Are we really heading toward a world war?

Nuclear threats, increased use of hypersonic missiles, drones, AI, and cognitive weapons point toward the path of a total conflagration

Photos and Images Gessen& Gessen

Are we standing on the edge of a global abyss?

Following the two world wars of the 20th century, humanity has lived under the assumption that the “balance of terror” —the mutual capacity for total destruction among nuclear powers— would deter any new global-scale conflicts. However, that balance has become increasingly unstable and ambiguous. Emerging geostrategic tensions, hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, cyberconflict, the rise of powers like China, Russia’s war on Ukraine, and the erosion of international treaties have multiplied the risk factors.

As scholars like John Mearsheimer (2014) and Graham Allison (2017) have warned, the world is entering a new cycle of systemic competition reminiscent of the lead-up to World War I. But unlike in 1914, today’s conflicts could escalate much faster, with more lethal weapons and more diverse actors, including non-state networks and autonomous systems.

Short-term global war scenarios (2025–2035)

The scenarios described below have been assessed based on their estimated probability, potential for escalation, and likelihood of involving multiple global powers. The probabilities are based on recent geopolitical analyses consistent with military indicators from the RAND Corporation, the 2024 yearbook of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the 2025 reports of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and current observable conflict dynamics.

Indo-pacific scenario: China vs. United States and allies

According to current strategic analyses and projections, there is a 30% chance that this scenario could materialize between 2025 and 2035. This estimate is based on military buildup, political declarations, historical precedents, existing alliances, strategic geopolitics, and the recent behavior of the involved actors. The trigger would be a Chinese invasion or naval blockade of Taiwan. According to multiple think tanks and war games, this is considered the most plausible high-intensity conflict scenario of the decade. The militarization of islands in the South China Sea, Xi Jinping’s declared doctrine of “reunification,” and the strengthening of cooperation among the United States, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India all increase the likelihood of confrontation.

An attack on Taiwan could provoke an allied response, led by the U.S., involving naval blockades, cyber sabotage, and a battle for control of satellite space. The use of AI and autonomous drones would be massive. The war would unfold on multiple levels: economic, digital, and military.

Eurasian scenario: Russia vs. NATO

The probability of an escalation of the war in Ukraine is estimated at 25%. The potential trigger would be a military incident that escalates the current war between Ukraine and Russia, or NATO’s military expansion into Ukraine or another country such as Moldova.

Since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has intensified its defensive and offensive military doctrine, including the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and Belarus. In response, NATO has reinforced its eastern flank by permanently deploying troops, advanced weaponry, air defense systems, and multinational brigades in countries such as Poland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Since 2022, the Atlantic Alliance has increased joint military exercises, strengthened shared intelligence systems, and raised its alert level in the eastern region.

While this reinforcement aims to deter aggression, it also reveals a strategic reality: the Eastern European front has once again become a critical tension zone, reminiscent of the Cold War era. In this context, a border military incident —even accidental— or a hybrid attack attributed to Russia (such as sabotage of critical infrastructure, cyberattacks, or actions by unmarked militias) against any of the Baltic countries could activate Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. This cornerstone of NATO establishes that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all and authorizes a collective response. Such a development would trigger immediate regional escalation, potentially drawing the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other Middle Eastern allies into direct intervention, not only defensively, but possibly offensively, if Russian operations persist.

Given the saturated environment of propaganda, disinformation, and covert operations, the risk of miscalculations, false attributions, or disproportionate reactions is high. A misunderstood spark in Kaliningrad, the Suwałki Gap, or the Estonian-Russian border could rapidly ignite a large-scale European military conflagration, drawing in global actors and compromising continental stability. In fact, the considerable increase in military budgets across European countries demonstrates that they are preparing for a potential war with Russia.

Middle East scenario: Iran, Israel, and global powers

The estimated probability of a confrontation in the Middle East is 20%, with immediate triggers being another Israeli airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities or a new direct attack by Iran against Israel.

Israel’s political and military leadership has maintained a clear and consistent non-reversible strategy: it will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, even if that implies assuming the cost of a regional war. The collapse of the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) has weakened the international inspection regime, and as a result, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can no longer verify nuclear activity in either Iran or Israel. Additionally, Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear arsenal, though it is widely believed to possess atomic bombs, a perception that heightens Tehran’s sense of strategic threat.

