Is WWIII likely?

[Hexen]

One of things I've been recently worrying about that the current events with Israel who is desperate of attacking Iran because of false accusations (or other reasons like oil and politics), I've seen alot of fear mongering lately that these events could lead into WWIII with the US being dragged into the war and Russia and China would get involved which all hell would break loose there would possibly lead into Nuclear War with the US and Russia nuking each other.

Is this a likely event or would it actually turn out differently?

[Red Noob]

It's possible but highly unlikely.

[Os Cangaceiros]

don't worry about it bro, we're going to turn the imperialist war into a civil war, YEAH

[Yugo45]

War between Israel and Iran is likely, but I don't see how it can turn into a World War. It's possible, but highly unlikely. Even the Americans said they won't support Israel if they go in war with Iran.

[Dabrowski]

Is World War III likely? It's inevitable unless we manage to have a socialist revolution first that smashes the biggest imperialist powers in the U.S. and Europe. Rosa Luxemburg was right -- the alternatives facing us are socialism or barbarism.

The scenario posited by the original poster is about as good as any other.

What's happening now is similar in lots of ways to the regional wars and power struggles that led up to the first great imperialist world war. The trade wars and debt battles brought on by the capitalist economic crisis will be turned into shooting wars if the capitalists can't recoup their profit rates out of the hides of the workers through "austerity" measures.

Which is why it's essential for revolutionary socialists to insist that the enemy of the workers is their own capitalist ruling class, and to unconditionally defend China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam against imperialist-capitalist counterrevolution.

[daft punk]

Was the first world war likely? It's described as a sort of accident, a bit of a cockup, by the bourgeois commentators after it happened, as if Europe slithered over they abyss somehow incapable of stopping themselves.

Yeah, anything is possible. Government leaders are all retards and psychos. Look at Bush and Blair, they thought they were invincible, and caused a million deaths for no apparent reason.

People thought Obama would be better and the first thing he did was increase the forces in Afghanistan, a mess America made 30 years ago.

Israel is another mess made by the west. And Iran, well, in 1953 Iran had a secular democracy. America overthrew it and it has been a shithole ever since. They did have a revolution in 1979 but it failed due to lack of decent leaders on the workers side, so the Islamists took over.

This should be a lesson to those on here who are unable to see the need for an organised party. Opportunities simply get pissed away.

There are tensions between the USA, Russia and China. I doubt nukes would be ussed but it is by no means impossible. America was prepared to use nukes in the Korean war and also in the Iraq war.

[Omsk]

I hope there wont be a WW3,and as for any speculations - i am against them,i dislike hypothetical questions.

[daft punk]

Is World War III likely? It's inevitable unless we manage to have a socialist revolution first that smashes the biggest imperialist powers in the U.S. and Europe. Rosa Luxemburg was right -- the alternatives facing us are socialism or barbarism.

The scenario posited by the original poster is about as good as any other.

What's happening now is similar in lots of ways to the regional wars and power struggles that led up to the first great imperialist world war. The trade wars and debt battles brought on by the capitalist economic crisis will be turned into shooting wars if the capitalists can't recoup their profit rates out of the hides of the workers through "austerity" measures.

Which is why it's essential for revolutionary socialists to insist that the enemy of the workers is their own capitalist ruling class, and to unconditionally defend China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam against imperialist-capitalist counterrevolution.
This post was going great until the last sentence. Unconditionally defend North Korea etc? Unconditionally meaning what exactly? Surely not uncritically? What if NK attacked the south?

[bcbm]

wwiii already happened just nobody called it that. actually the last century was basically just one ongoing war

[The Douche]

Was the first world war likely? It's described as a sort of accident, a bit of a cockup, by the bourgeois commentators after it happened, as if Europe slithered over they abyss somehow incapable of stopping themselves.

Yeah, anything is possible. Government leaders are all retards and psychos. Look at Bush and Blair, they thought they were invincible, and caused a million deaths for no apparent reason.

People thought Obama would be better and the first thing he did was increase the forces in Afghanistan, a mess America made 30 years ago.

Israel is another mess made by the west. And Iran, well, in 1953 Iran had a secular democracy. America overthrew it and it has been a shithole ever since. They did have a revolution in 1979 but it failed due to lack of decent leaders on the workers side, so the Islamists took over.

