Nominal possession is enough to resolve Yes. A nuke smuggled into a country without its consent is not. Shared nukes (such as via NATO), wonky old nukes, and new forms of nuclear weapons do count. Dirty bombs with no intent to create a chain reaction do not count.
Related questions
Can you clarify "shared nukes"? For the weapons to be in the "possession" of the nation in question, I assume that the nation has to have control of them. It's not sufficient for the weapons to merely be located there, correct?
Specifically, there has been some recent discussion about Germany acquiring nuclear weapons, and I assumed that was what this question was about. However, US nuclear weapons are already thought to be located in Germany and have been for years. These weapons don't count as being in the possession of Germany, correct?
@HarrisonNathan The nuke sharing agreement with the US counts for a Yes for Germany and Turkey, though they could be withdrawn unilaterally between now and resolution.
@Panfilo It's not in any way a "sharing" agreement; rather just the US stationing its nukes there. But okay, I'm out.
@HarrisonNathan Well my example was sharing via NATO, which can be withdrawn at a later date, so I don’t think it’s a rug pull, but you do you.
I think it's worth noting that NATO describes the situation as 'nuclear sharing'
@JoshuaWilkes Fair point, but that document also says, at the end of the overview section, "It is not the sharing of nuclear weapons."
@HarrisonNathan okay, but if you know that the author has specifically put in the description of the market "Shared nukes (such as via NATO)...*do* count" you should conclude that their intention was to include this case, right?
@JoshuaWilkes I don't think that's the most obvious interpretation, especially as the question referred to "possession." You could imagine this referred to a possible future arrangement in which Germany had access to the nuclear weapons, which is not the case now.
@HarrisonNathan you could imagine that it referred to that, but I maintain that if Panfilo had written that description and then said that NATO's shared nukes don't count, more people would be angry/feel deceived
@Panfilo Don't sweat it. That's the chaotic nature of this system. The people running Manifold really need to have questions stress tested before they go live, but that isn't where their head is.
I like this format; is there a 2024 version? I don't recall seeing one. A good variety of questions seems very useful for forecasting nuclear risk and similar low-probability / high-impact stuff. I've not yet tried to create a "nuclear risk 2025" tracker market but I think this should probably be a part of it.
@EvanDaniel This is the first one. There are a few Iran-specific and other non-multi markets, but nothing collected like this. I will make a 2024 one if this one gets some attention in the next days.
@EvanDaniel I'm definitely aiming to get more precise attention on these because it's something so many PM folks are obviously interested in both long-term and in news trading.
@Panfilo Seems like it would also fit in with my project to try to better understand / improve low-probability markets!
@EvanDaniel Acknowledgment by the state is not necessary if neutral parties such as anti-proliferation groups all consider them to have a weapon.