The war between China and the United States is highly unlikely today. There are ongoing cyber escapades and strategic pivoting, but neither of these countries wants to push this conflict into a world war. The logic behind avoiding another cold war is clear. Such a war needs nuclear weapons for a nuclear attack. If this nuclear war is something these two countries choose to engage in, it will translate to two nations causing instability around the world.

In the Improbable War iii, Professor Coker mentions that the low probability of the war occurring does not mean the war iii is not a possibility. The threat to peace globally is highly likely in such a situation. Instead of putting our focus away from the likelihood of an impending third world war, Coker suggests a greater focus on ways to combat the risks that come with it, should it happen.

Albert Einstein has this to say about world war iii, ‘“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”.

This clearly shows that the possibility of ww3 is slowly diminishing, as the current situation of imposing a nuclear attack with no sufficient weapons may result in a futile cold war. 2016 marked the end of the last global conflict. The main point during that timeline was the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. There was also a noted soviet invasion through a computer malfunction. The Soviet elite also contributed to the end of the nuclear conflict.

Nuclear war was highly probable in 1999. With the ongoing flare-up between Russia and the United States, the probability of world war iii is almost fading to nothingness. We are in a season where the third world war seems highly unlikely, especially with developed modernity.

Steve Pinker conducted a study that shows that there has been a decrease in deaths since the last world war. He insists on not using past statistics to gauge the likelihood of a world war iii happening.

There is a greater need to focus on the factors that greatly diminish the likelihood of a third world war. It could be decisions from the Soviet government, lack of nuclear weapons, or the risks attached to the countries and how many lives would be lost in these large countries.

After the last world war, there has been destruction that has been arrived at mutually. It was the last cold war that brought the invention of nuclear weapons. Great powers are now fighting wars similar to Vietnam and Afghanistan, a Cold War in the 1890s.

While the results experienced in this last world war may have been accidental and unplanned, it surely paved the way for the probability of another similar nuclear war. The second half of the 20th century was hardly peaceful. There were left-right and center wars across Africa where South America and Asia sought their independence.

At the same time, great powers did their best to avoid direct conflict. The last war had armed forces competing for great nations such as North Korea to fight against each other. This war ended in 1953. Below are a few statistics on the likelihood of a third world war.

• The estimated chance of a great power conflict in this current century ranges around 45%.
• The probability of another nuclear strike worse than world war ii is on a 10% order.

The likelihood of a war with extinction effects is at 1%. This is a completely slim chance.

History in the last few decades confirms that there have only been two great wars between great countries. The risk calculated annually between 1945 and 2022 reveals an o chance of another war reality that is quite calming.

Bear Braumeller argues that politicians play a great role in determining how much peace there will be in countries. If there are ongoing declared disputes between countries, depending on how far they are, it makes sense to replace peace with war for them. The targets mainly are nations that are not too far past one another.

Braumoeller’s statistical analysis confirms that the greatest war, including a cyber attack, was in the 1800s. Another reason why the occurrence of another attack seems likely in the future is that no nation has shown signs of wanting to fight another government in the last 77 years.

There have been very many changes globally in the last couple of centuries. The low probability of an attack occurring given the many years of silence has remained a constant that makes the future quite predictable.

The government state remains the dominant unit for active politics in a country. The major conflict fought before the second world war was between governments who used their forces to advance or defend what they termed as the self-interest of their government. Today, states are still greatly active even without a strong government that can use whatever strategy to enforce a war.

States are also being led by individuals who have their imperfections.The likelihood of an impending attack based on individual flaws can have a great negative effect on the future of a state if decisions are based on poor decisions, risky gambles, the pursuit of honor and status, or mere stupidity. In the last several years, no decisions have been made based on the afro mentioned few factors of individual interest.

Researchers have argued that the absence of war since 1945 should not translate to sheer luck. Researchers think that the continued advanced technology has made the threat of the next attack less likely. It only makes sense to want to strategize on how the next war should be, based on the current situation, particularly the long years of no attacks. The researchers’ point is not to assume that there will be no wars in the future.

This durable peace hypothesis predicts that a great nation conflict is less likely to occur. Conflict probability has been falling since the last war, making it a great idea to conclude that there will be no third war. In addition to this, the number of deaths denoted has had a significant decline.

