It’s one thing to argue that an AI terminator WW3 scenario is unlikely or implausible. It’s just disingenious to claim those three things have nothing to do with each other.
Terminator is a movie about how AI was given too much control over military resources and started WW3 in order to wipe out as much as possible of humanity in one go. This story is about the integration of AI into the military, in a way designed to kill humans.
Well, WWII has been over for a while now and if those who are dissatisfied with the outcome continue to be on the increase, there will eventually be enough of them who see no alternative to WW3 and become quite enthusiastic for such an event no matter how destructive.
There could already be critical mass among the dissatisfied they just don't have the resources to get the whole world involved.
That's exactly what Gatling thought of machine guns. They were supposed to automate the military jobs which was supposed to limit casualties and also make humanity reconsider going to war.
I only have this quote from Gatling himself: "It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished."
What does this even mean? You've combined 3 completely unrelated terms in Ai, terminator and WW3 to create, well I'm not sure what you mean here....