I have shared the results. I have provided compiled data for question 2. Furthermore, I point you to the "Integrity" section, and the "Respect for Colleagues" section.

I committed to not revealing specific results to the general public before more than 1 person had taken the survey. I made that promise and I will keep it.

I am committed to not revealing the specific results, because I am an alliance leader and I do not necessarily know that I would want results about my alliance to be made public knowledge. Therefore, I must respect other alliance leaders and hold this information as confidential. If an alliance leader wishes to know their specific results, they need only ask me and I will give them their specific results.

I believe that I have revealed the results to the extent that I can ethically do so. What would you think if students were polled about drug use. Do you think that the results for specific homeroom classes should be made public or should that information be held confidential and need to know? I think that revealing specific classes results would create guilt by association if a class had significantly more drug use than other classes. Revealing consolidated information about the school alone (or even class years) would obscure the drug users (in this example) enough to shield all the students from guilt by association.

In neither by school example or question 2 are we dealing with simple scientific research. We are researching people in both cases and that changes the equation when it comes to ethics.

I endorse the open list concept.

As I said, I mostly just think that it would be disrespectful to the alliances on that question.

Posting detailed results may offer one alliance leverage over another diplomatically.

Mostly, I just think it's disrespectful to the alliances on the survey.

Still more specific than I believe should be posted. Posting those results could potentially tilt the political environment of the game. Posting the results as I have posted them should have no perceptable impact on the game beyond what we debate in the game.

The player and alliance questions aren't really popularity contests. In one case, a person wanted IX back as an enemy.

I doubt very seriously that Mehul is "popular" here.

At any rate, people are not asked to judge the alliances or the players on either question. Why the alliance or player was chosen is left to the imagination of those people reading these results.

Okay, the relatively easy ones to compile where the alliances and people to return

Alliances: Arrow (14) and IX (13) dominated

Players had no real domination, but Norcal, Comwood, and Mehul each got 2 votes; Cartoon got 3 votes.

Several players answered that they most wanted to see no specific player or alliance to return


The wars really will have to wait for later to be posted.

A man needs to eat and sleep, I may post those results tomorrow, but Monday at the latest.

For the record, 85 people responded to the survey before I closed it.

I will not post the detailed results for individual alliances because I believe that to be disrespectful to those alliances and ultimately unproductive to the community as a whole. Posting the details of the alliances individually would make the conclusions of that question into a simple popularity contest.

Overall, I believe that these alliance's benefit the game:

Strongly Disagree - 1 Alliance (did not exceed 30% of respondents)
Disagree - 1 Alliance (did not exceed 22%)
Neutral - 3 Alliances* (did not exceed 32%)
Agree - 14 Alliances* (did not exceed 41%)
Strongly Agree - 1 Alliance (did not exceed 35%)
Don't Know - 0 Alliances (did not exceed 9%)

*2 Alliances tied for the Neutral and Agree categories they are both included in the totals for each category

Combinded Categories:

1. Strongly Disagree and Disagree - 2 Alliances (did not exceed 46%)
2. Agree and Strongly Agree - 16 Alliances (did not exceed 68%)
3. Neutral and Don't Know - 0 Alliances (did not exceed 39%)


Combined Categories Ranking:

1, 2, 3 Order - 2 Alliances
2, 1, 3 Order - 3 Alliances
2, 3, 1 Order - 13 Alliances

Game administrators are active:

Strongly Disagree (SD) - 1.2%
Disagree (D) - 4.8%
Neutral (N) - 11.9%
Agree (A) - 32.1%
Strongly Agree (SA) - 48.8%
Don't Know (DK) - 1.2%



Game moderators are fair:

SD - 7.2%
D - 6%
N - 13.3%
A - 30.1%
SA - 36.1%
DK - 7.2%



It is easy to upload advisor and spyops to third party sites:

SD - 1.2%
D - 3.6%
N - 6%
A - 19%
SA - 67.9%
DK - 2.4%



The game is easy to navigate on computers:

SD - 1.2%
D - 3.6%
N - 3.6%
A - 25%
SA - 63.1%
DK - 3.6%



The game is easy to navigate while using the mobile pages:

SD - 3.7%
D - 14.6%
N - 18.3%
A - 24.4%
SA - 14.6%
DK - 24.4%


I like the current features of the game:

SD - 1.2%
D - 7.2%
N - 10.8%
A - 56.6%
SA - 22.9%
DK - 1.2%



I believe that additional features should be added to the game:

SD - 1.2%
D - 6%
N - 16.9%
A - 25.3%
SA - 44.6%
DK - 6%

Results to be posted shortly. I maintain that I will not post the results of the alliance portion of the survey, except in index form.

