Preface: I'm new on these shores. These are my observations from my discussions with some of you wonderful people. From these observations I have drawn a theory and conclusion which I think could be very insightful. This conclusion, which I've so egotistically named "Artoremic Theory", should at least stir discussion within and between the city heads, crew leaders, and their members. Enjoy.

Realism
Realistic theory can essentially be deduced to "Drive To Survive". It suggests that every mobster, crew, and city are constantly interested in their own security. To obtain this security, we perform drug deals, petty and felony crimes, and murders. Through this process, we obtain security in the form of an army of bodyguards, HQ fortifications, and an assembly of hitmen. These things provide power, which provides safety through deterrence. They deter potential enemies from attacking, because of how difficult it would be to actually eliminate the threat with few, or no losses. If it were easy, everyone would do it (I'd estimate).

The State of the Nation
Things are pretty good! Pretty safe, that is. Because of the empire each city has erected for themselves, they are content just training and building more and more walls between them and other crews. So, over the past months, these income generators (or crew members, as you'd call them) have provided the top tier of mobster the necessary protection to compete with the other cities. Because of how developed each city has become, the stakes are higher than ever. Every city has the potential to destroy, or at least cripple, one of the other cities' hitting power. But as soon as they do, the other cities will strike them down for a wrongful conflict, or swoop in and finish both combatants when they're wounded.

It seems even though things are calm, they're also very tense. The obituaries show minimal inter-city violence. However, with the introduction of Al_Capone and Salvatore_Lucania in their respective cities, it appears as though Chicago is dealing with their infestation a bit more convincingly than New York. Lucania has 4x the members still fighting the war, while Chicago has nearly extinguished Capone. Such a show of strength can't be ignored.

Artoremic Theory
But what exactly is a "wrongful conflict"? Someone gets greedy and knocks out half a city. That's probably not okay. Maybe someone pickpockets a guy from your city and you kill off their crew because of it. That's a bit excessive. But what would justify a war? Let's hypothesize a few scenarios (for the sake of example, I'll use extinct city names):

Three cities of similar strength and fortification are in a state of neutrality: Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and New Orleans. One day, a bored Don from Las Vegas decides he's had enough with this world. He's tired of pettying and dealing drugs everyday to protect his boss, and get's barely a "thank you" from his millions in donations. But rather than just end his life, he wants to start some trouble on the way out. He decides to rogue and gets one of his associates to provide him with some wack protection between shots. Even against the best-trained hit squad, that Don will get at least a couple shots off. Let's say he drops a LHM and a Consig from Los Angeles. Las Vegas hears of the shots before Los Angeles, and most of their squad is available within a couple hours. 

Las Vegas is faced with a tough situation. Do they: (a) kill the Don and wait until Los Angeles gets on and try to explain to them that their Don was acting recklessly, to avoid a full-on war between the two cities; or (b) finish the job to prevent any legitimate form of retaliation from Los Angeles, in an effort to preserve as much of Las Vegas as they can.

Option (a) puts the fate of Las Vegas in the hands of Los Angeles and its allies. If Los Angeles decides that this is proper grounds for war, New Orleans would likely be interested in helping take out Las Vegas, as it would eliminate a threat and would be considered a "just war". Therefore, Las Vegas would get wiped out if LA decides the Don's actions were grounds for war. If it isn't grounds for war, Los Angeles would expect a pretty large financial contribution from Las Vegas to pay for their losses.

Option (b) puts the fate of Las Vegas partially in its own hands and partially in the hands of New Orleans, but they get to keep their rogue Don. Basically, Las Vegas invites the other city to assist in destroying the remaining hitters in Los Angeles. By doing so, New Orleans and Las Vegas remove a mutual threat to their empires and collectively enhance their hitting power. Whatever happens after Los Angeles is removed can be decided by the leaders of New Orleans and Las Vegas.

If we are actually mafiosos, the only rational option is (b). Why would you put your whole city at risk for the sake of possibly preserving good graces with another city (which would only come at a steep price)? You'd only be setting yourself very far back financially, and eventually Los Angles will just overtake you, and the option to fight them would be impossible.

Perhaps it isn't ill-will that triggers the incident. Perhaps a mistake? Maybe one of the crewleaders (or heaven forbid, a Godfather) attempts to take a man's wallet but takes his life instead. And not only is it a mobster, but a Right Hand Man. Surely a folly of this magnitude can't be allowed to occur without severe consequences. In my eyes, the RHM's boss would only have one choice of action, but let's say he he elects to bargain with his RHM's killer in an effort to prevent war. No amount of money can bring back a deceased mafioso, so I'd say the RHM's boss has the losing end of the deal, regardless of how much money he receives as recompense.

