This market will resolve to "Yes" if the Russian Federation detonates a nuclear device in an offensive capacity by December 31, 2024, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". To satisfy a "Yes" resolution, the detonation of a nuclear device must be in an offensive capacity (whether deliberate or accidental), must not be a test, and must be either claimed by the Russian Federation or considered by a preponderance of credible reporting and/or information from credible sources to be from the Russian Federation. For the purpose of this market's resolution, determination as to whether a detonation was nuclear will be made by a preponderance of credible reporting.
Just gambling 😂 hahaha
no no
Putin
i think no, but my bet is yes
Putin pidor
wow
I don’t think this bet gonna win lol
Not
Putin is genius
Putin would not be so impulsive
Russia
The case for Yes. 1. The stakes for Putin are higher than people realise - a perceived loss in Ukraine could end his political career (and in turn, his life). 2. a small targetted nuclear strike may end the war quickly in Russias favour and the window off opportunity is closing. The longer the war goes on, the higher the risk to Putin of escalation into a large unwinnable war involving other european powers or NATO. Putin needs immediate strategic gains now either a. to strengthen negotiating position in time for the Trump presidency or b. to sufficiently weaken Ukraine's position BEFORE European countries have committed themselves to Ukraine's defense.
bs from start to finish. Putin is not on a clock, the democrats are. And Russia can easily finish this conflict without nukes. European countries will not make a difference in any way. NATO will never fight Russia directly, no one wants that. Russia also doesn't want to fight NATO directly (it ends in a nuclear holocaust)
i understand you and agree
Trusting Dems will escalate this market to 50:50 odds
always wondered if MAGA people actually believe in their rants
You guys do realize that Russia using a nuke doesn't necessarily mean ww3, a more likely scenario would be russia firing a low yield nuke into an uninhabited area maybe in the farmland around Kyiv to work as propaganda/fearmongering to scare Ukraine and the west into giving more favorable negotiations when trump enters office.
Maybe I end up looking like a fool, but I don't see a reason to use a nuke from Putin's perspective. Trump has been elected and is an isolationist, who just wants to cut funding to Ukraine and end the war to fix gas prices. Putin is basically going to get everything he wants as long as he waits until alte January. Using a nuke risks escalting and creating a situation Trump can't ignore.
lmao yes. On the face of it, Russia has the upper hand at present. Ukraine using ATACMs to hit a few weapons depots, air-defense, and command centers is a minor annoyance that merely will slow down their already-slow advance. Using a nuke would make Russia a pariah. Even China does not want it's ally to use a nuke for no reason.
I agree that Trump will likely offer Putin favorable terms, but those terms may not satisfy Putin's ambition to restore Russia's Soviet-era influence. Russia has been threatening nuclear action since the war began, and while they have avoided using nukes offensively so far, that does not guarantee restraint now. Historically, Russia has avoided using nukes due to fear of U.S. retaliation, but this is their first full-scale war since WWII, and they have already lost an estimated 180,000 soldiers. In comparison, deploying a low-yield tactical nuke to kill a few hundred soldiers or using one strategically as propaganda to intimidate Ukraine and the West seems far less consequential. The belief that nukes are "sacred" because they have not been used in nearly a century feels outdated. It is hard to imagine a post-nuke world, but after a few weeks, it could become the new norm. Russia's unpredictability has been proven, from invading Ukraine to importing North Korean troops, so while the risk of nuclear use is low, it is probably closer to 5-8 percent rather than 3 percent. Also, I do not think Trump would rush into WW3. He likes Putin and could use the situation to negotiate and position himself as a hero who prevented escalation while blaming Biden for reckless escalation.
If it happens we are fucked anyway. Might as well buy some NO
rules don't say the size about the nuke, it might not escalate the ww3
hopefully I'm wrong in this one
you have too much money to throw away my friend. let me get a donation lol
buying at the peak is crazy work lmao
I dont mind to lose this bet. it's speculative as always.
Will it use a nw within a trial, or will it use a nw against a country?
nw at all, any where on earth via any country.
nvm only russia
russia just hit Dnipro with an icbm….
Resolution should clarify whether attac on nuclear power plant with resulting consequences will be a par of resolution
dude nuclear weapon doenst work like this
"detonates a nuclear device" from rules. Not weapon
lmao do any of the yes holders expect to be able to collect on this bet?
only zelensky
Pretty morbid bet wtf