What Would be the death toll from a (largely) nonnuclear World War Three?

[Dayton3]

Assume no use of nuclear weapons aside from say two weapons of no more than 100 kilotons by each side. Further assume no use of chemical or biological weapons.

Assume a full range of conventional weapons used including attacks on targets in space and in cyberspace. Further though I did specify only four nuclear weapons used in total this meant against surface targets on Earth. Assume that EMP blasts at an altitude of 100 miles or more can be used repeatedly.

Assume the U.S. and all its traditional allies versus Russia, China, and Iran with the fighting against Russia on the ground in Eastern Europe and all the bodies of waters around there. Assume the U.S. and its traditional Pacific allies versus China in the South China Sea and against land bases of both sides in the region.

Assume the U.S. and SOME of its allies against Iran on the ground in and around Iraq and in the Persian Gulf and the areas surrounding the Persian Gulf.

Assume a war of 6 months to 1 year max. What would be the total death toll for the world and if possible the death toll for each of the major combatants.

 

[White 6]

Assume no use of nuclear weapons aside from say two weapons of no more than 100 kilotons by each side. Further assume no use of chemical or biological weapons.

Assume a full range of conventional weapons used including attacks on targets in space and in cyberspace. Further though I did specify only four nuclear weapons used in total this meant against surface targets on Earth. Assume that EMP blasts at an altitude of 100 miles or more can be used repeatedly.

Assume the U.S. and all its traditional allies versus Russia, China, and Iran with the fighting against Russia on the ground in Eastern Europe and all the bodies of waters around there. Assume the U.S. and its traditional Pacific allies versus China in the South China Sea and against land bases of both sides in the region.

Assume the U.S. and SOME of its allies against Iran on the ground in and around Iraq and in the Persian Gulf and the areas surrounding the Persian Gulf.

Assume a war of 6 months to 1 year max. What would be the total death toll for the world and if possible the death toll for each of the major combatants.

No telling with such naive, unrealistic parameters.

 

[candycorn]

Assume no use of nuclear weapons aside from say two weapons of no more than 100 kilotons by each side. Further assume no use of chemical or biological weapons.

Assume a full range of conventional weapons used including attacks on targets in space and in cyberspace. Further though I did specify only four nuclear weapons used in total this meant against surface targets on Earth. Assume that EMP blasts at an altitude of 100 miles or more can be used repeatedly.

Assume the U.S. and all its traditional allies versus Russia, China, and Iran with the fighting against Russia on the ground in Eastern Europe and all the bodies of waters around there. Assume the U.S. and its traditional Pacific allies versus China in the South China Sea and against land bases of both sides in the region.

Assume the U.S. and SOME of its allies against Iran on the ground in and around Iraq and in the Persian Gulf and the areas surrounding the Persian Gulf.

Assume a war of 6 months to 1 year max. What would be the total death toll for the world and if possible the death toll for each of the major combatants.

You can't negotiate with someone fighting for religious reasons. So the death toll will be relative to the beliefs of the soldiers.

 

[Dayton3]

Assume no use of nuclear weapons aside from say two weapons of no more than 100 kilotons by each side. Further assume no use of chemical or biological weapons.

Assume a full range of conventional weapons used including attacks on targets in space and in cyberspace. Further though I did specify only four nuclear weapons used in total this meant against surface targets on Earth. Assume that EMP blasts at an altitude of 100 miles or more can be used repeatedly.

Assume the U.S. and all its traditional allies versus Russia, China, and Iran with the fighting against Russia on the ground in Eastern Europe and all the bodies of waters around there. Assume the U.S. and its traditional Pacific allies versus China in the South China Sea and against land bases of both sides in the region.

Assume the U.S. and SOME of its allies against Iran on the ground in and around Iraq and in the Persian Gulf and the areas surrounding the Persian Gulf.

Assume a war of 6 months to 1 year max. What would be the total death toll for the world and if possible the death toll for each of the major combatants.

No telling with such naive, unrealistic parameters.

How are the parameters "unrealistic"?

 

[HenryBHough]

Refuse to use nukes and you're dead meat.

 

[Dayton3]

Refuse to use nukes and you're dead meat.

Having a weapons capability doesn't mean they get used.

During World War Two both German and the Soviet Union possessed extensive chemical weapons arsenals yet despite the staggering bloodshed on the Eastern Front neither side used chemical weapons.

 

[White 6]

Assume no use of nuclear weapons aside from say two weapons of no more than 100 kilotons by each side. Further assume no use of chemical or biological weapons.

Assume a full range of conventional weapons used including attacks on targets in space and in cyberspace. Further though I did specify only four nuclear weapons used in total this meant against surface targets on Earth. Assume that EMP blasts at an altitude of 100 miles or more can be used repeatedly.

