Neither. A war is a conflict with specific objectives, and you don't create military or political objectives by accident. And a World War implies that many countries are fighting it out, which makes it even less likely.
But the article seems to be using "World War Three" as a stand-in for any sort of nuclear weapons incident, which isn't necessarily the same thing. An attack or accident would of course be tragic, but I don't see the incentive to escalate from "this is a tragic loss of a city/base" to "let's have everybody die everywhere 4 teh lulz." I have noticed that murmurs about "nuclear war" have been increasingly part of the collective media buzz over the past two years or so. Sure, it could happen, but there isn't much reason for it. Profit, conquest, control? It wouldn't achieve any of those things - or anything else, really.