca is not a RS, SSRI drugs have nothing to do with this topic.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for the article to be deleted and I have no idea what you're talking about with the SSRI part. I see no POV on this article and it states in the lead "hypothetical successor" to WWII, which WWIII is at this time. It then mentions typical things that come along with WWIII. ShawntheGod (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Article needs work
I removed the following passage from the section about the Cold War because it really doesn't have anything to do with the definition of WWIII. Although interesting, it's simply Miles Copland's speculation, 25 years ago, of what the next big conflict could be, and many, many analysts have done this sort of thing. (And in any case WP is WP:NOT a crystal ball.)


 * In 1989, CIA original operative, Miles Copeland, wrote that World War Three would occur when "Soviet Russia" dupes the United States and Israel into waging a self-destructive war with the Muslim/Arab world.

OTOH, it could also be argued that as one of the definitions of WWIII is a war that hasn't happened yet, passages like this could be added to a new section about predictions or analysts' guesses what could come next, etc. But it doesn't really belong at present. - Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WWIII Fiction List
I created a bullet point list of the most widely recognized best WWIII fiction in both literature and tv/movies and provided a quick plot intro to each. I felt something more specific was needed, specific examples, rather than just a link to the master list.

This genre tends to have a lot of really good stuff (Like Red Storm Rising and 'Third World War: an Untold Story' and really terrible stuff (like the movie DEFCON-4), with very little in between, so I felt a guide to a few of the better known (among the niche of people who read this subgenre) works would provide a nice guide to someone curious about this stuff. Many of them, like Tom Clancy and General Sir John Hackett, wrote their works with insider knowledge of the plans for how it would have played out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in World War III
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of World War III's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AllHands": From Exercise Grand Slam:  From Exercise Verity:  From Exercise Longstep:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Expansion
Hi, if you look at my previous edits you will see I've been spending a lot of time expanding and improving WWIII fiction articles, on books like The Last Ship etc I've recently became v v interested in WWIII scenarios and nuclear warfare and have begin reading up for months now on the declassified plans and any other info that's available on how it would have played up, you can find stuff right up to the 1990s. I've started to improve this article as well, I've changed the headings a bit to make the article a bit less of a jumble, it's now going to have three components, military plans, historic close calls, and fiction. I'm going to expand the military plans part over the coming days since that is clearly where the most work is needed. Anyone has any suggestions or thoughts PM me. I come from a neutral (officially...) country so I think I'll have a very balanced view on things, heres hoping..

-Jericho.Trinity.Omega — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk • contribs) 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded the article greatly spending a few hours on it yesterday (I'm at home sick, I sorta fell into it... :P ). I did the following:

-Added a Millitary Operations section, a homeland security/civil defense section -Added some visual elements to the article which were lacking before, including things like FEMA projections on what a WWIII nuclear exchange would do to the US, the central military factors like Carrier Battle Groups that would be players in a third world war, images of WWIII book covers.. -Expanded the fiction section to include a list of all the key WWIII novels, movies and tv stuff, since this genre tends to be either really good or really awful I felt a pointer to the better quality stuff was needed. People are always looking for these kind of books and can never find them.

'''The big problem is with references. I'd appreciate some help with this, I'm new to wikipedia and if you look at say the main articles of the military operations I've listed the references are there to everything I said (some of the sections cut and pasted into the general WWIII article) but I'm unsure how it works/still learning.'''

Someone seems to have deleted my book covers of WWII: Untold Story and Red Storm Rising, please don't do that again, I put them there for a reason, the two novels are the definitive works of the genre, and widely accepted as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Current crisis with Russia and perhaps China
I think it's about time this gets mention here. It's now the first time in a long time the USA and Russia are outright threatening war with each other. A spokesman for the Kremlin even said they would decimate the USA with nuclear bombs. This is far more significant than many of the other potential hot points here.

We also still have a large build up of USA and Russian ships squaring off at the Syrian coast. Then we have the problem with China trying to land grab various islands belonging to other countries. The other day the USA said they would go to war with China if they make a move on the Senkaku islands.

