Where You Wouldn't Want to Live if World War 3 Starts

The threat of a third

world

war has never been greater, and if you

live

in any of the places on our list, we have bad news for you because your chances of survival are slim. Our first global hotspot for World War 3 is the India-Pakistan border. These two nations have a longstanding sibling rivalry that has seen the two nations go to war multiple times in the last seventy years. The root of the conflict stems from Britain's liberation of India and Pakistan, and the subsequent fallout over who owns what territory. For the most part, the territory in question was Kashmir, and the newly formed Pakistan feared that local rulers would swear allegiance to India.

Therefore, Pakistan started an offensive in Kashmir through tribal militias to try to take the territory before the local rulers joined India. Since then India and Pakistan have fought four official wars with many other smaller scale conflicts. With Pakistan frequently being defeated by the vastly superior Indian Army, which in recent years has resorted to using terrorism to attack inside India. Officially, Pakistan does not support any form of terrorism. Unofficially, India, Britain and the United States, to name a few countries, have fully linked Pakistan with various terrorist groups and militias. He famously even helped arm and train terrorist fighters during the US occupation of Afghanistan, even sheltering them across the border

where

US troops couldn't pursue them.

When US forces launched joint raids inside Pakistan against terrorist strongholds, most of the time their targets were not found, having been mysteriously warned of a pending raid. On December 13, 2001, Pakistani-backed terrorist groups carried out an attack on the Indian parliament, bringing them to the brink of war. In 2008, Pakistani-backed terrorists once again carried out a campaign of bombings and mass shootings inside India, with Pakistan mobilizing its forces in anticipation of an Indian declaration of war. Since then, the two sides have engaged in a series of border skirmishes, with hostilities escalating in 2019-2021, leading to Indian airstrikes inside Pakistan, Pakistan's downing of an Indian plane and the exchange of artillery and rifle fire between both parties.

Now the two sides are closer to an all-out war than they have been in decades, and it could be the last war for either side. Both nations possess nuclear weapons, with India having 160 to Pakistan's 165. India has a no-first-use policy, and will only use its weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack on itself or its forces. However, Pakistan maintains a first-strike policy, albeit with the stipulation that it will only use nuclear weapons if it cannot repel an invasion or is first attacked by nuclear weapons. While a full trade would be devastating, even a partial trade would result in millions of deaths thanks to the population density of both nations.

So what are the worst places to be in case of war? India's strategy to defeat Pakistan involves making rapid and deep penetrations into Pakistani territory. The goal of the Indian military is to penetrate so deeply, so quickly, that if Pakistan decided to use nuclear weapons, it would be forced to do so on its own soil. So any

where

along the India-Pakistan border would be a death trap for civilians. Pakistan would bear the brunt of nuclear strikes as panic-stricken Pakistani commanders turn to nuclear weapons to try to repel India's superior forces. However, at the time that nuclear weapons were used against Indian forces, there is a strong possibility that India will escalate the conflict by launching its own nuclear strikes against Pakistani military targets, including major military bases and installations.

This first wave of attacks is unlikely to target population centers as a way of trying to prevent further escalation, and more of a tit-for-tat nuclear exchange. The problem arises if Pakistan decides it

want

s to further escalate by retaliating against these attacks, leaving it with only one option: use its limited arsenal against Indian cities. This will seal the fate of Pakistan as India's own arsenal wipes out Pakistan's major population centers. Fortunately, both nations possess a very limited stockpile of nuclear weapons, and they probably

wouldn

't use them all on each other to leave some deterrent in the future.

Yet even with an exchange of several dozen nuclear weapons, hundreds of millions would die from the initial explosions and the subsequent societal collapse across the subcontinent in the weeks that followed. Massive radioactive plumes of radioactive fallout would drift with the easterly and northerly winds, even penetrating China and triggering cancer cases in southern and central China. However, the effects of this war would be global. If both sides were to engage in a nuclear exchange, the resulting smoke and debris would linger in the stratosphere for about five years, according to a 2019 study. Global temperatures would drop by as much as 5 degrees Celsius and cause up to 30% global precipitation loss. .

This would trigger a mini Ice Age and make it very difficult to grow food around the

world

, but especially in India, China, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, tropical South America, and Africa. A massive global famine would follow and the earth's population could be nearly halved with most of the worst effects being felt in less developed nations that would be ill-suited to weather the effects. But even if the conflict remains conventional, living anywhere in eastern Pakistan, where most of the fighting would take place, would be deadly. Pakistan has no hope of threatening Indian cities with conventional firepower, but India, on the other hand, could easily overwhelm Pakistani forces and take the fight to Pakistani cities.