What reduces the risks of the enemy attacking since the last conflict? Violence does not happen often. The larger it is in its last occurrence, the rarer it becomes in the following years. There are no conclusive factors on what leads to the enemy attacking. The idea is to do deeper research, gathering common factors that bring forces together to fight the enemy.

There has been an ongoing kind of calm in the world right now is nuclear deterrence. An ongoing argument is that nuclear-armed politicians are less likely to fight against one another. Nuclear weapons are already expensive enough to destabilize the states’ economies involved. Greg Cashman, an IR researcher, confirms that nuclear weapons, in most cases, reduce the chances of violence occurring.

Other states armed with nuclear weapons escalate minor clashes. Nuclear deterrence is not effective in non-nuclear states. A good example is the US. They did not use nuclear weapons against Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam. The Soviet officials did not use their soviet union to fight against Afghanistan in the 1980s. No likelihood of incoming violence? It could also be because nuclear weapons’ utility and deterrent power is overemphasized.

Another reason why there has been such a long peace since the last incident of violence is globalization and continued growth in international trade. This has been the case since the last world war. Goods being exported already amount to a quarter of the world’s GDP.

It is difficult to make trade with someone you consider an enemy and are in fights with. International trade has shown a significant growth in recent history. Bruce Rosset and John Oneal have produced books and papers that evidently show the increase in economic interdependence. The violence trajectory on the other hand has completely gone down.

The same researchers have confirmed in a 2003 paper that increased economic interdependence between the 10th and 90th century has reduced any risk of a fatal dispute. It is a 27% reduction of conflict but is not factual enough to explain the prolonged silence. Other reasons that may accurately signify this peace include:

• There are not big economic benefits that come with trading with another state.
• There are greater gains happening with trade than disruptions during the same process.
• Other scholars have conducted studies and concluded that negotiating trade deals gives one state an advantage over the other.

Global trade was doing significantly well prior to the last conflict experienced.

Some researchers have presented studies that mention mechanisms that the United Nations could use to reduce the chances of conflicts. Some mechanisms include:

• Giving more opportunities that allow bargaining and negotiating solutions to international conflicts.
• Having an increased rate of a cultural diplomatic exchange which strengthens diplomatic relationships, minimizing the chances of conflicts.

Russet and Oneal have also confirmed that there is a less likelihood for conflicts between states who share membership.

If the states who seem likely to go into conflicts are both democratic, there will be no soviet invasion. Nuclear weapons are present but states see a greater need for democracy than there is for conflicts.

While this democracy mechanism is not quite clear, a soviet system whose democracy is shared does not have an intention of conflict. Democracy goes hand in hand with an integrated economy and plays a vital role in why Western Europe and South America have avoided great conflict for decades. Little relevance however is seen here because there’s no explanation of the lack of great states conflict between Western Europe and its rival.

The USSR has not been a democracy and Moscow is not.

It is a bit challenging coming up with a debate that explains the durable harmony vs the constant risk. Contra Braumoeller feels it would be an unfair conclusion to say there have been viable factors explaining why there has been no conflicts for so many years. His risk model already shows a 21% likelihood of conflicts that is enough to explain the long silence and calm.

He also feels that there are more valid reasons why nuclear deterrence makes intercontinental ballistic missiles quite expensive. Globalization on the other hand has given calm an upper hand over the enemy’s need to do wrong to the opponent.

The fact that there has been no ongoing violence for some time means little military budget. It is not a wrong thing all the same because the more peace there is between states, the better the economy.

If by any chance there happens to be a clash, there will be great preparation for it which includes the preparation of the royal navy, to fight in the water and military installations to work on land. The probability of lives being lost in this clash is very high. The third world war, should it occur, will be worse than the second war, posing a threat of putting all of us into extinction.

The difference in the period between the second and third wars has allowed advancement in technology. If the Great States would clash again, the world might simply end. There will be an increase in military capacity driven by the growth in the economy and great advancement by technology, meaning better weapons and greater forces to fight the enemy.

The damage therefore will not only be against these two states but damage that will affect the whole world. Braumoeller confirms the intensity by which the clash will be lethal in the below two ways;

• The battle deaths will be intense as a result of what will happen through the pooled population of the states clashing.
• Raw battle deaths between the two states clashing will be extremely severe.

As a result of the harmony that has been there for the last 77 years, there have been great advancements noted. Consumer goods such as laptops, cars, jewelry, food, smart phones and medicines are no longer local but are all produced globally.

