Related questions
@TimothyJohnson5c16 Ah, so that's why I was the only noob who bought YES shares in response. Thanks for the explanation.
@gregrosent I for one do think this raises the chance of full scale war, because even if many people in both sides don't want it, and respond with restraint, they do often escalate.
I'm surprised that this is so high given that this is specifically about "full scale war" given other terms that could have been used like "limited war" or "militarized interstate dispute". Could you clarify? For this to be a full scale war:
does there need to be a draft on one or both sides?
does one side need to systematically (>100 times) strike military targets inside their opponent's borders?
does one side need to systematically (>100 times) strike infrastructure targets inside their opponent's borders?
does one side need to systematically (>100 times) strike civilian targets inside their opponent's borders?
does one side need to state the goal of permanently claiming territory or invoking regime change in their opponent?
does one side need to deploy a significant number of troops (20k+) inside the other's borders?
do sides need to use nuclear/chemical/biological weapons (if available)?
do sides need to credibly threaten to use such weapons (if available)?
do Iranian proxies count as furthering any of these goals or must it be uniformed Iranian military?
@Jwags Some of these are good questions. Some of them are less good. In the past the term full scale war has been used primarily associated with Armenia and Azerbaijan and required 100+ casualties as a result of sustained engagement uninterrupted by a ceasefire. No proxies don’t count but Revolutionary Guard and other uniformed Iranians count no matter where they operate.
If you think there are other factors that should be part of the resolution criteria to make it more precise I am open to suggestions.