@ManusJustus: Can you be a little more polite please?

I've yelled at people so many times when bringing up "World War III". The name simply wouldn't make any sense historically speaking...

The Great War and World War II were European conflicts. Since they owned most of world anyway the rest of the world was also involved, but the two wars were European Wars simply on a larger scale.

The reason why World War II is called World War II is because the major players were all on the same teams. Germany vs. Russia and also England vs. Germany. These were the three main countries in those wars ideologically and militarily.

It should also be added the Second World War was only twenty years after the first one. Twenty years ago Home Alone came out, it's really not that long ago.

As others have pointed out, the Cold War was an extention of the unsettled business of the Second World War. If anything is called World War III it should be the Cold War.

A World War today would have no connection to the first two. An example however, see Punic Wars, the third one, although fifty years later involved the same conflict as the first two. Also see Crusades.

In addition, technology has grown to such an amazing degree that a full large scale war is no longer realistic. If you have a thousand tanks and I have one nuke I am militarily superior to you. Nuclear war is also not possible, only nuclear massacre. If you look at standing armies your living in the wrong century. This may have made you a powerful nation a hundred years ago but not today. Today economic might has long replaced military power.

I would disagree that the Second World War was a European conflict. I believe Japan had invaded Manchuria and China before any of the European nations had commenced military operations.

Let's say there was a war which involved most, if not all of the worlds biggest powers. Whoever was against the "Allies" would have a real tough time. Going against the military forces of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia and France alone is one tough cookie. That is until the Chinese unleash their secret weapon; soldiers who know gymnastics.

looking at economics of today a war between USA and CHINA are unrealistic cuz both are so intertwind (sorry for spelling) that it would destory both countries economies. the real question is that with China's growing expansion and as there resoure's deplete they will look for more, they will turn towards Russia thats the real problem. China vs. Russia!!!!

Kind of funny how you guys always point China out as an agressor when it is one of the biggest countries who in his history almost never attacked an other country. France, USA, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Holland are then imo more agressors.

If something really did happen, it'd more than likely come out of the Middle East or North Korea.

 >_> Russia?  China is in Africa searching for resources.  So far the most population of countries in Africa are quite happy about that.

I really wonder how democracy will work there with their 100 of different languages/cultures and even religions. If Belgium haves problems with only two major regions I really see it fail in China for sure.

then perhaps...china needs to fail.  if china can only work when it dominates its people, then it doesnt deserve to exist.