[Legbreaker]

As discussed in the previous thread, why go to all that bother. The existing facilities have to be stronger than just about any possible alternative and hardened up to and including a near miss (perhaps even direct hit) by a sizeable nuke. Shifting the gold introduces a whole range of potential problems which simply aren't needed.

Also, why bother shifting it before nukes are used in Europe in July 1997?
If a slow movement was then considered, by the time it was organised November would have almost rolled around.

Also, Fort Knox was where the US Constitution and all the other valuable historical items were stored in WWII. If it's good enough for them, surely it's good enough for the gold....?

It has to be remembered that in early 1997 nuclear war, while a possibility, seemed to have been avoided. The Soviets, always expected to resort to nukes within weeks, if not days of the commencement of hostilities, had held back, choosing instead to continue with conventional warfare. It wasn't until the writing was well and truly on the wall for them that they opened Pandora's box and let loose. Even then it was very, very restrained with just the odd tactical warhead used here and there and only against targets within 50km or so of their own border (ok, China was being turned to glass at the time, but the west had next to no units involved there to worry about).

We can see in Howling Wilderness that US civilians panicked at the first used of nukes and left the cities in droves, but soon returned when nothing happened. Even towards the end of 1997 many could have been forgiven for believing nuclear war at home had been avoided and their homes, their jobs, their families, and their government and military infrastructure was safe.

So, given the almost complete lack of reasons to move the gold, why would anyone have even considered it as a possibility?