A Looter's Guide to the US, 2005

[TKalbfus]

Ok if Mexico was perceived as an enemy that perception was correct under the Twilight 2000 scenario if it invaded the American southwest. The only thing is The US had nuclear weapons left over from its initial confrontation with the Soviet Union and Mexico never had nuclear weapons.

Now let me get this straight:

A non-nuclear country invades a nuclear one and grabs territory that it had lost in 1848 and gets away with it? Does the US let them take the Southwest away? If seems pretty foolhardy for a nunnuclear nation to attack a nuclear one, especially a nuclear nation that's exchanged nuclear attacks with another country. As was just said, it was a limited nuclear exchange, the US should have plenty left, so how could Mexico succeed with its invasion?

Let me add one more bit of historical trivia, in 1848 when Mexico lost this territory to the US in the first place, the US army defeated General Santa Anna's Army and occupied Mexico City and signed a peace treaty with the Mexican government paying a nominal fee to purchase the Southwest territories from Mexico and then withdrew. It seems that in Twilight 2000 the reverse of this would have to happen. Mexico would have to conquer the Entire United States and then force a settlement where it takes back the Southwest and Texas just like the US did with Santa Anna's army and government. I don't think it would be sufficient for Mexico simply to take over the Southwest and stop, the US will counter attack if this happenes. And remember the US has nuclear weapons and is the nominal "victor" of World War III since the Soviet Union collapses. Do you think that a country that just has been in a nuclear war with its opponent and won would let some third world country to the south just walk away with 1/3 of its territory without a fight? I guess the Mexican government was planning on a miracle happening when it attaked a nuclear power that was willing to use them when Mexico itself didn't have any of their own.

The only way Mexico could get away with this would be if it somehow knew that the entire US stockpile of nuclear weapons was destroyed in the limited nuclear exchage with Russia. This intelligence would have to be absolutely perfect. There would have to be absolutely no possibility of nuclear weapons left in Trident Submarines for instance. Mexico would have to be absolutely confident that the US had no overlooked nuclear weapons that the Russians didn't destroy.

 

[TKalbfus]

I don't know, the 2300 book says Mexico seized Texas in 1999 and the US government rolled over and played dead while it was trying to save Europe. This to me speaks of misplaced priorities. I remember playing the scenario in Poland that was dated August 2000, there was a US army at that time.

Ok, so maybe the US government was so completely destroyed that it could not respond to the Mexican incursion. Then by 2025, the US was still playing dead and Mexico took another bite. "The acquisition of .." (bombed out) "Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California gave Mexico resources and manufacturing plants that were essential for proper industrialization."

2025 hasn't happened yet by 2005. Don't you think its kind of demoralizing that by 2025 the US government has not yet gotten back on its feet to properly defend itself? I don't think that any future Twilight 2000 products should necessarily hew to this timeline. The future should not be written in stone, otherwise what's the point of the struggle or the RPG? The players or whoever should have a chance to determine an alternate course. 2025 is 28 years after World War III, there will be children who have grown to adulthood by the time 2025 rolls around.

Oh, there was a war between the US and "New America" in 2020. And Mexico was naturally willing to help these southerners in their fight for secession for a price. These southerners were willing to align themselves with Mexico and country that took the southern state of Texas from them?
I don't know about that, I've met a few southerners and been down there to, it seems to me that the South is more patriotic than the Northeast, where I live. I don't think they'd sit still and call a country that stole Texas a friend. Mexicans also tend to be a bit leftwing, it seems unnatural that they would align themselves with a conservative separatist south that believes in small government and the prominent display of the "Ten Commandments" in public courthouses and doesn't one of those commandments say, "Thou shalt not steal"? I believe the entity know as New America would consider themselves to be a Christian place and one of the Christian values they would cherish would be not to "kick someone when his down" this is the opposite of what a "good Samariton" should be.

Now why would the South want to be independent?
Perhaps "New America" doesn't like for abortion to be legal and wants to succeed because of that. Lets not discuss abortion, I don't want to go into that, but it seems to me that's an insufficient reason. I'm willing to accept that Mexico snatches Texas in 1999 since that's in Twilight's past, but I don't think 2005+ that Mexico should necessarily be able to keep it from that point on, the PCs should be able to do something that affects the situation. The PCs could be resistance fighters against the Mexican occupation and organize a guerilla army to kick the Mexicans out, that the 2300 future history says they fail is immaterial, Twilight 2000 should be able to follow its own path.

