RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-29-2009, 11:55 PM
sglancy12's Avatar
sglancy12 sglancy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 161
Default YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

As part of my love of all things Red Dawn-ish, I like the idea of a Mexican-American War as part of the Twilight War.

Why? Obviously because I like a good foreign invasion... Getting impersonally nuked by some guy in a silo thousands of miles away just doesn't have the role-playing game entertainment value of enemy soldiers fighting through your neighborhood house-to-house. But are the Mexicans up for it?

Okay... much like the Soviet invasion of Alaska, there are giant technical and logistical hurtles for a Mexican invasion to get as far as it's supposed to... not to mention political hurtles. Mexico has to have the will to do this, but I think they can find it.

Mexico has always harbored a certain amount of resentment against the United States. After all, in 1848 we stole the 1/2 of their country that has all the cities and highways and industry in it. Then after that we have consistently treated Mexico as a source of cheap labor, cheap vacations and cheap vice. Our prosperity is seen as only possible because we made off with their prosperity. So it wouldn't take much propaganda to whip the Mexican population up. Not to mention, when is Mexico ever going to get a better time for some payback against the "Colossus of the North" than after we've been nuked? We're down, the time to put the boot in is before we get back up.

In the canon, the invasion takes place after an alliance of leftists and communists seize power in Mexico City during the chaos following the November 1997 limited strategic exchange. They invade because US citizen militias have declared open season on any Mexicans crossing the border into America.

Okay... a couple of problems here:

If America is nuked and Mexico isn't, why are there Mexican's trying to get into America?

If both Mexico and America are nuked, how does Mexico muster the logistical strength to mobilize their army and invade the American Southwest? Not to mention how do the Mexicans get the Soviet "Division Cuba" into Mexico if they have suffered a nuclear strike on their oil refining capacity?

I have one simple fix built into my my timeline:

Mexico is not nuked by the USSR in 1997. Their extraction and refining capacity is undamaged. So their access to fuel will give them a huge advantage over the US military which is fuel poor and spread out in 1998 doing disaster relief, food distribution, and attempting to impose order through martial law.

Instead, Mexico gets nuke by the United States. After they invade, we kill their oilfields and refineries which results in a complete logistical breakdown in their army and a political breakdown as the 8 million people living in Mexico City have to go without lights, water and food. Civil order breaks down and the civil war re-ignites. Invasion over, Mexican Army stranded across the southwest.

But what about the casus belli? The massacre of Mexican refugees in America? If Mexico is not nuked in 1997, why are Mexicans into a nuked America from Mexico?

In the canon, Mexico is in a low-grade civil war BEFORE the nukes fall. The PRI/PPS alliance that launches the invasion seizes power in early 1998, AFTER the nukes fall, so maybe the refugees that supposedly get massacred are people who fled the civil war in the mid-1990s and were living in refugee camps along the south west border. After the nukes fall, those camps aren't going to get any more shipments of food. At first they go asking for food. Then they tool up and start demanding the food or else. Then the Southwestern American (well known for their embracing of the 2nd Amendment) start fighting these marauder bands, or even running off refugee groups that haven't turned marauder yet, and now you've got your bloodbath, with the refugee/marauders getting the worst of it.

On the other hand, maybe the PRS/PPS alliance just invented the stories of "massacres" of refugees? Maybe they also whipped up the population with stories (ala Hugo Chavez) that the Americans were about to invade to seize Mexico's oil industries. Maybe they sell the invasion as a "pre-emptive" attack?

There are some other ways Mexico can be assisted in their invasion.

Maybe "Division Cuba" is larger than a division? Maybe they bring some undamaged air assets beside Mi-28 Hind Ds? Some Mig-23s or Su-27s could make things easier for the Mexicans.

Maybe the Cubans and Nicaraguans are providing troops, advisers, or equipment disguised by wearing Mexican uniforms and sporting Mexican livery? In my timeline the Sandinistas regain power in 1996. They could be helping the Mexicans, and then quickly regret sending some of their military out of the country when Hurrican Mitch plows through in October of 1998. By then, after the US has nuked the Mexicans energy reserves, any Sandinistas in Mexico are marooned there.

After Hugo Chavez is elected President of Venezulea in December of 1998, he can throw some fuel and other assistance at the Mexicans. He'll probably be sending aid to his ideological brothers in Nicaragua too.

Any other suggestions on how the invasion can be made more plausible? Certainly the Mexican OOB from Red Star/Lone Star and Challenge Magazine needs to be revamped to include units that were left out. But that only amounts to a few thousand more men. There are some very good OOBs available on this site right now.

There's also the possibility that Mexican Drug cartels might be looking to move into the Warlord business now that their market for cocaine has dried up. These groups might be interested in acting as privateers... seizing American territory while claiming to be acting in the name of Mexico? The Tiajuana Cartel reinventing itself as a modern Division del Norte?