These are important events as Russia and China are clearly becoming closer allies, with Russia now choosing to sell most of their oil to China, and both countries planning on dropping the dollar. China has already threatened nuclear war with the USA if they attack Iran. Between the Ukraine, Syria, and the South China sea we have three spark points which are all connected to each other. If one of them gets set on fire the rest will explode, undoubtedly dragging in every major power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.74.107 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to the above comment: No, Russia and the USA are not threatening war "outright" with each other. Quite the opposite, actually. And this "spokesman" was actually a TV speaker, not a formal speaker for the Kremlin. Before you ask for something to be added, get your facts straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The person who said that they had enough nukes to wipe the USA off the map was Dmitri Kiselyov, one of the highest ranking execs in Russia's state owned media and a well known mouth peace for Kremlin policies. Not just some tv person.

From his wiki page: "Dmitry Konstantinovich Kiselyov (Russian: Дми́трий Константи́нович Киселёв, born 26 April 1954)[1] is a Russian journalist. In December 2013 he was appointed by Russian President Vladimir Putin head of the new official Russian government owned international news agency Rossiya Segodnya, a 2,300 person organization made up largely of the former RIA Novosti news agency and the shortwave radio station Voice of Russia. He also serves as deputy director of Russian state TV holding company VGTRK."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.146.143 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source that claims it? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine PM says Russia's actions will start WW3 http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0425/611625-ukraine-russia/

Kremlin says Russia could turn USA into radioactive ash http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/16/ukraine-crisis-russia-kiselyov-idUSL6N0MD0P920140316

Putin resumes nuclear tests http://www.euronews.com/2014/05/08/putin-tests-russia-s-nuclear-arsenal/

Russia holds defence drill to prepare for nuclear attack from NATO and the USA. China is due to Russia soon. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-conducts-large-scale-nuclear-attack-exercise/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.144.82 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Similar things are happening with Asia http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/462565/China-and-Japan-on-the-brink-of-Third-World-War

I find some of these reports more significant than some of those mentioned in the article. If this wasn't the age of generation nothing these threats would be taken seriously.

The Ukraine crsis has also pushed Russia and China closer together. Some observers were saying war with Syria would have inevitably lead to war throughout the middle east with Russia and China backing Iran and Syria. That spark point seemed to have been temporarily avoided but now we have the exact same situation kicking off in the Ukraine and within the space of one year we have the second possibility of war with Russia. Shortly after the crimea situation started China snatched some of Vietnam's water and began building an oil well. The same territory grabbing situation is taking place in Asia too. Now China is watching Russia get away with it and deciding they can do it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.72.137 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just saw on the news today that Russia and China have signed a major energy deal, essentially making them true allies now and providing motivation for a mutual defence pact. The West have essentially pushed to of their biggest threats together. *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.176.8 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made a start on trying to include this, I'm still new so don't go ballistic on me for referencing I'm still learning! I think there is a way to word this that sticks as close as possible to the facts and avoids speculation. I'm working on the wording, welcome any help. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I really think that it's too early to include the Crimean crisis in the article. Compared to the other examples this situation is not even close. The sources you have given are about Japan and China in a tabloid, some sources about normal military exercises that would usually go unnoticed, a statement by a journalist known to make outrageous statements and a statement by the Ukranian prime minister who's in the middle of a propaganda war. There would have to be prominent sources that are not directly involved for the Crimean sitauation to be included, in my opinion. Sjö (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Russia now saying US is trying to start world war 3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-28/russia-urges-emergency-steps-over-ukraine-after-rebel-losses.html

You're trying to skew the facts by calling Demitry "a journalist." He is a political mouth peace used by the Kremlin and one of the highest ranking media persons in Russia.

Please Do Not Remove or Add without Explanation
Don't remove or add parts of this article without explaining your rationale. This request goes for editors as well as other contributors.