 

[jcrocker]

In the T2K rules, Mexico didn't get nuked - but a lot of the timeline seemed designed with one thing in mind:

"Make almost every nation hit rock bottom."

Lots of things that don't hold up to close scrutiny "happened" in the timeline, all for the express purpose of the rule above. NATO takes its last fleet-in-being and throws it at Karelia - and the fleet is wiped out. Britain and Italy engage in a nuclear exchange [I think that was just in first edition] while Greece attacks a NATO fleet rushing supplies to Turkey, wiping it out. And I could go on.

As far as I can tell, the main reason for sending everyone down to rock bottom was to get a world where the player characters can make a difference - indeed, they can become the unsung heroes of a post-apocalyptic world. Or Warlords. Whichever.

But actions that wouldn't make much difference [or be illegal!] in a 'realistic' WW3 scenario can become Epic in scale when everyone has been bombed flat.

As a device to aid gameplay, it's fine - as long as you take it for that, and accept the handwaves and the mumbling when you start asking question like, "why would this group have done X?" If you want a more 'logical' reason, you'd have to tweak large portions of the canon, IMHO.

 

[Drakich]

Mexico's refining facilities were nuked. By who? The Soviets. Which confounds the issue of why the Mexicans would then team up with the Soviets to invade the southern US.

The problem with Mexico successfully invading the southern US can be summed up by looking at the Mexican performance against the Chiapas rebels, and the Russian experience in Grozny. The Mexican military had trouble defeating a couple of hundred "rebels" who were VERY poorly armed (only a few guns among them, period). The Russians had and still have problems defeating the Chechen rebels despite having 50 to 1 advantages in manpower in Chechnya.

The Mexican military is not well equipped, is poorly led, and the logistic trail from the interior of Mexico to the southern US is untenable in any sort of conflict with the US.

As for the drought crippling the US, Texas makes Guadalajara look like a paradise in comparison with regards to climate and rainfall. Any sort of climatic upheaval involing drought that hits Texas will hit northern Mexico even harder.

My plan for making all this "fit" is fairly simple, and IMO, workable. Texas and northern Mexico are pretty well depopulated by the drought (see Howling Wilderness), per canon. But so are the US states bordering Texas.

Texas, on the other hand, recovers from the drought faster (meaning, rainfall patterns return to normal sooner). The Mexicans simply beat the Gringos in resettling Texas 2004 to 2020, and demographic transition makes the occupation become a de facto annexation.

Texas, circa 2005 will be divided into 3 basic areas with regards to population. The Rio Grande Valley, which will be almost exclusively Mexican and extremely poor.

The Gulf Coast, which will be mixed ethnic cantonments (Mexican, Mexican-American, Anglo).

North East Texas, which will be mostly Anglo and militantly anti-Hispanic (the vestiges of the Texian Legion).

West Texas and the Panhandle would be wasteland. Roadwarrior type stuff.

 

[TKalbfus]

I don't think the Texans will wait till 2099 to fight the Mexicans and gain independence. To the contrary, if the Texans waited 100 years they would be Mexicanized and less likely to rebel. Since that timeline is part of 2300 and not Twilight I don't think the Texans need wait that long to kick the Mexicans out. Honestly, the Mexicans would have done something stupid if they invaded Texas, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have done it and gotten lucky. Nations have been led by stupid leaders before, and I think Saddam Hussien was one of them, but that's another story. According to the timeline, only Texas is occupied at this time, the rest of the Southwest including Southern California is still part of the US. I think some Mexican soldiers might not agree with their leader's decision regarding the precipitious invasion of the US. I don't think every Mexican soldier should thus be regarded as a bad guy. Mexicans in general are peace loving people and are not at all warlike. I think if Mexico did invade it would be regarded as an aberration and be opposed by many Mexican citizens. I think the Mexican President's position would be tenous as a result of this sudden move. To conquer Texas would be in part to make Mexico into an Empire once again, and many Mexicans would prefer to keep their republic. I don't know if Texans would get to vote in Mexican elections or would their rights be oppressed. Also wouldn't some Texans flee to the United States? Much of the value of Texas to the Mexicans would be the people who live there, if the Texans flee, annexing some land wouldn't pull Mexico out of its third world status.

 

[Vargas]

Is the intent here mainly to discuss Texas or can anyone play?

My interest is in, not surprisingly, Maryland. I figure a strip running from Aberdeen, MD to Quantico, VA along I-95 will get scorched along with Camp David and Ft. Dietrick (Frederick, MD). I'm not sure whether or not the Navy Academy or the Patuxent River Naval Air Station would get targeted. (Although the latter bases Navy nuclear C2 aircraft).