What other events or factors could be knit into the alternative history to make the Second Mexican-American War more plausible... or rather, making the Mexican's temporary successes more plausible.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-30-2009, 12:32 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
If America is nuked and Mexico isn't, why are there Mexican's trying to get into America?
[QUOTE]

They don't. Mexicans living in US cross back into Mexico and they are soon followed by US citizens fleeing to what they think is a safer area.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
Mexico is not nuked by the USSR in 1997. Their extraction and refining capacity is undamaged. So their access to fuel will give them a huge advantage over the US military which is fuel poor and spread out in 1998 doing disaster relief, food distribution, and attempting to impose order through martial law.
[QUOTE]

agree

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
Instead, Mexico gets nuke by the United States. After they invade, we kill their oilfields and refineries which results in a complete logistical breakdown in their army and a political breakdown as the 8 million people living in Mexico City have to go without lights, water and food. Civil order breaks down and the civil war re-ignites. Invasion over, Mexican Army stranded across the southwest.
[QUOTE]

Agree again, but that nuking could be limited and part of the Mexican oil facilities might survive.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
But what about the casus belli? The massacre of Mexican refugees in America? If Mexico is not nuked in 1997, why are Mexicans into a nuked America from Mexico?
[QUOTE]

They are not and the massacred refugees are US citizens living in refugee camps into Mexico. The Casus Belli is provided by small US units crossing the border in an attempt to relief them.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
On the other hand, maybe the PRS/PPS alliance just invented the stories of "massacres" of refugees? Maybe they also whipped up the population with stories (ala Hugo Chavez) that the Americans were about to invade to seize Mexico's oil industries. Maybe they sell the invasion as a "pre-emptive" attack?
[QUOTE]

That's what some in the US do.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
Maybe "Division Cuba" is larger than a division? Maybe they bring some undamaged air assets beside Mi-28 Hind Ds? Some Mig-23s or Su-27s could make things easier for the Mexicans.

Maybe the Cubans and Nicaraguans are providing troops, advisers, or equipment disguised by wearing Mexican uniforms and sporting Mexican livery? In my timeline the Sandinistas regain power in 1996. They could be helping the Mexicans, and then quickly regret sending some of their military out of the country when Hurrican Mitch plows through in October of 1998. By then, after the US has nuked the Mexicans energy reserves, any Sandinistas in Mexico are marooned there.

[QUOTE]

Division Cuba is enough but you can count on some air support. Yes cubans could be involved and may be Venezuelian. Cubans can be quite numerous with veteran troops previously located in Angola.

[QUOTE=sglancy12;12786]
After Hugo Chavez is elected President of Venezulea in December of 1998, he can throw some fuel and other assistance at the Mexicans. He'll probably be sending aid to his ideological brothers in Nicaragua too.
[QUOTE]

Why would Chavez be elected in 1998? Isn't it easier to have him elected in 1993 after a successful coup in 1992?

An important point that can explain the Mexican success would be the relative weakness of the US 4th Fleet. IMO the US navy lacks any carrier in the area and if successful it remains unable to fully control the carribeans.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-30-2009, 01:29 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,748
Default

Just a little note -- your HTML code for quotes are missing the opening and closing slashes. (That's why I don't dare hand-code my site; I already have enough problems with keeping info current and accurate to have to worry about a missing character in my HTML code. How Antenna manages to hand-code his entire site is beyond my comprehension!)
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-30-2009, 01:34 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
Maybe "Division Cuba" is larger than a division? Maybe they bring some undamaged air assets beside Mi-28 Hind Ds? Some Mig-23s or Su-27s could make things easier for the Mexicans.
In Red Star, Lone Star, Kelly AFB and Ft. Sam Houston are relatively undamaged, as is San Antonio International Airport; that would give plenty of room for aircraft (or at Ft. Sam, helicopters -- there are no runways there). Just south of San Antonio there is a small civil airfield called Stinson Field, which is big enough for helicopters and light aircraft and also serves as an emergency landing field for Randolph AFB's T-37 trainers.
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-30-2009, 01:39 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
Mexico is not nuked by the USSR in 1997. Their extraction and refining capacity is undamaged. So their access to fuel will give them a huge advantage over the US military which is fuel poor and spread out in 1998 doing disaster relief, food distribution, and attempting to impose order through martial law.
Here's a thought: Neither side nukes the Mexican oil, because both sides want it. Sounds like a good reason to have Soviet/Mexican-on-US action in the Gulf and the east coast of Mexico -- a nasty little special ops war. Sounds tasty!
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-30-2009, 04:53 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,455
Default

Previous threads related to this topic.

