World War III

World War III (WWIII or WW3) and Third World War are names given to a hypothetical third worldwide military conflict subsequent to World Wars I and II. The term has been in use since the end of World War II, and was also applied somewhat sarcastically, to describe broad conflicts indirectly involving many countries from different parts of the world, such as the Cold War or the War on Terror.

Because of the development and use of nuclear weapons near the end of World War II and their subsequent acquisition and deployment by many countries, the potential risk of a nuclear devastation of Earth's civilization and life is a common theme in speculations of a Third World War. Another major concern is that biological warfare could cause a very large number of casualties, either intentionally or inadvertently by an accidental release of a biological agent, the unexpected mutation of an agent, or its adaptation to other species after use. High-scale apocalyptic events like these, caused by advanced technology used for destruction, could potentially make Earth's surface uninhabitable, what prompts many to believe that after the war, humans would live either in underground facilities or in colonies in space (such as on the Moon or Mars or in a space vehicle).

World War I (1914–1918) was regarded at the time as the "war to end all wars," as it was believed there could never again be another global conflict of such magnitude. World War II (1939–1945) proved that to be false, and with the advent of the Cold War in 1947 and the adoption of nuclear weapons, the possibility of a third global conflict became more plausible. The perceived threat then decreased with the end of the Cold War in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the United States as the sole global superpower. A Third World War was anticipated and planned for by military and civil authorities in many countries. Scenarios ranged from conventional warfare to limited or total nuclear warfare.

Military plans

Military planners have been war gaming various scenarios, preparing for the worst, since the early days of the Cold War. Some of those plans are now out of date and have been partially or fully declassified.

Operation Unthinkable

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was concerned that, with the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of WWII and the unreliability of the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, there was a serious threat to Western Europe. In April–May 1945, British Armed Forces developed Operation Unthinkable, thought to be the first scenario of the Third World War.^[1] Its primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire".^[2] The plan was rejected by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible.

Operation Dropshot

"Operation Dropshot" was the 1950s United States contingency plan for a possible nuclear and conventional war with the Soviet Union in the Western European and Asian theaters.

At the time the US nuclear arsenal was limited in size, based mostly in the United States, and depended on bombers for delivery. Dropshot included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union's industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

The scenario was devised prior to the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles. It was also devised before Robert McNamara and President Kennedy changed the US Nuclear War plan from the 'city killing' countervalue strike plan to "counterforce" (targeted more at military forces). Nuclear weapons at this time were not accurate enough to hit a naval base without destroying the city adjacent to it, so the aim in using them was to destroy the enemy industrial capacity in an effort to cripple their war economy.

Exercises Grand Slam, Longstep, and Mainbrace

In January 1950, the North Atlantic Council approved NATO's military strategy of containment.^[3] NATO military planning took on a renewed urgency following the outbreak of the Korean War in the early 1950s, prompting NATO to establish a "force under a centralised command, adequate to deter aggression and to ensure the defence of Western Europe". Allied Command Europe was established under General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, US Army, on 2 April 1951.^[4][5] The Western Union Defence Organization had previously carried out Exercise Verity, a 1949 multilateral exercise involving naval air strikes and submarine attacks.

Exercise Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defence of Denmark and Norway from Russian attack in 1952. It was the first major NATO exercise. The exercise was jointly commanded by Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic Admiral Lynde D. McCormick, USN, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Matthew B. Ridgeway, US Army, during the Fall of 1952.

The US, UK, Canada, France, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Netherlands, and Belgium all participated.

Exercises Grand Slam and Longstep were naval exercises held in the Mediterranean Sea during 1952 to practice dislodging an enemy occupying force and amphibious assault. It involved over 170 warships and 700 aircraft under the overall command of Admiral Carney. The overall exercise commander, Admiral Carney summarized the accomplishments of Exercise Grand Slam by stating: "We have demonstrated that the senior commanders of all four powers can successfully take charge of a mixed task force and handle it effectively as a working unit."

The USSR called the exercises "war-like acts" by NATO, with particular reference to the participation of Norway and Denmark, and prepared for its own military maneuvers in the Soviet Zone.^[6][7]

Operation Strikeback

This was a major NATO naval exercise held in 1957, simulating a response to an all-out Soviet attack on NATO. The exercise involved over 200 warships, 650 aircraft, and 75,000 personnel from the United States Navy, the United Kingdom's Royal Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy, the French Navy, the Royal Netherlands Navy, and the Royal Norwegian Navy. As the largest peacetime naval operation up to that time, Operation Strikeback was characterized by military analyst Hanson W. Baldwin of The New York Times as "constituting the strongest striking fleet assembled since World War II".^[8]

Exercise Reforger

If activated, Operation Reforger would have largely consisted of convoys like this one from Operation Earnest Will in 1987, though much larger. While troops could easily fly across the Atlantic, the heavy equipment and armor reinforcements would have to come by sea.

