StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Let us imagine for the moment that in the near future the USA, despairing of any other solution to the crisis of immigration in the southwest, resolves to annex central america, including Mexico, and bring these areas up to the standards of the rest of the USA, incorporating them eventually as states. The new border would be the far more defendable Panama-Columbian border. The Republic starts with Panama, engineering an incident there which threatens the canal, and using this for the induction of troops, and reoccupation of that state. The second is Belize; a former British colony, with a large anglophone population, which is induced through financial incentive to statehood. Gradually the other central american countries are subsumed next through a variety of methods. Cuba is also subsumed after the death of Castro.

Mexico, increasingly fearful, seeks allies. Countries long suspicious of American hegemonic aspirations have taken advantage of our local distraction to exert influence in their own local spheres, and thus are capable of responding. An alliance of the EU (including 2004 expansion but halted there), Russia, Canada, Venezuela and Brazil is formed to halt the American aggression.

The US, after completing the subjagation of central america, turns north. Planning to break up the alliance with a quick move against the object that formed it--Mexico--columns race into the country from both north and south, supported by aerial and amphibious assault. The Mexican defence and minor contigents of foreign troops collapse and Mexico City is devastated to shock the alliance into submission. Instead this stiffens their resolve; and a general war commences.

We shall assume that this conflict takes place around 2020; and that anti-ballistic missile systems prevent the easy use of nuclear weapons.

The real test is not intended to be a match of the technological systems of the two groups, but rather a consideration of the respective general capability and endurance that each has.

The American goal is to win the war retaining all historical territory, and being confirmed in the annexation of central america and Mexico.

The goal of the allies is to force the United States to abandon all territory in central america and Mexico, excepting Belize (dependant upon free elections monitored by the allies), and pay reparations to Mexico in particular.


NOTE: In no way do I think the events herein are remotely realistic; they are simply being posed to question the abstract capability of endurance of the various powers named in alignment against each other.

Hard to say, methinks. A lot of it depends on politics and the general populace. Vietnam or World War II? I'm leaning towards a Vietnam-type mentality among the population, though if the rest of Central America was taken so easily that might indicate the general pacifcation of the hipp- er, American citizens. If there is no significant amount of dissent back in the States, the US can steamroll Mexico. The endurance of the American war machine lies solely upon popular opinion.

The US did steamroll Mexico. That was the opening move of the war in an effort to break up the coalition against the US. So everything really begins with Mexico occupied.

Other notes: Latino population will be generally loyal; some excellent soldiers from Belize, Panama, less so other occupied territories but still extant.

Two years into the war there will be a Tory revolt in the UK in a last-ditch effort to escape the EU.

If Canada suffers sufficiently, it might outright switch sides; but we're talking considerable occupation of territory, major casualties and defeat of armies, etc. Therefore, one major aim of the coalition would be to keep Canada in the war, since it provides a second front.

Columbia is neutral, and recovering from the long civil war which only ended the prior decade. It seperates the South American coalition states from U.S. territory. Well, in fact, any nation named here is neutral (and for these purposes, we will assume it won't get involved unless you have an army march across across its territory, etc).

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:snip

Two years into the war there will be a Tory revolt in the UK in a last-ditch effort to escape the EU.

snip.

Just a point, its a bit unreasonable to judge what the Brits will do like this otherwise you just end up setting the senarios to your preffered ending. Britian, if anything, will stand up to the power it sees as trying to be a hegemon.

I'll have to be brief here, but the Sheer distance involved would probably see the EU going for Politacal action rather than military. Britains liable tosend troops to reinforce Canada, shutdonw and take by force the US planes and equipment in British Soil and help Belize to give itself a Jungle Warfare scenario (Especially as it's more liekly to side with Britain and EU as there's very little economic incentive to do otherwise. [NB. Belize is where the British Army Spent years practicing Jungle Warfare, does the US want a second Vietnam for no appreciable gain?]

I'm unclear as to why the US wants to Invade Mexico in the First place? It's cheaper and easier to give them economic aid (which you'll have to do anyway after you invade) and help raise the standard of living to prevent Emigree's. PLus the Huge Latino/Hispanic component of the US population might have a thing or two to say to the US government that attacks Mexico for no good reason. That's a War in Mexico, a Second front on the Canadian Border staring to form, a Jungle War brewing in Belize and a possible Civil Unrest in Mainland US. Not the best outcome you could ask for.

Better might be the first part of your plan (take panama, but beware of having to fight in the hills, you need to get a US friendly Politician in power and have them go for a referendum to become a US state), then deliver a huge Cash boost to Mexico (that will make your Hispanic voters happy, and with the right spin your WASP's will be happy too), and cement relations with both Canada and UK so you keep a Rival power block to EU(which will probably absorb Russia eventually) and China.