Florida/Cuba http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=312

Latin America in the Twilight War http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=379

Red Star, Lone Star http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=658

Mexican Army Sourcebook http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=837

Mexican Army Sourcebook complete http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=894

Lead up to the Mexican Invasion http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=846
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-30-2009, 02:09 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Mexico:

Division De Cuba is not just the division but all the other Technical Specialists and several Sailors and Airmen whose vessels were grounded there, due to enemy action making it impossible for them to escape and survive. Vessels damaged that could make port but could not go much further, they couldn't cross the Atlantic let alone cross it and deal with a fight should they encounter Nato assets. However, they could make for the mainland! <Think of a Russian Version of Going Home> And thus you have a force of a Division of regular combat troops plus a second Division of technical specialists, civilians and naval and air personel as well.

We toss in other Russian Refugees who were given the word to go to Cuba or Mexico when hostilities began, so they now have a group of say 100k consisting of about 30 or 40K military, another 20k of civilian specialists and government workers and the rest would be their families or families, freinds, supporters and servants.

I would also toss in the whole civil war in mexico as a good thing plotwise.

As for getting involved without Nukes,

Add a Division sized group of specialists and military and their family to help the mexi's develope and protect their oil assets so they can supply the russians with oil, maybe even a naval and air instilation as well so that adds another 10 or 20k people.

The US not wanting to stand for that sends in some light forces to sieze or damage some of their oil assets. After all times are desperate, and that oil would do ALOT to aleivate the problems at home. However, the mexi's are not thrilled with the idea even if they are to be paid, so they respond, Ivan joins in <although their housing russians forces in the region could make them an ally and combatant>

And also, mexican forces begin raiding the US Southwest taking advantage of the chaos, locals defend themselves so the mexi's get bigger and bolder, the US sends forces and before long the two sides are clashing, some of the bandits are actual mexican army forces, and here we are! Then, there could be a series of expeditions on either side going deep across the boarder conducting raids. This culminates in some full scale battles on both sides of the border, however the mexis manage to muster forces spearheaded by russian forces and they make their move into the US SW. This is also coordinated with the russian forces in Alaska, a few long range patrols comming S. to open lines of communication and link up. The actual link is minimal, but the whole idea of being able to contact freindly forces is a huge moral builder. From there, my concept is they manage to link up somewhere and either establish a self sustaining defendable catonment, and/or plan a way to get back home. \

Here is an idea, the Sovs head for the mothball fleet at Sussion Bay S. of Frisco and want to bring a couple of the larger vessels online to sail home in. A little far fetched but it would make for a good campaign, russian colony in the middle of the West or Pacific Northwest would be wild.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-30-2009, 05:56 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,686
Default

As a preamble to my reply, I want to acknowledge that as a group we’re a still a bit touchy about the incident a while back involving Chico’s work. I want to acknowledge publicly that I very much appreciate the hard work Chico and the DC Group put in, even if I don’t agree with everything they create. I also want to acknowledge that my previous assumption that we were trying to build a more-or-less cohesive vision of a fleshed-out Twilight: 2000 world was off-base and led to some vigorous disagreements in which I had a hand. I’m now operating under the assumption that what we’re doing here is more of a show-and-tell that is not intended to lead to a cohesive vision among the Board’s members, regardless of however much I might like a cohesive vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
Mexico has always harbored a certain amount of resentment against the United States. After all, in 1848 we stole the 1/2 of their country that has all the cities and highways and industry in it. Then after that we have consistently treated Mexico as a source of cheap labor, cheap vacations and cheap vice. Our prosperity is seen as only possible because we made off with their prosperity. So it wouldn't take much propaganda to whip the Mexican population up. Not to mention, when is Mexico ever going to get a better time for some payback against the "Colossus of the North" than after we've been nuked? We're down, the time to put the boot in is before we get back up.
I like your answer to this question. I agree that the causes belli can be whatever the powers-that-be believe will work. The ruling party will need a unifying factor that will supersede internecine strife and make the Mexicans forget that some of them really hate each other. Foreign adventures have been attempted since there were groups of humans to compete over things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
If America is nuked and Mexico isn't, why are there Mexican's trying to get into America?
I believe the Soviets would nuke Mexico’s oil because the Soviets are arch conservatives. Imagine the situation from the Soviet point of view. The US is full of Mexican-Americans. Suppose that those conniving Yankees find a way to use all of those Mexican-Americans to gain access to Mexico’s oil? Suppose an American-supported coup or revolution in Mexico overturns the nationalist government and replaces that government with a regime far more friendly to the US. The Mexicans who emigrate to the US are the people most likely to want regime change; they were so unhappy with the state of things that they left their native land. There are millions of them in the US. The Soviets’ ability to influence this state of affairs is not going to be very great, the presence of Division Cuba notwithstanding. It would be hard for the Kremlin to say how likely a US-led revolution in Mexico would be, or whether such a revolution would succeed. However, to deeply conservative and paranoid people, the possibility of a pro-US revolution or coup in Mexico would be real. This would give the US a significant boost during the recovery stage, if access to oil means anything. Better by far to use the missiles already available to knock out the Mexican oil, then blame the US. Set the neighbors against each other. Succeed where the Germans failed.

