Increasing slightly. In the absence of meaningful base rates (no confirmed events) I turned to using Laplace on yearly bins starting from a reasonable reference class of 1995 (GPS fully operational, but admittedly a somewhat subjective starting point), and take N=30 years, then apply the per-year p=1/(N+2)= ~3.1% over the ~1.2 years remaining to the deadline; so the risk becomes 1−(1−1/32)^(1.2)~3.6% for the remaining window from now to 2027. From there, I added a little bit of uncertainty from the fact that there are more satellites and I think there have been cases where there have been attacks along this direction (e.g. suspected cyber attacks) that temporarily put satellites offline, so I'll nudge my final estimate up to 5%, this uncertainty also accounts for the tail risk conflict scenarios like Russian escalation or conflicts over Taiwan.
-0.603605
Relative Brier Score
Questions Forecasted
Scored Questions
282
Forecasts
59
Upvotes
Forecasting Calendar
| Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecasts | 1 | 14 | 200 | 162 | 905 |
| Comments | 1 | 13 | 140 | 135 | 309 |
| Questions Forecasted | 1 | 14 | 51 | 38 | 128 |
| Upvotes on Comments By This User | 3 | 6 | 45 | 36 | 184 |
| Definitions | |||||
Star Commenter - Oct 2025
Why do you think you're right?
Why might you be wrong?
I want to be lower and sticking with Laplace alone is probably good enough, but, in the absence of strong conviction, I typically lean toward uncertainty.
in the absence of strong conviction, I typically lean toward uncertainty.
Amen to that (it's actually among the golden rules, IMO) 😉👍
Why do you think you're right?
I appreciate @404_NOT_FOUND 's analysis and I do think recent events suggest there is a small but real chance of escalation. It seems like disputes over the line are also a place for North Korea to "test the waters" every now and again.
Why might you be wrong?
Most situations (as with recent ones) probably de-escalate anyway. The nothing ever happens crowd will probably end up right on this one.
Why do you think you're right?
I really want to be at 0% for this (and I would be if this were for a ground invasion only), but I suppose there's a reasonable chance there's something I don't know about the situation. If it were to happen, I expect it would be toward the tail of the 6 month window. I would expect lots of threatening and negotiating to happen before any action but I suppose the threshold for a blockade is just plausible enough that I can't go to zero.
Why might you be wrong?
My gut tells me that if / when this happens this won't come as a surprise. I don't think China is ready yet, but it absolutely seems to be on track to getting there. I'm very much of the mind that Xi's first preference would be peaceful reunification through diplomacy, but the more prepared China is, the better the chance of achieving a solution through diplomatic means.
Why do you think you're right?
Why might you be wrong?
I agree with many here that the time interval is short. Even if were announced tomorrow that there were plans to make this happen with some country or another within a month, I'd still be somewhat pessimistic that the deal would fall apart. As a matter of fact, I'll go ahead and lower slightly based on this reconsideration (was at 4%, but going to 3%). I'll go up if anything happens.
Why do you think you're right?
There isn't a lot of time left and as others have noted, Trump is in deal-making mode with China and probably doesn't want to jeopardize the situation.
Why might you be wrong?
Things could change on a whim. Also, maybe there are geopolitical / trade negotiation reasons to threaten new restrictions on particular countries in order to try to extract concessions.
Why do you think you're right?
lowering on @Plataea479 's recent comments. The capability is only part of the problem, but the issue of whether it actually gets proven out is another matter entirely.
Why might you be wrong?
I'm currently maximally uncertain, so probably I could be apply better discrimination to this question. The problem is, I disagree with the consensus and think this is actually more likely than not right now, but as with @Plataea479 , the crowd probably has good reasons to be skeptical. I'll stick with maximum uncertainty for now.
I agree its uncertain. Any self imposed moratoria or actual National and International restrictions can be unilaterally Broken. That leads to Wuhan type events which are now reported to have occurred like Chernobyl in FSU in 80s.
Its extraordinary tech costs a prohibitive amount and does not align with G 20 countries interests or that of the BRICs and Global South. Who is going to throw at least a billion at this issue? Big Pharm? Doubtful
Why do you think you're right?
Agree with @MrLittleTexas that this deserves a slight boost as the Trump admin has been trying to negotiate something. Even if it looks like things have fallen apart, it could all be tactics. I think the administration would jump at the chance to broker any kind of ceasefire agreement no matter how likely it would be to fall apart / get broken.
Why might you be wrong?
Most likely nothing will change within the period of this question.
Why do you think you're right?
A bit confused why @grainmummy 's proposal of a resolution for this question hasn't seen an official a response. Assuming it doesn't qualify, with limited time left it's time to start lowering quickly. If @grainmummy 's comment doesn't qualify it's likely that something is in the works, but it might take but will take longer than the lifespan of this question.
Why might you be wrong?
I'd like to have the mods weigh in on this to understand better where the lines are.
I understand why the percentage of the predictions is concentrated in the "no" category, and it's good to see you revert to your previous prediction.
(I don't want to mislead anyone, even if unintentionally.) The crowd also seems more likely to agree to this answer, for good reason.
I still believe the issue holds some potential for a "yes" resolution, perhaps as a bit of insight. Therefore, I sent a suggestion to the site administrators a while ago (not as a resolution, but as a suggestion), but received no response.Regarding the European commitment that opened the question, I inquired whether the collective financing of HIMARS missiles by European countries through NATO's PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List) mechanism would be considered a "commitment" within the scope of this question.
So, I thought that if this collective financing commitment through PURL were accepted, the likelihood of the issue being resolved with a "yes" vote would increase.
No new clarification or details were given regarding this question, but I am somewhat closer to the 'yes' answer.
Thank you for tagging me. @JonathanMann