Talk:World War III/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Russian aircraft shootdown in Syria: 24 November 2015

(2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown) I believe this should be part of the historical close calls. I added this backed by references and it was reverted by someone saying Twitter trends are not meaningful. But this situation isn't just about Twitter, we have numerous news and analytical articles about the incident that shows it stoked fears of a WW3. What do other people think of this? --WR 21:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

Request to add Global catastrophic risk and Human extinction under the section World War III#See also.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That "See Also" section appears to consist exclusively of other nuclear or war related articles. SpinningCeres 15:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Human extinction is already linked (in the caption to the top image). Global catastrophic risk mentions nuclear warfare and I think it is reasonable to add it to the See also section if it can't be linked in the text. Sjö (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2022

Add The Russia-Ukraine Conflict. Any possible uscalation of Russia or NATO can start WWIII. Thegoodguyas (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: A number of users disagree with you, as seen above. You'll need to check for reliable sources indicating that this is a widespread belief. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Bangladesh liberation War of 1971

The phrase in bold in the following defeats me! The U.S. establishment perceived to the impression that they needed Pakistan to help stop Soviet influence in South Asia.... The total lack of refs in this whole section doesn't help. Davidships (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no sources in this article or in Bangladesh Liberation War that says that it was a close call. I suggest that we remove the section. Sjö (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Russian-Ukrainian Crisis

Currently ongoing, the Russian-Ukrainian crisis has led to fears of a possible third world war. This began after Russian President, Vladimir Putin, sent troops to the Ukrainian border as well as into two regions of Eastern Ukraine that claim to be independent. Morgan Gam 101 (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The first source is not reliable, and the second source does not mention world war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

2021-2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis

Considering the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis that's currently ongoing between Russia and Sweden, Finland, the other NATO countries and Ukraine, should we add it into the close calls section or should we wait it out and see whether these tensions start to calm down again? Balkanite (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It depends on whether you can find reliable sources describing the potential outcome as World War III. I think those shouldn't be hard to find. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll attempt to find some sources first. Once that's been done, I'll go ahead and add a new section for the Russo-Ukrainian crisis. Balkanite (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

We can't be sure until the crisis is resolved or an actual war breaks out, and complaining about it isn't going to help. Since the last serious comment in this thread, MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) contested an addition of this entry by Balkanite (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Actual war has broken out, but even now we are too close to the events to be sure that this is a "close call". There will be a fair amount of scaremongering in the next few days, for various reasons. We have no hurry to write the article, so I think we can wait until the dust settles to decide what we should call it. Besides, a "close call" is when something could have happened but it didn't happen, and I am afraid that we can not be sure about the "didn't happen" part. Sjö (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Can the Netherlands get attached?

Are the Netherlands gonne get attached because the send soiliars to Ukrainian 77.167.4.190 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously? Netherlands? Look at map! After Ukraine is Poland, Romania, Moldova, Estonia.--Terraflorin (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

External image link dead

The first link under the section ‘hypothetical scenarios’ leads to a Facebook 404 page. I have no idea what I should do here, any help? UsersLikeYou (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Quote

Could someone add the Einstein quote: "I do not know how it(wwiii) will be fought,but I know how ww4 will be fought:with sticks and stones" 2A00:23C7:184:6000:2815:F07D:90F4:6E64 (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

X-2 Y-4 2001:4453:630:D000:D088:4697:685F:30F5 (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 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. Dawnseeker2000 01:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Requesting a change to the Russian Invasion section; it states that commentators, Joe Biden, and Lukashenko "had seen" the Invasion as a "nuclear close call". I believe this to be alarmist writing, and false since President Biden has never mentioned any nuclear threat considering the sources provided. Lukashenko has also never stated the conflict as a nuclear close call, but in the source had said that "a nuclear war would be a disaster" according to the source provided for his statement. "A nuclear close call" is alarmist and should be removed from this section. Twennstrom (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

