Oscar Madison and World War III

September 13th, 2025

Walter Matthau was a fantastic actor, particularly exemplified by his brilliant performance as Oscar Madison in “The Odd Couple.” But there is another role for which he should be remembered, one that stands in stark contrast to the messy Oscar Madison: in a movie we all need to watch from time to time: “Fail Safe,” where he plays Dr. Groetesche, the President’s personal advisor, particularly focused on all things nuclear.

His character advocates for a massive nuclear strike after a computer error sends a flight of six aircraft head towards the Soviet Union. Now, strangely, we seem to have landed on the other side of the puzzle: arm-chair strategists talk of fighting Russia and China as if there were no nuclear weapons to worry about… As if we could fight another World War II, thousands of ships, tens of thousands of airplanes, but no nuclear weapons.

In that light, a little while ago a really smart friend of mine asked a very disturbing question: Are we already involved in another world war? Has the next World War already begun and we haven't recognized it yet?

I sat down to think about that and this thought occurred: Did World War II actually happen? No, I haven’t gone off the deep end. Rather, it has been suggested by certain historians that WWII really was just part of the First World War; it was all, like the “Hundred years War” and the “30 years War" one long, very costly, very complex war, that saw countries rise and fall and rise again, leadership changes, etc., but in key respects, best understood as a huge, complex, integrated war. And while we’re at it, when did the First World War begin? Did it begin in 1914? Or did it really start a few years earlier with fighting in the Balkans that set the stage for what happened in 1914?

And when did it all end? 1945? Or 1991?

The questions are more than academic. There’s an argument that fighting in 1912 in the Balkans (the First Balkan War) set the stage for WWI by causing substantial further damage to the already weak Ottoman empire and setting the stage for the fractured conditions in the Balkans and the growing insurgency that led to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sunny, June 28th, 1914. Fighting spread out of control and though the war nominally ended in 1918 (not in Turkey or the Caucasus or other parts of the Mid East, or the bloody civil war in post Tsarist Russia), by the 1920s we had witnessed the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman empires, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire and German empire, and set the stage for the gradual collapse of the British empire over the course of the next 40 years, and the smaller French empire. 

The argument adds that all that followed was all part of the same cataclysmic flow - the collapse of the Chinese empire, the Rise of Japan and a new Germany, more intense fighting in the 1930s and 1940s (what is labeled WWII), the rise of the Soviet Union, the rise of communist China, a long Cold War to follow, and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. In short, the Great War (World War I) lasted from 1912 until 1991 - an 8 decade long, world-wide war.

Add to this that Japan had invaded the Korean Peninsula in 1894 during the “First China Japan War” and had invaded Manchuria in 1931 and then China in 1937, part of the political “flow” of empire from the end of the 19th century into the 20th century - a “flow” that continues into the 21st Century courtesy of Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party stretching its reach into South Asia and South East Asia.

The argument is not simply about a deterministic view of history, that geography and economic trends drove nations to war; the war, or wars, was (were) a result of a long list of decisions by a small number of leaders around, decisions that stood on top of centuries of political developments that were also the result of decisions by a host of leaders.

But where does it leave us? Asked otherwise, are we back where we were in 1912, a World War brewing, on the verge of spinning out of control across the world? The real Second World War… And this time, nuclear weapons are in the mix.

The Cold War was a period of remarkable, if somewhat scary, peace. Of course, not really peace, as wars continued, but the Great Powers did not square off against each other; they mainly used proxies, though sometimes irregular forces or clandestine units: In Korea, in Vietnam, in Central America, in Africa wars were fought in which both the USSR and the US had interests, but they never spread beyond certain unspoken boundaries. But with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union the US felt free to engage in very large military operations in the Mid East without fear of confronting another great power - that is, either Russia or China.

But we now have people on both sides of the equation talking about engaging the other: China and the US, Russia and the US. And the US and other friendly nations - NATO, Korea, Japan, India, Australia, the Philippines, etc., are talking of rearming. And  around the world we have a series of wars, quite violent, quite brutal.

But wars being fought in multiple places around the world don't make for a World War. Rather, there has to be some fundamental connection between them. The Tigray war killed more than 300,000 people (perhaps substantially more), but the war was an ethnic and tribal and internal political fight, and had little to do with anything beyond the Horn of Africa.

But wars that involve alliances are different. And alliances are changing and new relations are taking shape. Russia and China grow closer together, Iran grows closer to both - and the Sunni - Shia schism seems to be once again widening in the Islamic world. North Korea adds to the mix - a desperately poor nuclear power willing to aid its “friends” for some money or other assistance (such as sending troops and ammunition to the Russians for use in Ukraine, in exchange for oil and technology). And while economic relations across alliance lines remain in place for the time being (such as India with China), despite academic assertions to the contrary, economic ties do not prevent wars, they just raise the price; India remains a target in China’s long-term goals.

