Was World War III a full nuclear exchange or a limited conflict?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I always thought Data was just talking stardates.

As for World War III...as I said, the Vulcans must have helped in the rebuilding. Earth could never have recovered if they hadn't.

And the Eugenics Wars...

Spoiler: SNW

Initially I hated the idea of moving them but at least it was an in-universe plot event - specifically, Romulan interference - that did it. That makes it easier to deal with. And it has the advantage of not decanonizing TOS.

And while I'm on board with WW III being the Eugenics Wars, I am NOT down with lumping the Second Civil War in with them. Or even with there being a Second Civil War in the first place.

 

[Tuskin38]

And it has the advantage of not decanonizing TOS.

and for the billionth time, it wouldn't have decanonized the entire show. That's not how canon works.

Retcons don't decanonize things, because everything is canon, even the contradictions.

TOS is still canon despite TNG WW3 from the 1990s to the 21st Century.
"Where No Man Has Gone Before" is still canon despite later sources saying Kirk's middle name is 'T.'
TOS is still canon despite later sources calling the Enterprise a Constitution Class instead of Starship Class.

Had they not explained it, all it would have done was retcon Spock's line, it would not have 'decanonized' TOS.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Meh, I'm a literalist.

 

[Tuskin38]

Meh, I'm a literalist.

Thats... thats not what that means.

 

[Jedi Marso]

Addressing the OP, I guess it depends on your definitions of 'limited' and 'full' exchanges.

I think the nuclear war Earth suffered was probably an intermediate exchange- several nations and concerns using nuclear weapons on each other, but not the full doomsday scenario of every nuclear-armed nation on Earth launching every warhead they have at everyone else. The latter results in a sterile planet and an extinct species, or at least not one that is going to found the Federation a century later.

So I'd go with an intermediate exchange, which is probably 'limited' by definition, resulting in the casualty numbers based on direct deaths, radiation-related deaths after the fact, and cases of mass starvation and disease in regions where the social order and supply chains have totally broken down. Now where the Vulcans figure into all this depends on the sources you are reading or watching, as well as whether this war happened before or after the first colonies were established throughout the solar system and on Alpha Centauri. The bottom line is that offworld colonies and Vulcan participation result in a far faster 'bounce back' than without those things.

This is the kind of stuff we should have been talking about and addressing during the Enterprise show, really. Would've been cool to delve into some of it, especially if Future guy and the TCW resulted in sending Archer back into the century past instead of always into the future. (Stormfront does not count).

 

[Jedi Marso]

Oh, and on a side note, if anyone wants to scare the shit out of themselves, look up and watch the 1983 movie: Threads.

I warn you beforehand, however, once you watch it, you cannot un-watch it. Serious warning. This one stays with you.

 

[Orphalesion]

What's quite curious are the statements given iN First Contact, not because how they fit or not fit with what was established before (I don't really care about that) but...

First contact says most major cities have been destroyed, few governments are left. Yet the death toil is "only" 600 million We don't learn whether that includes the 37 million people killed by Col. Green. But I assume this means the entirety of the war's causalities, soldiers and civilians, from both the fighting and radiation/starvation, all of which reduces the number of civilian people who would have been directly killed by nuclear warheads alone.
Now in 2023, 4.4 billion people live in cities. Even if every single of these 600 million causalities would have been a city dwelling civilian, it wouldn't even be enough to wipe out China's urban population, let alone the world's.

Now I will admit I know very little about war or hypothetical nuclear exchange scenarios...but doesn't that sound pretty low for it being so devastating?

 

[Jedi Marso]

Well, perhaps it wasn't that devastating, then. Of course, how devastating any war or disaster is, is somewhat objective. If you live on Maui, what happened a couple weeks ago is a frickin' disaster of the first order. You might be homeless, your friends and some family members burned to death or missing, and all you own is ash. If you live in Kenosha, it was just a story on the news unless you had friends or loved ones there.

A nuclear war is no different. Say India and Pakistan nuked each other off the map tomorrow- not a completely out of bounds scenario, most years. If you live in that region, it's the literal end of the world. If you live in New Zealand, you are hardly going to notice in terms of your day-to-day life.

 

[Orphalesion]

Well, perhaps it wasn't that devastating, then. Of course, how devastating any war or disaster is, is somewhat objective. If you live on Maui, what happened a couple weeks ago is a frickin' disaster of the first order. You might be homeless, your friends and some family members burned to death or missing, and all you own is ash. If you live in Kenosha, it was just a story on the news unless you had friends or loved ones there.

