Still no sign of North Korea either repairing its old and probably irreparably damaged nuclear test site, and no sign of a new one being built. https://38north.org.
-1.407031
Relative Brier Score
1697
Forecasts
889
Upvotes
Forecasting Activity
Forecasting Calendar
| Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecasts | 15 | 77 | 1029 | 856 | 3628 |
| Comments | 11 | 32 | 424 | 342 | 1999 |
| Questions Forecasted | 14 | 44 | 96 | 73 | 212 |
| Upvotes on Comments By This User | 5 | 31 | 516 | 417 | 1668 |
| Definitions | |||||
New Prediction
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
Forecast Window
1%
(-2%)
Yes
Nov 21, 2024 to May 21, 2025
99%
(+2%)
No
Nov 21, 2024 to May 21, 2025
Files
May I suggest again reading Phil Tetlock's book, Expert Political Judgment? Opinions proffered in the news media tend to be misleading. Only opinions support the proposition that North Korea will conduct a nuclear test within six months, despite lack of a functional test site. Nobody on this forecasting site has presented evidence that the scientists are wrong. Even the supposedly contrary evidences presented in this long chain of responses consist of mere opinions, yet include contrary evidence of overhead photos of severe damage and which admit to the destruction of the previous tunnels.
Normally, I pay no attention to the commentators behind the curtain. I look at the photos and read the evidentiary details.
The whole point of choosing that mountain for a test site was the belief that it would be a safe place for nuclear tests. On the other hand, many commentators seem to assume that North Korea doesn't care that the mountain now is a rubble pile. The first rule of journalism: If it bleeds, it leads. You can't sell a story that is boring! So of course commentators will say the mountain is ready for another nuclear test.
I believe that the leaders of North Korea don't like to be publicly humiliated, as they would be if, for a second time, they would make world news for botching a nuclear test. On the other hand, commentators know that if it bleeds, it leads. They know that if they are wrong, so what? Editors always are looking for another exciting headline and commentators deliver.
Comparison class: China's botched rollout of an ADIZ. China was humiliated within hours as US and Japanese military aircraft flew into it, followed within days of commercial aircraft routinely violating it. Yet for over a year, many commentators were excitedly writing that soon China would roll out yet another self-humiliating ADIZ, next time in the South China Sea. What delectable headlines! Editors lept for joy! I had lots of fun predicting zeroes on that one. People who believed the commentators got bad Brier scores.
Still, I'm forecasting a 1% likelihood of a botched test within six months. Sometimes a world leader will inadvertently do something to humiliate himself.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
0%
(-1%)
Yes
100%
(+1%)
No
I think that even if an IAEA inspector were to find it, they won't publicize it. Right now Iran is being extra nice to the IAEA.
Dateline 11-20-2024 The IAEA Director General has briefed the Board of Governors on his high-level meetings in Tehran last week, describing his discussions with the new government as constructive. Nevertheless, he pointed out, there were ongoing concerns.
“It is clear that the accumulation of enriched uranium at very high levels has been a matter of concern for many around the world. And this is why I requested the Islamic Republic of Iran to exercise restraint. Not only to exercise restraint, but also if possible, to stop increasing the stockpile of sixty percent uranium. And this request of mine was accepted by Iran.”
Rafael Mariano Grossi went on to discuss how this was an initial step, and a lot more needed to be done.
Source: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/director-general-briefs-board-on-iran-developments-ukraine-support-technical-assistance-and-more
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
0%
(-1%)
Yes
100%
(+1%)
No
Why do you think you're right?
Iran is playing nice with the IAEA inspectors.
Dateline 11-20-2024 The IAEA Director General has briefed the Board of Governors on his high-level meetings in Tehran last week, describing his discussions with the new government as constructive. Nevertheless, he pointed out, there were ongoing concerns.
“It is clear that the accumulation of enriched uranium at very high levels has been a matter of concern for many around the world. And this is why I requested the Islamic Republic of Iran to exercise restraint. Not only to exercise restraint, but also if possible, to stop increasing the stockpile of sixty percent uranium. And this request of mine was accepted by Iran.”