There is, of course, the war in Ukraine, and fighting continues in Gaza, Syria, Iran, Yemen and Somalia - of one sort or another. We had a short, hot war and an ongoing “warm” war in Kashmir - between 2 nuclear armed nations. The recent violence in Nepal can be seen as only local political upheaval. But where does China stand in fomenting unrest and trying to create a Chinese client south of the Himalayas? We have China - as it destroys what is left of the country of Tibet, and works to slowly wipe out the Uighurs, pushing hard against its neighbor in the East Sea and South China Sea. This goes on even as China continues to supply aid - like jet engines for drones) to Russia as it also buys Russian oil. And we have North Korea.

Just a few days ago we had an incident over eastern Poland - 19 Russian drone violated Polish airspace. Germany, among others, is moving forward elements of its (anemic) military. Across NATO capitals are engaged in efforts to increase their spending on their militaries even as political crises in the UK, France, Germany and others seem to draw them closer to the edge.

And there are several countries - in particular China - whose leadership seems intent on rubbing the whole world the wrong way. China’s aggressive behavior in the South China Sea for more than a decade, increasing aggression in and around Taiwan, predatory economics, and arrogant disregard for the legitimate interests of neighbors, all bode ill for the idea that the next few decades will remain peaceful. The beginning Chinese dam construction in Tibet, what will be the largest dam in the world, seems set to fundamentally alter water usage in Asia, and will directly confront India, a country with whom China already has troubles, even as both carry on a good deal of trade.

Where might it lead? This is all speculation, but there is little reason to doubt that it could spin out of control. A poor decision on the part of some junior commander, shots fired, a plane goes down, or a ship sinks, one leader over-reacts as another hesitates, followed by a knee-jerk response and then... 

What should we do? This is not a carnival ride in which the nations and leaders involved have no control. Rather, it is now time to make decisions that would steer the world in a direction that would prevent the outbreak of this World War.

First and foremost, there must be a serious discussion of nuclear weapons, noting that China, by some estimates, is making as many as 100 new nuclear weapons per year (estimates around online from DOD, Federation of Atomic Scientists, and others place the number between 70 and 100 per year). The world is not like it was in 1944 or for the 6000 years prior, nuclear weapons change everything. Calls to modernize our US forces stress that issue:

- Modernize nuclear force

- Build up missile defense

- Develop better warning

- Improve command and control 

Still, we must make it clear that there are red lines that must not be crossed - while keeping the definitions of the red lines fuzzy so that no one is tempted to go too close. We must recognize that conventional forces are necessary to keep the peace at the low end of the spectrum - but alone they are not adequate to deter a great power intent on conquest, never mind to win a war against another great power.

As President Eisenhower noted, great powers cannot be deterred - particularly in their own “neighborhood” - by conventional arms. Eisenhower made that comment when the US was spending more than 10% of GDP on defense and he realized the USSR was not deterred from making war by the size or capabilities of our conventional forces alone.

This does not eliminate the need for conventional forces. Unfortunately, to the contrary; it mandates that we have very capable forces, so that any confrontation with either of the two great powers - Russia or China (or Russia and China, acting together) can be controlled, rather than spilling over into escalation and brinksmanship. But it also recognizes that there are limits, and acknowledges that direct war between great powers would eventually lead to a nuclear exchange. And that must be avoided.

Modernizing the forces has begun. Building missile defenses is ongoing in the US and elsewhere. We are working to recover and rebuild our conventional forces. The intelligence community’s ability to produce accurate analysis must be improved. 

But, at the same time the leadership of the west - particularly Europe - must wake up to the possibility that the entire “system” could find itself in a war that would almost to a certainty escalate into a nuclear exchange. It’s possible the recent attack on Iran, an act that was inconceivable in the last 5 administrations, may have rocked the leadership of the rest of the world back on their heals, and in so doing may have bought time. But how long is anyone’s guess. Yet, the many political, economic and military problems among the European powers, and the concomitant array of mostly middling European leadership, leaves the glaring possibility of missteps and mistakes and escalation.

We must avoid those missteps, as we must avoid a world war.

So, in answer to my friend’s question, I would answer that we are, by analogy, somewhere in between 1912 and 1914. The storm is brewing but has not fully formed yet. As we look forward, we need to remember that a world war today will not be the same as one in the 20th century. Nuclear weapons will inevitably be used. And once used it is only reasonable to assume that use will become unlimited. Billions would die. Neither Putin nor Xi will survive. They need to remember that.

Churchill was right when he said that "the Great Powers [he was referring to nuclear powers] must never fight.” Yet, the nations of the world now seem to be edging closer and closer to some sort of cataclysm. Simply put, we need to stop that movement.

Meanwhile. throwing aspersions at the rabid Medvedev for his rantings about conquering the west and nuclear weapons sort of misses the point. The nuclear leaders of the west, President Trump in particular, but also French and UK leadership, must privately remind Putin that in the end an invasion of NATO nations means a nuclear exchange, and when that exchange is complete Russia as he knows it will be gone. And so will Putin. The same warning must be given to President Xi, with reminder that in any such world war, China and Xi will be gone. Yes, the West will also be destroyed - we don’t want this. But they must understand to certainty that continued escalation on Europe’s eastern frontier - or escalation around Korea, Japan, Taiwan or the Philippines - will lead to an exchange, and an exchange will lead to more escalation and a nuclear war. That is the World War looming just over the horizon.