Death to the War Industry?

Day 705, 18:34 • Published in USA USA • by dreaeuh

The eUS has effectively removed the eHungarian influences from North eAmerica. Effectively, because eHungary still resides in Alaska, but if a buffer zone between the eUS and eRussia.

Is it a good time to fortify Washington to prevent it from being taken back? Why stop there? Why not fortify Yukon and BC to keep eHungary from taking another territory (and activating MPPs).

If eHungary does not attack the eUS or eCanada and eUS doesn't want to attack eHungary to prevent a Red Invasion, are our gift and weapons industries at the precipice of a tremendous decline in sales and profitability?

A large part of the weapons program for Nunavut and Manitoba may have came from eUS facilities; however, some significant part still came from the private sector.

In addition, the gifting industry is almost completely dried up, with q5 gift volume at about 199., q4 at 76, and q3 at about 288. Supplies are low currently, production should be expected to rise, but will demand be here if North eAmerica enters into some sort of calm?

Weapons will always be needed around the world, but short relatively large wars, we will not see the levels of demand as we have the last few days.

Do we sell off our shares of weapons industries? Will our corporations sell off their q1 gift manufacturers? We will have access again to large supplies of diamonds from Nunavut, but will we need that supply?

The question is, was the eCanadian attack on Alaska a sign of North eAmerican intent on retaking it, or just a diversion in the previous battle (or both)?

Will building infrastructure revive the market or will our gains be lost again? The ability of the eUS to take and control territories against eHungary is well known. It shouldn't be a problem.

I am personally holding off from buying a diamond company until I hear get a feel for the future market.

(Sorry if this article is a bit choppy. I have a migraine.)