Most of us learn as we go, and we will occasionally stumble a bit and make the odd mistake in a project that has a lot of complex and inane rules. If you are going to yank something from the article post a section here explaining your rationale. If a rule is broken explain to us newbies that thats why xyz was removed, a plain english explanation not an autobotted link to a policy page a simple one line explanation is all it takes to improve fellow users understanding. It does not help the project to have willing and quality contributors blocked for making innocent mistakes when they are still trying to understand the rules. Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the time users use edit summaries when preforming an edit which explains the reasoning behind their edits. Werieth (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As well, please read WP:BRD. It is up to you to defend additions.  (BTW, I like much of the stuff you have added).  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Planned address from the Queen of England"
The "Planned address from the Queen of England" section is nothing of the kind. As made clear in the source, this is not "declassified text of what would have been the Queen's address to the British people in the event of nuclear war with the Soviet Union", this is a fictional document used in a 1983 military exercise around a supposed attack on Britain by the fictitious "Orange", not an actual speech. Needless to say, there's also no such thing as the "Queen of England" and hasn't been since 1707. Mogism (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Descriptions of military exercises
Someone is adding descriptions of military exercises to this article. They have, however, provided no information as to why these constitute a potential start to World War Three. Unless the exercises had a potential to escalate I don't think they should be here. Britmax (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance to the article either. They are in the section "Military plans" but it's rather unlikely that the exercises followed the existing plans more than in a general way. Sjö (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Pope Francis
I have (twice) reverted the addition of a quote by the Pope. My reasoning is as follows, first off, he apparently said this yesterday, let's give this some time to see if others comment. Secondly, I don't think he is an expert on history or warfare (though, feel free to correct me) and finally, even if it belongs here, it hardly belongs in the lede. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck. I think you misspelled lead. it's "lead" not "lede".173.78.222.115 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason it is sometimes spelt this way is explained in this article. Britmax (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If the Pope said it, it deserves at least a brief mention in the article. Lucasjohansson (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick question
Hello there, I have a question about WWIII. Could world war 3 have technically already started? I mean from this source it seems that we could be living in a third world war timeline as of now, or at least a prelude to World War 3. Just asking.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True, there are already many speculations about this, including the recent Cold War II. Lucasjohansson (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Many consider the Cold War to be World War 3. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Crimea
I keep seeing that my edit on the Crimea Crisis was removed. It is well known that Any conflict between the U.S. and Russia, would most likely escalate to a World War, Possibly Nuclear War. At first, the edit was removed by a Pro-Russian, who inserted some nonsense, then, it was removed by someone who claimed it made no mention of World War III. Whether or Not the Article Did Make Mention of World War III or not, It was still a close call.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show with a reference where WW3 is mentioned about the Crimea crisis ('it is well known' is not a reference). Then we can use it, else we really cannot.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Article does not have to mention World War III, which is what I had try to say earlier. It is clear that you skimmed through it, and found an excuse to discredit it. Any conflict between the U.S. and Russia would escalate into a Third World War, involving various countries worldwide.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes it does, we need references, we can't just type stuff into articles without them. That it is 'clear' is WP:OR.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then, You haven't heard of Common Sense. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/564242/Vladimir-Putin-nuclear-threat-world-war-three-crimea--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your offhanded remark about my lack of 'common sense' not withstanding, that article, assuming the express is considered a good source (I am not that up on UK newspapers) is a fine source. If you want to add it into the article along with the other one you had previously, that would be fine by me.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK The Daily Express is not a very reliable source. The article is IMO a sensationalist piece of dreck, mixing rumors and allegations with confirmed facts. And as far as I can see the source that says that it would have started WWIII is the journalist. This needs better sourcing, just like the South China Sea, the Middle East and other current events that people want to add. Sjö (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any revisions yet, Once I saw who ran that paper.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is my reading as well, but you know it was hard to know, what with my lack of common sense and all..... Anyway, if a good source can be found I would be more than happy to have it in the article.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on World War III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050901185224/http://www.cnn.com:80/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/gaddis/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/gaddis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent events
Per Recentism, let's avoid adding Crimea, the South China Sea, Syria and any other conflict that might possibly at some time in the future contribute to a global war. Yes, any conflict has the potential to escalate, but to single out one or a few of the most recent conflicts violates WP:UNDUE. Since 1945, there have been lots and lots of conflicts that had the potential to escalate to armed conflicts between two or more superpowers. Seen in that perspective, those that have been added (and removed) recently don't seem all that important. Sjö (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, well put. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Politicians and newspapers love drama and usually abuse the terminology for effect. Also WP:CRYSTAL is applicable. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

