((Short description|Hypothetical future global conflict))
((pp-move))
((pp|small=yes))
((Redirect-several|Third World War|World War III))
((Use dmy dates|date=March 2022))

[[File:Castle Bravo Blast.jpg|thumb|[[Nuclear warfare]] is a common symbol and theme of World War&nbsp;III scenarios. Such a conflict has been hypothesized to come close to or lead to [[human extinction]].]]

'''World War III''', '''World War 3''', '''WWIII''', '''WW3''', or the '''Third World War''' are the names given to a hypothetical [[world war|global conflict]] subsequent to [[World War I]] and [[World War II]]. The term has been in use since as early as 1941.<ref name="1st"/> Some apply it loosely to limited or more minor conflicts such as the [[Cold War]] or the [[war on terror]]. In contrast, others assume that such a conflict would surpass prior world wars in both scope and destructive impact.<ref name="einstein">''The New Quotable Einstein''. Alice Calaprice (2005), p. 173.</ref>

Due to the development of [[nuclear weapon]]s in the [[Manhattan Project]], which were used in the [[atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]] near the end of World War II, and their subsequent acquisition and deployment by [[list of states with nuclear weapons|many countries]] afterward, the potential risk of a [[nuclear apocalypse]] causing inevitable widespread mass destruction of Earth's civilizations and life is a common theme in speculations about a third world war. Another primary concern is that [[biological warfare]] could cause mass [[Casualty (person)|casualties]]. It could happen intentionally or inadvertently, by an accidental release of a biological agent, the unexpected mutation of an agent, or its adaptation to other species after use. Large-scale [[global catastrophic risks|apocalyptic events]] like these, caused by advanced technology used for destruction, could render most of Earth's surface uninhabitable.

Before the beginning of World War II in 1939, World War I (1914–1918) was believed to have been "[[the war to end all wars]]". It was popularly believed that never again could there possibly be a global conflict of such magnitude. During the [[interwar period]], World War I was typically referred to simply as "The Great War". The outbreak of World War II disproved the hope that humanity might have "outgrown" the need for widespread global wars.<ref name="Safire">((cite book |last=Safire |first=William |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jK-0NPoMiYoC&pg=PA792 |title=Safire's Political Dictionary |publisher=Oxford University Press US |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-19-534334-2 |pages=792–3 |access-date=2010-08-24 |archive-date=9 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709185634/https://books.google.com/books?id=jK-0NPoMiYoC&pg=PA792 |url-status=live ))</ref>

With the advent of the Cold War in 1947 and the spread of nuclear weapons and technology to the [[Soviet Union]], the possibility of a third global conflict increased. During the Cold War, the possibility of a third world war was anticipated and planned for by military and civil personnel in various countries. Scenarios ranged from [[conventional warfare]] to limited or total nuclear warfare. At the height of the Cold War, the doctrine of [[mutually assured destruction]] (MAD), which determined that an all-out nuclear confrontation would destroy all of the states involved in the conflict, developed. The potential for the absolute destruction of the human species may have contributed to both American and Soviet leaders avoiding such a scenario.

The various global military conflicts that have occurred since the start of the 21st century, most recently the [[Syrian civil war]] since 2011, the [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] since 2022, and the [[Israel–Hamas war]] since 2023, alongside recent rising tensions between the [[United States]] and [[China]], have been perceived as potential flashpoints or triggers for a third world war.<ref name=":0a" /><ref>((Citation |title=Is this the start of World War III? |date=May 10, 2022 |url=https://www.dw.com/en/is-this-the-start-of-world-war-iii/av-63346517 |publisher=[[Deutsche Welle]]  |access-date=2022-10-11 |archive-date=11 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221011154239/https://www.dw.com/en/is-this-the-start-of-world-war-iii/av-63346517 |url-status=live ))</ref>

==Etymology==

===''Time'' magazine===
((primary sources|section|date=October 2022))

''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine was an early adopter, if not originator, of the term "World War((nbsp))III". The first usage appears in its 3 November 1941 issue (preceding the Japanese [[attack on Pearl Harbor]] on 7 December 1941) under its "National Affairs" section and entitled "World War((nbsp))III?" about [[Nazi]] refugee [[Hermann Rauschning]], who had just arrived in the United States.<ref name=1st>((cite magazine
| title = Foreign News: World War III?
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,772740,00.html
| date = 3 November 1941
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20171015160850/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,772740,00.html
| archive-date = 15 October 2017
| url-status = live
))</ref> In its 22 March 1943, issue under its "Foreign News" section, ''Time'' reused the same title "World War((nbsp))III?" about statements by then-[[Vice President of the United States|U.S. Vice President]] [[Henry A. Wallace]]: "We shall decide sometime in 1943 or 1944((nbsp))... whether to plant the seeds of World War III."<ref>((cite magazine
| title = Foreign News: World War III?
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,796086,00.html
| date = 22 March 1943
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20171015162804/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,796086,00.html
| archive-date = 15 October 2017
| url-status = live
))</ref><ref>((cite magazine
| title = International: Or Else?
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,774258,00.html
| date = 15 February 1943
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190520021907/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,774258,00.html
| archive-date = 20 May 2019
| url-status = live
))</ref> ''Time'' continued to entitle with or mention in stories the term "World War((nbsp))III" for the rest of the decade and onwards: 1944,<ref>((cite magazine
| title = Germany: For World War III
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,778177,00.html
| date = 5 June 1944
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190518120449/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,778177,00.html
| archive-date = 18 May 2019
| url-status = live
))</ref><ref>((cite magazine
| title = Science: World War III Preview?
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,791497,00.html
| date = 10 July 1944
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190520060617/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,791497,00.html
| archive-date = 20 May 2019
| url-status = live
))</ref> 1945,<ref>((cite magazine
| title = Letters, Oct. 1, 1945
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,776125,00.html
| date = 1 October 1945
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190520045344/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,776125,00.html
| archive-date = 20 May 2019
| url-status = live
))</ref><ref>((cite magazine
| title = Policies & Principles: Morgenthau's Hope
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,792411,00.html
| date = 15 October 1945
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190519012246/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,792411,00.html
| archive-date = 19 May 2019
| url-status = live
))</ref> 1946 ("bacterial warfare"),<ref>((cite magazine
| title = Science: World War III Preview
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,888189,00.html
| date = 25 March 1946
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190520071938/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,888189,00.html
| archive-date = 20 May 2019
| url-status = live
))</ref> 1947,<ref>((cite magazine
| title = Medicine: Germs for World War III?
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,804442,00.html
| date = 29 December 1947
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190519190818/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,804442,00.html
| archive-date = 19 May 2019
| url-status = live
))</ref> and 1948.<ref>((cite magazine
| title = The Nations: The Chances of World War III
| magazine = Time
| url = http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,779694,00.html
| date = 15 March 1948
| access-date = 12 August 2017
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190520031510/http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,779694,00.html
| archive-date = 20 May 2019
| url-status = live
))</ref> ''Time'' persists in using this term, for example, in a 2015 book review entitled "This Is What World War III Will Look Like".<ref>((cite magazine |date=30 June 2015 |title=Security: This Is What World War III Will Look Like |url=http://time.com/3934583/world-war-3/ |url-status=live |magazine=Time |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170813081754/http://time.com/3934583/world-war-3/ |archive-date=13 August 2017 |access-date=12 August 2017))</ref>

==Military plans==
Military strategists have used war games to prepare for various war scenarios and to determine the most appropriate strategies. War games were utilized for World War I and World War II.<ref>((Cite book |last=Caffrey |first=Matthew B. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1083699795 |title=On wargaming: how wargames have shaped history and how they may shape the future |date=2019 |others=Naval War College. Press, Naval War College. Center for Naval Warfare Studies |isbn=978-1-935352-65-5 |location=Newport, Rhode Island |oclc=1083699795 |access-date=30 April 2022 |archive-date=3 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220503082139/https://www.worldcat.org/title/on-wargaming-how-wargames-have-shaped-history-and-how-they-may-shape-the-future/oclc/1083699795 |url-status=live ))</ref>

===Operation Unthinkable===
((main|Operation Unthinkable))

[[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]] [[Winston Churchill]] was concerned that, with the enormous size of Soviet [[Red Army]] forces deployed in [[Central and Eastern Europe]] at the [[End of World War II in Europe|end of World War&nbsp;II]] and the unreliability of the Soviet leader [[Joseph Stalin]], there was a serious threat to [[Western Europe]]. In April–May 1945, the [[British Armed Forces]] developed [[Operation Unthinkable]], thought to be the first scenario of the Third World War.<ref>((in lang|en)) ((cite book |author1=Jonathan Walker |title=Operation Unthinkable: The Third World War|date=2013 |publisher=[[The History Press]] |isbn=978-0-7524-8718-2 |page=192 ))</ref> Its primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the [[British Empire]]".<ref>((cite web| author = British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff, Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040 / 002 | date = 11 August 1945 | url = http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/| title = Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization'| format = online photocopy| publisher = Department of History, Northeastern University| access-date = 28 June 2008| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080706093010/http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/ <!--Added by H3llBot-->| archive-date = 6 July 2008))</ref> The plan was rejected by the British [[Chiefs of Staff Committee]] as militarily unfeasible.

===Operation Dropshot===
((Main|Operation Dropshot))

"Operation Dropshot" was the 1950s United States contingency plan for a possible [[Nuclear weapon|nuclear]] and conventional war with the [[Soviet Union]] in the Western European and Asian theaters. Although the scenario made use of nuclear weapons, they were not expected to play a decisive role.

At the time the [[Nuclear weapons of the United States|US nuclear arsenal]] was limited in size, based mostly in the United States, and depended on [[Strategic bomber|bombers]] for delivery. "Dropshot" included mission profiles that would have used 300 [[nuclear bombs]] and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union's industrial potential in a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

The scenario was devised before the development of [[intercontinental ballistic missile]]s. It was also devised before [[President of the United States|U.S. President]] [[John F. Kennedy]] and his [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] [[Robert McNamara]] changed the US Nuclear War plan from the 'city killing' [[countervalue]] strike plan to a "[[counterforce]]" plan (targeted more at military forces). Nuclear weapons at this time were not accurate enough to hit a naval base without destroying the city adjacent to it, so the aim of using them was to destroy the enemy's industrial capacity to cripple their war economy.

