What would World War III look like?

Military experts gamed out for Newsweek how they see a potential World War III starting, including key players and the factors to watch as the world edges closer to the potential for major conflict.

European nations have started to quietly lay down the foundations for possible war with Russia as NATO prepares for several scenarios: an all-out shooting war, and the more likely but less obvious scenario that uses well-worn techniques designed to undermine stability among member states.

“Russia is preparing for a war with the West,” Bruno Kahl, the head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, said bluntly in late November.

However, Russia is not the sole possible instigator of a possible global conflict. Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery and former acting Secretary of Defense for Policy James Anderson told Newsweek that any major war will almost certainly result from the tensions between five major players: Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and the United States.

How that plays out depends on a number of factors, such as where the conflict starts and what the impetus is, which would shape the way all major actors and allies respond to whatever acts as the spark.

So how could World War III start?

Any major conflict could be triggered due to regional tensions over any number of flashpoint topics – chief among them concerns that China may eventually carry out an invasion of Taiwan, that Russia may extend its ambitions beyond Ukraine or that North Korea or Iran initiate a conflict with a regional rival.

Anderson highlighted the Baltics or Poland as potential flashpoints that Russia could ignite with NATOm which would effectively extend the Ukrainian conflict while also widening its scope to a true global “hot” war.

While the Middle East has seen much greater turmoil – from Oct. 7 and Israel’s war on Iranian proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, to Syrian rebels toppling the 50-year Assad regime – Anderson remained wary that Israel’s actions might lead to wider regional conflict.

“I don’t think Israel would be that reckless,” Anderson said. “I think they are absolutely justified in responding to Iranian missile attacks the way they did … beyond that, I don’t see a major danger in that particular case.”

“Likewise, in the Indo Pacific, I think the leaders in Taipei are savvy enough to not do something like suddenly declare their independence, which would be a red line for China,” he added.

Montgomery, the retired rear admiral, concurred that Russia would prove the most likely trigger for a wider war, noting that Moscow has its hand in smaller conflicts in countries such as Georgia and Serbia.

“He’s [Putin’s] been pushing the envelope with Serbia … and the Bosnians and Republic Srpska (the Serbian part of Bosnia), pushing hard for a conflict there,” Montgomery said.

“He’s also leaned in hard on Georgia and squeezed the Georgian governing party to give up more and more of its EU identity, to the point where within the last week, they’ve announced they’re no longer pursuing the EU for four more years.”

Montgomery concluded that Putin is much less afraid to take risks, which increases the “likelihood of a crisis, if he if he misjudges things, or if people overreact to him and it escalates rapidly, that’s probably the number one risk area.”

He labeled Iran the second-most likely flashpoint, citing the various proxy groups and militant groups that Iran has armed, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in addition to Tehran’s new willingness to make direct attacks on Israel.

What countries could be involved in a World War III?

One of the consistent points of agreement and concern among the strategists was that any conflict will likely see cooperation between the axis of “malevolent actors” that includes Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

Beijing, Pyongyang and Tehran have already shown their cooperation in supporting Russia with its invasion of Ukraine: North Korea has deployed troops to the frontlines after already supplying Moscow with munitions as its supplies dwindled after two years of intense fighting. Iran has supplied Russia with drones, and China has bought Russian energy to keep its economy from collapsing from Western sanctions.

Russia and China are also members of two trade groups — the BRICS economic bloc and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — which has increased economic ties between the two nations.

“Ukraine is not fighting one country. Ukraine is fighting four countries: They’re fighting Iranian [drones] every night. They’re fighting North Korean artillery … there’s North Korean troops, and that seems like the biggest deal,” Montgomery said.

“Both Iran and North Korea give some ballistic missiles or ballistic missile parts, and China is completely backstopping the Russian economy, so that the Russian economy is still humming along, draining natural resources, oil and natural gas, and spending 40 percent of government funds on the Ministry of Defense,” he added.

In addition to those major players, both experts noted that importance of NATO and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), which consists of Australia, India, Japan and the United States.

