Nuking Mexico's Oil

[Webstral]

I tried to find an old thread to resurrect, but I couldn't find the original discussion on nuking Mexico's oil. In the shower today, I reconsidered a position someone else presented--namely, that France hit the Mexican oil refineries in order to have the US and USSR blaming each other and get Mexico and the US to fighting. Consider it the Talleyrand Telegram.

A late December 1997 strike on Mexican oil by France probably would be preceded by some sort of nuclear action against France. I've beaten the reasons for such an attack into the ground, so I won't repeat them here other than to say that both the US and the USSR have their reasons--especially after the surgical East-West exhcange of late 1997. Such an attack would have been from boomers. The attacker would have positioned his boomer to create doubt as to the launcher of the attack; i.e., the US would have launched missiles from a boomer in the Arctic, while the Soviets would have launched from a boomer in the Atlantic. The inevitable French retaliation against whoever they thought was the culprit would have earned counter-retaliation from land-based systems, in all likelihood.

Getting to Mexico, France would have been infuriated after being dragged into the nuclear exchange. The French leadership would have wanted some way to further injure the likely culprits. Nuking Mexico's oil would serve several purposes. First, blame naturally would descend on the US and the USSR. With luck, the two great powers might have another nuclear exchange over it. If not, the blame game still would be useful to France in the long term. Perhaps France could even create closer ties with Mexico in the long run if relations with the US and the USSR could be poisoned. A weaker Mexico would be in a poor position to be of use to the US. A Mexican-American war, while unilkely, still would be useful in that American forces would be further tied down in North America. Fewer Yanks would make French forces in Europe and the Middle East relatively stronger. Whether the US or the USSR took the blame for the nuclear attack, France would stand to gain.

Mo, I'm sorry if this seems to characterize France in an excessively negative light. I like exciting story-telling, and this possibility makes for exciting story-telling.

[Legbreaker]

I think you've made some strong arguements for France firing off a few missiles against "neutral" targets like Mexico. I can see France doing the same thing to other countries as well to advance their own post war position.
By late 1998, perhaps even early that same year, nobody is going to be able to work out where a nuke came from, let alone do anything significant about it. France can simply dust of it's halo and move on, confident they've strenghtened their international position and dished out a little payback without seriously dirtying their hands.

[Raellus]

Sub-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missiles would be much harder to trace. Would France have such a capability c. 1997 (in the T2KU)?

[Targan]

Compelling arguments have been put in this thread for France to nuke Mexico but... I can't quite bring myself to buy it. If French leaders had the power of prescience and could see with certainty how things would play out in 3, 5, 10, 50, 300 years' time then absolutely, nuking neutral targets like Mexico would make perfect sense. But they couldn't see the future.

I don't think, in late '97 or early '98, that the French would see a potential widening of the global nuclear exchange as being more good than bad for France. During the Cold War the MAD doctrine had everyone assuming that once the first nuke flew, that would be it. Global nuclear war and mass die offs. Instead in the Twilight War there were battlefield nukings followed by tit-for-tat strategic nuke strikes.

My gut feeling is that most non-superpower countries, once they saw that mass strategic nuke launches hadn't happened yet, would be praying that the major powers saw sense and stopped launching nukes. This would especially be the case with France if it had already been nuked itself. I can see France nuking whichever nation it thought had nuked it, but not a neutral third party. I just don't see France's leaders as being that callous. And just because France withdrew from NATO doesn't mean that the Franco-Belgian Union became sworn blood enemies with the US (or more correctly the 2 US governments). Germany hated France, sure, but according to canon the French government and the 2 US governments remained on speaking terms throughout the Twilight War.

By early '98 it would have been clear that post-war the US and the USSR would never be the same again. Would the French really think it necessary to make things that much worse for the US?

[Matt Wiser]

The previous thread, IIRC, had the Soviets do it to provoke the Mexicans into attacking the U.S. by land. Tell the Mexicans that the U.S. might be interested in destroying Mexico's oil, a Soviet missile sub does the job, and the Soviets offer Mexico a deal to host Division Cuba, attack the Southwestern U.S., and so on.

[Fusilier]

Sub-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missiles would be much harder to trace. Would France have such a capability c. 1997 (in the T2KU)?