=== British-Irish cooperation ===
The Republic of Ireland started planning for a possible nuclear war in the late 1940s. Co-operation between the United Kingdom and Ireland would be formed in the event of WWIII, where they would share weather data, control aids to navigation, and coordinate the Wartime Broadcasting Service that would occur after a nuclear attack.<ref name="auto3">((Cite journal |last=Kennedy |first=Michael |date=2017 |title=ENVISAGING THE UNTHINKABLE: PLANNING FOR ARMAGEDDON IN 1950s IRELAND |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/90005263 |journal=History Ireland |volume=25 |issue=1 |pages=36–39 |jstor=90005263 |issn=0791-8224 |access-date=2 May 2022 |archive-date=2 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220502180344/https://www.jstor.org/stable/90005263 |url-status=live ))</ref> [[Operation Sandstone]] in Ireland was a top-secret British-Irish military operation.<ref name="auto3"/> The armed forces from both states began a new coastal survey of Britain and Ireland cooperating from 1948 to 1955. This was a request from the United States to identify suitable landing grounds for the U.S. in the event of a successful Soviet invasion.<ref name="auto3"/><ref name="auto2">((Cite web |last=Archives |first=The National |date=2020-04-03 |title=The National Archives - Operation Sandstone: Surveying Britain's Cold War beaches |url=https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/operation-sandstone-surveying-britains-cold-war-beaches/ |access-date=2022-05-02 |website=The National Archives blog |language=en-GB |archive-date=27 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127004120/https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/operation-sandstone-surveying-britains-cold-war-beaches/ |url-status=live ))</ref> By 1953, the co-operation agreed upon sharing information on wartime weather and the evacuation of civilian refugees from Britain to Ireland.<ref name="auto3"/> Ireland's Operation Sandstone ended in 1966.<ref name="auto2"/>

===Exercises Grand Slam, Longstep, and Mainbrace===
((main|Exercise Longstep|Exercise Grand Slam|Exercise Mainbrace|Exercise Verity))

In January 1950, the [[North Atlantic Council]] approved [[NATO]]'s military strategy of [[containment]].<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/3.htm |title=Chapter 3 – The Pace Quickens |access-date=19 September 2011 |work=NATO the first five years 1949–1954 |publisher=[[NATO]] |author=Lord Ismay |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140313154306/http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/3.htm |archive-date=13 March 2014 |url-status=live ))</ref> NATO military planning took on a renewed urgency following the outbreak of the [[Korean War]] in the early 1950s, prompting NATO to establish a "force under a centralized command, adequate to deter aggression and to ensure the defense of Western Europe". [[Allied Command Europe]] was established under [[General of the Army (United States)|General of the Army]] [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], [[US Army]], on 2 April 1951.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/4.htm |title=Chapter 4 – The Pace Quickens |access-date=19 September 2011 |work=NATO the first five years 1949–1954 |publisher=[[NATO]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131227094811/http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/4.htm |archive-date=27 December 2013 |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((cite journal |author=X|author-link= George F. Kennan |date= July 1947 |title= The Sources of Soviet Conduct|journal= [[Foreign Affairs]] |volume= 25 |issue= 4 |pages= 575–576 |issn= 0015-7120 |doi= 10.2307/20030065 |jstor= 20030065 |title-link= s:The Sources of Soviet Conduct ))</ref> The [[Western Union Defence Organization]] had previously carried out [[Exercise Verity]], a 1949 multilateral exercise involving naval air strikes and submarine attacks.

Exercise Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defense of [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] from the Soviet attack in 1952. It was the first major NATO exercise. The exercise was jointly commanded by [[Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic]] [[Admiral (United States)|Admiral]] [[Lynde D. McCormick]], [[United States Navy|USN]], and [[Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe#Supreme Allied Commander Europe.28SACEUR.29|Supreme Allied Commander Europe]] [[General (United States)|General]] [[Matthew B. Ridgeway]], [[US Army]], during the autumn of 1952.

The United States, the United Kingdom, [[Canada]], [[French Fourth Republic|France]], Denmark, Norway, [[Portugal]], [[Netherlands]], and [[Belgium]] all participated.

Exercises Grand Slam and Longstep were naval exercises held in the [[Mediterranean Sea]] during 1952 to practice dislodging an enemy occupying force and amphibious assault. It involved over 170 warships and 700 aircraft under the overall command of Admiral [[Robert Carney|Robert B. Carney]]. The overall exercise commander, Admiral Carney summarized the accomplishments of Exercise Grand Slam by stating: "We have demonstrated that the senior commanders of all four powers can successfully take charge of a mixed task force and handle it effectively as a working unit."((citation needed|date=May 2014))

The Soviet Union called the exercises "war-like acts" by NATO, with particular reference to the participation of [[Norway]] and Denmark and prepared for its military maneuvers in the [[Soviet occupation zone|Soviet Zone]].<ref name=Time2>''Time'', 29 September 1952</ref><ref name=Sidney>"NATO Ships Enter Baltic Sea" – ''Sydney Morning Herald'', p. 2</ref>

===Exercise Strikeback===
((main|Exercise Strikeback))

Exercise Strikeback was a major NATO naval exercise held in 1957, simulating a response to an all-out Soviet attack on NATO. The exercise involved over 200 warships, 650 aircraft, and 75,000 personnel from the [[United States Navy]], the United Kingdom's [[Royal Navy]], the [[Royal Canadian Navy]], the [[French Navy]], the [[Royal Netherlands Navy]], and the [[Royal Norwegian Navy]]. As the largest peacetime naval operation up to that time, Exercise Strikeback was characterized by military analyst [[Hanson W. Baldwin]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' as "constituting the strongest striking fleet assembled since World War((nbsp))II".<ref>((Cite news |last=Baldwin |first=Hanson W. |author-link=Hanson W. Baldwin |date=22 September 1957 |title=100 Fighting Ships in Vast Exercise |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1957/09/22/archives/100-fighting-ships-in-vast-exercise-strongest-part-of-nato-force-in.html |access-date=28 September 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180723093530/https://www.nytimes.com/1957/09/22/archives/100-fighting-ships-in-vast-exercise-strongest-part-of-nato-force-in.html |archive-date=23 July 2018 |url-status=live ))</ref>

===Exercise Reforger===
((Main|Exercise Reforger))
[[File:USS Hawes (FFG-53), USS William H. Standley (CG-32) and USS Guadalcanal (LPH-7) escort tanker Gas King in the Persian Gullf on 21 October 1987 (6432283).jpg|thumb|If activated, Operation Reforger would have largely consisted of convoys like this one from [[Operation Earnest Will]] in 1987, although much larger. While troops could easily fly across the Atlantic, the heavy equipment and armor reinforcements would have to come by sea.]]

Exercise Reforger (from the '''RE'''turn of '''FOR'''ces to '''GER'''many) was an annual exercise conducted during the Cold War by [[NATO]]. While US troops could be easily flown across the Atlantic, the heavy equipment and armor reinforcements would have to come by sea and be delivered to POMCUS (Pre-positioned Overseas Material Configured to Unit Sets) sites.<ref name="auto1">((Cite journal |last1=Blackwill |first1=Robert D. |last2=Legro |first2=Jeffrey W. |date=1989 |title=Constraining Ground Force Exercises of NATO and the Warsaw Pact |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538932 |journal=International Security |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=68–98 |doi=10.2307/2538932 |jstor=2538932 |s2cid=154186558 |issn=0162-2889 |access-date=1 May 2022 |archive-date=1 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220501031549/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538932 |url-status=live ))</ref> These exercises tested the United States and allied abilities to carry out transcontinental reinforcement.<ref name="auto1"/> Timely reinforcement was a critical part of the NATO reinforcement exercises. The United States needed to be able to send active-duty army divisions to Europe within ten days as part of a wartime NATO general deployment.<ref name="auto1"/> In addition to assessing the capabilities of the United States, Reforger also monitored the personnel, facilities, and equipment of the European countries playing a significant role in the reinforcement effort.<ref name="auto1"/> The exercise was intended to ensure that NATO could quickly deploy forces to West Germany in the event of a conflict with the [[Warsaw Pact]].
The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO throughout the Cold War in conventional forces, and especially in tanks and armoured vehicles. Therefore, in the event of a Soviet invasion, in order not to resort to [[Tactical nuclear weapon|tactical nuclear strikes]], NATO forces defending against a [[Warsaw Pact]] [[Armoured spearhead|armored spearhead]] would have to be quickly resupplied and replaced.

Reforger was not merely a show of force. In the event of a conflict, it would be the actual plan to strengthen the NATO presence in Europe.((citation needed|date=February 2023)) In that instance, it would have been referred to as Operation Reforger. The political goals of Reforger were to promote extended deterrence and foster NATO cohesion.<ref name="auto1"/> Important components in Reforger included the [[Military Airlift Command]], the [[Military Sealift Command]], and the [[Civil Reserve Air Fleet]].

===Seven Days to the River Rhine===
((Main|Seven Days to the River Rhine))
[[File:Probable Axes of Attack.jpg|thumb|A Warsaw Pact invasion would have come via three main paths through West Germany.]]

Seven Days to the River Rhine was a top-secret military simulation exercise developed in 1979 by the Warsaw Pact. It started with the assumption that NATO would launch a nuclear attack on the [[Vistula]] river valley in a first-strike scenario, which would result in as many as two million Polish civilian casualties.<ref>((Cite news |author=Nicholas Watt in Warsaw |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/26/russia.poland#article_continue |title=Poland risks Russia's wrath with Soviet nuclear attack map &#124; World news |work=The Guardian |date=26 November 2005 |access-date=4 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205090700/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/26/russia.poland#article_continue |archive-date=5 February 2017 |url-status=live ))</ref> In response, a Soviet counter-strike would be carried out against [[West Germany]], [[Belgium]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Denmark]], with Warsaw Pact forces invading West Germany and aiming to stop at the [[Rhine|River Rhine]] by the seventh day. Other USSR plans stopped only upon reaching the [[France–Germany border|French border]] on day nine. Individual Warsaw Pact states were only assigned their subpart of the strategic picture; in this case, the Polish forces were only expected to go as far as Germany. The Seven Days to the Rhine plan envisioned that Poland and Germany would be largely destroyed by nuclear exchanges and that large numbers of troops would die of [[radiation sickness]]. It was estimated that NATO would fire nuclear weapons behind the advancing Soviet lines to cut off their supply lines and thus blunt their advance. While this plan assumed that NATO would use nuclear weapons to push back any Warsaw Pact invasion, it did not include nuclear strikes on France or the United Kingdom. Newspapers speculated when this plan was declassified, that France and the UK were not to be hit to get them to withhold the use of their nuclear weapons.

