Quote:
Originally Posted by helbent4
Protecting important databases from EMP is hardly rocket science.
|
Ok, the data may be safely backed up, but the ability to share that information is
gone. Even if that information could be shared, how can it be verified quickly, or easily? There may be ways, but there are many more ways to falsify the data - therefore the data, correct or otherwise, is essentially worthless in proving the wealth, or otherwise of a nation, corporation, organisation, or individual in a trade situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helbent4
Governments at least would be interested in doing business as usual, even during wartime, as they tend to see things in the long term.
|
What government is this exactly? Page 13 of the 2.2 BYB and pg 26 of the 1.0 Referees Manual state "Peace might have come, but there were
no surviving governments to negotiate it."
Yes, there is Milgov and Civgov in the US, however these were not formed until after the Spring planting in 1999 was finished, and certainly wouldn't have been in any shape whatsoever to carry out international negotiations for quite some time (chances are because of the same reasons that caused the split, foreign nations would have refused to deal with either one for fear of backing the wrong horse and having the payment fall through).
Quote:
Originally Posted by helbent4
As for Ft. Knox, it's more than likely the gold was evacuated; it wasn't like no one thought a nuclear war was a possibility. After all, someone tried (and at least partially failed) to recover the gold in Manhattan. Ft. Knox would have a higher priority and easier security.
|
How? Where to? There is over 4,176 (according to Wiki) tonnes of the stuff in there - not a simple task to carry out unnoticed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by helbent4
This is completely opposite case. The US, as a direct combatant with a damaged or destroyed industrial infrastructure, would have reason to appropriate vehicles already in inventory destined for someplace else.
|
Correct, and we see this several times in the books (the Cadillac Gage tanks for example). What we do not see is the US retaining anything even close to the ability to seize the goods and possessions not within shooting distance of a US military unit strong enough to throw it's weight about on foreign soil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helbent4
After all, it's not the US selling anything to Argentina, it's an intact Argentina selling Pucaras (and/or Brasilian Super Tucanos) to the USA.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by helbent4
The crucial difference being these are not active combatants and they have (supposedly) intact industrial bases.
|
To quote page 241 of the 2.2 BYB:
"Agentina itself withdrew (from the Falklands) when war broke out with Brazil in 1998, and a small scale exchange of low-yield nuclear weapons between the two countries completed their slide into chaos. Central government in both countries has broken down, and both are now divided into semi-feudal territories ruled by military juntas or local community governments."