This question resolves once China invades Taiwan. The statements that are relevant as warning signs to the invasion of Taiwan, and refer to things that occurred in the 12 months prior to the date of the invasion (or overlap significantly with this period) and up until 48 hours before the invasion start time, resolve as YES.
The statements must be at least adjacent to Taiwan or connected to significant geopolitical players with China/Taiwan interests. Events that could heighten global tensions, be broadly disruptive or are significant historical events are also acceptable. This includes but is not limited to major technological developments and catastrophes.
In the context of this question, the invasion start time is considered to be the first moment a soldier from the Chinese mainland sets foot on the main island of Taiwan as part of an invasion force. Soldiers that are part of a covert infiltration operation are not included. If there is some ambiguity about which exact time should be considered based on this criteria, then a "best matching" time will be selected.
Statements that refer to things that did not occur resolve as NO. Answers that occurred strictly more than 12 months before the invasion resolve as NO. Answers that are uncertain or ambiguous resolve as N/A.
If this invasion does not take place before January 1st 2100, then all the answers resolve as N/A.
Update 2025-01-29 (PST): - If the invasion fails, none of the statements can resolve as YES. (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000
3.00@MalachiteEagle as long as Taiwan is independent I don't think there will be a rolling twelve month period where this is not already a YES in waiting 🤣
@MalachiteEagle this I suppose conflicts with my interpretation below.
It's hard work to construct a case where this doesn't resolve YES as the question is written, but that's not really what the title is asking.
@JoshuaWilkes well, they could shoot down an aircraft and invade in less than 48 hours. Or never shoot down an aircraft.
Question or rather tentative suggestion that the criteria can be improved.
If the time between the first shot fired by Chinese forces and the first Chinese boot hitting sand on Taiwan is substantially more than two days, then a lot of things are going to qualify for YES that I don't think the question really intends.
Similarly, if an invasion spectacularly fails, then lots of things are going to resolve NO when that is not what the question intends.
@JoshuaWilkes the question isn't about the success of the invasion. The 48 hour window is there to avoid lots of really obvious responses like "amphibious landing vehicles approaching the Taiwanese shoreline"
@JoshuaWilkes the main logic is that China is probably going to try and move as fast as possible once everyone knows what they're doing. So 48 hours should be enough for this question.
@JoshuaWilkes none can resolve as YES in the case where no soldier lands on the Taiwanese main island. If the invasion takes place (in the sense that a soldier lands on the main island) and fails, that's still considered as having taken place. Therefore some questions can resolve as YES
@MalachiteEagle so possibly this is just what you want, or it's a trade-off that you are making for a reason I don't appreciate, but I think this is less than ideal because it changes how people will bet if they think an invasion will fail.
@JoshuaWilkes I think you might have some criteria in mind for 'failure' that's outside the scope of this market.
@MalachiteEagle what I'm imagining is that China masses forces in Fujian, hostilities open and then through any number of scenarios an amphibious assault is catastrophically unsuccessful or isn't even attempted.
Under that set of scenarios all the things that would predict an invasion would still happen, and ideally would resolve YES
@JoshuaWilkes essentially this question is not about success/failure of the invasion. It's about the invasion, so a criteria is selected for that. Authoritarian states that are culturally terrified of losing face will deny an invasion is taking place until the invasion is well under way, in case they need to cancel it at the last minute.
@JoshuaWilkes it's much more nebulous to select a criteria based on events prior to an amphibious landing. Possible, but less clear I think
@MalachiteEagle I'm failing to make my point.
I will try a dumb analogy.
Imagine that we are trying to understand what factors will determine whether a particular athlete will start the New York Marathon, and you set the resolution criteria to be things that take place more 24 hours before that athlete finishes the New York Marathon.
Now I not only have to get on how predictive I think a factor is, I also have to include an additional term for how likely it is that the athlete starts but then gets injured, retires for other reasons, or even the whole race gets cancelled at the halfway mark.
The point is that you don't want this market to be about success/failure, but the criteria drive it closer to that rather than further away.
@ian yes, but you'd have to add an answer that's specific to that. Like "think tank warns of Chinese naval build up"