Rafael Mariano Grossi went on to discuss how this was an initial step, and a lot more needed to be done.
Files
Why might you be wrong?
Iran's promise to "exercise restraint" might be empty talk designed to mollify the IAEA.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
1%
(+1%)
Estonia
1%
(+1%)
Latvia
1%
(+1%)
Lithuania
Why do you think you're right?
Up very slightly given the possibility that Russia's ally China might have cut two communications cables in the Baltic Sea,
Dateline 11-22-2024 Two undersea internet cables were cut in the Baltic Sea this week: one connecting Sweden and Lithuania and another between Finland and Germany. Both Swedish and Finnish authorities have opened investigations into the incidents, and German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Tuesday he suspects the cables were cut as an act of sabotage. U.S. officials suggested the cables were accidentally cut by a ship dragging its anchor along the sea floor while Swedish officials identified a Chinese vessel as “of interest” in its sabotage investigation. [emphasis added]
Source: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/morning/matt-gaetz-withdraws-as-nominee-for-attorney-general/
Files
Why might you be wrong?
Russia has troubles enough now without trying to get China involved in shady actions in the Baltics. I'll wait for further news before any more increases.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
5%
(+4%)
Less than or equal to 49
34%
(+15%)
Between 50 and 59, inclusive
46%
(-4%)
Between 60 and 69, inclusive
13%
(-12%)
Between 70 and 79, inclusive
2%
(-3%)
More than or equal to 80
Following @MrLittleTexas
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
12%
(+7%)
Less than or equal to 59
18%
(-7%)
Between 60 and 69, inclusive
24%
(-1%)
Between 70 and 79, inclusive
23%
(-2%)
Between 80 and 89, inclusive
23%
(+3%)
More than or equal to 90
Following @MrLittleTexas based on his "random number generator" comment. I can't find a better handle on this problem than him. Perhaps later it will come into better focus.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
62%
Yes
38%
No
Following @DKC given https://www.randforecastinginitiative.org/comments/147039
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
33%
(-6%)
Yes
67%
(+6%)
No
Aligning with Wizards of Odds team.
Files
New Prediction
Probability
Answer
Forecast Window
9%
(0%)
Yes
Nov 21, 2024 to May 21, 2025
91%
(0%)
No
Nov 21, 2024 to May 21, 2025
Why do you think you're right?
Trump will be provocative, and Iran might fight back.
Files
Why might you be wrong?
But will the Trump effect not materialize within six months?
Files
Why do you think you're right?
I started higher on this question, thinking that it was posed because of a new development of which I might have been unaware. Yet nobody has presented evidence of a new nuclear test site. If the question were to be extended to several years, I would go much higher because of the potential of building a new site. On the other hand, the last nuclear tests by the US and USSR/Russia were in 1991 and 1990, respectively.
Outside of North Korea, the last nuclear tests worldwide were by India and Pakistan in 1998. Simply by the comparison class technique, it would appear likely that rather than build a new nuclear test site, that now that North Korean has demonstrated its thermonuclear weapon (AKA hydrogen bomb), North Korea would decide that it, too, needs no more tests.
This is especially relevant because that thermonuclear test, Mw 5.24, was followed ~8.5 minutes later by a second earthquake of Mw 4.47. The second one was later determined to be caused by the collapse of the mountain hosting North Korea's only nuclear test site. As a result, the mountain was found to have suffered a "surface displacement field of up to 3.5 meters of divergent horizontal motion with 0.5 meters of subsidence." Also, all the existing test tunnels collapsed. Much later, a new tunnel was excavated, based on overhead photos. North Korea has not reported what that tunnel may have found.
See below, from "The rise, collapse, and compaction of Mt. Mantap from the 3 September 2017 North Korean nuclear test."
