Will a NATO country be attacked?
41
360Ṁ2432
resolved Jan 1
Resolved
NO
Bound it the time frame to end of 2023. Cyberattacks are not included because not recognized as "war attacks" so far.
New Year's Resolutions 2024
Get
Ṁ1,000
to start trading!

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ94
2Ṁ48
3Ṁ44
4Ṁ28
5Ṁ23

People are also trading

Sort by:
predictedNO

@Gabrielle that's a difficult question. If it was intentional, then it was an attack.

Let's see how the consensus develops as more information gets revealed.

Knowing the way Russia operates, there are good chances it was intentional.

predictedNO

@ValentinManes does the recent missile strike in Poland count as an attack? Current reporting suggests that it was an accident and not an intentional attack, but the two Polish people who died might not agree.

Yes @hamnox that's on purpose ;)
It belatedly occurs to me that this market doesn't specify *RUSSIA* has to be doing the attacking.
Thanks @PatrickDelaney I didn't know about the Belgrade incident. Interesting case. The market is related to this other market on NATO article 5 trigger: - https://manifold.markets/ValentinManes/if-a-nato-country-is-attacked-will - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_5 An attack is an act sufficient to be recognized as an article 5 trigger. Yes it is very unlikely and the point of this market is to quantify how unlikely that is. It might even be under 1%. Unfortunately, what is recognizable as an article 5 trigger is bounded to be political. Ideally, we would have a trusted third party we could rely for the resolution of this market. Like a newspaper or a think-tank?
When you say, "accidents are not fully random," this just depends upon your definition. You are choosing to model them as not, "fully random" for the purpose of what you are trying to figure out. Also, perhaps nitpicking, but apart from this what is the difference between, "fully random," and "random?" There is no difference, it is rhetorical, it is either random, can be modeled as a random variable or something else like, "random with fixed effects." Accidents during a war, like a bombing of an unintended target, are very likely to happen. Accidents like bombing a NATO asset of some time is less likely than just, "any accident," but still more likely than other cases we could consider. Here is a high profile example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade However, something like straight up invading Poland purposely is very unlikely to happen. There might also be purposeful accidents, like setting fire to a bunch of tires on the Polish boarder, causing tons of toxic fumes to go into Poland, "whoops, sorry, didn't mean that, just trying to get rid of waste." That could arguably be an attack on a NATO country, and is much more likely than, "invasion."
Could you give an example of what you mean @PatrickDelaney ? In the absolute, I'd say the accident doesn't make a war itself. It's the reaction to the accident. At the same time, "accident" are usually not fully random. For example, the recent US-China ship near collision is a result of tensions and lack of communication. Cf. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/world/asia/china-us-warships-south-china-sea.html I'd say the market will be resolved the way to consensus of the time does. Similarly to how @Duncan resolved the russian attack market: https://manifold.markets/Duncan/will-russia-invade-ukraine-before-t
Does accidental count?

People are also trading

© Manifold Markets, Inc.•Terms + Mana-only Terms•Privacy•Rules