Water Conflicts Might Kill 2.8 Billion by 2030's

[Resilient Acceleration]

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is an Ethiopian attempt to control the Blue Nile and reconfigure the topography of the Nile Basin. It will have a hydroelectric capacity twice that of the Hoover Dam, providing enough cheap energy to power the entire nation and its neighbors. Problem, Egypt's water supply is 95% dependent on the Nile (the majority of which comes from the Blue Nile), and some studies suggested that the dam will reduce Egypt's total arable land by 46%, which understandably is a grave existential crisis. Now, almost a quarter of the Egyptian population lives off subsistence farming.

If the Nile is dammed up, the result would be one of the largest humanitarian disaster in history that might see around 30 million people displaced, a refugee crisis large enough to alter European civilization.

As a possible solution, US President Donald Trump said:

Mr Trump and Mr Hamdok expressed hopes for a peaceful resolution to the dispute. But Mr Trump also said "it's a very dangerous situation because Egypt is not going to be able to live that way". He continued: "And I said it and I say it loud and clear - they'll blow up that dam. And they have to do something."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54674313

Admittedly, Egypt's military situation and mobilization capability is currently pathetic and is certain to lose if a war actually breaks out. Currently, America, Israel, and the Gulf states support Egypt. Iran, Turkey, and China support Ethiopia. As both sides failed to reach an agreement in August, Ethiopia vowed to press on, resulting in the US pulling out aid.

---

Tajikistan is damming Uzbekistan, another desert nation reliant on a singular source of water.

Karimov opposed the Rogun Dam and in a 2012 statement seemed to imply Tajikistan’s pursuit of the project could lead to war. Uzbekistan, and to a lesser extent Kazakhstan, had long worried that reduced water flow in the Vakhsh River could impact Uzbekistan’s production of cotton, which it views as a strategic commodity.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2018/07/ ... -problems/

Uzbekistan, whose population size and military and logistics far exceed that of their neighbors, can conquer Tajikistan to secure its water security. This will probably provoke international wrath and meddling especially from China, Russia, and possibly Iran. That being said, tensions do have calmed down after Uzbekistan got a new leader more supportive of a peaceful resolution.

“Go ahead and build it, but we hold to certain guarantees in accordance with these conventions that have been signed by you,” Uzbek Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Komilov said in a televised appearance on July 5.

Doesn't mean the problem has ended. Central Asia's doubling population, horrific desertification combined with Aral Sea's, stagnant economic growth unable to provide prosperity to the youth, and brutally oppressive political systems are actually pretty similar to the Middle East before the Arab Spring. So the potential for the entire region to collapse into chaos, instability, radicalism, civil wars, etc. is substantial.

---

Africa has had massive population growth and a young population with borders that make no sense, entrenched self-serving elites and not enough economic growth to legitimize it. This is also the same situation in the Middle East before the Arab Spring, except that the issues are far worse. I mean, cities like Lagos are supposed to have a population of 32 million in 2050 and 57 million in 2075, which isn't really sustainable. Thus, of the twenty highest-ranked countries that are deemed fragile states, twelve are situated in areas of the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, where climate change is expected to create heightened levels of water scarcity. That includes five countries of the Horn: Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan.

Competition for scarce resources, fueled by famine and droughts, has also exacerbated tensions among African tribes and has led to an outbreak of violence in the region. Scarce resources are leading to violent inter-tribal conflicts in Ethiopia and Kenya, particularly in the Omo River Valley. Climate change will likely increase the frequency and intensity of these events. Water weaponization is also a thing. In 2011, Somalia was hit by regional droughts that have been linked to climate change. During this time, the jihadist fundamentalist group Al-Shabaab changed its traditional guerilla tactics and started to cut off liberated cities from their water sources so that they could demonstrate at least some kind of power and presence. Climate change, lack of food and continued conflict involving water weaponization took an enormous social toll.