Thank you for the answers so far. This scenario does have a purpose in the way it is laid out. Please continue your speculation.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Thank you for the answers so far. This scenario does have a purpose in the way it is laid out. Please continue your speculation.

I would also point out that if this were to occur you will also have NZ and Aussie siding with Britian I dont know about India, but they would not be impressed with the US.

I was trying to recreate the War of the League of Augsburg in modern times with America as France and see what people thought of the situation and the American capability of endurance. Thank you for the information you provided.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I was trying to recreate the War of the League of Augsburg in modern times with America as France and see what people thought of the situation and the American capability of endurance. Thank you for the information you provided.

Ahh, I should have known
Just remember we are not in those times and with differnt priorites, agendas and capabilities you have a change in the whole dynamic of the situation and where it can lead.

The Canadian border is going to be a bitch to defend, going both ways.

US ground forces vs. indigenous Canadian forces = is there any doubt?
But if the EU and Russia start using Canada as a beachhead, like USA -> Britain -> France in WW2, things start getting dicey.

But then there are also other factors to consider:
- How is the power projection of the EU nations and Russia? Are any of them equipped to fight an overseas war?

- How any of them expect to maintain air superiority in Canada or over the water?

- America has to deal with the logisitics of fighting a 2-front war, but the allies have to deal with the logistics of fighting an major overseas war - something only the USA has done in modern warfare.

The American goal is to win the war retaining all historical territory, and being confirmed in the annexation of central america and Mexico.

Guerilla warfare and underground resistance tactics can't be accounted for, but as far as Normandy-style liberation of Mexico goes, it ain't gonna happen.
Even USA would be hard pressed to pull it off, let alone nations which have little to no experience in fighting major distant ground wars. (Britain and Canada did help out in Iraq and Afghanistan, but could either have done it alone?)

The goal of the allies is to force the United States to abandon all territory in central america and Mexico, excepting Belize (dependant upon free elections monitored by the allies), and pay reparations to Mexico in particular.

This would require either of two things:

1. Build up a force in Central America large enough to retake Mexico.
- Impossible.
It took a lot of doing before USA could get into position to blow away Iraq's piddly military in Desert Storm II.
Even using Venezuela as a forward base, you are still fighting a war half a planet away in the USA's own backyard. No.

2. Build up in Canada, and use it as a launching point for strikes into the USA. Make the cost of fighting the northern war too great, and try to force America to negotiate in the south.
- Less impossible than invading Mexico.

I'm thinking maybe something Russia -> Canada, but that leaves Alaska and its F-15 squadrons in the middle. ??

I think the issue here is that the combined EU militaries are limited by the fact that they were traditionally designed for defense, not power projection.

While altogether they might be a match for the USA's military, the question is if they can fight effectively half a world away.

Most "USA vs. the world" scenarios involve some kind of stalemate or MAD (depending on if nukes are allowed or not), resulting from a conclusion of something like this: "US power projection capabilities, while great, cannot match the combined resources of the other nations defensive militaries."

Now you're reversing the situation, which doesn't seem to bode well for the EU, IMO.
Trying to assemble an army right in front of the USAF doesn't seem like a very good idea...


Economically, I have no idea how this works.
I think USA would be fucked though... the cost of invading Mexico, then rebuilding it while simultaneously defending it from resistance fighters, the cost of potentially increased terrorist activity, the cost of preventing potentially increased terrorist activity, the cost of defending the nation and preparing for war with the EU, and so on.

I think the main question is: where does the Middle East fit into all this?

Raven wrote:The Canadian border is going to be a bitch to defend, going both ways.

US ground forces vs. indigenous Canadian forces = is there any doubt?
But if the EU and Russia start using Canada as a beachhead, like USA -> Britain -> France in WW2, things start getting dicey.

But then there are also other factors to consider:
- How is the power projection of the EU nations and Russia? Are any of them equipped to fight an overseas war?

No. Both the EU and Russia working together couldn't hope to support a force of notable size in North America

- How any of them expect to maintain air superiority in Canada or over the water?

They could expect to manage those lofty goals for about the time of flight for US missiles and torpedoes.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I was trying to recreate the War of the League of Augsburg in modern times with America as France and see what people thought of the situation and the American capability of endurance. Thank you for the information you provided.

I think the biggest problem would be domestic. The large Hispanic Population would be in uproar over a War with Mexico, the population in general will baulk at any signs of large casualties, and the Rich will have a fit at a war that fucks up trade with the EU (large market) and costs money with a further outlay afterwards to repair the damage caused.

You could do it, but the problems of two fronts, plus a civil outcry and the possibility of a protracted war would make this a bad move on anyones part.