Talk:World War III

Proposed Revision - 1st Nuclear Attack Constitutes WWIII

WWII effectively ended with two nuclear level attacks, thus a WWIII would begin with at least 1 nuclear level attack, but may be limited to conventional non-nuclear warfare.

I'm surprised this article fails to mention this very simple fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.245.34 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear war is a ridiculous and outdated concept, owing mostly in part to the principals of mutually assured destruction. Saying that World War three will likely be Nuclear in nature should be removed from the top of this article. (71.173.82.237 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Possible combatants

There needs to be an constantly updating point, with the newest and latest data, that can accurately tell the likely combatants with the current political climate. Another point to be added would be the "likely cause" of such an escalation of violence, that is most likely in this political climate and given the current position of each respective country.

I nominate the following countries to be put on the list given the current circumstances and political climate:

Israel, Iran, People's Republic of China, Russian Federation, United States of America, European Union, NATO, CIS, UAE, India, Japan, South Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Congo, South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, Morocco, Libya, Mexico, Brazil and Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk • contribs) 30 October 2008

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see WP:NOT). It's not a place for our current speculations on what might or might not happen. This article about World War III is about speculation that has already been made, and been documented. Having such a constantly updating point would be putting our own speculation in the article, and no matter how well-informed, it doesn't belong. If somebody publishes such speculations in a magazine article or a book, then it might be worth mentioning in the article, but it shouldn't go directly into the article. -- Why Not A Duck 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see.

German civil war???

There was something written of a German civil war between 1930 and 1933. While that time was certainly very eventful and not without violence, under no circumstance can we talk about a German civil war. I have changed the sentence.

The same is the case for World War II, as previous serious conflicts in the world were occurring from 1931 to 1939 such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and later China, the Spanish Civil War, civil war in Germany from 1930 until 1933, anschluss (annexation of Austria), and the occupation of Czechoslovakia, but these events are not considered part of World War II, but only a prelude, despite the severe political instability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.202.50 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

sino-soviet split

the text that was in WW3 article today, 13 April 2007

.................. In addition to the above there are two other points during the Cold War that could have resulted in world war. These, however, are not generally listed as they do not relate to the United States-Soviet Union rivalry, but rather the events following the Sino-Soviet Split of 1960. The ideological split between Maoist communists (represented primarily by China) and Stalinist communists (represented primarily by the Soviet Union) divided the entire communist movement worldwide — which controlled governments or significant rebel factions on most continents. Thus a war between China and the Soviet Union may well have resulted in world war, while not necessarily involving the U.S. and the capitalist west. The two points the communist powers almost entered into all-out war over were: ..................

Come on, try checking this: Sino-Soviet split

At that time, the Soviet Union under Khrushchev was going through a process of DE-Stalinisation, and that IS one of

I don't know who wrote this, but try checking the facts next time or writing nothing. This is really a big thing.

Very pro-American, anti-Soviet page

Where are the accounts of US wars that could have lead to WWIII?

* Korea and McArthur's idea to use nukes against China. This happened after McArthur 
  entered China following N. Korean army resulting in China's retaliation. McArthur was then replaced.
* Vietnam War or "police action"
* Right after WWII, many in the US wanted to take out Soviet Union before it gained nuclear weapons
* How the missle key was set to all-0 until 1980s. The missle combination was put in place 
  after Cuban missle crises but the combination was set to all zeros. This meant almost anyone could 
  launch the missles.
* Also, there is less "mistakes" in the US listed probably because most of such 
  information is classified. We will not know this for some time.

More blanced article would be something like this: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

This page could use some balance and stop refering to people in either country with negative connotations.

It's an american site edited by american users who were taught in american shcools. Why the hell else do you think it would be biased?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you kidding me? The Internet has HUGE Liberal bias. Wikipedia is not a "neutral point of view" place. More like "liberal point of view." Made by a bunch of early twenty something college students who seek to rewrite history for their own liberal agenda. Some even going so far as to saying the U.S. is a fascist regime, the moon landing never happened, 9/11 never happened, and the Holocaust never happened. The Internet as a whole is VERY BIASED anti-Western, especially against the United States. Saying that this place is biased in America's favor is a joke.