Provided one can buy off on a Soviet strike on Mexico’s refineries, things get worse in Mexico very quickly for the dark-skinned Mexicans. We should bear in mind that for all the US is racist, Mexico is much worse. Mayans and other dark-skinned Mexicans who clearly have a good deal of Aztec, Mixtec, or other non-European blood are second-class citizens. The Zapatistas of the Yucatan Peninsula didn’t appear out of nowhere. The ruling elites are going to use the assets of the state for their purposes, whether Mexico’s refineries are nuked by the US or the USSR or not nuked at all. The disruption of foreign trade will have an enormous impact on Mexico’s economy, again regardless of the situation with the refineries.

Once the nukes start flying, I believe Mexico will go to full mobilization. Who knows how far such a thing will go? One never knows what will cause those unwashed mestizos to try to grab a slice of the pie, so better to have the Army mobilized during the nuclear exchange than not. Stockpiling supplies (like fuel) can begin during this period. After all, Mexico must have some sort of contingency planning. Not having nukes doesn’t mean immunity from nukes.

Once Mexico’s refineries are hit, the ruling elites will try to keep everything for themselves. The triage plan in post-Exchange America will look benign by comparison. Better for the dark-skinned types to die off and leave Mexico for the Europeans. Thus the flood of refugees across the US-Mexico border. The ruling party is glad to be rid of the refugees; massacres in the US are of interest only if they can be used to sucker the starving Indians and Indian-heavy mestizos into starving to death with patriotic fervor.

As a consequence of all of the above factors taken together, millions of Mexicans have a high degree of motivation to take their chances across the border. They might be screwed in America, but they’re screwed for sure at home. The Army is already mobilized as of 01/01/98. Supplies (food and fuel) have been stockpiled ahead of time, although they were originally stockpiled to help the Army maintain internal order. The Mexican elites decide to invade the US to kill two birds with one stone: revenge against the US while the window is open and the unification of public opinion behind the state.

Yes, I’m painting a pretty grim picture of the national leadership of Mexico. It’s pretty grim today. It was worse twelve years ago when the same party had enjoyed control virtually since the Mexican Civil War (which killed ten million Mexicans, I might add). One doesn’t need to dig very far to discover the intensity of race consciousness in Mexico. The dark-skinned Mexicans, who presumably have the least European blood, are at the bottom of the heap. To one degree or another, it’s that way across Latin America. Ugly, but true.

People are free to do with my interpretation of events as they see fit.

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-04-2009, 07:36 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
Mexico has always harbored a certain amount of resentment against the United States. After all, in 1848 we stole the 1/2 of their country that has all the cities and highways and industry in it. Then after that we have consistently treated Mexico as a source of cheap labor, cheap vacations and cheap vice. Our prosperity is seen as only possible because we made off with their prosperity. So it wouldn't take much propaganda to whip the Mexican population up. Not to mention, when is Mexico ever going to get a better time for some payback against the "Colossus of the North" than after we've been nuked? We're down, the time to put the boot in is before we get back up.
I agree with you that many Mexicans harbor resentment towards the U.S., resentment that can be traced back to the 1848 war and even earlier to the Texas War of Independence. But the 1/2 of Mexico "stolen" by the U.S. did not have "all the cities and highways and industry in it". In fact, most of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were very sparsely populated with Mexican citizens and their distance from the Mexican national capitol in Mexico City made administering and controlling said territories extremely difficult for the Mexican government. Furthermore, the territories in question were extremely underdeveloped when the U.S. decided to attempt to take them by force. In fact, the Mexican government originally invited U.S. settlers into Mexican Texas in order to "civilize" it (i.e. suppress hostile Native American tribes and develop the region economically). This was easier for the Mexican government than trying to settle and control the region itself. Of course, this turned out to be a bad idea for the Mexican government as soon the American settlers in Texas far outnumbered the Mexican population there and began agitating for independence.

I'm not justifying the 1848 Mexican War or the annexation of Mexican territory that followed, but I wanted to clear up the misconception that the region annexed by the U.S. was a particularly "rich" prize, at the time.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-04-2009, 08:07 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
I'm not justifying the 1848 Mexican War or the annexation of Mexican territory that followed, but I wanted to clear up the misconception that the region annexed by the U.S. was a particularly "rich" prize, at the time.
I do understand that viewpoint, to a point. But let me put it this way:

Down in the Southeast corner of my backyard, there is an area which, despite all attempts to remedy it, will grow no grass. It doesn't matter what mulch, fertilizer, or grass seed I put down there, or how much I water it. I can fence it off from the dogs so they don't trample on it. The grass will not grow down there.

