This seems to be based on your own definition of World War. Instead of population, you could have used the GDP of the countries involved, the number of countries or even the total surface. I do agree that a war between Pakistan and India wouldn’t be a World War, which suggests in fact that the definition you are using here does not really capture what a World War is.
The GDP definition makes sense. It’s certainly reasonable. It we use GDP as the definition then Russia’s involvement doesn’t matter (except to the extent it nukes NATO) because Russia’s GDP is a rounding error compared to the GDP of the USA and its European allies.
This seems to be based on your own definition of World War. Instead of population, you could have used the GDP of the countries involved, the number of countries or even the total surface. I do agree that a war between Pakistan and India wouldn’t be a World War, which suggests in fact that the definition you are using here does not really capture what a World War is.
The GDP definition makes sense. It’s certainly reasonable. It we use GDP as the definition then Russia’s involvement doesn’t matter (except to the extent it nukes NATO) because Russia’s GDP is a rounding error compared to the GDP of the USA and its European allies.