Assume the U.S. and all its traditional allies versus Russia, China, and Iran with the fighting against Russia on the ground in Eastern Europe and all the bodies of waters around there. Assume the U.S. and its traditional Pacific allies versus China in the South China Sea and against land bases of both sides in the region.

Assume the U.S. and SOME of its allies against Iran on the ground in and around Iraq and in the Persian Gulf and the areas surrounding the Persian Gulf.

Assume a war of 6 months to 1 year max. What would be the total death toll for the world and if possible the death toll for each of the major combatants.

No telling with such naive, unrealistic parameters.

How are the parameters "unrealistic"?

More nukes than that will be used. The first country you named that might see significant losses (including us), that has the capability will start the show. Then it's on. But it will not be a world war centered around Iraq/Iran and Persian Gulf.

 

[night_son]

Assume no use of nuclear weapons aside from say two weapons of no more than 100 kilotons by each side. Further assume no use of chemical or biological weapons.

Assume a full range of conventional weapons used including attacks on targets in space and in cyberspace. Further though I did specify only four nuclear weapons used in total this meant against surface targets on Earth. Assume that EMP blasts at an altitude of 100 miles or more can be used repeatedly.

Assume the U.S. and all its traditional allies versus Russia, China, and Iran with the fighting against Russia on the ground in Eastern Europe and all the bodies of waters around there. Assume the U.S. and its traditional Pacific allies versus China in the South China Sea and against land bases of both sides in the region.

Assume the U.S. and SOME of its allies against Iran on the ground in and around Iraq and in the Persian Gulf and the areas surrounding the Persian Gulf.

Assume a war of 6 months to 1 year max. What would be the total death toll for the world and if possible the death toll for each of the major combatants.

Two scenarios or outcomes must first be vetted.

Scenario #1

The United States war machine moves with such speed and precision as to surgically destroy key enemy military targets and in doing so cripples, within days, all enemy capability to wage war. In such a scenario "allied" deaths could be counted in the zero to perhaps few dozens range. Most of those deaths would be first strike pilots (mostly naval aviators) and special operations personnel dropped in to detonate small nuclear weapons on enemy soil. This scenario also assumes the US and NATO allies extensive use of unmanned vehicle technology and satellite/cruise missile weapon systems.

Scenario #2

Fighting is done worldwide with mass numbers of ground troops, artillery and close air support bombing, and is conducted in major population centers, and lasts for more than say three months. Conservative estimation of military and civilian casualties on all sides . . . somewhere north of two hundred million.

 

[Dayton3]

In regards to nuclear weapons assume the following(adjustment to the OP)

1) The Chinese and Russians detonate half a dozen or so nuclear weapons at very high altitude over the lower 48 states of the U.S. in what amounts to an "economic/infrastructure" attack.

2) The U.S. retaliates by destroying virtually all Chinese and Russian ICBMs with a preemptive strike. And U.S. attack submarine trailing Chinese and Russian ballistic missile submarines sink them when they are detected preparing to launch.

3) The handful of Chinese and Russian ICBMs launched at the U.S. are virtually all intercepted by U.S. anti missile defenses (I assume the number of American ABMs has increased 100 fold prior to the war).

4) Despite now having an overwhelming superiority in strategic nuclear warheads, the U.S. refuses to use those nuclear warheads against Chinese and Russian cities for obvious reasons.

5) Despite still having an overwhelming superiority in tactical nuclear weapons (5-20 kilotons mounted on short range weapons (less than 1,000 miles), the Chinese and Russians refuse to use them for fear of provoking a U.S. attack on their cities.

 

[White 6]

Assume no use of nuclear weapons aside from say two weapons of no more than 100 kilotons by each side. Further assume no use of chemical or biological weapons.

Assume a full range of conventional weapons used including attacks on targets in space and in cyberspace. Further though I did specify only four nuclear weapons used in total this meant against surface targets on Earth. Assume that EMP blasts at an altitude of 100 miles or more can be used repeatedly.

Assume the U.S. and all its traditional allies versus Russia, China, and Iran with the fighting against Russia on the ground in Eastern Europe and all the bodies of waters around there. Assume the U.S. and its traditional Pacific allies versus China in the South China Sea and against land bases of both sides in the region.

Assume the U.S. and SOME of its allies against Iran on the ground in and around Iraq and in the Persian Gulf and the areas surrounding the Persian Gulf.

Assume a war of 6 months to 1 year max. What would be the total death toll for the world and if possible the death toll for each of the major combatants.

Two scenarios or outcomes must first be vetted.