Exercise Reforger (from return of forces to Germany) was an annual exercise conducted, during the Cold War, by NATO. The exercise was intended to ensure that NATO had the ability to quickly deploy forces to West Germany in the event of a conflict with the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO throughout the Cold War in conventional forces, especially armor. Therefore, in the event of a Soviet invasion, in order not to resort to tactical nuclear strikes, NATO forces holding the line against a Warsaw Pact armored spearhead would have to be quickly resupplied and replaced. Most of this support would have come across the Atlantic from the US and Canada.

Reforger was not merely a show of force—in the event of a conflict, it would be the actual plan to strengthen the NATO presence in Europe. In that instance, it would have been referred to as Operation Reforger. Important components in Reforger included the Military Airlift Command, the Military Sealift Command, and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

Seven Days to the River Rhine

A Warsaw Pact invasion would have come via three main paths through Germany

Seven Days to the River Rhine was a top secret military simulation exercise developed in 1979 by the Warsaw Pact. It started with the assumption that NATO would launch a nuclear attack on the Vistula river valley in a first-strike scenario, which would result in as many as two million Polish civilian casualties.^[9] In response, a Soviet counter-strike would be carried out against West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark, with Warsaw Pact forces invading West Germany and aiming to stop at the River Rhine by the seventh day. Other USSR plans stopped only upon reaching the French border on day nine. Individual Warsaw Pact states were only assigned their own subpart of the strategic picture; in this case, the Polish forces were only expected to go as far as Germany. The Seven Days to the Rhine plan envisioned that Poland and Germany would be largely destroyed by nuclear exchanges, and that large numbers of troops would die of radiation sickness. It was estimated that NATO would fire nuclear weapons behind the advancing Soviet lines to cut off their supply lines and thus blunt their advance. While this plan assumed that NATO would use nuclear weapons to push back any Warsaw Pact invasion, it did not include nuclear strikes on France or the United Kingdom. Newspapers speculated when this plan was declassified, that France and the UK were not to be hit in an effort to get them to withhold use of their own nuclear weapons.

Exercise Able Archer

President Ronald Reagan and Soviet double agent Oleg Gordievsky, who later told the west how close the Able Archer 83 exercise had brought the Soviets to ordering a First Strike.

Exercise Able Archer was an annual exercise by the United States military in Europe that practiced command and control procedures, with emphasis on transition from solely conventional operations to chemical, nuclear, and conventional operations during a time of war.

"Able Archer 83" was a five-day North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) command post exercise starting on 7 November 1983, that spanned Western Europe, centered on the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) Headquarters in Casteau, north of the city of Mons. Able Archer exercises simulated a period of conflict escalation, culminating in a coordinated nuclear attack.^[10]

The realistic nature of the 1983 exercise, coupled with deteriorating relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and the anticipated arrival of strategic Pershing II nuclear missiles in Europe, led some members of the Soviet Politburo and military to believe that Able Archer 83 was a ruse of war, obscuring preparations for a genuine nuclear first strike.^{[10][11][12][13]} In response, the Soviets readied their nuclear forces and placed air units in East Germany and Poland on alert.^[14][15] This "1983 war scare" is considered by many historians to be the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.^[16] The threat of nuclear war ended with the conclusion of the exercise on 11 November.^[17][18]

Strategic Defense Initiative

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by US President Ronald Reagan on 23 March 1983.^[19] In the later part of his Presidency, numerous factors (which included watching the 1983 movie The Day After and hearing through a Soviet defector that Able Archer 83 almost triggered a Russian first strike) had turned Ronald Reagan against the concept of winnable nuclear war, and he began to see nuclear weapons as more of a "wild card" than a strategic deterrent. Although he later believed in disarmament treaties slowly blunting the danger of nuclear weaponry by reducing their number and alert status, he also believed a technological solution might allow incoming ICBMs to be shot down, thus making the US invulnerable to a first strike. However the USSR saw the SDI concept as a major threat, since unilateral deployment of the system would allow the US to launch a massive first strike on the Soviet Union without any fear of retaliation.

The SDI concept was to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative.

NATO nuclear sharing

NATO operational plans for a Third World War have involved NATO allies who do not have their own nuclear weapons, using nuclear weapons supplied by the United States as part of a general NATO war plan, under the direction of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.