Since neither military has a large investment in smart weapons, the fight would mostly involve "dumb" and unguided munitions that would cause extreme collateral damage. While India would easily weather the fight, Pakistan would be devastated internally looking for another fight against its much larger neighbor. For our next Worst World War 3 location, we'll stay on the Indian subcontinent, but this time facing north. China and India have just as tense relations as India and Pakistan, and once again it all comes down to disputed borders. Neither side recognizes the other's claims along the Himalayas, and this has resulted in a border stalemate that often turns violent, albeit in highly unexpected ways.

Originally, the border conflicts resulted in full-blown military action by both sides, with a very brief war being fought between the two in 1962. Since then, in an attempt to temper the escalating hostilities, both sides have finally come to an agreement. a sort of deal: rifles and guns. the explosives would not be used in any skirmishes between the border forces of the two sides. This has led to an interesting throwback to the medieval era, when Indian and Chinese troops armed themselves with all sorts of makeshift clubs, maces, and even blunt spears. The two sides have begun trading insults and frequently throwing stones at each other.

However, recent violent incidents, including the exchange of fire, have become more frequent, and a Sino-Indian war may be looming. The good news is that such a conflict is unlikely to go nuclear, but the bad news is that even if it remains conventional, both sides will experience a lot of suffering. Initially, there would be little impact to civilians as most of the fighting is taking place along the northern border. In fact, the scale of the fight would be relatively small given the fact that the terrain is not suitable for heavy equipment, and providing close air support at such a high altitude is very problematic for both sides.

However, India would almost certainly try to infiltrate Chinese-occupied Tibet and start a local uprising against the Chinese troops. The Tibetan people have been occupied by the Chinese since 1949, and despite a great effort to destroy the Tibetan national identity, many in the region resent the occupation. Tibet would witness brutal crackdowns by Chinese troops, especially since they control all the media in the region and there is no way the world would hold them accountable like in Hong Kong, which has a large foreign media presence. However, the real pain would start when India uses its navy to shut down Chinese trade in the South Pacific, crippling China economically.

Despite having a superior navy, China's navy is still not well equipped to carry out operations far from its own shores, and there is little the country could do to prevent an Indian blockade of its trade across the Indian Ocean. The ships could reroute to avoid the Indian navy further south, but this will add time and dramatically increase shipping costs for vital necessities like Middle Eastern petrochemicals. China may be the worst place to be in the event of a Sino-Indian war, as while the conflict is unlikely to have large civilian casualties, it will devastate China economically when it is most vulnerable due to the pending retirement crisis. facing the country.

With more old workers retiring than new workers replacing them, China's economy could take a massive nosedive, undoing decades of hard work to become a world power. However, there is a place where China could start World War 3 and make the locals suffer a lot. Taiwan is an independent island nation off the coast of China and has been since Chinese nationalists fled from the communists at the end of World War II. Today, the nation is an island fortress that has invested heavily in its defense for one simple fact: China

want

s it back, and wants it back very, very soon.

President Xi Jinping has made it clear that Taiwan's continuation of independence is out of the question, yet local polls show only a very small minority in favor of reunification with China. This leaves President Xi with only one option: reunification by force, and the Chinese navy has been preparing for that role for more than a decade, adding dozens of amphibious warfare ships to its growing fleet. Little Taiwan may seem completely outmatched, but it has huge geographical advantages that would make an invasion extremely expensive. However, it also has the support of the most powerful nation on earth: the United States of America, with President Biden reaffirming that the US is committed to defending insular democracy.

This means that President Xi's ambition to reunify Taiwan by force puts him on a collision course with the United States. The worst place to be in the event of a World War III in the South Pacific would be Taiwan itself, as the island nation would inevitably be overrun by Chinese troops. However, the effort to neutralize the island would take months, if not years, and the Chinese military would be forced to engage in brutal house-to-house fighting inside modern, high-rise cities, a logistical nightmare for any army. China, not known for its restraint, is likely to respond in the same way as Russia in Ukraine: with indiscriminate bombing campaigns aimed at destroying urban defenders and demoralizing the population.

Large swaths of the island nation would be completely destroyed by fighting, resulting in the deaths of thousands and the displacement of hundreds of thousands with no way to escape the island. There is a possibility that China will allow humanitarian transport back to the mainland for Taiwanese refugees, but given China's treatment of the Uyghur people, we might expect to see these refugees rounded up and buried in prison camps for political indoctrination and retraining. But if you

live

on Guam or near US bases in Japan and South Korea, life is probably horrible for you, too. That's thanks to the hundreds of missiles China will expend in an effort to destroy US air and naval capabilities in the region.

