OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Olefin]

remember too in Red Dawn the invasion was helped by Mexican infiltrators who came in as illegal aliens and caused all kinds of problems at SAC bases during the initial invasion - you could see that for sure happening in 2030 but now its all over the Southwest and even further afield with how Mexican illegal alien workers are used in the US

so a Mexican invasion once the US was massively committed overseas is actually more plausible now than it was in the 1980's when the game was written

[Raellus]

Thanks for all of the input, guys. You've helped me come up with something that I think approaches plausibility.

How about this? Starting in 2015, in response to Russian annexation of Eastern Ukraine (I think it's safe to say now that the writing is on the wall), the U.S. negotiates permanent military base deals with Poland and the Baltic republics. As a tit-for-tat response, the Soviets negotiate base deals in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, starting later that year. That place as least some Russian military elements in the western hemisphere not too too far from the United States.

Later, as war breaks out in Asia between China and the U.S., prior to a planned Russian invasion of the Baltics, the Russians convince Mexico to take advantage of America's overextension overseas by attempting to regain the American southwest by force. The Russians provide direct military support- a new "Division Cuba", if you will- to the Mexicans. I bet that the Russians could cobble together at least a division from their personnel presited on their Latin American bases.

[Rainbow Six]

Rae, that sounds credible...just two thoughts

1. A US base in Poland fits well with the scenario and I like the idea of Russian bases in the Western hemisphere as a tit for tat measure, but I wonder if the US basing forces in the Baltic States might be enough to potentially prevent the Russians from invading? (I was thinking along the lines that the Russians go for the Baltics because they think NATO will let ultimately them get away with it - the presence of US troops permanently based - and thus demonstrating NATO's commitment to the Baltic States - there might be enough of a deterrent to make the Russians think twice about invading, which removes the whole flashpoint for the European War).

2. I can understand the Russians wanting to destabilise the US even more before they make their move but if the Mexicans attack the US with direct and overt Russian support before the War starts in Europe that's a direct attack on the most powerful NATO member. Again I think that goes against the Russians calculating that a fractured NATO will stand by whilst they try to make a land grab for the Baltics...going only for the Baltics they can downplay their hand and play all their propaganda cards...the Russian Ambassador to the UN is on every news channel telling anyone that will listen that Russia does not seek conflict with the West, their intentions are peaceful, designed only to protect Russian speakers from oppression, etc, etc.

If they have invaded the US all of that goes out of the window. They are in a full scale War which isn't what they gambled on.

Therefore I wonder if a better scenario might be to mirror what happened in the original timeline, i.e. have the Mexican invasion happen some considerable time after the fighting starts in Asia and Europe and be more something that happens as a reaction to unfolding events, perhaps after riots at one of the US / Mexican border crossings that are suppressed by authorities on the US side with significant loss of Mexican life rather than something that is planned well in advance?

[Olefin]

I agree with Rainbow as to the timing of any Mexican invasion of the US - sneaking in agents or provaceteurs is one thing - but for the Mexicans to think they have any chance of success they have to wait until the US is totally committed elsehwere and at most they are facing training troops, National Guard infantry units and police forces, and a very limited Air Force contingent - otherwise they would get butchered very quickly

i.e. in the original game it succeeded because the US had to scrape up forces to face them - and even then it came close to failure - if the Russians hadnt committed Division Cuba most likely the US 1999 counteroffensive into Texas would have succeeded and driven the Mexicans out - plus there were almost no Air Force units left to face them and those that were left had very little fuel to do more than a few missions due to the Russian nuke strikes

A USAF with its full fuel reserves available would crush any possible Mexican invasion force short of the one from Red Dawn (500,000 men if I remember right) in short order

[Raellus]

Yeah, I wasn't clear on the timing. A Mexican invasion would happen after the U.S. was committed to major military campaigns in Asia and in Europe. Only after the U.S. was engaged vs. Russia in the Baltics would the Mexicans opt to invade. But the Russians would be planting the seeds before an invasion, and would already have at least some combat troops in theater to support the Mexicans when they made their big move.

Barring a reverse in American budgetary policy and military strategy, in 15 years, a country committed to fighting the Chinese and North Koreans (at least) in Asia and Russia in Europe would be incredibly overstretched and vulnerable to a cunning and opportunitic Mexico.

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?

[Olefin]

keep in mind even during WWII by late 1944 there was a lot of oppostion to the war - especially as casualties mounted in Europe and the Pacific - one of the reasons they dropped the bomb on Japan was that Truman was worried that any invasion could possibly provoke widespread anti-war feeling and force him to scrap unconditional surrender for a negotiated peace

so heck yes - after a year or so or more of big time casualties, a draft and privation there could be a lot of opposition to the war

look at 9/11 - the attacks on Afghanistan within a few weeks were totally supported by the US population - by the time of the Iraq War you could already see how opposed much of the population was and by 2006 the President's party was thrown out of power only two years after an election when they had made gains in both the House and Senate - so could a war 18 months or so long start having American opposition groups - especially if things fall apart from nukes?

for sure

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by Olefin

keep in mind even during WWII by late 1944 there was a lot of oppostion to the war - especially as casualties mounted in Europe and the Pacific - one of the reasons they dropped the bomb on Japan was that Truman was worried that any invasion could possibly provoke widespread anti-war feeling and force him to scrap unconditional surrender for a negotiated peace

so heck yes - after a year or so or more of big time casualties, a draft and privation there could be a lot of opposition to the war

look at 9/11 - the attacks on Afghanistan within a few weeks were totally supported by the US population - by the time of the Iraq War you could already see how opposed much of the population was and by 2006 the President's party was thrown out of power only two years after an election when they had made gains in both the House and Senate - so could a war 18 months or so long start having American opposition groups - especially if things fall apart from nukes?

for sure

Throw in some money flowing from anonymous sources to some of the local militia groups and maybe put pressure on China to tighten up its markets so USA spirals into financial anarchy... Some food riots and maybe a major city or two going bankrupt. (Detroit) Lay off the police and firefighters and other essential services... throw in some race riots... America will be too busy trying to keep its internal affairs until control to help out in Europe.