 

[PBI]

Originally posted by Ron Vutpakdi:

Countries (actually governments) can do funny things when in wartime or when they feel threatened. They can take can take their most cherished values and toss them aside for convenience.

Ron [/QB][/QUOTE]

This is the salient point in this whole discussion and most people have either forgotten it or glossed over it. It's all well and good to say the US would never nuke neutral countries now, while there's no actual war going on, while real nukes haven't already been used, but the history of nations at war has a long list of governments doing truly odd things, especially when things get truly desperate.

Remember, in the original timeline, the attacks on neutral nations (using nukes and conventional attack) didn't start until after the first round of nukes had hit industrial targets in the various combatants. Once that particular threshold had been crossed (the widespread use of nukes), it wouldn't be such a huge step to move towards attacking neutrals, particularly if one considers that the normal (relatively) rational decision-making structures in place in the US and USSR had been stressed beyond the breaking point by then and those untouched refinery and port (read logisitc) facilities could, if they fell into the wrong hands, tip a very precarious balance and hand one side victory over the other.

As has already bene pointed out, both sides never used up all their nuclear stockpiles, so a neutral that was the subject of attack, be it nuclar or conventional, might be just as likely to grit their teeth and bear the pain as go to war with the side(s) that attacked them, particularly if it was made abundantly clear that if the "neutral" entered the war it would suffer complete obliteration.

As far as the Mexican invasion, again, the above statement about nations and governments not always doing the rational thing in a crisis comes to mind. The Mexicans invaded primarily due to interal pressures and most likely never thought beyond the immediate internal crisis. The reason the invasion succeeded as well as it did was because most of the US Army was either engaged against the Warsaw Pact or was out of position on the east coast awaiting transport. Now, it wouldn't be too difficult to shift tropps from the coast, or at least give the order, but the government(s) also had to cosider the effect the sudden departure of the primary forces maintaining order would have. It wouldn't surprise me very much if the folks in charge spent a few days in indecision, re-directing those units already on the move (and thus not engaged in maintanence of law and order), but, even still, there were no units close to the US-Mexican border. As I read the canon, the Mexican invasion came to a halt as it ran into the forward elements of the US units racing south to stop them; in other words, as soon as a US unit showed up, the Mexican units stopped and dug in with little or no effort required on the part of the US units facing them.

I could go into detail about why it took so long for the US to launch a counter-offensive, but I really think those reasons are self-evident, based on the published timeline.

I imagine there will be lots of people who will say that the Mexicans would never invade the US, regardless of their internal problems, because they'd realize the enterprize would be doomed to failure. That supposes that the Mexican government is any different from any other in a crisis. If people need a real-world example, take the current confusion in the US over participation in the Iraq war. I was living in the US at the time and was able to follow the discussion in and outside the US. The reasons opinined by the US commentators, supposed experts in international affairs, as to why "the rest of the world" wasn't on-board, made me shake my head and wonder if I was living on the same planet as these people. The motives and resons ascribed by the US commentators to other nation's actions bore no resemblance to reality; very very few "foreign" commentators/experts were ever seen in the US media and thus the picture given to the US public was wrong. It amused me, in a way, to see all these experts groping for reasons as to why it was hard to get support, and they never once acually thought to ask experts from "the rest of the world." My point is that many Americans were presented with a list of resons why support was so hard to raise that appeared obvious, but had no basis in reality and those reasons were used to (in part)make policy decisions, and yet I never once heard anyone actually stop and ask "why don't we ask them instead of asking each other?" It's tempting to assume that the T2K Mexican government knew what it was doing, but why should it be any different than governments today?

 

[Badbru]

Tom

Your stance on this Mexican invasion thing presupposes a few things that aren't necessarily true, nor do they sound right based on my memory of the adventure modules.

You ask, Why would the US government sit idly by and let the Mexican army invade Texas?

This presupposes that there IS a US Government!

There probably isn't a US government and there certainly is not a unified chain of command authorising the use of nuclear weapons in that theatre of opperations.

Published adventures and the timeline clearly state that there are atleast THREE US governments; MilGov CivGov and New American.
In addition HUGE chunks of the USA effectivly has no government other than the government of the gun!

You also presuppose that since the nuclear exchange part of the war was termed a "Limmited" exchange that the US still has intact, functional nuclear weapons, intact, functional nuclear weapon delivery systems, and, as above, an intact unified chain of command to order thier use.