One could even say it was a good move, eliminating the Right Hand Man. If he was a hitman, there's no amount of money that can resurrect a fallen cannon without a lot of time. And since the RHM's boss was so willing to accept cash in exchange for his closestadviser's life, one could say the RHM was just a really tough MIA; bought and paid for in exchange for a notch on a gun. Which, if a boss is willing to accept money in exchange for his RHM's life, what's stopping him from doing the same for the rest of his crew?

Why This Matters
This determining factor, whether or not a crew will go to war over an incident, I've coined as an "Artoremic Incident". Basically, if someone in your crew commits an artoremic act against another city, they may go to war with you for it. Another example of this would be wack/mug/pickpocket mistakes. Such incidents have been the cause of wars. In their current state, many of the cities would be interested in removing a potential threat. As a matter of fact, some of them may be planning to remove one of them right now. Since everyone has the ability to kill each other, it's a waiting game. Eventually, someone will commit an artoremic incident, and their home city will be thrown into my hypothesis.

Conclusion
The nation is in one of two states: either an artoremic incident would throw cities into war, or the present Godfathers have sufficient cowardice to accept money in exchange for even their most valuable crew members' lives. If there's less courage in these cities than I believe, then this is a great time to push the envelope. If you know a city won't fire back at you for a gaff as egregious as killing a RHM, then you can slowly eliminate their forces, one by one through "mistakes". But if at some point in the future, an artoremic incident will force two or more cities to resolve this issue, can you really expect a criminal from another city, with no actual loyalties to you, to be more interested in peace than revenge? Even if that is the case, can you expect every city to be so forgiving? If not, an artoremic incident could wipe you out. Therefore, you either need to prevent one of these incidents from happening (basically prevent people from being bored [a tough measure]), or you take preventative action against other cities to ensure your own safety. The only truth, is that eventually something will thrust your city into this situation. You can either be at the mercy of another city, or prevent it now.

Additional Notes
I've also noticed that one of the cities appears to be growing a bit faster than the others... So the window for taking these preventative measures may be closed by the time this incident hits. Even if you are sure your city wouldn't commit such an act, how can you be sure the other cities won't? Or will the other cities come to the same conclusion I have, and realize preventative measures must be taken? Either way, the clock is ticking on your own preservation. It's been a while since there was a large conflict, so some of the Hitmen are hoping for a conflict. Good luck.

At last, sturdy, academic studies are no longer just the preserve of I.

Chicago is home to 246 Mobsters

New York is home to 167 Mobsters

Just pointing that out. Id like to commend Chicago on their swift handling of these invading crews, they are doing a bang up job.

I usually don't respond to speeches made by mobsters without any Family-affiliations other than to maybe ridicule but you do raise some points. I do have issues with a few of those.

Someone gets greedy and knocks out half a city. That's probably not okay.

Why is it not okay? We are in the mafia after all. If taking out another city means you get to place a Godfather or Don there who will pay you regular tributes, please do go ahead and do it. It's something I would do and I am fully convinced that it isn't wrong. Greed is what keeps our world in a constant state of motion. The need to make more money. The need to get a bigger gun. The need to have more people protecting you. All that seems to be okay, so why should the need to expand  your operations not be okay? If a Gangster is greedy, it's alright but when a Godfather gets greedy 'zomg, no fairrr!'? 

Ok, now onto my point. Wars have been and will continue to be conducted for whatever reason the leadership of a particular city wants. If my Godfather was to say tomorrow that we are going to war with another city because he doesn't like one of the suits the other Godfather wears, I would do nothing more than to follow him into the fight and fight like hell to make sure we win. Wars don't really need a reason, in my opinion. Compared to all that, greed seems to be a very decent and acceptable reason.

The nation is in one of two states: either an artoremic incident would throw cities into war, or the present Godfathers have sufficient cowardice to accept money in exchange for even their most valuable crew members' lives.

You know, for some reason, I am starting to think that this particular comment was directed. You call it cowardice, I call it having the good sense to not endanger more lives thanks to a legitimate mistake. I call it a purely business oriented decision without any emotional entanglements. After all, nothing is personal, is it? 

Again, however, this goes back to my original point. Wars will be conducted for some sort of a bullshit reason or they won't be even for such a reason. It all goes back to the relationships between the leaders of each city.

Why is it not okay? We are in the mafia after all... Greed is what keeps our world in a constant state of motion... Wars don't really need a reason, in my opinion.

Like I said, this stems from my discussions with the residents of these shores. The overwhelming majority of them favored peace over conflict. However, I will certainly tally you in opposition to that. To be honest, I agree with you. However, we are in the minority, and it takes some element of public support for a Godfather to actually make a move these days.