The risks of another clash are great given the presence of different methods of warfare that are conventional, nuclear, cyber, drones and anything else is enough to destroy humanity entirely. Currently, there are clashes looming in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia posing great threat over Ukraine, and the US. In the past 100 years, we have learnt how we can prevent clashes around the world.

The United Nations was made with the intention of protecting the succeeding generations from the negative effects of fighting. With this development, any fights between states like Germany and France are difficult to imagine. There are other regional organizations that have had their founding in Africa,  Asia and the Southern Pacific to curb the occurrence of fights between prominent states. The international bodies put in place are to help promote harmony and security among warring states.

According to research, there are many factors which have contributed to reduced clashes among States, the main ones being negotiations to keep, enforce and maintain harmony. Nuclear weapons have been outlawed in many countries which also reduces the chances of a world war or another fight. The ban is however yet to be made global. International law in place has prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons, antipersonnel landmines, cluster munitions and blinding lasers.

Academic disciplines are good enough in instilling knowledge on how conflicts come about and how they can be prevented or put to an end if already in place. There is no perfect approach that has been put in place yet. However, we can say that the effects of a clash are an endangered state economy, cost of living going up scarcity of important resources, refugee flows and discrimination. History and culture is important but should also play a great role in preventing the negative effects that could spark a clash between states.

There are four important things to know today which show if or not we should expect another world clash anytime soon.

1.   The world is becoming less peaceful

The Global Peace Index 2018 confirms that currently, only 13 countries score very high while the remaining 16 have an extremely low score. In its 12th annual report, findings confirmed show that global harmony had begun to take a diminishing curve in the fourth year. Out of the 163 independent states, 92 had already dropped in their harmony levels while the remaining showed some improvement. Global harmony has greatly deteriorated in the last 10 years by 2.38% between 2008 and 2018.

2.   The nature of conflicts is changing

It has been 100 years since the first world war. Since then, there have been fewer weapons of war. There are also more people in the military with 100 year-high democracy. Conflicts nature is however changing with a persisting need for a war.

3.   Violence costs the world tons of money

There are trillions of dollars spent every year to enhance the military forces. The cost keeps going up by the day. Since 2012, reports have confirmed that the economic impact of violence had already increased by 16%. With the amounts of money being spent, the future for most states is already at stake. History shows that this trend of warring states may continue to have a huge negative effect. Peaceful countries are better off than those clashing. In the last 70 years, per capita has been three times higher in states where there have been no clashes. States dwelling on harmonious relationships have also been seen to have stable interest rates and have more than twice the level of direct foreign investment.

4.   1% of the world’s population are now living as refugees or displaced

Whenever there are clashes, there are hundreds of people displaced from their homes who end up living as refugees. Every second that passes, at least one person is forced to flee from their home to find refuge elsewhere. Out of the 68.5 million people who are displaced during clashes, 245 million have nowhere to go and more than half of this number are children who are under 18 years of age. More than half of these refugees come from South Sudan, Syria and Afghanistan.

Moscow has had an ongoing massive military operation against Ukraine, where Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister has warned of an impending third clash of the world. He goes ahead to mention that what will happen during this time will be a devastating time for states and the world at large. Joe Biden, president of the United States, mentions that another war is a better alternative in helping to deal with Washington’s tough sanctions against Moscow. Lavrov also mentioned that states like Russia did not take suctions as a surprise but were ready for anything. At the moment, Russia is banned from using the US airspace after an invasion by the United States.

It is impossible for every country on earth to indulge in the third world war. The fact is that South American, African and Oceanic states cannot go to war against each other. The reason behind the last war was the fact that colonials ruled and controlled so many states. While there is no certainty of what the cause of the next worldly clashes will be, the clashes may start in Asia or in the Middle East.

Will it be a Cold War or World War iii?

There are two things to assume so that this scenario will work effectively.

• The situation does not involve use of nuclear weapons.
• Russia or the Chinese will be the aggressor.

Iran has a high chance of fighting against Israel and if this was to take place, it would be extremely lethal. There is already an affected strike between Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States, and with no support for the Iranian military, they would be forced to surrender from the fight. The US are ready with their war machine and their royal navy forces are already streaming towards Japan from the Pacific Ocean and are being assigned in full force. There are large ground troops crossing the Atlantic and moving towards the Western Europe. If the Chinese fail to submit, the US will send their troops for the fights. The European army at this time had already sent the Russian army back to Moscow.

