Mexico

[Legbreaker]

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).

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Would you even need to use nukes?

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.

[James Langham]

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.

[James1978]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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?

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?

[Matt Wiser]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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).

Not only is it unlikely there's enough conventional munitions to do the job, but it's becoming time-critical. SOF may also not be available, and rail yards are kinda too big for an SF A-Team. The object of the exercise here is to neutralize the facilities so that the invasion sputters to a halt, and that repair time is going to be....lengthy. There's no other choice. Thus CINC-SAC receives his orders, and several dial-a-yield B-61s get dropped.....

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Matt Wiser]

This is '98: General Cummings and the JCS are the de facto government. CivGov hasn't yet been formed. The Joint Chiefs see a military situation on the southern border that cannot be solved via conventional means alone. Not to mention that SAC's remaining bombers by this time are likely dedicated nuclear strike platforms. The objective is threefold: blast Mexican supply lines to such a degree that effective restoration is almost impossible, force the invasion to a standstill, and to punish the Mexican Government for crossing the border in the first place. The latter is accomplished by a ALCM strike on the Presidential Palace on the "low" yield setting (20 KT). And with five weapons, six at the most, those objectives are accomplished. There's still Mexican forces north of the border, but now they're split into factions, and hopefully can be dealt with in the future.

[Legbreaker]

President Munson was relieved on the 19th of May 1998. His successor soon succumbed to heart failure, and his successor committed suicide.

The Mexicans sent their army north on the 2nd of June, just two weeks after Munson was relieved.

We do not know how long Munsons two successors lasted, but surely it was more than a fortnight for both of them combined?

There was no Milgov or Civgov until around the 19th of April 1999, well after the Mexicans were stopped at Red River (autumn 1998?). According to the books, there is no mention of nukes (either way). Soon after the Mexicans/Soviets were stopped, the Mexican civil war broke out and Mexicans fell to fighting amongst themselves rendering the necessity of nukes on logistical (and pretty much any other) targets a pointless exercise.

It would therefore seem to be a fairly small window of opportunity for nukes to be used, however the main world history (V1 refs book and V2.x BYB) states

As the autumnal rains begin, NATO and the Pact Initiate a short and weak second nuclear exchange, directed primarily at surviving industrial centers in the United Kingdom and Italy.

The timing could work for nuke strikes at Mexico, even though not specifically mentioned, but I'm still unconvinced they'd be needed.

[Webstral]

Matt brings up an important point regarding the US response to the Mexican invasion. It’s 1998. Four guys, all senior military men, are running the United State s of America. One of them is first among peers. The United States has been brought to its knees by nuclear action. The entire global order has been disrupted—even for countries that haven’t been touched by nuclear fire. It’s difficult for us to know the frame of mind of the Joint Chiefs, and yet it’s hard to say how they would respond to the Mexican invasion without having a decent understanding.

There is a case to be made for action running the gamut from conventional strikes against the enemy’s logistical system to a massive strategic nuclear attack on Mexico. A tiny number of people make the decision. Logic certainly plays a part, but the frame of mind of men who have been under unprecedented stress for a year may play an even larger part.

Assuming that the US is not responsible for nuclear strikes against Mexican oil, the Joint Chiefs understand that the Mexicans have been duped by the Soviets. One can argue that lingering Mexican resentment about a raft of issues going back to the Mexican-American War play their part. Nonetheless, the Mexican invasion is not the action of a neighbor playing out ages-old hostilities, such as Russo-Polish or German-Polish issues. It’s bad, but it’s an aberration.

All this said, the surest means of restoring the situation is to turn the twenty largest Mexican population centers into irradiated ruin. Given that a single boomer can accomplish this mission (and it’s mid-1998), I daresay destruction of said cities is within Milgov’s capacity. Yet the Joint Chiefs don’t kill 60% of the population of Mexico. Why not?

At the other end of the spectrum, you have the option of conventional strikes against the Mexican logistical system. Assuming that a few precision-guided weapons and platforms are left, the destruction of a handful of rail bridges ought to do the trick. You don’t even have to go after rail hubs to sever the rail connections between the front and the Mexican interior. We can’t rule this option out entirely because GDW is silent on the subject.

One reason not to go the conventional route, though, is psychology. A nuke makes a statement. A nuke tells Mexico that it could get much, much worse for them. A nuke very near a city is hard to ignore.

Of course, the Mexicans don’t seem to get the message, do they? We know from the printed materials that the Mexican Army stays in the US right through the end of 2000 at least. We know as well that five brigades are sent to Texas in 1999 to support Fourth Mexican Army against the counteroffensive by Fifth US Army. Clearly, in 1999 the Mexicans intend to stay.