===Exercise Able Archer===
((main|Able Archer 83))
[[File:Reagan and Gordievsky.jpg|thumb|upright|Former US president [[Ronald Reagan]] and Soviet double agent [[Oleg Gordievsky]], who later told the West how close the Able Archer 83 exercise had brought the Soviets to ordering a [[Pre-emptive nuclear strike|First Strike]]]]

Exercise Able Archer was an annual exercise by the [[United States European Command|U.S. European Command]] that practiced command and control procedures, with emphasis on the transition from solely conventional operations to chemical, nuclear, and conventional operations during a time of war.

"Able Archer 83" was a five-day [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO) [[command post]] [[military exercise|exercise]] starting on 7 November 1983, that spanned [[Western Europe]], centered on the [[Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe]] (SHAPE) Headquarters in [[Casteau]], north of the city of [[Mons, Belgium|Mons]]. Able Archer's exercises simulated a period of [[conflict escalation]], culminating in a coordinated [[nuclear attack]].<ref name = "Fischer Conundrum">((Cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm#HEADING1-12|publisher=[[Central Intelligence Agency]]|title=A Cold War Conundrum: The 1983 Soviet War Scare|author=Benjamin B. Fischer|access-date=13 January 2009|date=17 March 2007| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090114024850/https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm| archive-date= 14 January 2009 | url-status= dead))</ref>

The realistic nature of the 1983 exercise, coupled with [[Cold War (1979–85)|deteriorating relations]] between the United States and the Soviet Union and the anticipated arrival of [[Nuclear strategy|strategic]] [[Pershing II]] nuclear missiles in Europe, led some members of the [[Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Soviet Politburo]] and military to believe that Able Archer 83 was a [[ruse of war]], obscuring preparations for a genuine nuclear first strike.<ref name = "Fischer Conundrum"/><ref>Andrew and Gordievsky, ''Comrade Kryucvcov's Instructions'', 85–7.</ref><ref name = "Fischer Reversal 123,31">Beth Fischer, ''Reagan Reversal'', 123, 131.</ref><ref name = "Pry Scare 37–9">Pry, ''War Scare'', 37–9.</ref> In response, the Soviets readied their nuclear forces and placed air units in [[East Germany]] and [[History of Poland (1945–89)|Poland]] on alert.<ref>Oberdorfer, ''A New Era'', 66.</ref><ref name = "SNIE 84">''SNIE 11–10–84'' "Implications of Recent Soviet Military-Political Activities" Central Intelligence Agency, 18 May 1984.</ref>
This "1983 war scare" is considered by many historians to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] of 1962.<ref>((cite news|author=John Lewis Gaddis |author-link=John Lewis Gaddis |author2=John Hashimoto |name-list-style=amp |title=COLD WAR Chat: Professor John Lewis Gaddis, Historian |url=http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/gaddis |access-date=29 December 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050901185224/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/gaddis/ |archive-date=1 September 2005 ))</ref> The threat of nuclear war ended with the conclusion of the exercise on 11 November, however.<ref>Andrew and Gordievsky, ''Comrade Kryucvcov's Instructions'', 87–8.</ref><ref name = "Pry Scare 43–4">Pry, ''War Scare'', 43–4.</ref>

===Strategic Defense Initiative===
((main|Strategic Defense Initiative))

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by U.S. President [[Ronald Reagan]] on 23 March 1983.<ref name="fas_milestones">[[Federation of American Scientists]]. [https://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/milestone.htm Missile Defense Milestones] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306023546/http://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/milestone.htm |date=6 March 2016 )). Accessed 10 March 2006.</ref> In the latter part of his [[Presidency of Ronald Reagan|presidency]], numerous factors (which included watching the 1983 movie ''[[The Day After]]'' and hearing through a Soviet defector that [[Able Archer 83]] almost triggered a Russian first strike) had turned Ronald Reagan against the concept of winnable nuclear war, and he began to see nuclear weapons as more of a "[[Wild card (foresight)|wild card]]" than a strategic deterrent. Although he later believed in [[Nuclear disarmament|disarmament treaties]] slowly blunting the danger of nuclear weaponry by reducing their number and alert status, he also believed a technological solution might allow incoming ICBMs to be shot down, thus making the US invulnerable to a first strike. However, the USSR saw the SDI concept as a major threat, since a unilateral deployment of the system would allow the US to launch a massive first strike on the Soviet Union without any fear of retaliation.

The SDI concept was to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic [[nuclear weapon|nuclear]] [[ballistic missile]]s. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of [[Mutual assured destruction|mutually assured destruction]] (MAD). The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the [[United States Department of Defense]] to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative.

===NATO nuclear sharing===
((main|Nuclear sharing))
[[File:Operation Upshot test.ogv|thumb|An example of nuclear artillery power test in the U.S.]]

NATO operational plans for a Third World War have involved NATO allies who do not have their nuclear weapons, using nuclear weapons supplied by the United States as part of a general NATO war plan, under the direction of NATO's [[Supreme Allied Commander Europe|Supreme Allied Commander]].

[[File:Overzicht op Museumplein met spandoek The Dutch disease is better for peace o, Bestanddeelnr 253-8627.jpg|thumb|Protest in [[Amsterdam]] against the [[nuclear arms race]] between the U.S./NATO and the Soviet Union, 1981]]

Of the three nuclear powers in NATO (France, the United Kingdom, and the United States) only the United States has provided weapons for nuclear sharing. ((As of|2009|11)), [[Belgium]], [[Germany and weapons of mass destruction|Germany]], [[Italian nuclear weapons program#Nuclear weapons in Italy since 1975|Italy]], the [[Netherlands and weapons of mass destruction|Netherlands]] and [[Turkey]] are still hosting US nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.<ref name=RUSI-2010>((Citation|url=http://www.rusi.org/publications/occasionalpapers/ref:O4B991ABDC4148/|title=NATO's Tactical Nuclear Dilemma|author=Malcolm Chalmers|author2=Simon Lunn|name-list-style=amp|date=March 2010|publisher=[[Royal United Services Institute]]|access-date=16 March 2010|postscript=.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202224340/http://www.rusi.org/publications/occasionalpapers/ref:O4B991ABDC4148/|archive-date=2 February 2014|url-status=live))</ref><ref>((Cite news |url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618550,00.html |title=Der Spiegel: ''Foreign Minister Wants US Nukes out of Germany'' (2009-04-10) |date=10 April 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120214122303/http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0%2C1518%2C618550%2C00.html |archive-date=14 February 2012 |url-status=live |newspaper=Spiegel Online))</ref> [[Canada and weapons of mass destruction|Canada]] hosted weapons until 1984,<ref name=canada-nw>((citation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5-R7EJ0r680C|title=Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada's Cold War Arsenal|author=John Clearwater|date=1998|publisher=Dundurn Press Ltd.|isbn=978-1-55002-299-5|access-date=10 November 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170322111958/https://books.google.com/books?id=5-R7EJ0r680C|archive-date=22 March 2017|url-status=live))</ref> and [[Greece]] until 2001.<ref name=RUSI-2010 /><ref>((citation|page=26|url=http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf|title=U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe|author=Hans M. Kristensen|author-link=Hans M. Kristensen|date=February 2005|publisher=[[Natural Resources Defense Council]]|access-date=2 April 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140723003003/http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf|archive-date=23 July 2014|url-status=live))</ref> The [[Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]] also received US tactical nuclear weapons such as [[nuclear artillery]] and [[MGM-52 Lance|Lance missile]]s until 1992, despite the UK being a [[Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom|nuclear weapons state]] in its own right; these were mainly deployed in [[Germany]].

In [[peace]]time, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by [[United States Air Force|US airmen]] though previously some artillery and missile systems were guarded by US Army soldiers; the codes required for detonating them are under American control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries' warplanes. The weapons are under custody and control of [[United States Air Force|USAF]] Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases that work together with the host nation forces.<ref name=RUSI-2010 />

((As of|2005|post=,)) 180 tactical [[B61 nuclear bomb]]s of the 480 US nuclear weapons believed to be deployed in Europe fall under the nuclear sharing arrangement.<ref>((citation|url=http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf|title=U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe|author=Hans M. Kristensen|author-link=Hans M. Kristensen|date=February 2005|publisher=Natural Resources Defense Council|access-date=2 April 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140723003003/http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf|archive-date=23 July 2014|url-status=live))</ref> The weapons are stored within a vault in [[hardened aircraft shelter]]s, using the [[USAF]] [[WS3 Weapon Storage and Security System]]. The delivery warplanes used are [[General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon|F-16 Fighting Falcons]] and [[Panavia Tornado]]s.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/Brief_Italy2007.pdf |title=U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe After the Cold War |author=Hans M. Kristensen |publisher=Federation of American Scientists |date=5 October 2007 |access-date=10 August 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202112109/http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/Brief_Italy2007.pdf |archive-date=2 February 2012 |url-status=live ))</ref>

==Historical close calls==
((main|Nuclear warfare))
((see also|List of nuclear close calls))

With the initiation of the [[Cold War]] [[arms race]] in the 1950s, an [[apocalypse|apocalyptic]] war between the United States and the Soviet Union became a real possibility. During the Cold War era (1947–1991), several military events have been described as having come close to potentially triggering World War((nbsp))III. Even after the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, some incidents afterward have been described as close calls as well.

=== Korean War: 25 June 1950&nbsp;– 27 July 1953 ===
((Main|Korean conflict|Korean War))

The [[Korean War]] was a war between two coalitions fighting for control over the [[Korean Peninsula]]: a communist coalition including [[North Korea]], the People's Republic of China, and the [[Soviet Union]], and a capitalist coalition including [[South Korea]], the United States and the [[United Nations Command]]. Many then believed that the conflict was likely to soon escalate into a full-scale war between the three countries, the US, the USSR, and China. [[CBS News]] war correspondent [[Bill Downs]] wrote in 1951, "To my mind, the answer is: Yes, Korea is the beginning of World War((nbsp))III. The brilliant [[Battle of Inchon|landings at Inchon]] and the cooperative efforts of the [[United States Armed Forces|American armed forces]] with the [[United Nations Command|United Nations Allies]] have won us a victory in Korea. But this is only the first battle in a major international struggle which now is engulfing the Far East and the entire world."<ref>((cite news|last=Downs|first=Bill|title=World War III in Asia?|newspaper=See Magazine|date=March 1951))</ref> Downs afterwards repeated this belief on ''[[ABC World News Tonight|ABC Evening News]]'' while reporting on the [[USS Pueblo (AGER-2)|USS ''Pueblo'' incident]] in 1968.<ref>((cite web|last=Downs|first=Bill|title=The USS Pueblo incident|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KBxiX_9_Kk|work=ABC Evening News|publisher=ABC |access-date=8 November 2013|date=25 January 1968|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140615095207/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KBxiX_9_Kk|archive-date=15 June 2014|url-status=live))</ref> Secretary of State [[Dean Acheson]] later acknowledged that the [[Presidency of Harry S. Truman|Truman administration]] was concerned about the escalation of the conflict and that General [[Douglas MacArthur]] warned him that a U.S.-led intervention risked a Soviet response.<ref>Carson, Austin (2018-12-31), ''Secret Wars: Covert Conflict in International Politics'', Princeton University Press, p. 152, ((doi|10.1515/9780691184241-006)), ((ISBN|978-0-691-18424-1)), retrieved 2022-02-16</ref>

=== Berlin Crisis: 4 June – 9 November 1961 ===
((Main|Berlin Crisis of 1961))
[[File:US Army tanks face off against Soviet tanks, Berlin 1961.jpg|thumb|250px|United States [[M48 Patton|M48]] tanks face Soviet Union [[T-54/T-55|T-55]] tanks at [[Checkpoint Charlie]], October 1961.]]

