World War III Analysis Using Signed Social Networks

In the recent period of time with a lot of social platforms emerging, the relationships among various units can be framed with respect to either positive, negative or no relation. These units can be individuals, countries or others that form the basic structural component of a signed network. These signed networks picture a dynamic characteristic of the graph so formed allowing only few combinations of signs that brings the structural balance theorem in picture. Structural balance theory affirms that signed social networks tend to be organized so as to avoid conflictual situations, corresponding to cycles of unstable relations. The aim of structural balance in networks is to find proper partitions of nodes that guarantee equilibrium in the system allowing only few combination triangles with signed edges to be permitted in graph. Most of the works in this field of networking have either explained the importance of signed graph or have applied the balance theorem and tried to solve problems. Following the recent time trends with each nation emerging to be superior and competing to be the best, the probable doubt of happening of WW-III(World War-III) comes into every individuals mind. Nevertheless, our paper aims at answering some of the interesting questions on World War-III. In this project we have worked with the creation of a signed graph picturing the World War-III participating countries as nodes and have predicted the best possible coalition of countries that will be formed during war. Also, we have visually depicted the number of communities that will be formed in this war and the participating countries in each communities. Our paper involves extensive analysis on the various parameters influencing the above predictions and also creation of a new data-set of World War -III that contains the pairwise relationship data of countries with various parameters influencing prediction. This paper also validates and analyses the predicted result.

RESOLUTION DECISION-MAKING TO INCREASE THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS FOR WORLD PEACE

The United Nations (UN) was founded on October 24, 1945 or after World War II ended. At the time of its establishment, the UN consists of 51 member countries and continues to grow until now it has 193 members. The birth of the UN was motivated by the failure of The League of Nations because it could not realize the desire of its founders to create peace throughout the world by preventing war. After World War I, it turned out that World War II was still followed. The UN is considered successful in preventing a widespread war so that until now there has been no World War III. However, in the current situation, wars in several parts of the world have recurred, such as in Syria, Palestine, Azerbaijan and others. The existence of the UN as a universal organization that maintains peace is again being questioned. The ability, especially the Security Council, as one of its organs to prevent war, needs to be improved. Keywords: The Security Council, UN Charter, Veto

Has World War III begun?

The continuous struggle on resources and economical control has developed into a frightening conflict between China and the US. In an attempt to restrain the Chinese thrive and increasing possession over world economy, the US imposed restrictions on Chinese commerce and interests, a step that has proven risky considering the Chinese unexpected ״retaliation״.

EMSIAC Wars

Bernard Wolfe’s dystopian satire Limbo (1952) remains a critically under-discussed work, and despite its many controversies, offers important insight into the ethical dilemmas surrounding modern-day drone warfare and human-machine relations. While the EMSIAC war computers in Limbo may be blamed for World War III, they are only ever a scapegoat to shift blame away from the humans who follow orders blindly, and themselves behave much like machines. To this end, this paper will explore the ethical implications of Wolfe’s novel and what it means for the way we wage wars with robotic drones controlled by humans from afar.

Why Libya, but not Syria?

In both Libya and Syria, an uprising of civilians against their rulers resulted in intra-state conflicts. Despite comparable circumstances, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has approached these situations in different ways. The existing literature tends to consider both conflicts in the context of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. Rather than compare and contrast the two conflicts in terms of assessing the effectiveness of R2P, the purpose of this paper is to examine why the UNSC authorized a military intervention in Libya, but not in Syria. This question arises out of the notion that similar conditions should elicit the same response. This research will present three main arguments to explain why the UNSC did not authorize the use of force in Syria as they did in Libya. The first is that the variety of actors fighting in Syria makes it difficult for intervention. The second is that the individual interactions between the permanent Security Council members and Syria further complicate intervention. The final argument is that the Security Council is upholding the foundation of the UN in preventing World War III.