Go Predators!

I plan to show the results of all the questions, except for question 2.

As I have stated above, question 2 was really the expansion of a more general question. By asking several specific questions, I am able to get a more valid and accurate answer to the general question. I don't feel the need to give the results to the specific questions when they merely expanded a more general question. It would be disrespectful to those alliances whose numbers I reveal and unnessecary for the point of the question. I will not even reveal Omega's numbers on question 2 if my fellow leaders in Omega object. I will reveal the results to the general question and leave it to alliance leaders to request the specific results and to reveal those results.

I believe that not revealing the specific results to question 2 is the right thing to do. Overall results to the question will suffice and be respectful to the alliances in question 2.

I may share Omega's results as an example, but I'll probably leave it to alliance leaders to request results for their specific alliance and to determine whether or not to release those results. I'll provide the overall results of Question 2.

Aside from that, I see no reason why I can't compile the other results onto this post...when I have time.

Okay, with several people having responded, I can say that I'm seeing some results that I figured I would see (especially with regards to question 2). I won't go into specifics, but I'm seeing some things that might be included in future surveys.

Specifically about question 2: Question 2 is as many people have said not really that significant. I could have asked whether people felt that specific alliances were destructive to the game, but then they wouldn't have to site specific examples. By phrasing the question the way I did, we are able to collect information on that question for specific alliances. The question in this case is whether significant numbers of players believe that specific alliances are destructive to the game. While some alliances have pluralities of people who believe they are destructive to the game, no alliance has an absolute majority that believes this. This is largely what I expected, but I honestly expected more dissension among the players. So the question remains: why even have Question 2?

Question 2 serves the purpose of conclusively deciding whether significant majorities of players feel that any one alliance is destructive to the game. I will say that as it now stands, the worst case scenario is ultimately a wash on this question. A wash meaning that no alliance has 70%+ of respondents believing them to be detrimental to the game

Please Take. I am limited to 100 responses, so take the survey soon. It should not take too long, but will probably take at least 5 minutes.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2C9WQJL

Red X was in Society X?

I remember them.

Actually, the US has recently been reasserting the traditioanl position of the world's economic driver. Not at the same level that we previously have, but Americans are starting to spend a little bit more. Long term, I expect that we have seen a fundamental shift away from the US as the main world economic driver. Longer term (assuming no World War or other significant conflict with the relevant parties), the US will lose ground to China as the world's economic driver.

I think American's have generally reassessed their individual relationship between debt and their own economic forecast/risks. This will result in lower spending vs economic position. Of course, I could just be crazy and we might go back to the way we've been before the most recent recession.

There are many organizations that don't recruit people to join. If an organization is really good, they don't have to recruit. You have to convince them to let you ino the organization.

You lie. The Omega does not recruit. Players recruit Omega to let them join us.

yeah doesn't seem too consistent. Though correct me if I'm wrong but that last video said that they were suspending Carcillo for 7 games, but the article says 2.

I'm predicting an increased demand for US Pennies in Canada. It'll take years for the Canadian Penny to get out of circulation simply because it circulates throughout the US and in other countries pretty easily. Of course in the US it's masqueraiding as a US penny, but the point is still valid.

Price gouging + state AGs = winning lawsuit against manufacturers in the US.

Price gouging + state AGs - legetimate excuse (lawsuits for defects that cost way too much) = no lawsuit against manufacturers in the US

Now which one of those applies to pharmaceutical manufacturers?


Oh then there's another equation:

Cost of visit + cost of getting paid = total cost billed to insurer.

This can also be written: 2(Cost of visit) = total cost billed to insurer.


It's not that I'm against government intervention in the healthcare/insurance industries; it's that I'm against just adding another bureaucratic nightmare onto the cost of healthcare/insurance.

President Obama promised healthcare reform when he came into office. I'm still waiting for real healthcare reform!


On the issue of using pet meds to treat humans, I ditto those who have raised safety concerns. This is another legitimate federal intervention in the US to ensure that medications are made safely. On that note, thanks to the people working everyday to ensure a safe medicine supply for Americans.