A nuclear war is no different. Say India and Pakistan nuked each other off the map tomorrow- not a completely out of bounds scenario, most years. If you live in that region, it's the literal end of the world. If you live in New Zealand, you are hardly going to notice in terms of your day-to-day life.

Not saying it wouldn't be devastating for the places that got nuked.

From the movie it just seems like the movie tried to portray it as a scenario of global devastation with most cities worldwide being smoldering ruins and most governments gone etc. etc. etc.
But from the causality numbers (which again, seem to be for the whole war, so soldiers included) either only a limited number of countries had their cities nuked, or they had some damn sturdy air raid shelters for most of the urban population.

 

[Imaus]

Not saying it wouldn't be devastating for the places that got nuked.

From the movie it just seems like the movie tried to portray it as a scenario of global devastation with most cities worldwide being smoldering ruins and most governments gone etc. etc. etc.
But from the causality numbers (which again, seem to be for the whole war, so soldiers included) either only a limited number of countries had their cities nuked, or they had some damn sturdy air raid shelters for most of the urban population.

Both of these scenarios can and most likely will occur simultaneously. Nukes killing the cities leads to governments collapsing (down, most likely, to a local level) or focusing on big projects and cutting social and non-essential services, the military guarding farms and food convoys...

The world, especially the targeted nations and those that rely on them will still be chaotic, even if there's not 'that' many dead.

 

[Orphalesion]

Both of these scenarios can and most likely will occur simultaneously. Nukes killing the cities leads to governments collapsing (down, most likely, to a local level) or focusing on big projects and cutting social and non-essential services, the military guarding farms and food convoys...

The world, especially the targeted nations and those that rely on them will still be chaotic, even if there's not 'that' many dead.

But then the question still remains how they'd kill the cities without killing more people. From what I understand modern nuclear warheads are quite a bit stronger than the ones dropped on Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Plus all the people who' d succomb to rariation/starvation/conventional fighting...
It doesn't add up imo.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I always thought Data was just talking stardates.

How would that work? 24th Century stardates have five digits. The date Data gives has four. Do Stardates apply planetside?

 

[ED-209]

We might find out within the next couple of years.

 

[BK613]

What's Riker's criteria for 'a major city'? What makes it major?
It's political importance? it's economic importance? it's strategic importance?
Or is it just it's size?
And is that a 21st or 24th century perspective?

 

[Tuskin38]

The date Data gives has four.

Data said Class of '78 in Farpoint. He only said 2 numbers.

That still wouldn't make any sense as a reference to a stardate though.

 

[Jedi Marso]

We might find out within the next couple of years.

I would not bet a penny that the world gets out of the 21st century without some nuclear weapons going off somewhere on the planet. We ain't that smart or rational yet as a species.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'll go ahead and place the bet that we don't have World War III in this century.

Though I'll be long dead by January 1st, 2101. So I'll never know if I'm right. But I'll place the bet anyway.

 

[Jedi Marso]

I'll go ahead and place the bet that we don't have World War III in this century.

Though I'll be long dead by January 1st, 2101. So I'll never know if I'm right. But I'll place the bet anyway.

I didn't say WWIII - I said the use of nuclear weapons somewhere in the world.

 

[Shawnster]

First contact says most major cities have been destroyed, few governments are left. Yet the death toil is "only" 600 million We don't learn whether that includes the 37 million people killed by Col. Green.

Just for sake of comparison.

World War I
The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million. There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 5.7 million soldiers while the Central Powers lost about 4 million.

World War II
Estimates for the total death count of the Second World War generally range somewhere between 70 and 85 million people. The Soviet Union suffered the highest number of fatalities of any single nation, with estimates mostly falling between 22 and 27 million deaths. China then suffered the second greatest, at around 20 million, although these figures are less certain and often overlap with the Chinese Civil War. Over 80 percent of all deaths were of those from Allied countries, and the majority of these were civilians. In contrast, 15 to 20 percent were among the Axis powers, and the majority of these were military deaths, as shown in the death ratios of Germany and Japan.


Perhaps part of the horror in the 600 million dead is how quickly they died. WWI 40 million dead over 4 years. WWII 70 to 85 million dead over 6 years. WWIII 600 million dead in, what, weeks? Months?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Data said Class of '78 in Farpoint. He only said 2 numbers.

That still wouldn't make any sense as a reference to a stardate though.

Form implies a year.