There were approximately 1/2 Million CDL trucks running in Mexico during the 90's (it's about four times that now compared to our roughly 4 million trucks). The big issue is how many would be serviceable. The Mexican fleet was around 70% "new" (in other words, a 1990's vintage model) because of the NAFTA agreement. Meanwhile, the US had hit its "10-year Turnover" in 1993 for over 80% of the fleet. For those who don't know, the "Life Expectancy" of a CDL Truck is roughly 10 Years & 1 Million Miles before replacement is inevitably needed (most Trucks run 100K miles a year on average). This would mean that most of these trucks would be 90's models with COMPUTERIZED FUEL INJECTION. Once The Exchange occurs and the resulting EMPs, these trucks will NEVER move again, not without a new computer module. This would leave between 100k and 150k unaffected trucks in Mexico and roughly 500K to 600K trucks in the US.

This does highlight one of the "horrors" of The Exchange, The EMPs will knock out most vehicles, electric, communications, and electronics. While a great number of City services are "hardened" to survive a nuke, they rely on diesel generators in an emergency. Most cities have a 7-day supply of fuel. After that, the water and sewage STOP FLOWING! Today any major US city only has THREE DAYS of consumables in its stores/commercial properties and this was still only 7 days in the late 90's. SEVEN DAYS and the natives will certainly begin to kill each other for food and water (and maybe as early as 3 days if shortages were present at the start).

The EMP bursts wouldnt have fried that many trucks but it would certainly have affected anything in the area where the nukes were used - i.e. no nukes in western NY or PA so those areas would have been fine - versus LA area where the detonation of three 500 kiloton plus nukes one after the other would have definitely fried just about every ignition and electrical device there was in the basin

This is one of the areas in which GDW was WAY OFF. In their defense, it's not like they could just Google it. The Russians ALWAYS planned on high-altitude detonations to cause widespread failure of Civilian Infrastructure. There was even a posting about it in a thread on this forum. I disagree with the NUMBER of large strikes BOTH SIDES made in the original Canon (as you already know I don't follow Canon without reason). In my Exchange, only about a dozen ICBMs are launched with the SPECIFIC purpose of causing EMP. The Russians (I start with V2.2) also EMP Poland, Germany, The UK, and (supposedly by accident) Northeastern France near the Rhine and along the Channel. Ground targets which are hit by nukes at all are only hit by smaller nukes (150kt or less) launched by ships or subs (so as not to trigger a general Exchange) or TAC Nukes (50kt or less) fired by artillery.
In my scenario, most of the major damage inflicted in Poland was done by large Thermobaric Munitions like the attack on Warsaw. They cause the same physical damage as nukes without the radiation so no "slow death in the rubble." There is also a precedent for this. When Putin attacked Grozny in 1999, he asked about using poison gas. After he was informed that the UN would treat that as a "war crime," he chose Thermobaric Munitions instead. The Chechens were literally INCINERATED trying to defend the city. It fell in days. Thermobarics carry all the horror of a nuke without the fallout.

Those people caught in thermobaric weapon attacks typically die from the pressure wave and/or asphyxiation before their (now dead) bodies are incinerated.
This is still a very unpleasant way to die, you're either crushed by the over-pressure or the vacuum created by all that oxygen being rapidly consumed ruptures your lungs.
In some circumstances, the fuel burns but does not detonate, then you see deaths by incineration.

I was actually surprised they didnt include EMP large scale attacks - they were in the novel War Day that had been published in 1984 - in fact those attacks were what caused most of the damage to the US in the exchange in that war - and the US fried the Soviets with EMP as well. They definitely overestimated the effects of EMP from the local nuclear attacks - those would have cause issues in the area surrounding the detonations but wouldnt have affected areas hundreds of miles away

I have heard it mentioned, but I have not been able to confirm it. It makes sense that they would have to. The original gasoline motor would have to be worn out and there isn't parts in abundance anymore. Making the fleet diesel makes sense too.

I have photos of them on parade and have seen their 5th of May parades with M8 on parade sporting 20mms or 14.5 KPVs and new radio antennas.

The Mexican Armies OPSEC is 1000% better than the U.S. Army definitely.