---

China is building 300 dams in Tibet, which will strangle the sources for the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers, of which a billion people depend upon. With 21 Indian cities running out of water, half the population faces high-to-extreme water stress, and about 200,000 die each year due to inadequate access to safe water right now, this is absolutely horrifying. China is not willing to negotiate on this, since much of northern China is projected to run out of water by 2030 due to industrialization and pollution. The dams will also serve as a massive bargaining chip that can turn India into a Chinese puppet state. As Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Myanmar, Nepal, and other countries are already influenced by China, this will give China complete control over the vast majority of Asia if this is achieved. Or, it can provoke a war (they have clashed five times in the past), where the US will side with India, potentially turning it into a world war.

A tiny difference between this case and Ethiopia's case is that both countries are also armed with nuclear weapons.

Right now their combined population is 2.8 billion, which is where the thread title comes from. Admittedly the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust is not that high, but it's still a possibility, and besides a full conventional war between the two would still be unfathomably catastrophic.

---

So this is some risk of water-related conflicts, which I predict will become a larger and larger issue as time goes on. While countries like India are rapidly depleting their groundwater, rainfall patterns around the world are becoming more unpredictable due to climate change, meaning there will be less water in reserves. According to the U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment of Global Water Security, by 2030 humanity’s “annual global water requirements” will exceed “current sustainable water supplies” by 40%. The number of people living in river basins under severe water stress is projected to reach 3.9 billion by 2050, totaling over 40% of the world’s population. Now, as shown by the Tajik-Uzbek issue, "conflicts" doesn't necessarily mean "war", but it does mean "Bad Things".

Is there anything that can or should be done, maybe a technology? Is there anything that will be done? Thoughts?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Bottled Electricity!

That is, desalination. When we have huge quantities of cheap fusion power ...

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Of course Trump would randomly throw out there a horrible idea. "Oh why don't you just bomb the dam?"

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Of course Trump would randomly throw out there a horrible idea. "Oh why don't you just bomb the dam?"

The Aswan dam does have water in it. Nowhere near capacity (dam isn't even finished) but still, blowing it up would be bad for Egypt.

[-Ocelot-]

This is why having powerful worldwide institutions is necessary for the world to go forward. We are now in a situation where many nations are completely free to increase their population uncontrollably and mindlessly consume vital resources, such as water. The main culprits are China and India in this case.

It's too late to limit population growth now, so we'll just have to live with this reality, at least until we can find a way to make desalination cheaper, or something. What other countries can do is ensure that any kind of instability won't hurt them, and to prevent an event of nuclear war. Let India consume all of its water reserves and dry out, just make sure they won't start bombing China out of anger. Or vice versa.

Basically we should have made the UN more powerful and authoritative 30 years ago to prevent specific problems from arising. Of course, that's "evil" and "imperialist", according to some geniuses.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This is why having powerful worldwide institutions is necessary for the world to go forward. We are now in a situation where many nations are completely free to increase their population uncontrollably and mindlessly consume vital resources, such as water. The main culprits are China and India in this case.

It's too late to limit population growth now, so we'll just have to live with this reality, at least until we can find a way to make desalination cheaper, or something. What other countries can do is ensure that any kind of instability won't hurt them, and to prevent an event of nuclear war. Let India consume all of its water reserves and dry out, just make sure they won't start bombing China out of anger. Or vice versa.

Basically we should have made the UN more powerful and authoritative 30 years ago to prevent specific problems from arising. Of course, that's "evil" and "imperialist", according to some geniuses.

Lets be real there's no way history is gonna go except widespread resource wars. We consumed too much too fast and we can't stop now.

[-Ocelot-]

This is why having powerful worldwide institutions is necessary for the world to go forward. We are now in a situation where many nations are completely free to increase their population uncontrollably and mindlessly consume vital resources, such as water. The main culprits are China and India in this case.

It's too late to limit population growth now, so we'll just have to live with this reality, at least until we can find a way to make desalination cheaper, or something. What other countries can do is ensure that any kind of instability won't hurt them, and to prevent an event of nuclear war. Let India consume all of its water reserves and dry out, just make sure they won't start bombing China out of anger. Or vice versa.

Basically we should have made the UN more powerful and authoritative 30 years ago to prevent specific problems from arising. Of course, that's "evil" and "imperialist", according to some geniuses.

Lets be real there's no way history is gonna go except widespread resource wars. We consumed too much too fast and we can't stop now.

