A sharper military conflict in Syria will not be WW-3, that would have to be defined as full global engagement of the USA and NATO allies with some power capable of the projection of global force. To a limited extent we have that already with militant Islam which means, technically we have a sort of shadow WW-3 with ISIS plus whoever supports ISIS. If that includes assets of the US government then I guess we have a shadow WW-3 covering for a nearly unambiguous civil war (except that no defined entities have declared that they are fighting that civil war).
It’s all a murky situation.
I can’t see Russia risking massive destruction by upping the ante on Syria, but anything’s possible here. You could have a third world war with only limited nuclear exchanges that were probing the will of the adversary. At whatever point that became an all-out nuclear exchange, civil liberties would become a meaningless concept, it would be every man and woman (family) for themselves very quickly.
I see it as this: Obama is setting up an excuse to get Hillary elected by having a war in progress. He could then argue that well, we are at war, so elect the lady who served as my secretary of state to continue, because she has experience in foreign affairs.
I don’t buy the reasoning one speck, but I could see him doing it.
The russians have called back their diplomat’s children and just done a 40M person disaster recovery exercise. We fuch around they obviously dont!
WW3 will not start out nuclear but will most certainly end that way.