With the largest rocket and missile forces in the world, China has hundreds of ballistic missiles, all targeting major US naval and air bases throughout the Pacific, and most of these missiles have a very small radius of error. large, putting civilian targets near military assets at serious risk. Again, though, living inside China will surely suck for you in the event of a war in the Pacific, because the US Navy can and absolutely would block theChinese trade, choking 60% of its imports and most of its exports. Financially starved, the Chinese economy is set to slump in the coming months, with an expected loss of GDP of up to 35% for the Chinese economy in the long run versus 15% for the US.

This conflict is not likely to go nuclear, but for our next two conflicts the use of nuclear weapons is almost certain. Next on our tour of the worst places to live in the event of World War 3 are the Baltic states: Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. All three are former Soviet republics, and all three are in the crosshairs of Vladimir Putin, who wants to restore the former glory of the Soviet Union. Putin's judgment is questionable given his handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is unlikely that he would declare all-out war against NATO by invading the Baltic states.

Instead, analysts have warned for years that Putin could try to undermine the alliance by making micro-aggressive moves in the former Soviet republics, such as seizing one or two towns or villages along the border with Russia. In essence, this would challenge NATO to declare all-out war over what is, in essence, a petty military incursion against a member of the alliance. However, NATO has made it clear that it is ready and willing to fight for every inch of NATO territory. A war over the Baltics would turn very bad very quickly for the locals. Russian forces vastly outnumber NATO forces in the region, and NATO's bastion of power is in Poland or further west.

Despite the creation of a quick reaction force and a very quick reaction force, no NATO member realistically expects the Baltics to be defensible against a full-scale Russian invasion. This leaves Baltic citizens at the mercy of the Russian occupiers, and as we have seen time and again in the Ukraine, this means a great deal of abuse and outright war crimes, especially when frustrated Russian troops act against the forces of the NATO. Local populations would be subject to a large number of unguided air strikes and artillery barrages, many of which would be carried out on purpose against civilian targets.

Rather than fight a conventional conflict, the Russian military would choose to terrorize the Baltic states into surrendering and terminating their NATO membership before NATO forces can build up in numbers for a counterattack and liberation. It would take weeks for the United States to move most of its forces to Europe, and a similar amount of time for European NATO forces to assemble for meaningful action against Russian advances. They would have to eliminate Kaliningrad first to open a corridor to the Baltic, and the Russian enclave is very well fortified. Similarly, trying to push through Ukraine would see NATO forces embroiled in fighting Belarusian forces and their Russian allies.

While a large portion of the Belarusian forces would likely defect or switch sides when faced with the proposition of fighting professional Western military forces, the march to liberate the Baltics would become a matter of months. This would leave the Russian occupiers plenty of time to terrorize the Baltic populations in an effort to force them to submit to Russia. The images coming from Ukraine, especially Bucha, of unarmed Ukrainian civilians with their hands tied behind their backs and shot in the head hint at the fate of the Baltic populations who refuse to accept the Russian occupation, as do the images and photos of the aftermath of the Russian bombing. civilian evacuation routes and food aid lines.

In short, Russia will commit war crimes on a daily basis until the people of the Baltics agree to Russia's terms, and NATO forces may not be able to move fast enough to stop the killing of civilians. A fundamentally weak military power, Russia 'wins' through campaigns of terror. But if the NATO resolution is upheld, Western members may refuse to accept the capitulation of the Baltics to Russia, no doubt led by puppet presidents installed by the Kremlin itself. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown that the Russian military is failing from within, with hordes of poorly trained soldiers operating equipment that is also poorly maintained.

Despite years of propaganda good enough to fool Western analysts, it's clear that Russian forces are incapable of waging combined arms warfare, and the West would give Russia a masterclass in proper modern combat. This leaves Russia with only one option to counter NATO's superior conventional power: nuclear weapons. However, doing so would immediately trigger a response from NATO's nuclear members, prompting further escalation on the nuclear scale. While Russia is likely to first use tactical nuclear weapons against NATO forces, it is unlikely that it will simply choose to absorb the inevitable retaliatory strikes against its own forces and military installations.

Putin, for his part, does not appear to be the type to simply accept defeat both conventional and nuclear, and the next round of attacks would come against Western cities. In that case, being a citizen of any major western city would be a bad idea. Probably the first major escalation would come from nuclear attacks within Europe itself against industry and military targets, rather than cities. This means that places like the Ruhr Valley in Germany would disappear in a flash of nuclear fire. Attacks on the United States would be highly unlikely at this stage, as Russia would try not to antagonize a US nuclear response.

