Mexico

[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.

[Olefin]

Pushing the Mexicans out of Texas clearly should be a very high priority for MilGov - to me its the reason why the history in Howling Wildnerness makes no sense as it specifially applies to the 49th and to Texas and Oklahoma in general - the US needs oil and Texas has it in abundance in wells that were capped but not destroyed (per Red Star, Lone Star) but somehow they never get around to getting those men to where they can at least take bacj part of central and southern Texas, let alone defend some of the last remaining refineries for that oil.

plus Mexican forces arent exactly formidable - if you look at their 2000 order of battle they are highly fragmented, low on AFV's and very susceptible to playing one off versus the other - but with 43,000 plus troops sent home the US never manages to push them out of Texas, let alone the native Texans push them out? (i.e. according to 2300 Texas is part of Mexico for almost a hundred years)

after all the US still has nukes as well as cruise missiles and at least some aircraft that can deliver them - so why isnt Mexico City, Monterrey, etc.. all big smoking holes in the ground?

and the Red Star, Lone Star module itself basically says that Texas is one its way to throwing the Mexicans at least partially out - i.e. Kingsley being the first President of the Lone Star Republic is not just foreshadowed its basically in BOLD as a fact -

resolving the situation in Texas is one big reason I wish that somehow the Twilight 2000 Official game could be started again - or at least some kind of statement by the orginal authors on what was going to happen there say between 2001-2005 to show what they intended to happen there

The whole Mexico attacking the US in many ways doesnt seem that well thought out - especially with the fact that their logistics are so bad (mentioned in both modules and Challenge Magazine) that I dont know how they are even keeping their guys supplied with ammo enough to fight off the native Texans let alone the US forces

oh and I dont mean thought out by the authors but since they wargamed it I mean thought out as to why Mexico as a country would have invaded the US in the first place unless they were counting on the US falling apart to keep them from getting vaporized - i.e. you dont invade a sovereign nation that has nukes, gas shells, etc.. when you dont have them unless you have some kind of real ace in the hole - and Division Cuba really isnt that

its one thing to do a raid on the US and then pull back and hit hard any punitive force coming across the Rio Grande and say why are you wasting your men on us instead of Russia - its another to try to reverse the Mexican American War and hold territory.

(keep in mind that Texans in general are some of the best armed civilians in the US - I can only imagine how outgunned some Mexican and even Soviet troops would be by many average Texan citizens)

[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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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.

Here's an amusing/disturbing idea - Munson started voicing beliefs aligned with those of New America (maybe even started quoting lines from Hughes' political manifesto) and was relieved on the grounds of psychological impairment.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Targan

Here's an amusing/disturbing idea - Munson started voicing beliefs aligned with those of New America (maybe even started quoting lines from Hughes' political manifesto) and was relieved on the grounds of psychological impairment.

A disturbing idea that could make for some good storytelling. What if new America really did have Munson stashed someplace? Wouldn't that provide the United States with an interesting dilemma? Goodness, what a problem that would be!

[Matt Wiser]

Web: how's this for the Mexicans reinforcing Texas: those units were already north of the rail junctions as a theater reserve, and were thus not affected by the nuclear strikes on the supply lines? And the Mexican Army commander in the region wants to hold onto as much of Texas as he can, so that when the time comes to cut a deal, he's got some chips he can bargain with...

[DocSavage45B10]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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.

Section 4 of the Ammendment XXV specifies that a President may declare himself incompetent or be declared incompetent by his Vice President and a majority of his cabinent, or other body as Congress may by law provide. In both cases official letters to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to take effect.

In either case the incapatitated President can return to acting President by sending letters to stating that no inability exists to the leaders of the Senate and House. Such a declaration of ability may be contested by the Vice (and Acting) President (or presumably another acting President by the Succession Act of 1947) and a majority his Cabinent, in which case the descision is referred to Congress.

As per the Presidential Succession Act, in order for the chairman of the JCS to assume the powers of Acting President, the entire cabinent would have to be incapable of acting as President.

Basically as long as there exists a Senate and a House President Munson can claim his office by informing them of his ability to do so. What's interesting is that the Acting President of both CIVGOV and MILGOV might have problems with this, and might both concievably protest. Except in MILGOV's case, this would require recognizing the disputed body that lead to their split in the first place.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by DocSavage45B10

Section 4 of the Ammendment XXV specifies that a President may declare himself incompetent or be declared incompetent by his Vice President and a majority of his cabinent, or other body as Congress may by law provide. In both cases official letters to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to take effect.

In either case the incapatitated President can return to acting President by sending letters to stating that no inability exists to the leaders of the Senate and House. Such a declaration of ability may be contested by the Vice (and Acting) President (or presumably another acting President by the Succession Act of 1947) and a majority his Cabinent, in which case the descision is referred to Congress.

As per the Presidential Succession Act, in order for the chairman of the JCS to assume the powers of Acting President, the entire cabinent would have to be incapable of acting as President.

