![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
All the Soviets have to do is link up with units in Canada. A possibility earlier in the game, but less and less likely once Mexico falls apart. Even if the Soviets can get to the Pacific coast they've got a chance of seizing a few ships and sailing to link up with friendly units. Over in the Caribbean there's almost no chance what with the high intensity of naval warfare in the early part of the war and theorised continued limited amount of shipping later (the Civgov sponsored mission to Yugoslavia as an example).
Canada/Alaska might not be home, but it's a damn sight closer than Cuba was and much less of a nuclear target (the main reason the Cubans "asked" them to leave in the first 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 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I had a look at the Mexican rail map again. I think four strikes out to do it for the Mexican rail network: Los Mochis, Chihuahua, Monclova, and Monterrey. The rail crossroads at Los Mochis isn't actually at Los Mochis, but that's a convenient reference point. Similarly, the points one wants to hit to keep the rail links from operating properly aren't really in the other cities.
Of course, road traffic to El Norte won't be halted by these four strikes. But knocking out the rail ought to take the steam out of the Mexican offensive. The Mexicans may very well try to find some way around the breaks in the network. I've been working on something on the side that posits a train of important equipment arriving in Mexican-controlled American territory just before the Second Mexican-American War starts. In any event, I think the American effort would be to halt offensive operations, not kill millions of Mexicans. We've got to live with these people after the Recovery, after all. This ain't Europe, Asia, or Africa.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yes. I was going to post something very similar yesterday but you've hit the nail on the head, Web.
__________________
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That's about what we discussed earlier, wasn't it, Web? A half-dozen or so weapons targeted on their LOCs, and a low-yield detonation on the Presidential Palace in Mexico City to take out the Government. Not turning all of Mexico City to slag, mind you, but taking out the Mexican political leadership in one swoop-and an ALCM set on the "low" setting (10-20 KT) would do just that.
If the weapons taking out the rail net were ground bursts, that ensures that there's no way the Mexicans can work their way around the gaps.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Would you even need to use nukes? Would a few cruise missiles with conventional warheads, or a couple of sabotage strikes not do almost as well?
Carried out at a critical moment, it could absolutely paralyse the Mexican advance and perhaps cause them to fall back to secure their supply lines. Combine it with troubles at home and those rail nexus may never be repaired (at least before the invasion collapsed anyway).
__________________
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 |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I was wondering the same thing. One possible reason not to use nukes might be the possibility of reprisals against US civilians in US territory occupied by the Mexicans.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
By that time of the war I think people will be regarding nukes as "normal." Plus nukes tend to make the damage somewhat more permanent.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In an ideal world, no. But this is a world where stocks of conventional cruise missiles and smart bombs are going to be severely depleted and what stocks do remain probably aren't sitting in storage in CONUS. Would enough of those weapons or even properly equipped aircraft be available to do the job the first time without having to go back?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That may be true, however how likely is it that US commanders (especially the President who I believe is supposed to authorise their use) would resort to nukes in virtually their own back yard if they can possibly avoid it?
A couple of B-52's loaded with simple bombs might be enough to get the job done and it's not like they lack the range to strike from wherever they're based. Perhaps a conventional strike(s) to begin with and only use nukes if that doesn't do the job? Could therefore have a couple of targets still non-irradiated that way.
__________________
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 |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() A single division, no matter how strong, hasn't a chance of pushing from the Texas/OK area up into the the northern Pacific NW. Early in the game its even less of a chance - They would have two basic routes open to them: Go north, and then cross the Rockies up in Idaho, or go west and cross the divide in Arizona, and push up through Cali and through Oregon and Washington State. Now the first one would be, in theory, easier to push northwards along the great plaines - save for the fact that the area plays to the strengths of US Equipment - IE: If you can see it, you can hit it. And if you can hit it, you can kill it. And if they get to the point where they hang left, you have perhaps the hardest roughest part of the Rocky Mountains to sneak through - an area where large formations can slide through passes that can be counted on one hand. The Second would be a little easier: The mountains there are relatively easy to slip through, and pushing north along the coast, is in theory, easier. However, its along the coast, and easier for the US to move forces hither and there to block it. But it all boils down to milage. Its just too far. To go from say, Tulsa OK to Seattle is 2013 miles. Unsupported, unable to get replacement supplies, and forced to live of the land - in an area known in parts as Badlands - I just can't see how thats doable.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon. Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
But they're not just a single Division are they?
They've got the Mexican military down in the south, plus their own Soviet units up in the north pushing south. And what is resisting them? Just a couple of US reserve units. Division Cuba might not have much of a chance to link up with friendly units to the north, but it's more of a chance than they have wishing for shipping to take them back home across the even more hostile Atlantic. It all comes down to the lesser of two bad choices for the Division commander.
__________________
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 |
![]() |
Tags |
mexico |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|