Thanks, everyone. I'm really pleased that you all like it.
I'm thinking of including SSC's idea about water rights/treaties leading to an Egyptian/Sudanese invasion in '98 or later as well. Here's his post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic
I have another possible reason for why NATO forces may be based in Kenya.
Water.
Part of the river system that provides life for Egypt runs through Kenya. A 1929 agreement between Britain and Egypt gave Egypt nearly exclusive use of the water from the Nile to the detriment of those British possessions that also accessed the river system. To quote part of the agreement "No irrigation or power works are to be constructed on the River Nile or its tributaries, or on the lakes from which it flows... which would entail prejudice to the interests of Egypt."
It's the aftermath of a world war, Kenya needs resources especially water for agriculture. Perhaps they start to construct irrigation systems and the Egyptians object to the point of threatening war. It might be a long drive through Sudan to attack Kenya but there are highways literally leading from Egypt right up to Kenya and the Egyptians might choose naval or air attacks instead.
The Egyptians might not even attack directly, they may pay Sudanese or Ethiopian rebels to attack (or even Somalians).
Here's an article that prompted this train of thought
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-1987519.html |
I like it. Is it too much, though? It would definitely keep the 173rd BCT busy.