The [[Berlin Crisis of 1961]] was a political-military confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union at [[Checkpoint Charlie]] with both several American and Soviet/East German tanks and troops at the stand-off at each other only 100 yards on either side of the checkpoint. The reason behind the confrontation was the occupational status of the German capital city, [[Berlin]], and of [[History of Germany (1945–1990)|post–World War II Germany]]. The Berlin Crisis started when the USSR launched an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of all armed forces from Berlin, including the Western armed forces in [[West Berlin]]. The crisis culminated in the city's de facto partition with the [[East German]] erection of the [[Berlin Wall]]. This stand-off ended peacefully on 28 October following a US–Soviet understanding to withdraw tanks and reduce tensions.

=== Cuban Missile Crisis: 15–29 October 1962 ===
((Main|Cuban Missile Crisis|Soviet submarine B-59))
[[File:Soviet b-59 submarine.jpg|thumb|A US Navy [[HSS-1 Seabat]] helicopter hovers over Soviet submarine ''B-59'', forced to the surface by US Naval forces in the Caribbean near Cuba. B-59 had a nuclear torpedo on board, and three officer keys were required to use it. Only one dissent prevented the submarine from attacking the US fleet nearby, a spark that could have led to a Third World War (28–29 October 1962).]]

The [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], a confrontation on the stationing of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba in response to the failed [[Bay of Pigs Invasion]], is considered as having been the closest to a nuclear exchange, which could have precipitated a third World War.<ref>((cite book|first1=Len|last1=Scott|first2=R. Gerald|last2=Hughes|title=The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Critical Reappraisal|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UJEGCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT17|year=2015|publisher=Taylor & Francis|page=17|isbn=978-1-317-55541-4|access-date=13 September 2020|archive-date=29 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160729014313/https://books.google.com/books?id=UJEGCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT17|url-status=live))</ref> The crisis peaked on 27 October, with three separate major incidents occurring on the same day:

* The most critical incident occurred when a Soviet submarine nearly launched a [[Nuclear torpedo|nuclear-tipped torpedo]] in response to having been targeted by American naval [[depth charge]]s in international waters, with the Soviet nuclear launch response only having been prevented by [[Soviet Navy]] [[executive officer]] [[Vasily Arkhipov (vice admiral)|Vasily Arkhipov]].
* The shooting down of a [[Lockheed U-2]] spy plane piloted by [[Rudolf Anderson]] while violating Cuban airspace.
* The near interception of another U-2 that had somehow managed to stray into Soviet airspace over [[Siberia]], which airspace violation nearly caused the Soviets to believe that this might be the vanguard of a US aerial bombardment.

Despite what many believe to be the closest the world has come to a nuclear conflict, throughout the entire standoff, the [[Doomsday Clock]], which is run by the ''[[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]]'' to estimate how close the end of the world, or doomsday, is, with midnight being the apocalypse, stayed at a relatively stable seven minutes to midnight. This has been explained as being due to the brevity of the crisis since the clock monitored more long-term factors such as the leadership of countries, conflicts, wars, and political upheavals, as well as societies' reactions to said factors.

The ''Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists'' now credits the political developments resulting from the Cuban Missile Crisis with having enhanced global stability. The ''Bulletin'' posits that future crises and occasions that might otherwise escalate, were rendered more stable due to two major factors: 
# A [[Moscow–Washington hotline|Washington to Moscow direct telephone line]], resulted from the communication trouble between the [[White House]] and the [[Kremlin]] during the crisis, giving the leaders of the two largest nuclear powers the ability to contact each other in real-time, rather than sending written messages that needed to be translated and wired, which had dragged out conversations in which seconds could have potentially prevented a nuclear exchange.
# The second factor was caused in part due to the worldwide reaction to how close the US and USSR had come to the brink of World War((nbsp))III during the standoff. As the public began to more closely monitor topics involving nuclear weapons, and therefore to rally support for the cause of non-proliferation, the [[Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty|1963 test ban treaty]] was signed. To date this treaty has been signed by 126 total nations, with the most notable exceptions being [[France and weapons of mass destruction|France]] and [[China and weapons of mass destruction|China]]. Both of these countries were still in the relative beginning stages of their nuclear programs at the time of the original treaty signing, and both sought nuclear capabilities independent of their allies.<br />This Test Ban Treaty prevented the testing of nuclear ordnance that detonated in the [[Atmosphere of Earth|atmosphere]], limiting [[nuclear weapons testing]] to below ground and underwater, decreasing [[Nuclear fallout|fallout]] and effects on the environment, and subsequently caused the Doomsday Clock to decrease by five minutes, to arrive at a total of twelve minutes to midnight.<ref>((cite web |url=https://thebulletin.org/remembering-cuban-missile-crisis |title=Remembering the Cuban Missile Crisis |date=16 October 2012 |website=thebulletin.org |access-date=10 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201052807/https://thebulletin.org/remembering-cuban-missile-crisis |archive-date=1 February 2018 |url-status=live ))</ref> Up until this point, over 1000 nuclear bombs had been detonated, and concerns over both long and short term effects to the planet became increasingly more worrisome to scientists.

=== Sino-Soviet border conflicts: 2 March – 11 September 1969 ===
((Main|Sino-Soviet border conflict))
The [[Sino-Soviet border conflict]] was a seven-month undeclared military border war between the [[Soviet Union]] and [[China]] at the height of the [[Sino-Soviet split]] in 1969. The most serious of these border clashes, which brought the world's two largest [[communist state]]s to the brink of war, occurred in March 1969 in the vicinity of [[Sino-Soviet border conflict#Battle of Zhenbao (Damansky) Island|Zhenbao (Damansky) Island]] on the [[Ussuri River|Ussuri (Wusuli) River]], near [[Manchuria]].

The conflict resulted in a ceasefire, with a return to the status quo. Critics point out that the Chinese attack on Zhenbao was to deter any potential future Soviet invasions; that by killing some Soviets, China demonstrated that it could not be 'bullied'; and that Mao wanted to teach them 'a bitter lesson'.

[[Sino-Soviet relations|China's relations with the USSR]] remained sour after the conflict, despite the border talks, which began in 1969 and continued inconclusively for a decade. Domestically, the threat of war caused by the border clashes inaugurated a new stage in the [[Cultural Revolution]]; that of China's thorough militarization. The [[9th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party]], held in the aftermath of the [[Zhenbao Island incident]], confirmed Defense Minister [[Lin Biao]] as [[Mao Zedong]]'s heir apparent.

Following the events of 1969, the Soviet Union further increased its [[Soviet Armed Forces|forces]] along the [[China–Russia border|Sino-Soviet border]], and in the [[Mongolian People's Republic]].

=== Yom Kippur War superpower tensions: 6–25 October 1973 ===
((Main|Yom Kippur War))

The [[Yom Kippur War]], also known as the Ramadan War, or October War, began with a surprise invasion of [[Israeli-occupied territories]] by a coalition of Arab states, aided by the Soviet Union. Israel successfully counterattacked with the aid of the U.S. Tensions grew between the two superpowers, with American and Soviet naval forces came close to firing upon each other in the [[Mediterranean Sea]]. Admiral [[Daniel J. Murphy]] of the [[United States Sixth Fleet|US Sixth Fleet]] reckoned the chances of the Soviet squadron attempting a first strike against his fleet at 40 percent. The Pentagon moved Defcon status from 4((nbsp))to((nbsp))3.<ref>((cite news|url=http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/the-little-known-us-soviet-confrontation-during-yom-kippur-wa|title=The little-known US-Soviet confrontation during Yom Kippur War|newspaper=The World from PRX|access-date=27 May 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140422135143/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/the-little-known-us-soviet-confrontation-during-yom-kippur-wa|archive-date=22 April 2014|url-status=live))</ref> The superpowers had been pushed to the brink of war, but tensions eased with the ceasefire brought in under [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 339|UNSC 339]].<ref>((cite web|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/erol-araf-incalculable-consequences|title=Erol Araf: 'Incalculable consequences'|date=7 October 2013|access-date=5 February 2017|archive-date=5 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205101243/http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/erol-araf-incalculable-consequences|url-status=live))</ref><ref>((cite web|url=http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01489-X.html|title=Inside the Kremlin During the Yom Kippur War By Victor Israelyan|access-date=27 May 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140706024838/http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01489-X.html|archive-date=6 July 2014|url-status=live))</ref>

=== NORAD computer error of 1979: 9 November 1979 ===
The United States made emergency retaliation preparations after [[North American Aerospace Defense Command|NORAD]] saw on-screen indications that a full-scale Soviet attack had been launched.<ref>((cite web |title=CBC Digital Archives |url=http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/war-conflict/defence/norad-watching-the-skies/norad-false-alarm-causes-uproar.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108204905/http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/war-conflict/defence/norad-watching-the-skies/norad-false-alarm-causes-uproar.html |archive-date=8 November 2014 |access-date=17 March 2015 |publisher=CBC))</ref> No attempt was made to use the "[[Moscow–Washington hotline|red telephone]]" hotline to clarify the situation with the USSR and it was not until early-warning radar systems confirmed no such launch had taken place that NORAD realized that a computer system test had caused the display errors. A senator inside the NORAD facility at the time described an atmosphere of absolute panic. A GAO investigation led to the construction of an off-site test facility to prevent similar mistakes.<ref>((cite web|last1=Andrews|first1=Evan|title=5 Cold War Close Calls|url=http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-calls|publisher=The History Channel|access-date=17 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141231010823/http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-calls|archive-date=31 December 2014|url-status=live))</ref>

=== Soviet radar malfunction: 26 September 1983 ===
((Main|1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident))

