Some commentators like Glen Beck really believe that WWIII might be near. Beck predicted the collapse of the Arab Spring, but so did I, and yet I don't predict WWIII. I like Beck and respect most of what he says, but it's highly unlikely any major power will want to go to war directly against other major powers. It's more likely that Super-Powers will use countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine to fight their "wars". Who knows for what reasons. Powerful States have many reasons to start and participate in international conflicts and internal civil wars -- none of the reasons pertain to national defense, so they're bogus regardless of how they're justified. Humanitarian reasons are usually given, but it could be just as likely that the State wants to create a diversion to keep people's attention off a bad economy, or to create more rationalizations for interventions and defense build-up. The defense industry is humongous and very, very profitable and, thus, influential.
Terrorism will be an ongoing problem for practically all bigger, economically important nations, and it'll have to be handled with good intelligence and hard-headed dealing with nations who'd prefer they aren't attacked by the US because terrorists are hiding in their country and a few of them do something real stupid. We don't need to continue building world-destroying weapons when we have way more than we need right now. A prepared and well-paid military is necessary, but we have no need for militarism as our nation's main achievement. We don't have much legitimate need for our military right now, and that's as it should be. I know after a decade of frantic activity and attention it'll be hard for the military to stand ready and prepared in the background, but it's time to concentrate on bringing government and the military/industrial complex under control. As Eisenhower warned us, militarism puts liberty at risk.
A lot of the talk in the US now about Russia and WWIII is a campaign to build up the State and strengthen a government that's not trusted by most Americans. US leaders and international power-players who have a stake in a strong US can't afford for the US government to lose credibility, so they're using the tactic that's always worked in the past, the "last refuge of scoundrels" -- patriotism. Cold War patriotism against Russia is remembered -- all government had to do was warn the people that the USSR was on the prowl in Viet Nam or Cuba or South America and Americans were willing to release the dogs and forget about the Constitution -- just keep us safe and get the bad guys. The Communists were the enemy and the USSR represented the Kingdom of Communism.
Don't get me wrong, I think communism is a system that always leads to totalitarianism. If America really wanted to save the world, as they said they did when they entered WWI and WWII, then they would have stopped Stalin and Mao who killed far more people and did more damage to the world than Hitler or Mussolini, but that's another story, and everyone should read the historical accounts of the world wars that aren't State propaganda -- they're enlightening.
Let's chill and gather ourselves and decide what type of military we need, and let's assess our real threats. We need reason and logic, not fear-mongering, abuse and misuse of our troops and phony, pumped-up patriotism.