World War 3.... By Numbers

Just for kicks lets see what would happen if WW3 broke out and every country with a military became involved...

First you have to pick a team... Team 1 - I will call the Home Team (as it includes my country) and Team 2 can be called the Away Team.

If WW3 were to break out, how would these teams look and who could be called upon to help? I've gone for the following teams.... but I may be wrong on some counts -

Team 1 (Home Team) Members -
Albania[2]
Angola[4]
Antigua and Barbuda[5]
Argentina[6]
Armenia[7]
Australia[8][9]
Austria[10]
Bahamas[12]
Barbados[12]
Belarus[15]
Belgium[16]
Belize[17]
Bolivia[19]
Bosnia and Herzegovina[20]
Botswana[21]
Brazil[22]
Bulgaria[24]
Cameroon[28]
Canada[29]
Cape Verde[30]
Chile[33]
Colombia[37]
Costa Rica[38]
Croatia[39]
Cyprus[41]
Czech Republic[42]
Côte d'Ivoire[43]
Democratic Republic of the Congo[44]
Denmark[45]
Dominican Republic[47]
Ecuador[48]
El Salvador[50]
Equatorial Guinea[51]
Estonia[53]
Ethiopia[54]
Fiji[55]
Finland[56]
France[57]
Gabon[58]
Gambia[59]
Georgia[60]
Germany[61]
Ghana[62]
Greece[63]
Guatemala[64]
Guinea[65]
Haiti[68]
Honduras[69]
Hungary[70]
Iceland[71]
Ireland[76]
Israel[77]
Italy[78]
Jamaica[79]
Japan[80]
Kenya[83]
Kosovo[84][85]
Kyrgyzstan[87]
Laos[88]
Latvia[89]
Lithuania[94]
Luxembourg[95]
Madagascar[96]
Malawi[97]
Malta[100]
Mexico[103]
Moldova[104]
Mozambique[108]
Netherlands[112]
New Zealand[113]
Niger[115]
Nigeria[116]
Northern Cyprus[118]
Norway[119]
Panama[124]
Papua New Guinea[125]
Paraguay[126]
Peru[127]
Poland[129][130][131]
Portugal[132]
Republic of Macedonia[134]
Romania[136]
Senegal[140]
Seychelles[142]
Slovenia[146]
Somaliland[148]
South Africa[149]
Republic of Korea[150]
Spain[151]
Sri Lanka[152]
Sweden[154]
Switzerland[155]
Togo[162]
Trinidad and Tobago[163]
Uganda[167]
Ukraine[168]
United Kingdom[170]
United States[171]
Uruguay[172]

Team 2 (Away Team) Members -
Afghanistan[1]
Algeria[3]
Azerbaijan[11]
Bahrain[13]
Bangladesh[14]
Benin[18]
Burundi[26]
Cambodia[27]
Central African Republic[31]
Cuba[40]
Guinea-Bissau[66]
Guyana[67]
India[72]
Indonesia[73]
Iran[74]
Iraq[75]
Jordan[81]
Kazakhstan[82]
Kuwait[86]
Lebanon[90]
Lesotho[91]
Liberia[92]
Libya[93]
Malaysia[98]
Mali[99]
Mauritania[101]
Mauritius[102]
Mongolia[105]
Montenegro[106]
Morocco[107]
Myanmar[109]
Namibia[110]
Nepal[111]
Nicaragua[114]
Democratic People's Republic of Korea[117]
Oman[120]
Pakistan[121][122]
Palestine[123]
Philippines[128]
Qatar[133]
Republic of the Congo[135]
Russia[137]
Rwanda[138]
Saudi Arabia[139]
Serbia[141]
Sierra Leone[143]
Singapore[144]
Slovakia[145]
Somalia[147]
Sudan[152]
Suriname[153]
Syria[156]
Republic of China[157]
Tajikistan[158]
Tanzania[159]
Thailand[160]
Timor Leste[161]
Tunisia[164]
Turkey[165]
Turkmenistan[166]
United Arab Emirates[169]
Uzbekistan[173]
Venezuela[174]
Vietnam[175]
Yemen[176]
Zambia[177]
Zimbabwe[178]

I'm not too sure who India would side with so I've chosen the away team due to it's location.