“More precisely, it would involve the big players – Germany, France, UK, Italy, Poland, and, depending where the attack comes, probably the Baltics, would be the most heavily involved as well,” Anderson said.

“In terms of involvement in the Indo Pacific for scenarios involving Taiwan, Japan almost certainly would be involved to some extent since we have so many bases there,” he added. “Australia has signaled that they likely would be supportive of the United States as well if China invaded Taiwan.”

“One could imagine states like Indonesia and Malaysia getting involved given their geographic location … the Philippines might get drawn in as well in some capacity if the Chinese were to target our treaty ally.”

“In a [North] Korean scenario may escalate to involve Japan since Pyongyang may lash out at U.S. bases there,” Anderson said, noting that the U.S. has 28,000 troops on the Korean peninsula.

Two notable major powers, however, would ultimately prove “disappointing” in a WWIII scenario, according to Montgomery: India, which Montgomery said would “do the minimum” and be “looking out for India,” and Turkey, which will have “non-committal to obstructionist” participation in any such conflict.

Turkey especially “won’t risk doing something that would cause Israel to punish them, or doing something to cause the U.S. to punish them … but they will be, generally, a destabilizing force,” he said.

Would the US institute a draft for World War III?

In the event that a major-powers conflict broke out, it would likely depend on the length and intensity of the war.

“If there’s a protracted conflict on a global scale, I think it’s likely that a draft would be reinstituted,” Anderson said, stressing the “protracted” nature of the conflict to introduce a new draft, meaning one conflict that lasts for many months or years.

Montgomery agreed that a draft would only occur in a protracted conflict lasting for years, arguing that the U.S. military “is sized for the force that we can handle right now.”

“Do I think we’ll be opening up the enlistment to get replacement soldiers? Yes, but I don’t think that’s going to necessitate a draft in the same way,” Montgomery said. “If something extends over two, three, four years, then, yes, but if is one year or less, then I don’t think a draft is a solution.”

Where is the safest place to be if World War III starts?

Due to the widespread nature of a global conflict, few places will be entirely safe especially if a protracted conflict pushes the major powers to start fighting over resources, such as Venezuelan oil or precious earth metals found in some parts of Africa.

Until that point, while nowhere will be “truly safe,” safer places would remain locations across the Global South, according to both experts.

Anderson went a step further, however, and suggested that staying far from military installations and key infrastructure targets, such as large cities, would be the best strategy.

“In the event of World War III, one’s going to be safer in rural Oklahoma than in and around New York City,” Anderson said, while noting that some locations in the Mountain West that might seem protected also host strategically important military installations like nuclear bunkers.

“There’s certainly plenty of mountains and rural areas that would be safer than being adjacent to major military bases or major infrastructure in the United States, which generally involves cities,” Anderson said.

How long would it take to recover from nuclear war?

The most tenuous part of a possible World War III is the potential that the conflict escalates to a nuclear detonation. Common belief is that World War III would necessitate nuclear conflict, but both experts advised that nuclear weapons would not see immediate usage, and, even if deployed, would more likely involve tactical weapons that would limit their impact.

The experts pointed to Russia’s repeated threats to use nukes but reluctance to take steps towards actually deploying the weapons as evidence that major powers remain aware of the full cost of crossing such a red line. Putin’s nuclear threats in Ukraine have, at least thus far, been “bluffs,” Anderson said.

“In the context of World War III, nuclear weapons probably would be in the later stages, [used] by countries that are feeling desperate, that sense their existence is at risk and they had no other options,” Anderson said.

Montgomery added that any potential U.S. nuclear weapon use would likely occur as “a response” rather than a first strike.

“I just don’t think we’d be first … then that question comes, when would China or Russia use them again? Vladimir Putin has shown the most risk taking of all the leaders we’ve mentioned,” Montgomery said.

Both experts concurred that how long it would take to recover from any conflict would “completely depend on the extent of usage: Massive usage, massive time; limited usage, you know, tactical nuclear weapons, only limited time.”

Update, 12/9/24 at 12:42 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with some edits to quotes for clarification.