Actually there is lots of stuff online showing what the M8's were re-equipped with. You just need to be able to either habla espanol or alternatively use a lot of google translate

http://rtvmodeler.com/MEX/tierra/global.htm

http://todopormexico.foroactivo.com.mx/f43-vehiculos

http://www.hollilla.com/picviewer.php?tid=2982730

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/mexico.htm

http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers.html (you have to searh by individual vehicles. It is large PDFs all on one vehicle as used by every nation that fielded it. The Mexican M3A1s are all monuments now.

https://www.taringa.net/posts/info/1...-Mexicano.html

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:...rcito_Mexicano

https://www.scribd.com/doc/304960189...Ground-Systems


*

*
*
*
*
*
*

or you can go here and do translate to find out if the M8 is armed differently and what engine it has -
https://www.facebook.com/SentinelMex...029930533996:0

Carro blindado ligero de reconocimiento 6x6 de fabricación estadounidense, Ford M8 A1 Greyhound modificado, del Ejército Mexicano, en las instalaciones de la 25/a Zona Militar, en esquema pixelado selvático en verdes, que es el último de varios empleados por este longevo carro blindado.

Los Greyhound, de diseño y operación de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, fueron adquiridos por nuestro país en 1947, 40 unidades destinadas al recién creado 12/o. Regimiento de Caballería Mecanizada (12/o. RCM) en la ciudad de Puebla.

Inicialmente portaban el cañón original contra carro M6 de 37 mm, sin embargo estos vehículos han sufrido varias modificaciones locales, la primera importante de ellas fue la sustitución del cañón M6 por un Hispano Suiza AKAN Mk.46 de 20 mm.

En 1988 se realiza una nueva modificación, ahora a la estructura del carro, reemplazando los faldones laterales por unos diferentes y aprovechando el espacio entre el eje delantero y los dos traseros para colocar ahí bidones de combustible o agua y un neumático de repuesto. Además se le agregaron nuevas luces y nuevos neumáticos con mejor poder de tracción.

En 1992 se realiza una nueva modificación y mejora, con un paquete de actualización de la empresa estadounidense NAPCO International, sustituyendo el motor original Hercules de 110 hp a gasolina por un Detroit 4-53N V4 a diesel de 140 hp y ametralladora de 7.62mm coaxial, aunque también se han visto ejemplares con lo que parecen ser M2 Browning .50 en la misma posición. Además, físicamente este carro sufrió extensas modificaciones en su estructura, sobre todo en los laterales, se le agregaron troneras y mirillas de cristal blindado. Debido a estas modificaciones, el espacio entre el eje delantero y los traseros desapareció y el neumático de repuesto se reposicionó en la parte superior trasera del vehículo. En la parte superior se le agregaron dos escotillas, se reemplazó del sistema eléctrico y se agregó un nuevo sistema de comunicación interna.

En el año 2000 sufre su última actualización reemplazando el anterior cañón por uno nuevo de 20 mm del tipo GIAT F2 francés, al parecer de origen sudafricano y su sistema de alimentación se colocó encima de la torreta. El de la imagen corresponde a esta última versión, aunque se le ha removido el cañón y ametralladoras. Empleaban también como arma secundaria un M2 Browning de calibre .50 montada en su afuste.

A la fecha siguen activos la mayoría dentro del 6/o y 9/o Regimientos Blindados de Reconocimiento en la ciudad de Puebla.

Poseen un blindaje que va de los 19 mm en la parte delantera a los 3 mm en partes menos críticas. Emplean una tripulación de cuatro elementos

which translates to

Light armored car of reconnaissance 6x6 of American manufacture, Ford M8 A1 Greyhound modified, of the Mexican Army, in the facilities of the 25 / a Military Zone, in pixelated jungle scheme in greens, which is the last of several employees by this long-armored armored car.


The Greyhounds, design and operation of the Second World War, were acquired by our country in 1947, 40 units for the newly created 12 / o. Mechanized Cavalry Regiment (12 / RCM) in the city of Puebla.

Initially they carried the original gun against the M6 ​​37 mm car, however these vehicles have undergone several local modifications, the first important of which was the replacement of the M6 ​​cannon by a Hispano Suiza AKAN Mk.46 of 20 mm.

In 1988 a new modification is made, now to the structure of the car, replacing the side skirts by different ones and taking advantage of the space between the front axle and the two rear to place drums of fuel or water and a spare tire. In addition, new lights and new tires with better traction power were added.