But do I want someone to look and say, "That land sucks; he won't miss it anyway."? No! It's my land, and one day I might find a way to grow grass on it!
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-04-2009, 10:36 PM
weswood weswood is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baytown Tx
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
I do understand that viewpoint, to a point. But let me put it this way:

Down in the Southeast corner of my backyard, there is an area which, despite all attempts to remedy it, will grow no grass. It doesn't matter what mulch, fertilizer, or grass seed I put down there, or how much I water it. I can fence it off from the dogs so they don't trample on it. The grass will not grow down there.

But do I want someone to look and say, "That land sucks; he won't miss it anyway."? No! It's my land, and one day I might find a way to grow grass on it!
Or the reason grass doesn't grow is there's oil down there! Start diggin!

It's odd to talk about a Mexican invasion. I hear La Raza is saying Texas and the southweatern states were basically stolen from the Mexican government.
__________________
Just because I'm on the side of angels doesn't mean I am one.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-05-2009, 12:17 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
But do I want someone to look and say, "That land sucks; he won't miss it anyway."? No! It's my land, and one day I might find a way to grow grass on it!
I'm not saying that the Mexicans don't have a right to be upset or that the land doesn't have sentimental value, just that, at the time, the land itself was not a particularly rich prize. Even today, I wouldn't necessarily consider Arizona (my home state) or New Mexico industrial or agricultural power houses. Heck, Arizona didn't meet the criteria for statehood until 1912, over half-a-century after most of it was taken from Mexico (not including the portion acquired by the Gadsen purchase).
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-05-2009, 06:44 PM
sglancy12's Avatar
sglancy12 sglancy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
I agree with you that many Mexicans harbor resentment towards the U.S., resentment that can be traced back to the 1848 war and even earlier to the Texas War of Independence. But the 1/2 of Mexico "stolen" by the U.S. did not have "all the cities and highways and industry in it".
How dumb do you think I am that I really believe the southwest of 1848 was filled with cities and highways and industry?

I was being sarcastic. When we "stole" the south-west it was a desolate wasteland, filled with hostile Indian tribes and governed in name only by Mexico City. Which means when we stole it is was STILL a desolate wasteland, filled with hostile Indian tribes, except now governed in name only by Washington D.C..

In my opinion, if Mexico had held onto the North American southwest, then the illegal immigrants would just be crossing the Arkansas River to get to the jobs and health care and education, instead of the Rio Grande.

What I was trying to point out is that some modern Mexican resentment over the 1848 war also stems from the fact that we developed our desolate wasteland and their desolate wasteland is still just... well, desolate wasteland. There is a serious inferiority complex that comes into play during relations between Mexico and the USA. In any TW2K alternative history, that inferiority complex could be manipulated into a popular political push for war (particularly AFTER the US has been nuked) so that Mexico can right all the wrongs it has suffered for the past 150 years! Hell! Maybe they push to start the war on the 150th anniversary of the War of 1848!

Hmmm... just checked.... war starts in 1846 and ENDs in 1848... of course maybe the date that holds the emotional impact is the date the humiliating Treaty of Guatalupe Hidalgo was signed: Feb. 2, 1848... 150 years later it's 02/02/98 and the US is nuked, soviet troops are in Alaska... maybe that's the date the Mexican government picks to release the report of Mexican refugees being killed on the US border? If they start getting people angry in February, that gives the Mexicans plenty of time to get the war rolling by summer.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-05-2009, 09:04 PM
Fusilier Fusilier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bangkok (I'm Canadian)
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
How dumb do you think I am
Wut?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-06-2009, 03:10 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
How dumb do you think I am
Cool down guys. I don't think any offense was intended from both side.

By the way Raellus what you say about industries is right but when you report it to history, it is equally false.

You forgot one thing. In 1848, industries were rare all over the union anyway as the economy was still focusing on raw materials and agriculture. When California (along with "1/2 Mexico") was taken over by the future USA it brought along things that were as valuable as industries and technologies today:
- Very fertile areas, rich forests, mineral ressources including gold and many other things (These lands were potentially rich).
- Several spots that would soon become major ports on the Pacific and the first step toward US development in Asia.
- Similarly, a valuable connection to the entire American West Coast (the Panama Canal was not even dreamed of and the Cape Horn was a tricky route). That will prove more than important in 1876 with rail development.
...

However, I don't think it was stolen (of course, I understand that some Mexicans might feel that way).