They Don't!

There are only two places that mention nuclear weapons or delivery systems that I can recall. These were "The Last Submarine" adventure (Yes the absolute last one Tom and it wasn't under any US governments control and it is a Los Angeles Class attack sub not a strategic nuclear lauch sub) and "Airlords of the Ozarks" where the players are chasing some ALCM's which, although feared to, turn out to NOT have nuclear warheads.

In short, my memory of the state of the nation that is USA, as postulated in the T2K timeline is one hell of a lot more messy than you seem to think it is.

Off topic gripe:
Tom, You seem to have a problem with France and Iraq at the moment. Understandable given your nationality, but lets try to keep current world politics out of a polite discussion about a roleplaying games internal history shall we? France and Iraq have little to no bearing on a revised history of the Mexican armies deployment to Texas in T2k.

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

This is the salient point in this whole discussion and most people have either forgotten it or glossed over it. It's all well and good to say the US would never nuke neutral countries now, while there's no actual war going on, while real nukes haven't already been used, but the history of nations at war has a long list of governments doing truly odd things, especially when things get truly desperate.

Ok lets for a moment say that for whatever reason the United States decided to kill some Mexicans, it seems reasonable for them to anticipate that this will make many Mexicans mad and may drive them to do something like invade Texas, so why wasn't the US prepared for this reaction? It seems that this thing was so fabricated to give the Mexicans an excuse to invade the Southwest and take a chunk of land. Now it doesn't seem reasonable for a US that's lost its moral bearing, from a purely selfish point of view, to make enemies it cannot deal with later while fighting the Russians.

Remember, in the original timeline, the attacks on neutral nations (using nukes and conventional attack) didn't start until after the first round of nukes had hit industrial targets in the various combatants. Once that particular threshold had been crossed (the widespread use of nukes), it wouldn't be such a huge step to move towards attacking neutrals, particularly if one considers that the normal (relatively) rational decision-making structures in place in the US and USSR had been stressed beyond the breaking point by then and those untouched refinery and port (read logisitc) facilities could, if they fell into the wrong hands, tip a very precarious balance and hand one side victory over the other.

The Russians would have to stage an amphibious landing in Mexico to seize Mexico's oil, this is a rather long supply line across the Atlantic, one that is vulnerable to commerce raiding and US attack submarines. Also I seem to recall the USSR having only one aircraft carrier. The Soviet Navy was never much when compared to the US Navy. I think the US would have quickly won the Battle of the Atlantic. Mexican oil would not be available to the Russians for any use, the only thing the Russians can do is nuke the Mexican refineries so they can deny its use to the United States, this unfortunately does not give the Mexicans an excuse to invade Texas. The only reason the Mexicans could have is because the US was vulnerable and that here was an excellent opportunity to take back land that was lost 151 years ago. I think most Mexicans would value their own lives more highly that correcting a 151 yar old injustice from their viewpoint.

Texas was never that heavily settled by Mexicans and the Mexican government at the time invited American citizens to settle it and work the land. Americans did and brought their slaves and since slavery was illegal in Mexico the Texans agitated for independence and got it. Texas wanted to join the United States, but the liberals up North opposed the admission of Texas because they didn't want another southern slave state. So Texas was an independent republic for a time until they finally had their admission for statehood approved by the US Congress.

The Mexicans probably feel cheated of their land, but they've been living with this for 151 years, and Mexico has economic ties to the US and also a large expatriot population in the US that consists of both legal and illegal immigrants. Alot of these Mexican immigrants send money home to Mexico and their families. When the nuclear war started alot of Mexicans in the US were probably killed by Russian nukes and alot of widows and orphans were made in Mexico with no longer any breadwinners to support them. I think the Mexicans have alot of reason to hate the Russians for killing their family members, and suddenly the Mexican President says, "Lets attack the Americans because we can and correct a 151 year old historical injustice." No one really remembers the Alamo from either side personally anymore. The Mexican-American war back in 1848 has little to do with their daily lives right now, its just some dry facts they learned in school when they were children, but all the people then involved are now dead. Now the Mexican government is willing to risk more Mexican lives by getting involved in World War III when so many Mexicans have already died in this conflict?

Badbru said,

Tom

Your stance on this Mexican invasion thing presupposes a few things that aren't necessarily true, nor do they sound right based on my memory of the adventure modules.

You ask, Why would the US government sit idly by and let the Mexican army invade Texas?

