History is often remembered for the great legacies and innovations of man, yet many of these were forged during periods of war and conflict. For all the progress associated with human civilization, history also serves as a reminder that violence has often shaped the international order just as powerfully as peace. Today, the conflicts involving Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, and the tensions between the United States and Iran continue to unfold. It is not surprising that some have begun to ask whether the world is once again drifting toward something larger — a world war. But rather than assuming the worst, the better question would be: “What actually makes a world war?”
How Regional Conflicts Escalate
Large-scale wars like World War I did not immediately escalate into a global conflict as we know it. It initially started as a regional conflict that escalated into a bigger one because of state alliances and miscalculations of leaders and decision-makers. According to Margaret McMillan, a Canadian historian and emeritus professor at the University of Oxford, wars often grow not because they were meticulously planned and mapped out, but rather because they escalate due to factors involving the heads of state, such as misjudgment, miscalculation, or even to preserve their prestige.
Historical Examples of Escalation Avoidance
However, history also demonstrates the opposite. There have been numerous instances wherein conflicts could have escalated into larger-scale wars, but were averted. Particularly during the Cold War, where tensions were at their peak, crises were contained through diplomacy and peaceful dialogue. Perhaps decision-makers were aware of the catastrophic outcome that a war against each other would cause. This establishes that the escalation of war is not immediate or automatic, but is rather reliant on the circumstances at hand.
The Role of Leadership in Conflict
One significant way of understanding conflict is through the ideas of Kenneth Waltz in his “First Level Analysis,” where he argues that individual leaders, their decisions, beliefs, and perceptions, play a major role in shaping international affairs. This means that war may escalate based on the decisions that a single individual or groups of individuals make. The outbreak of the First World War is often viewed as an example wherein leaders believed they could control the situation, only for it to escalate beyond their control. But this also means that the opposite is true. War can be avoided if leaders choose not to engage. If conflict can be caused by human actions and decisions, then the same logic applies to the evasion of such.
Structural Factors: Deterrence and Interdependence
Still, leadership alone is insufficient in explaining why many modern conflicts remain limited. Structures are also major factors. At the height of the Cold War, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms led to the emergence of the Principle of Mutually Assured Destruction, wherein states recognize that direct war would bring mutual devastation. Modern conflict is often shaped by deterrence and proxy wars rather than direct great-power confrontation.
Economic Interdependence as a Restraint
Economic interdependence is another form of restraint. In this globalized and interconnected era of the world, states rely on each other for resources, trade, and supply chains. A war affecting the Middle East would not affect the region alone, but it will — and it has — affected the entire world. Rising prices of fuel and the dwindling supply of it have left countries in a state of panic and emergency. This is the concept of economic interdependence, wherein states find it more costly to engage in war, which is why, in game theory, states often avoid escalation in order to avoid the worst possible outcome, consistent with the concept of Nash Equilibrium.
Conclusion: What Makes a World War?
So, what makes a world war? It is not the mere presence of multiple interstate conflicts at once. Rather, a world war requires a systemic chain reaction — where alliances, decisions, and miscalculations push major powers into direct confrontation and force smaller states to engage following the principle of chain-ganging. Today, while tensions remain prevalent and major powers are engaged in ongoing tensions, there are also strong regimes and institutions that push states towards restraint and peaceful coexistence. History is a reminder that war is possible, but it also serves as proof that it is not inevitable.