Texas might indeed have been stolen (Ouch! I should be careful, there are plenty of Texas boys around, probably ready to bite at a small bouncing froggy ) as I have the feeling that anglo-saxon settlers did something similar to what the Albanian just did with Kosovo (with a main difference, nonetheless: Kosovo has been part of Serbia for centuries, not true for Texas with Mexico). Whatever, it was 200 years ago and it worked (What is a shame for Kosovo can be seen as brilliant for Texas IMO and depending on your point of view): nowadays, no doubt that Texas is to the Texans (with close ties to Mexico or we would not be eating Tex-Mex). In fact, these lands were never stolen from Mexicans, they were stolen from several American Indian People (by Mexicans and Anglo-saxons alike).

California (+Arizona, New Mexico...) is an entirely different matter and I retain the feeling that internal tensions within Mexico greatly favored its loss. Of course, Anglo-saxon settlers were again more than deeply involved into it but corrupt Mexican officials greatly helped them (also I'm not a specialist of that period). By the way, funny, I just found out that the Russians established a military outpost in northern California at that time. It didn't bring them far but it could have been interesting if things had turned differently.

Whatever, I have no doubt that without the taking over of the entire northern part of Mexico with no consideration for the Adams-Onis treaty signed in 1819 (but Spain was no more the actor two years later) allowed US to become what it is today. I'm convinced that without this political move, US would never have become a great power.

Best wishes from the Froggy

Last edited by Mohoender; 09-06-2009 at 03:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-06-2009, 03:22 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sglancy12 View Post
How dumb do you think I am that I really believe the southwest of 1848 was filled with cities and highways and industry?
Be cool Mr President. No one here thinks you are dumb.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-06-2009, 04:34 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default Some thinking on the events in Mexico

Taking distance from Canon and using our various exchange, I wrote this. It might not please everyone but I hope you'll find some ideas interesting. Several elements remain vague but that is on purpose and, in addition, I didn't want to develop the final outcome. Constructive suggestions are more than welcome as this is very foreign to me

Late in the Twilight War, after US was subjected to nuclear strikes, people starts to flee and cross the border into Mexico. Among these people, you find Anglo-saxons but most are US citizens of Mexican descent.

They are expecting a warm welcome but the Mexican government, also still untouched by the war, is experiencing difficulties of its own. A political crisis just brought up a socialist coalition to power and the destruction of world exchange has reduced income. Nevertheless, Mexico is still exporting a lot to the weakened US, generally for outrageous prices (vehicles, oil products and ammunitions). Else, growing unemployment, ethnic tensions (Chiapas…), drug cartels and internal corruption are slowly resulting in internal unrest.
The refugees are not that welcome and they are soon directed toward camps along the border. The Mexican government does its best to treat them well but it is lacking in supply and the situation soon decays. Then, words are brought to the US (by rogue journalists) about mistreatment of the refuges. These accusations have no real ground outside of isolated events but US has no means of verifying them and they are sufficient to trigger the machine. General Chief of Staff, order the army to gather what it has left (a few lightly mechanized national guard units, some newly formed cavalry border regiments, little air support, and a majority of under equipped infantry units, often closer to local militias) and send these troops into Mexico to help US citizens and bring them relief.
Outraged by this sudden violation of its sovereignty the Mexican government orders its own army to move against the US troops. Under normal conditions, the Mexican Army is, of course, no match for US but this is far from a normal situation and the still well organized Mexican armoured cavalry units, benefiting from air support and well supplied in fuel meet with outstanding success. Within a week the US invaders have been repelled and several Mexican units have crossed the Rio Grande and established outpost on US soil. The situation could have gone no further but the US General Chief of Staff (now aware that the first intervention was far from being justified) decide to order a counter attack, this time officially declaring war to Mexico.
For the first time, the war is on the Latin American continent and within days the most anti-US government in the region grants their support to Mexico (Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela). For a fairly long time, the US 4th Fleet (largely under strength because of the war) remains unable to control the Caribbean and the western Mexican coast. As a result, reinforcements are coming from Latin American countries and Mexico is soon capable of pushing its advantage.
- Venezuela (which received Russian T-90 before the war) delivers its stored AMX-30 to Mexico (as a result Mexico is capable of fielding an armored brigade) along with light infantry units and combat squadrons (among them, a number of Su-30). In the meantime, supported by Ecuador attacks are conducted on Columbia.
- Nicaragua doesn’t send any troops but it launches an attack through Costa Rica in an attempt to seize the Panama Canal. This fails when Guatemala and Honduras enters the war on the side of the US.
- Division “Latin America” (“Cuba” if you prefer) is assembled and sent to Mexico.
- Cuba is the country to send the most important number of troops to Mexico (Armored, Infantry, Air support). Cuban troops also attempt to land in Florida but this is countered and meets with a dramatic failure (almost no Cubans escape).
However, while the Mexican population widely supported the counter offensive directed toward the first US invasion, it seems that the people are quickly growing tired of the full scale war now underway. Despite new but more limited military success, unrest is growing in the country and the Mexican Army quickly loose spirit. For the second time, the war could have come to its end.
Again peace fail to come as an ambitious Mexican politician succeeds in giving war a second breath. Refering to past history and stating that the borders of Mexico (designed by the Adams-Onis treaty) should be that of 1819, he gather a wide support from the population and the Latin American coalition soon finds itself on the push again. Now the US 4th Fleet has gathered enough strength to disrupt regular shipping in the Carribean and the US is facing this new push with better organized troops but they are still outmatched. After a few months (several weeks) of regular fighting, the US is still unable to stop the Latin American progression and unrest is growing oll over the USA. Faced with the potential full destruction of the state, the General Chief of Staff orders several nuclear strikes on the Latin American countries involved. Mexican and Venezuelian oil facilities are targeted along with Mexico City, Managua, La Havana and Caracas.
As a result, most operations come to an end, civil chaos appear everywhere and the Mexican Civil War is triggered….