This presupposes that there IS a US Government!

There are many layers of government in the US, since it was a limited nuclear exchange, some of those layers would undoubtably have survived, it is a Federal system of government after all. Each layer of government has its own ability to tax the local government. And the US National guard answers to the highest level of government that then exists. The National guard if it exists would fight a Mexican invasion regardless of whether the Federal government exists or not, that is what the National Guard is for.

Published adventures and the timeline clearly state that there are atleast THREE US governments; MilGov CivGov and New American.
In addition HUGE chunks of the USA effectivly has no government other than the government of the gun!

The Milgov is the government you'd have to listen to since that is the one with the backing of the military.
The CivGov is just some government officials, but if it can't control the military thn there is no contest between the MilGov and the CivGov, the Mil Gov does whatever it wants and no one can stop them since they have all the guns. I think World War III would tend to bring Americans together as well as lead to causes for conflict among them due to limited resources. Americans when faced with a massive tragity of this scale would want to be Americans and would stand united in opposition to a Mexican invasion.

The New America part is hard to justify. Why would the south want to no longer be part of the United States? The Slavery issue is long dead and I don't think Abortion would do it. A large portion of the US armed forces is composed of southerners, these people tend to take their patriotism very seriously. Now why would thay suddenly want to live in a smaller country that doesn't include the Northeast or the West, and why would they so easily write off Texas. Most southerners don't fly the Confederate flag anymore, they are Americans and would fight to remain Americans. The only thing I can think of would be if the other parts of the United States were to change by becoming socialist for example and start nationalizing private property and taking it over without compensation to the owners.

What do the New Americans want, and why do they want separation from the US?

Off topic gripe:
Tom, You seem to have a problem with France and Iraq at the moment. Understandable given your nationality, but lets try to keep current world politics out of a polite discussion about a roleplaying games internal history shall we? France and Iraq have little to no bearing on a revised history of the Mexican armies deployment to Texas in T2k.

PBI above mentioned Iraq, not me. All that I mentioned was that Saddam Hussein was a stupid irrational leader, I was referring to his invasion of Kuwait, I was giving that as a possible reason why Mexico would invade. The reason is that Mexico has a stupid irrational leader who is not quite same and because of something going on inside his head and nowhere else, he ordered the invasion of the US.

 

[Badbru]

You ask, Why would the US government sit idly by and let the Mexican army invade Texas?

This presupposes that there IS a US Government!
[/QUOTE]There are many layers of government in the US, since it was a limited nuclear exchange, some of those layers would undoubtably have survived, it is a Federal system of government after all. Each layer of government has its own ability to tax the local government. And the US National guard answers to the highest level of government that then exists. The National guard if it exists would fight a Mexican invasion regardless of whether the Federal government exists or not, that is what the National Guard is for.

Maybe I don't have sufficient knowledge of the "US Federal government system" but I do live under a Federal government system myself. I just don't see it surviving so well. Forgive me if I implied US citizens wouldn't fight the Mexican invasion, that's not my assesment. However I strongly suggest there'd no longer be either the capability, the will, or the leadership to use nuclear weapons in such a fight. Are even your National Guard units equiped with nuclear weapons?

Published adventures and the timeline clearly state that there are atleast THREE US governments; MilGov CivGov and New American.

The Milgov is the government you'd have to listen to since that is the one with the backing of the military.

But is this truely the case? I suggest to you that many US Service personel would strongly question the running of the United States by a Military Dictator. You may not see it that way but I suspect many would. As to CivGov just being a few Government officials, well The President is "just some government official" yet under your governments system he is the military's supreme commander is he not?

The CivGov is just some government officials, but if it can't control the military thn there is no contest between the MilGov and the CivGov, the Mil Gov does whatever it wants and no one can stop them since they have all the guns.


MilGov has all the guns so they can do what they like. Hmmmn what part of the US Constitution enshrines the right for all citizens to bear arms?

The New America part is hard to justify.

Agreed. The New America part is hard to justify. It's supposed to be hard to justify. A proper functioning moral equall society is not supposed to espose most of the views New America does. New America seems to be all the "ism's" taken to an extreem, Racism, Nationalism, Patriotism, etc etc.

Why would the south want to no longer be part of the United States? The Slavery issue is long dead and I don't think Abortion would do it. A large portion of the US armed forces is composed of southerners, these people tend to take their patriotism very seriously. Now why would thay suddenly want to live in a smaller country that doesn't include the Northeast or the West

What do the New Americans want, and why do they want separation from the US?

