🏅 Top traders

Ho-boy

https://apnews.com/article/iran-qatar-udeid-air-base-attack-us-aace65a65a0ce69090a7b65fe85cfac8

@JoshuaWilkes wow! That is surprisingly definitive. They kept that quiet...

@Tomoffer the information control is strong

@JoshuaWilkes Looks like the market will resolve Yes; let's wait for confirmation.

@EnopoletusHarding https://www.businessinsider.com/satellite-images-show-damage-us-base-iran-attacked-with-missiles-2025-7 Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson, told BI in a statement that an Iranian ballistic missile impacted Al Udeid during the June 23 attack, causing "minimal damage to equipment and structures on the base." It's the first time a US official has acknowledged that Tehran scored a direct hit on the base.

Satellite images show damage at the US base Iran attacked with ballistic missiles — one of which hit it

An image from June shows a scorch mark where a geodesic dome used to be at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

@VonGadke Sounds good enough; I will resolve.

@JoshuaWilkes Fair enough! Very reasonable resolution 💯

Let's wait for the satellite imagery!

@EnopoletusHarding When do you believe any satellite imagery of the US military base will be available, what will you do if there is none and what will you do if it shows that there was a hit inside the perimeter of the base but no valuable target was hit?

@LucaM "what will you do if it shows that there was a hit inside the perimeter of the base but no valuable target was hit"

I think that counts as an attack.

"When do you believe any satellite imagery of the US military base will be available,"

No clue; somebody will alert me when that happens.

"what will you do if there is none"

Then we're all going to have a big argument about which claims from the press are most likely to be accurate.

@EnopoletusHarding I have to say that I (and probably most of the 95% that invested No) bought No after seeing that the market wasn't resolved Yes after the attempted attack by Iran and reading this:

In response to a user's scenario, the creator confirmed that an attack will count as a hit for a YES resolution if it misses its specific intended target (e.g., a hangar) but hits another valuable asset on the military site (e.g., an aircraft).

and interpreting that to mean that only if a valuable target was hit it would be resolved Yes. I would assume that most then also believed this comment of yours

I don't think it is, Iran has another five days.

to mean that only an additional attack would resolve this market Yes.

I'd say there is plenty of ambiguity here. Additionally we don't know when or even if there will ever be satellite imagery of the base while any potential damage is still visible.

I'd say you should either resolve this No since there was no attack in the 5 days you mentioned or (more likely) resolve it N/A as there is a lot of ambiguity here and I feel arguing over which claims from the press are accurate shouldn't be how this is resolved.

@mods Would you please look into this?

@LeviJacobs the creator is active and responding to questions, what's the problem?

OK; how should this resolve?

@EnopoletusHarding i mean, i never personally saw any evidence that the attempted strike was successful. I'm under the assumption that all the missiles heading towards the base were intercepted. Not just saying this because I bet no, but I never saw anything proving the attack was successful

@EnopoletusHarding I bet yes, but I think that it‘s clear with all the reports we have gotten, that at least one missile did a bit of damage to the base. This has literally been said in every report of the incident

@EnopoletusHarding

This is from Al Jazeera:

„Iran fired 19 missiles at the US’s Al Udeid airbase on Monday. The Qatari defence forces intercepted 18, Ministry of Interior officials confirmed in the hours after the attack.“

Which means, that one missile has struck the airbase.

Then we of course have Trumps own statement:

"I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed and hardly any damage was done," which very much reads like SOME damage has been done.

And lastly I want to quote CNN, which had, the attacks just happened, denied, that any missiles hit. Now however (this article is 2 days old) it acknowledges that some (!) damage has been done to the base. It reads:

„Seven missiles were intercepted over the Persian Gulf before reaching Qatari soil, he said. Another 11 were intercepted over Doha without causing damage and one landed in an uninhabited area of the base causing minimal damage.“.

An uninhabited area of the base is still an area of the base. It caused damage, even if it was minimal.

I think it‘s pretty clear as to what this market should resolve based on all of the evidence.

@JannesH In response to a user's scenario, the creator confirmed that an attack will count as a hit for a YES resolution if it misses its specific intended target (e.g., a hangar) but hits another valuable asset on the military site (e.g., an aircraft).

Did Iran try to hit an uninhabited area of the base or is that uninhabited area another valuable target?

@LucaM We unfortunately don‘t know if the uninhabited area of the base is a valuable target or not, since it has not and probably will not be publicly clarified. Also if this specific part of the base was the target of Irans missile is also not clear.

We pretty much know nothing but that one missile has hit some part of the base, whatever it might be

@JannesH OK so those were rhetorical questions. Noone would try to hit empty ground and empty ground isn't a valuable target

@LucaM area in inside a US military base is a US military site, however

@JoshuaWilkes depends on the meaning of "base". One could argue both that the area a base is build on is part of the base or not. But the response to the users scenario means that the creator only considers the (valuable) structures part of the base

@LucaM "One could argue both that the area a base is build on is part of the base or not."

No-one would argue the latter!

But more importantly:

"the response to the users scenario means that the creator only considers the (valuable) structures part of the base"

This isn't what the creator said. They said they it would count "If it was targeting a a specific portion of the base, but missed and hit a different portion of the base"

The AI description took the description about the valuable structures part from a different user in the same thread. I don't think the creator has ever engaged with this part of the problem

@JannesH want more at 18%? order up 😄

@brod Tryna make your coinflip loses back? 🙂‍↕️