Of the three nuclear powers in NATO (France, the United Kingdom and the United States), only the United States has provided weapons for nuclear sharing. As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are still hosting US nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.^[20][21] Canada hosted weapons until 1984,^[22] and Greece until 2001.^[20][23] The United Kingdom also received US tactical nuclear weapons such as nuclear artillery and Lance missiles until 1992, despite the UK being a nuclear weapons state in its own right; these were mainly deployed in Germany.

In peace time, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by US airmen though previously some artillery and missile systems were guarded by US Army soldiers; the codes required for detonating them are under American control. In case of war, the weapons are to be mounted on the participating countries' warplanes. The weapons are under custody and control of USAF Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases who work together with the host nation forces.^[20]

As of 2005, 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs of the 480 US nuclear weapons believed to be deployed in Europe fall under the nuclear sharing arrangement.^[24] The weapons are stored within a vault in hardened aircraft shelters, using the USAF WS3 Weapon Storage and Security System. The delivery warplanes used are F-16s and Panavia Tornados.^[25]

Historical close calls

A US Navy HSS-1 Seabat helicopter hovers over Soviet submarine B-59, forced to the surface by US Naval forces in the Caribbean near Cuba. B-59 had a nuclear torpedo on board, three officer keys were required to use it. Only one dissent prevented the submarine from attacking the US fleet nearby, a spark that could have led to a Third World War (October 28–29, 1962)

With the development of the arms race in the 1950s, an apocalyptic war between the United States and the Soviet Union was considered possible, and a number of events have been described as potential triggers for a nuclear conflict.

25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953

The Korean War, a war between two factions trying to control the Korean Peninsula: a communist one supported by China and the USSR, and a capitalist one supported by the UN and the United States. Many people believed that it would escalate into full-scale war between the three superpowers. CBS war correspondent Bill Downs wrote in 1951 that, "To my mind, the answer is: Yes, Korea is the beginning of World War III. The brilliant landings at Inchon and the cooperative efforts of the American armed forces with the United Nations Allies have won us a victory in Korea. But this is only the first battle in a major international struggle which now is engulfing the Far East and the entire world."^[26] He repeated this belief on ABC Evening News while reporting on the USS Pueblo incident in 1968.^[27]

15–28 October 1962

The Cuban Missile Crisis: a confrontation on the stationing of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, in response to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, is considered as having been the closest to a nuclear exchange, which could have precipitated a Third World War. The crisis peaked on 27 October, when a U-2 was shot down over Cuba and another almost intercepted over Siberia, after Curtis LeMay (US Air Force Chief of Staff) had neglected to enforce Presidential orders to suspend all overflights, and a Soviet submarine nearly launched a nuclear-tipped torpedo in response to depth charges (with the launch being prevented by an officer named Vasili Arkhipov). Despite what many believe to be the closest the world has come to a nuclear conflict, throughout the entire standoff, the Doomsday Clock, which is run by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to estimate how close the end of the world, or doomsday, is, with midnight being the apocalypse, stayed at a relatively stable seven minutes to midnight. This has been explained as being due to the brevity of the crisis, since the clock monitored more long term factors such as leadership of countries, conflicts, wars, and political upheavals, as well as societies reactions to said factors. The Bulletin now credits the event for stability in future crises and occasions that could have escalated, mainly due to two major factors. The first, a Washington to Moscow direct telephone line, resulted from the communication trouble between the White House and the Kremlin during the crisis, giving the leaders of the two largest nuclear powers the ability to contact each other in real time, rather than sending written messages that needed to be translated and wired, which had dragged out conversations in which seconds could have potentially prevented a nuclear exchange. The second factor was caused in part to the worldwide reaction to how near the US and USSR came to an exchange during the standoff, as the public began to more closely monitor topics involving nuclear weapons, and therefore rallied support for the cause, is the signing of the 1963 test ban treaty, which has to date been signed by 126 total nations, with the most notable exceptions being France and China, who were both still in the relative beginning stages of their nuclear programs at the time and both sought nuclear capabilities independent of their allies. This treaty prevented the testing of nuclear ordinance that detonated in the atmosphere, limiting testing to below ground and under water, decreasing fallout and effects on the environment, and subsequently caused the Doomsday Clock to decrease by five minutes, to arrive at a total of twelve minutes to midnight. Up until this point, over 1000 nuclear bombs had been detonated, and concerns over both long and short term affects to the planet became increasingly more worrisome to scientists.^[28]