A [[1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident|false alarm]] occurred on the [[Oko|Soviet nuclear early warning system]], showing the launch of American [[LGM-30 Minuteman]] [[intercontinental ballistic missile]]s from bases in the United States. A retaliatory attack was prevented by [[Stanislav Petrov]], a [[Soviet Air Defence Forces]] officer, who realised the system had simply malfunctioned (which was borne out by later investigations).<ref name="wash">((cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter021099b.htm | title=I Had A Funny Feeling in My Gut | first=David | last=Hoffman | newspaper=Washington Post | date=10 February 1999 | access-date=18 September 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111130234943/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter021099b.htm | archive-date=30 November 2011 | url-status=live ))</ref><ref name="Baltimore Sun">((cite web|title=Cold War's Riskiest Moment |publisher=Baltimore Sun, 31 August 2003 (article reprinted as The Nuclear War That Almost Happened in 1983) |url=http://hnn.us/articles/1709.html#bombs9-5-03 |first=Scott |last=Shane |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060819033034/http://hnn.us/articles/1709.html |archive-date=19 August 2006 ))</ref>

=== Able Archer 83 escalations: 2–11 November 1983 ===
((main|Able Archer 83))

During [[Able Archer 83]], a ten-day [[NATO]] exercise simulating a period of [[conflict escalation]] that culminated in a [[DEFCON 1]] nuclear strike, some members of the [[Soviet]] [[Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Politburo]] and [[Soviet Armed Forces|armed forces]] treated the events as a [[ruse of war]] concealing a genuine first strike. In response, the military prepared for a coordinated counter-attack by readying nuclear forces and placing air units stationed in the [[Warsaw Pact]] states of [[East Germany]] and [[Poland]] under high alert. However, the state of Soviet preparation for retaliation ceased upon completion of the Able Archer exercises.<ref name = "Fischer Conundrum"/>

=== Norwegian rocket incident: 25 January 1995 ===
((Main|Norwegian rocket incident))

The [[Norwegian rocket incident]] was the first World War((nbsp))III close call to occur outside the Cold War. This incident occurred when Russia's [[Olenegorsk Radar Station|Olenegorsk]] [[early warning radar|early warning station]] accidentally mistook the radar signature from a [[Black Brant (rocket)#Black Brant XII|Black Brant XII]] [[sounding rocket|research rocket]] (being jointly launched by Norwegian and US scientists from [[Andøya Rocket Range]]), as appearing to be the radar signature of the launch of a [[Trident missile|Trident]] [[SLBM]] missile. In response, [[President of Russia|Russian President]] [[Boris Yeltsin]] was summoned and the ''[[Cheget]]'' [[nuclear briefcase]] was activated for the first and only time. However, the high command was soon able to determine that the rocket was not entering Russian airspace, and promptly aborted plans for combat readiness and retaliation. It was retrospectively determined that, while the rocket scientists had informed thirty states including Russia about the test launch, the information had not reached Russian radar technicians.<ref>((cite news|url=http://www.eucom.mil/article/23042/this-week-in-eucom-history-january-23-29-1995|title=The Norwegian Rocket Incident|publisher=United States European Command|date=23 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120921003744/http://www.eucom.mil/article/23042/this-week-in-eucom-history-january-23-29-1995|archive-date=21 September 2012))</ref><ref>((cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter031598a.htm|title=Cold-War Doctrines Refuse to Die|first=David|last=Hoffman|publisher=Washington Post Foreign Service|date=15 March 1998|access-date=18 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402042904/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter031598a.htm|archive-date=2 April 2012|url-status=live))</ref>

===Incident at Pristina airport: 12 June 1999===
((main|Incident at Pristina airport|Mike Jackson (British Army officer)))

On 12 June 1999, the day following the end of the [[Kosovo War]], some 250 Russian peacekeepers occupied the [[Pristina International Airport Adem Jashari|Pristina International Airport]] ahead of the arrival of [[NATO]] troops and were to secure the arrival of reinforcements by air. American NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General [[Wesley Clark]] ordered the use of force against the Russians.<ref name=jackson>((cite book |title=Soldier |first=Mike |last=Jackson |publisher=Transworld Publishers |date=2007 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/soldierautobiogr00jack/page/255 255–275] |isbn=978-0-593-05907-4 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/soldierautobiogr00jack/page/255 ))</ref> [[Mike Jackson (British Army officer)|Mike Jackson]], a [[British Army]] general who contacted the Russians during the incident, refused to enforce Clark's orders, famously telling him "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you".<ref name="BBC 2000">((cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Confrontation over Pristina airport |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm |work=BBC News |date=9 March 2000 |access-date=27 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190519141123/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm |archive-date=19 May 2019 |url-status=live ))</ref> Captain [[James Blunt]], the lead officer at the front of the NATO column in the direct armed stand-off against the Russians, received the "Destroy!" orders from Clark over the radio, but he followed Jackson's orders to encircle the airfield instead and later said in an interview that even without Jackson's intervention he would have refused to follow Clark's order.<ref name="Peck">((cite news |last=Peck |first=Tom |date=15 November 2010 |title=How James Blunt saved us from World War 3 |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/how-james-blunt-saved-us-from-world-war-3-2134203.html |newspaper=[[The Independent]] |location=London |access-date=2 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131214144653/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/how-james-blunt-saved-us-from-world-war-3-2134203.html |archive-date=14 December 2013 |url-status=live ))</ref>

===Shootdown of Sukhoi bomber: 24 November 2015===
((main|2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown))

On 24 November 2015, at the border between Turkey and Syria, the [[Turkish Air Force]] shot down a Russian [[Sukhoi]] attack aircraft. The Turks claimed that the aircraft violated Turkish [[airspace]], a claim denied by the Russians; the plane was in the region as part of the [[Russian military intervention in the Syrian civil war]], in which Turkey supported opposing forces. The incident was the first destruction of a [[Russian Air Force|Russian]] or [[Soviet Air Forces]] warplane by a [[NATO]] member state since the [[attack on the Sui-ho Dam]] during the Korean War in 1953.<ref name=Gibbons-Neff>((cite news|last1=Gibbons-Neff|first1=Thomas|title=The last time a Russian jet was shot down by a NATO jet was in 1952|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/11/24/the-last-time-a-russian-jet-was-shot-down-by-a-nato-jet-was-in-1952/|access-date=2 December 2015|newspaper=Washington Post|date=24 November 2015|archive-date=1 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151201221520/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/11/24/the-last-time-a-russian-jet-was-shot-down-by-a-nato-jet-was-in-1952/|url-status=live))</ref><ref>((cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/24/turkey_downing_that_russian_fighter_jet_is_terrible_news_for_the_war_on.html|title=Turkey downing that Russian fighter jet is terrible news for the war on ISIS.|work=Slate Magazine|date=24 November 2015|access-date=25 November 2015|archive-date=24 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151124195329/http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/24/turkey_downing_that_russian_fighter_jet_is_terrible_news_for_the_war_on.html|url-status=live))</ref> The incident led to numerous media and individuals commenting that it could have sparked and escalated into a world war.<ref>((Cite web |title=Don't panic: Turkey shooting down a Russian warplane won't start World War 3 |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/12013517/Dont-panic-Turkey-shooting-down-a-Russian-warplane-wont-start-World-War-3.html |access-date=2023-07-18 |website=www.telegraph.co.uk |date=24 November 2015 |archive-date=18 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230718120546/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/12013517/Dont-panic-Turkey-shooting-down-a-Russian-warplane-wont-start-World-War-3.html |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((Cite web |last=Bora |first=Birce |title='Which parts of Syria should be bombed?' |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/26/which-parts-of-syria-should-be-bombed |access-date=2023-07-18 |website=www.aljazeera.com |language=en |archive-date=18 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230718120546/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/26/which-parts-of-syria-should-be-bombed |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((Cite web |last=Nigeria |first=Guardian |date=2015-11-26 |title=Turkey risks sparking world war, says Iraq's Maliki |url=https://guardian.ng/news/turkey-risks-sparking-world-war-says-iraqs-maliki/ |access-date=2023-07-18 |website=The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News |language=en-US |archive-date=18 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230718120546/https://guardian.ng/news/turkey-risks-sparking-world-war-says-iraqs-maliki/ |url-status=live ))</ref>

== Current conflicts ==

===Russian invasion of Ukraine: 24 February 2022 – present===
((main|Russian invasion of Ukraine|Nuclear risk during the Russian invasion of Ukraine|Russo-Ukrainian War|2022 missile explosion in Poland))
[[File:Destruction of Russian tanks by Ukrainian troops in Mariupol (4).jpg|thumb|Destruction of Russian [[BMP-3]] IFV by Ukrainian troops in [[Mariupol]] on 7 March 2022]]