One could compare the russian-ukrainian conflict with other "close calls" listed on this article (e.g. "Norwegian rocket incident: 25 January 1995", and "Incident at Pristina airport: 12 June 1999"). Consider that Putin 1) reminded the world about its nuclear weapons arsenal at his TV speech the start of the war, and 2) that he raised the readiness of the forces equipped with nuclear weapons. I agree that the sentence should probably be rephrased though. Also, Lukashenko is not a good source. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As there is some objection to this edit being made, I am disabling the edit request for now. --Ferien (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there going to be a world war lll

. 184.97.223.62 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@184.97.223.6: Hopefully not. Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss World War III. It is the place to discuss improving the article. I hope I answered your question. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

War in Ukraine

Are there sources that describe this conflict as WWIII or possibly leading to it? The passage does not make that clear. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

For example https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/02/24/russian-invasion-ukraine-questions-explained/6921368001/ , (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename Suggestion

I recommend we change the name of this page by adding "hypothetical event" due to the extreme likelihood we may be headed into World War III for real and therefore the current title here will as such apply should this happen. Experiment632 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is unclear what it is that you want. We could update this article in case we enter ww3, or maybe we could seek shelter ;) For now the article is kindof okay i think · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be considered if/when this war escalates and is officially called “World War III.” Right now however, we wait. RehmanK786 (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Should in that case this article be renamed "World War III (hypothetical event)", or should the current article be under a heading such as "Hypothetical event", "Previous speculation about World War III", "Previous speculation before the current war"? What do you think? , (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, this can be added in the section: [2] 2600:387:15:611:0:0:0:C (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 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) 16:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion

Should there be any mention of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in this article. Multiple news source and public perception have been labelling this as close to WWIII USA Today, CBS, VOA, public perception and Business Today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Support: I quite agree, these sources are reliable. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Those are pretty weak sources for that statement. Task & Purpose says nothing about the risk of WWIII, VOA says that it is not the start of WWIII and USA Today (linked from your link) also says that it is not. If it should be mentioned at all (which I think is premature as of today) we could mention that there is mentions and worries about WWIII but that historians do not see it that way. Also remember WP:HEADLINES in the current click-hunting media landscape. Sjö (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I made the following paragraph under the (now replaced) section heading: "Current conflicts with potential to turn into a larger conflict".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyDragon792 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Following failed diplomatic talks with NATO and allies, Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 in what many are calling the "largest military conflict in Europe since World War II." There are concerns that the conflict could escalate into a more widespread (and potentially a global) conflict if Vladimir Putin decides to approve a military offensive on the Baltic States or Poland, which are NATO members protected under Article V. Furthermore, there are fears that the invasion would cause China to attack Taiwan and Iran to create a nuclear weapon and attack Saudi Arabia, all of which "may well signal the death knell of the postwar global order." My sources: 1 2 FlyDragon792 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I think this should be included. Here is some story. In 2015 (seven years ago), historian Yuri Felshtinsky and Michael Stanchev published book in Russian "World War III: Battle for Ukraine". It was published in Ukraine [3], [4] because all publishers in Russia refused for obvious reasons. They predicted that Russia/Putin will inevitably attack Ukraine and that will be a beginning of WWIII. He developed some of these ideas later in his book (From Red Terror to Mafia State: Russia's Secret Services in the Struggle for World Domination.), [5]; some of his interviews about it can be found here [6],[7] [8]. Right now he insists in interviews that the currently happening invasion is the beginning of WWIII, exactly as he predicted. Unfortunately, this is all in Russian language. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