Iran's ideological and political background is equally concerning. Its anti-Israeli rhetoric, entrenched since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, perpetuates a climate of permanent confrontation. Furthermore, Iran’s expanding influence through militias and allies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon (Hezbollah), and Yemen (Houthis) has consolidated a regional axis capable of coordinated responses to any Israeli attack.

A preventive Israeli strike could trigger a multi-front retaliation from Tehran and its network of non-state actors, opening several simultaneous war fronts. In turn, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or even India could be dragged into escalation, whether due to security commitments, strategic interests, or the need to protect their borders and vital energy routes.

Russia, China, or North Korea would likely avoid direct involvement but could intervene indirectly through logistical, diplomatic, or cyber support, prolonging and complicating the conflict. In this scenario, the risk of an open regional war with global repercussions is real, as it would impact international oil prices, the stability of key Western allies, and the strategic balance in the Persian Gulf.

Pakistan vs. Israel if the latter attacks Iran

As of early 2025, Pakistan possessed approximately 170 nuclear weapons, with projections suggesting that number could rise to around 200 by the end of the year. Other institutions, such as SIPRI, estimate the arsenal to range between 100 and 120 nuclear warheads.

This scenario emerged publicly following a statement by Iranian Army General and National Security Council member Mohsen Rezaei, who declared: “Pakistan has assured us that if Israel uses a nuclear bomb against Iran, it will retaliate with a nuclear bomb against Israel.” This declaration underscores the potential for a direct nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and Israel, as both countries possess these types of weapons.

Although speculative and dependent on extreme circumstances —such as Israel launching a nuclear strike on Iran— the implications of such a conflict would be catastrophic, given the densely populated urban centers and religious-political symbolism at stake. The scenario adds another layer of complexity and volatility to the broader Middle East dynamic, especially considering the fragile balance of power and the involvement of multiple actors with differing agendas and alliances.

Global decentralized scenario: Multipolar hybrid war

This scenario carries an estimated 15% probability, lower than the others, yet potentially more devastating due to its unpredictable and nonlinear nature. The trigger could be a global cyber collapse or the intentional release of an artificial pandemic engineered for high transmissibility and lethality.

In such a case, war would have no defined fronts. The boundary between peace and conflict would blur entirely. Both state and non-state actors would launch large-scale cyberattacks capable of disabling power grids, banking systems, air traffic control centers, and global supply chains. These attacks would remain invisible until their effects manifest: prolonged blackouts, financial market crashes, and disruption of essential services such as potable water and telecommunications.

Simultaneously, next-generation biological weapons —genetically modified viruses— could be deployed to weaken populations and destabilize entire economies. Combined with massive disinformation operations, these weapons would manipulate public perception, spreading chaos, fear, and distrust toward institutions.

A critical element in this scenario is the risk associated with military automation and artificial intelligence. Autonomous defense or attack algorithms operating without effective human oversight could miscalculate, misinterpret signals, or escalate responses automatically, unleashing a global crisis with no clearly identifiable aggressor.

This type of hybrid, decentralized warfare presents an unprecedented challenge. There would be no physical territories to conquer, no traditional armies. The battles would unfold across digital systems, clandestine laboratories, and public narratives. The global impact could surpass that of any conventional war: disabling just a few critical nodes in the planet’s infrastructure could paralyze daily life worldwide.

While this may sound exaggerated, historian Yuval Noah Harari warns us in 21 Lessons for the 21st Century: "Are we on the brink of a new world war? History makes no allowances. If the future of humanity is decided in our absence —because we're too busy feeding and clothing our children— neither we nor they will be spared the consequences. This is deeply unfair, but who said history is fair?"

We are also warned by the 2023 Global Risks Report, which explores the gravest threats we may face in the coming decade, and by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).

Other scenarios involving the three superpowers

Additional possible flashpoints include conflicts between India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, collapses in parts of Africa or Latin America triggering external interventions, and the behavior of major powers seeking to expand their “vital space”, a reference to the historical tendency of powerful states to extend their geopolitical, economic, or territorial influence in order to ensure their security, access to resources, and strategic projection, as Nazi Germany once did.

Today, China seeks to expand its presence in the South China Sea and project influence into Africa and Latin America. Russia aims to reassert control over former Soviet territories. More recently, the United States has hinted at a renewed strategic interest in expanding its presence and influence —as well as increasing its capacity to veto key decisions— in regions such as Greenland and Panama, both of which carry high geopolitical value.

