[Raellus]

Those are some good questions, fact275, and ones that many of us who have delved into the T2K materials have also wondered about. #1 and #4 are real head-scratchers. We can only speculate as to what the rationale for those rather egregious omissions were. In some case, I think that the authors didn't want to circumscribe things too much by detailing out the results of certain major in-module missions. I think they left it open to GMs to determine the large-scale, long-term effects of completing certain major missions (Reset, for example). If they spelled everything out, then T2K does become more like a video game, as creative control is taken out of the hands of GMs. Perhaps they were trying to avoid that happening. It is strange, however, that they didn't at least present possible long-term effects- a menu of options, if you will- for GMs that struggle with that sort of macro-level world-building.

I do have some pretty definite thoughts on a couple of your questions. I hope you don't mind me sharing them.

#2. I think the authors used "NATO" to describe Western forces post-2000 for ease of reference. We all know what they mean. Perhaps the U.S., through CivGov, is still a part of the alliance- it's still got forces in Europe in 2001, as does MilGov if one counts US XI Corps, which gets left behind in NW Poland after OMEGA. I think making up a new acronym for NATO 2.0 would have just confused matters. Consider that, even before 2000, NATO had lost members, some even having turned coats. It would be hard to keep track if they changed the name of the alliance every time a country came or went throughout the timeline.

3. I don't see unused, unaccounted-for warheads as being a plot-hole. In fact, I see it more of a plot-hook. There are weapons to be found and kept out of the hands of tin-pot dictators, warlords, etc. Heck, if PCs can get their hands on a warhead, they can set themselves up as major power players.

As to why the U.S. didn't nuke Mexico, I see a perfectly reasonable explanation. In a basic cost-benefit analysis, it's not worth irradiating one's next-door neighbor when one has confidence in one's conventional forces to stop and roll back a conventional invasion. The U.S. would have had enough issues with fallout and the like without radioactive dust clouds of their own creation rolling back over the border from a nuked Mexico as well.