There have only been 50 or so years of "peace" in the last several millenia. "War" is a normal state for nations, and it seems to migrate willy nilly.
When several large and militarily strong nations form opposing alliances and start mixing it up, we drag out the term "World War".
I agree that "WWIII" ended with the Cold War, which had its hot spots, including Korea, Angola, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet), and Persian Gulf I.
The Islamic nations don't rise to the level of "militarily strong" even if they have good equipment.
China qualifies, but the ChiComs have never been direct antoganists in a war, preferring instead to adopt surrogates. Their detent and cold war with the USSR kept them on edge for decades as they smelled the Russian Bear's breath down their necks. They're also aware of how close they came to having the Soviets take them out in 1969 as they developed nuclear tipped missiles. Had Nixon not gone to China and shared our intel with the USSR, the Soviets may well have launched their planned prophylactic nuclear strike against China. Point is that China doesn't seem to have any history of world wide military ambitions. Why should it? It's become a major manufacturer of goods for the capitalist countries and become capitalistic in the process.
Who else? Fact is that the U.S. alone qualifies as a large, militarily strong nation. The EU may achieve that status, but look what it requires. France and Germany agreeing? England and France agreeing? Europe is a bunch of nations who have never gotten along with one another, and the EU is an attempt to unify for economic reasons against the U.S. that formerly dominated their import markets. I wonder how many "Made in China" imports are floating around in Europe.
There will be wars and rumors of wars just as there have been for millenia, but a hot World War? I think not. The U.S. would be obligated to use its nuclear arsenal against any viable enemy, and that first strike policy was institutionalized by Bush just last year.
