Does this include purposefully causing a meltdown at a nuclear power plant?

@AviMosseri why would it? A power plant is not a weapon and can't be "detonated"

With Wagner group now opposing Moscow the odds for this just spiked

https://twitter.com/tegmark/status/1578911288859987968

@IsaacKing What a bizarre tweet!

Interesting, there's some specific predictions in there that I disagree with. I made a market for one:

Vs their prediction of the NATO response to a Russian nuke in Ukraine:

My estimate is quite high (80%) that NATO's response will be forceful enough to include a non-nuclear military strike against Russia, because key NATO leaders have already made strongly worded statements to this effect.

And:

Vs:

My most likely (70%) scenario after that is Russian counterstrikes followed by rapid escalation via retaliatory actions from both sides, culminating in execution of the all-out nuclear war plans that both sides have spent decades preparing.

There's a "10x Amplified Odds" derivative market here: https://manifold.markets/AndyMartin/amplified-odds-10x-will-a-nuclear-w

Compare with

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/03/nuclear-weapons-convoy-sparks-fears-putin-could-preparing-test/

@WilliamEhlhardt this article has issues, see here:
https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1577093488956489728?s=20&t=fCTjyGWEOcFAJ-2c3DQVWQ

re: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-orders-nuclear-military-train-to-ukraine-front-line-tswzv2v50

> President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, Nato is believed to have warned its members.

Open to being convinced to do something else on any of these, but for resolution clarity, my current thinking is:

• this will resolve YES if a "test" like what's mentioned above happens anywhere within the pre-2014 boundaries of Ukraine

• a test that detonates within the testing country's own borders will not trigger a positive resolution, even if harmful levels radiation are detected elsewhere

• a detonation in international waters will trigger a positive resolution if it's judged (by me) to be more than a "test" -- in general "Demonstration detonations" designed to intimidate would count as more than a test.

@AndyMartin Maybe you could make it more concrete by substituting NATO judgment about whether it is a test or combat?

In my opinion, intimidation is not combat. The US nuclear arsenal is very intimidating just sitting there casually threatening the end of the world. Similarly China's attempt to intimidate Taiwan this year would not count for me as combat.

I think the relevant definition of combat is "fighting between armed forces". That could plausibly include "strategic" targets like cities full of innocent civilians but not running a nuclear test in international waters with no military or strategic targets affected.

@MartinRandall

In my opinion, intimidation is not combat. The US nuclear arsenal is very intimidating just sitting there casually threatening the end of the world. Similarly China's attempt to intimidate Taiwan this year would not count for me as combat.

I think I totally agree on ^, but the US/China doesn't perform "intimidation detonations" on other countries' land or in international waters - this is the only thing covered by the points above.

@AndyMartin Topical

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/03/asia/north-korea-missile-suspected-intl/index.html

I don't think these non nuclear missiles were launched "in combat".

@AndyMartin Also, I think that the USA nuclear tests on Bikini Atoll were done on another country's land.

@MartinRandall that's a great point, but:

1. NK and Japan are not in the middle of an active war

2. The missile was fired without a nuclear payload - seems more "a missile which could hold a nuclear weapon was launched" than "a nuclear weapon was launched"

@AndyMartin My point is that they were not launched "in combat".

(also NK and SK are officially at war)

It turns out that there US blew up several bits of international waters and space during the cold war, for testing and intimidation. Nobody called these combat uses at the time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests

@MartinRandall

@AndyMartin My point is that they were not launched "in combat".

Thanks - misread that

@AndyMartin Also, I think that the USA nuclear tests on Bikini Atoll were done on another country's land.

...
It turns out that there US blew up several bits of international waters and space during the cold war, for testing and intimidation. Nobody called these combat uses at the time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests

Maybe it would be better to draw the line at "an area in immediate proximity to the combat" than covering all "international waters"/"another country's land"?

@AndyMartin fwiw the times article looks like it has some issues:

https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1577093488956489728?s=20&t=fCTjyGWEOcFAJ-2c3DQVWQ

@AndyMartin I think it would be best to not change the resolution criteria for a second time in a market where you own shares.

An area in proximity to combat is not in combat. An area in proximity to a house is not in a house.

An area in proximity to combat is not in combat. An area in proximity to a house is not in a house.

I don't agree with applying this analogy here. An action taken in proximity to combat can directly affect the combat itself, and this is the bar I had in mind when creating the question.

In terms of the house metaphor: it is possible to perform an action in proximity to the house which can make the house itself unlivable/unsafe/inaccessible/etc.

@AndyMartin I think it would be best to not change the resolution criteria for a second time in a market where you own shares.

I'd rather hand off resolution than appear to have a conflict on interest or go back and forth on this more - will ask in the discord if anyone from MM is willing to take the market over.

@AndyMartin In discord, @jack agreed to take over the resolution responsibility - thank you!

@AndyMartin Chatted on discord about this, I agreed to take over resolution here. tl;dr: I think "in combat" should probably be defined the same way as "non-test" in https://www.metaculus.com/questions/2797/no-non-test-nuclear-detonations-by-2024-01-01/.

Andy already said in an earlier comment that they'd use Metaculus's criteria on when resolving this barring any objections. The main difference was around "launched or detonated", and that has already been clarified well thanks to your earlier discussion. I think it makes sense to treat "in combat" and "non-test" as equivalent unless we notice that they carry substantially different meanings?

Unfortunately, I was not able to find a clear definition on Metaculus either, but if a nuclear detonation does happen then the Metaculus admins will have to decide whether it counts as test or non-test or ambiguous, and we can use the same judgement here. I also asked on Metaculus to see if they could clarify their thinking on the definition.

Here are some scenarios I was thinking about:

• If Russia detonates a nuclear weapon within their own borders as a demonstration detonation, with the explicit intent of intimidation, is that a test or no? (Probably a test, non-combat in my mind)

• What if it's detonated in international waters, causing no damage (and still intended as a demonstration/intimidation)? (Still seems like test, non-combat)

• What if it's detonated on a small Ukranian island with a few buildings but no people? (This seems like pretty clearly non-test, yes combat to me)

• What if the detonation occurs in international waters or within Russia's borders but the radioactive fallout affects Ukraine? (More borderline, but I'd lean towards non-test, yes combat)

Thoughts?

Disclaimer: I do have a position in this market too, but I also trade in almost all of my markets and am pretty used to that.

@jack For the last case I'd call that a test unless the fallout is large enough to deny access to an area or cause immediate casualties. For comparison various nuclear tests in the past have caused increased cancer deaths without being considered combat.

I think deferring to Metaculus is a great approach, hopefully they'll answer soon.

@MartinRandall Yeah I roughly agree, I think if the nuclear detonation has large immediate, direct effects (e.g. casualties or forcing nontrivial evacuations) that seems like it should count as non-test, but otherwise if it's just a small amount of fallout drifting over Ukraine (and over the rest of Europe for that matter) then I'd likely call that a test.