In 1992 a new modification and improvement is made, with an update package of the American company NAPCO International, replacing the original Hercules engine of 110 hp to gasoline by a Detroit 4-53N V4 to diesel of 140 hp and machine gun of 7.62mm coaxial , although they have also seen specimens with what appear to be M2 Browning .50 in the same position. In addition, physically this car underwent extensive modifications in its structure, especially on the sides, were added pockets and windows of armored glass. Due to these modifications, the space between the front axle and the rear axles disappeared and the spare tire was repositioned in the upper rear part of the vehicle. In the upper part, two hatches were added, the electrical system was replaced and a new internal communication system was added.

n the year 2000 it suffers its last update replacing the previous one with a new one of 20 mm of the type GIAT F2 French, apparently of South African origin and its feeding system was placed on top of the turret. The one in the image corresponds to this last version, although the cannon and machine guns have been removed. They also used as a secondary weapon a M2 Browning caliber of .50 mounted in its support.

To date, the majority remain active within the 6th and 9th Armored Reconnaissance Regiments in the city of Puebla.

They have a shield that goes from 19 mm in the front to 3 mm in less critical parts. Employ a crew of four elements

Thus the question - "Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
ArmySGT. I have a vague recollection that the Mexican M8 Greyhounds were fitted with a commercial truck engine to replace the old motor.
I will have to check my books because I can't remember where I saw that info and obviously I can't be certain it's accurate."

Answer - yes they replaced the old gas engines with a Detroit Diesel motor back in 1992 - thus for the canon they would have diesel engines not gasoline

Want to know stuff about the Mexican Army, Air Force, etc.

https://www.facebook.com/SentinelMexico1/

for instance

Camion 4X4 de fabricación nacional Chevrolet Kodiak K5500 arrastrando un obusero de fabricación estadounidense Rock Island Arsenal M2A1 de calibre 105 mm pertenecientes al Heroico Colegio Militar.

which is

National 4X4 truck manufactured by Chevrolet Kodiak K5500, dragging a US-made Rock Island Arsenal M2A1 105 mm caliber gun belonging to the Heroico Colegio Militar.

Or you can go to this forum run by people who used to be in the Mexican Armed Forces

http://defensamexico.activoforo.com/...rcito-mexicano

for great info like - ORBAT - Batallones de Infantería del Ejército Mexicano (Actualizacion 2013)

or Aumentó a más del doble la cifra de efectivos de Sedena en últimos 37 años

Mexico DF. The Secretary of National Defense (Sedena) announced that the number of its troops has more than doubled in the last 37 years, going from 92 thousand 559 in 1976 to 212 thousand 208 in 2013.

In response to a request for information, the agency delivered a list of its members from year to year, beginning in 1976. In the document, it is noted that as of 1997, the number of its members remained almost the same.

For example, in 1997 there were 182,328 personnel; in 1998, the figure was the same as the previous year; in 1999 and 2000, the number was 182 thousand 329 items, respectively. For 2001, it increased by 2 thousand 814 elements compared to the previous year to reach 185 thousand 143.

The discussion on lack of trucks in the Mexican Army reminds me how I planned to solve a lack of vehicles at Kunsan AB, ROK if we went to war in the late 80s.

There appeared to be a profound shortage of logistic and general purpose vehicle for a period of time if war started. We were getting a LOT of additional equipment, personnel, and supplies coming in but really not that many vehicles for at least several weeks. There simply were not enough vehicles on base to support the missions and move the equipment to destinations. What to do?

Solution was simple enough. We coordinated with the ROK army on base to get a couple of platoons for support and identified all the local car and truck dealers in Kunsan City. If war broke out, we would get 4 - 5 buses of "drivers" and escorted by several trucks of armed ROK army troops would start hitting the dealerships, seizing their vehicles (providing the proper receipts of course), which we would drive back to the base. As I recall, the plan was to seize about 200 light trucks (pick ups) plus about 20-30 tractor-trailers. Problem solved.

According to Zaloga's book on the Greyhound, the NAPCO power package was also bought by Cameroon, Cyprus, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Morocco, Venezuela, and Zaire. In addition to replacing the engine, the transmission was replaced by an Allison AT-545.

That is a really GOOD idea. I was surprised to see that 40% of the trucks in the US (the total of which is just over 2 Million in 1998 and 4 million today) are generally present in just TWO locations, Long Beach CA and Newark NJ, the two biggest cargo terminals in the US. I didn't realize just how concentrated commercial trucking in the US is until I researched it.

NOTE: There is a reason my reply is so long.
It does relate to the game I promise!