And BTW, Putin already threatened “military and political consequences” for Finland and Sweden on Friday if they attempt to join NATO [9]. Sure, it is very much possible that Finland is next, given the previous history of wars/attacks by USSR on Finland, and given the fact that Finland and Poland were part of the Russian Empire. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, no, no, no no. This whole article is based on speculation. The invasion of one country by another IS NOT WWIII. If it was, we would be including every invasion the USA has carried out the past 50 years. We really must calm down and wait a bit. A LONG bit. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• It does not matter if it was Russia or USA. If an invasion X by USA was claimed in RS (and especially in scholarly RS) a beginning of "WWIII", then it should be included on this page. Same with a war started by Russia or any other country. Is it really a beginning of WWIII? We do not know that for sure (this is just a claim), hence it does belong to this page precisely because it is about hypothetical scenario. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not saying that World War III will happen because of Ukraine. Rather, I am saying that even if it doesn't look likely to happen as of now, a global war is possible. Just think that a single attack on one NATO member could trigger a wider conflict. For example, after taking out Ukraine, Russia can launch an attack on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, or Romania. This would pull all 30 members of NATO into war. Again, not saying that a global conflict will happen, but there is a nonzero chance of that happening. FlyDragon792 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's been the case since the day NATO was formed. You used the word "could" twice in that comment. That's a lousy basis for an encyclopaedia article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In the article are listed various events, like computer errors, simple military exercises, regional wars and even a standoff at an airport. We're talking about the largest full-scale invasion occurred in Europe since WW2, in which Russia and a NATO-backed country are facing off. There's a plenty of sources citing this as a possibile close call, so I think we should include it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just note that Russian Duma pointedly authorizes Putin’s Request for Military Deployment anywhere in the world outside Russia. It did do it before (the previous authorizations were more specific). Although a formality, it tell about their intentions. According to Felshtinsky, if they succed in Ukraine, next target is Moldova. My very best wishes (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, even President Biden has repeatedly stated that the only alternative to international sanctions would be World War III. Moreover, Bielorussian president and Putin's closest ally, Lukashenko, has just stated that sanctions are bringing Russia toward a nuclear war. Ok, this is clearly propaganda, but it's another sign of a close call. I mean, if this isn't a close call, what is it? -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, there is already a worldwide economic war. Will Putin drop some nuclear bombs? He wants others to think that he might [10]. Some commenters believe this is merely a blackmail, but who knows? What does the Doomsday Clock show? There is an interesting book, Nuclear War Survival Skills, and it might be a good idea to have a radiation dosimeter. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Russian forces already started sabotaging Ukrainian nuclear plants [11], as one could expect. They do not need any nukes. I watched interviews with Andrei Piontkovsky (e.g. here [12]). Just like Felshtinsky (see above), he argued that NATO is making a huge mistake by not helping Ukraine right now by creating a "no-fly zone", or at least by providing them fighter planes. This is because Putin already decided to use tactical nuclear weapons at some point in a near future, according to Piontkovsky. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said we are probably already in WW3.

But the cited Politico article shows it without quote marks, suggesting that it's a paraphrase:

We are already, she said, in the middle of a third World War, whether we’ve fully grasped it or not.

A simple solution would be to remove the quote marks, but that might make the sentence harder to understand. (In particular, it might be less clear what "whether we've fully grasped it or not" attaches to.)

Jruderman (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that matters, but she is definitely a great expert on the subject. After reading views by some other people, the consensus seem to be that Pu is not ready to press at the "big red button", but he thinks that using a smaller tactical nuke somewhere could serve his purpose. And that is when the war would escalate. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Here is an alleged intercept of discussion of Putin with Shoigu recently posted on YouTube [13]. This sounds very much authentic. Putin gives Shoigu 2 days to fix the military failure in Ukraine. After that, he promised to do something (he does not explain what exactly) that he discussed with Valery Gerasimov. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Ukraine

https://www.axios.com/zelensky-ukraine-russia-world-war-iii-20e030b8-38b1-4fd7-b366-cdb661ec0273.html Persesus (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

the Third World War to a Third World War 심우재 (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

World wars are generally prefaced by the, rather than a. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

China?

