What Defines A Conflict As A "World War"? I Have Always Wondered.

[DistressedAmerican]

I'd argue that this well might be WWIII right now. I'll admit that it is early in the war. But, there are plenty of signs that the invasions or offensive military actions will continue against Iran, Syria or others. We have already attacked two different countries. Almost all of our allies have been attacked on their home soil, as have we. Sounds to me like a large part of the world is involved (or soon to be) in this war.

A close friend told me something I'll never forget the morning of September 11th (which I dismissed as crazy at the time). She said, "World War III just started." Now I am completely convinced she is right.

So what are the defining criteria? Does it have to be two coalitions against each other? It there some threshold of casualties? I really do not know. Help me out!

And while we are at it, when do we start calling the escalating violence in Iraq a "civil war"? Sure as hell looks like one to me. Admittedly, we are on the side of one of the factions. But, in essence they are fighting each other over power.

Help me out here! What Am I missing?

[NorCalDem]

1. We are not in WWIII

right now. That being said, we are in a war that effects the whole world. My definition of a World War, and probably most peoples, would make it necessary for more than only a handful of nations to be actively involved.

Now, say we attach Syria and Iran, than Israel, France and Germany get involved, China starts mobilizing troops, along with India and Pakistan, etc., then we're talking world war, and unfortunately at this point in history, possibly the destruction of the world and nuclear holocaust. Isn't it nice we're only a few short months away from a possible catalyst there, isn't it (I'm of course referring to the Bush plan to further invade middle eastern countries, starting with Syria and/or Iran).

[DistressedAmerican]

2. That Seems Pretty Reasonable. Looked Up A Definition and

it basically said that the "majority of principle nations in the world" needed to be involved. Sound a lot like what you describe.

[endarkenment]

3. 'global conflict' is not the same as 'world war'.

At least not in scale. We have yet to see anything like the sustained carnage that defined WWI and WWII. Hopefully we never will.

Also this global conflict is 'asymmetric warfare'. We have all the big guns and regular troops. They run around in makeshift units using whatever is at hand to inflict damage that is militarily irrelevant but politically significant. Had WWII consisted of a globalized 'french resistance' taking on the wermacht then perhaps this could be considered WWIII (or IV as quite a few people consider the cold war to be WWIII.)

[wli]

4. 9/11 and WWIII/WWIV

My knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 was "Oh s**t, this is a staged pretext for a military coup," and the general notion centered around war hawks etc. wanting to conquer the Middle East for its oil (I didn't know about PNAC then). Then I thought I was wrong after the civilian leadership still appeared to be in place. I didn't think about WWIII/WWIV, but it was implicit, given the general notion of oil running out (I'd not heard of "Peak Oil" then, either).

So basically you're not the only one who thought some of those things.

[sweetheart]

5. Word war > 100,000,000 dead

If not 100 million dead, regional conflict.

[amjfv]

6. There's not really a definition...

Some people have argued that the Cold War was WWIII. I had a TA in college who was writing a thesis about how we're actually in WWIV (I've long since forgotten the logic behind this assertation, which didn't directly deal with terrorism.)

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Welcome To DU amjfv !

Great to have you here!:toast: :bounce:

[amjfv]

10. Possibilities...

1) A war that involves all the major powers on Earth
2) A war that involves the vast majority of the world's military might

By this definition the Napoleonic wars would probably also qualify as a world war, and an argument could be made that the Cold War did as well.

[maxsolomon]

7. this is not WW3

remember, WW2? THAT is the gold standard.

this is a global police action, similar to actions of monarchies of europe in the middle ages. they all had religious wacko rebellions to deal with, and their method of control was extermination.

[randome]

9. When does a pebble become a rock?

When does a hill become a mountain?

[barb162]

11. Multiple nations fighting would be a criterion

Based on that, Napoleon and his army fighting in Europe againast SPain, England and Russia should possibly have been a world war.

[NoPasaran]

12. A case could also be made for the 18th Century conflicts

Between coalitions led by Britain and France with battlefields not only in Europe but North America and India as well.

[barb162]

13. Yes I guess so. There was, though, something about WW1

that made people call it that, versus names like the Napoleonic Wars or Franco-Prussian War or Hundred Years War or other names that wars have been called before. WW1 was a really enormous conflagration of many nations and I think the fact that new war machines (tanks, aircraft, poison gas, etc.) were involved for the first time made it special in a horrible way. Also the concept of trench warfare defined a lot and soldiers were not marching old style in bright costumes down giant fields.