I agree, but the developed world should still find a way to contain these conflicts and prevent the spread of instability from swarming the entire planet, while promoting more sustainability. Countries like China would be fine with letting the rest of the world burn to prevent slowing down on their consumption craze. That's where the problem lies, IMO. Some nations just don't care about the global community in the slightest.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

This is why having powerful worldwide institutions is necessary for the world to go forward. We are now in a situation where many nations are completely free to increase their population uncontrollably and mindlessly consume vital resources, such as water. The main culprits are China and India in this case.

It's too late to limit population growth now, so we'll just have to live with this reality, at least until we can find a way to make desalination cheaper, or something. What other countries can do is ensure that any kind of instability won't hurt them, and to prevent an event of nuclear war. Let India consume all of its water reserves and dry out, just make sure they won't start bombing China out of anger. Or vice versa.

Basically we should have made the UN more powerful and authoritative 30 years ago to prevent specific problems from arising. Of course, that's "evil" and "imperialist", according to some geniuses.

Lets be real there's no way history is gonna go except widespread resource wars. We consumed too much too fast and we can't stop now.

The resource wars will be the geopolitical threat of the mid 21st century. We can all see it coming.

[Dogmeat]

A part of me used to think that it was unrealistic how everyone just ignored the giant, apocalyptic horde of ice zombies in Game of Thrones. Surely leaders in the real world would recognize such a dire threat, and put differences aside to do something about it.

Doesn't seem so unrealistic now.

[Freiheit Reich]

Despite these worries, many government leaders still insist on their citizens making more babies the world does not need. Russia, Japan, Singapore (which can't make up its mind about population control), and now China think they are not crowded enough and that they need more people.

Many religious leaders also still insist birth control (except for abstinence) is a sin even for married people. This is why many Catholic and Muslim nations are overcrowded and have high poverty rates. Encourage and subsidize birth control and make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race. There are people dying, if you care enough for the living, have only one kid or none in your life. One or none. One or none.

[Salus Maior]

Mr Trump and Mr Hamdok expressed hopes for a peaceful resolution to the dispute. But Mr Trump also said "it's a very dangerous situation because Egypt is not going to be able to live that way". He continued: "And I said it and I say it loud and clear - they'll blow up that dam. And they have to do something."

Trump being an amazing and sensitive diplomat as usual.

[The Marlborough]

Of course Trump would randomly throw out there a horrible idea. "Oh why don't you just bomb the dam?"

Tbf Egypt might not be left with any other choice.

[The Marlborough]

Despite these worries, many government leaders still insist on their citizens making more babies the world does not need. Russia, Japan, Singapore (which can't make up its mind about population control), and now China think they are not crowded enough and that they need more people.

Many religious leaders also still insist birth control (except for abstinence) is a sin even for married people. This is why many Catholic and Muslim nations are overcrowded and have high poverty rates. Encourage and subsidize birth control and make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race. There are people dying, if you care enough for the living, have only one kid or none in your life. One or none. One or none.

Too late chief.

[Saiwania]

Despite these worries, many government leaders still insist on their citizens making more babies the world does not need. Russia, Japan, Singapore (which can't make up its mind about population control), and now China think they are not crowded enough and that they need more people.

Many religious leaders also still insist birth control (except for abstinence) is a sin even for married people. This is why many Catholic and Muslim nations are overcrowded and have high poverty rates. Encourage and subsidize birth control and make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race. There are people dying, if you care enough for the living, have only one kid or none in your life. One or none. One or none.

The problem as I see it, is that the wrong sort have too many people. It is not our wealthy developed nations that need population control. It is China, India, and all of the various poor countries of the world which need it instead.

[Freiheit Reich]

Despite these worries, many government leaders still insist on their citizens making more babies the world does not need. Russia, Japan, Singapore (which can't make up its mind about population control), and now China think they are not crowded enough and that they need more people.

Many religious leaders also still insist birth control (except for abstinence) is a sin even for married people. This is why many Catholic and Muslim nations are overcrowded and have high poverty rates. Encourage and subsidize birth control and make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race. There are people dying, if you care enough for the living, have only one kid or none in your life. One or none. One or none.

The problem as I see it, is that the wrong sort have too many people. It is not our wealthy developed nations that need population control. It is China, India, and all of the various poor countries of the world which need it instead.

