Your submission is now a Draft.

Once it's ready, please submit your draft for review by our team of Community Moderators. Thank you!

You have been invited to co-author this question.

When it is ready, the author will submit it for review by Community Moderators. Thanks for helping!


This question now needs to be reviewed by Community Moderators.

We have high standards for question quality. We also favor questions on our core topic areas or that we otherwise judge valuable. We may not publish questions that are not a good fit.

If your question has not received attention within a week, or is otherwise pressing, you may request review by tagging @moderators in a comment.

You have been invited to co-author this question.

It now needs to be approved by Community Moderators. Thanks for helping!


{{qctrl.question.predictionCount() | abbrNumber}} predictions
{{"myPredictionLabel" | translate}}:  
{{ qctrl.question.resolutionString() }}
{{qctrl.question.predictionCount() | abbrNumber}} predictions
My score: {{qctrl.question.player_log_score | logScorePrecision}}
Created by: TomL and
co-authors , {{coauthor.username}}

Make a Prediction


Different nuclear conflict scenarios would differ hugely in how harmful they'd be in the near-term and in how much existential risk they create. In light of this, it'd be useful to have a clearer sense of the likelihood that nuclear conflict would involve many attacking and attacked countries, rather than just one or two.

(For example, the likelier it is that a conflict involving North Korea would escalate to involve a conflict between the US and either China or Russia, the more it makes sense to prioritize reducing the chance of such a conflict or such escalation, rather than focusing more strongly on only conflicts that start out involving multiple states with large arsenals.)