But shouldn't the UN:s very recent declaration of World-wide war against terrorism be introduced here? Can it be more WW than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.185.151 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research /WP:SYNTH
Items in the section "Military plans" need references which specifically say that particular exercises had WWWIII in mind. Otherwise it is WP:SYNTH / OR. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There have been zillions of military exercises and strategies around the globe. It makes sense to mention them here inly if their purpose was specifically WWIII, not just defense of the country. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It also appears this collection is based on an assumption that US-SU nuclear exchange means WWIII. It is not. It means doomsday. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What is to happen to this article if WW3 actually happens?
Is a new article created or would it just merge with this page? (If we're not already dead) 2.223.6.81 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would probably be merged or renamed. Lucasjohansson (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be redone, to reflect other War Articles. Maybe a New Page "Historical Close Calls to World War III" would be created. For now, let's just hope that day never comes.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're all assumin' we're still alive to edit the article(s). Just sayin'.  Cra sh  Underride  19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: World War 3 seems imminent now. This article will probably be merged or tied to the articles on ISIS, the referendum, UKIP's seizure of power in the UK and the conflict to follow, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:39EE:2880:6141:4540:BBB3:C16C (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on World War III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060819033034/http://hnn.us/articles/1709.html to http://hnn.us/articles/1709.html#bombs9-5-03

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Further trimming
I trimmed severely the detail of various mil plans which IMO are basically unnecessary for the understanding of the concept of WWIII. In any case, all detail is readily available in "main" articles. If you want to reintroduce some detail, please do so with the explanation how it is useful for direct coverage of the subject (and this opinion must, as usual, be found in sources cited). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Military Plans
I have twice reverted the change of the heading from 'Military plans' to 'Military plans in the west'. My reasoning is that 'in the West' is ambiguous. 'If it means 'in western Europe' then, well, ok, Seven Days to the River Rhine' is fine. However, if it means 'NATO plans' then no, Seven Days was a Warsaw Pact plan. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?
Can we possible add info about this from the source (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-world-war-iii-syria/index.html)? What about Trump's "I love war" remark? 2001:E68:5435:8F02:9CCB:5993:11A5:80B0 (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As with other news stories that mention WWIII, I believe that we should not add them unless and until they have been very widely reported or have had a lasting impact. History is full of people that have mentioned WWIII or warned about its imminent start, and most of those warnings are completely forgotten. See alsp WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. So, no. Sjö (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
Hello, I'd like to ask you to share your thoughts about whether or not the section "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" of the article Cold War II should be removed or not.

Please comment on its talk page (within the next 3 days if possible).

--Fixuture (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already gone. :-) Scott P. (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your own beliefs?
So, do you guys think it will happen sometime soon? Leave your comment below and PEACE! Miasanmia2002 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, talk pages are not the place for general discussions. Sjö (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, maybe via the WP email system at most. Scott P. (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong questions:
The last two protocoles in place:


 * Purchasing Parity (to maintain debit anotations at par for all individuals).
 * One child program (to stop incrowding on renewable resources) (or maximum 2 child program and slow overpopulation reduction, as per the reasons of upping the wage system in the 50´s, 60´s and 70´s in europe).

If either one of these two protocoles has a severity of hinder, by any of the sects, monopolies, or downright supremacist groups, then it is no longer a question of: ´how can we stop World War III from happening´, but one of ´Should we stop World War III from happening´.

This is the same change in question in World War I, World War II, China, Russia and many a Region in Africa and Latin America. Left out of this, was North America itself, the fast majority of any hinder onto those two protocoles, being in one form or another derived from the United States Sects and Monetairy Policies (Civilian or Keynescian/Subsidian alike), and in todays terms, would flow through the United States ambassies.

The answer to that question: ´Should we hinder World War III´, is clearly becoming a ´No´, the incremental number of supremacists, debit note placement and cancellation when having obtained what those debit notes where to account for, having reached exagerated proportions beyound measure, that wipes out any burgeoning middle class through one single economic depresion in one nation (the United States itself). That same for the exagerated subsidianism and the exagerated promotions of ´first nation´, if you do what we tell you to do.

I have no doubt that most any reasonable man would state: Lets Rip, better to die standing up, then to become someone´s pet boy with waxed leggs.

The reasons for World War I, II, Asian, Africa, Latin American Wars, any War, all have the same origins: Overpopulation that leads to incrowding and a severity of ´orphenage´ relationships with respect to the biological and neuronal factors of a species.

You should add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.128.210 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not care about your personal opinions, talk pages are not the place for them, no part of the site is a place for them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, probably not the best place for personal opinions or statements here. Just be good.  Scott P. (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Korean crisis
Hi, I have a question, should the 2017 Korean crisis be considered a close call? In fact the crisis has stoked fears of WW3 (as I read in the en.Wiki article about the Korean conflict, Google searches for "World War 3" hit an all-time high).