I believe that is probably the result of the push for "centralizing" by most businesses/corporations and governments.
Centralizing a network (of any sort) results in some large cost savings because obviously, you don't have as many buildings. vehicles, staff etc. etc. to manage and pay for.
But it also makes the system vulnerable if a break occurs in the central part of the network or in the transport system.

For example, many food shops these days don't have a storeroom, what's on the shelf or in the fridge is all the stock they have. They rely on small deliveries every day (or every two/three days) to keep supplied rather than having one or two big deliveries in a week.
If anything happens to interupt the supply chain, those deliveries do not happen and the shop runs out of whatever product was being delivered. I've experienced this myself in Australia when the local shops didn't have bread or milk for a few days due to delays in the transport system.

So the point of all that exlanation? The push towards centralizing networks began (as near as I remember) in the early 1990s although the general public didn't really notice much change until the 2000s. If your Twilight timeline starts in the mid-1990s or later, centralizing of networks can be a real hindrance (lethal in some cases) to people away from any distribution centres at the start of the war and more so after the end of the war.
For example, food supplies are not going to reach the smaller locations or those little stores out on the secondary highway for example. In fact, once the transport stops, most stores will run out of basic foodstuffs within two to three days (three or four if they're really well stocked or really lucky).
Hospitals might have good stocks of medical supplies for a while but smaller medical centres or individual doctors offices will be depleted very quickly.

Centralizing is much more profitable than having a distributed network with many smaller warehouses & supply systems but it does literally "put all your eggs in one basket".
However it does provide a "resource rich location" for anyone close to that supply centre. Which also makes the PC's job easier if they want to recover supplies - assuming they can get to the distribution centre!

You are correct in your posting here. What was called "JUST IN TIME DELIVERY (now known as virtual warehousing)" began in the late 80's and became standardized in the mid 90's. The average urban center has just 3 days worth of consumables on the stores' shelves. Most gas stations have just 5 days worth of gas on hand and many large chains now use regionalized "Distribution Centers" which WILL have inventory warehoused for (usually) a dozen or so stores. VERY LARGE chains like WALMART will have either one or a couple of distribution centers in a given State (for the US), or a small country (like in Europe), while smaller chains might have a Distribution Center in a cluster of three or so States (in the US) or a couple in Europe (total). It depends on how hard it is to transport goods in a given region. For an example, WALMART has a distribution center on I80 (SouthEast of me) that services all of Northern Pa (there's another one near Philly somewhere). It is FIVE MILLION SQUARE FEET UNDER ONE ROOF with 180 Truck Docks for big rigs to load and unload at. I've been told this is a smaller Distribution Center for WALMART.

It's both amazing and frightening to see these sites, they are massive in all senses of the word. There's two near the main airport here in Perth, Western Australia, one each for the two main supermarket chains and while nowhere near as large as the Walmart one you mentioned, they both dwarf everything around them including many airport buildings.

All this reminds me of a story I read decades ago like one of those "weird war tales" published in the 1980s-90s although this one was a collection of short stories rather than a comicbook.
It was a collection of "strange" tales set during the Vietnam War and this particular one involved a US Army soldier telling about the construction in South Vietnam of the largest PX store outside the USA. It was so large it stocked everything from Zippo lighters to motorbikes and everything inbetween. It was so large you could get lost for hours wandering around inside it and it was very easy to hide from someone among all the shelves and goods.

The narrator goes on to tell of one of his comrades who worked in the PX and as far as he knew, never returned home at the end of his tour of duty. In fact, even though the war had been over for some years, there had still been no record of his comrade ever returning to the US. As far as the narrator knew, his friend was still hiding out in the PX store and living off all the supplies there.

A long time ago, I decided to get a subscription to Scribd, charged $9.99 per month. I recommend it to anyone, it is really worth it.

Yes, they stand out against the background as you fly in.

Second place I'd be going in the zombie apocalypse - first stop is home to pick up my old army gear (I've still got a full set of the old green webbing and an Austpack).

I still have my ALICE gear and the mags to fill the pouches.

I know this is an old thread, but...

I had deep reservations about a successful Mexican invasion of the U.S. Southwest, having bought Red Star/Lone Star as a kid when it first came out in '86 or '87 and being a Texas native. About 15 years later I even traded some emails with Loren K. Wiseman on the subject.

I mean, the 49th Armored Div by itself could probably reduce the Mexican army to giblets by itself.

These days, I'm a little more receptive to the idea.

1. The Mexicans don't invade until June of 1998. By this time, the post-attack "recovery" has begun to fail, cities were starting to starve as the government started routing food to critical areas, and letting the rest twist on the vine.

