[userulluipeste]

In the WW2, USA was safest place in the reasonably-developed world. If you were wealthy and had the ability to move your assets from one country to another, USA was a safe bet for you. Obviously, the movement of wealth was also convenient for the host country's government. Nowadays USA may not appear as the only good place to be, but if you understood the underlying idea of the above reasoning, you may also understand that at any moment a conflict/war can induce a differentiating factor for perception of safety. If the environment becomes risky with a war to be unleashed, you won't risk keeping your wealth in a system whose very existence is endangered, you'll move to a greener pasture. A greener pasture, preferably in a powerful country, with no risk of having a war carried out on its territory and therefore with a minimal exposure to any conflict. Those greener pastures usually are in the very countries that seek war in the first place. The war itself is a profitable business in many ways.

Bitcoin makes no difference against this. Actually in the regard to world conflicts, Bitcoin carries an insulating effect. It makes you more mobile and more willing to get yourself to a safe and peaceful place to live (and spend your Bitcoins there).

[TomGullen]

Thank you for the counter point. It's a lot to take in but will give it some thought.