Confirmed, first rule of Omega is to be as lazy as possible. I like to follow this rule by not playing my country on the weekends as I work on the weekends.

haha, now there's an idea.

PS, before anyone takes me seriously. I realize that's a horrible idea, that the use of nuclear weapons should be avoided at basically all costs, and that murdering a lot of people for the lousy 10% that lead them is really pretty bad. That being said, my warped sense of humor enjoys Braden's post.

I don't think that college athletes should be paid outright for their work, but the NCAA and colleges should take an active role in allowing college athletes to be paid by other people.

Allow the college/university to act as an advisor to student-athletes and allow them to endorse products, advertise for companies, etc. I believe that the NCAA and its member institutions should work to create a framework where athletes can receive compensation from these outside organizations without damaging their reputation, the institution's reputation, or the NCAA's reputation.

For example, if Mothers Against Drunk Driving wanted to offer a student-athlete a contract to appear in a public service announcement to encourage designated drivers, then that's the kind of thing that the NCAA should get behind and allow the player to receive compensation for the appearance.

If Subway wanted to offer an athlete a contract to appear in a commercial for their respective state, then the NCAA should prevent the action.

Contracts that would negatively impact the NCAA or its reputation should be barred. Other than that, let the players profit without actually paying them.

I was looking at US Military Awards out of curiosity and wondered about state national guards/air national guards/naval militias. I figure that someone here might be able to clarify what activation under Title 32 means in the quote below.

And with that Detmer, I'm not clicking on JanPaul's link.

Limiting what a country can and cannot do is one thing where it does not concern an issue that is inseperable from a nation's sovereignty. By limiting the ways that a country can wage war, you are not limiting their ability to wage war. War or peace is still the exclusive purview of sovereign nations. The sovereignty of nations is the ability to decide:

War or Peace
Laws governing how things are done within the nation.

In the United States, this sovereignty is first granted to the states and then a piece of that sovereignty is granted to the federal governemnt. In order for a piece of the sovereignty granted to the federal government to be granted to the UN, the UN would have to be a world or at least regional government. (And I would argue that the states would have to approve joining a world government.)

The UN best serves its purpose when it limits itself to what it's really suppose to do. The UN is a forum for nations to resolve conflicts peacefully and to seek solutions to common world problems. The UN charter outlines procedures for nations to follow in order to attempt to resolve conflicts peacefully. When working its best, the UN allows nations to feel heard without resorting to rifles and bombs. However, the nations involved in a conflict must be willing to play ball according to the methodology contained within the UN Charter.

Nowhere does the UN Charter specifically state that either the Security Council or the UN as a whole must approve military actions for them to be legal. If the UN Charter had specifically stated this, there would not have been a prayer strong enough for the US Senate to have ratified the treaty. The UN would not exist if war had to be approved by the UN to be legal.

War and peace decisions are the exclusive purview of nations. War is a right of nations (if it were illegal [without approval], then it would not be a right as rights are legal by their very definition). The UN can object and nations have to submit explanations for their actions. The UN can attempt to sanction countries for fighting wars. Objecting, sanctions, making sure that the laws of war are being followed, etc. are well within the purview of the UN. The International Court can even charge signatory nations with war crimes if they use illegal methods to wage their war. However, neither the UN nor the International Court have the authority to prosecute for just waging war.

The UN is too easily hijacked (by Russia/China against the US or the US/UK against Russia) for it to have the power to decide on the legality of war itself.

I'll say it again, the UN Charter does not specifically state the United Nations decides on the legality of war and if it had when it was submitted to the US Senate, then the United States would not have ratified the treaty.

Right or wrong, wise or unwise, the right to go to war or make peace is the exclusive purview of nations. The UN can act as a facilitator to peace or mitigator of war (with the nations' permission), but it doesn't get to decide on legality. War or peace is a right exclusive to nations. Questions on the legality of war are questions of national law. For Japan, it is illegal to fight foreign wars, but only because their constitution declares it illegal. In the US, authorizations to use military force may not be legal, but only because they may not meet the legal requirements of the constitution. A US state cannot legally go to war because the original states determined that war had to be the exclusive purview of all the states as a collective and therefore assigned that right exclusively (in the US Constitution) to the federal government where the states act as a collective.

The legality of war is the test of a nation's laws because each nation has the right to go to war (again, by definition acting on a right is acting legally).