Calling any wiki unbiased is a laughable joke.

Criteria for a World War

Criteria for a "World War" may be worth mentioning, as well as linking the artical back to World war. This whole page is getting rather lengthy and it may be worthwhile to transfer some of the prophecy and artistic definitions to new homes elsewhere. Motorfix 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see World War III in popular culture for all the removed material. It really needed it's own place.

Motorfix 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead king talking?

"During a press conference soon after the start of the 1991 Gulf War, King Hussein of Jordan and King Olav V of Norway directly referred to the conflict between the United States and its coalition of allies against Iraq as "the Third World War" but there was no indication of any other world leaders accepting the definition." King Olav V of Norway died on January 17th, 1991, the day the Gulf war started. I can't believe no-one has noticed this very bad-taste joke. Removed!

13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Devanatha

• I've it partially back -- the King Olav addition was vandalism; I was the one who put in Hussein - the other was added later by another party and I only just noticed this a year later. 23skidoo 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

References to current talk radio hosts

Removed. Hardly appropriate in an encyclopedia setting.

Suez Crisis missing something?

Under historical close calls, Suez Crisis, mention is made of the Soviet threat of intervention on the side of the Egyptians and subsequent persuasion by Lester Pearson as reasons the conflict was resolved. John Lewis Gaddis, author of many books on the Cold War, has cited back channel efforts by President Eisenhower as a reason the crisis did not escalate. Should this be added? - Missiletest - 17:26, September 13, 2006

Changed (December 27, 2006) some references to Canada (Canadian) and changed "Secretary of State" to "Minister"

I changed "Minister" back to "Secretary of State". The position was not called "Minister" until 1993. TomTheHand 13:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Close calls: Cuban Missile Crisis

Perhaps the entry on the Cuban Missile Crisis should reference Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov, as well?? -- Steved424 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

according to "inviting disaster" by james chiles, p300 (paperback edition), during the cuban missile crisis, the USAF was so hurried in deploying some of the minuteman 1 ICBMs that they were installed without many of the interlocks/safety checks that would normally have prevented accidental launch. "According to Scot Sagan research, crew kept necessary electronics for launch close to hand, instead of in a separate guarded vault, as publicly stated." Which sounds like its own near-miss waiting to happen.

WW3 in fiction

Should there be a section for this?

• Please see World War III in popular culture. Motorfix 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert's "Road to World War Three"

Should "The Road to World War Three" on the Colbert Report be mentioned in this article Kc4 19:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is now WWIII, the War is with Eurasia

Or, perhaps World War III will start once WWII stops. -- Wriggleybum 04:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean, once WWII stops? - Redmess 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Link removed

I've taken the liberty and removed the link to this site:

Both Biblical prophecy and the Illuminati plan state that Israel is the key. [...] We are in the last stages of the preparation to so globalize the world that the Masonic New Age Christ (Antichrist) can appear to receive all the political and economic power of the world's rulers. This is the Illuminati plan and Biblical prophecy (Revelation 17:12-17).

I think we can agree that any article involving the Illuminati, the rapture and the Masonic New Age Christ (MaNAC?) is pretty much rubbish. Then again, maybe I'm just an agent of the Illuminati, trying to hide the truth from the rest of you. --Agitpop 22:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

World War III started in 2001

I no this is just vandalism but I don't know how to remove it--172.189.223.254 11:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Are u aware that more people have died just in the Battle of Normandy than the ENTIRE War on Terror. This is not World War III. Everyone will know it when it finally happens because when it does we all will die.

- Id like to say that depending on how you look at it, and your belief and what you've read on a certain website then WW3 could have started in 2001. Its saying that all the current news events are building up to (what we'd expect from) WW3 which have been a result of 9 11.

Lmao the US tolerance of death has skyrocketed down. WWIII will kill over 1 billion people. The end is inevitable. 65.87.42.30 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Middle East

What about the isreal/palestinian conflict?this could easily escalate to a world war by isreal and the west (america, canada and the commonwealth) vs palestine, iran (and all those islamic middle eastern countries) and china. I wouldn't know about russia though.222.154.55.65 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict has been going on for thousands of years.