This is where religion has hurt them although poor catholic nations are starting to have lower birth rates despite orders from the church to be fruitful and prosperous. Islamic nations keep having babies because poor men can brag about how fertile they are (encouraged by the religious leaders) even though many can't actually take care of the babies they helped make. Northern Africa comes to my mind especially.

[Major-Tom]

2.8 billion? That seems far-fetched.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

What a bullshit OP. Not only have you completely over-exaggerated the number (2.8 billion? Wtf) but you have also completely ignored the technological advancements being made in the very field of groundwater embracement

[Labbos]

Islamic nations keep having babies because poor men can brag about how fertile they are (encouraged by the religious leaders) even though many can't actually take care of the babies they helped make. Northern Africa comes to my mind especially.

In the UAE, the total fertility rate (number of babies per woman) is 1.4. It needs to be 2.1 to maintain the population (excluding the effects of immigration and emigration). In Azerbaijan it's 1.7, Brunei 1.8, Qatar 1.9, Bhutan 2.0, Bahrain 2.0, Malaysia 2.0 and Bangladesh 2.0. So there are quite a few Muslim-majority nations with sub-replacement fertility rates, and quite a few more that are just above it.

There are certainly some well above 2.1, with North Africa and the Middle East having a combined rate of 2.8. But that doesn't compare to Sub-Saharan Africa where the real population growth is in the world: the overall rate there is 4.7, which means the population is more than doubling with each generation. The highest twelve fertility rates in the world are all in Sub-Saharan countries where the majority of the population is made up of Muslims and Catholics.

[Kowani]

The problem as I see it, is that the wrong sort have too many people. It is not our wealthy developed nations that need population control. It is China, India, and all of the various poor countries of the world which need it instead.

This is where religion has hurt them although poor catholic nations are starting to have lower birth rates despite orders from the church to be fruitful and prosperous. Islamic nations keep having babies because poor men can brag about how fertile they are (encouraged by the religious leaders) even though many can't actually take care of the babies they helped make. Northern Africa comes to my mind especially.

You misunderstand. Sai is angry because the nations with higher birth rates are brown.

[Senkaku]

2.8B by 2039 seems like an awfully quick pace, I feel like that must be assuming a very serious nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan over the Indus to get there (which like is definitely possible but seems unlikely)

I'm putting my chips on less than 500M, but with the caveat that we will have an ungodly amount of refugees living in such poor conditions many will probably wish they were dead

[Neanderthaland]

2.8B by 2039 seems like an awfully quick pace, I feel like that must be assuming a very serious nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan over the Indus to get there (which like is definitely possible but seems unlikely)

I'm putting my chips on less than 500M, but with the caveat that we will have an ungodly amount of refugees living in such poor conditions many will probably wish they were dead

I'm not sure exactly how these demographic are meant to be arranged.

How many people normally die of malnutrition or thirst and related conditions and conflicts in a 20 year period?

Because 2.8 billion does sound like a lot. But it might only be because we're imagining it as a sudden, abnormal chuck of the population disappearing suddenly, rather than as a normal (if elevated) part of the death rate.

[Senkaku]

(Image)

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is an Ethiopian attempt to control the Blue Nile and reconfigure the topography of the Nile Basin. It will have a hydroelectric capacity twice that of the Hoover Dam, providing enough cheap energy to power the entire nation and its neighbors. Problem, Egypt's water supply is 95% dependent on the Nile (the majority of which comes from the Blue Nile), and some studies suggested that the dam will reduce Egypt's total arable land by 46%, which understandably is a grave existential crisis. Now, almost a quarter of the Egyptian population lives off subsistence farming.

If the Nile is dammed up, the result would be one of the largest humanitarian disaster in history that might see around 30 million people displaced, a refugee crisis large enough to alter European civilization.

As a possible solution, US President Donald Trump said:

Mr Trump and Mr Hamdok expressed hopes for a peaceful resolution to the dispute. But Mr Trump also said "it's a very dangerous situation because Egypt is not going to be able to live that way". He continued: "And I said it and I say it loud and clear - they'll blow up that dam. And they have to do something."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54674313

Admittedly, Egypt's military situation and mobilization capability is currently pathetic and is certain to lose if a war actually breaks out. Currently, America, Israel, and the Gulf states support Egypt. Iran, Turkey, and China support Ethiopia. As both sides failed to reach an agreement in August, Ethiopia vowed to press on, resulting in the US pulling out aid.