Would you also argue that peace is only legal if the UN approves it? Peace is just the other side of coin containing war. War on one side, peace on the other. You have to treat them the same, so does the UN have to approve peace treaties in order for them to be legal?* Does the UN have to approve peace settlements in order for them to be legal?

*prerecogntion that someone is going to disagree with this premise. I accept that if you prove that then you don't have to treat peace and war the same, but I don't myself claim my premise to be wrong (yeah, kind of obvious or I wouldn't have made the premise in the first place).

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the United States including the right to declare war or otherwise engage in military action. Engaging in war/military actions are rendered legal for a country by following that country's laws. The argument that "the right to wage war is not impinged, but your right to wage a legal war is contingent on the approval of others," is an oxymoron. If it's not a "legal" war then we don't have the right to wage it. If we have the right to wage war regardless of international approval as you assert, then international approval is not needed to make a war legal.

The way that people are interpreting the UN Charter does mean that the UN is assuming sovereignty that it doesn't have and can't have because that is the sovereignty of nations which are required for there to be a United Nations in the first place. No nations, no United Nations. Attempting to assert that wars are only legal with UN approval means that you are asserting that there are no nations and that therefore the UN doesn't exist in the first place to declare war legal or illegal. The right to wage war means that the war is legal, and it is absolutely fundamental to national sovereignty. Without the right to wage war, there is no national sovereignty. Right to means that it is legal.

I make no comment on what SEALs do or how they perform their duties. I merely wished to comment on what I saw as being the wrong reaction to the Navy's attempt to recruit more minority Navy SEALs. Recruiting really just means marketing and marketing is indeed a method to increase diversity of workforce without compromising quality.

A recruiter that says that by joining the Navy/Army you could pursue becoming a SEAL/Ranger is not full of fluff. Joining the military is to my knowledge a prerequisite to pursuit of SEAL/Ranger training. By getting more minorities interested in pursuing those goals, a recruiter can increase diversity among the ranks of the SEALs/Rangers. The pool of minority SEALs/Rangers come from the minorities in the Navy/Army.

Under that logic, the UN Treaty is unconstitutional and therefore illegal where the United States is concerned. For the record, where we are concerned, the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. It is higher then any treaty, including the UN Treaty. If this is your logic, then the UN Treaty is not binding on the US and therefore our actions in Iraq are not subject to UN oversight.



And I'm still not seeing anything which bars Israel attacking Iran. Until the UN becomes a world government, they are not the be all end all. Even then, they wouldn't necessarily be the be all end all.

If you're trying to say that nations are no longer sovereign, then the UN can't exists because treaties are agreements between sovereign nations. In attempting to assert UN sovereignty over the legality of war, you irreparably destroy the sovereignty of the member nations and therefore render the UN null and void.

Finally, after fighting the good fight down in Chattanooga, the EPB gets rewarded with international recognition...as a side note.

EPB: We want to do fiberoptic internet services.

ISPs: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

EPB: We're laying the fiberoptics regardless, so we might as well be able to run internet.

ISPs: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Courts: yes

EPB: :)

ISPs: ***&%*** $@*&

LOL. I approve of this declaration. No comment on the war itself.

I'm not seeing how Article 33 impedes Israel's sovereign right to attack another nation (not judging right or wrong here, just the right to do so).

The US sought peaceful solutions to our conflict with Iraq and they bore nothing. We met our obligations regardless of what other nations choose to believe. The US first sought peaceful, diplomatic solutions. Nothing in that says that we must have UN permission. The UN lacks authority to give permission. They can endorse military action, but not give permission.

Israel, similarly, has supported diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israel rightly believes that those ambitions are direct threat to the existence of their country. Israel indeed has first sought diplomatic measures to solve their problem. They met that obligation. I reiterate, nothing in that says that UN permission is required.

Reading Articles 33-51 of the UN charter, I see nothing which says that they UN must approve of military actions for them to be legal.

Israel attacking Iran would not be illegal because the matters have been brought before the UN time and time again. The charter really only requires one attempt at peacefully resolving disputes. The spirit of the charter says that attempts are made until diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. Iran is nearly at the end of it's diplomatic rope. The US has a bit longer that we can afford to wait than Israel, but Iran is about to hang itself with both Israel and the US.