Ok now for the numbers -

Active Military Persons for the Home Team - 7,403,334
Active Military Persons for the Away Team - 12,966,438
Difference in favour of the Away Team - 5,563,104

I would say the Home Team have the technology advantage so this would close the gap but would it be enough?
My Predicted Outcome - Draw

HOWEVER.... these figures do not include Reserves or Paramilitary figures. Lets see what would happen if these were taken into account

Total Military Persons (Incl Reserves & Paramilitary) for the Home Team - 25,213,982
Total Military Persons (Incl Reserves & Paramilitary) for the Away Team - 65,212,393
Difference in favour of the Away Team - 39,998,411

With the Away Team having circa 40 Million more trained persons than the Home Team, I would say my predicted outcome would be a big lose for the Home Team.....Booooo.


MVP's (Most Valuable Players) -

Home Team -
Brazil - 1,667,710
Israel - 749,550
Republic of Korea - 8,691,500
Ukraine - 1,214,825
USA - 2,455,837

Away Team -
China - 4,585,000
Cuba - 1,234,500
Egypt - 1,344,500
India - 4,768,407
Iran - 2,833,000
North Korea - 9,495,000
Pakistan - 1,434,000
Russia - 21,476,000
Syria - 747,000
Republic of China - 1,964,000
Turkey - 1,041,500
Vietnam - 5,495,000

So in a war of 90 million people, only 25 million would be on my side.... eeeeek.

This of course does not take into account military spend... but is it worth looking at? after all, look at Afaganistan or Vietnam. There is also the fact of equipment being available and leadership to consider.

Have I picked the correct teams?

Figures used are from 2009.

All I know is those stats don't mean anything in a true WW3 scenario. If countries must fight for their continued existence, then individuals within these nations must think of it as a life or death situation from the get-go. That means a MUCH higher percentage of people will be fighting, especially if it's on their own land.

Not a bad job there, but what makes you think the Indians would side with the Chinese? I thought they hated each other.

Doesn't matter which team you pick....there will be no winners in a WW III, only losers.
The ones who survive will be the ones that suffer the most.

What makes you think that 90% of these countries would be involved, and even more so, what makes you decide why some of these countries would be on the "home" or "away" team? Much less, what makes you think there would only be two teams?

A world war doesn't necessarily mean that every country in the world is involved, military wise. It is simply stating that the entire world is affected by the battles and the outcome due to the fact that many countries and continents will be involved.

Interesting post, although I don't agree with the outcomes (or players for that matter).

I don't think WW3 will be anything like the previous 2.
It will be fought through cyber-attacks, industrial espionage, covert ops, and economic terrorism.
Technically, one can say that it is currently being fought.

BUT, if an armed conventional conflict broke out, we would have to examine the current alliances around the world.

Primarily I think it would be NATO/EU + Australia vs SCO+CSTO
SADC would probably stay neutral as long as the can but eventually would side with NATO/EU and the PSC (AU) would be split or neutral.

I would predict the following MAJOR players
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Holland, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, South Korea, Australia, India, Brazil
Vs
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan

and the following minor players
Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey*, Japan, Georgia, Ukraine, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Mexico
vs
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Armenia*, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Iraq, Moldova, Algeria, Lybia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Syria

* Depending on the nature of the war, if religious, they may leave NATO considering their historical enemy of Greece, also a NATO member, and Armenia (another historical enemy)
* Could flip to either side, depending on their historical enemy Turkey

Neutral countries: Switzerland, Cuba (it would be suicide if they sided against the US so they'll stay out of it), Finland, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Ireland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Sweden, Cyprus

I could go on about the AU and into more detail about the SADC but then this post would be ridiculously long LOL

You missed the UK from your MVP, we have already proven in the first two wars we will fight until we drop.