US/USSR Centric

The world does not revolve around two superpowers. Historically large conflicts can be started by small events. Yes the flash points listed are important and do deserve to be there but there are lots of other ones requiring listing. There are many other global conflicts such as the long cold war between Turkey and Greece or India and Pakistan that could have lead to global conflict. AlanD 10:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. World War I for example was started by the assassination of a single man. The one between Pakistan and India almost erupted into a World War all on it's own.

Anti-Globalization Movement

Could the anti globalization movement and subsequent riots (seattle,prague,genoa,miami, zapatistas, washington DC, gleneagles etc) be classed as a world war. It is a global movement and many see it as a [class war] or battle against the ruling, capitalist elite. What are your thoughts on this classifying as a world war?222.154.55.65 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's nothing like a world war. See World War I and World War II. TomTheHand 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging World War IV into World War III

A seperate page for World War IV, or World War V or any subsequent theorectical world conflicts produced by incrementing World War III by any amount doesn't seem to be justified. I suggets we merge the article with this one, under a subheading of "Beyond World War III" or similar. Artw 02:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No man. We've already passed WWIII (Clash of the Superpowers, Cold War, Russo-American World War) WWIV is going on and will blow into a complete global proportion soon. WWV is believed, by Christians in Britain at least, to be the final one. That will be the war that destroys the world. --Bane II 10:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It would not be justified if you made it out of the assumption that if a World War 2 happened, a world war 3, 4, 5, etc would happen in the future. But because a significant group of people are referring to things as WW4, with the beleif that WW3 has happened, its notable. No such significant group holds the beleif that WW5 is going on at this point. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - World War 3 and World War 4 are both hypothetical conflicts that may or may not happen. Unless we've radically changed the definition of the word war, which experience in Iraq proves we haven't, the "Cold War" was a diplomatic and propaganda rivalry, not a bona-fide war. FireWeed 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Combine w/WW4

World War IV, by definition, is a war that could occur after a WW3. They are two (hypothetical) wars (even if we are in one of them). That's like combining the next two deadly hurricanes into one article. This makes no sense. Just because some people consider the Cold War, WW3, I don't care. The major powers USSR and USA didn't go to WAR WAR. So it wasnt a WORLD WAR. It was like Europe's competition for colonial power in the 1800s and 1900s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.28.143.218 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

"vandalism"

Deleting 90% of the content of this page is NOT vandalism. None of this info is sourced - the point of the article is how these examples might relate to "World War III." Thus we need sources in which each of these incidents is referred to as a "potential WWIII." Currently the page just presents the existence of the India/Pakistan conflict, or the existence of the Yom Kippur War, as self-evidently relating to World War III. This is WP:Original Research and should be either sourced or deleted. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Too long

This article is way too long, so I have added the template. Every example of a large war in fiction does not need to be in this article. A lot of this needs to be cut out, especially anything with red links. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came to this page looking for examples of WW3 in books, movies, etc. So please don't get rid of that information (although it might indeed be a good idea to move into subtopics, etc.). - Horizon Star 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying to delete everything, but per WP:NOT, this has was too many examples, and some are only large, fictonal, future wars, and not necessarily a WWIII. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Christian Zionism

This appears to be a popular topic of Christian Zionists, such as John Hagee. I'm pretty sure I remember hearing John Hagee say, "World War Three has begun." This should be included in some way. --Kalmia 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article says all that needs to be said about fringe opinions that World War III has already occurred or is in progress. TomTheHand 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone, the bible code hasn't been proved wrong. In fact, its impossible to prove it wrong be cause it couldn't have by any means happened by chance. You should change that. Plus maybe stick in a link so people know what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.89.104 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Got a verifiable reference for that? --Iknowyourider (t c) 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Former CIA Director James Woolsey

The Cold War was WW3. Is this guy retarted. Stick to the facts mate. 86.149.209.189 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your statement makes no sense. An opinion of WWIII from a guy who is head of the CIA is clearly verifiable and important, as long as it is kept in context. -- abfackeln (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kid Who Became President

In Dan Gutman's novel The Kid Who Became President, protagonist President Judson Moon plays a video game called World War IV aginst the crazed dictator of Cantatania, Supreme Ruler Trujilo. The storyline is based on the world after a so called World War III. Will someone please find a way to fit this into teh article and add it?