I wouldn't say Egypt is "certain to lose" by any stretch. Who's going to stop them, the Sudanese? Is Ethiopia going to send a whole army into Aswan by way of Khartoum?

---

(Image)

Tajikistan is damming Uzbekistan, another desert nation reliant on a singular source of water.

Karimov opposed the Rogun Dam and in a 2012 statement seemed to imply Tajikistan’s pursuit of the project could lead to war. Uzbekistan, and to a lesser extent Kazakhstan, had long worried that reduced water flow in the Vakhsh River could impact Uzbekistan’s production of cotton, which it views as a strategic commodity.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2018/07/ ... -problems/

Uzbekistan, whose population size and military and logistics far exceed that of their neighbors, can conquer Tajikistan to secure its water security. This will probably provoke international wrath and meddling especially from China, Russia, and possibly Iran. That being said, tensions do have calmed down after Uzbekistan got a new leader more supportive of a peaceful resolution.

“Go ahead and build it, but we hold to certain guarantees in accordance with these conventions that have been signed by you,” Uzbek Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Komilov said in a televised appearance on July 5.

Doesn't mean the problem has ended.

It sure sounds like the problem has ended. They signed some convention, the Uzbeks have simmered down, and I assume the Russians and/or Chinese will intercede if shit starts going sideways again.

Central Asia's doubling population, horrific desertification combined with Aral Sea's, stagnant economic growth unable to provide prosperity to the youth, and brutally oppressive political systems are actually pretty similar to the Middle East before the Arab Spring. So the potential for the entire region to collapse into chaos, instability, radicalism, civil wars, etc. is substantial.

Yeah, the potential is there, but that doesn't mean it will happen (and conditions re: Aral have been improving of late actually). We'll see how it shakes out, but I think predicting that it's a certainty and that most of the people in the region will be killed if it happens is a bit of a stretch right now.

---

(Image)

Africa has had massive population growth and a young population with borders that make no sense, entrenched self-serving elites and not enough economic growth to legitimize it. This is also the same situation in the Middle East before the Arab Spring, except that the issues are far worse. I mean, cities like Lagos are supposed to have a population of 32 million in 2050 and 57 million in 2075, which isn't really sustainable. Thus, of the twenty highest-ranked countries that are deemed fragile states, twelve are situated in areas of the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, where climate change is expected to create heightened levels of water scarcity. That includes five countries of the Horn: Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan.

Competition for scarce resources, fueled by famine and droughts, has also exacerbated tensions among African tribes and has led to an outbreak of violence in the region. Scarce resources are leading to violent inter-tribal conflicts in Ethiopia and Kenya, particularly in the Omo River Valley. Climate change will likely increase the frequency and intensity of these events. Water weaponization is also a thing. In 2011, Somalia was hit by regional droughts that have been linked to climate change. During this time, the jihadist fundamentalist group Al-Shabaab changed its traditional guerilla tactics and started to cut off liberated cities from their water sources so that they could demonstrate at least some kind of power and presence. Climate change, lack of food and continued conflict involving water weaponization took an enormous social toll.

Yeah, the Sahel is fucked. Ethiopia and Kenya have so far stood up to shit pouring out of Somalia a lot better than the West African states have stood up to stuff coming down from Mali, but it's probably gonna get pretty dismal pretty fast over the next decade for a lot of people across the drier regions of Africa.

And don't forget South Africa, they have water problems too!

---

(Image)

China is building 300 dams in Tibet, which will strangle the sources for the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers, of which a billion people depend upon. With 21 Indian cities running out of water, half the population faces high-to-extreme water stress, and about 200,000 die each year due to inadequate access to safe water right now, this is absolutely horrifying. China is not willing to negotiate on this, since much of northern China is projected to run out of water by 2030 due to industrialization and pollution.

Okay, you've got me. Now lose me.

The dams will also serve as a massive bargaining chip that can turn India into a Chinese puppet state.