Anyway, hopefully WWIII will never happen (although some could argue it is happening right now).

reply to post by unityemissions


True and I agree... more people will be involved as happened in WW1 & WW2 with mandatory enlistment. But it would take several months to train those not already part of the military.... so to start off, only those trained can be involved (in this theoretical war).

reply to post by Redevilfan09


I know... I wasn't sure with these guys, in the end I thought they may change their tune considering who they are surrounded by.

reply to post by II HAL II


It seems you have picked the allys of the U.S.A. and those aginst. You also need to figure countries who have peace accords with other countries. I don't think your list is very true. Sorry.

You have india and Pakistan on the same team. That would NEVER happen. and that is just one of the many i saw while quikly looking through this list.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
What makes you think that 90% of these countries would be involved, and even more so, what makes you decide why some of these countries would be on the "home" or "away" team? Much less, what makes you think there would only be two teams?

A world war doesn't necessarily mean that every country in the world is involved, military wise. It is simply stating that the entire world is affected by the battles and the outcome due to the fact that many countries and continents will be involved.

This is worse case scenario, end of times kind of war.... so I put everyone in. Chances of this actually happening are of course slim to none. I think it throws up some interesting stats though, Russia with 21 million trained personnel, Ukraine with 1.2 million and Vietnam with 5.5 million... I never knew this before.

I chose two teams because that's what other world wars were based on... (and to make it simple).

reply to post by Konstantinos


Good Reply...

I am of course talking about conventional conflict, the other methods such as cyber attacks, economic terrorism etc would not be seen as a world war, I don't think. And these things are happening every day.

Could you expand on why you don't agree with the outcome I concluded? As for the players involved, I did say I could be wrong but I dont think the MVP's are far off.

WOOGLEUK -
I left UK off the MVP's because I was basing this on numbers of military personnel only (UK has 450,000 ish I think).... of course the UK military personnel are worth 1 to 50 of any other country..... jk.

BADGERMAN24 -
Well I don't think I'm that far off... I did say in the OP that India was a tricky one, I know they don't get on with Pakistan but considering where they are situated I guessed they would change their minds or go neutral at least.

Home team would slaughter. US which is the single best military in the world, supported by all the other European military. Germany would be supplying tech. China and Russia wouldn't stand a chance, those two military are likely VERY effective on land, but no need to make it a land war. Too, China and other countries are pretty reliant on US food. Take that away and hungry soldiers wont be worried about fighting for too long.

Most of your countries are barely out of the stone age, I would take them out of the mix.

reply to post by II HAL II


I can appreciate the effort you put into your post. To expand on my response that I don't agree with the outcome is based on disproportionate technology.
To put it into basic terms, a soldier with a machine gun could take out hundreds of swordsmen (just an example)
The only real threats in the scenario are China and Russia (North Korea's nukes would be instantly wiped out by the US)

The thing is, I don't see this being primarily a ground war which is where troop numbers count.
I think air-superiority is key, and the combination of US + EU would overpower Russian & Chinese air forces. Next we have the navy, let's face it, the US and UK own the seas already I don't see any threat there at all.

Another point of importance is who is attacking and who is defending?
In my opinion whoever is on the defense would have somewhat of an advantage. In my war scenario I think Europe and the middle-East would be ravaged but Asia and the Americas would get indirect conflict (missiles, bombs etc)

Originally posted by croweboy
Home team would slaughter. US which is the single best military in the world, supported by all the other European military. Germany would be supplying tech. China and Russia wouldn't stand a chance, those two military are likely VERY effective on land, but no need to make it a land war. Too, China and other countries are pretty reliant on US food. Take that away and hungry soldiers wont be worried about fighting for too long.

Most of your countries are barely out of the stone age, I would take them out of the mix.

