When looking at what could potentially happen should nuclear war occur again, there are two aspects that are equally important to consider. The first is the effects that war has in the past generally had on the human population, and the second is the types of war technology that we have now. There are numerous ways in which war and population affect each other, and this often changes as the technology around war is constantly changing.

The population density of an area affects the way conflicts occur and the effects of those conflicts on the population. Historically, discord is more common in Europe, the Middle East, India, China, and Japan, and less common in South and Central America, Africa, and Northern Central Asia (Miller & Bakar, 2023). Population density is higher in the former nations, which points to a positive correlation between the factors.

On the other hand, higher population in an area can also affect the sustainability of a military. Armies often have relied (and sometimes still rely) on the land and resources that are around them. If the population in an area is higher, there are less resources for the army to use. These resources could be food, water, or simply physical space (Miller & Bakar, 2023). Additionally, the population in an area and the consequences of war tend to be correlated. The lower the population, the less consequences of war there are (Miller & Bakar, 2023).

War has numerous effects on the population; some are direct and others are indirect. One thing that has happened in the past is that war has caused populations to move to cities for safety. This can have many unintended consequences as there might not be enough resources in the city to support the sudden influx in population, especially with the corresponding lower population in rural areas necessary to produce certain resources. Additionally, conflict can increase the population density in an area in the following century. Finally, as can be assumed, war can lead to demographic changes, and population decreases in the future (Miller & Bakar, 2023; van Besouw & Curtis, 2022).

In addition to affecting the population itself, war can also affect population changes, specifically deaths. Not only are there deaths related directly to war (war victims), but there are also deaths related to the side effects and consequences of such conflict. It can be difficult to separate mortality from the war itself and illness during war. This is especially important since wars can cause epidemics, leading to more casualties. The military activity near an area can increase its general mortality by 0.5 to 2%, not including direct war-related deaths. In this data and analysis, no difference was found between rural and urban areas (van Besouw & Curtis, 2022).

• Nuclear weapons first made an appearance during World War II in Hiroshima, Japan. 

• The creation and development process took place beforehand within the Manhattan Project, a top-secret program established by the U.S. government to win a race against Nazis to create and use the first atomic bomb. 

• It was generally understood that whichever power was successfully held the key to winning the war. What is the Manhattan Project? talks about the two main paths for designing the atomic bomb. 

  • • The first path was using uranium 235 isotopes (National Park Service). 

    • The second path was using plutonium (National Park Service). 

In the end, they ended up choosing a combination of both paths. In order to obtain a large amount of uranium and plutonium, two sites were established, one in Washington and one in Tennessee, to make sure the amount needed was produced as fast as possible. They went on to test their product in laboratories situated in isolated parts of New Mexico in July of 1945. 

With the lack of healthcare workers, a large number of injured civilians, and lost hospitals, there weren't enough people or resources to help save lives. Most of the injured ended up dying since outsiders avoided going into Hiroshima for fear of experiencing the effects of the bombing. Those who managed to survive had to find refuge in other parts of the country, increasing the population in surrounding areas. 

Causes

The effects of “Fat Man” are pretty similar to those in Hiroshima. “Fat Man” did not fall in the initial intended location, which saved many lives due to the valleys surrounding Nagasaki and its rural location.

 The atomic bomb exploded, leveling 6.7 square kilometers of the city (ICAN). 

• It killed 74,000 people by the end of 1945 (ICAN). 

• The ground temperatures reached 4,000°C and black rain fell (ICAN). 

• The ground reached a concerning level of heat, causing the land to become unlivable and unusable to plant crops (ICAN). 

• 73,884 people died, and 79,909 people were injured by the end of 1945 (U.S NRC). 

There were far fewer deaths at the end of the year compared to Hiroshima, but still, a large number of people were injured. With the large number of radioactive materials in the air, those who managed to survive sooner or later started to experience cancer and chronic diseases. Nagasaki is an example of how atomic bombs in rural areas would not affect the human population as much as they would affect urban areas.

Causes 

An evacuation was one of the largest causes of Chernobyl’s casualties. Within the first day, about 50,000 people were evacuated from Pripyat, Ukraine (Rice, D., & Galbraith, M. 2008). The government also evacuated about 115,000 people from the most contaminated areas. An additional 220,000 people were evacuated from the area within the following years. This contaminated places outside Chernobyl and affected those who lived there. It also caused the land to become unlivable and no longer safe to live in at the time or in the following years. 

Contaminated areas had a population of about 5 million people. This included about 1  million children and about 200,000 adolescents (Rice, D., & Galbraith, M. 2008). The effects of being in an exposed area were seen more among those who were still in the developing phases. This caused children to be the most likely age group to develop cancer, chronic diseases, and other long-term effects as they grew. 

