Pengwuino said:
Well a war in the middle east wouldn't be a world war. What exactly is a world war anyhow, some would say that WW1 and WW2 weren't even world wars... not me though.
It does seem a little disingenuous, or at least Eurocentric, to call WWI a 'world' war, but at least WWII took place in both hemispheres and on three continents (four if you count Pearl Harbor and Midway as part of North America).
As for me, I can't foresee one happening without some huge changes taking place in the structure of the political world. As things stand now, I just can't imagine any situation in which it would really be to any advantage for a legitimate power, and all of its allies, to wage an all-out war with another power and its allies. Unless the aggressor was the United States, or an
enormous coalition of nations aligned against the United States, it wouldn't stand much chance of winning. It would be absolute suicide for someone to flat-out invade France or carry out an aerial attack on a US naval base right now. Even if
all of the US armed forces were tied up in Iraq, the rest of NATO would still be able to mount much too formidable and quick of a response.
In short, I think the pattern of regional conflicts taking place outside of first-world countries is going to continue, at least into the foreseeable future. Even when someone like Britain or the US sends in forces, the conflicts don't seem to spread. Even if the fighting in Iraq managed to bleed into Syria or other neighboring countries, that wouldn't be enough to qualify as world-wide conflict.
Of course, I have to qualify this by saying that I know little to nothing about the details of international military capabilities and alliance structures outside of NATO, so hey, what do I know?