• Russia and China will come together, make an agreement which will allow them to keep trading, only with less power and influence than before.
• The USA will already have invaded Russia and the Chinese and made sure to destabilize their governments, also making sure to replace these governments with more democratic ones. There is no guarantee that these governments will function better.
• If pushed to the edge, both Russia and the Chinese will still unleash their nuclear weapons but will still not win the war.
• If war breaks out and there is minimal fighting, there will be more harmony than there will be destruction. No one wants to see great states warring against each other.

At the moment, there is no concrete prediction of what the future holds. There is no detailed approach on how China and the United States will move forward. There are however some recommendations offered for these two states;

• Both states should stop overestimating each other’s rationality. Strategic interests can be contradicted by emotional reasoning, misperception and selfish personal interests.
• Both China and the United States can sit together and exchange their cultural perspectives. They also need to clarify the areas that keep bringing disagreements and readily and willingly address their differences to reduce the chances they have of sparking a red light that may eventually lead to them hauling at each other.
• Both the United States and China should avoid having a naval arms race. An increase in the naval power in the East or Southern China will spike insecurity
• Both states are advised to stop militarizing space. There is already limited space available and being aggressive or fighting over already small space is not worth the risk.

The United States should stay ready for a cyberwar that involves establishing international norms, regulatory regimes and boosting their capabilities.

Assuming the afro mentioned recommendations work for China and the United States, will there be a fight between them or not? If there is a limit on cyber, space, and naval capabilities in both states, there can be a great reduction in the damage that a war would cause if it happened between these two great states. However, it is good to note that if there are unresolved political disputes between these two states, there is a high likelihood of a war occurring. The above recommendations are only half the measures to be taken by both states. They do not necessarily address the deeper problem that keeps them as targets of each other.

If there are continued conflicting long-term ambitions, nationalist-fueled rivalries, and alliance obligations, war could still be necessary. Additionally, there needs to be an approach to help address the continued saltiness between the United States and China. According to Coker, having shared normative visions was a strategy that helped reinforce harmony between the British Empire and the United States. The approach has helped maintain a peaceful relationship as the United States continued to rise.

If this critical step were also incorporated between the United States and its Chinese opponent, it would be the beginning of establishing mutually acceptable and strategic narratives. Where interests overlap, the states are called to collaborate. Where interests differ, states are called to negotiate. Compromise is the key to having a mutually exclusive relationship. If the Chinese and the United States decide to leave their differences to be solved by fate, we will all not like how the same fate will present a solution.

Many factors have contributed to the reduction of armed wars, the main one being the reduction in proxy wars and a focus by the United Nations to foster harmony and economic development. Human Security Reports confirm that if there are more peaceful negotiations and cease-fire agreements, the violent conflict will decline, even when both approaches fail.

There were six peace agreements signed in 2013, and four of those had already been agreed to in 2012. We are unsure of whether there will be another war that could be as deadly as the last one because we have not learned how to create, keep, and enforce harmony. The more we are in this position, the more doors remain open for fights between states. There is already a predicted war in 2030 by the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System that confirms the frailty of this war. If it happens, governments and international institutions will be greatly strained and will not manage to cope with the rising trend of increased interdependence and greater fragmentation.

At the start of the first world war, so many people foolishly felt Western Europe was too civilized to engage in a war. Before the second lethal war, people thought Nazi Germany’s aggression would be contained. The problem with us is how overly optimistic we get during the war by feeling like we have all the time in our hands. We delay to act and do the right thing to help foster harmony in such critical times. We get war outcomes that we were not hoping to receive or that we fold our hands and hope for something other than the worst.

If we want to experience more harmony or better outcomes from a fight between great states, we should be more realistic about these wars and outcomes ourselves. We need to stop with the complacency and hoping to receive outcomes from someone else.

There is so much information at our disposal on how we can prevent wars from happening. Quickwitters owe this information to all those who were among us that lost their lives in these fights. So, is there a probability of a third world war?

Unless we put in place the right measures to curb the destruction that comes with allowing pride and enmity to control us, all because of our own selfish and personal desires and gains, we will remain uncertain of the likelihood of another war happening. There are no concrete conclusions on the likelihood of a war but there are definitely preventive measures we can put in place so the war will not happen and cause lethal destruction.