On 24 February 2022, Russia's president [[Vladimir Putin]] ordered a full-scale invasion of [[Ukraine]], marking a major escalation of the [[Russo-Ukrainian War]], which began in 2014. The invasion has been described as the largest military conflict in Europe since World War&nbsp;II.<ref>((cite news |last1=Karmanau |first1=Yuras |last2=Heintz |first2=Jim |last3=Isachenkov |first3=Vladimir |last4=Litvinova |first4=Dasha |others=Photograph by [[Evgeniy Maloletka]] (AP Photo) |date=24 February 2022 |title=Russia presses invasion to outskirts of Ukrainian capital |work=[[ABC News]] |publisher=[[American Broadcasting Company]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |location=[[Kyiv]] |url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-attacks-ukraine-defiant-putin-warns-us-nato-83078619 |url-status=live |access-date=26 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220225182137/https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-attacks-ukraine-defiant-putin-warns-us-nato-83078619 |archive-date=25 February 2022 |quote=[a]mounts to the largest ground war in Europe since World War II.))</ref> The invasion received widespread [[Government and intergovernmental reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine|international condemnation]], including new [[International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War|sanctions imposed on Russia]], which notably included Russia's ban from [[SWIFT]] and the closing of most Western airspace to Russian planes.<ref>((cite news |date=27 February 2022 |title=Ukraine invasion: Russian planes face near-total airspace ban to west |work=[[BBC News]] |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60539303 |access-date=27 February 2022 |archive-date=26 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220226211717/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60539303 |url-status=live ))</ref> Moreover, both prior to and during the invasion, some of the 31 [[member states of NATO]] have been providing Ukraine with arms and other [[materiel]] support.<ref>((cite news |title=Russia warns of World War III ahead of Western summit on arms to Ukraine |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/world/russia-central-asia/article/3175501/ukraine-invasion-russias-foreign-minister-sergey |work=South China Morning Post |date=26 April 2022 |access-date=5 May 2022 |archive-date=5 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220505103450/https://www.scmp.com/news/world/russia-central-asia/article/3175501/ukraine-invasion-russias-foreign-minister-sergey |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((cite news |title=Biden requests $33 billion for Ukraine fight as Congress passes 'lend-lease' arms authorization |url=https://theweek.com/nancy-pelosi/1013137/nancy-pelosi-meets-with-zelensky-in-kyiv |work=The Week |date=29 April 2022 |access-date=5 May 2022 |archive-date=5 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220505103451/https://theweek.com/nancy-pelosi/1013137/nancy-pelosi-meets-with-zelensky-in-kyiv |url-status=live ))</ref> Throughout the invasion, several senior Russian politicians, including president Putin, foreign minister [[Sergey Lavrov]] and [[United Russia|party]] leader [[Dmitry Medvedev]], have made a number of statements widely seen as threatening the use of nuclear weapons,<ref>((cite news |title=Putin's threat rekindles Cold War fears of nuclear war |publisher=[[PBS]] |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-waves-nuclear-sword-in-confrontation-with-the-west |url-status=live |access-date=27 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220227183156/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-waves-nuclear-sword-in-confrontation-with-the-west |archive-date=27 February 2022 |quote=As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today's Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. ... Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.))</ref><ref>((cite news |title=Defiant Putin goes to war in Ukraine with a warning for U.S., NATO |publisher=[[NBC News]] |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-invasion-putin-war-warning-us-nato-rcna17497 |url-status=live |access-date=27 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220227183152/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-invasion-putin-war-warning-us-nato-rcna17497 |archive-date=27 February 2022))</ref><ref>((Cite web |last=Sauer |first=Pjotr |date=2022-09-21 |title=Putin announces partial mobilisation and threatens nuclear retaliation in escalation of Ukraine war |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/21/putin-announces-partial-mobilisation-in-russia-in-escalation-of-ukraine-war |access-date=2022-09-21 |website=The Guardian |language=en |archive-date=14 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114202406/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/21/putin-announces-partial-mobilisation-in-russia-in-escalation-of-ukraine-war |url-status=live ))</ref> while several officials from the United States and NATO, including US president [[Joe Biden]] and NATO secretary general [[Jens Stoltenberg]], have made statements reaffirming NATO's response in the event that Russia attacks any NATO member state or uses nuclear weapons, while also reiterating the need to prevent the crisis from escalating into a potential third world war.<ref>((cite web |date=28 February 2022 |title=Biden says Americans should not worry about nuclear war after Russian actions |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/us/politics/putin-nuclear-alert-biden-deescalation.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220228011550/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/us/politics/putin-nuclear-alert-biden-deescalation.html |archive-date=28 February 2022 |access-date=28 February 2022 |website=[[Reuters]] |language=en))</ref><ref>((cite web |last1=Samuels |first1=Brett |date=11 March 2022 |title=Biden: Direct conflict between NATO and Russia would be 'World War III' |url=https://thehill.com/policy/international/597842-biden-direct-conflict-between-nato-and-russia-would-be-world-war-iii |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220325032254/https://thehill.com/policy/international/597842-biden-direct-conflict-between-nato-and-russia-would-be-world-war-iii |archive-date=25 March 2022 |access-date=11 March 2022 |website=The Hill))</ref><ref>((cite news |last=Khaled |first=Fatma |date=13 March 2022 |title=Russia Hitting NATO Even Accidentally Will Spur 'Full' Response: Sullivan |work=[[Newsweek]] |url=https://www.newsweek.com/russia-hitting-nato-even-accidentally-will-spur-full-response-sullivan-1687559 |access-date=5 May 2022 |archive-date=12 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230912152512/https://www.newsweek.com/russia-hitting-nato-even-accidentally-will-spur-full-response-sullivan-1687559 |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((Cite web |date=2022-09-21 |title=Biden denounces Putin's 'overt' nuclear threats, urges UN allies to reject Russia's invasion of Ukraine |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/21/biden-denounces-putins-overt-nuclear-threats-urges-un-allies-to-reject-russias-invasion-of-ukraine.html |access-date=2022-09-21 |website=CNBC |language=en |archive-date=21 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220921194052/https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/21/biden-denounces-putins-overt-nuclear-threats-urges-un-allies-to-reject-russias-invasion-of-ukraine.html |url-status=live ))</ref> A number of incidents seen as a close call to an open conflict between Russia and NATO have since occurred, most notably [[2022 missile explosion in Poland|a missile strike]] on the Polish village of [[Przewodów]] near the border with Ukraine in November 2022.<ref>((Cite news |date=2022-11-15 |title=Explosion kills two in Poland near Ukraine border, with US claiming Russia may not be responsible |language=en-AU |work=ABC News |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-16/explosion-kills-two-in-poland-near-ukraine-border/101658264 |access-date=2022-11-15 |archive-date=15 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115195021/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-16/explosion-kills-two-in-poland-near-ukraine-border/101658264 |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((Cite news |date=2022-11-15 |title=Wybuch w miejscowości Przewodów. Nie żyją dwie osoby |trans-title=Explosion in Przewodów. Two people are dead |language=pl-PL |work=Radio Lublin |url=https://radio.lublin.pl/2022/11/wybuch-ciagnika-w-miejscowosci-przewodow-nie-zyja-dwie-osoby/ |access-date=2022-11-15 |archive-date=15 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115233613/https://radio.lublin.pl/2022/11/wybuch-ciagnika-w-miejscowosci-przewodow-nie-zyja-dwie-osoby/ |url-status=live ))</ref><ref name=":0b">((Cite news |date=2022-11-15 |title=Polish PM convenes 'urgent' meeting of defense committee |newspaper=The Jerusalem Post |url=https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-722483 |access-date=2022-11-15 |archive-date=15 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115184400/https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-722483 |url-status=live ))</ref> In early 2023, Putin suspended Russia's participation in [[New START]], the last remaining nuclear treaty between Russia and the US,<ref>((cite news |date=21 February 2023 |title=Putin: Russia suspends participation in last remaining Nuclear Treaty with the US |work=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-russia-suspends-participation-last-remaining-nuclear-treaty-with-us-2023-02-21/ |access-date=18 March 2023 |archive-date=15 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315162729/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-russia-suspends-participation-last-remaining-nuclear-treaty-with-us-2023-02-21/ |url-status=live ))</ref> and later announced plans to install Russian tactical nuclear weapons in [[Belarus]].<ref>((Cite web |last1=Chen |first1=Heather |last2=Humayun |first2=Hira |last3=Knight |first3=Mariya |last4=Carey |first4=Andrew |last5=Gigova |first5=Radina |last6=Kostenko |first6=Maria |date=2023-03-26 |title=Russia plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Putin says |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/25/world/russia-putin-nuclear-weapons-belarus-intl-hnk/index.html |access-date=2023-03-31 |website=CNN |archive-date=31 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331052514/https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/25/world/russia-putin-nuclear-weapons-belarus-intl-hnk/index.html |url-status=live ))</ref>

Various experts, analysts, and others have described the crisis as a close call to a third world war,<ref>((cite news |last1=Elliott |first1=Larry |title=Ukraine invasion maybe start of 'third world war', says George Soros |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/24/ukraine-invasion-may-be-start-of-third-world-war-says-george-soros |access-date=25 May 2022 |work=The Guardian |date=24 May 2022 |language=en |archive-date=5 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220705182833/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/24/ukraine-invasion-may-be-start-of-third-world-war-says-george-soros |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((cite news|url=https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-has-world-war-three-already-started-some-security-experts-believe-existential-global-conflict-has-begun-12559039|title=Ukraine invasion: Has World War Three already started? Some security experts believe existential global conflict has begun|publisher=[[Sky News]]|first1=Deborah|last1=Haynes|date=6 March 2022|access-date=6 March 2022|archive-date=6 March 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220306124304/https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-has-world-war-three-already-started-some-security-experts-believe-existential-global-conflict-has-begun-12559039|url-status=live))</ref><ref>((cite news|url=https://www.politico.eu/article/fight-ukraine-russia-world-war-risk-real/|title=The fighting is in Ukraine, but risk of World War III is real|publisher=[[Politico]]|first1=David M.|last1=Herszenhorn|date=4 March 2022|access-date=4 March 2022|url-status=live|archive-date=4 March 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220304213411/https://www.politico.eu/article/fight-ukraine-russia-world-war-risk-real/))</ref> while others have suggested the contrary.<ref>((cite news|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-isnt-world-war-iii-its-not-even-close|title=Ukraine Isn't World War III. It's Not Even Close.|publisher=[[The Daily Beast]]|first1=Ryan|last1=Faith|date=11 March 2022|access-date=12 March 2022|url-status=live|archive-date=12 March 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220312165320/https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-isnt-world-war-iii-its-not-even-close))</ref><ref>((Cite web |last=Simhony |first=Limor |title=NATO Intervention in Ukraine Won't Spark World War III |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/01/nato-intervention-in-ukraine-wont-spark-world-war-iii/ |access-date=2022-10-07 |website=Foreign Policy |language=en-US |archive-date=7 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221007025659/https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/01/nato-intervention-in-ukraine-wont-spark-world-war-iii/ |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((Cite web |last=Miller |first=Paul |title=Ukraine Is Not World War III |url=https://thedispatch.com/p/ukraine-is-not-world-war-iii |access-date=2022-10-07 |website=The Dispatch |date=8 March 2022 |archive-date=7 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221007025701/https://thedispatch.com/p/ukraine-is-not-world-war-iii |url-status=live ))</ref>

==Extended usage of the term==

===Cold War===
((Main|Cold War))
[[File:World nuclear weapons.svg|thumb|Large [[nuclear weapons]] stockpile with global range (dark blue), smaller stockpile with global range (medium blue), smaller stockpile with regional range (light blue)]]

As Soviet-American relations grew tense in the post-World War((nbsp))II period, the fear that the tension could escalate into World War((nbsp))III was ever-present. A [[Gallup poll]] in December 1950 found that more than half of Americans considered World War((nbsp))III to have already started.<ref>((cite book |last1=Reed |first1=Thomas C. |author-link1=Thomas C. Reed |title=At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War |date=2004 |publisher=[[Presidio Press]] |isbn=0-89141-837-7 |page=41 |lccn=2004098248 |chapter=3. The Paparazzi Pilots|title-link=At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War )) (via [https://books.google.com/books?id=69Vvboox1JcC&pg=PA41 Google Books] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418181819/https://books.google.com/books?id=69Vvboox1JcC&pg=PA41 |date=18 April 2021 )))</ref>

