There is an active global war (with or without nukes), going on at least in 30 countries.

Does it have to be the same war? If so, how connected does it have to be? (E.g. right now Iran and Russia give each other support in various ways including weapons and intelligence, but aren't directly sharing troops)

@ShakedKoplewitz it is a good and difficult question. I would say: it could be "different but related wars", specifically for cases involving "proxies" and "opportunistic allies" like RussianFederation-Iran-NorthKorea. However, to my knowledge, intensification of Colombian insurgent activities should not be counted, since they are completely not related (this could change in future, or I could be proven wrong on this point).

A few edge case clarifications, what happens if:

• the value of USD vastly rises/falls?

• many countries join/leave G7/BRICS?

• there's an invasion / civil war / coup leading to a country's dejure government (possibly in exile) continuing to participate but the defacto government doesn't, so it's unclear whether the country has actually left the UN?

• there's routine light skirmishes and bombings with plausible deniability of responsibility between 30+ countries, so it's unclear whether it counts as an actual war?

• there's fighting across numerous partially self-governing autonomous regions and partially recognised proto-states, so it's unclear how many countries are at war?

@TheAllMemeingEye this are all great questions! I need more time to think on this. Do you have any reference question I can learn from, regarding value of USD?

@IvanK Hmmm, not sure, maybe there's a stable-value good or service it can be tied to?

Was gonna jokingly comment "isn't it already?" but I guess these criteria are much more strict than layman definition of failing to fix geopolitical problems lol

@TheAllMemeingEye yeah, agree with you. Thanks for answering, BTW.

I am open to any suggestion to change the header, the resolution criteria should stay consistent, but edge cases / details can be clarified.

@IvanK Maybe something like "catastrophic decline" or "near collapse" would better get it across?

@TheAllMemeingEye maybe "defunct" or "moribund?

Also, if there's gonna be edits, there's a common mistake second language English speakers make: "if any of these is true", not "if any of these will be true".

@BrunoParga Yeah I guess if we were to correct minor grammar mistakes, it would probably be:

"
Resolves YES if, at any point before 1 January 2035, any one of these is true:
- The UN budget is less than 3% of its current value (USD 3.59 billion)
- All members of G7 are no longer members of the UN
- All members of BRICS are no longer members of the UN
- There is an active global war (with or without nukes), going on at least in 30 countries

Resolves NO on 1 January 2035 otherwise.
"

@TheAllMemeingEye @BrunoParga thank you for all your great suggestions! I think the question is much better now, thanks to you.