If China invades Taiwan can that be added to the fears of WW3 section Persesus (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you asking exactly? Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m saying if China invaded Taiwan can that be added? Persesus (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is a source for it obviously Dronebogus (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

Under the Qasem Soleimani section, there's a bit of confusing grammar, and it says "The killing has raised tension between United States and Iran which is already hostile since 1980s." I would suggest changing this to "The killing raised tensions between the United States and Iran, which have already been hostile since the 1980s." Hope this makes sense. CouldntThinkOfABetterOne (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Dawnseeker2000 00:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove Soleimani assassination from "close calls" list

This was basically an internet meme, I don't see how this could seriously have been considered an incident which would spark a third world war. 100.15.110.54 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed 100percent. No serious person could hold the opinion that this action would cause WWIII. 49.193.206.52 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources basically says that it was a social media trend. The strongest support is ABC saying "World War III? A look around the world tells us we may already be in it" but it also calls the idea of the killing causing WWIII ludicrous. The BBC piece that compares the killing to that of Archduke Ferdinand does not even mention WWIII , but points out the risk of attacks on the US or a war between Iran and the US. 06:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes! Delete. Above stated reasons. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Timeframe for World War III

Do not know if World War III would happend from 1964 to 1968 or 1969 or 1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4D01:2010:3861:C2D7:A796:1FED (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

World War II happened 20 years after World War I ended and lasted 2 years longer. So World War III would've happened in 1965-1973.84.54.71.85 (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

North Korea v Japan

Should we maybe add yesterday's (Oct 3) North Korea's missile strike toward Japan in the "current conflicts" section of this article? Dswitz10734 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

North Korean missile tests aren't anything new. Unless substantial sources illustrate that it's a potential catalyst for WW3, it's not really notable. — Czello 12:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Close call for World War 3

Third Indo−Pakistani War[edit] The Indo-Soviet treaty had provided India with cover against any possible Chinese intervention in aid of Pakistan if and when the conflict precipitated. To the Pakistani leadership, it became clear that armed Indian intervention and secession of East Pakistan was becoming inevitable. On 3 December, Pakistan preemptively launched Operation Chengiz Khan against India, marking the official initiation of hostilities of the Indo-Pak war of 1971. The Indian response was a defensive military strategy in the western theatre while a massive, coordinated and decisive offensive thrust into East-Pakistan. On 5 December, United States began attempts for a UN-sponsored ceasefire, which were twice vetoed by the USSR in the security council. India extended her recognition of Bangladesh on 6 December. On 8 December, Washington received intelligence reports that India was planning an offensive into West Pakistan. It was in this situation that the United States dispatched a ten-ship naval task force, the US Task Force 74, from the Seventh Fleet off South Vietnam into the Bay of Bengal. U.S. diplomatic initiatives[edit] With intelligence reports indicating the Indian cabinet was discussing the scopes of offensive into West Pakistan, on 10 December, the decision was taken by US to assemble a task force at Malacca strait, spearheaded by USS Enterprise. The force was to be capable of overshadowing the four Soviet ships already in the Bay of Bengal. Deployment[edit] The task force was headed by USS Enterprise, at the time and still the largest aircraft carrier in the world by length. She was flying the flag of Rear-Admiral Damon Cooper, Commander Carrier Division Five. Escorts included three guided missile destroyers: USS King (DDG-41), USS Decatur (DDG-31), and USS Parsons (DDG-33); four gun destroyers USS Bausell (DD-845), USS Orleck (DD-886), USS McKean (DD-784) and USS Richard B. Anderson; and a nuclear attack submarine. In addition, it consisted of amphibious assault carrier USS Tripoli (LPH-10), carrying a 200 strong Marine battalion and twenty five assault helicopters; the ammunition ship USS Haleakala (AE-25); and USS White Plains (AFS-4), an auxiliary fleet supply ship from Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines, which loaded over 60 Tons of mail and Christmas packages for the Task Force before leaving Subic Bay to join Task Force 74 on 19 December. Aboard Tripoli, according to her Command History for 1971, were Commander, Amphibious Squadron 5; 31st Marine Amphibious Unit; 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment; and Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 165. Enterprise was at this time at the Tonkin Gulf area. Recovering her airborne aircraft and transferring personnel who were required to stay to the USS Constellation (CVA-64), she prepared to head off. The task force was delayed while the support ships refueled, it held off East of Singapore, and was ordered into the Indian Ocean on 14 December. crossed Malacca straits on the nights of 13–14 December and entered the Bay of Bengal on the morning of 15 December. The group was required to proceed slowly, averaging a speed of 15 knots, both to conserve fuel as well as to allow advance information on its heading. Objectives[edit] The US government stated at the time that the goal of the task force was to help evacuate Pakistani forces from East Pakistan following a ceasefire, however, unofficially the task force was sent to intimidate Indian forces and prevent the collapse of Pakistani forces during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Soviet response and standoff[edit] On 6 and 13 December 1971, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of cruisers and destroyers and a submarine armed with nuclear missiles from Vladivostok; they trailed US Task Force 74 into the Indian Ocean from 18 December 1971 until 7 January 1972. The Soviets also had a nuclear submarine to help ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise task force in the Indian Ocean. 182.186.34.152 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just speculation. We don't go by Russian nationalist propaganda. 104.169.37.99 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian nuclear threats