This should be a lesson to those on here who are unable to see the need for an organised party. Opportunities simply get pissed away.

There are tensions between the USA, Russia and China. I doubt nukes would be ussed but it is by no means impossible. America was prepared to use nukes in the Korean war and also in the Iraq war.

Please don't use ableist language like this. Thanks.

[Hexen]

wwiii already happened just nobody called it that. actually the last century was basically just one ongoing war

Or maybe we should abandon the "World War #" term?

[bcbm]

probably, i think it is a poor way to understand those conflicts and how they developed and continue to evolve.

[Dabrowski]

This post was going great until the last sentence. Unconditionally defend North Korea etc? Unconditionally meaning what exactly? Surely not uncritically? What if NK attacked the south?

"Unconditionally" meaning Marxists defend the bureaucratically deformed workers states, like we defended the Soviet Union, regardless of the policies of the bureaucracy (which we almost always criticized and which were often outright counterrevolutionary). The capitalist class doesn't rule there, and that is a great gain for the working class which needs to be extended internationally and defended against the Stalinist sellouts. Just like when there is a strike on, you are either with the union or you're with the company and the scabs -- regardless of your view of the union bureaucrats who may very well be selling out the strike. "Which side are you on?"

Now a problem is, most "Trotskyists" scabbed on the Soviet Union and are scabbing on China and North Korea now. Which is to say, they're not Trotskyists at all but pro-imperialist social democrats.

If North Korea "attacked" the South, hell yes, Marxists would say that the main enemy of the workers is the capitalist police state in Seoul and its masters in Washington, and that's where workers should aim their fire at. Of course, contrary to anti-communist propaganda that some are willing to parrot, the Kims are not nearly as insane as the nuclear cowboys in Washington, and it's very unlikely that they would allow themselves to be provoked like that into a war that they have very little chance of winning on their own.

But on the other hand, the U.S. imperialists and their South Korean client regime are now at war with the North, and in any shooting war that they start or provoke, of course they will claim that NK "attacked" first. Now should Communists play a second fiddle warm-up act to that war propaganda?

[NorwegianCommunist]

wwiii already happened just nobody called it that. actually the last century was basically just one ongoing war

That is also true, but If there will come a new war that everybody calls WWIII, we don't know for sure.
If a war breaks out I think it will be with Iran and Israel. (But not spread out to be a world war)

Im not to sure about conflicts in other country..

[SHORAS]

wwiii already happened just nobody called it that. actually the last century was basically just one ongoing war

There has not been world war in the sense of WW1 or WW2 where mass populations were mobilized in seemingly boundless war across continents with the level of death or destruction.

We have seen much death and destruction but it has been concentrated in the capitalist periphery among competing imperialisms. More recently we have seen 'humanitarian intervention', 'nation building' and 'bringing democracy' where a collection of states essentially gang up on a single state. Neither of these situations are world war.

An important point to make is that states now find it much harder to mobilize their population for war. See the protests against war since the 60's grow to massive proportions and the mutiny, draft dodging and resistance more recently in Yugoslavia*.

Then there is the fact that the two countries necessary for world war appear to need each other, China and USA. Also the type of weapons these days make world war a total disaster for everyone once it starts, nuclear etc.

The fear of war is also played up by the bourgeoisie, used as a scare story. For example Iran has been going to be attacked for the last 30 years. The threat or fear of war can be debilitating and tend to lead to anti war, class collaborationist and democratic politics rather than class and proletarian perspectives.

Having said this capitalism is a totally irrational system but that does not mean world war is inevitable. Sadly anti war politics won't stop war though only class based politics can. Which of course rejects all nationalisms and lesser evils.

*Text on Yugoslavia: http://libcom.org/history/yugoslavia-wage-cuts-war-wildcat

[piet11111]

I would not expect WW3 out of the Iran problem as any attack on Iran would be limited to air strikes instead of occupation and regime change.

But America's decline will mean that the USA will do its utmost to defend and preferably expand its power (clearly illustrated by reckless wars to instal client regimes) at the expense of its rivals.
Eventually those rivals will be forced to push back and the odds of America just sitting back and let its rivals take power peacefully is small.