I call it a purely business oriented decision without any emotional entanglements. After all, nothing is personal, is it?

I suppose these statements speak volumes. The examples I gave were the murders of a RHM or a LHM. In either case, I'd hope (and somewhat expect) their leader to have some element of loyalty to them. As a matter of fact, I fail to see how killing an R/LHM isn't personal. That's the definition of personal. And if anyone's death has a price, what's stopping leaders from auctioning off the lives of their members? It seems extreme, but it's not an illogical conclusion. 

In my opinion, I think the men and women at the top have disguised their fear as "good business sense", and the masses have, for whatever reason, agreed. This just cycles waves of indecisive and inconsequential leaders who will have no impact on history.

That's the thing,Artorem. Our current leaders, or for that matter almost every leader, has a choice. A choice to look at things from a personal view or to look at it in a purely analytic sense. The incident you cited could go either way. Quite a few months ago, Chicago and New Orleans under Mike Hunt and Stan Python respectively warred over the shooting of a BG....

It's still not cowardice in my opinion and I fully believe that I am not so naive to accept cowardice wrapped in a nice package. The leaders involved in the latest incident decided to put the lives of almost every person in their respective cities over their personal relationships with the fallen mobster. 

As for what is stopping members from auctioning off the lives of their members.... Greed would be my answer.

In addition to Alexander's comment, I would like to add that different tactics yield different results... In case you haven't noticed - Working more slowly and attacking these men's protection instead of them individually is a great training opportunity, which is lost by destroying them quickly...

Good to see a point of view from what seems a neutral on this thing of ours. Will this be a weekly occurrence or a one off?

Neutral opinions are needed more throughout the world, especially this one as it may be the only way the guys at the top realise what effect their leadership is having on the masses. As if all they get is their family/friends opinions, nine times out of ten it is people blowing smoke up their asses.

"Neutral opinions are needed more throughout the world, especially this one as it may be the only way the guys at the top realize what effect their leadership is having on the masses."

This will no doubt be the topic of a future speech of mine. And yes, there will be more after this one.

Umbreon thinks about how some pretty graphs that everyone can see already tell stories.

I said I would come out here and comment on this. I'm staying true to my word, so here goes.

Realism - Couldn't agree more. Pretty much everything I personally do is to try to make sure Chicago is protected as much as it possibly can be. The more protected the city is, the better I sleep at night. Call it insecurity, call it paranoia. Fact of the matter is, if it wasn't a problem, no city would bother having any Bodyguards or Fortifications at all.

State of the Nation - Why wouldn't each city be 'content' with what is currently happening? There are no wars, no threats on the cities, each city is pretty much living the dream. They can concern themselves with their own city, and not have to worry about what is going on in other cities. Over the last year or so that I have been around these Streets, I had never seen all the cities working together as well as they do now. There has always been one city that you would've thought "Yeah, they're next, for sure." Whether it was Detroit under Revolve, Los Angeles under Innocence, or, going way way back, the site changing war between LA/LV and NY/PH. You could always sense that something was going to happen. Now? Well, you tell me. I don't sense any war happening soon, there no need for it.

I must agree with Alexander in regards to the newly formed 'District Wars.' The biggest city is almost more likely to dispatch a threat with more ease than a smaller city. Even if the smaller city had their organisation down to a tee, it would be difficult to keep up.

The Theory - I must say you have given this a lot of thought, but I don't agree. A rogue Don is exactly that, a ROGUE. The cities work together to ensure that the rogue's fight is ended. It is not thought of as 'a rogue from Las Vegas' it's just a rogue. Plain and simple. Once that rogue is then killed off, an agreement in made between the cities that the rogue affected. This agreement would probably not be as severe to the offending city as it would be, had someone in the city made a mistake. A city can do nothing about a rogue member, it's not in the cities power to prevent it before it's happening. I'm not saying they would just get away with it, but it would be factored in to the agreement.

You can argue this point as much as you want to, but I know for a fact this is how it has happened in the past, as I have been on both sides of the agreement.

I can't help but think you are trying to stir up past events with your next block of speech. The scenario you outlined is strangely familiar to one that has already happened. If you are trying to stir shit up, then well, I feel sorry for you, I really do. However, let me explain why it wouldn't happen the way you described.

You said that if the RHM was treated in this way, then what is to stop the rest of the crew being treated like this too? Well, it's quite simple really. A one time mistake is well, a mistake. If that mistake happens again and again, it is no longer a mistake. It's at that point when the offended city steps back and asks themselves what exactly is going on here.

If everybody was shot for a one time mistake, there would be a lot less people roaming these streets.

I don't feel I need to address the rest of your speech as well, it seems I would be repeating a lot of what I've already said.