https://manifold.markets/dashboard/ww3

WW3?

Probably/hopefully very unlikely, but if WW3 would happen pre-singularity I think it could look very similar to now. With the war in the Ukraine, the situation in Gaza, the tensions around Taiwan, and the perceived weakness of the US, this seems like the most dangerous time for the world since the end of the cold war. I'm trying to collect questions here that would best signal moves to increased or decreased risk of WW3. (@Manifold: It would be nice to have a comment section and/or direct messages so that people could suggest good questions.)

The US hasn't formally declared war since 1941 (despite fighting wars). China hasn't formally declared war since 1950 (despite fighting wars too). It's also very difficult for the USA to occupy the Chinese mainland and vice-versa due to being separated by the Pacific Ocean and the vulnerability of transport ships. This resolution cruxes around the definition of "de-facto war...in the form of multiple skirmishes".

One could consider that the current China-India conflict involves "multiple skirmishes" but it very much isn't a "war". Meanwhile, a single hypersonic nuclear bomb over New York and Shanghai isn't "multiple skirmishes" but very much is a war. I'm hesitant to bet on this resolution due to the ambiguity of what constitutes "multiple skirmishes".

@Lsusr open to suggestions! this was one of the first questions I ever wrote on Manifold, so there's definitely some tightening that can be done

@Lsusr similarly the US does things that are very much wars, but are called other things ("special operations"?) to e.g. circumvent congressional approval

@Stralor you can just go with "military conflict resulting in the death of X people or more on either side" the size of X should be in the hundreds I think.

Alternatively wou can use Wikipedia, and say if there's a serious US/China war page (equivalent to the russo-ukrainian page) you can count that as yes.

@Stralor This is a subject close to my heart, and I am a stickler when it comes to tightly defining resolution criteria.

One way I might consider defining it is "will there be at least 1,000 casualties of both PRC and the USA in combat operations between the USA and China? This includes both military casualties and strategic civilian deaths." (I wrote this before reading Odoacre's response, which takes a similar approach.)

@Lsusr It's not a bad approach, but in this case I want a question that measures conflict, not death, so I'll keep chewing on it.

Neither country benefits from deploying resources to fight a war instead of mitigating climate change and investing in space colonization.

@DavidKc2f9 while I agree with you on principle, humans and nations are not necessarily rational actors and I suppose there could be enough changes and stressors in the world to precipitate a fall in relations.

@PatS I agree but I don't think the generations of people who grew up with ubiquitous access to information will actually tolerate a war because it is a clear waste of dwindling petrochemical resources. I'm guessing this is obvious to almost everyone, including politicians.