PMC: Escalation (I'm confused, MAJOR spoilers)

[Ziji 10]

What is going on?

I don't fully understand what the whole deal is...

Is Reynolds trying to protect US/global interests or is he trying to cover it up so that he can get paid more money or what?

And what is Dixon's stance?

I'm just really confused as to how Takistan having nuclear materials can cause such a big deal and hurt the US... especially if it was CHINA (as Reynolds said in the cutscene) that supplied them...

Can someone clarify this for me, spoiler free if possible?

I just want to know WHY all of this would happen if Reynolds let the U.N. get the stuff, not what happens depending on what I choose to do.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Ziji

[L3TUC3 32]

Is Reynolds trying to protect US/global interests or is he trying to cover it up so that he can get paid more money or what?

The former is also a cover-up and benefits china as well. That he gets paid more by china to do it is a bonus. You'd have to look at the arms races of old to understand why it's beneficial for china to give Takistan materials, because an independent and deterrent Takistan was within china's interest. Nukes were a sure fire way to claim independence and have it stay that way (just look at Pakistan, they would have been totally f'ed by India if it were not for the nukes).

I never quite understood the reasoning behind invading Takistan, but it was something about Takistan being a destabilizing factor in the region (a rogue nation threatening it's neighbors with long range weapons) and subduing it for the benefit of peace. Finding the weapons would give credit to the invasion argument, but in turn shifts the blame to china when word gets out they supplied them.

The geopolitical situation has changed so much (from independent superpowers with allied satellite military states to economic trade partners) over the last 50 years however, that severing relations would cause a pretty bad backblast that would hurt the entire globe. Stocks drop, fuel prices soar, production halts, trade stops, people go bankrupt. It all trickles down to the common man.

And with that reasoning Reynolds arguments his cause to be just.

And what is Dixon's stance?

Dixon's stance is pretty practical. You get a job and you get paid for it. He's still interested in fulfilling the contract for the UN. That his employer changed stance does not change the objective as that's what he signed on for in his contract.