Last edited by Mohoender; 09-06-2009 at 04:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-06-2009, 03:54 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
Cool down guys. I don't think any offense was intended from both side.

By the way Raellus what you say about industries is right but when you report it to history, it is equally false.

You forgot one thing. In 1848, industries were rare all over the union anyway as the economy was still focusing on raw materials and agriculture. When California (along with "1/2 Mexico") was taken over by the future USA it brought along things that were as valuable as industries and technologies today:
- Very fertile areas, rich forests, mineral ressources including gold and many other things (These lands were potentially rich).
- Several spots that would soon become major ports on the Pacific and the first step toward US development in Asia.
- Similarly, a valuable connection to the entire American West Coast (the Panama Canal was not even dreamed of and the Cape Horn was a tricky route). That will prove more than important in 1876 with rail development.
...
Good point, Moh. There certainly was/is economic potential in the regions annexed from Mexico. The problem was that the Mexican government was doing very little to exploit and develop that potential. To the Mexican government, AZ, NM, TX, CA, etc. were bothersome frontier areas, difficult and costly to manage and administer. They took the easy way out by allowing/encouraging American settlers to move into the areas and ended up paying the price once the settlers became entrenched and started considering the region to be an American suzereignty.

It's sort of ironic because in a sense, the opposite is happening now. American citizens tend to disdain certain lines of work (agricultural and landscaping, construction, service industries, etc.) and so basically invite Mexican nationals to migrate, legally and illegally, in order to fill those jobs. Then many American citizens complain about the social and economic costs associated with this migration, feeling that the Mexicans are "taking over" parts of the country. I guess that's Karma.

And SGlancy, please, I was not trying to insult your intelligence. I simply did not detect your intended sarcasm.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-06-2009, 04:13 PM
weswood weswood is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baytown Tx
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
-
Texas might indeed have been stolen (Ouch! I should be careful, there are plenty of Texas boys around, probably ready to bite at a small bouncing froggy )
Yeah, well, it wasn't nailed down or anything...
__________________
Just because I'm on the side of angels doesn't mean I am one.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-06-2009, 05:12 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,053
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by weswood View Post
Yeah, well, it wasn't nailed down or anything...
And they did just leaving it laying around where pretty much anyone could find it. The US did them a favour by moving in and keeping an eye on the place...

__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-06-2009, 09:20 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by weswood View Post
Yeah, well, it wasn't nailed down or anything...
Well, how do you think Rhode Island got it's name? Someone stole it, and it got rowed back!

(You guys didn't watch SuperChicken when you were kids, did you...)
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-06-2009, 11:52 PM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
Well, how do you think Rhode Island got it's name? Someone stole it, and it got rowed back!

(You guys didn't watch SuperChicken when you were kids, did you...)

When you find yourself in danger, when you're being threatened by a stranger, CALLLLLLLLLLL on Super Chicken!


You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-07-2009, 12:17 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jester View Post
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred.
I used to drive my troops, fellow soldiers, and superiors nuts with that one. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it (insert name or rank here)!"
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-07-2009, 02:48 AM
jester jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Equaly at home in the water, the mountains and the desert.
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
I used to drive my troops, fellow soldiers, and superiors nuts with that one. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it (insert name or rank here)!"
I used to say that all the time too.

I also would sing the superchicken song around one of my men/freinds who was known for his "chicken" legs. Although he could do the three mile run in under 17 minutes on those chicken legs of his the freak!
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-07-2009, 06:33 PM
sglancy12's Avatar
sglancy12 sglancy12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
And SGlancy, please, I was not trying to insult your intelligence. I simply did not detect your intended sarcasm.
When you gently corrected the obvious fallacy in my statement, it came off to me like you were talking down to the village idiot. That was just my interpretation, not how you wrote it.

