As the judge of this market, I want to acknowledge the recent escalation between India and Pakistan, particularly following the Pahalgam attack and the subsequent military and diplomatic fallout. The use of lethal force and exchange of fire between two nuclear-armed nations certainly marks a serious development and increases regional risk.

However, as of now, this does not YET meet the resolution criteria for “World War III”, which require a war involving two or more superpowers declared against each other, explicitly referring to a "clear escalation from both parties". While this is a major flashpoint and could potentially evolve, the conflict remains bilateral and has not yet triggered the kind of multinational engagement required to satisfy the market conditions.

Any further provocation or misstep could ignite a conflict that would be difficult to contain, especially given the nuclear capabilities of both India and Pakistan. That said, there is still hope that international diplomacy and the rivals’ own caution will avert the worst-case scenario. The current crisis, while severe, is localized – it has not triggered a broader global showdown or drawn in other great powers. It does, however, contribute to the current global conflict dynamics.
The situation remains highly volatile but "manageable".

Although, if multiple such conflicts arise concurrently, I would contact the mods and argue whether such a configuration of overlapping geopolitical crises could reasonably be classified as a “World War” under the spirit of the market’s criteria.

I will continue monitoring the situation closely. If the conflict expands and brings in other major powers, or if declarations of war occur that meet the definition of WW3 as outlined, I will reassess accordingly. For now, the market remains open, and I encourage traders to evaluate both the news and the resolution criteria carefully.

A general comment about questions of this nature: I would have thought this question would be biased towards low probabilities? I mean I hope that the community prediction reflects the true probability! But a world in which WW3 happens soon, is a world in which you would have bigger problems than losing your imaginary internet points..

@Liedholm
While the stakes in a potential global conflict would certainly shift priorities drastically, in the meantime, I find it pragmatic to lean on the market’s collective assessment.

Selling because I don't trust OP to resolve this correctly.

@NiplavYushtun Yeah, I'd like to bet on it not happening, but not sure if I will. I think it would be appropriate to push that number down from the current 8% probability to at least below 3% (I think GTA 6 might be out later this year). But I'm a bit worried about the unclarities in terms of resolution criteria discussed below (surely simply having mechanized/autonomous armies wouldn't count as being in a world war, right?). Of note is also that the host has 132 730 Mana on "YES" so far...

@Liedholm 3% is a good extimate, I'm mostly doing the double bet of a delayed GTA 6 and/or an escalation.
Having the mechanized/autonomous armies clause simply means that armies made of humans and armies made entirely by autonomous/mechanized units are considered alike to the resolution of this question. This avoids the "no human, no war" exploit to this question.

As of today, 30/01/25, I’ve added two key edits to the resolution criteria for this question. These edits outline the only two scenarios I think in which this prediction could resolve as "yes":

1. The Development of Fully Mechanized Armies: The emergence of fully mechanized military forces (e.g., AI-driven drones, autonomous weapons systems) could enable a new form of direct conflict. In such a scenario, nations might be able to shield their populations in bunkers while launching large-scale, all-out attacks on their adversaries.

2. Diplomatic Misunderstandings Leading to Small-Scale Conflicts: A breakdown in diplomacy could spark numerous localized conflicts around the world. If these conflicts become widespread enough, they could collectively be considered a "world at war," even if individually they are short-lived (likely lasting no more than a few weeks).

These edits reflect the evolving nature of modern warfare and the potential pathways to a global conflict, even if it doesn’t resemble traditional world wars.

@EnricoCaminiti Are you willing to commit that you will not resolve positive if these armies are only developed and not deployed?

@NiplavYushtun That would be the resolving of a different question, maybe about a possible cold war, which is not this one. Still the development of these armies must be acounted for.

There are strong indications that another party will join the conflict within march. If this does not happen I will retrieve about 10% of my total "investment" to match my new extimations, you are free to act in any way accordingly to this last piece of information.

@EnricoCaminiti which conflict exactly?

@GazDownright global

@EnricoCaminiti sorry, I don't understand, care to elaborate?

@GazDownright now I'm the one not understanding. Are you asking for spoilers?

@EnricoCaminiti

There are strong indications that another party will join the conflict within march

When you say "the conflict," which conflict are you referring to? For example, the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

@GazDownright I'm referring to the possibility of a new war front.
As in "global conflict".

@EnricoCaminiti For which war have you observed "strong indicators of a third party joining" and a new war front opening? Examples: a new front related to the Yemenite civil war; a new party joining the fighting in Sudan, etc.

@EnricoCaminiti bump

@EnricoCaminiti I’ve asked several times which specific conflict you’re referring to, but you’ve only responded with vague terms like ‘global conflict.’ If there’s nothing concrete behind your claim, it’s starting to seem more like speculation for the sake of it rather than actual insight. Are you basing this on any credible developments, or is it just a guess?

I'm European.

@GazDownright > Are you basing this on any credible developments

Do Trump recent claims on Greenland and Mexico count as credible developments?

@EnricoCaminiti Thanks for pointing to specific events—it's more helpful than general terms like 'global conflict.' That said, Trump’s claims aren’t always the most credible; they often seem more like negotiation tactics. I also don’t see how the U.S. attacking Mexico or Greenland (if that's what you mean?) would add to an existing conflict. I’m still unclear on your original point—when you mentioned 'strong indications' of another party joining the conflict, which conflict did you mean, and which third party are you referring to?

@GazDownright I'm not referring to a specific third party or conflict, I wish I could predict the future down to the last digit, but I can only try to read between the lines. If you really need a better answer I can provide something with a bit of statistical gymnastic.

The current probability of world war at the moment is clearly non zero, as many conflicting interests are currently on the table. The probability that, for example, Taiwan gets attacked by China, or that Putin actually uses an atomic nuclear bomb are also very low, but are kept artificially low through America's direct/indirect intervention. If America decides, for whatever reason, not to intervene, or worse, to set an example, those probabilities will inevitably go up.

Now that I've set aside the obvious, if I were to make a wild guess, the asian front is getting pretty warm, in particular Korea isn't looking too good.

P.s. I'm sorry I can't provide better answers.

Edit: also please understand that I'm not doing this bet for money, but to have a pseudo reliable extimation of a possible world conflict. Thus you are free to milk out this question for money (as long as you get me a copy of gta6 mydude).

@GazDownright Also, when I told "clear indications" I am refering both to the fact that NO serious step is being taken towards a peaceful resolution of the current Ukraine conflict, and the fact that an increasing number of govs are using "external enemies" as a general excuse for legitimacy and to hold onto power.

Putin declares that the conflict has "acquired elements of global nature"

https://youtu.be/b_14xruScU8