In tonight’s ABC debate, the moderator asked four Democratic presidential candidates to respond to the "fact" that experts think there is a 30% chance a US city will be nuked in the next ten years. No one challenged this estimate, and they fell over themselves to show how seriously they take such a threat.
This estimate seems way too high to me. Ideosphere says there’s a 15-22% chance of a nuke in the US in the next two years, which seems even further off. (If I can find my ID & password there, I’ll bet against it.) A real money prediction market could offer a more objective estimate – could it also convince the public, and the candidates, to focus on more realistic threats?
(Don’t bother to complain such a market might pay terrorists to do it – they could make far far more money from such an act trading in existing financial markets.)