I just want to say that the assertions that an Israeli attack on Iran without UN approval would be illegal are nonsense. To my knowledge, no nation has surrendered its sovereignty to the UN and therefore the UN cannot condemn acts of war/attacks as being illegal. The UN has no sovereignty and the right to wage/declare war is fundamental to a nation's sovereignty.

The right to wage war/attack other nations in inseperable from a nation's sovereignty. Therefore, countries do not need UN approval to go to war/attack other nations.

As a conservative, recruiting minorities sounds really close to affirmative action and to lowering standards just to get meet quotas. Recruiting minorities is code for racism to many conservatives.

However, I'm also pragmatic. I recognize that organiations can have real knowledge gaps when they are not appropriately diverse and that marketing jobs in such a way as to correct the deficit is acceptable. Changing the standards, however, is not acceptable.

I first heard about this on Fox News Channel's commentary show "The Five". The Five commentators all condemned the effort.

However, I disagree with their assessment. A diverse SEAL force is a strategic advantage that the Navy currently lacks. One of the best ways to go unnoticed in an area is to look like the people in the area. Diversity in the ranks of the SEALs could allow the navy to deploy teams that are able to remain more covert than if the force is undiversified. Simply targetting marketing efforts to those minorities that the Navy needs to see more of in the SEALs does not constitute racism and it does not materially harm anyone. It is simply a strategic effort, no more and no less.

Market to the groups you need. Recruit a pool. Send them through the same training/screening as everyone else. Make them meet the same standards as everyone else. Find the same quality that you expect from everyone in each would be SEAL. This is acceptable. The only thing that should change for the minorities in the US is the kind of Navy marketing that they see and the amount that they see.

The Navy has a strategic interest in marketing to and recruiting more minorities. So long as that is all they do, then there is not issue; they're simply being smart.



Don't get me wrong, if you don't have a strategic interest to do so, then even simply placing your marketing to minorities at the expense of others is racist. Demographic target marketing is okay if it's balanced based upon your customers.

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/...-a-darker-shade-of-seals/

Um guys, banks create money because when I put in $100, they lend out $90 to Joey. Joey's loan ends up getting put into banks and another $81 is loaned out to Brian...then 73....

They can't lend $100 for a $10 deposit. What they can do is make loans that then get deposited with them and are used to make more loans that are deposited with them which make more loans....

If anyone ever comes to Nashville, let me know.

Here's an interesting suggestion. I'm no fan of Obama and would certainly not want to give him any undeserved credit. However, if I were a president about to quite firmly look the other way when the CIA decided to engage in some shenanigans (say with the Israelis over Iran), then I might want to seem completely opposed to a military strike in Iran.

Again, not to give Obama undeserved credit, but what are the chances that the CIA might choose to help the Israelis attack Iran's nuclear capabilities? I grant you that the CIA may only do it to help make an inevitable attack more successful and therefore be a whole lot better for the overall strategy to contain Iran. However, it's still a significant possibility that the Israelis may have active US (perhaps covert, perhaps not) support to launch such a mission. Hell, the US might even refuel the Israeli jets on their way home (just to make sure they actually get home and don't create any other diplomatic headaches *in the language that might be used to justify it*).

Well said Hawkeyee. Noone's hands are entirely clean in this conflict, but that's the nature of this type of conflict and not a reflection of true guilt or innocence of anyone.

That being said, there are people who have a legitimate position in the fight and those that have none. Israel, the Palistinians, the Egyptians, Jordanians, etc. have legitimate positions in this fight. Iran doesn't have a legitimate position in this fight. The United States does not have a legitimate position in this fight. Russia should not be in this fight. China should stay out of the fight. Iran, the US, Russia, China, and other powerful nations in the region and in the world should be using the pressure that they can mount to push for a peaceful resolution to the legitimate fight between Israel and their neighbors.

For the most part, the US has done this. Heavy handed though the US has been in being the threat that keeps the peace (more or less), we haven't supported (on a continual basis) the terrorist murder of Palistinians in the conflict. We haven't preached the death of the Arab nations. We haven't even said that Iran should be destroyed (then Senator Clinton did say that Iran needs to understand that we can obliderate them, but not that we should or that we should have to). Iran's current regime has made it their objective to destroy Israel.

