The Greatest of Wars (World War III)
Is the Greatest War Coming?
Prof. Dr. Emre Alkin
Turkey Newspaper, November 8, 2024
Recently, I met with experts in strategy and diplomacy ahead of the U.S. elections. You know the saying, "where diplomacy ends, war begins." Winston Churchill even reinforced this by saying, "jaw jaw is better than war war," meaning that talking is better than fighting.
However, while we were discussing the title of an article we were going to write with these experts, we suddenly found ourselves here:
"After two great wars, the world’s situation before the greatest one..."
As we discussed the political, diplomatic, demographic, and economic situation, we realized that a major war is inevitable. Unfortunately, the approaching great war will be the largest one we have experienced so far. The U.S. election results and other factors will only delay or accelerate it. Let me now elaborate on the matter.
Looking back, we may have just left behind an extended period without witnessing a major war. However, during this time, we lost more lives than in the two world wars combined. In other words, we fought in small doses rather than one major conflict, yet more blood was shed.
Some even say, "it might be better if there were a great war," though I previously explained in detail that wars do not provide solutions for economies. Still, I will try to shed light on these "Great War" discussions, initially from an economic perspective and then through various other lenses.
The last great war we experienced, World War II, was not only the result of military conflicts but also of profound economic problems. Analyzing the economic causes of war is crucial in assessing the likelihood of another world war in light of social, political, and economic developments up to our time. Let’s look at the reasons:
-
Economic Burdens of the Treaty of Versailles: The Treaty of Versailles, signed after World War I, imposed heavy reparations on Germany, leading to its economic collapse and social unrest. Economist John Maynard Keynes even argued that the treaty should be revised, foreseeing how these reparations would economically strain German society. This set the stage for government intervention in the economy.
-
The Great Depression: The Great Depression of 1929 affected the world economy, increasing unemployment rates, reducing trade, and straining international relations. Economist Milton Friedman argued that greater government intervention was needed during this period, emphasizing that market traumas could create economic instability. This, in a way, opened the door to the first ideas of state capitalism, moving a step beyond Keynes.
-
The Fascination with War Economies: Before the war, many countries began militarization and rearmament processes, which stimulated the war economy. Economist Paul Krugman, known for his analyses on the macroeconomic effects of war, argued that military spending contributes to economic growth. I expressed my disagreement with him in a long article.
Frankly, I am concerned to see that the dogma of "war economies rescue," believed not only by the average person but also by some intellectuals and experts, has continued from those times to the present. However, there are those who oppose the idea that war can be beneficial—like me, for instance. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that, since World War II, we have witnessed numerous socioeconomic and political developments worldwide. All of this suggests that we are being pushed step by step towards the biggest war of all time, with even nuclear weapons potentially coming into play. Whether it benefits economies or not, this seems inevitable. Now let’s look at the arguments for a new great war:
-
Geopolitical Tensions: International relations expert Graham Allison points out that the current state of the world creates a new "cold war" environment due to competition among major powers. The tensions between the U.S. and China, conflicts in strategic regions, and the race for resources are seen as triggers for a major war. In addition to hot conflicts like Russia-Ukraine, Gaza-Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah, the intermittently high tensions between China-Taiwan and North Korea-Japan must also be considered.
-
Militarization and Nationalism: War historian Christopher Clark suggests that the resurgence of nationalism in countries threatens current international peace. Along with nationalism, the rise of radical politics and movements increases the likelihood of war.
-
Economic Inequalities: Sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein argues that economic inequalities and global imbalances can trigger social unrest and conflicts. In fact, even without the evaluations of prominent figures, one can observe a significant inequality and injustice worldwide. These issues, which are also present nationally, are continually cloaked with calls for war.
Some experts, however, argue that a great war is not so inevitable and suggest the following facts or hopes to prevent another war for a long time:
-
Existence of International Institutions: Experts in international relations emphasize that organizations like the United Nations promote diplomatic dialogues and reduce the likelihood of wars. Diplomat Richard Haass highlights the importance of such institutions and emphasizes the importance of cooperation. He has also contributed to peace by writing numerous books. However, can peace be maintained with leaders who are eager for conflict?
-
Global Economic Ties: Dani Rodrik, an economist and economic historian like myself, argues that globalization has created economic interdependence, which raises the cost of war. Economic dependency promotes cooperation among countries. However, with the growing division in trade, it is hard to say if cooperation can prevent a great war.
- Nuclear Deterrence, aka "Second Strike Capability": The presence of nuclear weapons is considered a deterrent factor that reduces the risk of direct military conflict between major powers. Atomic scientist Bertrand Russell argued that the spread of nuclear weapons and the destructive potential of war made countries more cautious. He even co-authored the famous Russell-Einstein Manifesto. However, it’s a fact that nuclear weapons, in the hands of irrational leaders, could lose their deterrent quality.
-
Figures like Graham Allison, Henry Kissinger, and Michael T. Klare believe that a major war is inevitable, while others, such as Richard Haass, Joseph Nye, and Fareed Zakaria, say, "there is still hope."
Finally, let’s look at the potential impacts of a nuclear war on humanity and the planet:
-
Human Loss: The use of nuclear weapons, along with radioactive fallout, would result in billions of deaths and long-term health problems.
-
Environmental Impacts: Nuclear explosions would not only cause widespread destruction but would also contaminate soil and water resources. Long-term environmental effects would lead to ecosystem degradation.
-
Global Climate Change: The explosion of numerous nuclear weapons would result in a "nuclear winter," where the dust and smoke in the atmosphere would reduce sunlight, causing global temperatures to drop. This would lead to serious agricultural issues, food crises, and more.
-
Humanity’s move to other planets would not directly resolve the threat of a nuclear Great War. Still, we should hold onto hope: efforts to explore space could encourage international cooperation and peaceful research. The goal of reaching space could help countries on Earth come together and work toward common objectives. Such cooperation could lay the foundation for more robust diplomatic efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
I am writing these lines on the day Trump was re-elected President. From this point forward, it seems unlikely that events can be reversed. What happens to Trump could also trigger the scenarios we discussed. I can say that a tense waiting period has begun. I don’t know how long we will have to wait.
Turkey Newspaper, November 8, 2024
Contact Form