I tend to use “world war III” as shorthand for “big nuclear powers committed enough to actually launch their mutually-assured destruction mechanisms”. I assign fairly small probability to this being small enough for any significant portion of the world to escape chaos and destruction. Even if many survive, there will be so much disruption that “local violence” is common.
Additionally, I think it’s likely that big non-Western powers would use the opportunity to perform violence on their neighbors, making it a true world-wide war zone, even if it’s not technically the “same” war officially.
It is useful to have a shorthand for “big nuclear powers committed enough to actually launch their mutually-assured destruction mechanisms”. “Nuclear war” doesn’t do the job because it requires the launching of nukes (not just the possibility) and because it includes small-scale one-sided nuclear strikes (such as North Korea vs South Korea).
Additionally, I think it’s likely that big non-Western powers would use the opportunity to perform violence on their neighbors, making it a true world-wide war zone, even if it’s not technically the “same” war officially.
Yup. I think such an eventuality ought constitute a state of “world war”. After all, Japan and the USSR had a non-aggression pact until 1945.
I tend to use “world war III” as shorthand for “big nuclear powers committed enough to actually launch their mutually-assured destruction mechanisms”. I assign fairly small probability to this being small enough for any significant portion of the world to escape chaos and destruction. Even if many survive, there will be so much disruption that “local violence” is common.
Additionally, I think it’s likely that big non-Western powers would use the opportunity to perform violence on their neighbors, making it a true world-wide war zone, even if it’s not technically the “same” war officially.
It is useful to have a shorthand for “big nuclear powers committed enough to actually launch their mutually-assured destruction mechanisms”. “Nuclear war” doesn’t do the job because it requires the launching of nukes (not just the possibility) and because it includes small-scale one-sided nuclear strikes (such as North Korea vs South Korea).
Yup. I think such an eventuality ought constitute a state of “world war”. After all, Japan and the USSR had a non-aggression pact until 1945.