Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
And I don't think that you could count on the degree of public support for war here in the States that something like Pearl Harbor engendered because, like Rainbow, I don't think that either the Chinese or the Russians would be foolish enough to attack [first] U.S. assets directly. I can see a lot of the American public not getting behind full mobilization because of the "it's not our fight/we've got our own problems to deal with", quasi-isolationist mentality prevelant here prior to both previous World Wars. This would be especially so given a couple of preceding years of economic strife here. In fact, I could even see a backlash against our involvement in overseas conflicts against major powers. Any war against both China and Russia would require full mobilization (the draft, industrial conversion, rationing, etc.). We're talking total war again. In both World Wars, the federal government grew and new government agencies arose to mobilize the economy, galvanize public support, and repress all dissent.
Could full mobilization trigger a spate of anti-federalist militias and neo-States' Rights groups (i.e. "New America" in the original versions of the game) and such attempting to secede in response to what they see as an unnecessary war and an ensuing overreach of federal power? Given today's political climate here (exemplified by the recent showdown between a Nevada rancher and the federal gov.), I very well could see something like that.
I don't know. This is a bit pessimistic, I know. Is this too much or does it work, given what we've already established?
|
I think it's a good idea and would mix things up a bit in the US.
A few other thoughts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
- The United States brokers deals with Poland and Latvia to base American and NATO troops there on a semi-permanent basis. In response, Russia begins negotiating the placement of Russian military bases in Venezuela and Nicaragua.
|
I'm still wary about a US base in the Baltics...I think part of the logic behind the Russians thinking they can get away with taking the Baltics is that they think NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltic States. A US base in Latvia at least partially negates that line of thinking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
2029: - Russia has been pushing Mexico to invade the southwestern U.S. since the commencement of hostilities with NATO. Recognizing American weakness, and with the backing of Russian forces based in Latin America (roughly a reinforced, combined arms division), and elements from the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Cuban militaries, Mexican and allied troops cross the border into Southern California, Arizona, and Texas.
|
Sorry, but I'm not sure about of parts of this. It's two years into the War...have things gone nuclear by then? Is it likely that the Russians and their Latam allies would have the logistical wherewithal to move a force that large north (it's about 3,000 kilometres from Mangua. Nicaragua to McAllen, Texas and closer to 5,000 from Caracas, Venezuela to McAllen)? If that level of logistics is still in place wouldn't the US notice such a large movement, come to the inescapable conclusion that there's only one place such a large force moving north could be headed for and drop a few nukes on them somewhere north of Managua? I just can't see a situation where the other side still have the means to move such a large force over relatively large distances at land or sea
and things in the US are that bad that the US doesn't have the means to know they're coming and do something about it. If it's before nukes are first used then the US Air Force can bomb them all the way through Central America or attack their ships if they come by sea (if the Navy doesn't get them first).
If I remember correctly the original Division Cuba came into being because the Cubans were crapping themselves that the Americans would nuke them because of the Russian presence so they wanted the Russians out. That coincided with the Mexican invasion of the US. which happened not as part of an organised plan to attack the US but as a response to escalating violence in the southwestern States which (by implication at least) was causing casualties amongst Mexican civilians.
I very much favour the idea of the US - Mexican War being a war that happens almost by accident; as the rest of the World is going down the toilet tensions boil over along the border...food is in short supply, there are tensions between US citizens and Mexican immigrants (many of whom are illegal), the US has little to no regular armed forces in the area, just an ad hoc mix of reserves, police, and the border patrol, all supplemented by local militias. Things get out of hand, there's a massacre of Mexican civilians at the Gateway Bridge in Matamoros / Brownsville - nobody's really sure who started it, each side blames the other, the Mexican Army are sent to the border with orders to stay on their side but things just get out of hand and within days the Mexican Army have crossed the RIo Grande. At this point the Cubans act as they did in the original V1 timeline and suggest to their Russian guests that now might be a good time to leave and the Mexican Government are offering them passage home in exchange for a little detour so they ship out on a couple of Cuban flagged ships, praying that what's left of the US Navy in the Caribbean doesn't intercept them...the Nicaraguans jump on the same bandwagon and the Russians based there go overland...all militaries are smaller now than they were in the original T2K...700 men from Cuba and 300 from Nicaragua would put less strain on the logistics and still deliver a meaningful force on to US soil.
I also think there's an alternative option for Russian forces in Nicaragua and Venezuela, which is to make a grab for the Panama Canal (am I right in thinking that the US no longer has any forces permanently stationed in Panama)? A VDV assault on the canal zone early in the War staging out of Venezuela and / or Nicaragua might be an interesting scenario, and one that would open a Central American front much faster than any of the above scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
I'm not very happy with the progression of the war in Asia. I think I'm going to switch to a start-small, piecemeal Chinese expansion approach, similar to the long-game Russia is playing, starting with the Vietnam and expand it from there. Even in 15 years, the Chinese are probably not going to be able to successfully retake Taiwan without first destroying it. I think that the rest of the Spratlys are they key, but I'm not sure how aggressive the Chinese would play prior to a major diversion of U.S. force and focus (i.e. Korea). Then again, I think that North Korea would be more inclined to risk everything on a gamble to seize the south after the U.S. displayed some kind of weakness in the region. Would successful Chinese seizure of Vietnam's Spratly claims be enough?
-
|
I think it partly depends on what sort of alliance - if any - the Americans and Vietnamese have. If there is some sort of alliance in place - even if just diplomatic rather than overtly military - and the Americans take no tangible action following a Chinese seizure of the Spratlys that might serve as the incentive that the North Koreans need to make their move. Perhaps coupled with the Chinese reassuring their North Korean clients that the US will take no action because it would screw up the US economy. If we accept that the North Koreans have their own functional nukes by then as well that trinity may give the North Koreans the confidence they need to think they can pull off a successful conquest of the South.