> Are you a time traveller? If only. > over 100 years a 1% chance is likely to happen This is extrapolated from two events that occurred 25 years apart? > t

> Are you a time traveller? If only. > over 100 years a 1% chance is likely to happen This is extrapolated from two events that occurred 25 years apart? > the EU is re-arming ... First, the EU has practically brought peace in Western Europe. And it was disarming, and now sees itself forced to get back to previous levels. While rearming is technically correct, it's a sign of something outside the EU, not the EU being on the war path. > The US ... appears unable to just dictate military terms to its competitors I don't see how what that has to do with it. Are you suggesting WW3 didn't break out earlier because of the Cold War? > Even a good argument isn't comforting. True, but it doesn't somehow make the opposite true. > There were really good arguments why WW1 and WW2 wouldn't break out. And there were many people all over Europe steering towards WW1, and WW2 was famously predicted at the signing of the peace treaty. But a world war requires more than two local, unrelated conflicts, one of which is not even a real war. It requires large groups of combatants, and one group should have some strategic goal it wants to pursue at all costs. But only Russia wants that, and its goal isn't that great, and it stands alone. So I don't see how it could explode into the next world war. Anyway, let's hope for the best.