Add it as a source, reference, see also, or external link. Pyrospirit ^Shiny! 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

the book is aboutXelas211 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)(funny) alternate history

Historical close calls

Hey guys, I must say that some of our inclusion criteria seems to be quite loose on these. Simply because someone uttered the words "World War III" for a given circumstance does not mean it was a "close call". I have a problem with four in particular:

1. For example, Yeltsin mentioned that a war might happen if NATO put its troops in Yugoslavia during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; and in fact, NATO did just that, but no war came close to happening. It was just (failed) rhetoric designed to try to get the West to knock it off.
2. The Berlin Blockade was never close to creating a third world war (the overall situation was tense, but the blockade did little to create more tensions of the cold war).
3. Both of the mentions of a Sino-Russian war. A World war, by necessity, involves fighting a war all over the world. But this would have been a war simply between two powers next to each other; it never would have left the locality of their borders. This is like saying that the Franco-Prussian War was a world war simply because it involved two superpowers. But not even the Napoleanic Wars reached this term.
4. The India-Pakistan thing. No one else would have gotten involved in that fight- it would have been (another) Pakistani-Indian war, but certainly not a world war (even if nuclear weapons were involved).

As such, I've been bold and removed these - minor skermishes, especially the Yugoslavia business, have no need to be here: just because people call something world war III or threaten it does not make it so, any more than Newt Gingrich calling the middle-eastern conflicts as WWIII make it so: [1]. The Evil Spartan 14:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A "close call" means that it nearly happened, but didn't. As to the "minor skermish" thing, tens of thousands of people died in the Sino-Soviet war of 1969, mostly Chinese, and there were thousands of casualties in Kargil war in 1999. Brezhnev called Nixon on the hotline in the middle of the crisis to inform him that he was going to nuke Beijing. Nixon said that he would not stand for that and would retaliate. If Brezhnev did it anyway...WWIII. The war on terror qualifies as a world war as it has taken place all over the world. Also, the India/Pakistan thing of 2001/02, was very much part of the WOT, as it was mostly Jihadis vs. Dhimmis, and was Al-qaeda inspired, if not involved. The Pakistani ISI INVENTED the Taliban after all, and they were all in bed together.Ericl 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The Evil Spartan (above), and have also boldly removed the item regarding the Pristina airport incident (which, regardless of the WWIII comment by a subordinate officer, was never in a million years even remotely likely to turn into a shooting war between the US and Russia) and the Kursk explosion (ditto). There's just no good reason to include these at all. --BenRussell (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with BenRussell for removing the Pristina airport incident. What sources do you have to claim it was never in a million years even remotely likely to turn into a shooting war? Yeltsin had previously stated: "I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war."[2] The Russians had plans to fly in thousands of troops, and because of this Wesley_Clark ordered British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport, and Clark planned to order British tanks and armoured cars to block the runways to prevent any Russian transport planes from landing. [3] Subsequently countries neighbouring Yugoslavia were asked not to allow Russian aircraft to overfly their territory, indicating this was indeed considered a problem by NATO. Clark has been and is still critised for his decisions regarding this incident.[4] [5] And no legal action has been taken or punishment been given to Mike_Jackson, which would have made perfect sense for disobeying a direct order, if the situation was indeed never in a million years even remotely likely to turn into a shooting war. It seems to me the only person that doesn't think this was a potentially volatile situation is Wesley Clark himself [6] who was told he would be relieved of his command and sent into early retirement not even a month after the incident took place.Wesley_Clark#Retirement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.67.208 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Need for this page?

is this page really needed. its a hypotetical event, that hasnt happend. this is liikke me making a page about myself and saying im future king of the world.

