The world was always in war, we can talk about a world war because its consequences are not limited to the two belligerents. I think that the rules have changed nowadays, since most of the big countries have the atomic bomb, which represnts a political and psychological mean of pressure more over being weapons of mass destruction. So the time when a leader decided to conquer the whole world is gone...

i hate this idea and i will never believe this "wanga" i even don t know who she/he is . and i don t want to know nothing about the future. so "sees the day before goes away"

Wanga: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Vanga (thank you for making me acquire this new part of knowledge...) I don't believe in prophecies (/prophesies). Others have predicted the end of the world before. There always will be some. But, there have been three world wars! Counting the French and Indian War (1754–1763) and the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) as one fought on two continents and on sea we (meaning you and me and all the others who have not been involved at that time) already had a First World War. 1, 2, 3. No more talking about war...

I haven't heard of Wanga. Maybe he's as populr as i; anyway; Wanga's scenario is possible. Hardly an event of prediction has zero probability either infinite. If the humanity though could chose between the scenario of World War 3 and the alternative of the Ecological Renaissance what is more likely to prevail? war or life?

Yeah ! Who's that guy (Wanga) ?...