"Turn India into a Chinese puppet state"? Nuclear-armed India with one of the world's most powerful militaries, largest economies, and soon the world's largest population, is going to be "turned into a Chinese puppet state"? You have a grasp on the severity of water issues, perhaps, but clearly none whatsoever on geopolitical reality.

As Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Myanmar, Nepal, and other countries are already influenced by China, this will give China complete control over the vast majority of Asia if this is achieved.

If your view of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Myanmar, and Nepal are that they're just Chinese puppet states, you really need to do more reading. This is total nonsense.

Or, it can provoke a war (they have clashed five times in the past), where the US will side with India, potentially turning it into a world war.

You automatically assume that the US would side with India and go to war against China over water issues between them in the Himalayas... why exactly?

A tiny difference between this case and Ethiopia's case is that both countries are also armed with nuclear weapons.

Right now their combined population is 2.8 billion, which is where the thread title comes from. Admittedly the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust is not that high, but it's still a possibility, and besides a full conventional war between the two would still be unfathomably catastrophic.

It is astonishing to everyone who knows one single thing about India or China that you're more worried about a nuclear water war between them over the Himalayas than one between India and Pakistan over the Indus, frankly. I was wondering how you got to 2.8B-- this is just total alarmist nonsense. And the worst part is that you don't even have to engage in such chicanery to illustrate how bad things will get, realistic projections and discussions of water conflicts are perfectly frightening on their own.

---

So this is some risk of water-related conflicts, which I predict will become a larger and larger issue as time goes on. While countries like India are rapidly depleting their groundwater, rainfall patterns around the world are becoming more unpredictable due to climate change, meaning there will be less water in reserves. According to the U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment of Global Water Security, by 2030 humanity’s “annual global water requirements” will exceed “current sustainable water supplies” by 40%. The number of people living in river basins under severe water stress is projected to reach 3.9 billion by 2050, totaling over 40% of the world’s population. Now, as shown by the Tajik-Uzbek issue, "conflicts" doesn't necessarily mean "war", but it does mean "Bad Things".

Is there anything that can or should be done, maybe a technology? Is there anything that will be done? Thoughts?

Lots that can be done, very little that will be done. Honestly, if I were betting on my own cause of death, "summary execution by a water warlord" is pretty far up the list.

[Senkaku]

2.8B by 2039 seems like an awfully quick pace, I feel like that must be assuming a very serious nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan over the Indus to get there (which like is definitely possible but seems unlikely)

I'm putting my chips on less than 500M, but with the caveat that we will have an ungodly amount of refugees living in such poor conditions many will probably wish they were dead

I'm not sure exactly how these demographic are meant to be arranged.

How many people normally die of malnutrition or thirst and related conditions and conflicts in a 20 year period?

Because 2.8 billion does sound like a lot. But it might only be because we're imagining it as a sudden, abnormal chuck of the population disappearing suddenly, rather than as a normal (if elevated) part of the death rate.

OP appears to have simply decided that India and China are likely to go nuclear on one another, that this war would produce close to a 100% kill rate even though they each only have a few hundred bombs, and then added their populations together and said "voila."

Which is fucking stupid. Realistic projections of deaths from water and resource conflicts are huge and terrifying on their own, if you want to scare people about them you don't even need every NSGer doing back-of-the-envelope addition based on wild assumptions totally divorced from geopolitical reality.

[Neanderthaland]

I'm not sure exactly how these demographic are meant to be arranged.

How many people normally die of malnutrition or thirst and related conditions and conflicts in a 20 year period?

Because 2.8 billion does sound like a lot. But it might only be because we're imagining it as a sudden, abnormal chuck of the population disappearing suddenly, rather than as a normal (if elevated) part of the death rate.

OP appears to have simply decided that India and China are likely to go nuclear on one another, that this war would produce close to a 100% kill rate even though they each only have a few hundred bombs, and then added their populations together and said "voila."

Which is fucking stupid. Realistic projections of deaths from water and resource conflicts are huge and terrifying on their own, if you want to scare people about them you don't even need every NSGer doing back-of-the-envelope addition based on wild assumptions totally divorced from geopolitical reality.

Okay, yeah. That's pretty dumb.

[The Blaatschapen]

Let them drink beer.