Dateline 5-10-2028 World peace benefits from adherence to internationally negotiated nuclear test ban treaties whose signatories strive to promote the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. In 2003, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) became the first country to withdraw from the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. North Korea has been conducting underground nuclear weapon tests with increasing intensity since 2006. On 3 September 2017, two seismic events separated by ~8.5 min were detected at North Korea’s Punggye-ri nuclear test site. Soon thereafter, North Korea’s state media reported the successful firing of a two-stage thermonuclear bomb test. The U.S. Geological Survey and the China Earthquake Networks Center determined a body-wave magnitude (mb) of 6.3 for the first event (NKNT 6), much larger than any of the five nuclear tests since 2006 (NKNT 1–5). Shortly thereafter, the scientific community started to determine the location, focal mechanism, and yield of the explosion by means of seismic waveforms and satellite optical imagery (1). Preliminary analysis revealed a predominantly isotropic explosive source located beneath Mount Mantap (1–3), which also hosted NKNT 2–5 (Fig. 1). [Emphasis added]
Source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar7230
Why might you be wrong?
One possibility is that North Korea's leaders don't care that the mountain has become a rubble pile, and don't care that a new test would likely create considerable radioactive fallout. Comparison class: China's surprise announcement in 2013 of a new ADIZ, only to be followed within hours by US military bombers, soon followed even by airliners full of passengers. China was repeatedly humiliated, for example, by a photo of a US military pilot giving the bird to a nearby Chinese fighter craft. Despite this, many commentators were warning excitedly that soon China would surprise announce a new South China Sea ADIZ. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen.
Another possibility is that North Korea may have built a new test site of which the open source world is unaware, and might use it within six months. I consider this to be more likely and is why I started off higher until I could thoroughly search for any such open source evidence.
The key word is "believes." Take a look at this below, which is what I find more believable than anyone's opinions to the contrary:
Fig. 4 Summary deformation scenario for the 3 September 2017 North Korea nuclear test.
(A, B, and D) The unfolding of events includes the succession of explosive (A), collapse (B), and compaction (D) processes, with different associated surface displacements. (C) The implosive source may be shallow and may only contribute localized surface displacements. The radar imagery reveals the deformation [arrows in (D)] resulting from the three processes.
Source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar7230
I am not aware of any nuclear underground tests that have been conducted in a location with the problems shown above. I simply can't see how such a massive reworking of Mt. Matnap could be consistent with a usable underground nuclear test site. I don't see where either of you have addressed these facts in this case.
In another comment here I recounted an example of a serious problem in an old zinc mine near Magdalena, NM owned by New Mexico Tech for teaching purposes. In that case, no felt earthquake was involved in a large cavity in which several supporting timbers had snapped in half, obviously due to the ceiling having slid at nearly a right angle to the original set of these timbers. I saw this myself, walking into that cavity and looking up and oopsie! We all skedaddled out of there and straight out of the mine. Our guide was shaking visibly. Yet there had been no felt earthquake since that part of the mine was last inspected.
Here's another anecdote, a semiprecious minerals mine in the Hansenberg District of New Mexico. The owner led us fellow members of the New Mexico Gem and Minerals Club to a pile of rocks nearly entirely blocking a side tunnel. He said the corpse of an uninvited visitor had been extracted from underneath. He guessed that person must have tried to pry out a big specimen of linarite from the ceiling, one that the owner had been afraid to extract. With the owner's permission, I wriggled my way across the top of the rubble pile to try to figure out where all that debris came from. Very little seemed to have fallen from the ceiling. Where did the rest come from? How could removing just one rock cause such a volume of rubble?
Now take another look at how the external shape of Mt. Mantap changed after the two seismic events plus the aseismic process as reflected in the change of the mountain's external shape over the following days. Does that look like a good site for an underground nuclear test? Heck, I wouldn't even walk inside that one new tunnel, and I've walked many old mine tunnels. Heck, even actively mined tunnels -- yes, I love 'em -- always have evidence of rockfalls. Mountains want to move and we mere mortals would be wise to respect them.