I quote a section of that article: North Korea has declared that it would strike American bases, and even the U.S. mainland itself with nuclear arms at the first sign of a pre-emptive strike, and comparisons have been drawn with the Cuban missile crisis. European Union foreign policy head Federica Mogherini remarked at Tsinghua University in China that "Everyone understands that the crisis with North Korea will have a global fallout," and that major powers had a responsibility to prevent North Korea from triggering a global crisis. Seoulites have reacted with equanimity to the increased military and diplomatic activity, however.

Moreover, yesterday Trump said that a "major conflict" with North Korea is possible. So, I think that we could consider this crisis a class call, what do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see if in, say, six months or a year that analysts call it a close call. North Korea has been saying crap like this for years.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okok I think you are right :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

New fears of global war between new superpowers?
I could not find any typically respected or reliable website to support this unsupported claim, so I removed it. Please do not re-insert unless you can cite that a significant (sizeable) number of people now are afraid of a new global war between new superpowers. Scott P. (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Scott P.; It was a brief and crude way of putting it, but I honestly did not expect any dispute. News about people fearing for World War III is ubiquitous. There's barely a prominent media source left that hasn't published some story about it. In no way should this be confused for claiming such a war will happen, nor should these sources be used to support a statement that it is likely to happen. Many of these are somewhat sensationalist as usual, but such hysteria only builds on the already existing fear in people and thereby proves the point. I'm just noting that fears are widespread. And that is exactly what the edit said. Anyway, I do think that's enough to support a statement that people are afraid. Especially the Google Trends and the scores of secondary sources that noted it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well then readd it with proper references. --Fixuture (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Prins, Thanks for the concern here.  Yes, apparently Google hits are increasing markedly, and Trump is giving a lot of folks the "jitters" (including myself.)  Some major papers like even NYT have even allowed an opinion piece on it.  But in all of those sources, I could not find a single genuine historian who was willing to tie their own reputation to specifically predicting a likelihood of WW III.  And even if one did, we would still need to see a majority of them before we could report on that here.  I'm not saying that that might not happen in the future.  Only that it hasn't happened yet, and let us pray that it never does.  Personally, in matters of potential fear mongering, I tend to prefer less rather than more. Your concerns and mine are certainly valid, but let us hope to defuse the levels of fear and distrust in the world while we still have both the choice and the chance.  Scott P. (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) ( notification)
 * Personally, I would try to figure out a way to oppose any edit on wwiii that might have the effect of merely exciting people's fears of it, while offering no reasonable hope of a solution, until I got nuked. Splat!! Scott P. (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When people give up, oddly enough, they seem to lose more often. In moments of unreasonable hope, sometimes unexpected opportunities arise. Scott P. (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which would you prefer, to die in hope, or to live in fear? Scott P. (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course we would all rather live in hope, but do we really know how to live in true hope, unless we might have first successfully solved the first riddle? Scott P. (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (Famous sayings from the Tao te Ping by Dr. Pei-Li)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017
The last line is implied as a quotation from the pope using ellipsis, however this quote is piecemealed from two separate quotations and references, one in 2014 and one in 2017, at the very least this should be updated to either clearly demonstrate that these are two separate quotes or be re-written. 192.231.86.235 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Normally I'd want to see a more specific "change X to Y" request but I decided to take this one on myself. Thanks for helping to improve this article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 00:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"Cold War" misnomer
The sub-section on "Cold War" seems about half a century out date! It starts "In 2004 neoconservative commentator Norman Podhoretz proposed that the Cold War might rightly be called World War III." First, it fails to track when the term was first coined and came into usage. Second, the Podhoretz claim is specious: the Cold War cannot compare to either of the two world wars, nor the vision of a World War II. Would anyone object to removing this sub-section? And, meantime, could someone start tracing the coinage of the term further and then how it has played out since WWII?m --Aboudaqn (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Korean crisis
Shouldn't we considered the 2017 North Korea crisis a close call? On the crisis' article it is compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is considered in this article a close call, so, in my view, we should insert also the current Korean crisis. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The British tabloids Daily Express and Sunday Express considers the 2017 crisis in North Korea as "World War III"