Scenario #1

The United States war machine moves with such speed and precision as to surgically destroy key enemy military targets and in doing so cripples, within days, all enemy capability to wage war. In such a scenario "allied" deaths could be counted in the zero to perhaps few dozens range. Most of those deaths would be first strike pilots (mostly naval aviators) and special operations personnel dropped in to detonate small nuclear weapons on enemy soil. This scenario also assumes the US and NATO allies extensive use of unmanned vehicle technology and satellite/cruise missile weapon systems.

Scenario #2

Fighting is done worldwide with mass numbers of ground troops, artillery and close air support bombing, and is conducted in major population centers, and lasts for more than say three months. Conservative estimation of military and civilian casualties on all sides . . . somewhere north of two hundred million.

#1 is not a world war scenario, more of a regional one, and there is not reason to nukes by hand on foreign soil, by us or anyone else. Scratch that one.
#2 is like the world war III 1984 scenario and goes back to my point that the first to suffer mass casualties or become endangered of falling or failing would push the button, then it would be on. Anything other than a regional conflict or two regional conflicts is an end days scenario. Middle east isn't going to be it. America has had it fill of the middle east.

 

[Manonthestreet]

God help us is a successful EMP attack ever happens. Russia and China couldnt take on the world.

 

[Silver Cat]

Mostly depends on the matter of the goals of the sides.
If the "Western Coalition" for example, wants to build "environmentalistic (and communistic) future" for the "Golden Billion", decrease Earth population to 3 billions and genocide all Russians, Chinese, Indians, Africans, Latinos - they, of course, will fight to the last drop of blood.
If the environmentalistic ideology will be restricted in the West, and we'll fight, for example, for the less ecological, but much more healthy and wealthy future for all humankind - then resistance could be minimal.

 

[HenryBHough]

Having a weapons capability doesn't mean they get used.

During World War Two both German and the Soviet Union possessed extensive chemical weapons arsenals yet despite the staggering bloodshed on the Eastern Front neither side used chemical weapons.

And Germany lost.

 

[Dayton3]

Having a weapons capability doesn't mean they get used.

During World War Two both German and the Soviet Union possessed extensive chemical weapons arsenals yet despite the staggering bloodshed on the Eastern Front neither side used chemical weapons.

And Germany lost.

That doesn't mean anything.

 

[22lcidw]

In regards to nuclear weapons assume the following(adjustment to the OP)

1) The Chinese and Russians detonate half a dozen or so nuclear weapons at very high altitude over the lower 48 states of the U.S. in what amounts to an "economic/infrastructure" attack.

2) The U.S. retaliates by destroying virtually all Chinese and Russian ICBMs with a preemptive strike. And U.S. attack submarine trailing Chinese and Russian ballistic missile submarines sink them when they are detected preparing to launch.

3) The handful of Chinese and Russian ICBMs launched at the U.S. are virtually all intercepted by U.S. anti missile defenses (I assume the number of American ABMs has increased 100 fold prior to the war).

4) Despite now having an overwhelming superiority in strategic nuclear warheads, the U.S. refuses to use those nuclear warheads against Chinese and Russian cities for obvious reasons.

5) Despite still having an overwhelming superiority in tactical nuclear weapons (5-20 kilotons mounted on short range weapons (less than 1,000 miles), the Chinese and Russians refuse to use them for fear of provoking a U.S. attack on their cities.

In a protracted non nuclear war against China with Russia as their ally and we lose our initial hardware and can not produce replacements fast enough, we will go nuclear. They can outproduce us and much faster. We do have some weapons systems more advanced and maybe we have some we the common citizens do not know about.

 

[Likkmee]

God help us is a successful EMP attack ever happens. Russia and China couldnt take on the world.

I'll be fine. No Walmarts here.

 

[Likkmee]

Gravity fed...fish food from seed. No USMB might be an issue,,,

 

[harmonica]

a lot

 

[harmonica]

1. a WW3 with US/Allies vs Russia/China/etc would be a lot longer than 1 year
2. a WW3 with the big nations ....why only 2 nukes used?
3.first you say 2 nukes, then 4
4. too much nonsensical assuming

 

[Dayton3]

1. a WW3 with US/Allies vs Russia/China/etc would be a lot longer than 1 year
2. a WW3 with the big nations ....why only 2 nukes used?
3.first you say 2 nukes, then 4
4. too much nonsensical assuming

1) Great. Let's hear more about that.
2) I wanted to avoid everyone talking about how all sides would start launching nuclear weapons and it would be the end of civilization as we know it.
3) A mistake. I originally mean to say "two pairs of nuclear weapons".
4) You have to make assumptions or the discussion will wander all over the place.