In 1986, children/adolescents drank contaminated milk containing radioactive iodine (U.S NRC). As an area is contaminated, animals unknowingly eat contaminated crops. This causes the contamination to be transferred from plants to animals to the humans who consume them. Those drinking contaminated milk had no other option or no idea it was poisoned. 

Radiation increases the risks of leukemia, solid cancer, and thyroid cancer. About 6,000 thyroid cancer cases have been detected in these children– although 99% of these children were successfully treated (U.S NRC). However, there could still be many who weren't treated due to not knowing they were exposed, lack of healthcare, etc. 

Testing nuclear weapons that aren't fully developed could be the reason for mass destruction as we have seen with Chernobyl. The use of atomic weapons should be used carefully as a couple of seconds can make a difference in the human population. Long-term effects include migration, destruction of land, lack of resources, and more.

During the war, people are focused on success above all else, which can lead to the destruction of land, population, and resources. One of the fastest ways to win a war is by using nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons cause long-term destruction within seconds, destroying the area and those within it. It causes many long-term effects that help decrease the amount of resources we have, and the land that can be inhabited. If the affected areas include bodies of water it becomes easier for other lands surrounding that body of water to spread contamination, destroy land, take away resources, and directly result in human casualties. The implications of nuclear warfare last for decades.

Considering the likelihood and vast magnitude of nuclear fallout, there are benefits found in asking “what if?”. So, with the lack of published scholarly literature on the subject, this section asks the following question: What if nuclear warfare forced the entire population of India, one of the most densely populated countries in the world, to relocate to another country, such as Australia? These countries provide intriguing examples as India has a population over forty times the size of Australia’s even though the latter has over twice the landmass. Assuming all parties involved were willing and capable of rising to the occasion, would there be enough resources present in Australia to support a vastly inflated population? Let’s look at the math. 

Research and modeling performed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in 2015 shows it would be possible for Australia to grow its economy while protecting its environment through limiting greenhouse emissions– enough to stop global warming beyond two degrees. 

According to ABC Premium News, the CSIRO researchers mapped more than twenty scenarios for Australia's future based on different policies and technology. Each model encapsulated agriculture, mining, and energy production, which make up 75% of resource use, including the all-important water supply. If Australia transitioned to using renewable energy, committed to increased water recycling, and allocated more land to farming would make an expansion of food production perfectly feasible. 

Like any significant change, a lot of work would be necessary– but if the Australian government were motivated to instate the proper policy, thus affecting the choices individual citizens could make, the country would be able to adjust– sustainably (Salleh, 2015). This is a direction the world is moving toward anyway– the future is in sustainable energy or no energy at all, especially as the world population continues to rise. 

One drawback of this hypothetical scenario would be an unbalanced workforce. A successful economy requires human labor to continue operating, and the current ratios of working citizens in each country are hugely imbalanced. In 2021, India’s labor force was made up of 476,670,190 individuals, which is a mere 34% of their total population (World Bank, 2021). In the same year, Australia's workforce numbered at 13,786,250, 54% of its total population (World Bank, 2022). However, both workforce populations are on the rise. The question is whether Australia's economy, overburdened by a mass influx of individuals, would be able to function supported by a lower ratio of workforce to population over the time it would take for the new collective workforce to grow. 

Another constraint was mentioned above– Australia would be able to accommodate over a billion extra residents in terms of its gross square kilometers, but those numbers do not account for farmland, bodies of water, or land put to public use (i.e. libraries, schools, office buildings, etc.). However, humanity has been adjusting to limited space availability in urban settings for centuries, including in India, a society much older than that of the Australian population built by Western colonizers (not accounting for the country’s indigenous peoples, which of course possess far deeper histories). It is to be hoped that with the combined fortitude and experience of these cultures, the joint human population of Australia and India would not only be able to thrive, but to flourish.

Leaving the realms of strict carrying capacity behind, questions based on the social implications of moving India’s population to Australia arise. In 2016, about 60% of India’s population lived below the World Bank’s median poverty line (3.10 USD per day). Over 250 million of those individuals lived on less than $2.00 a day (Basu, 2016). These people, to use a common American term, survive “paycheck to paycheck,” leaving no room for the savings or investments necessary in the event that income ended. If nuclear warfare forced the population of India out of their homes and across the ocean, millions would be financially incapable of making the transition. For this simulation to be viable, outside governments or foundations would have to cover the difference and fund the emigration of millions.

Once living in Australia, this diasporic population of Indians would face issues involving assimilation and cultural adjustment. The dialects, dominant religions, and everyday cultural practices of the two countries would inevitably clash, requiring huge changes in social structure even after diasporic Indians reached their new homes. Additionally, the combined workforces would necessarily undergo significant adjustments, with at least some workers forced to fulfill roles they weren’t previously trained in to allow for proper agricultural growth, mass construction of housing, resource allocation and distribution, facilities management, and more.