 * I heavily dispute the 2017-18 crisis as a true 'WW3 close call' unless something actually happens during it that could be called a close call. In previous decades, the North Koreans have shelled South Korean islands, seized American ships, kidnapped Japanese civilians, etc etc and none of those situations were considered close calls despite involving actual acts of violence. What's going on right now is harsh words, but little else. I think instead of specifically mentioning the 2017 Crisis, there should be mention of 'Rogue State Nuclear Programs', which is more general and generic. Fears of nuclear proliferation by a rogue nation caused the US to change its leave a missile defense limitation treaty with Russia, and is arguably what this whole North Korea situation is actually about. Proliferation will likely be a long term ongoing 'crisis', but relative to North Korea it's actually quite civil. 50.45.222.110 (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis
The section under historical close calls for the cuban missile crisis needs citations, the one provided doesn't contain very much of the information within the section. I put up a couple templates there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel syme (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It already happened
World wars are characterised by the collapse of old enemies and the rise of new ones. In world war one, German imperialism was defeated and collapsed, along with the Ottoman, Austrian and Russian empires. Fascism was the new and growing threat. In world war two, fascism and Nazism were defeated, collapsing in Germany, Italy, Vichy France and Japan, communism became the new and rising threat. Between 1991, the fall of the USSR, and 2011, the Arab Spring, the world changed again. Defeat of communism in Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia, defeat of Apartheid; rise of Islamofascism. Apart from 9/11, all the armed conflicts occurred in poor countries and were not much noticed; Congo, 5 million dead; Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Chechnya, Somalia. It was world war three, but in slow motion.Crawiki (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

New Close-Call in the process
The Syrian missile strike that occurred in Homs on the morning of 9 April 2018 led to the Russian Federation, PRC, Iran, and their allies standing vehemently against any sort of Western power-grab in the region; Prior to this missile strike being speculated as an Israeli attack, many thought (due to the influx in the Eastern Mediterranean of American and French force, along with their stated cooperation in spearheading force onto Syria days prior) that the attack was indeed American, and as such Russian jets were scrambled and forces were reportedly prepared to be deployed both in the RF and the PRC; couple this with heightened tension between the Koreas and Japan on the same eve. Alternative media was reporting this as the eve of a third world war, while mainstream media painted it in a light developmentally similar to the way the Iraq invasion was. Take all of this objectively; Both spheres of world influence last night were on the brink of war. If anyone can cite the usage of nuclear armaments or anything more severe than described here, please do so. But I do suggest adding this as a developing story on this article, as it very well was more serious than many other examples listed thus far.

2600:1702:260:6E70:6477:1849:1E22:CBBD (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We need several reliable sources calling this a close call. Remember that we only list the events that stand out as extremely close to the start of a world war since the end of WWII. That means that we can't list every time tensions increase somewhat, like now. Sjö (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think there are now several sources available that point out at a serious risk of a conflict breaking out between the US and Russia. --Reollun (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree wikipedia is dropping the ball a bit here. And you've even got the US giving anti tank missiles to Ukraine now. Aussieflagfan (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Google searches for references to World War 3
I see here the number of people searching the words world war 3 on google is at all time highs and has been making headlines in the last 2 years. I've even seen other articles where the spokesperson for the Chinese government for example has stated world war 3 is becoming a "practical reality" amid all these flash points for global confrontation. I don't know if I have enough privileges to edit a semi protected article but I say this Wikipedia entry is starting to become a bit out of date. Aussieflagfan (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/google-searches-spike-world-world-3-donald-trump_us_58f1db82e4b0da2ff86115ce

Are google searches regularly considered notable as a citation? Personally, it feels out of tune with the rest of the article summary. Silenceisgod (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No, they are not. Sjö (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019
Please replace B-59 had a nuclear torpedo on board, three officer keys were required to use it. with B-59 had a nuclear torpedo on board, and three officer keys were required to use it. Right now it has a comma splice. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 12:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019
I believe the word 'term' is missing from the first sentence of the 'Coinage' section.

