Could there ever be another conventional World War?

[OCGuy]

No. Dumb question.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I was expecting to see "Bush's War" in Iraq explode into a total Middle-East conflict of such a calibre that it would quickly become a World War.
Fortunately, it appears that cooler heads in that region have prevailed...for now.

It wouldn't have taken much for that war to have gained the perception of a "War on Islam," and Muslims around the world taking up arms.

I doubt even the entire middle east combined would have the means to challenge the U.S. in a war that can be compared to World War I or II.

Really? Hell, with the help of the Allies, WWII was over in less time than we've been mired in Iraq...and we can't even control Baghdad...

I mean a conventional war against a real military, not fighting an insurgency. As in fight war, losers' governments formally surrender, the end. Trying to occupy various Middle Eastern countries at the same time would be hopeless unless things are done more brutally.

 

[a123456]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
It would need to hit the carrier (or hit close enough) first.

It's not that hard to get a nuke close enough to a carrier for a modern country given that you only need to succeed once no matter the number of failures. Sure, Uzbekistan might have some troubles but in a big world war like WW2-size, there are numerous ways (could launch a ton of fighter/bombers with 100x conventional missiles as decoys to saturate the CIWS, could have a bunch of next-gen AIP/diesel subs picketing a group, lying idle on battery for days launching a nuclear torpedo and so on). Air superiority isn't really guaranteed if the sides are equal in the future either from numbers, technology stealing, or other factors.

It goes both ways. I can see another world war from a power-hungry dictator, which there have never been a shortage of throughout history. He might view the situation with MAD and figure that no one will ever use nukes. Until, of course, one side starts losing. The first world wars were started for relatively stupid reasons, so it's not inconceivable that it happens again.

Either way, the answer to the OP from my opinion would be no. Depending on how far in the future, the number of countries with nukes is probably going to be monotonically increasing. There's probably a smaller chance these days to start a really big war with tons of large countries but if we ever got into one, I doubt it would stay conventional. Tactical nukes are just too tempting when you're on the losing side and need an advantage that doesn't escalate to a full worldwide nuclear winter.

No matter what happens, I doubt we'll see huge nukes dropped on cities like we did in WW2. I just don't see that ending well, ever, for anyone.