I didn't think they did want seperatism. My understanding is they want to controll all of the United States right the way out to it's pre war borders and perhaps even beyond. It's perhaps a coincidence of where it's leadership happened to grow up that it's strongest in the southern states as near as I can tell.

 

[Drakich]

Originally posted by Vargas:
Is the intent here mainly to discuss Texas or can anyone play?

My interest is in, not surprisingly, Maryland. I figure a strip running from Aberdeen, MD to Quantico, VA along I-95 will get scorched along with Camp David and Ft. Dietrick (Frederick, MD). I'm not sure whether or not the Navy Academy or the Patuxent River Naval Air Station would get targeted. (Although the latter bases Navy nuclear C2 aircraft).

Anyone can play. The idea is a looter's guide to the US, not a looter's guide to Texas. I just happen to live in Texas and picked that to write up first, and it's where some of the more uh, contentious events, in the timeline occur.

 

[Drakich]

Ok, so I think some people are working from some misconceptions and assumptions about what should happen, what could happen, and what did happen with regards to GDW's timeline.

- The nuclear war reached North America in late November, 1997.

- It was a very limited exchange, targets were principally command and control and oil storage/refining facilities.

- Mexico's oil facilities were targeted by the Russians to deny their use to the US. A good portion of the US's imported oil comes from Mexico.

Mexico invaded Texas AND California in June of 1998. By 2000, Texas south of Waco and California are occupied by the Mexicans.

Based on GDW's writing, by June of 1998, the US government had lost control over Texas, with the exception of Fort Bliss at El Paso (no mention of Fort Hood, which is odd, considering it's home to the world's largest concentration of land firepower). Paramilitary bands in east Texas were powerful enough to defeat a US infantry division in late 1998, which suggests that, even though Texas isn't largely under US control, it is under SOMEONE's control.

MilGov and CivGov don't split until 1999. New America doesn't come onto the scene until 2000.

The idea behind New America is that there is a very powerful, very well organized racist group, that was better prepared for the collapse of the US government than the US government or it's successors were and with a substantial member base and substantial resources as of 2000. Mainly concentrated in the South, but also in the North East and New York state. Probably modelled on the militia movements and presupposing a level of organization and resources that are reach into the absurd.

 

[PBI]

Couple things you forgot, Drakich. The units that give Ft Hood its firepower are in Europe at the time of the Mexican invasion, so there was nothing more than border guards, local police forces and maybe some National Guard units who had most of the kit taken away and sent off to the front in Europe or possibly the Persian Gulf. Reading the US Veh guide, there just weren't a whole lot of troops actually in the US when Mexico invaded. The bulk of US forces in North America at the time of the invasion were either busy keeping the big cities in line or in the line facing the Soviet invasion that came through Alaska and didn't stop until it got to northern BC (and then promptly fell apart).

The strategic exchange was limited, yes, but a good portion of the dots on the target list have major population centres close by. Also, in the timeline, GDW did say that the current state of disorder was caused as much by people fleeing potential targets as by the initial attacks.

Other than those two small issues, you posted a fairly succinct sumary of the state of the timeline by game start

Oh, and, Tom, I only used the Iraq example because you bring it up again and again in thread after thread (including this one, a few posts above mine) and I thought I'd use it to try and illustrate my meaning, since you seem to relate more to current affairs as opposed to what the T2K timeline says. There was nothing political in my usage, I just used a common instruction technique (attempting to relate the issue under discussion to something fresh in the audience's awareness).

We are re-inventing the wheel a tad in this thread, though, as most of the ground work was laid in the Howling Wilderness module/sourcebook. Of course, I no longer have it, worse luck, but if anyone does, since GDW itself basically just tweaked the 1st ed timeline to produce 2nd, what'd be wrong with tweaking 2nd's to produce the new one?

Oh, and New America definitely is modelled on the militia movements with the organization of the Yugo partisans thrown in. New America's founder, Hughes, was, IIRC, a multi-millionaire (perhaps billionaire) and the timeline had him preparing for years and years (in true survivalist fashion), another example of GDW's sense of humour (a survivalist group having their predictions come true), which is why New America is so highly organized, equipped, and dangerous. The module dealing with Hughes' compound has the main base built in Pennsylvania, I think, on a mountain retreat with a large cave complex in which are stored vast amounts of gasoline, diesel, computers, etc, etc. If things had turned out differently (as pointed out in that module) New America would probably have succeeded in taking over 1/3 to 1/2 of the US.