The U.S. maintains a vast network of alliances and military bases across strategic regions in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, signaling that superpower rivalry is no longer confined to traditional Cold War theaters but is expanding to new geographic and technological domains.

A peaceful region at risk?

Latin America has historically experienced fewer interstate wars than other parts of the world. Armed conflicts between nations have been rare. However, the relative absence of traditional warfare does not mean the region is free of violence. On the contrary, it is currently one of the most violent areas on the planet in terms of homicides, organized crime, drug trafficking, and unconventional social conflicts.

As climate, political, and economic crises intensify —and as state structures weaken or fragment— the risk of both internal and transnational armed conflicts increases. Hybrid scenarios involving organized crime, insurgency, state collapse, and confrontations between governments and armed non-state actors are becoming more likely.

Countries at Risk of Conflict

Mexico

Risk type: “Criminal war” among drug cartels with paramilitary spillovers and a high likelihood of U.S. intervention.

Causes: The enormous territorial and economic power of the cartels, and their deep infiltration into state structures. Armed clashes between security forces and criminal groups with paramilitary firepower have escalated. One emerging scenario involves the loss of national control over regions in states like Guerrero, Michoacán, Zacatecas, or Sinaloa, leading to territorial fragmentation and potential social conflict with political implications if the governance crisis worsens.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly labeled Mexican cartels as “terrorists” and suggested the use of “lethal force”, even without the consent of the Mexican government. In 2023 and 2024, Republican leaders officially proposed designating cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), which would legally enable limited military intervention under U.S. anti-terrorism law. Trump has already signed such a decree.

The potential scenario includes cross-border special operations to capture or eliminate cartel leaders. These would be targeted interventions against production or trafficking facilities, or unilateral or joint actions with allied forces in the event of partial state collapse in certain regions. Immediate consequences would include the severance of diplomatic ties with Mexico, the possible emergence of nationalist insurgencies, violent cartel retaliation, and internal polarization within the U.S. between supporters and opponents of such intervention.

Venezuela

Risk types: External intervention, cross-border conflict, or internal upheaval.

Causes: A prolonged humanitarian crisis and the potential for institutional collapse. The presence of armed militias and colectivos, along with foreign guerrilla groups such as the ELN and dissident factions of the FARC, increases the risk of eventual civil-military confrontations. Additionally, the territorial dispute over the Essequibo region —in the west of Venezuela along the border with Guyana— could escalate into a military occupation by Venezuela. This, in turn, might prompt U.S. and U.K. support for the Guyanese government, creating a conflict of international proportions.

Other scenarios include a sudden outbreak of internal violence in the event of a major political rupture or forced transition, as well as external intervention by other countries if an extreme regional or migratory overflow occurs. The fragile internal balance, compounded by international sanctions and regional isolation, makes Venezuela a high-risk country for instability that could rapidly escalate.

Greenland

 

In the context of the geopolitical race for the Arctic, former President Donald Trump publicly proposed “buying Greenland” from Denmark in 2019. Now, in a potential second term, he appears intent on making that idea a reality, despite clear rejections from both Greenland and Denmark. Greenland is crucial for controlling Arctic maritime routes and is rich in strategic resources, including rare earth minerals.

The United States already operates a strategic air base in Thule, Greenland. While this scenario remains improbable, it is nonetheless strategically significant. The U.S. military presence at the base has reportedly increased, even without Denmark’s explicit approval. Trump has continued to assert that the U.S. should “acquire” Greenland, framing it as a national security priority.

This renewed interest has been documented by international media outlets and research centers, which have highlighted Trump’s statements and the Pentagon’s quiet moves to strengthen Arctic readiness. Although no formal action has been taken, the idea remains in the background of U.S. strategic planning.

Panama

A growing dispute over control of the Panama Canal has resurfaced between Panama and the United States. The key historical precedent is the 1989 U.S. military intervention to capture Manuel Noriega, as well as the longstanding U.S. military presence in Panama, which ended in 1999 when the Canal was officially handed over.

In the current geopolitical climate, the scenario envisions a temporary reoccupation of the Canal by the U.S. government, should it claim threats of sabotage, terrorism, or hostile foreign influence, particularly from China. This would be framed as a preventive intervention, in case a rival power attempts to exert indirect control over the Canal through investments or military partnerships.