Clearly I have a chip on my shoulder about being a FNG on this site.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-29-2016, 08:14 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

I've been thinking about the Mexican invasion scenario...

On the Causes and Provocation

A reverse Zimmerman Note- after many of the U.S.'s refineries are nuked, and Mexico refuses to sell oil at below market rates, there's some loose talk of forcefully acquiring Mexican oil- it's not a serious plan, but the idea is bounced around. The Soviets catch wind of this and pass it along to the Mexican gov't, along with some incriminating decrypts.

Impoverished Mexicans, meanwhile, continue to cross the border, drawn by the tens of thousands of jobs abandoned by American draftees. Unlike WWII, there's no Bracero guest laborer program (conservative state governments shoot down the idea, fearing an influx of pro-communist Mexican agitators). American border militias, infiltrated by elements of New America, flock to the border to stop illegal immigrants, using the Red Scare as justification for their increasingly aggressive border policing. In several instances, deadly force is used.

With these twin provocations, and needing to distract the restive Mexican populace from the country's crumbling economy, the gov't/military plans and executes an invasion of the American southwest, stating that they are simply taking back what was stolen from them. Given the various massive deployments to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, the U.S. military has a relatively small footprint in CONUS.

To Nuke or Not to Nuke [Mexico]

AFAIK, canon makes no mention of nukes being used against Mexico. But wouldn't the U.S. resort to nukes to stop the initially successful Mexican invasion of American soil? Well, not necessarily. Conventional strikes, by aircraft and cruise missile, could temporarily knock out Mexican fuel production while avoiding the kind of damage that would rule out the U.S. ever getting its hands on Mexican oil in the future. Assuming that the U.S. in '98 could scrounge up enough airframes and munitions, the Mexican Air Force- the weakest element of its armed forces- couldn't stop determined air raids. The U.S. gets to keep its cake (Mexican oil) and eat it too (deprive the MAF from using it).
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus

Last edited by Raellus; 12-29-2016 at 10:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-29-2016, 10:30 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,295
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
To Nuke or Not to Nuke [Mexico]

AFAIK, canon makes no mention of nukes being used against Mexico. But wouldn't the U.S. resort to nukes to stop the initially successful Mexican invasion of American soil? Well, not necessarily. Conventional strikes, by aircraft and cruise missile, could temporarily knock out Mexican fuel production while avoiding the kind of damage that would rule out the U.S. ever getting its hands on Mexican oil in the future. Assuming that the U.S. in '98 could scrounge up enough airframes and munitions, the Mexican Air Force- the weakest element of its armed forces- couldn't stop determined air raids. The U.S. gets to keep its cake (Mexican oil) and eat it too (deprive the MAF from using it).
Not sure from context if you only mean American Nukes, but Mexico was nuked (most probably by the Soviets) during the Neutrals phase.

From Big Yellow Book

Mexico: Pemex refineries were among the first to be hit by nukes (as part of the destruction of neutral nations' refining capacities, to deny their use to the enemy). In an attempt to distract domestic critics from internal problems, the ruling PRI (el Partido Revolicionario Instilucbnal, the Institutional Revolution Party) and PPS (el Partido Popular Socialists, Popular Socialist Party) coalition in Mexico took advantage of the alleged American mistreatment of Mexican refugees as an excuse to start a war with the gringos.

The intended distraction did not work, and as the war ground to a standstill, the army and internal opposition revolted against the coalition in Mexico City. Mexico is now divided into various regions, each loyal to one of four different contenders in the Mexican Civil War of 1999. The large cities, the mountain regions, and the jungles are in a state of anarchy. Army units of mixed (or no) political loyalty occupy cantonments in Mexico and in the United States, surrounded by disputed regions. Insular communities are strung out along the Pacific and Caribbean coasts, eking out a sparse existence by subsistence agriculture and deep-sea fiishing.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-29-2016, 10:35 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 777
Default

In one of those threads, I had an exchange between General Cummings and the acting CINC-SAC, about the use of low-yield nukes on logistics targets in Northern Mexico to stop the invasion. General Cummings basically said, "Let the historians fifty or a hundred years from now debate whether or not this is the right decision. We don't have the conventional forces to stop the invasion." He then orders CINC-SAC to release his aircraft and they strike targets along the main highways to the border (the B-61s are set on the low yield setting 10 to 20 KT), and the Mexican logistics system falls apart after that.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-29-2016, 10:36 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

I choose to ignore the BYB. For me, it's the v1.0 timeline all the way.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus

Last edited by Raellus; 12-29-2016 at 10:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-29-2016, 10:37 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,295
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
I choose to ignore the BYB. For me, it's the v1.0 timeline all the way.
Fair enough. It would help explain the initial success of the invasion.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.