I know there’s been a whole lot of chit-chat on the internet lately about fears of a third global conflict breaking out due to the tensions exploding in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas (Gaza) and the war that is still raging between Russia and Ukraine, not to mention the partnerships being developed between Russia and China, and nations located in the Middle East. There’s also been a lot of comments about what should be done in order to prevent a third world war from happening and preserving the world from nuclear weapons usage, but I’m afraid I have some bad news.
It’s too late.
Our world is currently marching itself down a road to this inevitable outcome, which was explained in a recent report published by MSN News:
Imagine, for a moment, that the Iranian government announces it has developed a nuclear bomb and threatens to use it on Israel. The United States reacts with the threat of military intervention, as it did in 1991 and 2003 in Iraq. Iran signals that it will not tolerate a third Gulf war and looks for allies. American forces mass to enter Iran, which orders national mobilisation. Russia, China and North Korea express their support for Iran, and Washington expands its intervention force, bringing in a British contingent. Russia enters the game, raising the stakes in the expectation that the West will back down. A nuclear standoff follows, but with tense and itchy fingers on both sides, as leaders gamble on the risk of not striking first, it all ends in disaster. The Third World War begins with an exchange of nuclear fire, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Or picture this: Chinese frustration over the status of Taiwan prompts a build-up of invasion forces. The United States is preoccupied with its own domestic political crisis. Japan anxiously watches the exchange of harsh words between China and Taiwan, wondering whether to intervene. The United Nations condemns Chinese actions, and China repudiates the censure and orders invasion, confident that a quick victory will prevent others from intervening, as Hitler hoped when he invaded Poland in 1939. The United States now activates contingency plans to save Taiwan, and each side uses tactical nuclear weapons against the other’s armed forces. North Korea and Russia side with China. There is no general nuclear strike, but Russia warns Europe to keep out, dividing American strategy between the two theatres, as it was in the Second World War. The conflict continues to escalate.
We always knew China was going to be a problem, didn’t we? However, it seems the progressives in Congress have been far too worried about leaving the southern border wide open and ensuring they have enough illegals present to join the ranks of the Democratic Party. Which, unfortunately, is most of them, due to the fact leftists give them a laundry list of “free stuff.” Of course, there’s no such thing as a “free lunch” as those of us with a grasp of basic economics fully recognize. No, the stuff being given to illegal migrants is funded by taxpayers.
The report from MSN then went on to say, “Now let’s consider a totally different kind of global conflict. The growing division between the democratic West and the arc of authoritarian states across Eurasia has entered a dangerous new chapter. Neither side wants to risk outright war, but there is a possibility that destroying satellite communications will undermine the military and economic capability of the other side. Without warning, the West’s satellite communication system is attacked and massive damage is done to its commercial and military electronic networks.”
The article goes on to add that no one is taking responsibility for launching the missiles, however, in the aftermath of the destruction and chaos that unfolds, blame is then aimed at anti-Western nations. Since communications are down and out, it’s hard to put together an appropriate response and ensure the right parties are targeted. With so much uncertainty on what to do, military mobilization occurs all over the Western world, however, China and Russia say it needs to stop. This is the very first Space War.
These three scenarios are possible, though not one of them, I should make clear, is probable. Predicting – more accurately, imagining – the wars of the future can produce dangerous fantasies that promote anxiety over future security. It is likely that even the most plausible prognosis will be wrong. The development of nuclear weapons has substantially changed the terms of any future global conflict. There are no doubt contingency plans prepared by armed forces everywhere to meet a range of possibilities that might otherwise be regarded as fanciful in the real world. And while history may help us to think about the shape of a future war, the lessons of history are seldom learnt.
Yet the question of how a third world war might erupt haunts us today more than at any time since the end of the last world war. The very act of guessing is proof of our expectation that warfare of some kind remains a fact in a world of multiple insecurities. Conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar and Sudan are a reminder of that ever-present reality. And regular threats from Russia about using nuclear weapons suggest that our fantasies may not be so wide of the mark after all.
The author of the article then suggests that we should ask another question in our attempt to forecast a potential third world war. Why do we even make war at all? There are, according to many philosophers and religious leaders of various religions, particularly Christianity, just reasons to go to war. Self-defense against a nation attempting to do you harm for example, that was unprovoked.
The only logical answer for this is sin. Mankind is imperfect. Our desires are twisted. Instead of desiring a relationship with God, we often hunger and thirst for power and money. War is as old as time itself.
Warfare was not like modern war, organised in mass armies and supplied by military industries, but took a variety of forms: a deadly raid, a ritual encounter, or a massacre, such as the Nataruk killings, dating to the 9th century BC: the remains of men, women (one of them pregnant) and children unearthed from this site near Kenya’s Lake Turkana show the victims were clubbed and stabbed to death.
It was evidently not necessary to have a state to engage in violence, as the tribal warfare observed in the past few hundred years has demonstrated, but war did mean the emergence of a warrior elite and a culture in which warfare was valorised and endorsed: the Spartans, the Vikings, the Aztecs. There have been very few cultures in which warfare has not played a part, usually a central part, in the life of the community. In the historic period of states, from about 5,000 years ago, there are no examples where warfare was not accepted practice.
Civilizations have also made war on one another as a means of gaining control over scarce resources. Romans, the article points out, used to obliterate enemy cities and cultivated slaves, treasure, and even tributes from those they conquered.
Religion has also played a part in the history of war. And for good reason. Not all religions are equal. Look at Islam for example. It is a system of belief that is steeped in violence, bloodshed, and oppression, since practically the moment it was conceived by the prophet Mohammad. It has destroyed civilizations and cultures everywhere it has been spread, like a plague. Christianity, on the other hand, created Western culture. It invented hospitals, schools, and whole systems of government that were ripe for the development and evolution of freedom, liberty, and the dignity of the human person.
Thus, when the Crusades launched to stop the spread of Islam in the medieval era and take back the Holy Land, this was a justifiable war.
Pursuit of power is perhaps the most common explanation for war – particularly popular with political and social scientists. Power Transition Theory, pioneered at the height of the Cold War, sees a constant race between major hegemonic powers as one tries to exceed the power of the other. The race, so it is argued, might end in war as a declining power seeks to protect its position, or a rising power seeks to replace it. At one time, the theory was applied to the United States and the Soviet Union, but they never went to war against each other; now it is applied to possible war between the United States and China, which has become a favourite scenario for those predicting 21st-century conflict. Yet it is a theory that works poorly. The two world wars began with a major power picking on a lesser one – Serbia in 1914, Poland in 1939 – and then dragging other powers into the maelstrom. That might indeed happen with Taiwan, as it is already happening with Ukraine.
Power works best as an explanation when history turns to the individuals who drove themselves to become the great conquerors, men whose raw ambition mobilised support from their people for unlimited conquest – Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler. This is hubristic power based on arrogant self-belief and it usually evaporates with the death or defeat of the leader. But so long as they lead, and there are people willing to follow, war is unlimited and destructive on a vast scale. This is the most dangerous and unpredictable explanation for the persistence of warfare and it covers the whole historical record. It is one of the surest indications that war still has a future as well as a long past.
At the end of the day, the history of the human race is linear. It had a beginning. It also has an end. We are closer to the credits of the film than we are the opening scene. God has a particular plan and purpose for every event. The story is unfolding just as He has written it. Therefore, the reason we make war on one another is, as stated previously, due to our fallen nature and corrupt desires.
The only hope for healing in those areas is through faith in Jesus Christ.
"*" indicates required fields