World population 2017 without Petrov

2017 population after 1983 WWIII

  • 1 billion or more

    Votes: 42 55.3%
  • 300 million to 1 billion

    Votes: 19 25.0%
  • 100 million to 300 million

    Votes: 6 7.9%
  • 10 million to 100 million

    Votes: 3 3.9%
  • less than 10 million (but >0)

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Homo sapiens extinct

    Votes: 5 6.6%

  • Total voters
    76
Current world population is ~7.5 billion.
But what if Stanislav Petrov had not been on duty on Sep 26, 1983 for some reason, and his replacement was less wise?
What would the human population be today?
 
Assuming a full-scale nuclear war that wipes out huge portions of the USA, the USSR and China, some stray nukes, and at least one full-scale war started by a stray nuke...I'd say the world's population is cut in half at worst. India, Indonesia and Africa wouldn't be especially involved, and society would rebound.
 
the world population at that time was between 4.4 and 4.8 billion, some where between .001 and 15% left, multiply by two and you have your answer
 
the world population at that time was between 4.4 and 4.8 billion, some where between .001 and 15% left, multiply by two and you have your answer

this is ridicolous. 0.001%? Thats 40.000 people. There will be more people who literally don't notice the war happened than that.

15% could be possible as a really worst case.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Current world population is ~7.5 billion.
But what if Stanislav Petrov had not been on duty on Sep 26, 1983 for some reason, and his replacement was less wise?
What would the human population be today?

Population would be ~7.5 billion.
I'm sorry but this Petrov saved the world, just like Blunt saved the world, is just a pop culture myth.
 
this is ridicolous. 0.001%? Thats 40.000 people. There will be more people who literally don't notice the war happened than that.

15% could be possible as a really worst case.
Understand something there is a very high possibility that any nuclear conflict would be an extinction level event. We might not survive, there have been numerous studies stating that as the case, so 40,000 people might be generous. In fact the lower percentages, meaning under 5% might be much more realistic. We are talking about at least 70,000 nuclear weapons going off, worse case 25% fail to detonate or are destroyed in some way. That means 52,500 are going off world wide. Now add biological weapons with no means to cure it. Now imagine plagues sweeping through the world's crops, livestock and much of the world's wildlife.

That is on top of all the people that have medical issues, like diabetes and cancer, organ transplant and asthma. Starvation, dehydration, natural disasters, even weather and naturally occurring climate extremes are going to kill people. Then the injures, suicide and violence.
 
Understand something there is a very high possibility that any nuclear conflict would be an extinction level event. We might not survive, there have been numerous studies stating that as the case, so 40,000 people might be generous. In fact the lower percentages, meaning under 5% might be much more realistic. We are talking about at least 70,000 nuclear weapons going off, worse case 25% fail to detonate or are destroyed in some way. That means 52,500 are going off world wide. Now add biological weapons with no means to cure it. Now imagine plagues sweeping through the world's crops, livestock and much of the world's wildlife.

That is on top of all the people that have medical issues, like diabetes and cancer, organ transplant and asthma. Starvation, dehydration, natural disasters, even weather and naturally occurring climate extremes are going to kill people. Then the injures, suicide and violence.

That's assuming places like Brazil, Indonesia, and Nigeria somehow got involved and got nuked too which are VERY unlikely to happen. Most of the targets would be in the northern hemisphere, meaning that the southern hemisphere would be relatively good with some climate fluctuations and famines. Argentina, parts of Africa, and other surviving areas might be the new breadbasket of the world. Mexico, India, Brasil, Argentina, and Indonesia would be the new powers in play.

P.S. This thread is fairly recent and there's no red warning sign below on the reply button so I don't think this would as necromancy.
 
Carl Sagan and about three co-authors, the probability of nuclear winter in the northern hemisphere.

and not exactly sure southern hemisphere gets off scot free.
 
Yeah, I'm sure a nuclear war caused by a false alarm would have no negative effects.:rolleyes:

The implication is that a nuclear war wouldn't have happened regardless of Petrov choosing to ignore the warnings. This is probably true, but it's important to remember that this event happened at the worst possible time where Soviet paranoia was at its highest, which increases the likelihood that the apocalypse may just have happened.
 
That's assuming places like Brazil, Indonesia, and Nigeria somehow got involved and got nuked too which are VERY unlikely to happen. Most of the targets would be in the northern hemisphere, meaning that the southern hemisphere would be relatively good with some climate fluctuations and famines. Argentina, parts of Africa, and other surviving areas might be the new breadbasket of the world. Mexico, India, Brasil, Argentina, and Indonesia would be the new powers in play.

P.S. This thread is fairly recent and there's no red warning sign below on the reply button so I don't think this would as necromancy.
By the late 1970's and 1980's they were targets, no one wanted a fleet of either USSR or US/NATO still sailing around
 
If global plutonium poisoning does not eventually kill EVERYTHING on land, then I guess by present day about a billion or so people survive and that is only if all the neutral countries remain intact.
 
Top