This is not merely rhetorical posturing. Trump has repeatedly declared that the U.S. should “reclaim control of the Panama Canal”. In his first presidential campaign and in speeches since, he has emphasized its importance for U.S. economic security. In Congress, he announced that his administration would “take back the Canal” and his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, reportedly instructed the Pentagon to prepare “credible military options” to guarantee unrestricted military and commercial access.

In response, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino firmly rejected any notion of foreign control, declaring the Canal an “inalienable national heritage” and warning that any intervention would be unacceptable. For now, the Pentagon’s effective strategy appears to focus on cooperation with Panama and on containing Chinese influence through diplomacy and strategic partnerships.

Colombia

Bogota has endured a long-standing internal war, now entering a new phase of regionalized conflict.

Causes: After the 2016 Peace Agreement, the armed conflict was reconfigured. However, FARC dissident groups, the ELN, and newly formed narco-paramilitary bands remain active. There are territories without effective state control, with armed groups operating in both rural and border zones, especially along the frontier with Venezuela.

The most plausible scenario involves an escalation of localized conflicts with potential spillover into neighboring countries, such as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Brazil, particularly in jungle areas and drug production or trafficking corridors.

During the administration of Gustavo Petro, through at least August 2025, no major confrontation is expected with Venezuela, Brazil, or the United States. However, the fragmentation of the conflict and the persistence of armed actors make Colombia a country under constant risk of hybrid violence that could transcend borders under certain conditions.

Haiti under gang control

Risk type: Total state collapse and urban armed conflict.

Causes: A power vacuum caused by the absence of effective government. Armed gangs now control large portions of Port-au-Prince, the capital, as well as other areas across the country. These groups operate with impunity, fueled by extreme poverty, food insecurity, and repeated climate-related disasters.

The most likely scenario involves an international intervention under the auspices of the United Nations or a regional coalition of states, aiming to restore order and humanitarian access. Meanwhile, the country is experiencing a deepening urban war between rival factions vying for territorial control.

The humanitarian crisis, combined with armed gang violence and political instability, has transformed Haiti into one of the most fragile states in the Western Hemisphere. Without timely international coordination, the situation could further deteriorate into widespread anarchy, mass displacement, and regional destabilization.

Wars in Latin America?

While a conventional interstate war in Latin America remains unlikely, the region is increasingly vulnerable to the intensification of hybrid armed conflicts, involving organized crime, irregular insurgencies, institutional collapse, and clashes between states and armed non-state actors. The key to preventing war does not lie solely in international diplomacy but in rebuilding internal social contracts, strengthening democratic governance, and cutting ties between political power and illegal economies. Without this internal stabilization, external pressures and internal fragmentation could lead to new forms of violent confrontation.

Next-Generation warfare: Two sub-scenarios

1. World war without tactical nuclear weapons

The evolution of military technology has reached a point where the battlefield would be nearly unrecognizable. Hypersonic weapons, capable of reaching speeds up to Mach 10, would render traditional defense systems practically useless. Artificial intelligence systems and swarms of autonomous drones would carry out combat operations with minimal human intervention, while cyberweapons and satellite-based attacks could shut down the internet, disable GPS, paralyze banking systems, and plunge entire energy grids into darkness.

Fronts would no longer be limited to geographic territory, they would open simultaneously in outer space, cyberspace, and urban centers. While one country fights within its cities to protect critical infrastructure, another might be defending its digital networks from a massive cyberattack designed to cripple its economy. Urban guerrilla forces, coordinated via AI, would fight for control over smart cities, targeting data centers, transportation systems, and power plants.

Another decisive front would be “cognitive warfare” in which mass manipulation through social networks and false narratives would erode national cohesion, weakening governments from within without firing a single shot.

The humanitarian and geopolitical consequences would be catastrophic. Millions would be displaced from collapsed cities; global supply chains would be interrupted; and the world economy could face a systemic collapse. Political fragmentation and power vacuums might give rise to new forms of authoritarianism, or even the dissolution of state structures in certain nations, while rival powers scramble to consolidate spheres of influence amid the chaos.

