Jul 10, 2025, 3:00 AM ETInterview, Podcast

WW3 Threat Assessment: World War III Has Quietly Started!

The panelists assert that the early stages of World War III are already underway, though the conflict manifests differently than previous global wars.
Conflict zones globally have increased by 66% over the last three years, with 59 states erupting in war since 2023, a record high since 1946.
World military spending rose approximately 10% year-over-year to a record high, marking a decade of uninterrupted growth.
There are now 300,000 NATO troops globally on 30-day high-alert readiness.
A December 2024 Atlantic Council survey of 400 global strategists revealed:
- 65% believe China will invade Taiwan by force within the next 10 years.
- 40% predict a global world war within the next decade.
- 50% believe nuclear weapons will be used within the next 10 years.
- 45% anticipate a direct fight between Russia and NATO within the next 10 years.

Proxy War: Defined as wealthy nation-states funding, training, and arming conflicts in less wealthy states to reduce the capabilities of a primary target without risking their own troops or civilians; examples cited include Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Iran, and Libya.
Information Warfare: Nations can now destabilize governments or societies using server farms and small teams of operators from thousands of miles away, often described as "warfare on the cheap."
Cyber and Digital Threats: The shift from kinetic warfare (physical bombs, tanks) to non-kinetic methods involves weaponized information and digital tools to cause societal division.
AI-Driven Weapons: Concerns are raised regarding autonomous drones utilizing AI processors (e.g., NVIDIA) capable of making targeting decisions without human feedback, potentially integrated with tactical nuclear or radiological payloads.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons: While the US does not openly deploy tactical nukes, the panel discusses the theoretical and historical risks of using low-yield warheads (e.g., 50-pound backpack bombs) against military targets, which could escalate to strategic annihilation.

Iran-Israel Conflict: The panel argues that the US supports Israel as a proxy to degrade Iran, as direct US involvement in the region would be politically and militarily costly for Washington.
Nuclear Threshold: Iran has enriched uranium to 60% (weapons territory begins at >20% for dirty bombs, 90% for weapons); if Iran weaponizes, Saudi Arabia has vowed to pursue its own nuclear program.
Cognitive Dissonance: Leaders like Trump, Netanyahu, and Khamenei are described as doubling down on false beliefs to maintain credibility, creating a risk of aggressive action based on "what is right" rather than intelligence.
Intelligence Failures: The US and Israel are criticized for missing the October 7th Hamas attacks and the 1979 Iranian Revolution due to bureaucratic silos and the failure to interpret conflicting data streams.
North Korea Analogy: North Korea is cited as a model of a state that survives solely through nuclear deterrence, incentivizing other nations (like Iran) to seek the bomb to avoid regime collapse.

US Launch Procedures: The US President holds sole launch authority using authentication codes carried in "The Football"; missile crews execute orders without knowing the specific targets until a secondary arming code is manually inserted.
Russian "Dead Hand": An automated Soviet-era system exists that can trigger a full nuclear retaliation even if the command structure is decapitated, based on ground sensors detecting a strike.
Rehearsal Frequency: Nuclear subforce commanders confirm that launch drills are conducted three times daily to ensure readiness for the 7-minute decision window between satellite detection and impact (approx. 26-33 minutes travel time).
Misinformation Risk: Generative AI and viral deepfakes pose a critical threat, as decision-makers could act on fabricated evidence of an attack within the narrow decision timeframe.
Probability of Detonation: Andrew Bacevich estimates a 30% chance of a nuclear detonation in our lifetime, up from 15-20% a year prior, driven by authoritarianism and transnational threats.

Andrew Bacevich: Plans to leave the United States by 2026 to raise his children as global citizens, believing the US is declining and polarized; he intends to change his appearance to avoid identification.
Annie Jacobsen: Highlights New Zealand and parts of Australia as potential safe zones for nuclear winter survivors, noting that billionaires have bunkers there; she advocates for diplomacy and engaging religious leaders to reduce tensions.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells: Proposes teaching "civic literacy" and media manipulation tactics to children (including simulating troll campaigns) to build immunity against misinformation and disinformation.
Annie's Personal Strategy: Recommends limiting screen time, engaging with nature, and seeking diverse information sources to maintain perspective.
Benjamin's Personal Strategy: Urges citizens to stay curious, question authority, and engage in local civic activities to prevent apathy.
Andrew's Personal Strategy: Advises strict diligence regarding information sources and monitoring what children consume on screens.

Economic War: A future conflict may be triggered by trade wars, specifically China banning the export of rare earth minerals essential for microchips and batteries, rather than immediate kinetic invasion.
Taiwan Scenario: China may seek to take Taiwan administratively or via economic strangulation (shipping lane blockades) rather than a full-scale amphibious invasion, exploiting Western fatigue and distraction.
Global Safety Zones: The panel concludes that in a full-scale nuclear exchange, South America, Africa, and parts of Australia/New Zealand are the most likely to survive, though the resulting nuclear winter would still cause global starvation.
Extinction Risk: While a total human extinction event is deemed unlikely, a "near-extinction" scenario leading to a collapse of civilization and a return to warlordism is considered a high probability.
Diplomacy: The only hopeful path forward is identified as renewed diplomatic dialogue between nuclear powers, potentially spurred by recognizing that nuclear war "cannot be won and must never be fought."