Then again, world war 3 might break out next year. You can never tell such a thing in advance.
That's what they said about WWI. Direct quote. My observation is that most populations are pretty readily swayed to support a war. And the invisible hand is no match for martial law in organizing resource commitment in a war footing. It's been decades since this happened on a large scale, so I think we've forgotten how truly terrifyingly effective a war footing can be for a major power.
I mean, can you imagine the kind of utter devastation that would result if the United States, as a society, really, and I mean really, decided that Islamic terrorism was an existential threat, and mobilized to fight it on the fully integrated national level comparable to WWII?
If the country were all-in -- spending at the level of the European powers during WWII -- this would mean an expenditure of perhaps $30 trillion per year for three or four years focused on that goal, an intensity which is almost beyond imagining. That's war mobilization in a modern economy. It's hard to conceive because it is, frankly, inconceivable. How would that even work? But possible? Oh, yes.
Why?
Putins daughters live in Europe/US. Same for childer of other Russian top government officials. Same for China. Who will go for total war?
On the brink of the war western military may assassinate the top government officials of the enemy hawk faction using fly-bots or some other kind of high tech minidrones. I have no information on the current capabilities though I've read about some of those being developed.
Asteroid mining will change the incentive structure for total war.
Further AI development will change the incentive structure for total war.
The world becomes less violent with every passing year. Look at the gapminder data.
We will see lots of local conflicts, hunger revolts, sectarian violence, mechs-human battles in Middle East and other futuristic tropes though.