"Time magazine was an early adopter if not originator of the "World War III." Should read "Time magazine was an early adopter if not originator of the term "World War III." Mikerus1 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done aboideau</b><sup style="color:#474647">talk 15:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019
Please replace "250 of Russian peacekeeping troops" with "250 Russian peacekeepers". 208.95.51.53 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Thjarkur (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020
Possibility of World War III has been trending after Donald Trump's recent airstrike on Iran, could someone add the information to the article as I am inexperienced with working on this particular article? --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems it is just fear-induced by politicians same happened with the Syria strikes in April 2018. DEFCON hasn’t changed so I would leave it out. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you have a point, I am not overly familiar with the subject of this article which is why I only posted this on the talk page. I know it would be a good faith edit for me to add but I don't want to possibly disrupt Wikipedia. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly political bias and the incident lacks any historical context at this time. The same justification and evidence could be used to include dozens of events over the past decade. This should be deleted. Nypuppers (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Current media trends are not sufficient justification for a historical close call
This page has had a significant number of edits related to the death of Qasem Soeimani. It should be made clear that the media attention to incidents like this doesn't dictate whether or not an incident was a "close call". The Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and subsequent US airstrike in April 2017 were not close calls to World War III, despite being associated with the highest uptick in searches for the term "World War III". Avoid WP:RECENTISM. 400spartans (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Could there be a subsection titled "Internet meme" under the section "Extended usage of the term" to cover the recent popularity of WW3? TheMickyRosen-Left (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The execution of General Soleimani
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYd-tmZ9mCI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFIQOTM7Hzo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhDzBN0gSxA https://twitter.com/hashtag/ww3?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodeF53 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at our reliable sourcing standards, as well as how this community has applied them to certain sources. For example, [[WP:RSP#The_Sun|the Sun is a raggedy tabloid and not a reliable source.
 * A Twitter hashtag is not actually a source, either. See WP:No original research.
 * Finally, you need sources that point out that this conflict has lead to something officially being called "World War III" by the majority of historians. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to keep a routine eye on this article: World War III has been speculated by the media countless times, long before Soleimani: from the 1991 Soviet coup attempt to Ukraine, and the poisonings in Salisbury. And then there are the radio conspiracy theorists who make speculations as if they were about to go to a commercial break. -- Minoa (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the section has no place in the article. It's a typical example of WP:RECENT and, taking the long perspective, it's no different from any other incident which has made people talk about WWIII. Sjö (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But it is the first time that the idea of WWIII has completely infiltrated the domain of popular culture, including the subdomains of internet memes and social media. Of course, it's not really a close call to WWIII, which is why it's not listen under the "close calls" section, but it certainly is notable enough to be included in the article. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲  J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  13:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the first time. Some googling found  and  and there are many more that are earlier than 2020. Sjö (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This means that there is no good reason to keep the section. I think that memes are a part of our culture at this point and that the incident could be mentioned in World War III in popular culture, but that the text about memes there could be expanded to avoid the blatant recentism of only mentioning 2020 memes. Sjö (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2020
Add information about the missile strikes by Iran on the Iraq military bases under "Death of Qasem Suleimani" SeekNDstroy030 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That information is not suited for this article, but for 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike. The only justification for the section is the impact on memes and social media. The missile strikes is not a part of that.Sjö (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to I think the memes are only good enough as a passing mention of a more general history about the internet speculation of World War III, whether be it conspiracy theorists, a more general trend of attempts to connect any given incident with the causes of the last two wars, or just mass hysteria like the 2012 apocalypse stuff. Again, the rule on reliable sources applies. -- Minoa  (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"The Final World War" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect The Final World War. should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. The article will be discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Regards, SONIC  678  18:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"*is considered* to be the closest..." (Cuban missile crisis)
Statements such as this are a prime example of what i see as a general laziness in academia (at least in the field of history). Any reasonable person that can be bothered to actually consider all of the facts of both the Cuban missile crisis and the Able Agre 83 incident (or whatever it was called) would conclude that the actual possibility of nuclear war was far more likely in the 1983 incident than it was during the Cuban missile crisis.

I will concede that the Cuban missile crisis was the closest that the US government ever perceived itself from being to nuclear war at any time. But -- is that alone to be synonymous with saying that it was the closest the world ever actually came to nuclear war?? The USSR never had any intention of detonating a nuclear bomb unprovoked in the western hemisphere in 1963, and the US was not going to launch a nuclear attack unless they did. The Soviet Union DID come close to deciding to launch a first strike nuclear attack in 1983. The US did not know about this until several years later, but that is irrelevant. It only takes one nuclear power to start a nuclear war, and *if* the Soviets had decided to do so, it would have happened, regardless of whether or not we knew it was coming beforehand.