However, it is unlikely that the United States will simply agree to nuclear strikes against nations that fall under its nuclear umbrella, or nations that the United States has sworn to defend against nuclear attack, considering that attacks against them are equal to attacks against the American homeland. . This includes all NATO members, as well as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Attacks against these protected nations will initiate an immediate nuclear response by the United States, and this makes living in any major city in the west or in Russia a very bad idea. But even if the conflict did not go nuclear, again, even a conventional fight would mean death and destruction for large numbers of people.

As the Baltic countries are invaded and then occupied by Russian troops, they will suffer doubly as NATO forces break through and conventional warfare to retake the territories begins, with massive urban battles between the two sides. NATO primarily uses precision weapons and has vast fleets of reconnaissance assets, which would severely limit collateral damage, but any urban combat will cause massive loss of life and property. The displaced populations would also have nowhere to go, as the ocean hemmed them in on one side, Russia skirted them on the other, and Kaliningrad and Belarus threatened them from the south. The only hope would be to escape to neutral Finland by boat, but we have already seen in Ukraine how Russia respects civilian evacuation corridors.

With a significant Russian naval presence in St. Petersburg, these escape routes from the ocean are unlikely to remain open for long. Poland is also likely to see extensive fighting, at least in the first weeks of the war. But Kaliningrad and Belarus would become moonscapes after massive conventional fighting as NATO forces engage the bulk of Russian and allied forces. Kaliningrad is a Russian military stronghold and would have to be nearly razed to neutralize it completely and allow NATO forces to operate safely further north, meaning the fighting here would be especially brutal. Inside Belarus, an uprising against the current president and Putin's best friend, Lukashenko, is almost inevitable.

This would bog pro-Russian Belarusian forces into a local insurgency even as both they and Russian forces attempt to repel a NATO advance. If this scenario takes place after some kind of ceasefire or agreement has been reached in the current war with Ukraine, NATO would undoubtedly take the opportunity to encourage Ukraine to join the fight by helping to liberate the country. This would weaken Russian forces as they are forced to fight on multiple fronts of the war, but would once again push Ukraine into destructive fighting. However, faced with a much more capable force, Russian attacks inside Ukraine would become more indiscriminate and increasingly desperate, putting civilians once again at greater risk.

As Eastern Europe becomes a wasteland, if you think you're safe from conventional warfare in other parts of the world, think again. With Ukraine embroiled in the fighting again and Russia unable to export its wheat, the world would be thrown into a food crisis unlike any it has faced since World War II. Again, the most vulnerable would be the least developed nations, but even if you live a comfortable life in sunny Los Angeles, you could expect food prices to skyrocket and many of your favorite treats to disappear after a few months of struggling. Thanks to a current ban on Russian oil, oil prices are unlikely to be affected too much by the fighting, especially since Russia can do little to threaten important oil trade routes in the Middle East and beyond.

However, the disruption of the entire Eastern European economy would send the world into an economic tailspin, with effects felt around the world. Americans, far from the fighting, would not be entirely immune to military action either. The port of Los Angeles is one of the largest in the world, with a significant amount of US trade through this single port. This makes it a tempting target for Russian submarines, which could carry out a devastating sneak attack on the port and its facilities. Using long-range cruise missiles, they could even threaten important rail yards inland, crippling US trade for weeks, if not months.

Even more devastating would be the sinking of numerous large cargo ships within the port itself, requiring months of work to remove the sunken hulks in order to reopen the port facilities. Such an attack would probably be suicidal thanks to the US Navy tightening security in the Pacific, but it is not impossible and would cause significant damage to the US economy. Even in a conventional war, nowhere it would be safe from Russian military aggression, especially given Russia's willingness to attack civilians. Instead of trying to get close to heavily defended coastal installations, Russian submarines could be launched against large civilian vessels such as cruise ships, all in an effort to wage a global campaign of terror aimed at demoralizing populations from continuing to support the war.

It is not inconceivable that the tactic would work either, as the loss of some cruise ships carrying hundreds, or even thousands, of passengers, many of them American, would make many American citizens wonder why they are risking their own lives and the lives of others. their military for another European war. However, once the conflict went nuclear, as it undoubtedly would, nowhere would be safe, and the worst place to live in the event of World War III would be Earth. Now watch what would happen after World War 3, or click on this other video!