In 2004, commentator [[Norman Podhoretz]] proposed that the [[Cold War]], lasting from the surrender of the [[Axis powers|Axis Powers]] until the [[fall of the Berlin Wall]], might rightly be called World War((nbsp))III. By Podhoretz's reckoning, "World War((nbsp))IV" would be the global campaign against [[Islamofascism]].<ref name="Podhoretz2004">((cite magazine |last1=Podhoretz |first1=Norman |author-link1=Norman Podhoretz |title=World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win |url=https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/world-war-iv-how-it-started-what-it-means-and-why-we-have-to-win/ |magazine=[[Commentary (magazine)|Commentary]] |access-date=14 June 2019 |date=September 2004 |volume=118 |issue=2 |pages=17+ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190520222750/https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/world-war-iv-how-it-started-what-it-means-and-why-we-have-to-win/ |archive-date=20 May 2019 |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((cite journal |last1=Buckley |first1=William F. Jr. |author-link1=William F. Buckley Jr. |title=World War IV? |journal=[[National Review]] |date=22 October 2007 |volume=59 |issue=19 |page=62 |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/09/world-war-iv-william-f-buckley-jr/ |access-date=14 June 2019 |archive-date=6 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806022343/https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/09/world-war-iv-william-f-buckley-jr/ |url-status=live )) (published online 6 September 2007)</ref>

Still, the majority of historians would seem to hold that World War((nbsp))III would necessarily have to be a worldwide "war in which large forces from many countries fought"<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/world-war Definition of "World War": Cambridge Dictionary] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170422131655/http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/world-war |date=22 April 2017 )) Cambridge University Press. Downloaded 21 April 2017.</ref> and a war that "involves most of the principal nations of the world".<ref>[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/world-war Definition of "World War": Random House] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170422211923/http://www.dictionary.com/browse/world-war |date=22 April 2017 )) Random House/ Dictionary.com. 2017. Downloaded 21 April 2017.</ref> The Cold War received its name from the lack of action taken from both sides. The lack of action was out of fear that a nuclear war would possibly destroy humanity.<ref>((Cite web |title=American History: The Cold War |url=https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/american-history-the-cold-war-130292758/116228.html |access-date=2022-05-02 |website=VOA |date=21 September 2011 |language=en |archive-date=1 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220201012146/https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/american-history-the-cold-war-130292758/116228.html |url-status=live ))</ref> In his book ''Secret Weapons of the Cold War'', Bill Yenne explains that the military standoff that occurred between the two 'Superpowers', namely the United States and the Soviet Union, from the 1940s through to 1991, was only the Cold War, which ultimately helped to enable mankind to avert the possibility of an all-out nuclear confrontation, and that it certainly was not World War((nbsp))III.<ref>Yenne, Bill (2005). ''Secret Weapons of the Cold War.'' Berkly Book, New York</ref>

===War on terror===
((Main|War on terror|List of modern conflicts in the Middle East))
[[File:WTC smoking on 9-11.jpeg|thumb|[[September 11 attacks]]]]

The "[[war on terror]]" that began with the [[September 11 attacks]] has been claimed by some to be World War III<ref>((Cite web |last=Micallef |first=Joseph V. |date=24 January 2017 |title=Are We Already Fighting World War III? |url=http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/24/are-we-already-fighting-world-war-iii.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170416051031/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/24/are-we-already-fighting-world-war-iii.html |archive-date=16 April 2017 |access-date=15 April 2017 |website=[[Military.com]]))</ref> or sometimes as World War IV.<ref name="Podhoretz2004"/> Others have disparaged such claims as "distorting [[History of the United States|American history]]". While there is general agreement amongst historians regarding the definitions and extent of the first two world wars, namely due to the unmistakable global scale of aggression and self-destruction of these two wars, a few have claimed that a "World War" might now no longer require such worldwide and large-scale aggression and carnage. Still, such claims of a new "lower threshold of aggression", that might now be sufficient to qualify a war as a "World War" have not gained such widespread acceptance and support as the definitions of the first two world wars have received amongst historians.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-op-beinart9dec09-story.html Is this really World War IV?] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170422135730/http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-op-beinart9dec09-story.html |date=22 April 2017 )) Los Angeles Times. By Peter Beinart. 9 December 2007. Downloaded 21 April 2017.</ref>

====War on the Islamic State====
((Main|Islamic State|War against the Islamic State))

On 1 February 2015, [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Iraq)|Iraqi Foreign Minister]] [[Ibrahim al-Jaafari]] declared that the [[war against the Islamic State]] was effectively "World War((nbsp))III", due to the Islamic State's aims for a worldwide caliphate, and its success in spreading the conflict to multiple countries outside of the [[Levant]] region.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/video/2015/02/01/fight-against-islamic-state-is-world-war?videoId=363066236 "Fight against Islamic State is World War 3 – Iraqi foreign minister"] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170620212733/http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/02/01/fight-against-islamic-state-is-world-war?videoId=363066236 |date=20 June 2017 )) Reuters, video</ref> In response to the [[November 2015 Paris attacks]], [[King of Jordan]] [[Abdullah II of Jordan|Abdullah II]] stated "We are facing a Third World War [within [[Islam]]]".<ref>((cite news|url=http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-Threat/Jordans-King-Abdullah-We-are-facing-a-Third-World-War-434408|title=Jordan's King Abdullah: We are facing a Third World War|date=17 November 2015|access-date=17 February 2016|newspaper=The Jerusalem Post|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160214091201/http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-Threat/Jordans-King-Abdullah-We-are-facing-a-Third-World-War-434408|archive-date=14 February 2016|url-status=live))</ref>

In his [[2016 State of the Union Address|State of the Union Address]] on 12 January 2016, U.S. President [[Barack Obama]] warned that news reports granting ISIL the supposed ability to foment a third World War might be excessive and irresponsible, stating that "as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War((nbsp))III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence."<ref>((cite web|last1=Obama|first1=Barak|title=2016 State of the Union Address|url=https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/president-obama-s-2016-state-of-the-union-address-7c06300f9726#.6rytyu7a2|website=The White House|publisher=government of the United States of America|access-date=9 February 2016|date=13 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160209085124/https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/president-obama-s-2016-state-of-the-union-address-7c06300f9726#.6rytyu7a2|archive-date=9 February 2016|url-status=live))</ref>

===Multiple small wars as a "third war"===
In multiple recorded interviews under somewhat casual circumstances, comparing the conflagrations of World War((nbsp))I and((nbsp))II to the ongoing lower-intensity wars of the 21st century, [[Pope Francis]] has said, "The world is at war because it has lost the peace", and "perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal".<ref>[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/28/world/social-issues-world/pope-says-world-war-lost-peace-religion-not-blame/#.WJeFnes76rU Pope says 'world at war because it has lost peace' but religion not to blame] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170206190926/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/28/world/social-issues-world/pope-says-world-war-lost-peace-religion-not-blame/#.WJeFnes76rU |date=6 February 2017 )) Japan Times. 28 July 2016. Downloaded 5 Feb.. 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29190890 Pope Francis warns on 'piecemeal World War III] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181023121520/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29190890 |date=23 October 2018 )) BBC, 13 September 2014. Downloaded 15 January 2017.</ref>

==Hypothetical scenarios==
In 1949, after the unleashing of nuclear weaponry at the end of World War&nbsp;II, physicist [[Albert Einstein]] suggested that any outcome of a possible World War&nbsp;III would be so dire as to revert mankind to the [[Stone Age]]. When asked by journalist Alfred Werner what types of weapons Einstein believed World War((nbsp))III might be fought with, Einstein warned, "I know not with what weapons World War((nbsp))III will be fought, but World War((nbsp))IV will be fought with sticks and stones".<ref name="einstein"/><ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7406337/#.WmyV55OdU3g |title=The culture of Einstein |last=Johnson |first=M. Alex |date=18 April 2005 |website=MSNBC |language=en |access-date=27 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180208205219/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7406337#.WmyV55OdU3g |archive-date=8 February 2018 |url-status=live ))</ref>

As for the extermination of the human race as a consequence of atomic war, [[Leslie A. White]] challenged Einstein, "this too may be admitted as possibility, and all we can say is that if it is to come, it will come. Extravagant expressions of horror will not alter the course of events."<ref>((Cite book |last= |first= |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MgwAAAAAMBAJ&q=condon |title=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |date=1946-03-15 |publisher=Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. |language=en |access-date=28 March 2023 |archive-date=4 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230604144015/https://books.google.com/books?id=MgwAAAAAMBAJ&q=condon |url-status=live ))</ref> [[Crane Brinton]] also doubted the psychological pacification of Einstein: "Teachers, preachers, educators, even politicians are telling the growing generation that there must be no war and, therefore, there will be no war. I have doubts as to whether this is wise teaching…" In spite of the atomic bomb, there will be another general war and humanity will survive it.<ref>Brinton, Crane, (1948). ''From Many to One: The Process of Political Integration, the Problem of World Government'', (Westport: Greenwood Press), p 4.</ref> [[James Burnham]] of [[Office of Strategic Services]] (the precursor of [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]]), also believed in survival: The uniqueness of the atomic weapons is commonly found in that they can totally annihilate human life, including through climatic and geological chain reaction, but such is not the case. The great principles of military strategy stand unaltered. An atomic war will look different from older wars but it will be decided by the same combination of resources, morale and strategy.<ref>Burnham, James, (1947). ''Struggle for the World'', (New York: The John Day Company), pp 26, 28-29.</ref>