They'd have no less than six SSBNs at the start - depending on potential changes due to the alternate timeline. I think its reasonable to think that most French warships would escape being sunk up to that point.

[Fusilier]

Compelling arguments have been put in this thread for France to nuke Mexico but... I can't quite bring myself to buy it.

I'm in the same boat.

I just don't see things where countries would try to be the last country standing.

Also, that oil they nuked is something they could've used/traded for. Considering the extensive damage the oil fields in the Persian Gulf had, an intact source just across the Atlantic is a easy buy - especially trading for it with military hardware that Mexico desperately needs.

[Legbreaker]

Perhaps the fields themselves weren't targets but the local refining facilities, which the French still had at home - eliminate the capacity for the Mexicans or their neighbours to actually use the oil they had in the ground and make yourself the only real market able to refine and properly use the resource. It makes the oil cheaper for you as you can set the price (little effective competition), turns potential rivals/adversaries against each other and therefore makes the suppliers desperate to gain an income stream of any type to support their war effort. The refined products can then be onsold at a massive profit.

Is it sneaky and underhanded? You bet it is, but I'm sure there's been plenty of examples of this sort of behaviour if you look back over history.

[Webstral]

I’m far from 100% sold on the idea. I believe I’m the original author of the argument in favor of the Soviets nuking the Mexican refineries and blaming it on the Americans, although it’s possible I appropriated someone else’s idea and developed it. At any rate, I’m not sold on my own idea about France yet. I just like it for its possibilities. If France is the agent, then the Soviets would be jumping on the opportunity presented to them instead of having engineered the circumstances.

I don’t particularly like the idea of the French government being quite so cold-bloodedly ruthless, either. However, the nuclear exchange is going to harden a lot of hearts. The leaders of nuclear armed nations aren’t hapless victims. They have choices to make regarding the power at their command. They are also going to have to think about recovery. When it comes down to it, nuclear decisions are made by a handful of people. One could imagine a wide variety of possibilities regarding the decision-maker in France after the nuclear exchange has heated up. This, of course, is why in the real world such efforts are made to prevent proliferation. The more parties who get hold of nukes, the greater the chance that an individual who doesn’t think the way we’d like him to will take decisive action. The French, being human beings like the rest of us, are as subject to the laws of human psychology as anyone.

Anyway, it’s just a possibility. Who can say how some things happened?

[Raellus]

They'd have no less than six SSBNs at the start - depending on potential changes due to the alternate timeline. I think its reasonable to think that most French warships would escape being sunk up to that point.

Right, I got that. What I was trying to get at was this: An SSBN's ballistic missiles are usually launched from quite some distance away from their targets and, due to their ballistic trajectory, they can also be detected from quite some distance away. Folks in the States would probably see that missile coming and would likely assume that it's from a Soviet boomer. If France was trying to escalate the nuclear exchange to an all out strategic one, then launching a missile from one of its SSBNs would be the way to go. If it was trying to "frame" the U.S., this would be a poor way to do it. And why would the Americans waste ballistic missiles on Mexican refineries when a sub or ship or air launched nuclear Tomahawk would do the trick much more neatly?

A submarine launched nuclear cruise missile, on the other hand, is much harder to detect. It would therefore be much harder to pin on anyone. The confusion would be greater and it would be more difficult for American or Soviet diplomats to exonerate their mother countries or pin the blame on the other.

It just seems like the risk would outweigh the reward as far as the French were concerned. They have a decent relationship with Mexico and could reasonably hope to benefit from her oil deposits. Nuking them as some sort of grand strategic ruse makes for great theatre, but it doesn't quite ring true for me.

[Mohoender]

Sub-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missiles would be much harder to trace. Would France have such a capability c. 1997 (in the T2KU)?

No as far as I know we still don't have it and we are only planning to get such capability by 2015. However, as the attack occurs after the initial exchange I'm not sure that anyone still has the full capability to trace it. Several sattelites will already be out of order or disfunctionning.

[RN7]

Sub-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missiles would be much harder to trace. Would France have such a capability c. 1997 (in the T2KU)?