Already Russia and China are trying to figure out how to prevent Syria from being the next regime extreme makeover candidate and the attack on Iran but they are dealing with an aggressive country that feels like it needs to appear as the biggest bully on the block and its out of control attack dog that is Israel.

Israel is going to attack Iran and they only delay so that the Americans can get their military in place because when Israel attacks the Americans will be forced to attack along with them or Israel is going to get bloodied by the Iranian anti air defenses that could cause irreparable damage to their air-force capability.

[ColonelCossack]

Why is everyone suddenly scared of WW3 so much recently? I'm sure there were no threads like this in the summer. But in the last month there's been loads.

Anyway, I don't think it's really very likely in the next few years, but capitalism's gotta have some way to expand its markets, or reset them, or whatever, unless we have socialism before that happens.

[Threetune]

Is World War III likely? It's inevitable unless we manage to have a socialist revolution first that smashes the biggest imperialist powers in the U.S. and Europe. Rosa Luxemburg was right -- the alternatives facing us are socialism or barbarism.

The scenario posited by the original poster is about as good as any other.

What's happening now is similar in lots of ways to the regional wars and power struggles that led up to the first great imperialist world war. The trade wars and debt battles brought on by the capitalist economic crisis will be turned into shooting wars if the capitalists can't recoup their profit rates out of the hides of the workers through "austerity" measures.

Which is why it's essential for revolutionary socialists to insist that the enemy of the workers is their own capitalist ruling class, and to unconditionally defend China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam against imperialist-capitalist counterrevolution.

Yes, spot on, and insist on agitation for revolutionary Defeat after Defeat of imperialist interests everywhere and at all times, against the diversionary ‘left’ posturing for “Stop the War” pacifism which only leaves the poorest masses to be ravaged again and again by unending war.
Sooner or later, and the sooner the better, workers everywhere will need to grasp the absolute necessity for all round DEFEAT of imperialism in any current conflicts, not just political criticism of it.

[bcbm]

There has not been world war in the sense of WW1 or WW2 where mass populations were mobilized in seemingly boundless war across continents with the level of death or destruction.

We have seen much death and destruction but it has been concentrated in the capitalist periphery among competing imperialisms. More recently we have seen 'humanitarian intervention', 'nation building' and 'bringing democracy' where a collection of states essentially gang up on a single state. Neither of these situations are world war.

i think it makes sense to view the 20th century as a more or less ongoing war between competing imperialisms but within the wwi/ii/iii idea i think the 'cold' war qualifies as a world war for the reasons mentioned. the development of nuclear weapons meant that the imperialist states couldn't actively invade and attack each other at home and so they were forced to fight in the 'peripheries' where the death and destruction visited upon these populations was hardly less than that visited upon europe or asia during the world wars. the collapse of this period in the late 80s early 90s took us into a new era where there was more or less one imperialism and ending that cycle of 'world war' but of course war continued but against 'smaller' enemies, which is now changing due to the emergence of a strong anti-us imperial bloc in russia/china. but with the continued threat of nuclear annihilation, they are left to again fight outside their own countries in syria, libya, etc

[gorillafuck]

the threat of nuclear destruction prevents first world powers from engaging in direct conflict, but yes. the world will be involved in another war which involves the whole world, between the US/it's allies and opponents of the US. it will probably be more like the cold war though with a lot of proxy wars.

basically what bcbm has been saying.

[Rusty Shackleford]

wasnt the 7 years war basically a world war?

[Decolonize The Left]

wasnt the 7 years war basically a world war?

Yes it was.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/SevenYearsWar.png
Blue = GB + others
Green = France + others

- August

[marl]

To add onto that the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were a world war.

The Austrian War of Succession and Spanish were very related world wars.

As to the topic of a third World War, I don't think it will happen any time soon. I'm sure the capitalists would love it, and would try to agitate it, but the UN has SOME power in stopping these kind of things. Also, the regimes agitating for World War would most likely collapse to revolution (hopefully) before they'd launch such a thing.

[Kosakk]

There's only China and Russia to counter NATO(/EU) and US.
But Russia has their own problems. Like lose of influence in Eastern-Europe and Central Asia.
And both China and Russia has invested a lot in the world market.

They both would lose too much from a war with the US and Europe.

Iran is somewhat isolated. Russia and China might support them, but has conflicting interests. There's Islamist separatists movements in both countries, and Iran benefits from supporting these groups

[Psy]

To add onto that the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were a world war.