6–25 October 1973

The Yom Kippur War, also known as the Ramadan War, or October War, began with Arab victories. Israel successfully counterattacked. Tensions grew between the US (which supported Israel) and the Soviet Union (which sided with the Arab states). American and Soviet naval forces came close to firing upon each other. Admiral Murphy of the US reckoned the chances of the Soviet squadron attempting a first strike against his fleet at 40 percent. The Pentagon moved Defcon status from 4 to 3.^[29] The superpowers had been pushed to the brink of war, but tensions eased with the ceasefire brought in under UNSC 399.^[30][31]

9 November 1979

The United States made emergency retaliation preparations after NORAD saw on-screen indications that a full-scale Soviet attack had been launched.^[32] No attempt was made to use the "red telephone" hotline to clarify the situation with the USSR and it was not until early-warning radar systems confirmed no such launch had taken place that NORAD realized that a computer system test had caused the display errors. A senator inside the NORAD facility at the time described an atmosphere of absolute panic. A GAO investigation led to the construction of an off-site test facility to prevent similar mistakes.^[33]

26 September 1983

A false alarm occurred on the Soviet nuclear early warning system, showing the launch of American Minuteman ICBMs from bases in the United States. A retaliatory attack was prevented by Stanislav Petrov, an officer of the Soviet Air Defence Forces, who realised the system had simply malfunctioned (which was borne out by later investigations).^[34][35]

2–11 November 1983

During Able Archer 83, a ten-day NATO exercise simulating a period of conflict escalation that culminated in a DEFCON 1 nuclear strike, some members of the Soviet Politburo and armed forces treated the events as a ruse of war concealing a genuine first strike. In response, the military prepared for a coordinated counter-attack by readying nuclear forces and placing air units stationed in the Warsaw Pact states of East Germany and Poland under high alert. However, the state of Soviet preparation for retaliation ceased upon completion of the Able Archer exercises.^[10]

25 January 1995

The Norwegian rocket incident occurred when the radar signature of a Black Brant XII research rocket being jointly launched by Norwegian and US scientists from Andøya Rocket Range was mistaken for a Trident SLBM launch by the Russian Federation's Olenegorsk early warning station. In response, President Boris Yeltsin was summoned and the Cheget nuclear briefcase was activated for the first and only time. However, the high command was soon able to determine that the rocket was not entering Russian airspace, and promptly aborted plans for combat readiness and retaliation. It was retrospectively determined that, while the rocket scientists had informed thirty states including Russia about the test launch, the information had not reached Russian radar technicians.^[36][37]

Extended usage of the term

Cold War

Norman Podhoretz has suggested that the Cold War can be identified as World War III^[38] because it was fought, although by proxy, on a global scale, involving the United States, NATO, the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. Similarly, Eliot Cohen, the director of strategic studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, declared, in The Wall Street Journal, that he considers World War III to be history, writing: "The Cold War was World War III, which reminds us that not all global conflicts entail the movement of multi-million-man armies, or conventional front lines on a map."^[39] On the 24 May 2011 edition of CNBC's Kudlow and Company, host Lawrence Kudlow, discussing a book by former deputy Under-Secretary of Defense Jed Babbin, accepted the view of the Cold War as World War III, adding, "World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V."^[40] However, not everyone accepts this definition of the Cold War as World War III. In his book Secret Weapons of the Cold War, Bill Yenne contends that "[the Cold War] was what occurred between the two 'Superpowers' – the United States and the Soviet Union – in lieu of World War III."^[41]

War on ISIL

On 1 February 2015, Iraq's Prime Minister declared that the War on ISIL was effectively "World War III", due to ISIS' declaration of a Worldwide Caliphate, its aims to conquer the world, and its success in spreading the conflict to multiple countries outside of the Levant region.^[42] In response to the November 2015 Paris attacks, King of Jordan Abdullah II said "We are facing a Third World War [within Islam].^[43] Pope Francis of Vatican City is quoted as saying there was "piecemeal World War III.".^[44]

In his State of the Union Address on 12 January 2016, US president Barack Obama countered: "as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence."^[45]