Shouldn’t this article mention the constant Russian threats of nuking Ukraine? 165.234.101.96 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We have: Throughout the invasion, several senior Russian politicians, including president Putin, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and party leader Dmitry Medvedev, have made a number of statements widely seen as threatening the use of nuclear weapons, plus the follow-up sentence to NATO's response. There's also On 21 February 2023, Putin suspended Russia's participation in the last remaining nuclear treaty, New START, which had forbidden Russia from testing nuclear weapons. The section also starts with the link to Nuclear threats during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) — Czello 14:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Operation Sandstone link goes to wrong operation

In the part where it mentions British and Irish alliances to respond to a nuclear war it mentions that the operation was called "operation sandstone" and links to an article. Unfortunately this operation shares the name of a USA nuclear test so the link actually links to the US nuclear test rather than the British-Irish operation. As far as I can see no such wiki page exists for that operation sandstone. 217.72.117.1 (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

is/are in lead

I changed the lead to avoid the singular/plural confusion of "World War III or the Third World War, often abbreviated as WWIII or WW3, are names", which adds up to "A or B are names..." and is ungrammatical, but looking at the history I see that the current lead sentence is well-established. It grates. Perhaps my version is an over-simplification, but I hope someone can come up with a formulation which makes sense but is also grammatical. PamD 10:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

But then I found this edit of Sept 2021 and have now reverted to the pre-Sept 2021 lead, which is grammatical. The edit summary for the change was "(Standard opening sentence format similar to WWI and II)", but the real wars are a different case (Compare "World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global conflict "). PamD 10:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

World war, three

Do you have agreements so that’s why we can’t fight there won’t be a world war three 2A02:C7C:DEFF:4500:28F2:5003:5C89:667F (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Israeli War

Should Israel be added to this article at the current conflicts section, or is it to soon? What more information do we need before adding this? 2601:8C:4881:D070:D82D:2B24:FB1B:B9DC (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It feels too soon, I would recommend personally waiting about 2 weeks to see what happens before deeming it a close call AlienChex (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Surely it must never be up to Wikipedia editors to decide what's a close call. That would obviously be original research. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources referring to Israel/Hamas war as a hypothetical start to WW3:

• https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/10/israels-netanyahu-pushing-for-world-war-iii-ex-minister-akinyemi/
• https://www.businessinsider.com/ray-dalio-israel-hamas-world-war-middle-east-politics-linkedin-2023-10
• https://thehill.com/policy/international/4250662-zelensky-calls-world-leaders-visit-israel/

There are a ton of not-so-reliable sources but these are the best I could find so far. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The September 11th attacks and the subsequent War on Terror should be added to the Historical Close Calls section

But that's just my opinion MrCreeperWIKI (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

While every bit of this article is based on people's opinions, they are the opinions of people who our editors have decided count for something. Does yours? HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that the 9/11 attacks and subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began WWW III about 20 years ago. I would say we are seeing it continue with Russia attacking Ukraine and Hamas attacking primarily Israel's civilian population on October 7th. There is probably more that will follow from this as events evolve. I don't think WWW III has to be a nuclear war either. But there is a clear demarcation with 9/11 of how things have changed in terms of the environment since the cold war with the USSR ended. 2600:1700:98D8:1010:8D04:753B:E134:5C3B (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Syrian Civil war

How come there isn't a section in the current conflicts about the syrian civil war and it's interventions by foreign powers. I think it should be added. TwoNyce (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian militant -> Palestinian terrorists

Please change the term "Palestinian militants" to "Palestinian terrorists". The attack was intentionally on civilians, including women, children and elderlies. They burned people alive and raped women.

