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

[Flash]

In the 1980s it is incomprehensible to me that any major conflict between NATO and the Soviets would not have resulted in the escalated use of nukes.

Once a side started to lose that would have been the only option. Almost assuredly on the battlefield and supply depots. The only question is would it have spread to the cities. Probably so.

 

[Silver Cat]

In the 1980s it is incomprehensible to me that any major conflict between NATO and the Soviets would not have resulted in the escalated use of nukes.

Once a side started to lose that would have been the only option. Almost assuredly on the battlefield and supply depots. The only question is would it have spread to the cities. Probably so.

Did you read "On Thermonuclear War" by Herman Kahn? There are different scenarios of the war.

 

[Dayton3]

In the 1980s it is incomprehensible to me that any major conflict between NATO and the Soviets would not have resulted in the escalated use of nukes.

Once a side started to lose that would have been the only option. Almost assuredly on the battlefield and supply depots. The only question is would it have spread to the cities. Probably so.

There are not enough nuclear weapons available for use in the world anymore for nations to waste them on cities.

 

[Missourian]

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.

More than a shitload but less than a fuck-ton.

 

[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.

More than a shitload but less than a fuck-ton.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Missourian]

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.

More than a shitload but less than a fuck-ton.

Can you be more specific?

I honestly don't think I can get from WAG to SWAG. Not without a massive amount of research and data. It would be a lot. Can't say beyond that...and I seriously doubt anyone else on this message board could.

MHO...YMMV

 

[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.

More than a shitload but less than a fuck-ton.

Can you be more specific?

I honestly don't think I can get from WAG to SWAG. Not without a massive amount of research and data. It would be a lot. Can't say beyond that...and I seriously doubt anyone else on this message board could.

MHO...YMMV

My calculations were on the order of 7-9 million worldwide in a relatively short conflict.

I remember the Rand wargame from a couple of years ago) that was run with the U.S. and its allies taking on the Russians in Eastern Europe had the good guys (U.S. and its allies) losing 50,000 killed in action and 100,000 wounded in the first week of fighting. I would assume a similar scale of losses on the Russian side. Perhaps slightly higher as the Russians would be the ones attacking and the U.S. side defending.

Another analysis suggested that almost all of those would be military casualties given that city fighting soaks up valuable manpower and equipment assets so both sides would avoid urban combat at all costs.

 

[Flash]

I am just glad that we are sitting here in 2020 speculating on what could have happen rather than being here regretting what did happen.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

There would be a lot of glowing zombies about the place.

 

[SavannahMann]

It is unrealistic because there is no line between tactical and strategic Nuclear Weapons. The only line is theoretical and exists only in the minds of think tank employees.

It is unrealistic because it assumes falsely that the US would walk all over the enemy in days or weeks. How long have we been in Afghanistan again?

The discussion is unrealistic because the idea that Nukes would be used only in theaters instead of world wide. Say you set one off in Iran. Pakistani and India have Nukes. What makes you think they won’t pull the trigger? Israel has Nukes.

The theory behind Nukes is use them or lose them. If your weapons are threatened you have to launch or else. There won’t be time to think. There won’t be time to examine the results or the alternatives. The first one launched starts the whole ball of results.

But let’s pretend it can stay conventional. How the hell do you conquer the world in a few weeks with a couple million men? We couldn’t realistically win in North Korea with that in less than months. If then.

What is always funny to me is the people who believe the propaganda. America has the most powerful military in the world and can whip anyone. That’s totally why we are in Afghanistan two decades later and now negotiating with the group we removed from power in a desperate attempt to find a way out.