All the theories I read have to have a lot of things line up for it to actually start. However know one has been talking about who would win and mainly I think its because there can be no winners this time around with all the new weapons and bomb tech most countries now own.

  • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re practically there. If Poland or Belarus had rolled into the Ukraine conflict (most likely Belarus attacking Ukraine and Poland sending peace keeping troops), we’d have been in a world war with a limited nuclear exchange pretty soon.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s crazy that no one has mentioned Israel yet. The Middle East has been unstable, bloody, violent for so long, and the mess is so complicated that it always had my vote. Remember that Israel is a tiny country with nuclear weapons surrounded by countries who have vowed to destroy it

  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My guess is fairly general but something along the following lines:

    Climate change fueled freak weather occurrence/years of such lead to massive food insecurity (or massive influx of refugees from a nearby country suffering from the above) in a poor but nuclear armed nation (think Pakistan) leading them to freak out and elect someone crazy (like America did with trump when they went from being the richest country in the world to still the richest country in the world.

    Results: crazy threats, escalations, someone launches a pre-emptive attack or there’s a coup, nuclear weapons are launched in the havoc and then things really spiral.

    • Tsavo43@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, because it’s not like he’s the only president since Carter to not have any wars on his watch…