Of course, i also understand that in fields such as history, it is very possible, probable even, that facts will initially be overlooked and incorrect conclusions will be drawn. Everyone agrees it is unfortunate when wrong conclusions become anchored in the general wisdom and are accepted by nearly everyone without question, simply because "it is known."

Please note that I am not pushing for any content changes to the article text, other than (MAYBE) the omission of the "is considered to be the closest..." statements about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not at this time will i engage in any such activity. Mostly just wanting to know what others' thoughts are on these issues.

Cheers, Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding McLuhan's quote
"World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation" - Marshall McLuhan (1970), Culture is Our Business, p. 66.

What are valid references (third party?) to add McLuhan's quote to WWIII's main article on Wikipedia? Text mdnp (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The scope of this page is physical military conflict such as seen in world war i and ii, not metaphorical informational war. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Could Covid-19 Pandemic might cause World War 3 in the near future?
Although the world haven't seen a Third World War since the previous one in 1945 (Over 75 years ago), it did came close back in 1962 during Cuban Missiles Crisis but it never happened since. It have been over a year since Covid-19 Pandemic which have cause devastation effects around the world like overwhelming healthcare, global unrest or lockdown and economic collapsed. Covid-19 Pandemic have also led to increasing in tension with governments in some country like China and EU. But history could might repeat itself back in 1929 Great Depression which cause Wall Street Crash and severe economy recession. Great Depression long term effect did cause Adolf Hitler's rise to power and Germany aggressive in 1930s all lead to World War 2. With the ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic as counties starts delivering vaccines, but there is increasing concern that Covid-19 could be becoming vaccine resistant from Brazilian, USA and South Africa variants just like HIV. What if the vaccines or treatments becomes totality useless against Covid-19 then countries could face permanent lockdown, more social unrest and further economy collapse which will lead to huge consequences like possible a new World War. But could the World War 3 actually will happened with Covid-19 Pandemic, just like Great Depression long term effects did causes World War 2? 80.233.47.173 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, It is very unlikely due to the MAD doctrine. The most likely case is that china and the US will have an arms race. DXLB Muzikant (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 as WW3
I think Coronavirus Pandemic brought so many countries' best scientists working on the cure and the best doctors are trying to prevent it. Nearly the whole world 🌎 is doing the same so I think Covid-19 should be added. There were some responses that Covid 19 is ww3 Kohcohf (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. This article is about war in the literal sense, which is a struggle between nations (or factions). When people use war in the figurative sense it doesn't mean that it is a real war. That means that Covid-19 is outside the scope of this article. Besides, I haven't seen anyone call the struggle against Covid-19 WWIII. Sjö (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Referring to COVID-19 as WW3 would be perfectly within the scope of the "Extended usage of the term" section - something doesn't need to be a war in the literal sense to be an extended usage of the term.  This is aside from the fact that it's something that most of the world is fighting against right now.
 * And here are some sources:   — Smjg (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok got it Kohcohf (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Ansh Kumar (sxshzb) (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021
There was no world war II bc world war 2 would of still be going on! Jeffrybob (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not clear what change you want to make. Sjö (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

January 2020
Is the Soleimani incident around New Years' that led to the conflict between Trump and Iran and all the dreaded WW3 memes on social media the following week enough to warrant a new close call section?
 * I believe so. It certainly escalated tensions between the U.S. and Iran. A few days after the drone strike, Iran responded with ballistic missile attacks on U.S. air bases in Iraq. Iran could have continued their retaliation had they not shot down an airliner by mistake. Therefore, the killing of Soleimani could potentially have led to a Third World War, just as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand led to the first. Fears of a World War III in the wake of Soleimani's death received widespread coverage in news sources, not only in memes. MC-123 (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021
(Large-scale apocalyptic events like these, caused by advanced technology used for destruction, could potentially make the Earth's surface uninhabitable) Are we following the 3rd world war in this pandemic situation? People are dying, Economy and countries falling. Is this it? 212.104.237.164 (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

New England Journal of medicine???
A 1998 New England Journal of Medicine overview found that "Although many people believe that the threat of a nuclear attack largely disappeared with the end of the Cold War, there is considerable evidence to the contrary".

Journal of what??? Btw it doesn't explain it at all in the article. Might even be a confusion, or an error.

--OjuzKiopo (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I attempted to stitch this sentence to the next two with a copy of the relevant ref. If you still think the sentence doesn't work, you can drop it outright. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)