16.295915
Relative Brier Score
566
Forecasts
80
Upvotes
Forecasting Calendar
Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forecasts | 6 | 21 | 251 | 23 | 566 |
Comments | 5 | 12 | 47 | 14 | 163 |
Questions Forecasted | 6 | 20 | 65 | 21 | 127 |
Upvotes on Comments By This User | 3 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 80 |
Definitions |
Most Active Topics:
Iran Nuclear Program,
Iran-VNSAs,
Mission: Diplomacy,
Semiconductor Supply Chain,
Decoding Disinformation



Why do you think you're right?
Too many factors going against an affirmative resolution here.
Why might you be wrong?
Anything can happen!

Why do you think you're right?
With the impending withdrawal of USAID (alongside American interest, in general), coupled with increased foreign interference, a coup, homegrown or fomented from the outside, seems likely if not certain. It must be successful, but since the criteria are fairly generous here, I'm wagering that this is far more likely to happen than not.
Why might you be wrong?
Obviously, people can attempt coups (and surely will) but they may not succeed.

Why do you think you're right?
Chemical Weapons: High Risk. Despite international prohibitions, recent allegations suggest that chemical weapons are still in use (e.g. Syria). The relative ease of production and deployment makes them an ongoing threat. Less U.S. oversight throughout the world means there is less of a disincentive to use them. Given the long time frame, I’m going to say it’s far more likely chemical warfare in some form takes place in the next five years than not.
Radiological Weapons: Low. The challenges associated with deploying radiological weapons and the potential unintended contamination make their use unlikely. These might be a weapon of last resort, however.
Biological Weapons: Low. While there have been no recent instances of use, advancements in biotechnology could lower barriers to development. Unpredictability of their spread deters use, and establishing responsibility can be difficult. This one is key. If technical barriers to entry lower, which they probably will, it will be harder to pin the blame on a government.
Nuclear Weapons: Low Risk. Only possessed by state actors, although (in theory) they could be deployed by an individual with access. Individuals can be blamed by a nation state. MAD is a powerful, although not impervious, deterrent.
Why might you be wrong?
My predictions are largely in line with the crowd's. I am tempted to raise the probability for radiological weapons use a little more, especially if issues flare up in the Middle East again, but will keep it low for now.

Why do you think you're right?
Five years is a quick turnaround, but serious efforts began back in 2023. There is DARPA's FSHARP Program, of which ErythroMer is a part. As mentioned in the summary, classifying a blood substitute could add red tape to the approval process. Even a few massive breakthroughs this year would still have to be scrutinized but, coming from DARPA, it may help.
FDA has historically provided accelerated pathways for treatments that directly support military operations. Please read up on Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and Breakthrough Therapy Designation.
Why might you be wrong?
Biological systems are complicated. When we think we have a great solution, it throws a curveball and it turns out the risks outweigh the benefits. In this case, as it is for emergency military situations, the risks would have to be pretty immediate and severe, but still...



Star Commenter - Jan 2025

Why do you think you're right?
Forecasting above the crowd. Five years is enough time, but it's a tight squeeze.
Why might you be wrong?
There are plenty of potential applications here
Why do you think you're right?
China is playing the long game. It seems possible within the next decade, but not especially probable in the next six months.
Why might you be wrong?