2. World war with tactical nuclear weapons

In this scenario, all the advanced technologies described above would still apply: hypersonic missiles, AI systems, autonomous drones, satellite warfare, cyberattacks, and cognitive operations. However, it would also include the limited but devastating use of tactical nuclear weapons ranging from 5 to 20 kilotons, specifically designed to destroy medium-sized cities, military bases, or concentrated troop deployments.

Such weapons would be used on specific fronts, with likely flashpoints in Eastern Europe (the Polish-Ukrainian border), the Indo-Pacific (especially around Taiwan or the South China Sea), or the Middle East, as outlined in U.S. Department of Defense strategic documents.

The strategic goal behind such detonations would be to “escalate to de-escalate”, that is, to force the adversary to back down or negotiate by demonstrating a willingness to inflict limited but unacceptable damage. However, the perception of an existential threat could easily trigger rapid escalation into total nuclear war.

Battlefronts would simultaneously be territorial and technological, combining tactical nuclear strikes on critical targets with cyber warfare, satellite attacks, mass psychological manipulation, and autonomous drone operations. Cities would become primary targets, and the partial destruction of entire metropolitan areas could result in millions of displaced persons, radiation-induced epidemics, and the collapse of healthcare systems.

Even in a so-called “limited” use, the humanitarian consequences would be disproportionate: hundreds of thousands of immediate deaths, long-lasting environmental radiation, global food crises due to impacts on supply chains and energy markets, and profound political instability.

Geopolitically, the use of tactical nukes would likely shatter the global non-proliferation regime, prompting medium-sized powers to develop their own nuclear arsenals to avoid being left defenseless. The postwar world would be more unstable than ever, marked by broken alliances, new arms races, and vast uninhabitable zones across the planet.

It is no coincidence that the Doomsday Clock now reads 89 seconds to midnight, closer than ever before.

Is this scenario naive?

Not at all. Many of the world's leading think tanks believe such events could actually happen. Just consider a recent incident involving two top leaders who exchanged dangerously irrational nuclear threats, and you’ll understand how close we already are to the edge.

Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and current Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, recently stated that every new ultimatum issued by the U.S. president against Russia represents “a threat and a step toward war.” He warned that Moscow possesses nuclear capabilities as a last-resort response.

In reaction, President Donald Trump announced that he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in “appropriate regions” near Russia, as a precautionary measure against what he called Medvedev’s “false and inflammatory” remarks.

British media and major international news agencies agreed that this act marked a serious escalation in the confrontation between the two nuclear powers. It also revealed a deeply concerning trend: the word “nuclear” is being mentioned with increasing frequency, not as a deterrent, but as a threat.

The edge of history

The possibility of a world war is not merely a matter of armed forces or strategic alliances. At its core, it reflects the state of humanity’s consciousness and culture, our deepest anxieties, and the narratives we choose to believe. The real danger lies not only in the destructive power of the weapons we possess, but in the decisions we make under pressure, and in how easily we come to accept confrontation and fear as inevitable. As a species, we now stand at a perilous threshold: a world that is irrationally over-militarized, hyper-digitalized, and emotionally fractured, where a single miscalculation, a flawed algorithm, or a leader blinded by arrogance could trigger a chain of events that no one can stop.

Avoiding the abyss requires us to rethink collective security, not as a zero-sum game in which one’s victory means another’s defeat, but as a shared survival effort. It demands a renewed pact that acknowledges all of humanity is in the same boat. Hypersonic missiles, cyberweapons, and tactical nukes are not just reflections of our technological prowess, they are also a test of our ethical and political maturity. We still have time. But with each day that passes without rebuilding trust, without strengthening institutions, without reclaiming a shared sense of purpose, the line between peace and collapse grows thinner. It’s up to us. Every word we speak, every vote we cast, every choice we make can tip the balance. History is not yet written. We can still choose between the script of distrust and fear… or dare to imagine a different future, one where cooperation proves stronger than confrontation. Because if history teaches us anything, it’s this: empires fall, weapons age, maps change —but life— our lives and those of the people we love, is the only truly irreplaceable thing. This is the moment to act with clarity and with courage. If we don’t, tomorrow may be too late...

And meanwhile, what is the UN doing?... We will explore that question in a future piece.

If you’d like to share your opinion or contact us, you can write to us at: psicologosgessen@hotmail.com… May the Universal Divine Providence be with us all.

Vladimir Gessen, Psychologist.