I think there's a lot more uncertainty here than the crowd is giving it credit for, giving that the current count is only 23
No Scores Yet
Relative Brier Score
5
Forecasts
0
Upvotes
Forecasting Calendar
Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forecasts | 0 | 4 | 20 | 5 | 238 |
Comments | 0 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 73 |
Questions Forecasted | 0 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 36 |
Upvotes on Comments By This User | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 |
Definitions |


Why do you think you're right?
Why might you be wrong?
I'm not high on any category, so I'll be "wrong" for most outcomes

Why do you think you're right?
Time
Why might you be wrong?
Time


Why do you think you're right?
I don't see a clear plausible scenario for this. If they want to escalate their involvement in a conflict or begin a new military intervention they will likely do so through proxies as they have done in the past.
Why might you be wrong?
The situation in Syria is volatile enough to warrant some humility in this forecast

I broadly agree with @MrLittleTexas's take that the debt:GDP ratio is an important metric for determining the likelihood of default. Argentina's is lower when they defaulted, and the IMF projects a further decline in the future.
Bolivia has a similar debt:GDP ratio, but the IMF is forecasting that theirs will increase to above 100% within the forecast window. Still, I think that the probability of default is low (but potentially much higher in 2026).
Ecuador's is even lower, and I'll adjust my forecast accordingly, but as I am less familiar with the government efforts to reduce likelihood of default there I will nudge my forecast closer to 50%.
I'm also increasing all of these probabilities due to some analysis such as the kind found here by S&P, warning that sovereign defaults will grow more likely in the future.

Time

Time
Why do you think you're right?
Chemical weapons seemed to be used by state actors with some frequency, including in the current Ukraine-Russia War. The other weapon types, especially nuclear, seem to have large costs on the actor that uses them (bio and radiological have containment issues for use in a war, and breaking the nuclear taboo seems like it would invite backlash)
Why might you be wrong?
New conflicts may emerge that make the use of biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons more likely. Additionally, use of chemical weapons in the future may be unattributable to a particular state