You're kidding right? China has the largest mobile infantry of any country in the world, and most likely the most numerous armor. Of course, the U.S. has Abrams tanks, which are nearly indestructible, but China still takes the cake as the most powerful military in the world.

reply to post by II HAL II


Afghanistan
Bahrain
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Kuwait
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Thailand
Qatar
United Arab Emirates

As of right now all those countries would be on the U.S.’s, err.. I mean the "home" team's side.

And possibly a few other border countries of Russia, there’s a reason why they separated away from the U.S.S.R. as soon as it fell. The CIA might have had something to do with them.

Plus, I'd add Germany, France, Japan, and the U.K. to the list of MVPs, or start them.

reply to post by II HAL II


World Wars are in effect fought on all continents by a number of world forces/armies.So we have UK/FRANCE/US/ITALY CANADA and nato mmmm..lol.fighting in libya ..afghanistan..pakistan ..(then up risings in syria...bahrain..egypt ....blah blah..Then korean cease fire!!! which is still under close watch.French troops fighting in Africa Ivory coast...Isreal always willing and ready to smash gaza to bits if it wants..with jewish US backing..add to the mix Iran supplying arms to terror groups..and Osama bin liner and his American trained freedom fighters sorry..Then russians and tiddley winks battering there neighbours..Get the picture..think we are some way there...lets not talk about CIA..Brit SAS spec/ops black ops..who we all know are in the mix..a nice world war jolly good show old chap..

In order to attack Team 2 would have to move that massive land army, in order to move them they would have to use logistics craft such as amphibious ships and large aircraft. Team 1 has clear technological superiority over air and sea, with exception to the sea east of Jan Mayan and the very northwest Pacific, Team 1 would destroy Team 2's army in the air and on the water. With Australia to the south and India (which would really be on Team 1 and has an impressive navy and missile tech) to the south west of China, they would not get anywhere fast and the US would mobilize all over the world quickly with its 11 or so carriers and strike aircraft. Japan even lies right beside China and North Korea as a blockade and would probably get ravaged along with the middle east and the line between Team 1 Europe and Russia. There would probably be a huge Naval battle with the EU and Russia and the US and Russia at the top of the world. Israel would be devastated and Greece would suffer, Team 2 would have the eastern Mediterranean for a while until EU showed up. Africa doesn't have anything to bring to the table in this. Russia would be the last stand for Team 2, they would hold out longer than anyone else as far as military technology and numbers and may even be THE #1 country as far as damage done when the results are calculated. In the end to the US's ability to project military power easily (and defend it vs nuclear missiles) would win the day for Team 1, Team 2 would not be able to move its numerically superior army.

A straight up conventional war would end very badly for Team 2, the only real option is a nuclear missile standoff.

reply to post by Konstantinos

canada a minor player? whom are you kidding? We,ve got tonnes of hockey sticks and snowmobiles to defend our arctic sovereignty!! lol what I really feel is "lord help us all."

When you come up with a scenario that involves Superpowers like USA, Russia, China, Israel, UK etc. conventional means become obsolete. Wars between superpowers will always escalate, resulting in full blown nuclear war and we all know there are no winners in a nuclear war- Unless being nuked 10 minutes after you have successfully nuked your enemy counts as "winning".

-All electronics will be fried (EMP's produced by the nukes), including many satellites (That means no cars, no trains, no food, no water, no gas, nothing containing electronics or needs electronics to operate will function)
-Radiation will spread fast and make a huge portion of our planet inhabitable or thousands of years .
-Thousands of nukes exploding in a short amount of time will cause huge natural disasters and could even cause another ice age and/or polar shift.
-Death estimates range from 600.000.000 to 1.100.000.000 in the first 4 hours in a global nuclear war, with approximately 3 to 4 billion more dying because of hunger, radiation sickness, dehydration, murder etc. in the weeks after, depending on the scale of the war.
-Government will collapse and chaos will take over for the few remaining humans who by some miracle survived the initial war.

If World War 3 is fought with nuclear weapons, then World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

I could type more about the likely effects of WW3 but I think you get the point. If superpowers collide, our entire race will have to pay for it and be thrown back into the stone age for thousands of years.


IT--