2. Federal Emergency Plan-D (and a slew of related classified Executive Orders) are pretty draconian. Imagine the government coming, taking everything you own, kicking you out of your house (or moving in 5 additional families), drafting you into a labor battalion - and if you refuse, you don't get to eat (the food they confiscated from you), or they shoot you. In a lot areas, especially rural or semi-rural that weren't actually starving, the government coming in to take everyone's stuff probably isn't that popular.

3. The units the US has in reserve, for the most part, aren't that good. Most are training divisions hastily mobilized, probably are far from full strength, suffer from high desertion rates, and are likely less well equipped and trained than first echelon Mexican forces (but probably on par with 2nd echelon forces).

4. These forces, despite operating on US soil, are not operating with secure rear areas. In fact, there is no rear - their presence in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and beyond are contested by marauders, and anti-government partisans. It's hard to sustain offensive momentum when your whole logistics network is subject to constant attack.

5. Conversely, the Mexican military is advancing concurrently with a mass population migration from Mexico that largely displaces the native population. And at least initially, this would allow the Mexicans to recruit locally as they advanced with the population to offset combat losses. The US 85th Infantry Division would probably struggle a bit to do the same around Tyler, TX in comparison.

6. Using canon resources like Allegheny Uprising, some of these refugee camps or settlements (domestic and otherwise) can have 40k to 80k people in them. If 5% of those camps are "militia", those by themselves represent a non-insignificant amount of potential combat power and threat. How do you deal with those refugees (many of whom want what your military has - food, fuel, weapons) while simultaneously dealing with the Mexican army and the Soviet Division Cuba?

7. Net net, you have an American population that's largely hostile to your presence trying to eject a foreign army and large population migration that's also hostile to your presence over a supply line that is long and unstable (it's the same distance from Colorado Springs to Brownsville, TX as it is from Berlin to Moscow), and you're conducting your counter offensive during the most acute phase of the post-attack collapse (Autumn 1998 through mid-1999).

One angle that is hard to rationalize though is that the Soviets nuke Mexican refineries about a month after hitting the US, and a few months later...the Mexicans ally with the Soviets to invade the US (although, I guess technically you could argue the Mexicans don't know who actually nuked them).

Maskirovka
 

Great analysis, castlebravo92. Or may I say, bravo? :D

Another factor that might help the Mexican invaders is tensions between Anglo-American and Mexican-American communities, especially if New America propaganda has begun to take hold in the Southwest. This might drive some 1st or 2nd gen Mexican-Americans who would have otherwise remained loyal to the USA into the arms of the invaders. In other words, stoked fears of a Mexican fifth column result in the emergence of a Mexican fifth column.

I've also posited an alliance of sorts between the Mexican military and narco gangs operating in the USA in the lead-up to the invasion. The latter could provide intel before the invasion and undertake sabotage and assassination ops during.

Re the nuking of Mexican refineries, does anyone know who's responsible? I remember that question being debated here. I'm not very familiar with CONUS cannon, having focused primarily on Europe and Korea during the length of my fandom. IIRC, canon doesn't answer this question definitively, but I could be wrong.

If the Soviets did indeed nuke the Mexican refineries, one possible explanation is that, for whatever reasons, pre-war, Mexico had better relations with the USSR than with its northern neighbor and were predisposed to suspect American perfidy when the strikes occur. This could be due to a number of factors- trade disagreements between Mexico and the USA (is NAFTA part of the T2kU?); tensions resulting from the escalating Drug War; harsh measures taken to stem illegal immigration. This tension would help the Soviets pull off a brilliant Maskirovka, convincing the Mexican gov't that the USA was behind nuclear strikes on Mexican refineries. In all likelihood, the KGB was feeding the Mexican gov't and military intel suggesting that the US was planning to nuke Mexican refineries well before the attacks occurred. So, when it happened, the fait accompli had already been established (and confirmation bias is a powerful thing).

The Soviets would therefore have two motives for nuking the Mexican refineries. One, deprive the USA of Mexican oil and two, prompt the Mexicans to retaliate against USA.

It wouldn't be the first time a European power tried to foment conflict between Mexico and the USA. The Germans failed to sway the Mexican gov't with the Zimmerman Telegram c.1917, but maybe the Soviets succeed with the "Fisherovich Fax" in 1998.

