[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Don't fall victim to the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

More tanks helps explain Mexico's success in taking parts of the U.S. Southwest (and continuing to hold U.S. territory past 2000).

More tanks doesn't have to mean nuclear warfare.

The U.S. would be reluctant to use nuclear weapons on its next-door neighbor due to the dangers of fallout. Here in Tucson, most of the big weather systems, especially during the summer monsoons, arrive from Mexico. Also, I think that the U.S. military would be confident that they could eject the Mexican military from U.S. territory with conventional forces. Obviously, when reconciling canon, it becomes apparent that the U.S. was unable to do that through 2001. That doesn't mean it didn't happen after that (unless you stick to the 2300 stuff- IMHO, the two settings need to be officially divorced from one another).

IMHO, people creating/running campaigns set in CONUS after 2000 should focus on ways for players to help eject the MA and Soviet forces still on U.S. soil instead of trying to RETCON canon. If we just focus on why the Mexican invasion couldn't have worked, we are effectively undermining a rich adventure setting.

The U.S. could winnow down the Mexican AFV fleet through conventional means and guerrilla warfare. San Diego, L.A., and Phoenix would be graveyards for dozens (if not hundreds) of poorly employed enemy tanks.

Give the Mexicans more tanks, then PCs are up against greater odds. I don't see a problem with that.

Or alternatively they had more tanks - but they never had the time to properly train enough mechanics and get enough spare parts

So they start the war with more tanks - but by 2001 they are very rare indeed - so its really what do they have in 2001 that matters -not what they had in 1998