Will Israel attack Iran? Yes, if they have to. Will it escalate? Probably. Would Russia actually back Iran in a fight with the US? Doubtful. Would China actually back Iran in a fight with the US? Only if they had decided that a fight with the US was inevitable and they might as well fight it over this as anything else; possible, but doubtful. Would the Arab world unite with Iran to fight Israel? Not a chance in the world. Shia controlled Iraq would have to choose between supporting Iran and living to be a united Iraq another day. Saudi Arabia is no friend to Iran and would either stay neutral or pick their own fight with Iran. Turkey? Turkey would seek the quickest end to the conflict possible so that Iraq can be stable and the Kurds in their country don't get the idea to actually attempt to form a new country with the Iraqi Kurds and the Iranian Kurds.

Israel vs Iran is just not in the interest of the vast majority of the Middle East, so it makes sense for Israel to attack Iran rather than letting them go Nuclear and then have to deal with Iran on a more equal footing. Push comes to shove, Iran is isolated; Israel is not.

Timeliness. In waiting to make a decision as accurately as possible, you will frequently find that it's too late to make any decision at all. Better to be slightly wrong, but mostly win than to not have played the game at all.

I know a group more unethical than wealthy people could ever dream of being: government bureaucrats.

FTR: Personal opinion, not the opinion of Omega.

For one moment, I'd like to play the role of Israel in the months and days leading up to the 6 Day War.

Do I:

Watch the Arab opposition arm and ready themselves and wait for them to attack?

Watch the Arab opposition arm and ready themselves, but press the one possible advantage that any nation can take (that of the First Strike)? There are very few parts of this game that are directly accurate to real life, but the idea that a First Strike can be a deciding factor in a conflict is one of them.

All told, Israel was pretty evenly matched with the Arab nations, but they were surrounded (for all intents and purposes). In that war, the advantage and quite likely the victory would have gone to the Arabs (barring US intervention) if they had struck first.

Let me simplify Israel's decision: strike first or die?

Doesn't take a genius to decide between striking first and dying.


As to what Israel provides the US: INTELLIGENCE!



As to Obama still being president after this election: If that's the case, then the chances of a US Constitutional Convention might actually grow to possible. How long do people think the states are going to sit by while a group of morons in Washington, D.C. continually erode their rights and the sovereignty entrusted to them by the people of their state and the people of the nation collectively? Obama brought change alright; he made Washington infinately worse than it ever was under Bush. Let the states that want to experiment with socialism experiment with it so that the people who want socialism can pay for it themselves! The rest of us can live in states that want nothing to do with socialism or in states that include only the level of government intrusion that we want.


FTR: My opinion only, this is not a reflection of Omega's beliefs.

For the purposes of unpacted alliances:

The attacker must have at least 80% of the defender's land prior to their LG or it is a topfeed.

As to abortion and gay marriage. We are the Omega, so everyone will be aborted when we come to pass. At that point, gay marriage is kind of a moot point, don't you think?

The Omega assigns a retal window of 72hrs from the time of a country's most recent LG on us to complete all retals. The way to avoid this is to not have any retals pending on your country when you LG us again.

Also note that a country that has been retaled cannot LG the country that retaled until 24hrs after the retal. This is a Retal on a Retal and we will retaliate 2:1 escalating.

In general, the Omega follows a 1:1 escalating retal policy with unpacted alliances. Retals are escalated for multiple hits from the same country or alliance within 24hrs. However, if LG A is already escalated to 2:1, then another hit within 24hrs of that will be escalated to 3:1.

The Omega retals Topfeeds on the 1:1 escalating scale or Land:Land as necessary to recover all land taken in a topfeed. If we can recover the land or take more within the escalating scale, then we use that. If it takes more hits than the escalating scale allows, then we take Land:Land.


Unpacted alliances are free to negotiate with us, but any serious negotiations will usually require an extension of the 72hr window to be mutually agreed before any excessive delays are agreed to on retaliations.

Black Market missile sales!

The seller puts missiles out at a price, but there's a chance that the missiles get intercepted by the International Ballistic Missile Agency and you get nothing. Prices +/- 10% of each other are averaged if a sale is made.

The buyer states a price they're willing to buy at, but the IBMA may find out and seize the assets from the intermediary. If a seller is selling for +/- 10% of the price that the buyer wants, then a sale is made on the average of the two prices (unless the IBMA intercepts the buyer's money).

Bonus points to the developers if they add a spy op to let countries know what price points to buy or sell missiles from.