 

[TKalbfus]

Basbru said,

I didn't think they did want seperatism. My understanding is they want to controll all of the United States right the way out to it's pre war borders and perhaps even beyond. It's perhaps a coincidence of where it's leadership happened to grow up that it's strongest in the southern states as near as I can tell.

So you don't consider it to be another incarnation of the Confederate States of America? Its southern roots made me think of Confederate flags. Racism you say? Well that's something extra. If the Russians just Nuke them, how hard is it going to be to convince somebody that those missiles were all the fault of black people and not the poor "innocent" Russians? A Russian could walk among them quite easily as they are mostly white. The French aren't likely to be popular nor would the Mexicans. Any French or Russian characters would be well advised to avoid speaking either French or Russian while in North America. Nuclear war is likely to create its own prejudices other than old line hatred of Black people whose only fault was having the wrong color skin. I think most Americans would have prejudices against the people who killed their kin and friends with Nuclear weapons. If a few southerers say "The Black people did it!" I don't know how seriously they would be taken in the South. Hatred of blacks would have to compete with hatred of the Enemy.

As for patrotism, I don't think patriotism is any vice. Nationalism is just another word for patriotism, maybe in Europe Nationalism is a dirty word, but for me my country is part of my identity. I am an American. If someone says that they are an "enemy of America", I interpret that to mean that he would kill me if he could since I'm an American. Anti-Americanism is anti-meism as far as I'm concerned.

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

Oh, and, Tom, I only used the Iraq example because you bring it up again and again in thread after thread (including this one, a few posts above mine) and I thought I'd use it to try and illustrate my meaning, since you seem to relate more to current affairs as opposed to what the T2K timeline says. There was nothing political in my usage, I just used a common instruction technique (attempting to relate the issue under discussion to something fresh in the audience's awareness).

Same with me, I wanted to use Iraq as an example of National leaders making irrational decisions that make no sense. It makes no sense to me why Mexico would suddenly turn out to be our enemy. Realitically, it shouldn't make sense to most Mexicans either. El Presidente has gone loco. El Presidente was also very lucky in assuming that the US has no nuclear weapons left. Even without nuclear weapons, I should say the Texans should be quite capable of giving the Mexican army a hard time, if Iraqi insurgents can do the same to us, to use that as an example once more. the only way the Mexicans ca counter this is to go kill off the residents of each town the occupy Gengis Khan style. The Texans are the main assets Texas has, if the Texas are killed off by the Mexicans, they lose the value of what they conquered. They can settle some of their Mexicans citizens there but Texas would be just another part of an expanded third world country called Mexico. California likewise, these people do not wish to be Mexicans and its naive to assume they'll give up without a fight.

Oh, and New America definitely is modelled on the militia movements with the organization of the Yugo partisans thrown in. New America's founder, Hughes, was, IIRC, a multi-millionaire (perhaps billionaire) and the timeline had him preparing for years and years (in true survivalist fashion), another example of GDW's sense of humour (a survivalist group having their predictions come true), which is why New America is so highly organized, equipped, and dangerous. The module dealing with Hughes' compound has the main base built in Pennsylvania, I think, on a mountain retreat with a large cave complex in which are stored vast amounts of gasoline, diesel, computers, etc, etc. If things had turned out differently (as pointed out in that module) New America would probably have succeeded in taking over 1/3 to 1/2 of the US.

Perhaps there should be a "Living Twilight 2000 campaign" where there are tournaments and we update the setting for every Year. Do Twilight 2005 in the real year of 2005 and so on. I think the US has been badly savaged in the Twilight 2000 setting. I'd like to show how there could still be heroes in a T2000 campaign as opposed to "mere survivalists".

 

[Drakich]

Originally posted by PBI:
Couple things you forgot, Drakich. The units that give Ft Hood its firepower are in Europe at the time of the Mexican invasion, so there was nothing more than border guards, local police forces and maybe some National Guard units who had most of the kit taken away and sent off to the front in Europe or possibly the Persian Gulf. Reading the US Veh guide, there just weren't a whole lot of troops actually in the US when Mexico invaded. The bulk of US forces in North America at the time of the invasion were either busy keeping the big cities in line or in the line facing the Soviet invasion that came through Alaska and didn't stop until it got to northern BC (and then promptly fell apart).

All of the Fort Hood units went over sans equipment and took over equipment stored at POMCUS sites in Europe. Even assuming that the bulk of the remaining equipment was shipped to Europe to replace losses, the base itself would've contained valuable infrastructure and unit cadres, much like Fort Bliss did in regards to the "School Brigade" (with it's ADA assets).