The Austrian War of Succession and Spanish were very related world wars.

As to the topic of a third World War, I don't think it will happen any time soon. I'm sure the capitalists would love it, and would try to agitate it, but the UN has SOME power in stopping these kind of things. Also, the regimes agitating for World War would most likely collapse to revolution (hopefully) before they'd launch such a thing.
The UN has no power as the S.Ossetia war showed, also the fact NATO still wants Georgia become NATO members even though if Georgia was a NATO member at the time the S.Ossetia war would have kicked of WWIII as it clear Russia had no option but counter-attack Georgia yet if Georgia was a NATO member that counter-attack would have had to include attacking NATO in Europe.

[Neoprime]

There's only China and Russia to counter NATO(/EU) and US.
But Russia has their own problems. Like lose of influence in Eastern-Europe and Central Asia.
And both China and Russia has invested a lot in the world market.

They both would lose too much from a war with the US and Europe.

Iran is somewhat isolated. Russia and China might support them, but has conflicting interests. There's Islamist separatists movements in both countries, and Iran benefits from supporting these groups

Somewhat true, but you have to remember they(China/Russia) also lose alot if they don't intervene in places like Iran/Syria because they either have military bases in them(Russia/Syria) or get oil form(China/Iran), and Russia has already made a threat/warning to US/NATO/Israel that if war were to come it Iran it would be catastrophic, and going by it's own policy if NATO/US/Isreal were to attack Iran/Russia it could have a Pre-Emptive Strike them.

[Kosakk]

Somewhat true, but you have to remember they(China/Russia) also lose alot if they don't intervene in places like Iran/Syria because they either have military bases in them(Russia/Syria) or get oil form(China/Iran), and Russia has already made a threat/warning to US/NATO/Israel that if war were to come it Iran it would be catastrophic, and going by it's own policy if NATO/US/Isreal were to attack Iran/Russia it could have a Pre-Emptive Strike them.

You're right. And Russia has been pushed a lot lately. Guess there'll be no intervention in Syria.

But are China and/or Russia ready for a war? I know there's ongoing reforms in the Russian Army and China is modernizing her army.

[workersadvocate]

You're right. And Russia has been pushed a lot lately. Guess there'll be no intervention in Syria.

But are China and/or Russia ready for a war? I know there's ongoing reforms in the Russian Army and China is modernizing her army.

Do world wars wait until all the opposing parties are "ready"?

[GoddessCleoLover]

I doubt that any power would go to war if it deemed itself unready.

[workersadvocate]

I doubt that any power would go to war if it deemed itself unready.
It takes opposing parties to cause a war, and that means the initiation of a war really only depends on any ONE of those opposing parties.

For whatever reason, for need or greed, ONE power begins attacking another. War begins, ready or not.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Indeed, many wars do begin that way. For some reason, my mind was focused more on the First, rather than the Second, World War. I don't world war as imminent given the balance of power in today's world. As I have posted before, the rise of Chinese military power over the next ten or twenty years may alter that equation. Even so, I am not sure a world war would be likely as I believe that the USA would be likely to meet China's basic demands with respect to her sphere of influence. OTOH there are definitely nascent sources of potential conflict between the USA and China that are somewhat similar to the respective positions of the UK and Germany in the late 19th century.

[l'Enfermé]

Russia doesn't care in the least about Iran, neither does China. They are capitalist states that only care about their own self-interest, and it's in no state's self-interest to declare war on the United States. It's very foolish to group Russia and China into some anti-imperialist bloc, as both states are imperialist themselves. If they were as capable as the United States to impose their hegemony over the globe, they would. Anyways, Israel(perhaps with US/UK aid) bombing a few Iranian bases and Iranian retaliating by lobbing a few missiles in Israel's direction isn't such a much thing. Israel and the US have a long history of bombing countries that are friends with big boys, yet we've had no nuclear wars.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree that it would be phantasmagorical to believe that China and/or Russia would spearhead some anti-capitalist coalition. OTOH China seems to have a two-pronged strategic approach, first, hegemony over east Asia some day, and in the short run access to raw materials needed for industrialization. IMO China is more likely than Russia to emerge as the chief imperial competitor to the USA, but not until its military construction program develops for another ten or even twenty years.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Unconditionally" meaning Marxists defend the bureaucratically deformed workers states, like we defended the Soviet Union, regardless of the policies of the bureaucracy (which we almost always criticized and which were often outright counterrevolutionary).Which means what in practice?