-

Logically, it would have to be the Soviets, in order to deny access to the United States. For the same reasons, the US wouldn't nuke Mexican refineries in December of 1997, since those would be potential resources the Americans could use to rebuild, if they could trade or extort for it. In fact, most of the neutral countries that were nuked had to have been nuked by the Soviets.

In my head, this is how I picture it:

- Russia nukes US on Nov 27, 1997, with some exchanges continuing into December.

- Russia extends nukes to Canada on Dec 12, 1997.

- Presumably, they nuke Mexico some time after nuking Canada but before year's end (after all, Canada was a NATO member active in the war, while Mexico was a neutral nation).

- Mexico's government unravels, PRI-PPS take back control, and invade.

Mexico
 

Eminently reasonable. If all else fails the narrative background for a GM could go something like "Mexico, taking advantage of the chaos and to protect the burgeoning refugee population, launched an all-out attack across the Rio Grande."

For Context, the U.S. and Mexico had an incredibly difficult relationship to try to navigate.
1. As early as Andrew Jackson's presidency, the US offered to buy California. Mexico refused to even discuss the matter.

2. US admittance of Texas into the Union was another friction point.

3. Mexico welcomed US settlers into TX-up to a point. Mexican officials wanted some presence against Native Americans and lawless elements. American migrants such as S.F. Austin were glad to have the land, less then enthusiastic about observing the terms and conditions that came with the land.In particular, the Mexico Constitution at the time banned slavery. Americans came in huge numbers and brought slaves with them in direct violation of Mexican law which infuriated Mexican officials.

4. By the Polk Administration, President Polk was very aware of the potential of the China trade for both missionary and trade ties-San Diego was a potential port, naval base AND and possible end for a southern-route Transcontinental Railroad. One of the leading advocates of a southern route for the Transcontinental Railroad was Secty of War Jefferson Davis btw.

5. Candidly, Polk was willing to settle for dividing Oregon with Britain but more than willing to go to war with Mexico. When asked about this seeming contradiction, Senator Thomas Hart Benton put it best-"Because dear sir, Britain is so strong and Mexico is so weak." (His words, not mine).

6. Last but not least, an increasingly democratic America was a sharp contrast to autocratic Mexico under Santa Anna-there were also border disputes (Rio Grande vs. the Nueces River) and the question Mexican debts owed to the US and US citizens.

Just context from a historian and my .02 for background. "Alas, Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States." -author unknown.

Almost completely off topic, but my wife is Mexican-American and we'll get into these debates on "whose land is it anyway" when the topic of immigration comes up. I make it a point to tell her that first Spain and later Mexico invited white settlers into Texas from America (and also Europe) because they were struggling to find Spanish or Mexican settlers dumb enough to settle Comancheria. The Comanches burned back the Spanish settlement line almost 1,000 miles back into Mexico except for some fortified towns like El Paso and San Antonio.

The short-lived Texas Republic was one of those improbable flukes of history. Fight the Texas revolutionary war 100 times, and the Texans probably lose 98-99 times out of a 100. Mexico was actually a well developed, well populated state in 1835, while Texas was a sparsely settled backwater frontier. Texas had no business beating Mexico.

Even when the US and Mexico went to war in 1845, a lot of Europeans thought the "professional" Mexican army built on the European model would make quick work of the rag-tag militia army of the Americans.

Literally, six flags over Texas
 

Y'all probably knew about this already, but in case you didn't, Six Flags is named that because the flags of Spain, Mexico, France, Republic of Texas, the CSA, and USA have flown over the state where the company was founded.

https://investors.sixflags.com/inves...ark%27s%20name.

-

One thing to consider if that after TDM the countries outlined on maps no longer functionally exist. Federal power only extends as far as agencies and military units that recognize that authority. So Mexico and Force Cuba invading isn't so much resisted by the US government but a bunch of individual towns in the invaded states.

Additionally I imagine the situation in Mexico likely isn't too different than the US with MilGov, CivGov, and New America. Multiple factions in Mexico have different influence with different military units and relationships with Russia and Cuba. The force invading the US is just one of the power blocs in the country.

I would also posit that post-TDM the US southwest is going to have seen a massive wave of emigration. Deserts have a low carrying capacity. A lot of cities of the Southwest are impractical without a lot of fuel-intensive infrastructure.

So not only is the southern border not have a lot of coordinated defense but what people are left don't have a lot of resources available to defend against a moderately coordinated and cohesive force. That's even ignoring the heavy handed and draconian resource stealing by the USG.