No, it's not really like that at all, because you've never almost become king of the world, there's never been a period where the whole world was expecting or fearing that you would become king of the world, and nobody's ever made a movie or written a book about you being king of the world. TomTheHand 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

POV in article

This article focuses far too much attention on the times where nuclear war could have occured. Yes the Cold War could be seen as a potential World War III, but it fails to give enough information on "close calls" after the Cold War, and aside from nuclear threats. For instance, the global war on terror has been repeatedly mentioned as a potential third World War or already a de facto World War III for a number of reasons. The reaction to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has affected large areas of the world ranging over large distances. Second, a major close call, which DID NOT involve a nuclear threat was in 2006, when a conflict of alliances almost erupted following Israel's invasion of Lebanon almost brought about a Middle Eastern conflict to add to the global war on terror and the Iraq war (bear in mind that world wars can be dominating one region of the world, such as WWI was dominated by the European theatre). In 2006, Iran pledged to back Syria if Israeli action involved attacks on Syria, or if Syria decided to wage war on Israel for Israel's attempt to purge Lebanon of Hezbollah, which was supported by Syria and Iran. If such a conflict erupted, it was believed that Iran would have taken action against U.S. forces in Iraq, causing the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq to be at war with Iran. The 2006 conflict in Lebanon was a close call to World War III and should be put down in the close call list. User:R-41

Mention of Assassin's Mace

A mention of this book has been repeatedly added to this article. I don't see any evidence of notability for the book, and have reverted the edit. Iknowyourider (t c) 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

King Hussein comment

The King Hussein comment is legitimate as it was made during a press conference in response to the start of the first Gulf War. I had added this to the article more than a year ago, but it was deleted because a vandal had added nonsense to the paragraph and it appears no one bothered to check this out before deleting it. 23skidoo 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bush Administration's War on Terror?

I'm not much of a Bush supporter, but I have to ask is it proper to call the War on Terrorism as Bush administration's War on Terrorism in Wikipedia? I have to ask what do we call War on Terrorism once we get a new president? McCain/Obama/Clinton's War on Terrorism? I don't recall any wars being preceded by the administration/presidency that was present at the time (i.e: Nixon's Vietnam War? Bush's Persian Gulf War? The 2nd Continental Congress' Revolutionary War?)--BirdKr (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article needs help

I'd like to suggest the structure is changed to include

Intro and a longer and clearer definition

--Discussion of the two ways of thinking about it-- (replace the "difficulty in identifying" section)

a. "globalist POV" that the 3rd WW was a global conflict and need not have been a combat between major protagonists, or even in Europe

b. "localist POV" that minor proxy conflicts elsewhere did not really qualify for the term since the conflict was not fought between major protagonists in Europe or between USA and USSR, i.e. it was not really "World" encompasing

--the Cold War-- trying to support the "globalist POV"

--avoiding "hot" war-- trying to support the "localist POV"

--War on Terror-- threat of terror is global, therefore its a World War that followed Second WW, but begun in the 70s! Unlike the 1st, 2nd and Cold wars which were predominantly about economics, the motivation in WOT is not about economics

--Conclusions---

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not the place for your original research. Xihr (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein quote: "Rocks"

He actually said:

I do not know how the third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!

Not:

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. (or some other rephrasing). Rocks, not sticks and stones. See the Albert Einstein article. Uthanc (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Then by all means, fix it, and include a citation. Xihr (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I already did - actually I introduced the "New quotable Einstein" citation to this page while correcting what was then a "sticks and stones" version to the one from the Einstein page (where the citation comes from). It bugged me that "sticks and stones" made it back in, with the old citation wrongly used to support it. Uthanc (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I move that we remove this quote entirely. There is obviously confusion as to what he really said -- there are already two cited references on this page with differing versions of the quote! (New Quotable and Waging Peace.) Furthermore, this quote doesn't really have anything substantial to do with World War III except that it was spoken by someone famous. If we do decide to keep it, can we decide on a citation that doesn't contradict itself? -- abfackeln (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, nevermind. Xihr already removed one of the two sources so it doesn't contradict itself anymore. I don't actually own the book that is now the only source, so I will have to trust that it is correct. -- abfackeln (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write the original reference, but the way I read it, it wasn't a contradiction, it was a clarification. Think of it as, "Here's the reference for the right way, but sometimes it's written this way, which is wrong." However, it was phrased in such a way that it was extremely confusing and I certainly sympathize with those who have been thrown for a loop by it -- it was far more confusing than it needed to be. Removing the (unnecessary) clarification and adding a comment about the exact phrasing seemed like the right thing to do, as there have been sporadic reversions over this quote.  Xihr  05:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