See also

• Cold War II
• World War III in popular culture

References

1. (English) Jonathan Walker (2013). Operation Unthinkable: The Third World War. The History Press. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-7524-8718-2.
2. British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff, Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040 / 002 (11 August 1945). "Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization'". Department of History, Northeastern University. Archived from the original (online photocopy) on 4 July 2008. Retrieved 28 June 2008.
3. Lord Ismay. "Chapter 3 - The Pace Quickens". NATO the first five years 1949-1954. NATO. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
4. "Chapter 4 - The Pace Quickens". NATO the first five years 1949-1954. NATO. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
5. "X" (July 1947). "The Sources of Soviet Conduct". Foreign Affairs. 25 (4): 575–576. doi:10.2307/20030065. ISSN 0015-7120. JSTOR 20030065.
6. Time, 29 September 1952
7. "NATO Ships Enter Baltic Sea" - Sydney Morning Herald, p. 2
8. Baldwin, Hanson W. (22 September 1957). "100 Fighting Ships in Vast Exercise". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-09-28.
9. Nicholas Watt in Warsaw (2005-11-26). "Poland risks Russia's wrath with Soviet nuclear attack map | World news". The Guardian. Retrieved 2015-03-04.
10. Benjamin B. Fischer (2007-03-17). "A Cold War Conundrum: The 1983 Soviet War Scare". Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 14 January 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-13.
11. Andrew and Gordievsky, Comrade Kryuchkov's Instructions, 85–7.
12. Beth Fischer, Reagan Reversal, 123, 131.
13. Pry, War Scare, 37–9.
14. Oberdorfer, A New Era, 66.
15. SNIE 11–10–84 "Implications of Recent Soviet Military-Political Activities" Central Intelligence Agency, 18 May 1984.
16. John Lewis Gaddis & John Hashimoto. "COLD WAR Chat: Professor John Lewis Gaddis, Historian". Archived from the original on 1 September 2005. Retrieved 2005-12-29.
17. Andrew and Gordievsky, Comrade Kryuchkov’s Instructions, 87–8.
18. Pry, War Scare, 43–4.
19. Federation of American Scientists. Missile Defense Milestones. Accessed 10 March 2006.
20. Malcolm Chalmers & Simon Lunn (March 2010), NATO’s Tactical Nuclear Dilemma, Royal United Services Institute, retrieved 2010-03-16.
21. Der Spiegel: Foreign Minister Wants US Nukes out of Germany (2009-04-10)
22. John Clearwater (1998), Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada's Cold War Arsenal, Dundurn Press Ltd., ISBN 1-55002-299-7, retrieved 2008-11-10
23. Hans M. Kristensen (February 2005), U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe (PDF), Natural Resources Defense Council, p. 26, retrieved 2009-04-02
24. Hans M. Kristensen (February 2005), U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe (PDF), Natural Resources Defense Council, retrieved 2009-04-02
25. Hans M. Kristensen (5 October 2007). "U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe After the Cold War" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
26. Downs, Bill (March 1951). "World War III in Asia?". See Magazine.
27. Downs, Bill (25 January 1968). "The USS Pueblo incident". ABC Evening News with Bob Young. ABC Evening News. Retrieved 8 November 2013.
28. http://thebulletin.org/remembering-cuban-missile-crisis
29. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/the-little-known-us-soviet-confrontation-during-yom-kippur-wa
30. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/07/erol-araf-incalculable-consequences/
31. http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01489-X.html
32. "CBC Digital Archives". CBC.
33. Andrews, Evan. "5 Cold War Close Calls". The History Channel.
34. Hoffman, David (10 February 1999). "I Had A Funny Feeling in My Gut". Washington Post.
35. Shane, Scott. "Cold War's Riskiest Moment". Baltimore Sun, 31 August 2003 (article reprinted as The Nuclear War That Almost Happened in 1983). Archived from the original on 19 August 2006.
36. "January 25, 1995--The Norwegian Rocket Incident". United States European Command. 23 January 2012. Archived from the original on 21 September 2012.
37. Hoffman, David (15 March 1998). "Cold-War Doctrines Refuse to Die". Washington Post Foreign Service.
38. Norman Podhoretz:World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win
39. World War III? | Macleans.ca – Canada – Features. Macleans.ca. Retrieved on 26 December 2011.
40. Right-wing media divided: Is U.S. now in World War III, IV, or V? | Media Matters for America. Mediamatters.org (14 July 2006). Retrieved on 26 December 2011.
41. Yenne, Bill. Secret Weapons of the Cold War. Berkly Book, New York. Published 2005.
42. "Fight against Islamic State is World War 3 - Iraqi foreign minister" Reuters, video
43. "Jordan's King Abdullah: We are facing a Third World War". Jerusalem Post. November 17, 2015. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
44. Marshall Connolly (November 19, 2015). "Pope Francis: World War III has begun". Catholic Online. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
45. Obama, Barak. "2016 State of the Union Address". The White House. government of the United States of America. Retrieved 9 February 2016.

Further reading

• Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, (Simon & Schuster, 1996), ISBN 0-684-84441-9
• Langford, David (1981). War in 2080 : the future of military technology. London: Sphere Books. ISBN 978-0-7221-5393-2.
• John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001), ISBN 978-0393349276
• Pamidi, G.G. (2012). Possibility of a nuclear war in Asia : an Indian perspective. New Delhi: United Service Institution of India : Vij Books India. ISBN 93-81411-51-4.