Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
Agreed. Much of Southern Arizona sucks to walk through, is questionable in a vehicle, and even can be questionable for rotary wing (Colorado can be worse, but try hot and high in a UH-1 or A model Blackhawk in AZ with fully kitted passengers). Maneuver on the high ground is the almost exclusive province of light or airmobile infantry and the flats provide ample IV lines and wadis that can be both obstacles and micro terrain cover (or be deadly in the monsoon).
Despite the “allure” of charging north into AZ, I think the most likely outcome is that both sides culminate short of a decisive engagement and are left with a security zone/no man’s land between Nogales, AZ and South Tucson. The US is too weak/disputed to push south (and what do they really gain?) and the Mexican Army lacks the combat power to push north and is content to maintain a “Liberated Zone” in the upper Santa Cruz River basin.
With the lack of aerial platforms, I could see both sides trying their hand at raiding using light forces infiltrated through the mountains. However, even that would probably die out as target sets are depleted through breakdown/lack of supply and capacity dwindles. Probably a bad time to be in green valley or sahuarita. I’m thinking they’re probably rubble in the middle of no-man’s land by the time things stabilize.
“Victory” for Mexico probably consists of dropping overpasses/bridges or cratering I-10 to say they cut it, and maybe some raids or bombardments of infrastructure (DMAFB as a symbolic target?) before pulling back to the south with their effective FLOT just north of Nogales, AZ. “Victory” for the US is keeping control of Tucson, retaining the ability to extract resources as permitted, and being able to keep the remaining irrigation/farming/ranching base going to feed the populace and military. This is an area where both sides could easily say they “won”, while allowing things to dwindle as they focus on securing resources and maintaining internal security.
I wonder what Tucson would look like circa 2000-2001. I’m thinking population would have moved close to the river or gone up into high ground like mount Lemmon or elsewhere in the Santa Catalina’s where water is more available and temperatures are more moderate. Maybe dry land agriculture around the riparian areas to the east and west?
|
Between Tucson and Phoenix, you have about 3.3 million people in 1995, and using satellite imagery (modern), ~750,000 acres under cultivation. Anyone's guess as to how much city sprawl has eaten up in terms of cultivated land between today and 28 years ago. An acre of wheat can feed ~6 people for a year in terms of calories, but that's with pesticides and fertilizer and commercial seed. Mechanization is labor efficient but not acreage efficient, so intensive subsistence agriculture would likely counteract some of the yield loss from the collapse of civilization. If we say yields are cut in half, then you get to a back of the envelope math of enough agriculture in the area to support about 2/3 of the pre-war population. Not awful by T2K standards - certainly much better than Manhattan, where you have enough green fields to support maybe 10,000 people (plus however many people you could feed with rats, pigeons, and fishing from the river).
The problem with Tucson proper is it has maybe 2,000 acres inside or even close to the city that are green or cultivated. Sahuarita is 17 miles as the crow flies from Tucson International Airport (itself at the south end of Tucson). So I would think Tucson would be almost entirely abandoned, with maybe 10-15,000 farmers / scavengers / bandits. The US or Mexican military might maintain a token garrison at DMAFB (most likely the Mexicans), and most of the original population either dispersed to shanty towns to the north, or dead from violence or starved during the 1998-2000 period.
Operating assumptions:
1) still sufficient irrigation & power to drive agriculture activity
2) not enough fuel for farmers to commute to work, people would live in close proximity (1 hour's hike, ~5-7 km) to work the fields.
3) food would not be transported by vehicle to "unproductive" city populations. Collapse of central authority = collapse of food distribution.
4) yields decline but not precipitously so
5) roving bands of refugees do not burn out the farms like they did in the Ohio Valley.
Using those assumptions, I could see Arizona retaining 50% of it's pre-war population. If #1 or #5 are false, then you could see Mad Max and a 90%+ population collapse instead, with the remaining population eking out a miserable existence along rivers and the canals.