Mexico was indeed fortunate that the majority of US forces were elsewhere, but that fortune would've lasted maybe a week before Mexican cities started evaporating in fireballs. Remember, the nuclear tripwire had already been sprung with German forces reaching the Soviet/Russian border. Do you honestly think the US would respond any differently once it's territorial sanctity had been violated? Especially after already getting nuked?

 

[Vargas]

Originally posted by Drakich:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vargas:
Is the intent here mainly to discuss Texas or can anyone play?

My interest is in, not surprisingly, Maryland. I figure a strip running from Aberdeen, MD to Quantico, VA along I-95 will get scorched along with Camp David and Ft. Dietrick (Frederick, MD). I'm not sure whether or not the Navy Academy or the Patuxent River Naval Air Station would get targeted. (Although the latter bases Navy nuclear C2 aircraft).

Anyone can play. The idea is a looter's guide to the US, not a looter's guide to Texas. I just happen to live in Texas and picked that to write up first, and it's where some of the more uh, contentious events, in the timeline occur. </font>[/QUOTE]Gee, I guess it's time to go dig out that issue of Challenge with the North American targets map in it . . .

 

[TKalbfus]

Drakich said,

Mexico was indeed fortunate that the majority of US forces were elsewhere, but that fortune would've lasted maybe a week before Mexican cities started evaporating in fireballs. Remember, the nuclear tripwire had already been sprung with German forces reaching the Soviet/Russian border. Do you honestly think the US would respond any differently once it's territorial sanctity had been violated? Especially after already getting nuked?

My guess is the only plausible explaination is that the Soviets were unusually lucky in picking their targets as those targets contained all of the US warheads and none were spared. Also each and every one of the missile boats were sunk and all of the strategic bombers were shot down with all their nukes destroyed, and to top it off, the President of Mexico was a mystic who dabbled in the dark arts and used his crystal ball to determine that the US had no nukes left

A more plausible explaination would be this: the US government out of the kindness of its heart has decided to give the Mexican Army time to pull out of US territory before it decides to go about flattening Mexican cities, they know the problem is with the Mexican leadership and not necessarily with its people. Perhaps they detonate a nuke off of Mexico's shore just to show that they are serious and have nukes left.

 

[PBI]

Originally posted by Drakich:
All of the Fort Hood units went over sans equipment and took over equipment stored at POMCUS sites in Europe. Even assuming that the bulk of the remaining equipment was shipped to Europe to replace losses, the base itself would've contained valuable infrastructure and unit cadres, much like Fort Bliss did in regards to the "School Brigade" (with it's ADA assets).

Good point. Forgot about the various cadet units. Given the intensity of combat in Europe and the Gulf, and the fact that this war, in terms of kit and kit replacement, would still be very much come-as-you-are, I don't think there'd be a whole lot left at Ft Hood. Then again, by the time of the Mexican invasion, what was probably still at Ft Hood would be the relative equivalent of a decent brigade/division kit list Just not enough to take on the whole Mexican army.

Mexico was indeed fortunate that the majority of US forces were elsewhere, but that fortune would've lasted maybe a week before Mexican cities started evaporating in fireballs. Remember, the nuclear tripwire had already been sprung with German forces reaching the Soviet/Russian border. Do you honestly think the US would respond any differently once it's territorial sanctity had been violated? Especially after already getting nuked?

According to canon, not only did the US respond differently, so did everyone else. Nukes were used quite happily on the battlefield and against military and industrial targets but there was no widespread deliberate targetting of cities. Also, the US military was effectively in charge of any remaining nukes and soldiers, as a rule, tend to be far less gung-ho about nukes than politicians, so I doubt the US would have nuked any Mexican cities unless the Mexicans nuked a US target first.

 

[PBI]

Tom,

I understand your desire to have ther US treated more kindly in the setting; I have the same desire with regards to Canada and I imagine most people from other countries would want their nation to come out looking a lot better, too. It would certainly be emotionally satisfying, but would make for a poor post-Apocalyptic RPG.

The T2K setting pretty much requires that things be set up so that, by and large, the driving force behind the vast vast majority of the unwashed masses (with enough exceptions to spice things up a bit) will be mere survival. Whether the PCs decide to attempt to be more heroic should be left up to them and the GM, but we should be very careful about building in too high a level of latent heroism in the setting, itself.