Basically as long as there exists a Senate and a House President Munson can claim his office by informing them of his ability to do so. What's interesting is that the Acting President of both CIVGOV and MILGOV might have problems with this, and might both concievably protest. Except in MILGOV's case, this would require recognizing the disputed body that lead to their split in the first place.

This is an excellent resource, Doc. Thanks for posting this.

This isn’t really what I meant by criteria for having the Joint Chiefs hand the reins back to the President. There’s what’s written in the Constitution, and then there’s what people in power actually do. There is an excellent chance that the Joint Chiefs see politicians as being the [expletive deleted] who got the country into this [expletive deleted] mess in the first place. There’s an excellent chance that they may be reluctant to take Munson’s say-so that he’s ready to resume his position as the chief executive of the nation. The Joint Chiefs might also feel that a guy who cracked up at the beginning of the post-Exchange crisis might not be trustworthy in 2001, regardless of what he says or what his therapist says. Honestly, I think the issue of letter writing, Cabinet approval or disapproval, and Congressional voting comes after the people who are harboring Munson (assuming Milgov or Civgov is) decide they are going to let him see the light of day again. The Joint Chiefs have everything to lose and a questionable amount to gain by trying to re-install Munson as POTUS.

Assuming that the Joint Chiefs are so loyal to the Constitution that they want to have Munson re-instated after satisfying themselves that his previous inability has resolved itself, then they still face the problem of getting approval from the various parties mentioned. Milgov doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the Civgov Congress, President, or Cabinet (the last of which would be appointed by someone elected by a legislature whose legal standing is very much in doubt and which is contested by Milgov in any event). We see no mention of Milgov doing much of anything to restore a Congress or civilian executive. So even if the Joint Chiefs are inclined to hand supreme executive power back to Munson because they are loyal to the Constitution, and even if they somehow become satisfied that his mental condition warrants consideration for re-installment, neither Vice President nor Cabinet nor Congress exist in Milgov to provide a legal basis for Munson’s resumption of his duties as President.

Of course, none of the aforementioned obstacles really matter if the Joint Chiefs are determined to restore Munson to his former position. Some sort of legal nicety can be crafted and left to the law students and historians to debate down the road. If Milgov has been harboring Munson, then the only criterion that matters is whether the Joint Chiefs are willing to hand power back to him.

If Civgov has been harboring Munson, then things can unfold more-or-less as outlined in the Constitution—provided, of course, that whoever has possession of Munson decides to allow him to write the appropriate letters and have them delivered. There’s the question of the legitimacy of Congress in 2001, but that’s another issue. Of course, Broward might simply have Munson killed to prevent his return. I’m sure there are other actions he could take to block Munson from returning—not the least of which would be to point out that Munson broke down under pressure and therefore Congress would be insane to put him back in place. On the other hand, the resumption of power of the last living legitimate POTUS might close the breach between Milgov and Civgov. (Heavy emphasis on MIGHT) Whatever Milgov think of the Civgov Congress, Munson is the real deal. Of course, they’d still want to satisfy themselves that he wouldn’t pooch everything they have done to put the country back together—and this might prove an insurmountable obstacle for a restored Munson Administration. However, the restoration of an unquestionably legitimate POTUS in 2001 would be a real propaganda coup for Civgov, regardless of what the Joint Chiefs choose to do.

If New America has been harboring Munson (not that I think there’s an easy path to explain how such a thing would have happened), then the Constitutional route is out. It doesn’t really matter, though. New America would use him as a figurehead, nothing more.

If some other party was harboring Munson, the outcome of bringing him back into the public eye would depend a great deal on what that group wanted to achieve. A warlord would want legitimacy and keep Munson on a set of strings. If somehow the Shogun in Nevada got hold of Munson, for instance, Munson’s role would be to appoint the Shogun as senior military man with some sort of political power to boot. A military man might behave like a warlord, or he might actually treat the President like the President. General Thomason of Fort Huachuca would treat the President as the President. The CG of Sixth US Army might recognize a Munson Presidency, or the CG might ask Colorado Springs for guidance. Admiral MacDowell of First District might recognize Munson’s authority, or he might have Munson fed to the fish. The possibilities are endless.

[James Langham]

A few random thoughts:

* Munson has sympathy for some of New America's philosophies

* Munson is held by New America

* Munson wanders off and acts as a hermit or similar under a new identity

* There is a double that can pass himself off well enough to convince many people

[Rainbow Six]

The whole thing about the President reminds me a bit of the film "By Dawn's Early Light" where if I recall correctly the President (played by Martin Landau) is missing for a period of time and there is some debate about his bona fides when he is eventually found.

Thanks for posting that exceprt from HW Webstral. It's been some years since I last saw a copy. Interesting that it suggests (to me at least) that the Alternate National Military Command Centre (and presumably the Joint Chiefs themselves?) was located in Fort Ritchie, Maryland, until well into 1999, which raises the question of how the personnel from Fort Ritchie got to Colorado Springs - by air? Overland convoy?