COD is a credible source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.76.131 (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to be helpful, you're going to have to use complete sentences. And not use ambiguous acronyms. Thx. -- abfackeln (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase, Saying, and Quotation, p. 484, attributes this quotation to Lord Mountbatten in Macleans' on 17 November 1975 as "If the The Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows." 91.153.118.55 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia vs. Georgia

This one should not be listed until events dictate that it should. To list it as an historical close call violates WP:CRYSTAL. 23skidoo (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this issue is extremely minor compared to the other "close calls". And yes, while the event is going on, there isn't proper historical perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.124.97 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines needed for "Historical close calls"

We really need to establish a standard for what actually constitutes a "historical close call", here are some suggestions:

• It has to be above and beyond the normal foreign policy speech or diplomatic dispute that happens on a day to day basis. While I understand that sometimes a big crisis can come from a seemingly unimportant statement or dispute, there are so many that we need to limit which ones are important enough and which ones need to be ignored when concerning this article. Also I don't think that just because it happens between the United States and Russia classifies it as something important enough to be a potential starter for WWIII. Our history shows us that even minor nations can cause major wars (see World War I).

• Whatever the dispute might be it needs to be resolved before it can be considered a "historical close call". This just makes sense logically. Something that needs to be historical needs to be over or be in the past, which something that is happening right now is not. Also how can something that has not been resolved be a "close call"? Potentially it can explode into WWIII (no matter how implausible that may be) which would mean it is no longer a close call because it actually was the cause. On the same note creating a section on "future close calls" is a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL for being nothing more than speculation.

• Finally we need sources to back it up. We need some reputable person or organization to say "Wow, that was a close call." Simply to use our own judgment on whether to call something a close call violates WP:OR.

Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the criteria are pretty clear. We mention it as an example of a close call if a reliable, verifiable source of noteworthiness relevant to the event has claimed that it was a close call, or words to that effect. And yes, it has to be something historical -- i.e., not ongoing.  Xihr  06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So would you agree then that the "Polish Missile Crisis" can't be an historical close call because it is still ongoing? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's borderline on its own merits, regardless of whether it's ongoing. One general making a belligerent remark doesn't strike me as noteworthy in the long run, which is really what the section of the article is about.  Xihr  08:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, it seems he is saying that Poland would be a target if there is a nuclear war, but the agreement with the US itself is not enough to start one. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Error on determining

Section states "The English term "World War" has only seen widespread use during one conflict — World War II. A German biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel wrote this shortly after the start of the war:" however the following statement is dated 1914. Hence "the" war obviously refers to the first, rather than the implied second, however does the first statement still state the second war or is that too meant to be first?- _J.Logan`^t: 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Two incidents in November 9, 1979

A few months before the November 9, 1979 incident there was another one. A computer malfunction that played down the "Wrong tape" event of November 9. [7] -- 88.194.200.169 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to see how this comes anywhere close to qualifying as a reliable source. P.S. Two incidents "in November 9, 1979"?  Xihr  09:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

November 1979 incident?

The scenario here sounds identical to the one in the movie "War Games". And there are no sources or citations for this entry. Suggesting removal until it is verified. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

See the previous section. Someone keeps adding it against consensus.  Xihr  10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Prelude to World War III

Check out what a guy out of Canada, Marcus Cyganiak says here in these two articles:

1) http://marcuscyganiak.blogspot.com/2008/11/world-leaders-receive-threats.html 2) http://marcuscyganiak.blogspot.com/2008/12/larger-war-on-horizon.html

We could be in the prelude to WWIII right now. Canamerican (talk)