France has had an SLBM capability since 1971. Five of the six Redoutable Class SSBN's were in service over the T2K period and were armed with 16x M4MIRV capable sub-launched missiles with a range of 5,000km. The later and larger Triomphant Class SSBN's started entering service from 1991 and two would have been built over the T2K period. The Triomphant Class were armed with 16x M45 missiles with a range of 6,000km. France does not have any equivalent to the Tomahawk TLAM over this period or at present. The Anglo-French Storm Shadow air launched cruise missile would be only French cruise missile near this capability and its range is much shorter than the Tomahwak. It didn't enter service until 2002 and is non-nuclear, but France is developing a naval launched version (MdCN) to be launched from ships and the new Barracuda Class SSN.

[Mohoender]

RN7 you are pefectly right but within T2K you will have a few differences for France's nuclear deployement. On an average, until 1990, France was spending around 3.7% of its GDP for its armed forces. It droped to about 3% by 1991 and now is only 2.4%. In T2K, that budget would have been raised to probably reach 4.5 ot 5% of its GDP by 1995.

With the change in the international situation, the SSBN "Le Redoutable" would probably have been refited with M4 missile as its sisterships and that makes 6 Redoutable-class SSBN. Its decomissioning as in IRL is doubtful.

Work on the first Triomphant-class had started in 1986 with the ship entering service in 1997. This was mainly due to financing issues and this would not have been relevant to the game (In T2K France even finances the Richelieu) and the first in class would have entered service by 1992 instead of 1997. Then, 3 would probably have been build over the T2K period with the last one under construction.

You are right about cruise missile capability from submarines or ships but you forgot about the ASMP (altough not a cruise missile strictly speaking). 60 had been deployed with nuclear warheads from 1986 and in T2K more would certainly have been built. I would expect France to have between 150 and 200 ASMP with nuclear warheads. Range is about 400km and speed is Mach 3.

Then, you can expect to have one or two being launched at Mexico, using a specialy modified commercial aircraft operating from Guadeloupe or Martinique. An Airbus could be used but it is highly vulnerable and I would expect France to use 1 or 2 Dassault Falcon 200. After all, what we are talking about here is a covert operation. I don't buy the idea but if I did, I would go in that direction.

[Legbreaker]

So, in theory, it is possible France could have nuked Mexico, although the reasons for them doing so are shaky at best.
I am however fairly certain France would have fired off a few nukes during the course of the war, both in retaliation for strikes upon either France itself or it's allies/colonies, or in an effort (by deception) to provoke other countries to attack each other and thereby strengthen French interests in the area.

[RN7]

You are right about cruise missile capability from submarines or ships but you forgot about the ASMP (altough not a cruise missile strictly speaking). 60 had been deployed with nuclear warheads from 1986 and in T2K more would certainly have been built. I would expect France to have between 150 and 200 ASMP with nuclear warheads. Range is about 400km and speed is Mach 3.

Then, you can expect to have one or two being launched at Mexico, using a specialy modified commercial aircraft operating from Guadeloupe or Martinique. An Airbus could be used but it is highly vulnerable and I would expect France to use 1 or 2 Dassault Falcon 200. After all, what we are talking about here is a covert operation. I don't buy the idea but if I did, I would go in that direction.

More practical to just launch them from a Mirage, but anyways if they are air launched and the aircraft are taking off from French Carribean Islands their going to be tracked. Sub launched missiles are less traceable.

[Legbreaker]

They're only likely to be tracked pre November 1997. After that it's very likely nothing will be left capable of tracking anything, or those few scattered facilities will be so far out of communication with anyone that counts as to be effectively useless for strategic purposes.
It could even be as early as July 1997 that tracking is problematic at best given the wholesale nuking of China and limited usage in Europe which begins around then.

EMP (especially in T2K) is a leather clad, whip wielding, stiletto wearing bitch....

[Mohoender]

More practical to just launch them from a Mirage, but anyways if they are air launched and the aircraft are taking off from French Carribean Islands their going to be tracked. Sub launched missiles are less traceable.

I agree but its less fun. We don't have intelligence agencies as perverted as the CIA or the KGB. Even UK has James Bond, could you this time let us have some fun.:D

[Panther Al]

I agree but its less fun. We don't have intelligence agencies as perverted as the CIA or the KGB. Even UK has James Bond, could you this time let us have some fun.:D

*cough* Rainbow Warrior *cough*

;)

[LAW0306]

Mohoender France gets just as dirty as the rest of us that Why I respect them.dont hide it let it out and be proud. The rainbow warrior was a good hit.

