War will be defined by Wikipedia entry on this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States (“intervention” doesn’t count, has to have “war” in the title). US troops must be involved. Iraq war would’ve counted as yes, Ukraine war would’ve been no. For woman President it would resolve yes as soon as she is sworn into office.
Clarification: the Gaza war does not count as the US involvement is extremely limited
Update 2026-03-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For a war to count, it must have:
"War" in the Wikipedia title (not just "intervention")
US troops with boots on the ground (not just limited involvement like air support or advisors)
Example: The "Twelve-day war" does not count because US troop involvement was not sufficient (no boots on the ground).
Update 2026-03-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For a war to count, US military action must be offensive (not defensive):
Offensive operations (e.g., troops capturing a leader) + "war" in Wikipedia title = resolves YES
Defensive operations (e.g., recovering a downed pilot) do not count
Update 2026-03-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): "US intervention in..." does not count as a qualifying war. The war must have "war" in the Wikipedia title (not "intervention").
Examples of wars that would have triggered this market: Iraq War, Afghanistan War.
Update 2026-03-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The 'boots on the ground' requirement is confirmed as a strict criterion. Submarine involvement or other non-ground troop combat participation does not meet the threshold for resolution.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,420 | |
| 2 | Ṁ207 | |
| 3 | Ṁ185 | |
| 4 | Ṁ176 | |
| 5 | Ṁ162 |
People are also trading
I think I have to resolve yes for hot war. Wikipedia refers to the rescue of the pilot(s) as “the first publicly acknowledged US military ground operation in Iran since Operation Eagle Claw in 1980.” I never clarified what specifically constitutes boots on the ground but by a strict reading I believe we have reached it. Let me know if any thoughts. @traders
@PaperBoy My gut reaction is that you seem justified to resolve this. But I reserve the right to change my mind if somebody responds convincingly.
@PaperBoy Given the claimed submarine involvement, isn't this already past the threshold? It is not literally "boots on the ground", but it definitely is involvement of regular troops in actual combat.
@AIBear I see your point and empathize with it, but I think now that I’ve committed to “boots on the ground” I have to stand by it
Could you explain, why "Twelve-day war" did not resolve this market? (listed as a war, direct contribution from US troops) - I can see the argument why it did not, just would be nice to make the conditions a bit more explicit if possible, if e.g. the current intervention gets similar classification.
@AIBear to my knowledge, US troops were not particularly involved. I should have been more specific in the description (only mentions troop involvement), but what I’m really looking for is boots on the ground + war in the the Wiki title.
@PaperBoy So a small US special forces operation (e.g. kidnapping a leader, recovering a downed pilot) is sufficient to meet the criteria? Or is there some minimum time/number requirement for the boots on the ground?
@AIBear It should be offensive (as opposed to defensive). So troops capturing a leader + war in the title would resolve yes. However recovering a downed pilot is not offensive. The Maduro operation does not have war in the title and therefore does not count.
@PaperBoy fwiw I generally agree. to me a war involves regulars getting deployed to combat, not only special forces
/MartinRandall/which-will-happen-first-first-hot-u
We're asking the questions that Polymarket won't touch.