This brings us back to psychology. Clearly, there is a lot of thinking going on that is not addressed at all in the printed materials. GDW seems to have intended it to be this way. At various points in time I have tried to imagine what the Mexicans hoped to accomplish and how they hoped to accomplish it. My ideas are only one possibility.

[Raellus]

Zimmeran Telegram c.1917 = Zhukov Telegram c. 1997?

Might the Mexicans just be trying to take back some or all of the territories they lost to the U.S.A. in the mid-to-late 19th century?

Considering how hard pressed the U.S. already was when Mexico invaded, and adding in the already prodigal use of nuclear weapons in other theaters (as James already pointed out, using small nukes probably didn't seem like such a big deal anymore), and recognizing that Mexico didn't have the capacity to retaliate in kind, a tactical nuclear strike against at least one major road/rail node in Northern Mexico makes a lot of strategic and operational sense. It would blunt any Mexican drive but seriously impeding their logistical capabilities (already pretty sketchy), as well as sending a strong message to the Mexican government. And it would allow the American government, such as it is, more time to organize a strong [enough] conventional response.

[ArmySGT.]

This thread reminded me to look and see if Milsketch has an update.

Yes, my June 2010 edition is now the February 2012 edition with more NATO standard graphics available.

Why they chose not to name the graphics and have them only numbered I will never understand.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

It’s 1998. Four guys, all senior military men, are running the United State s of America.

But are they? Munson is still there in charge just a fortnight before Mexico steps over the border. He's followed by two other civilians who last an unknown period of time.
Perhaps they are in charge towards the end of the year, but it seems exceptionally unlikely in the first days and perhaps even weeks of the Mexican campaign.

And that leads to another question - what actually becomes of Munson? All we know is he's "relieved". It's quite possible he's still alive somewhere and if he was to recover, might just have a strong claim on the country. It's not like he actually resigned or died...

[Webstral]

President Munson is an interesting issue. I must confess that I’d never given his fate after being relieved any thought until Leg brought it up.

As far as the timing of the takeover of the Joint Chiefs, Leg is right that there is no specific reference to when Munson’s two successors take over. Most importantly, Howling Wilderness gives us no date as to when the Secretary of Energy commits suicide. However, the first paragraph after the heading “The Mexican and Soviet Invasions” tells us that the Joint Chiefs were governing the country as of 02 JUN 98. In the absence of evidence stating that either of Munson’s successors were still in power as of or after 02 JUN 98, I take the foregoing as evidence that by 02 JUN 98 the Secretary of State had his heart attack and the Secretary of Energy took her own life.

Still, we don’t know what happened to Munson. It’s an interesting question. How long after his breakdown does he survive? Being the last truly legitimate successor, Munson has the best claim to lead the nation. Unfortunately for him, this fact would make him very unpopular with both Milgov and Civgov. If Munson ends up in the protective custody of the Joint Chiefs after his breakdown and somehow survives through 2001, then either he is legitimately incompetent to lead or has been declared so at the behest of the Joint Chiefs. Either way, it’s unlikely he’ll resurface. If he is sufficiently competent to show to the public for the purposes of supporting Milgov, then he’s sufficiently competent to lead (otherwise his support doesn’t mean anything).

Still, there’s an outside chance that the Joint Chiefs are holding Munson in case he does recover sufficiently to lead. This idea begs more interesting questions. What criteria must be met for the Joint Chiefs to bring Munson out from under wraps, knowing that if they do so he will assume the presidency? This is asking a lot of the loyalty of the Joint Chiefs to the pre-war chain of command, but this level of loyalty isn’t entirely outside the realm of possibility. A good novel might be written showing the thought processes of the Joint Chiefs as Munson increasingly shows that he might resume the presidency.

It’s also possible that Civgov has him in protective custody, though I find this prospect more remote than the idea that Milgov is holding Munson. If Civgov has Munson, then they are playing the same game as outlined above. If Munson is competent to lead, then Civgov would unveil him when they think it is to their advantage. The twist here is that while Broward would hate the idea, the rest of Congress might support it. No skin off their noses, so to speak. And Milgov would have no further claims to independent power, though they might deny that Munson was in good enough condition to lead.

It’s also possible that a third party has been hiding Munson. It’s hard to see that either Milgov or Civgov would allow themselves to be subjected to the authority of Munson if he were to resurface in 2001. In all likelihood, they would deny his mental competence and drive on. Still, if Munson somehow were to find himself in the hands of a strong cantonment, a third claimant to executive authority of the US could emerge. This seems unlikely, but it would be good storytelling.

All very interesting. I’m surprised I never thought about it. Good job, Leg.

Edit: I added p.9 of Howling Wilderness for those who don't have access to it.