[LAW0306]

And if you dont think your boys are in Lybia right now??? i DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY....... All of a sudden the NATO air strikes got real accurate. That means men on the ground guideing them...good on them who ever is doing it I would buy them a beer.

[natehale1971]

EMP (especially in T2K) is a leather clad, whip wielding, stiletto wearing bitch....

"She's one sexy Biiiitchhhe." (my best impression of Gabriel Iglesias saying it)

[Panther Al]

Agreed, France's security and intelligence services are perhaps the dirtiest players out there: but also some of the most successful as they play to win, not to avoid headlines. Rainbow Warrior was an Act Of War: No two ways about it. Credit to France to having the fortitude to do what they felt had to be done no matter what, but it was a dirty deed that broke all the rules. The shameful part was that the US refused to condemn France for its actions: Which is why NZ pulled back from dealings with the US in my opinion. This is what in my mind really put the kabosh on arms purchases of US made weapons, such as the cancelled F16 purchase. Oddly enough, the leader of the Rainbow Warrior attack now works at a senior level for FN: Which is perhaps the biggest supplier of New Zealand's firearms.

[Mohoender]

LOL, I agree... Stop shooting, I surrender.:D:p

[Targan]

Mohoender France gets just as dirty as the rest of us that Why I respect them.dont hide it let it out and be proud. The rainbow warrior was a good hit.

Hey Law, you know I have a great deal of respect for you but that last comment stings. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is still a sore point for New Zealanders. The only modern day terrorist attack on New Zealand soil and it was committed by the French. I know the scale is very different, but to a Kiwi like me, you saying in open forum that the bombing and sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was a "good hit" is like how an American might feel if I were to say that 9/11 was a "job well done".

For the record I think the 9/11 attacks were abhorrent and evil acts. Terrorism is terrorism, in Auckland or Manhattan.

[RN7]

I agree but its less fun. We don't have intelligence agencies as perverted as the CIA or the KGB. Even UK has James Bond, could you this time let us have some fun.:D

Go and have a look at what your French intelligence compatriots get up to Mo. Talking about the cat calling the kettle black! Jeez!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_de_Documentation_Ext%C3%A9rieure_et_de_Con tre-Espionnage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_de_la_surveillance_du_territoire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_centrale_des_renseignement_g%C3%A9n%C3%A 9raux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate-General_for_External_Security#Activities

[LAW0306]

Targan you are right. I was looking at it from a military view not a country view. I did not think the Rainbow warrior was a New Zealand ship. From my research she was registered out oh the Netherlands, and that she was just making a port call in New Zealand and no New Zealanders were hurt in the bombing that it was confined to the ship!, but a man returned to the ship after the bombing and tried to board and was killed in the ship while it was going down. He was of Portuguese of origin.....If my facts are wrong please inform me..... I like to speak the truth.....

[Mohoender]

RN7, I was not being serious.;):)

[Targan]

Targan you are right. I was looking at it from a military view not a country view. I did not think the Rainbow warrior was a New Zealand ship. From my research she was registered out oh the Netherlands, and that she was just making a port call in New Zealand and no New Zealanders were hurt in the bombing that it was confined to the ship!, but a man returned to the ship after the bombing and tried to board and was killed in the ship while it was going down. He was of Portuguese of origin.....If my facts are wrong please inform me..... I like to speak the truth.....

You are absolutely correct on those facts Law. But it was the bombing of a civilian ship in a New Zealand port. I think part of the reason New Zealanders get so upset about the Rainbow Warrior bombing is that per capita of population, New Zealand had more casualties defending France in WWI than any other country on the planet. New Zealand regards France as a friendly nation. We Kiwis get a bit pissed off when a friendly nation engages in a terrorist act on New Zealand soil.

Just to rub it in the French put those responsible for the bombing on a beach in French Polynesia for a couple of years as "punishment" then set them free.

[Panther Al]

You are absolutely correct on those facts Law. But it was the bombing of a civilian ship in a New Zealand port. I think part of the reason New Zealanders get so upset about the Rainbow Warrior bombing is that per capita of population, New Zealand had more casualties defending France in WWI than any other country on the planet. New Zealand regards France as a friendly nation. We Kiwis get a bit pissed off when a friendly nation engages in a terrorist act on New Zealand soil.