Even the BBC stopped using the term "militants" and started using the term "terrorists".

Hamas is defined as a terror organisation since 2005 by tenths of countries in the world, including Arab countries.

Please be accurate with the terms used. SRachamim (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A militant can still be used terrorists such as ISIS soldiers, also I think it might make the article seem a bit biased towards Israel Scapone100998 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Going with this logic, we can also use the term "Palestinian people", as it "can still be used militants". That's not the way encyclopedia works.

We should use the most accurate term that describes the noun.

Using the term "terrorist" is not an opinion - it's a fact. Whoever isn't aware of it can't write about the subject in an encyclopedia. SRachamim (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

With the recent war going on between Palestine and Israel and conflicts around the issue, it'll be best to add the said matter as one of the potential flashpoints or triggers for a third world war, at the end of the fifth paragraph of the article's first section. Parmishashemi (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Parmishashemi, do you have a reliable source that makes that claim? Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Many experts have expressed concern that the Israel-Hamas conflict could draw in Iran and the US. It is oft cited alongside Russia-Ukraine, and China-Taiwan. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson aired a show on the conflict called "How to prevent WW3." Elon Musk told the Wall Street Journal that he thinks it's on part with Russia-Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4281:10B0:F868:4F4F:B53B:C665 (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

I don't see either Tucker Carlson or Elon Musk as a reliable source to say "this is a potential flashpoint." One could make that claim that "Tucker Carlson described this conflict as a potential flashpoint" and be supported by the source, but that seems quite WP:UNDUE.

Since this is not an uncontroversial proposal:

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Change the hatnote from "Third World War", "World War III" and "WWIII" redirect here to Several terms redirect here to be consistent to World War I and World War II as the hatnote written like it..2001:EE0:4BC9:BAD0:A933:B9E2:B059:BDC (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 16:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Iran attacked Israel

Started 13.04.2024 Mhyildirim (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree,Israel–Hamas war should be added. American airforce and their allies in the region have been mobilised to take down drones and missiles from Iran. Givibidou (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree 80.192.118.48 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The Sun has made a page that outright warns Iran's threats against Israel could lead to World War III. Moreso if North Korea takes advantage of the ongoing attacks. 2001:8003:AC50:BF00:5091:77D1:B486:9E74 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The Sun article indeed mentions WW3 in the title, which is notable. However, the explanation how this could happen is missing. It only states that China has an interest in weakening the West, so another proxy war disrupting the world economy is possible. How this could lead to a direct confrontation between superpowers is completely lacking. So please provide a source of importance that explains how the events could lead to a direct war between superpowers. Gollem (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

NB: North Korea isn't mentioned in the Sun article! Gollem (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:THESUN is not RS. Will add excerpt to 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel under current conflicts until someone improves. There are now RS that reference the connection. [14][15] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced by one president vaguely making the connection without explanation on how it could escalate beyond a regional war. Gollem (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, feel free to revert for now, it can always be returned. I imagine there will be more notable RS to add in the near future. but could be wrong. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"World War 5" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect World War 5 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 2 § World War 5 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Why all the references to the bulletin of fearmongering scientists?

Why all of the random references and advertisements for the bulletin of atomic quacks? There's lots of random websites out there who's sole purpose is to monetize this type of content. Why do we just reference them? Go to their homepage and review the first few "stories" they have posted -- you will see grammatical errors and sourcing problems immediately. 174.179.172.150 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)