If a ground war breaks out in Korea, is the IG going to send armed cadres to the DMZ to battle against the U.S./ROK? I doubt it.

Now if you were in a position to organize hot cargoing of war materiel and strikes against the war it might mean something, and deserve further debate and discussion. But you're not and you never have been. You're a nano-sect unknown and irrelevant to the vast majority of the world (even more so than the Sparts, the micro-sect you split from). And you will remain that way until you dissolve a few years down the road.

So, it basically amounts to rooting for a different team, except "the game" is played with people's lives. You think it's a lot more, but it's not. And here's why...

The problem is that you're stuck in a different time period. You think this is the early 20th century, that you're the Bolsheviks, and that the rest of the left are the Mensheviks. You think you need to argue against the influence of the 2nd International which will drag workers into war. You imagine yourself on a snowy stage somewhere in Petrograd, arguing in front of vast crowds of factory workers in an attempt to win them over to the correct path and leadership.

But guess what? It's 2012 and the workers don't follow any of the left sects. In fact, the majority have no idea any of them even exist. You're busy battling tooth and nail against other grouplets all the while ignoring the fact that your real battle is against time itself.

[Dabrowski]

NHIA has one note but he plays it like a virtuoso.

No this isn't 1917, it's 2012. What's changed?

Some things haven't changed. Imperialism is still around. Capitalism is still here. The class struggle continues unabated, flaring up here and there. Marxism is still relevant.

On the other hand, the socialist movement has been nearly destroyed. By Stalinism, then by the destruction of the Soviet Union.

This has caused socialism and communism to be discredited in the eyes of many. It has driven many leftists and left groups to give up, disband, or reduce their program to the narrow horizons of what seems possible now.

Nevertheless Marxism is still the truth, and the fate of humanity does depend on the revolutionary action of the working class. So some of us are going to stick with the program and keep working to organize the workers into a party that can take power.

If you think that's not possible or advisable, just stay out of the way.

[GuyFawks]

if we bomb iran, it is verry likely
:(

[bcbm]

No this isn't 1917, it's 2012. What's changed?

quite a bit.


Some things haven't changed. Imperialism is still around. Capitalism is still here.

actually both of these things have changed quite a bit since 1917.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It is easy and comfortable to stick with the old way of doing things, but BCBM is correct, things have changed quite alot in the past hundred years, and we ought to update our strategy and tactics.

[brigadista]

its much more in the interests of the rich western powers to continue to have client states and have new markets arising out of various conflicts between those client states than for an all out old style "world war".

OPs are right this is a different time and different material conditions

[Dabrowski]

Well I find the faith that some people put in the deterrent effect of "M.A.D." nuclear weapons in the hands of the imperialists to be unconvincing. Channel the spirit of Alfred Nobel.

Plus this idea that the material conditions are fundamentally different, and that regional wars in the semi-colonies won't boil over into world inter-imperialist war is fundamentally impressionistic and wrong.

It's still all about export of capital from the U.S. and Europe. What do you think all the foreign-owned export industries in China are about? Why do you think the imperialists and their running dogs like the CWI are so worked up about "democracy" in China? They want capitalist "democracy" so they can secure their property rights.

[Bolshevik_Guerilla_1917]

One of things I've been recently worrying about that the currents with Israel who is desperate of attacking Iran because of false accusations (or other reasons like oil and politics), I've seen alot of fear mongering lately that these events could lead into WWIII with the US being dragged into the war and Russia and China would get involved which all hell would break loose there would possibly lead into Nuclear War with the US and Russia nuking each other.

Is this a likely event or would it actually turn out differently?-Hey go on my profile and check out my blog I put up on WWIII and Iran, I see it the same way you do

[ВАЛТЕР]

If it results in profit, then yes...it is very likely.

The whole "M.A.D." thing will only make it a war of low-yield, tactically placed nuclear strikes rather than all-out, high-yield, nuclear bombardments of anything that moves.

This is all hypothetical and I don't really ever see any great powers getting into an all-out shit fight in the same ways we have seen in the past.