Just to rub it in the French put those responsible for the bombing on a beach in French Polynesia for a couple of years as "punishment" then set them free.

And only the two that was caught redhanded, with the female half even having her husband stay with her. Some 'prison' that was- the rest got off Scott free, even though it was obvious they was involved. No knock on the Aussies - they couldn't hold the three they caught long enough for the results of the forensics to come back.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, us Australians have these little things called "law" and "due process" which get in the way sometimes. Mind you, I prefer a few terrorists and spies slipping away than have an entire prison network set up to hold people simply suspected of doing something naughty. If the evidence is there to hold them though, I'm all for twenty foot high electrified razor wire and machinegun towers. :D

[simonmark6]

I read somewhere once that a just society would rather let ten guilty men go free rather than punish one innocent man and a tyranny would rather let ten innocent men get punished rather than let a guilty one go free. I suppose all very noble until it gets personal...

[Mohoender]

I read somewhere once that a just society would rather let ten guilty men go free rather than punish one innocent man and a tyranny would rather let ten innocent men get punished rather than let a guilty one go free. I suppose all very noble until it gets personal...

A very unwise saying. Recent events have proved that tiranny would tend to punish ten innocent men while letting the guilty go free. Why waste so many talented people when you can use their natural brutality to great effects?;)

[mikeo80]

If we postulate that France nukes the Mexican Oil Fields,

Does it not stand to reason the French would just as soon nuke the Venezuela oil as well?

How about Chilean Copper Mines?

I am sure the USSR took care of the Panama Canal, but just on speculation..

Of you REALLY want to crazy.....

Nigerian Oil

South African Diamonds

Indonesian Oil

If, as postulated above the French have 6 Boomers.....

Say, 2 in port for R&R

THat leaves 4....

One for each of the above target areas...

Just a thought,,,,, :confused:

My $0.02

Mike

[Legbreaker]

It's all very possible, however France might want to hold onto most of their warheads too given they're not officially at war with anyone.
Most of those targets could conceivably be targets for the actual belligerents and already be glowing by the time France feels the need to turn them into slag.

[Webstral]

France would only nuke targets not hit by the US, USSR, UK, or PRC. That's just a tautology. If one looks at the US, USSR, UK, and Canada target lists, the pattern seems to be predominantly command centers, refineries, industrial centers, a military facilities. Mines, like for Chilean copper, aren't very useful without an industrial center to use the copper. Ditto diamonds, since in the absence of a markets for jewelry the only other applications for diamonds are industrial. A single nuke can hit a single mine. A single nuke destroying a single city can render the productivity of whole industries inert. This is why the surgical exchange focused on EMP and refineries: they are the key stones of a modern industrial society.

[Legbreaker]

Very good points there. Take out the processing and distribution hubs and you shut everything down.

[pmulcahy11b]

So, in theory, it is possible France could have nuked Mexico, although the reasons for them doing so are shaky at best.
I am however fairly certain France would have fired off a few nukes during the course of the war, both in retaliation for strikes upon either France itself or it's allies/colonies, or in an effort (by deception) to provoke other countries to attack each other and thereby strengthen French interests in the area.

You know, I've always thought that it's fun to sprinkle around some WTF events here and there, even if the explanation is outlandish (as long as you don't overuse this).

[Webstral]

You know, I've always thought that it's fun to sprinkle around some WTF events here and there, even if the explanation is outlandish (as long as you don't overuse this).

I agree. I chime in principally when the WTF exception to the rule starts to become the rule because WTF is a) fun and b) not always understood as an exception to the rule. This idea is not always understood--especially, again, because the exceptions and the outlanding are so much fun. When I was living in Ireland (age 20-21 at the time), I was asked in all seriousness what kind of guns I had. Mind, I grew up in suburban Massachusetts. I had no guns, my family had no guns, and no one I knew hunted or talked about guns. When I told my Irish housemates that I had no guns, they asked in astonishment how I survived the daily gunfights on American streets. We Americans understand that the violence in the news represents the exceptions to the rule. Observers with no frame of reference might assume the WTF moment is the rule.