A 1998 ''[[New England Journal of Medicine]]'' overview found that "Although many people believe that the threat of a nuclear attack largely disappeared with the end of the Cold War, there is considerable evidence to the contrary".<ref name='nejm'/> In particular, the [[United States – Russia mutual detargeting|United States–Russia mutual detargeting agreement]] in 1994 was largely symbolic and did not change the amount of time required to launch an attack. The most likely "accidental-attack" scenario was believed to be a [[Second strike|retaliatory launch]] due to a false warning, similar to the 1983 incident.<ref name='nejm'>((cite journal |last1=Forrow |first1=Lachlan |last2=Blair |first2=Bruce G. |last3=Helfand |first3=Ira |last4=Lewis |first4=George |last5=Postol |first5=Theodore |last6=Sidel |first6=Victor |last7=Levy |first7=Barry S. |last8=Abrams |first8=Herbert |last9=Cassel |first9=Christine |title=Accidental Nuclear War — A Post–Cold War Assessment |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |date=30 April 1998 |volume=338 |issue=18 |pages=1326–1332 |doi=10.1056/NEJM199804303381824|pmid=9562589 |doi-access=free ))</ref> Historically, World War&nbsp;I happened through an escalating crisis; World War&nbsp;II happened through deliberate action. Hypothesized flashpoints in the 2010s and the 2020s include the [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]], [[Territorial disputes in the South China Sea|Chinese expansion into adjacent islands and seas]],<ref name=":0a">((cite news |title=This Is What World War III Will Look Like |url=https://time.com/3934583/world-war-3/ |date=2015 |access-date=22 March 2020 |magazine=Time |language=en |archive-date=29 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200329011526/https://time.com/3934583/world-war-3/ |url-status=live ))</ref> [[Sino-Indian border dispute]], [[PRC threat of military operation against Taiwan|Chinese threats of military operation against Taiwan]], [[Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts|Indian—Pakistani border conflicts]], and [[foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war]]. Other hypothesized risks are that a war involving or between [[Saudi Arabia]] and [[Iran]], [[Israel]] and Iran, [[United States]] and Iran, [[India]] and [[Pakistan]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Russia]], [[Poland]] and [[Belarus]], [[South Korea]] and [[North Korea]], or [[Taiwan]] and [[China]] could escalate via alliances or intervention into a war between "great powers" such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Japan or an all out war between military alliances [[NATO]] and [[CSTO]], or even the possibility of a "rogue commander" under any nuclear power might launch an unauthorized strike that escalates into a full-blown war.<ref>((cite book |last1=Rosenbaum |first1=Ron |author-link=Ron Rosenbaum| title=How the end begins: the road to a nuclear World War III |date=2011 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-1-4391-9007-4 |edition=1st Simon & Schuster hardcover))</ref>

According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal ''[[Nature Food]]'' in August 2022, a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, releasing over 150 Tg of stratospheric soot, could indirectly kill more than five billion people by [[starvation]] during a [[nuclear winter]]. More than two billion people could die of starvation from a smaller-scale (5–47 Tg) nuclear war between India and Pakistan.<ref>((cite journal |title=Global food insecurity and famine from the reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection |journal=[[Nature Food]] |date=15 August 2022 |doi=10.1038/s43016-022-00573-0 |last1=Xia |first1=Lili |last2=Robock |first2=Alan |last3=Scherrer |first3=Kim |last4=Harrison |first4=Cheryl S. |last5=Bodirsky |first5=Benjamin Leon |last6=Weindl |first6=Isabelle |last7=Jägermeyr |first7=Jonas |last8=Bardeen |first8=Charles G. |last9=Toon |first9=Owen B. |last10=Heneghan |first10=Ryan |volume=3 |issue=8 |pages=586–596 |pmid=37118594 |s2cid=251601831 |doi-access=free |hdl=11250/3039288 |hdl-access=free ))</ref><ref>((cite news |title=World Nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would kill more than 5 billion people – just from starvation, study finds |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-war-5-billion-people-starvation-deaths-study/ |work=CBS News |date=16 August 2022 |access-date=7 November 2022 |archive-date=26 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221026190805/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-war-5-billion-people-starvation-deaths-study/ |url-status=live ))</ref> In the event of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, 99% of the population in the belligerent countries, as well as Europe and China, would die.<ref name="time-study">((cite magazine |last=Tegmark |first=Max |date=29 June 2023 |title=Here's How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be |magazine=Time |url=https://time.com/6290977/nuclear-war-impact-essay/ |access-date=10 August 2023 |archive-date=22 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240122053620/https://time.com/6290977/nuclear-war-impact-essay/ |url-status=live ))</ref>

Some scenarios involve risks due to upcoming changes from the known status quo. In the 1980s the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] made an effort at nullifying the USSR's nuclear arsenal; some analysts believe the initiative was "destabilizing".<ref>((cite news |last1=Rosen |first1=Armin |title=A Newly Declassified CIA Paper Details A Tense Subplot In The Cold War Arms Race |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/why-missile-defense-terrified-the-soviets-2014-10 |access-date=22 March 2020 |work=Business Insider |date=2014 |archive-date=22 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200322204517/https://www.businessinsider.com/why-missile-defense-terrified-the-soviets-2014-10 |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>((cite news |last1=Lepore |first1=Jill |title=The Atomic Origins of Climate Science |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/the-atomic-origins-of-climate-science |access-date=22 March 2020 |magazine=The New Yorker |date=2017 |language=en |archive-date=15 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200715163218/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/the-atomic-origins-of-climate-science |url-status=live ))</ref> In his book ''Destined for War'', [[Graham Allison]] views the global rivalry between the established power, the US, and the rising power, China, as an example of the [[Thucydides Trap]]. Allison states that historically, "12 of 16 past cases where a rising power has confronted a ruling power" have led to fighting.<ref>Graham Allison (2017). ''Destined for War'', Scribe, p. 215</ref>  In 2020 and 2023, the ''Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists'' advanced its Doomsday Clock, citing among other factors a predicted destabilizing effect from upcoming [[Hypersonic flight#Hypersonic weapons development|hypersonic weapons]].<ref>((cite news |title=Pentagon successfully tests nuclear-capable hypersonic missile |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/21/world/us-military-tests-nuclear-hypersonic-missile/ |access-date=22 March 2020 |work=The Japan Times Online |agency=AFP-JIJI |date=21 March 2020 |archive-date=21 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200321134929/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/21/world/us-military-tests-nuclear-hypersonic-missile/ |url-status=live ))</ref>

Emerging technologies, such as [[artificial intelligence]], could hypothetically generate risk in the decades ahead. A 2018 [[RAND Corporation]] report has argued that AI and associated information technology "will have a large effect on nuclear-security issues in the next quarter century". A hypothetical future AI could provide a destabilizing ability to track "second-launch" launchers. Incorporating AI into decision support systems used to decide whether to launch, could also generate new risks, including the risk of an [[Adversarial machine learning|adversarial exploitation]] of such an AI's algorithms by a third party to trigger a launch recommendation.<ref>((cite news |last1=Browne |first1=Ryan |title=A.I. could lead to a nuclear war by 2040, think tank warns |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/ai-could-lead-to-a-nuclear-war-by-2040-rand-corporation-warns.html |access-date=22 March 2020 |work=CNBC |date=25 April 2018 |language=en |archive-date=22 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200322204500/https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/ai-could-lead-to-a-nuclear-war-by-2040-rand-corporation-warns.html |url-status=live ))</ref><ref>Geist, Edward and Andrew J. Lohn, How Might Artificial Intelligence Affect the Risk of Nuclear War?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2018. [https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE296.html] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200322204503/https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE296.html|date=22 March 2020)).</ref> A perception that some sort of emerging technology would lead to "world domination" might also be destabilizing, for example by leading to fear of a pre-emptive strike.<ref>((Cite journal|last1=Sotala|first1=Kaj|last2=Yampolskiy|first2=Roman V|date=19 December 2014|title=Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey|journal=Physica Scripta|volume=90|issue=1|page=12|doi=10.1088/0031-8949/90/1/018001|issn=0031-8949|doi-access=free))</ref>

Cyber warfare is the exploitation of technology by a nation-state or international organization to attack and destroy the opposing nation's information networks and computers. The damage can be caused by computer viruses or denial-of-service attacks (DoS). Cyberattacks are becoming increasingly common, threatening cybersecurity and making it a global priority.<ref>((Cite web |title=Cyber Warfare |url=https://www.rand.org/topics/cyber-warfare.html |access-date=2022-05-02 |website=www.rand.org |language=en |archive-date=22 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220422105046/https://www.rand.org/topics/cyber-warfare.html |url-status=live ))</ref><ref name="auto">((Cite journal |last=Garon |first=Jon M. |date=2018 |title=Cyber-World War III: Origins |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26777962 |journal=Journal of Law & Cyber Warfare |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=1–60 |jstor=26777962 |issn=2578-6245 |access-date=2 May 2022 |archive-date=2 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220502040218/https://www.jstor.org/stable/26777962 |url-status=live ))</ref> There has been a proliferation of state-sponsored attacks. The trends of these attacks suggest the potential of a cyber World War III.<ref name="auto"/> The world's leading militaries are developing cyber strategies, including ways to alter the enemy's command and control systems, early warning systems, logistics, and transportation.<ref name="auto"/> The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has sparked concerns about a large-scale cyberattack, with Russia having previously launched cyberattacks to compromise organizations across Ukraine. Nearly 40 discrete attacks were launched by Russia which permanently destroyed files in hundreds of systems across dozens of organizations, with 40% aimed at critical infrastructure sectors in Ukraine.<ref name=overview>((Cite web |date=April 27, 2022 |title=An overview of Russia's cyberattack activity in Ukraine Special Report: Ukraine Digital Security Unit |url=https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE4Vwwd |website=Microsoft |access-date=2 May 2022 |archive-date=2 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220502132256/https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE4Vwwd |url-status=live ))</ref> Russia's use of cyberwarfare has turned the war into a large-scale "hybrid" war in Ukraine.<ref name=overview/>

==See also==
((Commons category))
((Wikiquote))
((Wiktionary))
* [[Anti-nuclear movement]]
* [[Artificial intelligence arms race]]
* [[Artificial Intelligence Cold War]]
* [[Nuclear arms race]]
* [[Nuclear holocaust]]
* [[Nuclear terrorism]]
* [[Second Cold War]]
* [[World War&nbsp;III in popular culture]]
((Clear))

==References==
((Reflist))
((Reflist|group=BBC NEWS))
((Reflist|group=lower-alpha))

==Further reading==
((Library resources box))
* [[Samuel P. Huntington|Huntington, Samuel]] (1996). ''[[The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order]]'' Simon & Schuster, New York. ((ISBN|978-0-684-84441-1)).
* ((cite book|last=Langford|first=David|title=War in 2080 : the future of military technology|date=1981|publisher=Sphere Books|location=London|isbn=978-0-7221-5393-2))
* [[John Mearsheimer|Mearsheimer, John]] (2001). ''[[The Tragedy of Great Power Politics]]''. W. W. Norton, New York. ((ISBN|978-0-393-34927-6)).
* ((cite book|last=Pamidi|first=G.G.|title=Possibility of a nuclear war in Asia : an Indian perspective|date=2012|publisher=United Service Institution of India : Vij Books India|location=New Delhi|isbn=978-93-81411-51-3))
* Piepers, Ingo (2016). ''[https://global4cast.org 2020: WARning]''. Conijn Advies. ((ISBN|978-90-824118-1-2)).

((Doomsday))

((Authority control))

[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]
[[Category:Political terminology]]
[[Category:Global conflicts]]
[[Category:World War III speculative fiction| ]]
[[Category:Doomsday scenarios]]
[[Category:Nuclear warfare]]
[[Category:1940s neologisms]]
[[Category:Theories of history]]
[[Category:War]]
[[Category:War scare]]
[[Category:World Wars]]